The Politics of Northeast Asian Regional Integration: Opportunity, Constraints,
and Prospects (Summary)
Chung-in Moon, Yonsei University

1.Northeast Asian Regional Integration: Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities-Northeast Asia is already a significant global economic power, not far behind
Europe and North America. Three major nations of the region, namely South Korea,
China, and Japan, accounted for 16.9% of the world's GDP, 23.6% of the world's
population, 15.7% of the world's exports and 13.4% of the world‘s imports, and 38.1%of the world's foreign exchange reserves, as of 2005. 1 Moreover, the region has
tremendous economic potential. China, with a vast potential market of 1.3 billion people,
is rapidly becoming one of the world's largest manufacturers, while Japan maintains acompetitive edge with its cutting-edge technology and capital holdings. South Korea
has risen to the global stage through its vitality, dynamic human resources andinnovative capabilities, and Russia's abundance of natural resources provides aninvaluable asset. Vast resources and capabilities all point to a promising economic
future for the region.
- The dynamism and interdependence of Northeast Asia is astounding. Thisregion includes nations whose economies continue to exhibit some of the world‘shighest growth rates and whose potential for expansion is considered among the greatest.
With the inclusion of Southeast Asia, the volume of trade among East Asian countries
has already surpassed that of NAFTA and is now closing in on the EU, indicating that afunctional integration has already been achieved. However, this integration has yet to bemolded into an institutional framework despite promising signs, including discussions
over bilateral and sub-regional FTAs, of moving toward institutionalized economic
integration.
Prepared for presentation at the 2009 Summer Institute of the Global Institute for Asian Regional
Integration (GIARI), Waseda University, August 3-7, 2009.
1
Sources: World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI), http://go.worldbank.org/4C55Z0H7Z0;
IMF, International Financial Statistics Yearbook, 20061

-Various constraints notwithstanding, the security situation in the region has
also improved. The dismantling of the Cold War structure, the end of bipolar militaryconfrontation and improved diplomatic relations among countries in the region havebeen responsible for shaping a regional milieu more conducive to cooperation: an
opportunity which should not be left under-utilized.
-Finally, the expansion of social and cultural exchanges and strengthened
regional solidarity constitute promising opportunities for bolstering cooperation in
forming a regional community. For example, the growing popularity of Korean pop
culture (Hanryu) as well as those of China and Japan as seen in movies, music andfashion has established vital cultural underpinnings of regional exchange.
Challenges and Constraints-However, amid those opportunities, Northeast Asia also faces its fair share ofchallenges.
-Unlike Europe, the end of the Cold War has not brought about tangible peace
dividends in Northeast Asia. The region as a whole confronts a number of serious
security challenges. The most pressing security concern is the North Korean nuclear
crisis, but crisis escalation over the Taiwan Strait could also endanger overall peace andsecurity in Northeast Asia. Unresolved territorial disputes could become anotherinhibitor in the region. More troubling is future strategic uncertainty.
Major realignments in U.S. strategic posture following the September 11 tragedy, theascension of China as a global power, and Japan's move to resuscitate its military power
further complicate the strategic uncertainty of the security landscape in Northeast Asia.
Not a single country in the region can escape from the latent security dilemma.2-Additionally, beneath the growing intra-regional economic interdependence
lies a new pattern of intensified competition. China, Japan and South Korea compete
head to head in terms of export items and destinations, causing a major coordination
dilemma. Despite increasing concerns over fierce competition, duplicate investments
and surplus capacity, countries in the region lack both the institutional mechanisms toaddress such problems and a leading nation to furnish public goods for regional
economic cooperation and integration. Since the 1980s, most Asian countries, regardlessof developmental level, have been moving into more value–added, capital- andtechnology-intensive industries. Japan, the Newly Industrializing Economies (NIEs),
2

See International Crisis Group. North East Asia’s Undercurrents of Conflict: Asia Report No 108 (15December, 2005); John Ikenberry and Chung-in Moon (eds.), America and Northeast Asia: Power, Order,
and Transformation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).
2and ASEAN countries have all promoted cutting-edge industries such as
semiconductors and computers. As a result, in contrast to the flying geese model, ahorizontal, ―swarming sparrow‖ pattern of development has become prevalent, further
deepening economic competition and the friction between Japan and its regional
economic rivals based on shifts in comparative advantage. 3-There also remain socio-cultural challenges. The cultivation of a common
regional identity continues to be hampered by lingering parochial nationalism anddeepening mutual distrust. Memories of the past history characterized by dominationand subjugation still haunt people of the region. As ongoing disputes over historical
distortion among Korea, China and Japan demonstrate, the greatest problem the region
must be wary of is excessive nationalistic sentiment. Nationalism, collective memory of
the historical past and subsequent cognitive dissonance pose another critical obstacle toregion-building in Northeast Asia.4 China and South Korea are still haunted by thehistorical memory of Japanese colonial domination and subjugation. Cognitive barriers
emanating from the past history of bitter enmity have forged a national ambiancecritical of intra-regional cooperation and its institutionalization.
2. Why Northeast Asian Regional Integration?: Goals and Visions
Goals-A regional economic integration is needed because it can maximize common
prosperity in the region by reducing transaction costs and uncertainty, while enhancing
welfare gains of participating nations, through an evolutionary process of FTAs,
customs union, common market, economic union and monetary union-A regional economic integration is desirable because it can produce concurrent
or sequential spill-over effects on intra-regional security cooperation throughconfidence-building measures, arms control, and arms reduction.
-Overall regional economic and security integrative process can in turn fostersocial and cultural exchanges and cooperation, resulting in the formation of regional
3

Gordon Bernard and John Ravenhill, ―Beyond product Cycles and Flying Geese: Regionalization,
Hierarchy, and Industrialization of East Asia.‖ World Politics 47 (1995): 171-209. On the concept of‗swarming sparrow‘, see Chung-in Moon, ―Conclusion: Dissenting Views,‖ in Stephan Haggard andChung-in Moon (eds.), The Pacific Dynamics (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989), cite page.
4
See articles in Special Issue on Nationalism in Northeast Asia, Global Asia, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 2007),
pp.8-49. For an overview of clash of nationalism in Northeast Asia, refer to Chung-in Moon and Seungwon Suh, ―Burdens of the past: Overcoming History, the Politics of Identity, and Nationalism in Asia,‖
Global Asia, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 2007), pp.33-49. Also see Yoichi Funabashi (ed.), Reconciliation in the
Asia-Pacific. (Washington. D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace, 2003).
3

identity that transcends parochial local and national identities.
-Fostering the governance of cooperation and integration and building a
regional community of mutual trust, reciprocity and symbiosis is more than justified inview of developments in other regions of the world. Regional integration has become aworld-wide phenomenon as a way to cope with the challenges of globalization or as away to more efficiently accomplish the globalization process. Whereas Europe, North
America and even ASEAN are accelerating the institutionalization of integrative
processes, Northeast Asia remains far behind. Thus, the process of community-buildingin economic and security domains seems essential.
-As both theory and experience demonstrate, nations can enjoy peace andcommon prosperity by constructing a community of their own. While a regional
community benefits the nations in that particular region, a global community benefits
nations all over the world. Globalization can be seen as a process of forming a global
community to which all the regional communities in the world belong. Northeast Asian
nations need to join this process by first building a regional community.
Visions
A Northeast Asian regional integration should be based on four visions:-The first is the vision of "Open Northeast Asia." The Northeast Asian
community of peace and co-prosperity should not exclude any player from the processof community-building, and should be seen as a stepping stone toward building an East
Asian, Pacific and global community.
-The second is the vision of "Network Northeast Asia," a community that isinterconnected through multiple layers of networks. The Northeast Asian community ofpeace and co-prosperity highlights the importance of overcoming physical and nonphysical barriers by emphasizing the necessity of building dense networks of people,
goods and services, capital, infrastructure, and ideas and information.
-The third is the vision of "Participatory Northeast Asia." The formation of aregional community is not conceivable without corresponding popular support andconsent at home. At the same time, a viable and lasting community cannot be
constructed with government-to-government cooperation alone. Along withgovernments, citizens as well as non-governmental organizations should actively
participate in the process of community-building by promoting exchanges andcooperation as well as creating solidarity among civil societies through common goals.

4

-The final one is the vision of "Integrated Northeast Asia," in which mutual
distrust, fragmentation, and antagonism disappear, and a feeling of co-variance and amutually shared common identity lead to the emergence of a new region united as one
community.
3. Barriers to Regional Integration
As discussed above, geographic proximity, economic interdependence, andshared cultural heritage favor regional integration in Northeast Asia. But there areseveral barriers hindering the process of Northeast Asian regional integration.
Cognitive Barriers
Cognitive divergence in the geographic scope of integration seems problematic.
While South Korea perceives Northeast Asia of being the primary geographic target for
integration, Japan regards East Asia as the primary unit of regional integration.
Meanwhile, China tends to project its position in the Asian and global context. For theUnited States, Canada, and Australia, Pacific integration could be more attractive.
Likewise, such a different cognitive orientation has become a barrier to regional
integration in Asia.
Salience of Gain and Domestic Political Barriers
Regional integration, as with globalization, is bound to entail winners andlosers. If political power of losers is greater than that of winners, the regional
integration in Northeast Asia is unlikely to be materialized. Likewise, domestic
political opposition will be the greatest barrier to effective functioning of regional
integration.
Specter of Nationalism as a Barrier to Integration
Memories of the past history characterized by domination and subjugation still
haunt people of the region. As ongoing disputes over historical distortion among Korea,
China and Japan demonstrate, excessive nationalistic sentiment has become an
impediment to regional integration in Northeast Asia. Nationalism, collective memoryof the historical past and subsequent cognitive dissonance pose another critical obstacle5to region-building in Northeast Asia.
Paucity of Shared Political Leadership
The European Union could have never become realized without such
visionaries as Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Paul Henri Spaak and Alcide de Gasperi
who played a crucial role in forming the European Coal and Steel Community. Kim
Dae-jung, Mahathir, and Nakasone played such a role in enhancing the agenda of East
Asian community. But no sustained efforts can be seen in this regard. Moreover, inlight of hegemonic stability theory, such leadership should come from hegemonic
nations in the region. Neither Japan nor China are willing to assume the costs ofproviding collective goods for community building.

[References]- Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell (eds.), Regionalism in World Politics(Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998).
-Ellen L. Frost, Asia’s New Regionalism (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2008)-Vinod K. Aggarwal and Min Gyo Koo (eds.), Asia’s New Institutional
Architecture (Berlin: Springer, 2008).
--Ming Wan, The Political Economy of East Asia (Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Quarterly, 2008).
- Peter J. Katzenstein, A World of Regions (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005).
- G. John Ikenberry and Chung-in Moon (eds.), The United States and Northeast
Asia: Power, Order, and Transformation (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).
- Edward J. Lincoln, East Asian Economic Regionalism (Washington, D.C.: The
Brookings Institution, 2004).
- T.J. Pempel (ed.), Remapping East Asia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004).
- Amitav Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia (London:
Routledge, 2001).
- Gilbert Rozman, Northeast Asia’s Stunted Regionalism (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004)- Muthiah Alagappa (ed.), Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative
Features (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003).
- Peter J. Katzenstein. and Takashi Shiraishi (eds.), Network Power: Japan and6Asia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).
- Ross Garnaut and Peter Drysdale (eds.), Asia Pacific Regionalism (Pymble,
NSW: Harper Educational Publisher, 1994)- Youngmin Kwon, Regional Community-Building in East Asia (Seoul: Yonsei
Univ. Press, 2002).
[By Topics]-East Asian regional governance: analytical and empirical overview/ East
Asian regional institutions- characteristics, sources, and distinctiveness/ forces ofregional cooperation and integration,
visions and reality of East Asian
regionalism/ East Asian Vision Group and emerging tensions between subgroups
Reading materials: * Ming Wan, pp. 357-380/ * Aggarwal and Koo, pp. 1-34/*Ellen Frost, pp. 79-150/ * Rozman, pp.1-20/ *Katzenstein, ―Varieties of AsianRegionalisms,‖ in Asian Regionalism, ed. Peter J. Katzenstein et al. (Ithaca, N.Y.: East
Asia Program, Cornell University, 2000), pp. 1‐34/ *T.J. Pempel, ―Introduction:
Emerging Webs of Regional Connectedness,‖ pp. 1-30/ Etel Soligen, ―East AsianRegional Institutions,‖ pp. 31-54/ *McNicoll, Geoffrey, ―Demographic Futures of East
Asian Regional Integration,‖ pp. 54-76, all in T.J. Pempel (ed.), Remapping East Asia
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004)/ Samuel S. Kim, “Regionalization andRegionalism in East Asia,‖ Journal of East Asian Studies 4:1 pp. 39-67/ *Vinod
Aggarwal and Min Gyo Koo, ―Economic and security regionalism- Shifting ground: Is
it finally time?,‖ Global Asia, 1:1 (September 2006), pp.29-41/ Paul Evans, ―Between
Regionalism and Regionalization,‖ in T.J. Pempel, pp. 195-215/ Kent Calder and Min
Ye, ―Regionalism and Critical Junctures: Explaining the ‗Organization Gap in Northeast
Asia,‖ Journal of East Asian Studies 4:2 pp. 191-226/ The East Asia Summit, Cebu,
2007:
issuesandprospects
athttp://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/FAD/eastasia_summit2007.htm-Regional security governance/ Emerging security challenges in East AsiaChina’s rise, Japan as a normal state, intensifying arms race in East Asia/
competing paradigms of bilateralism and multilateralism/ new security
architecture/ alliance vs. new multilateral security cooperation regime/ security
cooperation in Southeast Asia
Reading materials: Ikenberry and Moon, The United States and Northeast Asia (skimfor an overview)/ *Min Ye, Ralf Emmers in Aggarwal and Koo, pp. 121-150, 181-214/*Kang, David, "Hierarchy and Stability in Asian International Relation" in Ikenberry
and Mastanduno (eds.), International Relations Theory and the Asia Pacific (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2003): 163-190/ *David Kang, ―Getting Asia Wrong: The
7

Need for New Analytical Frameworks,‖ International Security 27: 4 (Spring 2003), pp.
57-85/ *Suh, Katzenstein, and Carlson, Security in East Asia, (Stanford University Press,
2004) chapter 6/ * Jong-yoon Bae and Chung-in Moon, ―Unraveling the Northeast
Asian Regional Security Complex: Old Patterns and New Insights,‖ Korean Journal of
Defense Analysis 17:2 (2005) pp. 7-34/ Barry Buzan, ―Security Architecture in Asia:
The Interplay of Regional and Global Levels,‖ The Pacific Review, Vol. 16, No. 2,(June 2003)/ Muthiah Alagappa, ―Managing Asian Security: Competition, Cooperation,
and Evolutionary Change,‖ in Muthiah Alagappa, ed., Asian Security Order:
Instrumental and Normative Features, pp. 571-605/ *Amitav Acharya, ―Collective
Identity and Conflict Management in Southeast Asia,‖ in Emanuel Adler and Michael
Barnett, eds., Security Communities, pp.198-227/ Chung-in Moon, ―Changing Regional
Order and Peace-building in East Asia: A South Korean Perspective‖, in Jang Jip
Choi(ed.), Post-Cold War and Peace (Seoul: Asiatic Research Center, 2003); Acharya,
Amitav, ―Introduction‘ Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia (London:
Routledge, 2001—or revised edition if available): 1-14/ Kirshner, Jonathan, "States,
Markets, and Great Power Relations in the Pacific: Some Realist Expectations" in
Ikenberry and Mastanduno (eds.), International Relations Theory and the Asia Pacific(New York: Columbia University Press, 2003): 273-298/ Ohkawara, Nobuo, and Peter
Katzenstein, ―Japan and Asian-Pacific Security: Regionalization, Entrenched
Bilateralism and Incipient Multilateralism‖ Pacific Review 14, 2 (2001): 165-94.
-Barriers to regional governance: salience of gain and domestic political
calculus/ new waves of nationalism and challenges to open regionalism/
determinants of weak institutionalization and legalization/ dilemma of sharednorms and collective identity/ absence of hegemonic leadership and the dilemma ofprovision of collective goods/ newly emerging patterns of regional rivalry andimplications for the future of regionalism
Reading materials:* Gilbert Rozman, Northeast Asia‘s Stunted Regionalism, pp.
228-287 and skim for an overview/*Chung-in Moon, ―Stalled Community
Building in East Asia: Nationalism and Regionalism in Northeast Asia,‖ (mimeo, 2005)/*Chung-in Moon and Seung-won Suh, ―Overcoming History: The politics of Identity
and Nationalism,‖ Global Asia 2:1 (Spring 2007), pp.33-48; *also see articles by Roh
Moo-hyun, Masaru Tamamoto, and Yuan Weishi in Global Asia 2:1/ *Hemmer andKatzenstein, ―Why is There No NATO in Asia: Collective Identity, Regionalism, andthe Origins of Multilateralism,‖ International Organization 56:3 (2002)/ *Jane Khanna,"Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and Challenges for Political Leadership,"Washington Quarterly 19:1 (1996), pp.239-275/ Wesley, M. "APEC's Mid-Life Crisis?
The Rise and Fall of Early Voluntary Sectoral Liberalization," Pacific Affairs,
74:2(Summer, 2001), pp. 185-204/ *Narine, Shaun, "ASEAN and the ARF: The limitsof the ASEAN Way." Asian Survey 37 (1997), 10, 961-979/ *Kahler, Miles,―Legalization as Strategy: The Asia-Pacific Case‖ International Organization 54, 3(summer 2000): 549-572/- Funabashi, Yoichi (ed.), Reconciliation in the Asia-Pacific.
(Washington. D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace, 2003)/ Kim, Dalchoong and Chung-in
Moon. eds. 1997. History, Cognition, and Peace in East Asia. Seoul: Yonsei Univ.

8

Press; Yahuda, Karmel, and Nish and Maryall in Leifer, Michael ed., Asian Nationalism(London: Routedge, 2000); Henry Nau, ―Identity and the Balance of Power in Asia,‖
and Tom Berger, ―Power and Purpose in Pacific East Asia: A Constructivist
Interpretation‖, in Ikenberry and Mastanduno, pp.213-242, 387-420-The future of regional governance in East Asia: contending debates inretrospect- Katzenstein in focus/ contrasting Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia/
national perspectives on regional governance- China, Japan, the U.S., South Korea,
and Southeast Asia/ prospects on regionalism in East Asia.
Reading materials: * Aggarwal and Koo, pp.289-308/* Rozman, pp. 351-380/ *Roundtable : Peter Katzenstein‘s Contributions to the Study of East Asian Regionalism,
Journal of East Asian Studies 7 (2007), pp.359-412/ Chung-In Moon, “Peace,
Prosperity and Community: Assessing the Roh Government''s Northeast Asian
Cooperation Initiative,” East Asian Review 19:2 (Summer 2007), pp 3~28/ Chang-Gun
Park, ―Japan's Policy Stance on East Asian Neo-Regionalism: From Being a "Reluctant",
to Becoming a "Proactive" State,‖ Global Economic Review 35:3 (2006) pp. 285-301/―Reading the Future: The Lure of a United Asia: Dreams, Visions and Reality,‖ special
feature on East Asian community in Global Asia 1:1 (September 2006), refer to essays
by Kim Dae-jung, “Regionalism in the Age of Asia,‖ Mahathir, ―Let Asians build theirown future regionalism,‖ Nakasone, ―the Route to an East Asian community,‖ Qian
Qichen, ―Toward a bright future of regionalism‖ Primakov, ―Reflections on new trends
in the region‖ and Samuel Berger, ―The US stake in greater Asian integration,‖ pp. 8-27

9