US Role in the Leadership of Economic Integration in East Asia
Abstract:
The leadership issue of East Asia Economic Integration has been greatly conditioned by theinternational system, especially by US. This paper expounds US role in the leadership issue of
East Asia economic integration from both perspectives of East Asian countries and US. Plenty of
East Asian countries rely on US as the leader in politics, an indispensible partner in economy, the"Umbrella" for security and the "Balancer" in geopolitical strategy. On the other hand, US isconcerned about another regional integration in East Asia like the European Union led by Franceand Germany. US try to guarantee its leadership in this area through maintaining the complexionof ASEAN functioning as leadership, and China and Japan containing each other. Therefore, East
Asia countries have to take into thorough consideration the response and interests of US while
promoting regional economic cooperation.
Key words: US, East Asia, economic integration
The economic cooperation and integration in East Asia has been worked up in recent decades. The
birth of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) dates back to August, 1967. Up to 1999,
ASEAN had enrolled 10 members in Southeast Asia. As of 2006, the ASEAN region has apopulation of about 560 million, a total area of 4.5 million square kilometers, a combined grossdomestic product of almost US$ 1,100 billion, and a total trade of about US$ 1,400 billion. In
January, 2003, the FTA (free-trade area) of China and ASEAN started up, with free-duty in tradeas the goal. In the past several years, ASEAN and China, Japan and ROC (Republic of Korea)
paced up their negotiation on bilateral trade agreements; a comprehensive and mature frameworkof “10+3” (ASEAN + China, Japan and ROK), even extending to that of “10+6” (ASEAN +China, Japan, ROK, Australia, India and New Zealand)， is in the process of formation. However,the development of Integration in East Asia also encountered series of problems, among which,
how to handle the relation with US has a great impact on the speed, direction, pattern and qualityof the course. It even determines whether the integration can be achieved or not. The paper will
open with Us strategic concern in the area in question, and address the impact and challenge that
East Asia‟s integration can bring to the US. The paper is going to focus on Us‟ eagerness todominate the integration process and its attempt to include East Asia in APEC framework. Whatcan be seen is that the affective factor takes its effect here: US keeps holding a subtle and complex
feeling towards the issue and keeps making efforts to lead the game playing among East Asian
countries. The paper will contribute suggestions on how to try for a win-win situation where both
United States can retain the vested interests in this area and East Asia can smooth away difficulties
on the road to integration.
1. US strategic concern in East Asia
Geologically, the United States are far beyond East Asia. But it weighs as the most crucial one
among the exterior influential factors in terms of the process of local economic integration. USviews East Asia as one among its strategic emphasis and maintains a close tie with almost all thenations in this region in sense of economy, politics and security. From 1989 to 2005, the export to
APEC states accounts for 73.22% of the total amount, among which, China, Japan, KOC and
ASEAN (“10+3”) share 24.38%; the import from APEC is 80.28% of totality, among which,“10+3” occupy 38.51%. Simultaneously, East Asia is one of significant link in US military
security. Altogether there are seven hot issues posing threats to its global strategic security – theMiddle East, Balkan, Kashmir, Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, South China Sea, and Iraq – three of
which are in East Asia. For this reason, US adjusts its military deployment, enforce its alliancerelations with Japan, Australia and Philippine, and develop its cooperation in the war against
terrorism with Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.
Based on the interests mentioned above, US is afraid of being expulsed from the affairs of thisregion and reluctantly accepts a self-determined union in East Asia, even merely an economic
integration without any political intention. Politically and economically, US keeps actively
intervening; in security, US plays a leading role and makes efforts in constructing multilateral
security framework with itself as the core. US national strategic concern over East Asia is revealed
through the viewpoint of Dr. Philip Saunders (2005), Senior Research Fellow at Institute for
National Strategies Studies, National Defense University of US. He reckons US traditional
national interests in East Asia falls into several categories: prevention of a dominant power
emerging in this region, market access, freedom of navigation, regional stability and promotion ofpolitical freedom and democracy. Besides, such issues are also attracting more and more attention
as technological advancement, and continuous growth of trans-Pacific trade, service and personnel
mobility, which play important roles in safeguarding US from attacks of Mass-destructive
Weapons (WMD) and terrorists, and coping with pollution and epidemics. In his view, now Pacific
Ocean is a bridge rather than a barrier, which closely connects US interest and East Asia‟s future.
Washington should pursue its interest in this rapidly changing area. Saunders also mentioned that
China‟s foreign policy becomes more and more mature, manifested through tendency ofmultilateralism, proposal for fostering regional cooperation, establishing Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), and promoting “ASEAN + China” pattern. It seems that China favors
regional regime without the influence of US. At the same time, America‟s vagueness on the issueof multilateral organization in Asia also increases the possibility of being excluded from thedominant role in Asia‟s future. US‟ interests and tendency of development in Asia shows that there
are some specific apprehensions in security for US in the Asia-Pacific area, while expansion ofChina‟s influence may affect US‟ interests mentioned above. In fact, from the perspective ofglobal strategy, US is unwilling to accept East Asia as a whole to rise and function as one pole.
That‟s why US always put pressures on its allies in East Asia in order to slow down the integration
process. (Zhang Xizhen, 2003) What worries US the most is another European Union with“France-Germany” as the core appears in East Asia. US‟ image of integration in this region should
be an organization led by ASEAN, in which China and Japan mutually supervised, so that US canbe successfully remaining its dominant role. Fundamentally, US is interested not in a cohesive
Asian trading bloc, but in “Dividing and rule”. (Chen Junfeng, 1999)
2. Challenge to US provoked by Integration

Some combined effects, resulting from the integration of East Asia, may pose challenges andthreats to US‟ interests in economy, politics and security in the region.
One of the prominent effects can be seen when more and more manufacturing industry in East
Asia has been transferred to China, which leads to high centralization of import from original
relative dispersion. Such concentration heats up US trade deficit to China and intensifies theconflict among different interest groups. And the highly-concentrated consumer products goagainst national economic security of US. Besides, many technology-intensive manufactures also
aggregate to Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, Liaodong Peninsula and Shandong Peninsulafrom East Asia. Most of the final products in these industries are exported to US, which agitate
fierce competition with similar products made in the United States.
Second effect caused by Integration of East Asia is discrimination that US has to face when
trading with East Asia Economic Community. It is the universal problem brought by regional
integration organization to non-members. According to earlier in-depth analysis of a wide range ofpossible pan-Asian and Asia-Pacific trade configurations (Scollay and Gilbert, 2001), it isestimated that the United States could immediately lose as much as $25 billion of annual exports
as a result of the initial static effects of the tariff discrimination that would result from truly free
trade in East Asia (on the “10+3” model). Therefore, a regional integration with exclusion of theUnited States obviously goes against its global strategy.
The third problem that troubles the United States is the tendency of integration of finance in East
Asia. Unlike the European model, to which they sometimes profess to aspire, the Asians began thecurrent phase of their intergovernmental economic cooperation in the financial sphere. In the wakeof the financial crises of the late 1990s, and partly to avoid ever again being dependent on the
Washington institutions (the International Monetary Fund [IMF], World Bank, and US Treasury),
the Asians have built a network of bilateral swap agreements (subsequently relabeled the Chiang
Mai Initiative [CMI]) to help insulate them from outside pressure in future crises. Though theswaps, whose total remains modest (about $70 billion) despite a recent doubling, have been
overshadowed by the huge buildup of national foreign exchange reserves in most countries in theregion, some Asians hope this evolution will eventually produce an Asian Monetary Fund(whether they call it that or not), which would provide them with an alternative to the IMF (C .
Fred Bergsten, 2007) . Although at present, the pace of financial integration is far behind that oftrade and investment, the authority and influence of IMF will be greatly degraded once AsianMonetary Fund comes into being. And this is unacceptable to US and Europe.
The last threat stems from the potential clash between China-led Asia and a US-led “West” for theleadership of the global economy. China itself is already the second or third largest economy in theworld and will shortly become the second largest trading nation. Supported by a cohesive Asian
bloc, it could ascend even more rapidly toward a high degree of influence in, and indeed
leadership of, global economic norms and institutions. China and much of Asia are indeed alreadyoffering an alternative to US leadership of the global trading system, with their emphasis on
low-quality FTAs (Free Trade Areas) driven largely by political considerations, and to theprinciples of the monetary regime of flexible exchange rates, through their active currency

management to prevent reduction of their external surpluses (C . Fred Bergsten, 2007). Therefore,
the challenge the integration of East Asia brings to US is quite different from the European Union
did 50 years ago. When West Europe initiated its integration, the United States was still thedominant economy, as well as top military power, in the world. The European Union was alreadywell into its unification process by the time the United States began to worry about foreigncompetition. However, the United States tend to be more conservative and aware of challenge
provoked by regional integration in front of the emergence of integration of East Asia paralleledwith the relative decline of the US economy.. It is believed that the “Asian model” of trade
agreements runs on a collision course with that of the United States.
3．US‟ sophisticated and subtle feeling on integrity of East Asia
US keeps a special and close connection with East Asia in politics, economy and security. After
World War Two, with the global strategy of “Confronting Soviet Union”, US has followed “theEurope-first pattern”, with Europe rather than Asia as the focus. However, the input in East Asia is
far beyond its expectation. The two major wars that US engaged in during the Cold War – theKorean War and Vietnam War – both broke out in this region. Since 1970s, with the rise of East
Asia – the development of Japan, “Asian Four Little Dragon” (Taiwan, Republic of Korea,
Singapore and Hong Kong) and China‟s “Opening and Reform” – US interests in politics,
economy and security in East Asia has been increasingly grown and even show the possibility tosurpass that in Europe. In 1980, for the first time, US trade with Asia-Pacific states – 114 billion
dollars – surmounts that with Europe; in 1983, US export to East Asia accounts for 34.8% of its
totality, compared to 25.7% to Europe. Former President Regan reiterated the importance of East
Asia and Pacific in US global strategy and put forward the plan for establishing APEC. The
grading of significance of East Asia induces US complicated attitude to its integration.
America‟s stand to integrity of East Asia resembles Britain‟s to that of Europe: wait-and-see
attitude, evasion, lukewarm relationship, even obstruction (Lin limin, 2007). US‟ attitudeundergoes a complicated and subtle change during the process of integration. As early as in 1990,
Mahathir, the Premier of Malaysia, advocated setting up “the East Asia Economic Community” asa substitute for East Asia regional organization. Later it was repolished as “East Asia Economic
Conference” and Japan was invited to play the leading role in this cooperative forum with
exclusive nature. US was furious and deprecated that it was an attempt to divide US and Japanthrough scribing a line in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, which resulted in the abortion of “EastAsia Economic Conference”. In September of 1997, Japan‟s conception to establish an “AsianMonetary Fund” with 100 billion dollars met strong opposition and deterrence from US, Europe
and IMF (Li Wen, 2002). In August of 2004, Colin L. Powell (2004), former US State Secretary,
pointed out there was no necessity to establish such an organization as East Asia Community. He
also warned that even though states had their own rights to do what they want, their action shallnot undermine US‟ good and firm relations with its Asian friends. Powell‟s remark reflected
America‟s wariness to new framework of the regional integration of East Asia. In March of 2005,
Condoleeza Rice (2005), former State Secretary, emphasized openness of East Asia and PacificCommunity, when she gave a speech about US policy on Asia in Sophia University of Tokyo. She
mentioned that the future of Asia and Pacific Community relies on two themes: openness andselection. An open world, rather than a closed economic community is supported; a community
open to any state, rather than a club just for regional powers is supported. Every state has to makea decision whether they want to be members of such a community or not, and meanwhile, takecorresponding responsibility. However, after the first East Asia Summit in December of 2005, US‟attitude seems more practical and realistic. In January, 2006, Michael Michalak (2006), US Senior
official in APEC, commented, in his remarks on the progress of integration, that US does not thinkthat “10+3” or East Asia Summit is going to undermine its interest, and it is unnecessary to takepart in every meeting and dialogue held by East Asia states, while underlying the importance of
pan-Pacific partnership and mechanism. In May, 2006, Christopher Hill (2006), former assistantState Secretary, explicitly represented that it is understandable for East Asia to make efforts toenforce the regional framework of integration, which is a reflection for internal economic andfinancial development. Although US policy becomes more and more pragmatic, due to the unclear
goal and path of integration in East Asia, US still lingers on its observation and evaluation.
America hopes to integrate East Asia into APEC and avoid a highly-integrated East Asia to threator even share its leading role.
4. Reciprocal game between US and East Asia in the process of economic integration
Strategically, it is inappropriate and unpractical to directly and openly stimy even oppose theintegration. US, for ensuring its interest in East Asia, applies interactive game with most of nationsin the region.
First, geologically, US is outside from East Asia，and it is natural to exclude it from the integration.
However, for US, there are countless ties with the countries in the region in security, politics andeconomy. US, therefore, zealously brings most nations of East Asia into the frame of APEC, so as
to internalize the “trade diversion effect” caused by integration. President George W. Bushlaunched the second and more comprehensive US response in late 2006 by proposing that the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum “seriously consider” the creation of a Free Trade
Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), which would embed the Asia-only trade initiatives in a broader
framework that included the United States itself and would thereby avoid (or at least sharply limit)
any new discrimination against it (C . Fred Bergsten，2007). US‟ long-term goal aims to develop
APEC into FTAAP, while the states from East Asia have different interpretation. East Asian
countries lies in uneven developing levels: there are both developed countries like Japan, Republicof Korea and most underdeveloped ones like Burma. Their respective interests do not allow
them to achieve easy consensus with US in rules and regulations. Not much interest in the loose
APEC do they have, let alone the FTAAP strongly advocated by US.
Second, American military cooperation and economic and trade bonds with East Asia areconstantly mounting. US has been devoting great efforts to developing its ties with the ASEAN
states by military aid, economic and trade cooperation, and on the pretext of conducting war on
terror. Simultaneously, US zealously advances direct trade relations with various countries
bilaterally. US has already signed Free Trade Pact with Republic of Korea and Singapore. The
negotiation with Thailand is undergoing and ASEAN has been taken into account. US tends tofind its way to work in the integration through bilateral trade. On the other hand, East Asia statesmaintain their openness: China do not oppose to any kind of bilateral trade agreement between US
and East Asia, and US‟ presence may even reduce East Asia states‟ fear for China‟s rapid
development; Japan relies on America‟s intervention to contain China from being the soledominant power in the region; Republic of Korea also welcomes US‟ presence, avoiding being
marginalized in the integration; ASEAN also hopes to play a leading role and needs US to help
them intensify efforts in preventing and cracking down on terrorism as well as to promote theeconomic prosperity. Therefore, US become an effective leverage to balance the regional powers.
Finally, US utilize the complicated factors among ASEAN, China, Japan, and Republic of Korea
to hamper and undermine the influence and function of China in the process of integration. Japanis the most important power to fulfill US intention. Japan‟s confronting with China, such as themaritime territory disputes in East Sea, historic problem left by WWⅡ, and occasionally visiting
Yasukuni Shrine, is almost all tolerated even connived by US. US carefully manipulates thecomplex relations between Japan and China: mutual supervision, and at the same time, avoiding
escalation of conflicts. Besides, US intervention can be detected in such matters as, Taiwan issue,
the territory wrangle between Republic of Korea and China, and South Sea issue between China
and Southeast Asia countries. US is still not quite sure about the trend of rising China and indulges
in hedging. Definitely, US‟ restraint meets China‟s counter-restraint. China‟s role in De-nuclear in
Korean Peninsula and anti-terrorism effectively works on US‟ unwillingness to have directconflict with China.
5．How to achieve “win-win” for both US and East Asia?
From the side of US, first, US should realize that the integration of East Asia is an unavoidable
tendency, which cannot be completely reversed by hindrance and destruction. In fact, theintegration emerges as a spontaneous tendency which experiences the construction of nation-statesin 1950s-1960s, to the economic takeoff in 1970s-1990s, to the cooperation after the Financial
Crisis. East Asian nations urgently need promote their status in world economy through regional
integration, in order to safeguard their economic interests. As Francis Fukuyama (2005) said,
whether it is liked or disliked, an intensive driving force for official and multilateral economic
cooperation has already come into being in East Asia. The Asian consensus in favor of regional
integration has already progressed beyond the point where the United States could block the
initiative unless it devoted major resources to the task and was willing to bear the considerable
costs that would result. Indeed, such a US effort at this time could create such a backlash in Asia
that it would accelerate integration and further encourage the Asians to shut the United States out,
as well as alienating even its best friends in the region (C . Fred Bergsten，2007).
Second, US should reevaluate its strategic importance to East Asia and erase the unnecessary
worry about being marginalized. For most nations of East Asia, even today, US still functions as aleader in politics, an indispensible partner in economy and an umbrella in security. Geopolitically,
US is the most important “Balancer” in this region (Wu Xinbo, 2003). Although East Asian
nations recently closer their connection in economy, strengthen cooperation in politics and security,and develop regional regime, their reliance on US has not been decreased and they still value US
as an indispensible partner in regional affairs. The small powers need existence of US to balancethe big powers so that they are assured not easily to be dwarfed in the process of integration. The
big powers like China and Japan also lack mutual trust, and they need US to be there to preventthe process of integration from being dominated by one single power.
Third, a strong and integrated East Asia is beneficial to security and stability of the region. As themost complicated area in geopolitical sense, Asia has drawn US into three major wars in the 20th
century. Donald Henry Rumsfeld, the former Minister of Defense of USA, once argues, thanks to
the disintegration of Soviet Union, that the military threat the United States had been confronted inEurope greatly reduced. The possibility of outbreak of wars in Europe has been far below that in
Asia. In recent years, US has begun to adjust its global military strategy and gradually shifted thefocus to Asia (Chen Yiping, 2007). The integration increases the connection among members andthe cost of war, which decrease plenty of risks in conflicts among traditional intraregional rivalries(especially between China and Japan), and relieves US from the pressure of maintaining peace inthis area. The stability of East Asia can help US save and divert funds and manpower toanti-terrorists in Afghanistan.
Fourth，US shall understand that integration of East Asia and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC) do not conflict with each other, but overlap and even parallel. The former can be viewed
as a tentative regional pattern for a broader free trade area proposed by the latter, which is toprovide precious experience for the operation of pan-Pacific FTA. Most East Asia states are
members of APEC. After they enjoy the fruit of integration, they may be eager to have a larger one
like FTAAP to further their development. However, FTAAP, now huge but inappropriate, is still
beyond Asian states‟ acceptance, since there exist many divergences in rules, regulations and how
to process it. To carry out FTAAP or include East Asia into APEC too eagerly, may provoke East
Asia‟s suspicion about US‟ intention to hinder the integration. America should actively take part in
the process and play a constructive role if it does not want to be marginalized.
Finally, US should learn to accept “the rise of China”, as an undebatable fact. The cleverer way
US chooses to cope with this issue is to guide China functioning as a responsible power in East
Asia even in the world community, rather than agitating the horror of other Asian countries orcontaining China‟s development. It is important to weigh which one - either the “cooperative andresponsible China” or the “angry China” – is beneficial to the peace and stability of the world. US
had better abandon the Cold War ideology and recognizes the rise of China as just part of the riseof Asia and China is a cooperative partner rather than a strategic opponent. US shall be proud of
the achievement of its 30-year engagement policy to China and actively involve China into theworld community and guide it to play a more constructive role. Qin Yaqing (2006), the professor
from University of Foreign Affair, argues that “East Asian regionalism is not a zero-sum gamebetween China and the United States” and that “there is a huge amount of room for the UnitedStates to play several roles in these areas (of the East Asian integration process).”
For the East Asian countries, keeping the integration‟s openness is still the prior choice. In order todispel US‟ misgiving in the process, East Asia shall be more open on the basis of region speciality.
In the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on the East Asia Summit of 2005, the participants declared that
the East Asia Summit would be an open, inclusive, transparent and outward-looking forum inwhich they strived to strengthen global norms and universally recognized values with ASEAN as
the driving force working in partnership with the other participants of the East Asia Summit1. Thisis a good beginning. Even though US is not a member of East Asia geologically, it can still
participate in quite a few of cooperation in some functional domains like energy or non-traditional
security. Such collaborations not only preserve the openness of integration, but are conductive toefficiency of regional cooperation, so that a “win-win” situation can be achieved by both US andEast Asia. Therefore, East Asia states shall adjust their thinking, following the track from “10 + 1”,
to “10 + 3”, to “10 + 6”, even to “10 + 7”, which is to actively integrate US into East Asia andmake US an official or semi-official or even special member in the integration.
Second, ASEAN is given the leadership at full play. What US really worries about the East Asia
Summit is that China may dominate in the process, posing threat to America‟s hegemony in thisregion, just as Japan tried to squeeze US out of Asia in the 1980s. In Nov, 2005, Green, seniordirector in charge of Asian affair in National Security Council, said that, despite of the continuous
growing of the cooperation between US and China, there are still some factors of strategiccompetition in the relations of these two countries. China, with its rapid development andincreasing importance, has already become a variable in international relations paralleled with
Islamic states and terrorism2. In fact, for US, Japan remains the most ideal leader in the integration.
However, due to the poor relationship between Japan and its neighbors and relative decline of
power compared to China‟s rise, it has been impossible for Japan to function as a single leader inthe process. ASEAN becomes alternative option to weaken China„s influence and protect USinterest. At the same time, ASEAN is willing to assume responsibility in balancing regional
powers. Therefore, in the preliminary stage of integration, ASEAN functioning as a determinantleader will be an advisable choice.
Third, China shows that it doesn‟t tend to exclude US in the process of integration. In Nov. 31,
2005, Cui Tiankai, former director for department of Asia, Ministry of Foreign Affair, said that theconception of East Asia Summit has been proposed just after Asia financial storm and the summit
was open. There may be another one or two members in next year. Any state, which is willing tojoin in and contribute, is welcome as long as it meets the precondition ASEAN sets. We know USshows interest in the summit and we‟d like to see US make constructive contribution3. Besides,
China needs to play a more constructive role and convince both US and other Asian countries that
he is a “status quo” power, rather than a challenging one. China‟s effort shall include welcoming
US as a regional balancer, carefully and skillfully handling the East Sea issue with Japan, theSouth Sea disputes with Southeast Asian countries, etc. China also needs to bear more
responsibility in world affairs like in Africa, Iran, and South America, to rebuild its image as a
responsible rising power rather than one only focusing on mercantilism.
Fourth, Japan, as another potential leader in integration, needs to make efforts in handling the1

Kuala Lumpur Declaration on the East Asia Summit，Kuala Lumpur, 14 December 2005,
http://www.aseansec.org/18098.htm
2日报评论：布什访亚意在遏制中国 （《环球视野》摘自 2005 年 12 月 13 日日本《世界周报》）
http://www.globalview.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=6472
3

新加坡. [EB/OL]联合早报, http:∥www. zaobao.com /gj/zg051201_501. html, 2005-12-01

historic problems left by World WarⅡ. Without looking at history and introspecting wrongdoing,
Japan can never emerge as a political power. Japan‟s standpoint at present raises great doubt from
Republic of Korea, China and ASEAN on its developing track. Germany is a good model for
Japan to follow. One of the reason why Germany, the initiator of two World Wars, still functions
as a core in European Union lies in the profound retrospection on the war crime it committed.
Every German Premier who comes into power apologies on the disaster it brought to the wholeworld. On the contrast, Japan‟s behaviors, like Prime Ministers occasionally paying visit to the
Yasukuni shrine and the false description on WWⅡin textbooks, greatly hurt the feeling of people
from victim states, which results in difficulty for Asian countries to accept such a Japan as one of
the leaders in the integration.
Finally, Japan and China, accounting for the majority of economic aggregate in East Asia, shallundertake the responsibility in the regional integration. Japan and China are the second and thirdlargest economy of the world respectively. China ranks the first among Japan‟s trading partners,
while Japan holds the third to China. The competition and cooperation between them determine
the tendency, even the success of integration. The obstacle for the cooperation is the difficulty to
set up mutual trust, which results both from the unpleasant history and from geopolitical ideology.
Without mutual confidence, the dream of economic integration in East Asia under leadership ofJapan and China can only stay unfulfilled. Japan and China should abandon the thought of “Twotigers cannot live by sharing one mountain”. As neighbors, the two states inevitably have some
disputes in maritime territory, but adjacent relations also provide advantages for investment, trade,and cultural exchange. The globalization and regional integration induce the interdependence
between China and Japan. Dani Rodrik (2004) argues, in the long term, Japan will pursue
independence and autonomy, free from the dependence on US. Then later, Japan has to enhance
the comprehensive cooperation with China. Japan and China will gradually realizes that therelations between these two states are far more than “zero and game”. Only through coordinationand cooperation, can the mechanism of integration develop smoothly.
In conclusion, it is destined that the economic integration of East Asia is to be a long andcomplicated process, in which, game playing between different parties is inevitable. US still plays
a significant and indispensible role in the leadership, so that its influence should be thoroughly
taken into account in every move of integration.

Reference
Bergsten, C. Fred. 2007. Toward a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific. Policy Briefs inInternational Economics 07-2. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics(February).
Bergsten, C. Fred. 2007. China and Economic Integration in East Asia: Implications for theUnited States. Policy Briefs in International Economics 07-3. Washington: Peterson Institutefor International Economics (March).
Fukuyama, Francis. 2005. Re-Envisioning Asia. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 84, No. 1, p. 86. (Gordon, Bernard K. 2006. U.S. Perspectives on East Asian Economic Integration. Journal of
Economic Development 31, no. 2 (December): 149–68.
Hill, Christopher. 2006. “The U.S. and Southeast Asia," Remarks to the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy, Singapore, May 22, 2006. http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/66646.htm 转引自吴
心伯 《美国与东亚一体化》http://www.tecn.cn/data/18243.html
Lincoln, Edward J. 2004. East Asian Economic Regionalism. Washington: Brookings Institution
Press.
Michalak, Michael. 2006. U.S. “Remarks at International Institute of Monetary Affairs, " Tokyo,
Japan, January 25, 2006. Http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/60355.htm 转引自吴心伯，《美国与东亚一体化》http://www.tecn.cn/data/18243.html(
Powell, Colin L. “Roundtable with Japanese Journalists," Washington, DC, August 12, 2004.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/35204.htm，转引自吴心伯《美国与东亚一体化》http://www.tecn.cn/data/18243.html

Qin Yaqing, 2006. Prospects for East Asia Community. In Challenges to Trilateral Cooperation：
The Trilateral Commission Tokyo Plenary Meeting 2006. Trilateral Commission report on the2006 annual meeting, Tokyo, April 22–26.
Rice, Condoleeza. Remarks at Sophia University. [EB/OL] http:∥www. state. gov/secretary/rm/2005/43655 . March 19, 2005， 转引自 陈奕平 《美国与东亚经济一体化》[J] 《暨南学报》(哲学社会科学版) 2007 年，第 3 期，第 6-14 页。
Rodrik, Dani. 2004. How far will International Economic Integration Go?, Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 2004, winter.

Scollay, Robert, and John P. Gilbert. 2001. New Regional Trading Agreements in the Asia Pacific?
Policy Analyses in International Economics 63. Washington: Peterson Institute for International
Economics (May).
Tanaka, Akihiko. 2006. Prospects for East Asia Community. In Challenges to Trilateral
Cooperation: The Trilateral Commission, Tokyo Plenary Meeting 2006. Trilateral Commission
report on the 2006 annual meeting, Tokyo, April 22–26.
Wu Xinbo. 2006. East Asia: Building a Community in the 21st Century, A Chinese Perspective.
CSIS Working Paper (November). Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Chen Fengjun，《冷战后亚太国际关系》[M]，新华出版社，1999 年版序言，第 5 页。

Chen Yiping, 《美国与东亚经济一体化》[J]，《暨南学报》(哲学社会科学版)，2007 年，第3 期，第 6-14 页。
Li Wen，《东亚的崛起与东西方关系的嬗变》[J]，《北京行政学院学报》，2002 年，第 5期，第 61-66 页。
Liang Bibo，《东亚一体化的发展趋势与美国东亚战略的调整》[J] ，《学术论坛》，2008
年，第 6 期，第 126-131 页。
Lin Limin, 《美国与东亚一体化的关系析论》[J]，《现代国际关系》，2007 年，第 11 期，
第 2 页。
Qin Yaqing，《东亚共同体建设进程和美国的作用》[J]，《外交评论》，2005 年第 6 期，第28 页。
Saunders, Philip.《东亚合作背景下的中美关系:协调利益分歧》[J]，《外交学院学报》(外交评论)，2005 年第 6 期，第 35-36 页。
Song Guoyou，《美国的东亚 FTA 战略及其对地区秩序的影响》[J] ，《当代亚太》，2007
年第 11 期，第 34-40 页
Wu Xinbo，《东亚的逻辑》[J]，《世界知识》，2003 年，第 7 期，第 27 页。
Zhang Xizhen，《东亚地区一体化中的中、日、东盟二角关系之互动》[J]，载《东南亚研究》，
2003 年，第 5 期，第 32 页。