CEAC Commentary introduces outstanding news
analyses and noteworthy opinions in Japan, but it
does not represent the views of CEAC as an institution.

June 16, 2006

The Idea of New International Order China Is
Seeking and An East Asia Community (5)By AMAKO Satoshi
Finally, we will look at how moves toward regional integration in East Asia, with a rising Chinaas the biggest agent, should be interpreted in relation to the region’s existing order revolving
around the Japan-U.S. alliance, by seeing these moves as a process of establishing a new
regional order for East Asia and further for the entire Asia-Pacific region. Two interpretations
are possible.
The first is an interpretation using a “zero-sum” game-like approach from the perspective ofpower politics. It regards the “rising China” and the “three sphere-oriented new order” of the EU,
North America and EAC revolving around the rising China as an inherent threat to theJapan-U.S. alliance and the existing regional order in Asia, and argues that in light of the realityof progress in economic integration, the East Asia Community should function as a framework
for reining in China’s initiatives. China is well aware of this deep-rooted attitude in Japan andthe United States. Shi Yinhong, in his earlier-quoted article, notes, “the ‘diplomatic revolution’designed to contain U.S. influence through Sino-Japanese cooperation is certainly not acceptable
for Japan and would only augment its sense of vigilance.” At the same time, it is true that China
similarly entertains a sense of vigilance against the Japan-U.S. alliance. Feng Shaokui, an expert
on Sino-Japanese relations, discussing the East Asia Community in Shijie Zhishi (Worldknowledge), Vol. 10, 2004, emphasized that “Japan should heed that the Japan-U.S. security
does not include any part of targeting China, directly or indirectly.”
The second interpretation maintains that, beyond the acknowledgement of “zero-sum” game-likerealities, “new East Asian order” is becoming an important issue caused by rapid development ofmutual and complex interdependence and today’s arguments of East Asia community should bedealt with in this context. As discussed in the early part of this paper, the trend in the economic
realm clearly points to a deepening of this structure of interdependence. In the area of security,however, the creation of a new security mechanism is clearly needed, considering the six-party
consultations on the Korean Peninsula, the accession by Japan, China and India to the Treaty ofAmity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), and human security in such fields as the fightagainst terrorism, energy, food and the environment.
China itself cannot rule out a “threat from the United States” and consequently a threat from the1Japan-U.S. alliance, making it almost impossible to free itself from the first approach of powerpolitics. However, it seems to be actively seeking ways to fundamentally facilitate the formationof the “East Asia Community” following the second approach.
Several statements and actions can be used to shed light on this line of thinking. The “peacefulrise” theory, first voiced by Zheng Bijian, Chinese co-chairman of the 21st Century Committee
for Japan-China Friendship and former vice president of the Central Party School, at the Boao
Forum for Asia in November 2003, was indeed intended to dispel other countries’ concerns
about the “China threat,” and Zheng emphasized that China would never pose any political ormilitary threat to other countries. Meanwhile, Feng Shaokui, who was cited earlier, argued that“no major country in the region should create fear in smaller countries, and no major country in
the region should regard smaller countries as within it sphere of its influence. . . . Both Japanand China need to recognize that any model of East Asian cooperation ‘dominated by any
particular country’ would turn sour.” He also said that “all major countries or powers in theregion should ‘match their words with action’ and expressly declare their national intentions anddetermination to uphold the universal principles of ‘peaceful development’ and ‘peaceful rising’
toward other countries in the region as well as to the entire world.” His references to “peacefuldevelopment” and “peaceful rising” may be construed as a message to the Chinese government.
In the first half of the 1990s, the author personally became involved in a debate with Feng
Shaokui over the idea of a “Chinese threat.” It seems not long ago that while Feng emphasizedthat “China will not become a threat in any way as it will follow the royal road of diplomacy,”
the author contended that the “royal road approach itself is problematic because it places China
above other countries, toward which China will look down.” The fact that the same speaker who
once defended the royal road for China’s diplomacy is now calling on China to declare its
intention to seek “peaceful development” may be viewed as a sign of the important changes thatare taking place in China.
For many years, while China defined itself as “a member of the socialist camp” and “a memberof the Third World,” using subtitles such as “the second biggest country in the socialist camp”
and “in the vanguard of the Third World,” it was not associated with an horizontal identity suchas “a member of Asia.” China began to describe itself as “a member of Asia” only in recentyears. An important benchmark for the realization of the “East Asia Community” concept, asargued by Feng, appears indeed to be an approach for creating an identity for China as “amember of Asia” and “a common home of Asia.”
Another important feature is perhaps the approach to the “Taiwan issue,” a subject that wasbarely addressed in this paper. A careful examination of China’s idea of a “East AsiaCommunity” unmistakably reveals its consistency in the “exclusion of Taiwan” even in
economic areas. It may be argued that China’s drive for regional cooperation in East Asia has amotive of “isolation of Taiwan” under the surface. Moreover, the Taiwan problem may be2

described as the key arena where a close contest is being fought between the maintenance of the“hegemonistic order under the single superpower,” by the United States, and the “idea of a neworder” advocated by China in challenge to the U.S.-imposed order. Thus, if the second
interpretation of a “East Asia Community” is to be pursued, China will naturally be required toapply the approach of “new thinking” to the handling of the “Taiwan issue” as well.
The regional integration in East Asia should be considered as a process of creative thinking andpractices by Japan or China in response to the questions of how they recognize the present stageof the region and how they envision the future shape of the region, and what regional
mechanisms they think will be needed to help realize the peaceful stability and prosperity of theregion. In particular, it is no exaggeration to say that Japan has a crucial role to play inaccurately analyzing the potential and problems associated with the regional integration of East
Asia, listening to China’s recent arguments, and ensuring that the steady and appropriate
institutional harmony can be achieved through a variety of processes needed for regionalintegration. If the integration moves forward along the lines of the above-described crucial roles
for Japan, it will probably bring with it fundamental changes in the way China operates and a
crucial shift in Japan-China relations.
(End)(This is the text of an article by Prof. AMAKO Satoshi, Professor of Waseda University andMember of the Council on East Asian Community, which was originally posted on thewebsite of “Amako Ajia-ron” (http://eac.cocolog-nifty.com/amako/).)3