Report of
The Second Japan-US-Asia Dialogue
on“An East Asian Community and the United States”

January 22, 2008 / The International House of JapanTokyo, Japan

Sponsored by
The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ)

Supported by
The Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP)

Co-sponsored by
The Council on East Asian Community (CEAC)
The Pacific Forum CSIS

Preface
The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ) aims to promote a policy‐oriented exchange of views
between business, opinion and political leaders of Japan and their counterparts in the rest of the world,
and to contribute to the deepening of mutual understanding and the formation of the consensus. For
this purpose, GFJ has been actively engaged for the past 26 years in organizing policy‐oriented bilateral
and/or multilateral “Dialogues” every year between Japan and the international community.
It is for this reason that GFJ held the Japan‐US‐Asia Dialogue, “An East Asian Community andthe United States,” in Tokyo on January 22, 2008. This report intends to summarize the achievements ofthese discussions between Japanese, U.S., and Asian counterparts. Though the printed version of thereport will be made available to only a restricted number of people such as members and friends of GFJ
and their counterparts from the United States and Asian countries, the full text of the report will beavailable at http://www.gfj.jp/.
The Japan‐US‐Asia Dialogue “An East Asian Community and the United States” wassupported by the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP), co‐sponsored by GFJ, theCouncil on East Asian Community (CEAC), and The Pacific Forum CSIS. The Dialogue was attended by
99 participants including 13 panelists. Participants exchanged opinions on matters of significant
importance related to the future of Japan‐US‐Asia relations. We would like to take this opportunity to
express our gratitude to the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP), which generously
supported this Japan‐US‐Asia Dialogue.

April 1, 2008
ITO Kenichi
President
The Global Forum of Japan

Table of Contents

Ⅰ

Programs
1. Program..........................................................................................................................1
2. Participants List.................................................................................................................2
3. Biographies of the Panelists.....................................................................................................4Ⅱ

Outlines of Discussions……………………………………………………..………….…......7

Ⅲ

Minutes of Discussions
1.

Morning Session:“Community Building after the Second Joint Statement on East Asian Cooperation” …..92.

Afternoon Session:“An East Asian Community and the US”…………………….…….………………...…….17

Ⅳ Keynote Papers of Discussions
1.

Morning Session:(1) TANAKA Akihiko…………………………………..………….…….………………...…….25(2) YANG Bojiang…………………………………..………….…….………………...…….26

2.

Afternoon Session:(1) Ralph A. COSSA…………………………………..………….…….………………...…….30(2) FUKUSHIMA Akiko………………………………..………….…….………………...…….30

Ⅴ

Appendix
1.

An Introduction to The Global Forum of Japan......................................................................31

2. An Introduction to The Council on East Asia Community…….............................34
3. An Introduction to The Pacific Forum CSIS………………….………………………………38

Ⅰ Programs

1. Program“The Second Japan-US-Asia Dialogue:
An East Asian Community and the US”
January 22, 2008 / The International House of Japan

Co-Sponsored by The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ),The Council on East Asian Community (CEAC) and
The Pacific Forum CSIS

Supported by the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP)

January 22, 2008
9:30

Registration

10:00-12:30

Session I

Opening Remarks (10 min)Moderator( 5 min)Keynote Speaker
Keynote Speaker(20 min)(20 min)Lead DiscussantLead DiscussantLead DiscussantFree Discussions(10 min)(10 min)(10 min)(65 min)12:30-13:30

Break

13:30-16:00

Session II

Moderator( 5 min)Keynote Speaker
Keynote Speaker
Lead DiscussantLead DiscussantLead DiscussantFree Discussions
Closing Remarks(20 min)(20 min)(10 min)(10 min)(10 min)(70 min)( 5 min)

The International House of Japan
Community Building after the Second Joint Statement on East Asian
Cooperation
Prof. ITO Kenichi, President, GFJ/ President, CEAC (Japan)
Mr. MURAKAMI Masayasu, Executive Governor, GFJ/ Acting Executive Vice
President, CEAC (Japan)
Prof. TANAKA Akihiko, Professor, the University of Tokyo (Japan)
Prof. YANG Bojiang, Director, Institute of Japanese Studies, China Institutes ofContemporary International Relations (China)
Prof. URATA Shujiro, Professor, Waseda University (Japan)
H.E. Mr. Domingo L. SIAZON, Ambassador of the Philippines to Japan (Philippines)
Prof. OBA Mie, Associate Professor, Tokyo University of Science (Japan)
All Participants

An East Asian Community and the US
Amb. HIRABAYASHI Hiroshi, Councilor, The Japan Forum on International
Relations (Japan)
Mr. Ralph COSSA, President, The Pacific Forum CSIS (US)Dr. FUKUSHIMA Akiko, Senior Fellow, The Japan Foundation (Japan)
Mr. Joseph R. DONOVAN Jr., Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy in Japan (US)Dr. JIMBO Ken, Assistant Professor, Keio University (Japan)
Prof. ITO Tsuyoshi, Professor, Meiji University (Japan)
All Participants
Mr. MURAKAMI Masayasu, Executive Governor, GFJ/ Acting Executive Vice
President, CEAC (Japan)

12. Participants List
【Foreign Panelists】
YANG Bojiang
Domingo L. SIAZON
Ralph COSSA
Joseph R. DONOVAN Jr.
【Japanese Panelists】
ITO Kenichi
MURAKAMI Masayasu
TANAKA Akihiko
URATA Shujiro
OBA Mie
HIRABAYASHI Hiroshi
FUKUSHIMA Akiko
JIMBO KenITO Tsuyoshi

Professor and Director, Institute of Japanese Studies,
China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations
Ambassador of the Philippines to Japan
President, The Pacific Forum CSIS
Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy in Japan

President, GFJ/President, CEAC
Executive Governor, GFJ / Acting Executive Vice President, CEAC
Professor, the University of Tokyo
Professor, Waseda University
Associate Professor, Tokyo University of Science
Councilor, The Japan Forum on International Relations
Senior Fellow, The Japan Foundation
Assistant Professor, Keio University
Professor, Meiji University(In Order of Appearance)【Participants】
Mouhieddin H. ABDULLAH Minister Plenipotentiary, Embassy of the Republic of Iraq in Japan
ARAI Thomas Yoshitami
Chairman of the Board, Systems International Inc.
ASAKURA Keisuke
Asia and Oceania Division Overseas Research Department, JETRO
Analyst, International Affairs Department of Japan Institute
ASANUMA Shigeo
for Social and Economic Affairs
ASOMURA Kuniaki
Dean, International Cooperation Course, Graduate School, Kibi International University
CHEN Zhiwen
Second Secretary, Embassy of China in JapanCHEVY Vichet
First Secretary, Royal Embassy of Cambodia in Japan
Ethan CHUAFirst Secretary, Singapore Embassy in Japan
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of International and Economics Studies,
DINH Thi Hien Luong
Reitaku University
ETO Naoko
Ph. D. Student, Keio University
FUJIWARA Nobuo
Director, Fujiwara Associates, Inc.
FUJIWARA Toshiya
Senior Analyst, International Affairs Department of Japan Institute for Social and Economic Affairs
FUJITA Shinya
Principal Deputy Director, Policy Planning Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
FURUYA Chikara
Senior Economist, Institute for International Monetary Affairs
Soe HANFirst Secretary, Myanmar Embassy in JapanHASHIMOTO Hiroshi
Senior Advisor, ITOCHU Corporation
HASHIMOTO Masuo
Senior Advisor, Japan Railway Technical Service
Bonifatius A. HERINDRA
Minister Counsellor, Embassy of Indonesia in Japan
HORIUCHI Mitsuko
Visiting Professor, Bunkyo Gakuin University
IIYAMA Masashi
Manager, Administration Department of Yomiuri Research Institute, Yomiuri Shimbun
IKEO Aiko
Professor, Waseda University
IMAGAWA Yukio
former Ambassador to Cambodia
ISHIGAKI YasujiProfessor, Tokai University Law School
ISHIZUKA Yoshikazu
Editorial Adviser, Keizai Koho Center
ITO Yoshiro
President, Itogumi Co., Ltd.
ITOI Kay
Security Program Specialist, US Embassy in JapanSam JAMESON
Visiting Scholar, Yomiuri Research Institute, Yomiuri Shimbun
Rentsendoo JIGJID
Ambassador of Mongolia to JapanKAWAI Masao
Visiting Professor, Hakuoh University
KAWATO Akio
General Manager, Japan‐World Trends
KHOO Seow FongFirst Secretary, Singapore Embassy in Japan
KIMURA Takayuki
Visiting Professor, International Christian University
KINOSHITA Hiroo
Advisor, National Small Business & Information Promotion Center
Deputy Director, Management and Coordination Division, Ministerʹs Secretariat,
KITAGAWA Yoshitaka
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
KOBAYASHI Shiro
Advisor, International Cooperation Consultant
KOGURE Masayoshi
former Professor, Toyo University
KOIZUMI Hiroko
Political Ecomoic Assistant, Royal Thai Embassy in Japan
KONDO Takehiko
Professor, Meisei University
Principal Deputy Director, Economic Partnership Division, Economic Affairs Bureau,
KONUMA Shiro
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Troy KNUDSON
Research Assistant, Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration, Waseda University
KURODA Makoto
President, Centre for Information on Security Trade Control2

Mykola KULINICH
MA Fu Wei
Karen MACARTHUR
MAHADI Maidin
MATSUBARA Kazue
MATSUI Akira
MIYAWAKI Raisuke
MIYOSHI Masaya
NAGASE Kensuke
NARITA Hironari
NEMOTO Takaaki

Ambassador of Ukraine to Japan
Third Secretary, Embassy of China in Japan
Counsellor and Head of Political Section, Embassy of Canada in Japan
Minister Counsellor, Embassy of Brunei Darusslam in Japan
University Student
Visiting Professor, Kyorin University
Chairman, Ochanomizu Associates
Chairman, Miyoshi Networks Co, Ltd.
Deputy Director, Policy Planning Division, Foreign Policy Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Professor, Ohkagakuen University
Official, Regional Policy Division, Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NGUYEN Van NiemCounsellor, Vietnam Embassy in Japan
NIWA Fujio
Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
NODA Tetsuya
Court Clerk, Sapporo Summary Court
OFUJI Kentaro
Graduate Student
OKAWA Sarah
Programmer, Political and Security Affairs, Tokyo American Center, US Embassy in Japan
OKAWARA Yoshio
Chairman, GFJ
ONO Hikariko
Director, Policy Planning Division, Foreign Policy Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
OSANAI Takashi
Deputy Director‐General, The Japan Institute of International Affairs
OTANI Tatsumi
Professor, Soka University
Alexey OVCHINNIKOV
Counsellor, Embassy of Russia in Japan
Wolfgang PAPE
General Manager, EU‐Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation
Prashant PISE
Counsellor, Embassy of India in Japan
Mike POINTER
First Secretary, New Zealand Embassy in JapanPOU SothirakAmbassador of Cambodia to JapanRADZI Abdul Rahman
Ambassador of Malaysia to JapanSADOTOMO Tetsu
Professor, Nihon University
SAKAMOTO Masahiro
Senior Research Fellow, The Japan Forum on International Relations
Director, Second North America Division, North American Affairs Bureau,
SHIKATA Noriyuki
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
SHIMIZU Yoshikazu
Director, U.N. Association of JapanSHINDO Eiichi
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tsukuba
Suvidhya SIMASKUL
Ambassador of Royal Thai to Japan
Benjamin SUKANJANAJTEE First Secretary, Royal Thai Embassy in JapanTAIDA Hideya
Professor, Akita International University
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of International and Economics Studies,
TAN Hsien‐Li
Reitaku University
TAN Chin Tiong
Ambassador of Singapore to Japan
TAKAGI Kiyomitsu
Representative, East Asia Strategic Centre
TAKEUCHI Yukio
Advisor to Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TOGO Kazuhiko
Visiting Professor, Temple University
TOMIYAMA Yasushi
Commentator, Jiji Press
Philippe TREMBLAY
Second Secretary, Embassy of Canada in Japan
TSUJII Seigo
Lecturer, J.F. Oberlin University
URAKAMI Norihisa
Graduate Student, General Security Studies, National Defense Academy
YANG Xiang Feng
Researcher, The Japan Foundation Japanese‐Language Institute, Kansai
YAMAZAWA Ippei
Professor Emeritus, Hitotsubashi University
YOSHIDA Haruki
President, The Yoshida Labo for Economics & Industry, Inc.
Professor, Asia University
YUNG Ying‐yue(In Alphabetical Order)【Global Forum Japan Secretariat】
WATANABE Mayu
Executive Secretary
NAKAMURA Yumi
Officer in Charge
NOGUCHI Kohei
Officer in Charge
YANO Takuya
Officer in Charge
SHIOJIRI Koutaro
Secretarial AssistantBennett RICHARDSONSecretarial Assistant
NAKAI Chiyo
Secretarial Assistant
IKEDA Tetsushi
Secretarial Assistant【Council on East Asia Community Secretariat】
TSUKAZAKI Eri
Officer in Charge
YAMAGUCHI Akira
Secretarial Staff
MIN Suk
Secretarial Staff
LEE Sang Hyun
Secretarial Assistant
ITO Fumiharu
Secretarial Assistant
KIMURA Emiko
Secretarial AssistantMario SIAHAAN
Secretarial Assistant
JEON Hae Yeon
Secretarial Assistant33. Biographies of the Panelists【Foreign Panelists】
YANG Bojiang

Professor and Director, Institute for Japanese Studies, China
Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (China)

Served as Visiting Fellow at National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA) in 1991, theJapan Forum on International Relations (JFIR) in 1992, the Fairbank Center of Harvard University
in 2000 and the Brookings Institution in 2006. Also served as Director for the Center for Taiwan
Related Studies (2002‐2005), and the Institute of Korean Peninsula Studies (2003‐2006) at the China
Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR). Concurrently serving as Committee
Member of Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP), China.
Domingo L. SIAZON Jr.

Ambassador of the Philippines to Japan (Philippines)

Received B.A. from University of Ateneo de Manila in 1959, B.S. in Physics from Tokyo Universityof Education in 1964 and M.P.A. in Public administration from Harvard University in 1979. Served
as Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Organization(IAEA, 1979‐1985), Ambassador to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization(UNIDO, 1979‐1985), Ambassador to Austria (1980‐1985), President of IAEA (1982), and Director
General of UNIDO (1985‐1993). Also served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Philippines (1995‐2001).
Ralph COSSA

President, The Pacific Forum CSIS (US)Served in the United States Air Force (1966‐93), achieving the rank of Colonel, and last serving as
Special Assistant to the Commander‐in‐Chief, US Pacific Command. Served previously as Deputy
Director for Strategic Studies, the National Defense Universityʹs Institute for National Strategic
Studies. Concurrently serving as Board Member of the Council on US‐Korean Security Studies andthe National Committee on US‐China Relations (NY), Member of the International Institute forStrategic Studies (London) and the Asia Foundationʹs Task Force on Americaʹs Role in Asia. Also,
Member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Experts and Eminent Persons Group, and Founding
Member of the Steering Committee of the multinational Council for Security Cooperation in the
Asia Pacific (CSCAP).
Joseph R. DONOVAN Jr.

Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy in Japan (US)Received undergraduate degree in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and Masterʹs
Degree in National Security Affairs from US Naval Postgraduate School. Served as Deputy PoliticalCounselor and Chief of Political‐Military Affairs Unit at US Embassy in Tokyo, Deputy Head of the
Political Section at the US Embassy in Beijing, Branch Chief of American Institute in Taiwanʹs
Kaohsiung Office, and Director for Office of Chinese and Mongolian Affairs, Bureau of East Asia
and Pacific Affairs at the US Department of State.

4【Japanese Panelists】
ITO Kenichi

President, The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ) /President, The Council on East Asian Community (CEAC)

Graduated from Hitotsubashi University and studied at Harvard University. Entered JapaneseForeign Service in 1960 and served various positions, including embassies in Moscow, Manila,
Washington and Director of First Southeast Asian Division until 1977. Served as Professor ofinternational politics at Aoyama‐Gakuin University. Concurrently serving as a founding presidentof the Japan Forum on International Relations (JFIR). Also, Professor Emeritus of Aoyama‐Gakuin
University.
MURAKAMI Masayasu

Executive Governor, GFJ/ Acting Vice President, CEAC

Graduated from the University of Tokyo. Entered the Ministry of Finance in 1997. Studied at
University of California, San Diego. Served as Vice Consul of the Japanese Consulate‐General in
New York, Deputy Director for Research Division of International Bureau at Ministry of Finance,
Deputy Director for Cabinet Secretariat. Concurrently serving as Acting Executive Director of JFIR.
TANAKA Akihiko

Professor, the University of Tokyo

Received B.A. from the University of Tokyo, Ph.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Served in various positions including Visiting Professor at Rhur‐Universitaet (1986‐87), Senior
Associate Member at St Antony’s College, Oxford (1994‐95), Member of Asia‐Europe Vision Group(1998‐99), Member of East Asia Vision Group (1999‐2001), and Member of Initiative toward
Japan‐ASEAN Comprehensive Economic Partnership Discussion Group (advisory group for Chief
Cabinet Secretary) in 2002. His research includes theories of world politics, contemporaryinternational relations in East Asia, and issues in Japan‐US relations.
URATA Shujiro

Professor, Waseda University

Graduated from Keio University in 1973 and received M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics at Stanford
University in 1976 and in 1978. Served as Research Associate at the Brookings Institution andEconomist at the World Bank. Concurrently serving as Faculty Fellow at the Research Institute of
Economy, Trade and Industry, and Research Fellow at the Japanese Center for Economic Research.
OBA Mie

Associate Professor, Tokyo University of Science

Received B.A. from International Christian University and M.A. and Ph.D. from the Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences of the University of Tokyo. Her research interests include international
relations theory, international politics in the Asia Pacific region, and regionalism in Asia.
HIRABAYASHI Hiroshi

Councilor, JFIREntered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1963. Served as Fellow of the Center for International
Affairs at Harvard University in 1981, Director for Management and Coordination Division at
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1988, and Director for the Cabinet councilors’ Office on External
Affairs in 1995. Also served as Ambassador to India, Ambassador to France, and Ambassador in
Charge of Inspection. Concurrently serving as President of Indo‐Japanese Association.
5

FUKUSHIMA Akiko

Senior Fellow, The Japan Foundation

Received M.A. from the Paul H.Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns
Hopkins University and Ph.D. from Osaka University. Served as Senior Fellow and Director ofpolicy studies, NIRA (1994−2007). Also served as Adjunct Professor at Keio University (2000‐2002),
Visiting Professor at University of British Columbia (2002‐2003), and Visiting Professor at Kuwait
University (2005). Also served as a member of numerous committees of the Japanese government,
including the Defense Strategy Group and the Defense Agencyʹs Council on Defense Facilities.
Concurrently teaching at Law School of Keio University.
JIMBO Ken

Assistant Professor, Keio University

Received Ph.D. from Keio University in 2005. Served as Research Fellow at the Japan Institute ofInternational Affairs (JIIA) (1999‐2003), Director of Research at JFIR (2003‐2004), and Executive
Secretary at CEAC (2004). Concurrently serving as Senior Fellow at Keio Research Institute,
Advisor on foreign policy at Foreign Affairs Division, Policy Research Council at Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP) and Adjunct consultant on foreign policy at Democratic Party of Japan(DPJ).
ITO Tsuyoshi

Professor, Meiji University

Graduated from Sophia University. Received Ph.D. from the University of Denver in 1997. Served
as Assistant Professor in 1998 and Associate Professor at Meiji University in 2001. Also served as
Adjunct Professor (International Security) at Waseda University and Adjunct Researcher of theHouse of Councilors. Recipients of the Eisenhower Fellowships in 2005 and the Nakasone YasuhiroAward in 2006.
(In order of appearance)

6

Ⅱ

Outlines of Discussions

Outlines of Discussions
The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ), The Council on East Asian Community (CEAC),
and The Pacific Forum CSIS co‐sponsored “The Second Japan‐US‐Asia Dialogue: An
East Asian Community and the United States” in Tokyo on January 22, 2008. In the
Dialogue, which had 99 participants in total, lively discussion was held among experts
on how to involve the US in an East Asian Community, whose framework has been
recently revealed to be multi‐layered.

Morning Session: Community Building after the Second Joint Statement on East
Asian Cooperation
In the Morning Session on the theme of “Community Building after the Second Joint
Statement on East Asian Cooperation,” two keynote speakers stated respectively that “inorder to build an East Asian Community, we have to overcome problems, such as
tension between non‐interference policy and universal values, and political tension
between South Korea and China and Japan. We should also discuss the boundary of
East Asia, which we have not resolved, that is, whether it includes India, Australia and
New Zealand or not” (Prof. TANAKA Akihiko); “the process of East Asia integration isan irreversible historic trend. For East Asian countries, the question lies in how to realize
regional integration, rather than whether to do it or not. The US policy on East Asia isdual‐pivoted. While the US maintains the web of bilateral alliances, it adopts a hedging
policy towards China. It is unimaginable to build an effective East Asian Community
without a smooth and harmonious China‐Japan relationship. As a measure to improve
both East Asian integration and Sino‐Japanese relations, the two countries should seek
to maintain dialogues from the starting point of East Asian integration” (Prof. YANG
Bojiang).
In the following Free‐Discussions, all participants exchanged their frank views. Hereare two examples: “Japan‐China relations have dramatically improved since the visit ofPrime Minister ABE Shinzo to Beijing in October 2006. Mutual understanding between
Japan and South Korea has been also deepened through movie and music. Holding asummit among Japan and China and South Korea is a good development” (JapanesePanelist); “ASEAN has been seated in the driver’s seat in the process of community
building at this stage. But in the long run, Japan, China and South Korea should exercise
their leadership” (ASEAN Panelist).

7

Afternoon Session: An East Asian Community and the US

In the Afternoon Session on the theme of “An East Asian Community and the US,”two keynote speakers argued that “East Asian community building still has a long way
to go. The East Asia Summit (EAS) may prove to be one step sideways rather thanforward toward the establishment of an East Asian Community. In fact, the EAS should
be a supportive framework. Therefore, ASEAN+3 is the main vehicle for community
building in East Asia. While the US focuses too much on the Middle East and does not
focus sufficiently on Asia, it supports the eventual creation of an East Asian
Community” (Mr. Ralph COSSA); “For East Asia, good relations with the US are
essential for economic matters and security. Engaging in Asia is also indispensable for
the US to maintain its influence on China, India, and Japan” (Ms. FUKUSHIMA Akiko).
Afterwards, in the Free Discussions, frank opinions were raised, such as “the US rolein an East Asian Community is the same as the Indian or Australian or New Zealand’srole. However, the US has little interest in the East Asian community building. In fact,no candidate has paid attention to this issue during the US presidential campaign” (USPanelist); “both APEC and ARF provide precious opportunity to hold meetings
although somebody mentioned that both are being sidelined” (Japanese Panelist).

8

Ⅲ Minutes of Discussions

Minutes of Discussions
1. Morning Session: “Community Building after the Second Joint
Statement on East Asian Cooperation”
Opening Remarks:

ITO Kenichi, President, GFJ/ President, CEAC

There are two things upon which I would like to touch before I mention anything else. The first isthat today’s meeting is the “Second” of the “Japan‐US‐Asia Dialogue” on the topic of “An East
Asian Community and the United States.” There was held the “First” two years ago on 22 June
2006. Another is that a book titled “An East Asian Community and the United States” has justrecently been published by CSIS Press in the United States. The book is edited by Mr. Ralph
COSSA and Prof. TANAKA Akihiko, both of whom are present today as keynote speakers of themeeting.
Since two years ago when we had the “First Dialogue” on the topic of “An East Asian Community
and the United States,” there have been many ups and downs and backs and forwards
surrounding the concept of “an East Asian community.” And the attitude of the United States
towards the concept has never been clear‐cut. But many people will agree that one of theimportant factors which have taken place during those two years is the peaceful rise of China.
Japan‐China relations have dramatically improved since the visit of Prime Minister Abe to Beijingin October 2006. US‐China relations are no worse. As a matter of fact, the Bush Administration has
been, if not supportive of, more sympathetic to the efforts of the East Asian regional integration
than any previous Administrations in Washington. Though the United States is geographically nota member of an East Asian community, it is both economically and security‐wise one of the mostimportant factors in the life of an East Asian community.
Two years ago in my opening remarks of the “First Dialogue” on this topic, I said, “The UnitedStates is not a country in the region geographically. It cannot be a member of the region for thesame reason that Japan cannot be a member of the NAFTA. Personally I think the only way tosolve this conundrum is to find some modus operandi which will treat the US with some sort ofspecial status in an East Asian Community.” In the following exchanges of the “Dialogue,” somepanelists argued for, and others against, my idea of the “modus operandi.” I hope and am surethat in the exchanges that will ensue today a variety of opinions will be disclosed and that suchexchanges will contribute to the building of peace and prosperity not only in the region but
globally.

Moderator:

MURAKAMI Masayasu, Executive Governor, GFJ/ Acting Executive
Vice President, CEAC

Regional cooperation has been rapidly developed in East Asia within the framework of ASEAN+3
since 1997 when the Asian financial crisis happened. In its Singapore Summit of last November,
ASEAN+3 released the “Second Joint Statement on East Asian Cooperation” which looked back at
the significant progress of the last decade and looked forward to the coming decade of
consolidation and closer integration. At the East Asia Summit which started in 2005, declarations
on energy security and environmental cooperation were also adopted last year. In this session,
taking into consideration these recent new developments, we would like to discuss the prospect
and the challenges of regional cooperation in East Asia.
9Keynote Speaker:

TANAKA Akihiko, Professor, the University of Tokyo

We intended to create a basic reference book on an East Asian Community building covering
political economic and functional areas. Ralph COSSA’s chapter covers the US position and Simon
TAY’s chapter covers the ASEAN perspective. The purpose of the volume is to demonstrate an
East Asian Community building and how it is changing, and how changes affect the relationshipbetween the US and East Asia. East Asian Community building is a “rapid and recent” movement.
Challenges are still relevant even after the Second Joint Statement.
First, the visions on an East Asian Community are still vague. There is the question of how toreconcile tension between non‐interference policy and universal values including human rights.
We see such tension in the situation in Myanmar. The tension has not been resolved; rather
universalism is set up in verbal terms, but action is very cautious and closer to non‐interference. I
was a member of the East Asia Vision Group in 1999‐2000. The goal set up in the Vision Group was
peace, prosperity and progress, but could not include such words as universal values ordemocracy. But the Second Joint Statement mentions democracy and universal values so we haveat least made some progress.
Second, we need political reconciliation among members. There is a tension between Japan and
China, and Japan and South Korea. No customary meetings had been held by those countries. It is
crucial to have some mechanism to cooperate among the northern three countries. After the Abecabinet, relations among the northern three improved much better.
Third, the boundary of East Asia should be discussed. We haven’t resolved this yet, but India,
Australia and New Zealand are involved in the East Asia Summit. We have to find more or less acommon understanding of East Asia in the future. We also have to settle the relation with the US.
Good relations and coordination with the US is essential for community building. In East Asia,
economic interdependence deepens, but we still need some realistic foundation to keep peace. An
isolated East Asia or US economic instability will damage the survival of an East Asian
Community.
Fourth, cooperation in many functional areas among East Asian Community members has beenachieved, but cooperation on substantive matters is a slow process. There are some substantive
achievements on ASEAN+1. Japan, China and South Korea are willing to give money for
ASEAN+1, not ASEAN+3. Under ASEAN+1 (either China, Japan or Korea) there is much funding,but countries are unwilling to provide funds for ASEAN+3 schemes. The Second Joint Statement
was positive as it was decided to establish ASEAN+3 cooperation fund, but whether it makes
progress remains to be seen. We are now entering the period of more normal community building
as Japan and China no longer fight each other.

Keynote Speaker:

Prof. YANG Bojiang, Professor and Director, Institute of JapaneseStudies, China Institute of Contemporary International RelationsFirst, it is critical for all the countries and individuals to realize that the process of East Asian
integration is an irreversible historic trend. The world is becoming a community within which one
country’s success benefits, while its loss harms other countries. This may lead to the subversion of
the current rules and laws. It is not necessary for one country to rise on the basis of containing andweakening other countries, on the contrary, one country can develop its own strength only bycooperating with other countries.
10

The current trend of East Asian integration is characterized by natural, rather than factitious,
economy‐based, rather than politically led features, and these lay a stable groundwork for the
integration process. It is fair to say that, facing the major competitors from Europe and North
America, East Asian countries encounter unprecedented challenges as well as opportunities. For
East Asian countries the question lies in how to realize regional integration, rather than whether to
do it or not.
Second, East Asian integration should be global as well as regional. That is to say, East Asian
integration can be effective only by opening to the world as a whole and to other countries outside
this region, and by applying an international standard. Meanwhile, East Asian integration shouldtake into consideration the existent characteristics of the region, and progress in a way that adapts
to the regional situation. Relations among East Asian countries are all long standing andcomplicated. Contradictions and disputes will not disappear or be reduced along with the end of
the Cold War. On the contrary, due to the looseness of environmental restrictions and the changeof domestic politics, those contradictions and disputes could even escalate.
Another factor we should take into consideration is the existence of the network formed by the US
bilateral alliances. The US on the one hand maintains alliance system in East Asia as its strategicpillar and gradually evolves its policy over alliances. On the other hand, the US adopts a hedging
policy towards China. This policy emphasizes both cooperation and containment. The US East
Asian policy tends to be dual‐pivoted: the bilateral alliances network and cooperation with China.
Nevertheless, the US is also obviously alert of the uncertainty of Chinese development. But thecurrent US policy towards China is sophisticated and saponaceous. Both the US and China aremaking progress in dealing with each other.
East Asia is now standing at the entrance of a new system, but this doesn’t help to reduce disputes
or differences among each other. It is not the format of integration that we should pay most of ourattention, but how to improve confidence among nations in order to accomplish peacefuladjustment and change through promoting the process of integration. I do not think theframework itself is of critical importance. So long as it is good for the development of each country,
and good for East Asia as a whole to win the great competition in the 21st century, any frameworkis adoptable.
Third, the process of East Asian integration should go together with and help to improve relations
among major powers, solutions for regional hot issues, and the establishment of sub‐regional
mechanisms. In order to prevent East Asian integration from being a mirage, we should adopt an
outcome‐oriented design, and at the same time, improve the regional situation.
It is unimaginable for us to build an effective East Asian cooperation mechanism without a smoothand harmonious China‐Japan relationship. Currently, China and Japan are both at the strategic
rising stage, and are both willing to become major powers on all levels. As a specific measure to
improve both East Asian integration and Sino‐Japanese relations, the two countries should seek tomaintain dialogues from the starting point of East Asian integration. This includes constructive
negotiations on the integration framework and process. Furthermore, informal trilateral leadershipdialogue mechanism among China, Japan and the U.S. is recommended.
After Prime Minister FUKUDA took office, the atmosphere of cooperation between the twocountries became much better. The Fukuda cabinet wants to solve the abduction issue between
Japan and the DPRK, and realize normalization. This provides a new opportunity for China andJapan to cooperate. The relations between Japan and the DPRK is not only a bilateral relationship,
but also involves the regional order of North East Asia, among which the most urgent issue is thebuilding of a peace regime on the Korean peninsula and a security mechanism in North East Asia.
The multilateral cooperation among China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula is indispensable.
11

From this year, China, Japan and the ROK will hold a trilateral summit beside the ASEAN＋3
framework. The conservative ROK president, LEE Myungbak’s inauguration next month will
provide a chance for the summit to have fruitful results.

Lead Discussant

URATA Shujiro, Professor, WASEDA University

Rapid expansion of interregional trade and production network is a key point – the role of tradeand liberalization policies is important. The US plays an important role, but total trade volumes
between US and East Asia have dropped, but the US is still a main final destination for many
products made in East Asia. The US also provides capital and technology in East Asia.

The rise of regionalism, especially in the form of bilateral FTAs, is important – it was prompted byexpansion of regional tariff agreements elsewhere in the world which made East Asia realize theimportance of regional cooperation. Also, the East Asian financial crisis played an important role.
During the East Asian economic crisis, the East Asian countries expected to get some help but
didn’t get much. Therefore, they pursue regional cooperation through economic partnership.
No region‐wide FTA has been discussed formally – it has been the discussion of various initiatives
such as ASEAN+6 or ASEAN/APEC, but no formalization of discussions. Some ASEAN+1 FTAs
are under discussion, but we need to start the discussion of a region‐wide FTA mechanism.
Different countries promote different versions, but as long as it is some kind of region‐wideagreement, they should not get stuck on details. ASEAN+3 or ASEAN+6 FTAs should be discussed
and promoted. That is the same as the US. The US has already agreed to a FTA with Korea andunder discussion with Singapore. When discussing a FTA, the WTO is important for regional FTAs
because WTO rules apply to the rest of the world. The Doha Round is important as a world‐widemechanism would be best. I argue in favor of the ASEAN+6 mechanism as it is a very large market
with the Indian population and Australian natural resources. Japan needs to promote structuralreform in agriculture.

Lead DiscussantDomingo SIAZON, Ambassador of the Philippines to Japan

Last year ASEAN celebrated its 40th anniversary and signed the ASEAN Charter. Founding
nations of ASEAN became independent in the 1950s or 60s from their colonial status and Southeast
Asia is an ethnically diverse area. Due to its history, ASEAN countries inherited some territorial or
religious disputes. Even today there remain some of these disputes. Such history of ASEAN
countries influenced its non‐intervention policy. ASEAN emphasized stability. This area issuccessfully avoiding conflict and learning to use the International Court of Justice to resolve
disputes. Minister conferences and the ARF provide the chance to discuss outside ASEAN
countries.
Success in East Asia is most visible in the economy. An East Asian Community can learn fromASEAN success since ASEAN first established an economic community like East Asian
Community. ASEAN is now seeking a FTA with China, Japan and South Korea and a regionalmonetary framework. The number of intra‐trade in East Asia is 55.8% and it is higher than thenumber in NAFTA or in the EU, but we need to develop this base further. Growing consumption
by rapid economic growth contributes to intra‐trade. Foreign exchange reserves by China andJapan in the area are also very high compared to the EU and UK despite not having a common
currency.

12

Regarding regional integration, Japan must take the lead with China to develop an alternative to
USD and EUR. Now India is negotiating a FTA with ASEAN. Trade with Australia and New
Zealand is increasing. And cross border movement has been also increasing over the last 10 years.
An East Asian Community is still vague but a common cultural community is needed for building
an East Asian Community. The EU has a hundred year history for cultural community before theEU establishment.
The relationship between APEC and an East Asian Community is also important. The US should
work to re‐invigorate APEC once US elections are over. APEC would be bigger than an East Asian
Community. Japan may have a great challenge in 2010 APEC. Though the US is outside of East
Asia, keeping the US interested in East Asia is the consensus among East Asian countries. It is
important that the US is the biggest market for East Asian countries. Benefits of keeping the US
interested in Asia goes beyond economic to political and security due to the key role of the US. No
CSCE and NATO were established in this region. No security alliance in ASEAN was established.
The US is the only one who provides security in this region. ARF has potential to become a usefulframework, but the US should wait until relations between Japan‐Korea‐China stabilize before
fully joining frameworks. The US should take part to develop mechanisms for resolving disputes
peacefully. ASEAN is waiting for the peaceful settlement of disputes among China, Japan andSouth Korea.

Lead Discussant

OBA Mie, Associate Professor, Tokyo University of Science

When I hear about an East Asian Community, I wonder why we use the word “community” rather
than “cooperation” or “integration”, and people often say it is just a slogan. But I think the word“community” has a deeper meaning – Karl Deutsch suggested “security community” in 1950 as agroup which has become integrated and sufficiently strong to promote peace between members. A
sense of community is essential for community building. This task is very hard in East Asia withmany difficult issues such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the history issue. It
must be a long‐term project because of the number of conflicts inside East Asia. Politicalreconciliation is difficult on the Taiwan or North Korea issue, and rivalry between China andJapan is problematic. We must resolve these problems in order to create a community among East
Asian people. Prof. Tanaka pointed out that functional cooperation is easier than community
building. Even so, functional cooperation can foster a sense of community.
There are some questions that need to be addressed ‐‐ how can we elevate functional cooperation
to a level where we can create a community? Prof. URATA says that cooperation tends to belimited only to issues that are easy to agree on ‐‐ we need to focus on more difficult issues toachieve substantive community building. Community builders need to take other initiatives topromote a sense of community.
Also, what are the boundaries of the community? Though Dr. Yang stated boundaries are notimportant, the boundary issue still exists and is important. Pan‐Asian identity is still unclear, soboundary issues will likely be protracted because identity is closely connected to boundaries.
Disputes exist over the concept of ASEAN+3 and ASEAN+6. It is unclear what constitutes theboundaries, and this should be decided over the long‐term.
The concept of an East Asian Community is closely related to ASEAN. ASEAN and an East Asian
Community face similar issues like the tension between non‐interference and international values
including human rights and democracy. What are the implications of the ASEAN Charter andreconciliation between non‐intervention and universal human values/human rights? The Charter
contains both, so this needs to be reconciled. It might be useful to note the process by which
ASEAN attempts to reconcile that tension.
13

Free Discussions
Ambassador ISHIGAKI said that community building in East Asia is a long‐term goal and that
ASEAN is the driving force for this effort. But he wondered if ASEAN was able to provide
sufficient power to drive the process long‐term. As the Singapore summit it was agreed to have ajoint dialogue between the northern three nations, he also wondered if the community building
process needs two engines (ASEAN and the northern three who are now trying to address bilateralissues) or if it is still premature.
Professor TANAKA responded that he agreed on the comment that the northern three should also
become an engine. But ASEAN is not the driving force of an East Asian Community, but rather
considered in the driver’s seat. ASEAN just shows the direction, so the engine lies somewhere else.
Japan and China should be engines and ask the driver to drive safely. Holding a summit among
the northern three is a good development. The upcoming G8 summit at Lake Toyako is a good
opportunity for having such a summit.
Ambassador SIAZON also responded that ASEAN is not the only engine for an East Asian
Community. ASEAN, China, Japan and South Korea are all engines. But the question concerns
who guarantees stability among the northern three. Until disputes among the northern three havebeen settled, ASEAN wants to be in the driver’s seat. Maintaining unity is important. One exampleof how unity can be undermined is the example of China and Japan competing on the Mekong
delta development. This splits ASEAN into two groups and is not good. He also said that in
ASEAN the economic side is really strong, but the political side is not. Even ASEAN members
don’t succeed in understanding each other. They are a post‐colonial group of countries, so there
still remain territorial disputes. They also don’t interfere in each other’s domestic matters. The
decision making process in ASEAN is not logical in that we don’t define words before making adecision. ASEAN has a similar aspect to the idea found in Japanese society of tatemae.
Professor YANG said that he would be cautious when using the word “community” as it isunclear if we are using a big C or little c. He prefers East Asia cooperation or integration instead.
The East Asia Summit includes Australia, New Zealand and India which are geopolitically not partof East Asia. They are included in terms of economic integration. So it is difficult to find a basic
concept of an East Asian community. In Chinese academic circles, we just try to avoid using theword. Then he mentioned China’s policy is that ASEAN leads the integration. In reality there is no
choice but that ASEAN sits in the driver’s seat. But in the long run, growth in power of China,
Japan and the US will be a real force for integration. We expect that the Japanese prime minister
who follows FUKUDA Yasuo must not go to the Yasukuni Shrine, in order to keep relations
between China and Japan firm and improving.

Professor YAMAZAWA raised a question on where Hong Kong and Taiwan fit into an East Asian
Community and what the best way is to incorporate these regions both formally and informally.
He mentioned that both are staying away from the issue, but on the private sector level they are
deeply involved in ASEAN and making huge investments in the region. He asked Prof. YANG
about the Chinese strategy on this issue.
Professor YANG responded on the Taiwan issue that the basic policy is to maintain the status quo,or avoid independence and promote unification. Maybe some informal non‐governmental
arrangement can continue and be reached on Taiwan. From a mid‐term perspective he does notthink any official governmental arrangement can be reached. On the other hand, economic

14

integration between China and Taiwan will continue regardless of who becomes the president of
Taiwan. One of the basic assessments is the idea of Chinese threat, not from outside but inside.

Ambassador OKAWARA asked Professor YANG to explain what kind of mechanism he indicatedfor peace regime and security on the Korean peninsula.
Professor YANG responded that he wanted to recommend a Japanese book published last year
which was said to be written by a Chinese. He was not sure that the book was truly written by aChinese, but it illustrates well the relations between China and North Korea. China’s basic policy
towards North Korea is to encourage opening no matter which model they follow. He said that
there was much diplomatic action in 2007, and new signs of cooperation came from KIM Jong Il.
The Joint Declaration between the two Koreas states that China should be included within theformal process. He added that China also welcomed the improvement in relations between
Vietnam and North Korea. Lastly, he mentioned while institutionalization of the six party talks
seems to be slow, there are five working groups under the talks, so we can see some progress
through the working groups.

Ambassador TOGO mentioned that Japan invited ASEAN leaders to a meeting in December 2003
and the resulting document spelled out Asian traditions and values. I expected this would help
promote cooperation among countries in East Asia, but East Asian cooperation didn’t work
because of tension between Japan and China. But the mood is changing for the better now. Asianvalues are still vague but they should be something open and not exclusory.
Professor TANAKA responded that his concern on Asian values was empirical; He wondered
what they are. He said when investigated empirically, there is a huge variation in the values ofpeople around the region as shown by the Asian Barometer Project. For example, Northeast Asians
are generally more secure compared to South East Asians, but northern countries share many
values.
Professor OBA also commented that she agreed with the argument by Ambassador SIAZON that
we can have an agreement first, without the need for a formal definition. We need a strong
initiative to create and define Asian values.

Professor HIRONO said that if you look at ASEAN+3 or ASEAN+6, one factor is increasing tradeand economic links. This is similar to the US‐Japan, or ASEAN‐Japan trade situation in the 1980s ‐‐this came about due to the yen’s appreciation in 1971, and again in 1985. Therefore, the Chinese
government should decide the same with regard to their currency. He asked Professor Yang how
ready China is for the yuan to appreciate and when?
Professor YANG responded that if China allows the yuan to appreciate, it may have a stabilizing
influence. But he added that the number one threat for China is something from inside not outsideand yuan appreciation will influence social stability. He said that we have to keep a watch on arising yuan, as domestic problems will only be solved by economic growth.
Professor URATA mentioned that it is important that China avoids unemployment. At the sametime, however, he said that inflation is important too. Pressure from outside is huge. Yen
appreciation contributed to more exports towards East Asia, but it also caused a bubble economy
and its subsequent bursting. Chinese leadership studied Japan’s mistake well. He added that they
will appreciate the yuan gradually and try to avoid our mistake.
15

Ambassador HASHIMOTO said that we need to promote the ASEAN+3 process over the
ASEAN+1 process. Chinese economic growth will continue and the ASEAN+3 mechanism should
be more firmly established. He agreed with Professor Tanaka’s remarks that governments should
provide more funding for ASEAN+3 projects, not for ASEAN+1 projects. He asked Professor
TANAKA what sort of projects we should fund. He said that purely economic projects are easier tofund, but political and security matters cannot be funded because of many reservations withinsome countries on democracy and human rights. He suggested that corporate governance be
funded because it is the field of economy but related to good governance ideas. Corporate
governance would be a good way to promote the ASEAN+3 process.
Professor TANAKA responded that funding for ASEAN+3 projects is yet to be discussed. He said
that he would like to see more academic exchanges.
Professor URATA also commented that regarding improvement of corporate governance or soft
infrastructure, Japan as well as The World Bank can help. That kind of cooperation could be done
by a FTA. Building solid systems for developing countries is important for cooperation. To set
long‐term goals is important, but building up a community itself is also important. At the sametime discussion on the formation of an East Asian Community is important.
Ambassador HASHIMOTO added that ASEAN+3 should discuss the governance issue and avoid
adopting something which was already established in developed countries.

Mr. KINOSHITA said that the common currency idea is important. The Euro has become a strong
currency within 15 years of its creation. A political decision is the most important step for theprocess. He wondered how we could induce such a decision. He said that the most important
thing is political leadership.
Professor TANAKA responded that common currency creation is a desirable issue for him because
people can share some kind of joint destiny. He favored common currency through a basket
mechanism. He added that a common currency is a long‐term goal. It is beyond the scope of asingle sovereign government and ownership of the issue must be shared among members. Europe
has 50 years of such history. To have a joint destiny, we should share common values. Europe
introduced the Euro after all members shared democracy and democratic values.
Professor URATA also mentioned that a common currency is a long‐term goal. We have to have
similar views on what government should do on monetary policy for a common currency to work.
He said that developing countries make much of economic growth while developed countries
prefer stability, so monetary policy is different between these groups of countries.
On the other hand, Professor YANG mentioned that the European experience should notnecessarily be fitted to the East Asia situation. Asia has a different history. He said that we should
improve the fundamentals of Asian community and improve mutual strategic confidence.

Ambassador KAWAI said that it is important to raise awareness on regional cooperation. A stable
relationship among Japan, China and South Korea is important. Young Japanese students,
however, don’t know much about Asia, especially ASEAN countries. Chinese students also don’tknow, and the state of their knowledge may be even worse than the Japanese. ASEAN should
push its desire for a stable relationship among the northern three countries and for a sense ofcooperation. He wondered how we could raise awareness among young students on the present
situation and future cooperation in East Asia.

16

Professor URATA responded that Japanese pop culture or Korean movie stars may contribute tomutual understanding. He said that the formal way to increase awareness, however, should be
education through mass media. He expected that liberalization of services, trade in things such as
movies, increasing travel, and increasing movement of people could contribute to an increase inawareness.

2. Afternoon Session: “An East Asian Community and the US”
Moderator:

HIRABAYASHI Hiroshi, Councilor, The Japan Forumon International RelationsFirstly, we need to ask how we can accommodate regional cooperation frameworks with multiple
schemes for functional cooperation. Issues include, the ASEAN+1 versus ASEAN+3 debate, andwhether the East Asia Summit leads to community building. Some of the schemes for functional
regional or sub‐regional cooperation in the economic and social areas include FTAs and EPAs,
bilateral and regional agreements on energy and the environment, HIV/AIDS, SARS, or avian
influenza. In the politico‐security area, issues we face include international terrorism, piracy,
non‐proliferation of WMD, drug trafficking, illegal immigration, smuggling of small weapons,money laundering, cybercrime, etc. What is the implication of the multiplication of functional
cooperation? Is this compatible with the development of structured regional cooperation? Is the US
in favor of ad‐hoc or functional cooperation over structured or institutionalized regional
mechanisms?
Secondly, we have to ask how to accommodate East Asianism and Pan‐Pacificism. How can we
define the relationship between ASEAN‐centered conventional meetings such as PMC, ASEAN +1
and +3 and the three year‐old East Asia Summit? Pan‐Pacific‐oriented issues (which are favored by
the US) include such problems as whether APEC is becoming more oriented to political issues overeconomic, and if the ARF is gradually becoming sidelined. If so, how can Pan‐Pacific mechanisms
and East Asian institutions be re‐oriented to put ASEAN in the driver’s seat? Another key issue iswhat is the US attitude towards the East Asia Summit? Is an East Asian Community a realistic
proposition or a very remote possibility? Is the US prepared for the eventual creation of an East
Asian Community? How can we make compatible an eventual East‐Asian Community with theexisting US‐centered network of bilateral security alliances in the Pacific?
During the third Meeting of East Asia Summit in Singapore in November 2007, the leaders ofChina, South Korea as well as Japan agreed to meet not only at ASEAN Summits and the EAS but
also independently of these forums.
Other questions include if there is any possibility of the six party talks evolving into a North‐East
Asia security mechanism? Would that possibility be welcomed by the US? What would the role of
the US be in such a mechanism? What are the implications of an eventual North‐East Asianmechanism for existing East Asian frameworks?

Keynote Speaker:

Ralph COSSA, President, The Pacific Forum of CSIS

Since early 2005, there has been a great deal of movement surrounding the effort to establish an
East Asian community. “Movement,” one hastens to add, does not necessarily or always mean
progress. Not all movement has been in the forward direction. Some has been sideways, someeven backward. While it would be unkind to describe the process as “one step forward,
17

two‐step‐back,” there certainly has not been any “great leap forward” either, although there has
been some modest progress.
One presumed step forward was the establishment of an annual East Asia Summit (EAS). The
inaugural meeting was held in Kuala Lumpur in December 2005; the second took place in thePhilippines in January 2007 and the third in Singapore in November 2007. Efforts to develop theprinciples and modalities that will define the future role and mission of this new multilateralgathering continue. But as disputes and confusion over its composition, direction, and relationshipto both broader and more selective existing mechanisms reveal, East Asian community building
still has a long way to go. At this stage in its development, the EAS does not appear designed or
destined to provide the foundation of an East Asian community but rather is more likely to serve
as a broader‐based endorsement or validation mechanism for a companion East Asian‐only effort.
In this respect, the EAS may prove to be one step sideways rather than forward toward theestablishment of an East Asian community.
It is clear that main vehicle for East Asia community building is not the EAS but ASEAN+3. The
EAS chairman stated that ASEAN+3 is the driving force. EAS has the right idea, but the wrong title.
The real East Asia Summit takes place among the ASEAN+3 states. However, EAS is still an
important vehicle and useful. The EAS should be a supportive framework. It is a Pacific summit,
which doesn’t yet include, but also does not preclude, the U.S. either.
There are a number of reasons that the US should want to join the EAS. First, though objectives are
not clear yet, the US should support overall cooperation in such areas as energy. Therefore, the US
should get on the train. Second, the US should not let the requirement to be a TAC signatory
precludes it from joining. Instead, the US should sign the TAC because all its allies including Japanand Australia have already signed it. Third, some argue that the US president cannot visit Asia
twice a year for APEC and EAS. One idea is for the EAS to have back‐to‐back meetings at the timeand place which APEC is held. On years when APEC is not held in Asia, it may provide the only
opportunity for the U.S. president to visit Asia.
The US won’t focus on East Asia during the presidential election, which is good news for East Asia.
Political leaders and bureaucrats in Washington have been reluctant to discuss the East Asian
Community but a change in attitude at least at the bureaucratic level is now taking place, and thisshould help inform the political level after the 2008 U.S. presidential elections. As a result, one canbe cautiously optimistic about future U.S. involvement in the EAS and broader community
building efforts.
EAS or East Asian Community meetings should become not just a photo opportunity but need topursue a more substantial agenda. I found some good movement on energy cooperation. The Bushadministration, despite its public reputation for unilateralism, is more supportive of a multilateralapproach than any previous administration. While it prefers ad‐hoc multilateralism like theSix‐Party Talks and PSI, the Bush administration gives APEC and ARF great support. The US
involvement toward an East Asian Community, however, will never become deeper as long as its
substance is just symbolic. The US needs substance and real movement. I am concerned that the
ARF will become gradually sidelined and the US may be counting too much on the ARF and
APEC. What’s not clear is how the EAS, ASEAN+3 and an East Asian Community relate to the
ARF and APEC today and in the future.
The US supports the eventual creation of an East Asian Community. The US supports it, despite its
objection ten years ago, because it is not a threat against the US any more. The problem is that the
US focuses too much on the Middle East and doesn’t focus sufficiently on Asia.

18

ASEAN+3 is an important mechanism in East Asia. In ASEAN+3, ASEAN sits in the driver’s seat.
It is understandable. Two types of people occupy the driver’s seat; the head of the family and thechauffeur. Today ASEAN seems to be playing the father while the plus three sometimes act likechildren arguing in the back seat. New leadership in Japan and South Korea over the last 6 months
is improving the environment for three‐way cooperation, which could then turn ASEAN into thechauffeur, still driving but with more positive input coming from its Plus Three partners.

Keynote Speaker:

FUKUSHIMA Akiko, Senior Fellow, The Japan Foundation

I will focus on politico‐security cooperation, on both traditional and non‐traditional security
challenges, in East Asia in relation to the United States.
East Asian regional architectures, namely ASEAN+3 and East Asia Summit, do not include theUnited States as a member due to the geographical footprint. This, however, does not mean that
East Asia is hostile to the United States. An anti‐US movement in East Asia is not prevalent as is
exemplified in the guiding principle of open regionalism in these regional architectures. East Asia
is also a part of Asia Pacific regional frameworks such as APEC and ARF along with the UnitedStates.
East Asia has moved to create these own architectures for regional cooperation because of several
reasons. Amongst them, I would like to cite two factors. One is the Asian financial crisis in 1997
which compelled East Asian countries to appreciate deepening interdependence first in thefinancial market, then in trade and investment and subsequently in other areas including theenvironment through haze, piracy, pandemics like SARS and avian flue, and energy. In East Asia
regionalism has been led by regionalization as has been the case with economy. Other security
challenges have also turned out to be transnational in nature which demands countries in theregion to promote cooperation. Secondly, many interlocutors have pointed out the rise of China
and the need to engage China in regionalism. This coincided with China’s own policy to assure therest of the world of its intention to rise peacefully. China which was initially passive and skepticalon regional cooperation is now forthcoming in leading and participating regional mechanisms.
Simon Tay in the book even observed that there is a possibility of an Asia less‐centered on the US
with the rise of China which could lead to a rebalancing of the economic center for Asia.
On traditional security issues, the US has maintained bilateral alliances with countries in East Asia
which has in recent years come to serve as the stabilizer for regional peace. Although a regional
mechanism for traditional security challenges might be a possibility in future, this web of allianceswith the United States will remain to be an important vehicle for security in Asia for theforeseeable future.
On non‐traditional security concerns, it is becoming a consensus that East Asia ought to promote acooperative security approach for functional cooperation. In fact some cooperation is alreadyunderway on piracy, yellow dust, haze, avian flu and others as I have described in the book.
Participants to this functional cooperation should be determined by the merit one can bring to thechallenge rather than a fixed membership from the beginning. In this context the US functionallyshould be engaged in and can play a role.
In conceiving future relations between East Asia and the United States, I hope the US will take aproactive Asia policy to show its interest in Asia. Though unsolicited, I suggest the following three
to the new US administration. First, the new US President should demonstrate his/her interest in
19

Asia, mapping out American policy on Asia. Second, if the US decides to engage more in East Asia,
it should take advantage of the existing regional architectures like APEC and ARF which it is amember. Third, it is important for the US to enhance its bilateral relations with Japan, China, ROK,
as well as ASEAN. Bilateral relations should be robust to promote regional cooperation.
However challenging it may be, East Asia community building is the vision for us to share even forthe politico‐security area. The path which will lead us to a community‐like cooperation onpolitico‐security issues can be rocky. Nevertheless, the process towards such cooperation would
matter for peace and stability of the region.

Lead Discussant:Joseph R. DONOVAN, Deputy Chief of Mission,
US Embassy in Japan

Some transnational issues are new and some are old. Some are irreversible but undesirable results
might be attached. Building trust is important but the format is also important. I wonder what
happens next.
The majority of Asian states are achieving robust economic growth. We have regional structures
like APEC, ASEAN+3 and the East Asia Summit. Economic and political diversity still exists,though. This region has a dynamic character and complexity. I want to point out two issues.
First, I want to question what the region is ‐‐ whether it is geographically East Asia or Asia‐Pacific.
Restricted membership isn’t good.
Second, it is difficult to resolve regional security issues concerning North Korea and the Taiwan
Strait. Mr. COSSA emphasized that APEC was useful for enhancing security, and the Bushadministration is trying to strengthen APEC. Confidence and trust in functional cooperation will
help in the security area. The six party talks are a model or platform for security dialog inNortheast Asia.

Lead Discussant:JIMBO Ken, Associate Professor, Keio University

The EU membership is like a platinum credit card. Candidate states need to fulfill standards ofdomestic economy, governance and neighboring policy. On the other hand, the process of the East
Asian regionalism is more like a student card. It is easy to become a member but hard to get big
finance. Therefore, the process of regionalization in East Asia should be evolutionary to increase
the credit profile. In dealing with many political changes expected in coming decade in East Asia,
while envisioning the rise of China, so many checks are needed through having regular exchanges
among themselves.
I want to raise a fundamental question on whether the East Asian Community should pursue
regional autonomy or continued dependence on the US. The US is the largest exporting market
and key security provider for East Asia. In what kind of area can we pursue autonomy? Functional
cooperation including environment, finance, IT or terrorism doesn’t necessarily have to be limited
geographically. We need to define regional problems that could be dealt and solved by regional
efforts. During the process of the EAS, a broad approach is needed. I wonder what kind ofcooperation will fit the functional cooperation of East Asia.
There have been three dimensions of US concerns on the East Asian Community. The first is China.
Whether China may expand her sphere of influence in the East Asian Community or East Asian
Summit, and what will be the effect of US engagement in this region. Second, the East Asian
Community may challenge US flexibility of bilateral relations in East Asia both in security and20

economy. Third, the East Asian Community may be used as an excuse for delaying democratictransition of East Asian states. Those concerns still remain. The East Asian Community, however,has debated such US concerns and showed a quasi‐response. First, the East Asian Community
added Australia and New Zealand. Second, leadership within ASEAN+3 agreed to share universal
values.
I want to point out that progress in ASEAN shows that it is changing to a more rule‐based
institutionalized model. By signing the ASEAN charter, ASEAN developed a more full‐fledged
institutional and legal framework. ASEAN shares such basic values as democracy or human rights.
Responding to the crackdown on the democracy movement in Myanmar, whether ASEAN fails tocoordinate inside or not, will be a benchmark of ASEAN credibility. Another positive step is seenin the confidence building between Japan and China. Rivalry between Japan and China forces
other countries to choose one of two options. China became an insider of the system rather than anoutsider, especially after Robert Zoellick’s “responsible stakeholder” initiative. Many US official
documents including the NSS and QDR endorsed that concept. Strengthening the US‐Japan
alliance and cooperation with China at the same time is possible. Regarding the domestic politics
of China, we can promote “rule of law” aspects among values which promote to achieve in the
East Asian Community.

Lead Discussant:ITO Tsuyoshi, Professor, Meiji University

My first comment is about the future of US commitment to East Asia. The question is whether theregional stability will be provided by one country’s hegemony or the balance of power. In East
Asia, the US hegemony through its power projection has been dominant and is now keeping
stability. The US hegemony encourages Asia’s stability because the potential for US interventions
affects security policy of each country.
The main body of the East Asian Community is now functional or economic cooperation, and wesee some kind of integration in East Asia, which is not touching on the US interests. A US concern
about the East Asian Community is that its’ development will lead to the loss of US influence over
the region. The EU or EC was a good case study. But, the EU now cooperates politically while theEC mainly had economic cooperation in the 1980s. After the EU developed its economy anddeepened interdependence, political integration has been advocated and developed. Therefore, thesituation for the US is different.
Second, functional cooperation with a focus on the prevention of nuclear proliferation, piracy andalso energy issues can be prototypes of the East Asian cooperation. East Asia suffers from thelargest number of natural disasters and piracy in the world and this situation has led to de facto
cooperation in this region. The US provides the government‐government cooperation, a typicalexample of which is the six party talks. Active participation by the US is all right. But, along with
that, East Asian cooperation has non‐governmental and functional aspects. Regarding futurecommitment in East Asian cooperation by the US, I want to ask what kind of framework the US
would provide. For example, Taiwan has its voice in the cross‐strait issue. Non‐governmental
bodies are important for that kind of issue.
Third, I want to ask to what extent the US recognizes the region’s autonomy vis‐à‐vis the UScommitment. East Asia has many functional issues. Those areas like disaster relief fit a risk
management approach rather than 100% military commitment, which the US provides
traditionally.

21

Free Discussions
Professor SAKAMOTO mentioned that the US is too much involved in Iraq, but this is now
improving. He wondered if the US would have more of a free hand to deal with issues in East
Asia.
Mr. DONOVAN responded that the US should continue to watch security, and economic aspects
that result when we take some action. North Korea and Taiwan are big issues for us. Big power
relations are also important between the US/Japan and US/China. We seek to share values andinfluence in the region.

Professor SAKAMOTO also asked Mr. COSSA what the US role is in EAS. He asked why Japan
would become marginal if it became too involved in Asia. He wondered what role Japan should
take.
Before responding to Mr. SAKAMOTO, Mr. COSSA commented to Professor T. ITO that he agreed
Taiwan’s voice was only through Track 2 mechanisms and APEC. China, however, is reluctant todeal with security in APEC. When the US finds that there is anything contrary to the US interests,
the US would make objections whether or not East Asia would hear it. Then he mentioned that for
the US, East Asian community building should be a process by Japan and Singapore as they don’t
undermine US interests. The process of the East Asia Summit isn’t clear yet nor defined. He statedthat the US role in an East Asian Community is the same as the Indian or Australian or New
Zealand’s role – to help cooperation in East Asia in such areas as energy. Regarding building theEast Asian community, no one should wait for an outside blessing from Washington. The US,
India, and Australian role toward Asia is to support community building. He added that he wasafraid that Japan was marginalized a couple of years ago due to KOIZUMI Junichiro visiting
Yasukuni Shrine. However, Japan can play a role to establish bridges between the West and East ‐Japan is proud of that role, and it should be continued. It also can have more positive meetings.

Professor HIRONO asked Professor JIMBO if we had to cover all the problems in the East Asian
Community. He asked what the priority point was and what area was favored to cooperate. He
also wondered where the advantage was to joining the East Asian Community without the US and
if we had to be cautious toward the US because the US power was not always strong.
Professor JIMBO responded that the best document describing such cooperation was a 1999
Manila document. In that document, we care about everything. However the spirit of thecommunity is the problem. When the community accepts everybody as a member, and uses
consensus based decision‐making, it might fail. He said that real functional areas should be
discussed like a FTA. He added that the non‐traditional security area is a main concern for
promoting risk management.
Professor HIRONO stated that somebody had to take leadership in promoting functional
corporation. He asked whether Prof. JIMBO thought that the community should be limited tolikeminded nations or countries that share values.
Professor JIMBO replied that those likeminded countries should take leadership, but thecommunity should be open to others.

22Professor TANAKA asked Mr. COSSA who among the US presidential candidates would present
the most coherent policy on East Asia.
Mr. COSSA responded that if the Democrats win the election, senior democrats like Joseph NYE or
William PERRY would advise for a Democratic president. That is the same for Richard
ARMITAGE for the Republicans. Continuity will remain.

Ambassador SIAZON stated that ASEAN isn’t necessarily a consensus‐based body. He
commented on Mr. COSSA’s chapter of the book “An East Asian Community and the UnitedStates.” Mr. COSSA wrote that ASEAN didn’t play a major role during the East Timor crisis.
However, Ambassador SIAZON said that the Philippines tried to send soldiers and Japan agreed
to $100 million financial support at that time. Singapore also committed to that process. He argued
that three players, Japan, ASEAN and the United Nations, were missing in Mr. COSSA’s remarks
in East Timor.
Mr. COSSA thanked Ambassador SIAZON for detailed information. He commented, however,that because of China’s attitude, no ASEAN member called on ASEAN troops for East Timor. That
crisis was only solved on a bilateral basis.

Mr. SHIMIZU said that we need to create an ASEAN humanitarian force to address humansecurity issues. US Defense Secretary Robert GATES emphasizes Central Asia. He asked Mr.
COSSA the background of Secretary Gates’ statement. He wondered whether the US wanted thoseCentral Asian countries to join ARF or the East Asia Summit.
Mr. COSSA said that he was not familiar with any rapid force to address such natural disasters orother humanitarian crises. He added that regarding an ASEAN emergency force, there could be aforce that wasn’t a rapid reaction force, but rather that trained together and increased
interoperability. He was not thinking of some type of standing force like a NATO force. He was
not sure on Gates’ statement, but he was sure that no one in the US supports inviting Central
Asian nations to join East Asia Summit.

Ambassador OKAWARA stated that both APEC and ARF provide a precious opportunity to havemeetings although somebody mentioned that both are being sidelined. He wondered whether the
US or China would create a security role in the ARF.

Mr. SHIKATA wondered what is the likely trade or economic policy towards Asia of a new US
administration. Democratic candidates criticize FTAs, but he wondered if that was rhetoric for thepresidential campaign.
Mr. COSSA responded that Asia won’t be paid attention during the campaign. Democrats pay
more attention to labor, but they may move forward on pursuing FTAs.

Ambassador ISHIGAKI asked about the US participation in the East Asia Summit, whether the US
seeks full membership or not. He also asked about the modalities of US participation, and whether23

a new administration would consider participation seriously or would they be satisfied withobserver status.
Mr. COSSA responded that no observer status has been set for the East Asia Summit, and hewould encourage the US to be a full member. And he said that the US should meet the threecriteria for joining the EAS – that means the US should sign TAC.

Moderator:

HIRABAYASHI Hiroshi, Councilor, The Japan Forumon International RelationsFirst, we need to revitalize some functions of regional cooperation, especially the ARF.
Enlargement may dilute our efforts to solve problems in the region. It is best to be open to
outsiders, but efficiency should also be considered. Second, whoever becomes president, US
commitment to East Asia will be assured. Americans tend to be outsiders but not necessarily
isolationists. East Asian countries and think tanks should recommend that the purpose of East
Asian Community be clear to the US and try to fill the perception gaps.

Closing Remarks:

MURAKAMI Masayasu, Executive Governor, GFJ/
Acting Executive Vice President, CEAC

Through this open exchange of views in our one‐day long Dialogue, I believe that we have gained
a better understanding and developed our mutual understanding on the future prospect of an East
Asian Community as well as US views towards it, which have the significant importance for thebuilding of peace and prosperity not only in the region but globally. On behalf of the Global
Forum of Japan, we appreciate your participation and active contribution very much in today’s
Dialogue. Now I would like to announce the closing of today’s Dialogue.

24

IV Keynote Papers of Discussions

Keynote Papers of Discussions
Morning Session:“Community Building after the Second Joint Statement
on East Asian Cooperation”(1) TANAKA Akihiko
Ten years after the Asian financial crisis of 1997, East Asia is now a region of dynamic
growth and the East Asian economies are striding again. However, no one calls the
dynamic growth of East Asia a miracle anymore; it is a fact of economic life in today’s
world. Uncertainty obviously abounds around the future of the East Asian economies,
especially China’s, but it has become an assumption of many businesspeople andpoliticians that the economies of East Asia will continue to be one of the centers of theworld economy.

Along with the recovery of the East Asian economies from the 1997 crisis, voices ofregionalism and efforts of community building in the region have grown. The year 2007 is
the tenth anniversary of the first Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus Three(ASEAN+3) summit meeting—the gathering of the leaders of the 10 ASEAN countries,
along with China, Japan, and South Korea. When the ASEAN+3 summit took place in the
midst of the Asian financial crisis, it was an ad hoc meeting where 3 Northeast Asianleaders happened to be invited to join the ASEAN leaders who gathered together at theASEAN summit. In following years, however, the ASEAN+3 has been developed to be oneof the pillars of East Asian regionalism. It released the “Joint Statement on East Asian
Cooperation” in November 1999, which identified the vision and comprehensive areas ofcooperation among member states. It is now expected to agree on the “Second Joint
Statement on East Asian Cooperation” when it meets in November 2007. (Continued)**For the continuation of this article, please turn to pp.1‐13 of “An East Asian Community andthe United States” published by CSIS Press.

25

(2) YANG BojiangFirst, it is critical for all the countries and individuals to realize that the process of East
Asian integration is an irreversible historic trend. The current international structure isundergoing a major change, various regimes and different patterns of developmentcompete and coexist with each other in a complex system. A multi‐civilization world isunder development. Although this process can be comprehended and described in various
aspects and levels, the fundamental evolution is that, the Industrial Revolution leads to theleap forward of the global productivity, thus facilitates the world to break through inunifying from regional and political separations, and accelerates economic globalization.
As a result, all countries are involved in a unified global market and the international
network in which each country’s own safety and interests are intertwined with others’. The
world is becoming a community within which one country’s success benefits while its lose
harms the other countries. In comparison with other changes ever occurred in theinternational system, the current shift is characterized by the qualitative change or thechange of pattern in international relations. This may lead to the subversion of the current
rules and laws that have lasted for hundreds of years in the international society. The
difference lies in several ways, for instance, gradual and peaceful structural change of theinternational system becomes possible; the development of a country, and furthermore, therise of a major power does not necessarily cost damage for the established system, it ispossible for peaceful rise; the hegemony discipline becomes vulnerable; and themainstream of the relations among big powers changes from confrontation to cooperation:
it is not necessary for one country to rise on the basis of containing and weakening othercountries, on the contrary, one country can develop its own strength only by cooperatingwith other countries.
East Asia is taking a lead in such a historic trend. In the past several hundred years, East
Asia has never been integrated, and there were probably only two periods of time duringwhen the region was set within one system. One was the age of China dominant tributarysystem, the other was the WWⅡ period when Japan waged a general invasion toward thisregion. Compared with the two periods mentioned above, the current trend of East Asian
integration is characterized by natural other than factitious, economy based other thanpolitical led features, and these lay a stable groundwork for the integration process. It is
fair to say that, facing the major competitors from Europe and North America, East Asian
26

countries encounters unprecedented challenges as well as opportunities. For East Asian
countries the question lies in how to realize regional integration other than whether to do itor not.
Second, East Asian integration should be global as well as regional. That is to say, East
Asian integration can be effective only by opening to the world as a whole and to othercountries outside this region, and by applying international standard. Meanwhile, East
Asian integration should take into consideration the existent characteristics of the region,and progress in the way that adapt to the regional situation. Generally speaking, relations
among East Asian countries are all long standing and complicated. The history ofcontradictions and disputes can be traced back to the age long before modern international
relations were formed, and before European and American powers entering into this region.
It surely is much longer than the history of the Cold War. Therefore, those contradictions
and disputes will not disappear or be reduced along with the end of the Cold War. On thecontrary, due to the loose of the environmental restriction and the change of domestic
politics, those contradictions and disputes would even escalate. The fluctuating relation
between Japan and ROK in the past decade is just an example.
Another factor we should take into consideration is the existence of the network formedby the U.S. bilateral alliances. The U.S. adopts an offshore balance of power policy, however,compared with that adopted by the British in history, the American policy has its special
features. The U.S. is a superpower which goes far beyond the UK of the time. Under thisprecondition, the U.S. on the one hand maintains alliances system in East Asia as its
strategic pillar and gradually evolves its policy over alliances. On the other hand, the U.S.
adopts a hedging policy toward China. This policy emphasizes both cooperation andcontainment. Along with the progress over cooperation and dialogue between China andthe U.S., China has become an important factor that can not be ignored in U.S. policy
toward East Asia. Furthermore, China has become a reliable power in regional hot issue
solution. From this aspect, the U.S. East Asian policy tends to be dual‐pivot: the bilateralalliances network and cooperation with China. Nevertheless, the U.S. also obviously alerts
to the uncertainty of Chinese development. But compared with its containment toward the
USSR during the Cold War period and its bashing policy toward Japan in 1980s and 1990s,
the U.S. current policy toward China is more sophisticated and saponaceous: it avoids
direct clash, and balance China through cultivating the “third power”. Both the U.S. and27

China are making progress in dealing with each other.
East Asia is now standing at the entrance of a new system, but this doesn’t help toreduce disputes or differences among each other. The diversity of political regime,
developing stage, and history and culture is obvious. Concerning the power distribution,
East Asia is not as balanced as the European countries, nor does it resemble the North
America, it is far more complicated. What makes the situation even worse, the hostile andisolated history makes it a challenge for East Asian countries to build strategic mutual
confidence. What I would like to emphasize is that, it is not the format of integration that
we should pay most our attention, but how to improve confidence among nations in orderto accomplish peaceful adjustment and change through promoting the process of
integration. If we overemphasize the format of integration, the problem of competing fordominance will become even more outstanding. This will weaken mutual confidence
among nations. In the end, none of the formats will work out. Concerning the frameworkfor East Asia integration, there is a dispute between “pan‐Asia‐Pacific” and “pan‐Asia”.
There is a “10＋3” vs. “10＋6” debate between China and Japan. However, I do not think
the framework itself is of critical importance. So long as it is good for the development ofeach country, and good for East Asia as a whole to win the great competition in 21st century,
any framework is adoptable.
Third, the process of East Asian integration should go together with and help toimprove relations among major powers, solution of regional hot issue, and establishment of
sub‐regional mechanism. In order to prevent East Asian integration from being a mirage,
we should adopt outcome‐oriented design, and at the same time, improve the regionalsituation.
The importance of China‐Japan relationship to East Asian integration went without
saying. It is unimaginable for us to build an effective East Asian cooperation mechanism
without a smooth and harmonious China‐Japan relationship. Currently, China and Japan
both at the strategic rising stage, both are willing to become major powers in all levels. East
Asia is facing the situation of two big powers exist at the same time. The challenges ahead
are unprecedented. On the one hand, there are developmental strategic and geo‐politicalstrategic collisions between China and Japan, the East China Sea issue and Taiwan issue arerepresentatives; in the post‐Koizumi age, these collisions become even more obvious. On
the other hand, the change mentioned in the very beginning created space for the two28

parties to walk out of the strategic dilemma. Geo‐political factors certainly have great
impact on China‐Japan relations, but the increase of interdependence and mutual benefits
determine that both parties must adopt peaceful, cooperative, and harmonious way tosolve the problems between them. Besides, except for the real interests’ collision, somemisunderstandings and contradictions between China and Japan were exaggerated. In fact,
both countries do not deny the developing right of each other, but they do care more about
the way of rising and how will the power be used after rising.
As a specific measure to improve both East Asian integration and Sino‐Japaneserelations, the two countries should seek to maintain dialogues from the starting point of
East Asian integration. This includes constructive negotiations on integration framework
and process. Furthermore, informal trilateral leadership dialogue mechanism among China,
Japan and the U.S. is recommendable.
During the DPRK nuclear test in 2006, China and Japan communicated and coordinatedwith each other, this is unprecedented. After Prime Minister Fukuda took his office, theatmosphere of cooperation between the two countries became much better. The Fukuda
cabinet wants to solve the abduction issue between Japan and DPRK, and realize
normalization. This provides new opportunity for China and Japan to cooperate. If we takea look at Pyongyang Declaration which was signed on Sept.17th, 2002, we can easily
understand that the relations between Japan and DPRK is not only a bilateral relationship,
but also involve the regional order of North East Asia, among which the most urgent issue
is the building of peace regime in Korea peninsula and security mechanism in North East
Asia. The multilateral cooperation among China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula isindispensable. From this year, China, Japan and ROK will hold trilateral summit besides
ASEAN＋3 framework. The conservative ROK president, Lee Myungbak’s inaugurationnext month will provide chance for the summit to have fruitful results.

29

Afternoon Session:“An East Asian Community and the US”(1) Ralph A. COSSA
Since early 2005, there has been a great deal of movement surrounding the effort to establish an East
Asian community. “Movement,” one hastens to add, does not necessarily or always mean progress.
Not all the movement has been in the forward direction. Some has been sideways, some evenbackward. Though it would be unkind to describe the process as “one step forward, two steps back,”
there certainly has not been any “great leap forward” either.
One presumed step forward was the establishment of an annual East Asia Summit (EAS). The
inaugural meeting was held in Kuala Lumpur in December 2005; the second took place in thePhilippines in January 2007. Efforts to develop the principles and modalities that will define thefuture role and mission of this new multilateral gathering continue. But as disputes and confusion
over its composition, direction, and relationship to both broader and more selective existingmechanisms reveal, East Asian community building still has a long way to go. At this stage in its
development, the EAS does not (appear destined to) provide the foundation of an East Asian
community but rather is more likely to serve as a broader‐based endorsement or validation
mechanism for a companion East Asian–only effort. In this respect, the EAS may prove to be one step
backward rather than toward the establishment of an East Asian community. (Continued)**For the continuation of this article, please turn to pp.144‐174 of “An East Asian Community and the United States”
published by CSIS Press.

(2) FUKUSHIMA Akiko
Friedberg contends that East Asia is “ripe for rivalry” and a place likely to emerge as the “cockpit
of great‐power conflict.” Does this assertion truly apply? If it does apply, it certainly applies to thepolitical and security areas. With a heritage of old Cold War flashpoints̶namely, the divided Korean
Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait̶East Asia shows patterns of competitive security that still demand
traditional deterrence and crisis response mechanisms. The recent buildup of Chinese military power
is reportedly beyond what is needed for the Taiwan Strait contingency. The U.S. Department of
Defense, in the 2006 edition of its Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People’s Republic ofChina, stated:“China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field
disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages.” Thelegacy of the Cold War still lingers in East Asia, and it can be argued that the region has a long way to
go in building a collective security community. (Continued)**For the continuation of this article, please turn to pp.104‐143 of “An East Asian Community and the UnitedStates”published by CSIS Press.

30

V

Appendix1. An Introduction to The Global Forum of Japan【Objectives】 As we embrace the 21st century, international relations are becoming increasingly interdependent, and globalization andregionalism are becoming the big waves. In this global tendency, communicating with the world, especially neighboring countries in the
Asia-Pacific region at both governmental and non-governmental level, is one of the indispensable conditions for Japan to survive. On the basisof such understanding, The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ) aims to promote the exchange of views on commonly shared interests and issues in thefield ranging from politics and security to economy, trade, finance, society and culture, and to help business leaders, Diet members and opinion
leaders both in Japan and in their counterpart countries to discuss about the formulation of new orders in global and regional arenas.
【History】 The 1982 Versailles Summit was widely seen as having exposed rifts within the Western alliance. Accordingly, there wereexpressed concerns that the summit meetings were becoming more and more stylized rituals and that Western solidarity was at risk. Within thiscontext, it was realized that to revitalize the summit meetings there must be free and unfettered exchanges of private-sector views to betransmitted directly to the heads of the participating states. Accordingly, Japanese former Foreign Minister OKITA Saburo, U.S. Trade
Representative William BROCK, E.C. Commission Vice President Etienne DAVIGNON, and Canadian Trade Minister Edward
LUMLEY, as representatives of the private-sector in their respective countries, took the initiative in founding The Quadrangular Forum in
Washington in September 1982. Since then, the end of the Cold War and the altered nature of the economic summits themselves had made itnecessary for The Quadrangular Forum to metamorphose into The Global Forum established by the American and Japanese components of The
Quadrangular Forum at the World Convention in Washington in October 1991. In line with its objectives as stated above, The Global Forum wasintended as a facilitator of global consensus on the many post-Cold War issues facing the international community and reached out to open its
discussions not only to participants from the quadrangular countries but also to participants from other parts of the world. Over the years, thegravity of The Global Forum's activities gradually shifted from its American component (housed in The Center for Strategic and International
Studies) to its Japanese component (housed in The Japan Forum on International Relations), and, after the American component ceased to be
operative, the Board of Trustees of the Japanese component resolved, on February 7, 1996, that it would thereafter act as an independent bodyfor organizing bilateral dialogues with Japan as a hub for all countries in the world, and amended its by-laws accordingly. At the same time, The
Global Forum's Japanese component was reorganized into The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ) in line with the principle that the organization be
self-governing, self-financing, and independent of any other organization.
【Organization】 The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ) is a private, non-profit, non-partisan, and independent membership organization in Japanto engage in and promote international exchanges on policy-oriented matters of bilateral, regional and global implications. While the secretariat
is housed in The Japan Forum on International Relations, GFJ itself is independent of any other organizations, including The Japan Forum on
International Relations. Originally established as the Japanese component of The Quadrangular Forum at the initiative of HATTORI Ichiro,
OKITA Saburo, TAKEYAMA Yasuo, TOYODA Shoichiro in 1982, GFJ is currently headed by OKAWARA Yoshio as Chairman and ITO
Kenichi as President. The membership is composed of 12 Business Leader Members including the two Governors,
MOGI Yuzaburo and TOYODA Shoichiro; 86 Opinion Leader Members including the four Governors, ITO Kenichi, MURAKAMI
Masayasu, OKAWARA Yoshio, and SHIMADA Haruo; and 21 Diet Members including the three Governors, KOIKE Yuriko,
HATOYAMA Yukio, and TANIGAKI Sadakazu. Friends and supporters of The Global Forum of the Japan are organized into the
Supporters’ Club of the Global Forum of Japan. Financially the activities of GFJ have been supported by the annual membership fees paid by 12
leading Japanese business corporations (with 2 corporations, Toyota Motor Corporation and Kikkoman Corporation contributing 5 shares eachand the other 10 corporations contributing 1 share each) as well as by the grants provided by The Japan Foundation, Japan-ASEAN Exchange
Projects, The Tokyo Club, The Japan-Korea Cultural Foundation, etc. WATANABE Mayu serves as Executive Secretary.
【Activities】Since the start of The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ) in 1982, GFJ has shifted its focus from the exchanges with the Quadrangularcountries for the purpose of contributing to the Western Summit, to those with neighboring countries in the Asia-Pacific region including US,
China, Korea, Taiwan, ASEAN countries, India and Australia European countries, Wider Black Sea area , for the purposes of deepening mutual
understanding and contributing to the formation of international order. GFJ has been active in collaboration with international exchangeorganizations in those countries in organizing policy-oriented intellectual exchanges called “Dialogue.” In order to secure a substantial numberof Japanese participants in the “Dialogue,” GFJ in principle holds these “Dialogues” in Tokyo. A listing of topics of “Dialogues” and its
overseas co-sponsors in last five years is given below.
Year

Month

Topic

Co‐sponsor

2003

January
April
October

Cooperation for Peace and Prosperity in the Asia‐Pacific Region
Entrepreneurship in Asia
New Situation in Asia‐Pacific region and Japan‐Taiwan Cooperation

ASEAN‐ISISThe Mansfield Center for Pacific Affairs (US)Foundation on International & Cross‐Strait Studies (Taiwan)

2004

July
A Roadmap towards East Asian Community
September Future Prospect of East Asian Community andJapan‐China RelationshipNovember Future of Korean Peninsula and Japan‐U.S.‐Korea
Security Cooperation

ASEAN‐ISIS
China Association for International Friendly Contact (China)

2005

April
The Prospect of East Asian Community and
June
Japan‐Korea Cooperation
November The Prospect for East Asian Community and Regional Cooperation
Peace and Prosperity in the Wider Black Sea Area
and the Role of Japan

Presidential Committee on Northeast Asian Cooperation Initiative (Korea)
ASEAN‐ISIS
University of Shizuoka, The Black Sea University Foundation (Romania),
The International Center for Black Sea Studies (Turkey)

2006

February
Review and Perspective of the Japan‐Taiwan RelationshipTaiwan International Studies Association (Taiwan)
June
An East Asian Community and the United States
Pacific Forum CSIS (US), The Council on East Asian Community
September Prospect for Japan‐ASEAN Strategic Partnership after the First East ASEAN‐ISIS
Asia Summit

2007

January

2008

The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, The Fletcher School (US), Yonsei
University (Korea)

The China‐Japan Relationship and Energy and Environmental Issues

June
The US‐Japan Alliance in the 21st Century
July
The Challenges Facing Japan and ASEAN in the New Era
November The Second Japan‐Black Sea Area Dialogue

China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (China), Energy
Research Institute, National Development and Reform Commission(China), The Japan Forum on International Relations
National Committee on American Foreign Policy (US)ASEAN‐ISIS
Organization of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), Embassy ofTurkey,University of Shizuoka

January

The Council on East Asia Community, Pacific Forum CSIS (US)The Second Japan‐US‐Asia Dialogue

31

Membership List of The Global Forum of Japan
As of April 1, 2008

In alphabetical order【Chairman】
OKAWARA Yoshio, President, Institute for International Policy Studies【President】
ITO Kenichi, President and CEO, The Japan Forum on International Relations, Inc.
【Executive Governor】
MURAKAMI Masayasu, Acting Executive Director, The Japan Forum on International Relations, Inc.
【Business Leader Governors】
MOGI Yuzaburo, Chairman and CEO, Kikkoman Corporation
TOYODA Shoichiro, Honorary Chairman, Toyota Motor Corporation【Diet Member Governors】
HATOYAMA Yukio, Member of the House of Representatives (DPJ)
KOIKE Yuriko, M.H.R. (LDP)TANIGAKI Sadakazu, M.H.R. (LDP)【Opinion Leader Governors】
ITO Kenichi, President and CEO, The Japan Forum on International Relations Inc.
MURAKAMI Masayasu, Acting Executive Director, The Japan Forum on International Relations, Inc.
OKAWARA Yoshio, President, Institute for International Policy Studies
SHIMADA Haruo, President, Chiba University of Commerce-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------【Business Leader Members】(12 Members)
IMAI Takashi, Honorary Chairman, Nippon Steel Corporation
ISHIKAWA Hiroshi, Director, Kajima Corporation
KATSUMATA Tsunehisa, President, Tokyo Electric Power Company
KOBAYASHI Yotaro, Chief Corporate Advisor, Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.
KUSAKARI Takao, Chairman, Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha
MATSUNO Haruki, Chief Executive Counselor, Member of the Board, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
MOGI Yuzaburo, Chairman and CEO, Kikkoman Corporation
OKAYAMA Norio, Chairman, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
SEYA Hiromichi, Senior Corporate Adviser, Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.
TAKAGAKI Tasuku, Senior Advisor, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd.
YAGUCHI Toshikazu, President, Biru Daiko Co., Ltd.
TOYODA Shoichiro, Honorary Chairman, Toyota Motor Corporation【Diet Member Members】(21 Members)
AICHI Kazuo, Member of the House of Representatives (LDP)HATOYAMA Yukio, M.H.R. (DPJ)HOSODA Hiroyuki, M.H.R. (LDP)IWAKUNI Tetsundo, M.H.R. (DPJ)
KITAGAMI Keiro, M.H.R. (DPJ)
KOIKE Yuriko, M.H.R. (LDP)
NAGASHIMA Akihisa, M.H.R. (DPJ)
NAKAGAWA Masaharu, M.H.R. (DPJ)
OGUSHI Hiroshi, M.H.R. (DPJ)
SHIOZAKI Yasuhisa, M.H.R. (LDP)SUZUKI Keisuke, M.H.R. (LDP)TANIGAKI Sadakazu, M.H.R. (LDP)
UEDA Isamu, M.H.R. (NK)YAMAGUCHI Tsuyosi, M.H.R. (DPJ)YAMANAKA Akiko, M.H.R. (LDP)ASAO Keiichiro, Member of the House of Councillors (DPJ)
FUJITA Yukihisa, M.H.C. (DPJ)HAYASHI Yoshimasa, M.H.C. (LDP)HIRONAKA Wakako, M.H.C. (DPJ)NAITO Masamitsu, M.H.C. (DPJ)SEKOU Hironari, M.H.C. (LDP)

INA Hisayoshi, Columnist, The Nikkei Newspaper
INOGUCHI Takashi, Professor, The University of TokyoIOKIBE Makoto, President, The National Defense Academy of JapanITO Eisei, Corporate Auditor, Toyota Auto Body Co., Ltd.
ITO Kenichi, President and CEO, The Japan Forum on International Relations Inc.
ITO Tsuyoshi, Professor, Meiji University
IWAMA Yoko, Associate Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
IZUMI Hajime, Professor, University of Shizuoka
JIMBO Ken, Associate Professor, Keio University
KAKIZAWA Koji, former Minister of Foreign Affairs
KAMIYA Matake, Professor, National Defense Academy
KANEKO Kumao, President, Japan Council for Economic Research
KAWAI Masao, Guest Professor, Hakuo University
KIMURA Takayuki, Guest Professor, International Christian University
KINOSHITA Hiroo, Advisor, National Small Business & Information Promotion Center
KOGURE Masayoshi, former Professor, Toyo University
KOKUBUN Ryosei, Professor, Keio University
KONDO Tetsuo, President, Institute for New Era Strategy (INES)KUBO Fumiaki, Professor, Keio University
MANO Teruhiko, Professor under special assignment, Seigakuin University
MATSUMOTO Kenichi, Professor, Reitaku University
MIYAMOTO Nobuo, Diplomatic Commentator
MIYAZAKI Isamu, Honorary Advisor, Daiwa Institute of Research
MIYOSHI Masaya, Chairman and CEO, Miyoshi Networks Co., Ltd.
MORI Toshimitsu, Advisor, The Michinoku Bank, Ltd.
MORIMOTO Satoshi, Professor, Takushoku University
MURAKAMI Masayasu, Acting Executive Director, The Japan Forum on International Relations, Inc
MURATA Koji, Professor, Doshisha University
MUTSUSHIKA Shigeo, Professor, The University of Shizuoka
NAKAGANE Katsuji, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
NAKAHARA Nobuyuki, former Member of the Policy Board of the Bank of Japan
NAKANISHI Terumasa, Professor, Kyoto University
NAKOSHI Kenro, Foreign News Editor, Jiji Press
NISHIKAWA Megumi, Foreign News Editor, Mainichi Newspapers
OGASAWARA Takayuki, Professor, Yamanashi Gakuin University
OKAWARA Yoshio, President, Institute for International Policy Studies
OKONOGI Masao, Professor, Keio University
ONUMA Yasuaki, Professor, The University of TokyoOWADA Hisashi, Judge, International Court of Justice
OHYA Eiko, Journalist
RYU Ketsu, Professor, Waseda University, & Visiting Scholar, Columbia University
SAITO Akira, Corporate Officer, The Yomiuri Shimbun
SAKAKIBARA Eisuke, Professor, Waseda University
SAKAMOTO Masahiro, Senior Research Fellow, The Japan Forum on International Relations Inc.
SAJIMA Naoko, Professor, Senshu University
SHIMADA Haruo, President, Chiba University of Commerce
SHIMIZU Yoshikazu, Director, U.N. Association of JapanSHIRAISHI Takashi, Vice President, The National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
SOEYA Yoshihide, Professor, Keio University
SONE Yasunori, Professor, Keio University
SUDO Shigeru, Director of Energy and Environment Program, International Development Center of JapanSUMIDA Nagayoshi, President, The Sankei Shimbun
TAHARA Soichiro, Journalist
TAIDA Hideya, Special Assistant to the President, The Japan Foundation
TAJIMA Takashi, Guest Professor, Toyo Eiwa Women's University
TAKAHARA Akio, Professor, Rikkyo University
TAKAHASHI Kazuo, Guest Professor, International Christian University
TAKASHIMA Hatsuhisa, Councilor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TAKEUCHI Yukio, Honorary Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TAKEMI Keizo, Professor, Tokai University
TAKUBO Tadae, Guest Professor, Kyorin University
TANAKA Akihiko, Professor, The University of TokyoTANAKA Toshiro, Professor, Keio University
TANINO Sakutaro, Former Ambassador to China
URATA Shujiro, Professor, Waseda University
UTSUMI Yoshio, Honorary Advisor, TOYOTA InfoTechnology Center Co., LTD.
YAMAUCHI Masayuki, Professor, The University of Tokyo
YAMAZAWA Ippei, Professor Emeritus, Hitotsubashi University
YOSHITOMI Masaru, President & Chief Research Officer, Research Institute of Economy, Trade & Industry
YUSHITA Hiroyuki, Guest Professor, Kyorin University【Opinion Leader Members】(86 Members)
AKASHI Yasushi, Chairman, The Japan Center for Conflict Prevention
AOKI Tamotsu, Commissioner, Agency for Cultural Affairs
AMAKO Satoshi, Professor, Waseda University
ASOMURA Kuniaki, Dean, International Cooperation Course, Graduate School, Kibi International University
EBATA Kensuke, Defense Commentator
FUKUSHIMA Teruhiko, J.F. Oberlin University
GYOHTEN Toyoo, President, Institute for International Monetary Affairs
HAKAMADA Shigeki, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University【Supporters’ Club Members】(20 Members)
HARUNA Mikio, Professor, Graduate School of Nagoya University
HASEGAWA Kazutoshi, President, Japan-Australia-New Zealand Society【Executive Secretary】
WATANABE Mayu
HATA Kei, Vice Principal, Sakushin Gakuin
HIRABAYASHI Hiroshi, Councilor, The Japan Forum on International Relations Inc.
HIRONO Ryokichi, Professor Emeritus, Seikei University[Note]
DPJ: Democratic Party of JapanICHIKAWA Isao, Executive Advisor for Financial Affairs, Keio University
LDP:Liberal Democratic Party
IKEO Aiko, Professor, Waseda University
NK: New Komeito
IMAGAWA Yukio, Former Ambassador to Cambodia

32【Acknowledgement】

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ) is grateful to its “Business
Leader” members listed below for their generous
contributions. Their support is making the activities of theForum financially sustainable.

[GFJ Governors] [5 share]
Toyota Motor Corporation
Kikkoman Corporation[GFJ Members] [1 share]
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
Kajima Corporation
Nippon Steel Corporation
Tokyo Electric Power Co.
Asahi Glass Co. Ltd.
The Bank of Tokyo‐Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd
Biru Daiko Co., Ltd.
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha(In the order of enlistment)

33

2. An Introduction to The Council on East Asian Community(1) Introduction[Inauguration]
The concept of an "East Asian Community" has been spread quietly but steadily leading to the formation of a gigantic
trend in the East Asian region. "The Council on East Asian Community (CEAC)" was inaugurated in Japan on May 18,
2004, considerably triggered by the launching in 2003 of "The Network of East Asian Think-Tanks(NEAT)" in Beijing
and of "The East Asia Forum(EAF)" in Seoul in 2003. The establishment of CEAC was called for by 10 Think-Tanks,
such as the Japan Forum on International Relations (JFIR) and The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA),
and 30 scholars such as TANAKA Akihiko, Professor of the University of Tokyo and YOSHITOMI Masaru, President &Chief Research Officer of the Research Institute of Economy, Trade & Industry. CEAC consists of representatives fromwide-ranging fields in Japan who are interested in the concept of an "East Asian Community," including those who
represent businesses corporations, such as Nippon Steel Corporation and Toyota Motor Corporation, and government
agencies, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economy, Trade andIndustry. Growing momentum for East Asian Community has finally come to take root in Japan whose attitude
towards the issue tended to be passive until recently.
[Organization]
As an all-Japan intellectual platform covering business, government, and academic leaders, CEAC aims at thestrengthening of intellectual collaboration, the building of intellectual foundation, and the sharing of strategic ideas
among them. The membership of CEAC consists of 13 think-tank members, 92 individual members and 14 corporate
members as of today. CEAC elected NAKASONE Yasuhiro, former Prime Minister of Japan, as Chairman, and ITO
Kenichi, President of JFIR, as President at its Founding Meeting. CEAC is governed by its "Managing Plenary
Meeting" and "Meeting of President and vice-Presidents." The "Policy Plenary Meeting," which is attended by themembers of CEAC, conducts policy-debate among its members, and produce policy recommendations as occasions
demand.
[Activities]
The activities of CEAC consist of the following four pillars: (1) the Policy Plenary Meeting, (2) the Research and Study,(3) the Website, and (4) the International Exchange. (1) The "Policy Plenary Meeting" is a forum where the members of
CEAC are assembled to promote policy debate. They met eight times in their first year of activities and adopted a policy
report entitled "The State of the Concept of East Asian Community and Japan's Strategic Response thereto." (2) The"Research and Study," mobilizing scholars of Japan, Asia and the US, organized an international research workshop
under the topic of "East Asian Community and Regional Governance in East Asia" in June 2006. (3) The "Website" isan online network both in Japanese and in English for the purpose of publicity and enlightenment both within andbeyond Japan and is accessible at http://www.ceac.jp/. (4) The "International Exchange" is a series of programs, which
includes the holding in Tokyo of not only "Dialogues on an East Asian Community" with Korea in April 2005, ASEAN
in June 2005 and US and Asia in June 2006, but the 3rd NEAT Annual Conference in August 2005. It also dispatches
its members to conferences held abroad including the NEAT Annual Conferences in Bangkok in 2004, Kuala Lumpur in
2006, Singapore in 2007.

34

Membership List of The Council on East Asian Community

As of April 1, 2008

[Corporate Members] (14 Members)

FURUKAWA Motohisa Member of the House of Representatives

ARAKI Hiroshi

Advisor, Tokyo Electric Power Co., Ltd.

HAKAMADA Shigeki

Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University

CHO Fujio

Chairman, Toyota Motor Corp.

HARUNA Mikio

Special Correspondent, Kyodo NewsHATTORI Yasuo

Vice Chairman, Seiko Epson Corp.

HATA Tsutomu

Member of the House of Representatives

IMAI Takashi

Honorary Chairman, Nippon Steel Corp.

HATTORI Kenji

Professor, Aichi University

INOUE Akiyoshi

President, Sanyu Appraisal Corp.

HAYASHI Yoshimasa

Member of the House of Councillors

ITO Yoshiro

President, Itogumi Co., Ltd.

HIRABAYASHI Hiroshi Counselor, The Japan Forum on

MAKIHARA Minoru

Senior Corporate Advisor, Mitsubishi Corp.

MIYAMOTO Keishi

Representative, Arigatou Foundation

HIRANUMA Takeo

Member of the House of Representatives

MIYAUCHI Yoshihiko

Chairman & CEO, ORIX Corp.

International Relations
HIRONAKA Wakako

Member of the House of Councillors

NAKAMURA Kimikazu President, Sankyu Inc.

HIRONO Ryokichi

Professor Emeritus, Seikei University

NARITA Yutaka

Principal Advisor, Dentsu Inc.

HONMA Masayoshi

Professor, the University of Tokyo

OKA Motoyuki

Chairman, Sumitomo Corp.

HONNA Jun

Associate Professor, Ritsumeikan

TATEISI Nobuo

Executive Advisor, OMRON Corp.

UESHIMA Shigeji

Advisor, Mitsui & Co., Ltd.

HOSOKAWA Daisuke

Osaka University of Economics

University
ICHIKAWA Isao

GYOHTEN Toyoo

President, Institute for International

IGUCHI Yasushi

Professor, Kwansei Gakuin University

Monetary Affairs

INOGUCHI Takashi

Professor, Chuo University

IOKIBE Makoto

HATAKEYAMA Noboru Chairman and CEO, Japan Economic

ITO Motoshige
KURODA Makoto
NAITOH Masahisa

President and CEO, the Japan Forum on

ISHIGAKI YasujiProfessor, Tokai University Law School

International Relations, Inc.

ITO Takatoshi

Professor, the University of Tokyo

President, National Institute for Research

IWABUCHI Koichi

Associate Professor, Waseda University

Advancement

JIMBO Ken

Associate Professor, Keio University

President, Center for Information on

KAKIZAWA Koji

Former Foreign Minister of Japan

Security Trade Control

KAWAI Masahiro

Dean, Asian Development Bank Institute

Chairman & CEO, the Institute of Energy

KAWASHIMA Shin

OKAWARA Yoshio
SATOH Yukio

President, Research Institute for Peace and

KAWATO Akio

General Manager, Japan-World Trends

Security

KIMURA Fukunari

Professor, Keio University

President, Institute for International Policy

KINOSHITA Toshihiko Professor, Waseda University

Studies

KOKUBUN Ryosei

President, The Japan Institute of

KONDO Masanori

International Affairs
TAKAGI Yuki

YAMAMOTO Tadashi
YOSHIDA Susumu

Professor, Keio University
Associate Professor, International Christian
University

Governor, Agriculture, Forestry and

MANO Teruhikofisheries finance Corporation
TERADA Haruhiko

Associate Professor, the University ofTokyo

Economics, JapanNISHIHARA Masashi

President, the National Defense Academy ofJapan

Foundation
ITO Kenichi

Executive Advisor for Financial Affairs,
Keio University[Think-tank Members] (13 Members)Professor under special assignment,
Seigakuin University

Deputy President, Japan Center for

MARUKAWA Tomoo

Professor, the University of Tokyo

International Finance

MATAEBARA Yutaka

Editor-In Chief& Managing Editor, The Japan

Exchange

MATSUDA Iwao

Member of the House of Councillors

Chairman of the Board of Trustees,

MIYAGI Taizo

Associate Professor, National Graduate

President, Japan Center for International

Times

Economic Research Institute for Northeast

Institute for Policy Studies

Asia

MORIMOTO Satoshi

Professor, Takushoku University

MURAKAMI Masayasu Acting Executive Director, The Japan[Individual Members] (92 Members)

Forum on International Relations, Inc.

AKIYAMA Masahiro

Chairman, Ocean Policy Research

MURASE Tetsuji

Foundation

NAKAI Yoshifumi

Professor, Gakushuin University

AMAKO Satoshi

Professor, Waseda University

NAKASONE Yasuhiro

former Prime Minister of Japan

FUKAGAWA Yukiko

Professor, Waseda University

NAKATANI Kazuhiro

Professor, the University of Tokyo

FUKUSHIMA Akiko

Director of Policy Studies and Senior

NARITA Hironari

Professor, Ohkagakuen University

Fellow, National Institute for Research

OBA Mie

Advancement
FUNADA Hajime

Professor, Kyoto University

Associate Professor, Tokyo University of
Science

Member of the House of Representatives

OE Shinobu

35

Editorial Writer, The Yomiuri Shimbun

OGASAWARA Takayuki Professor, Yamanashi Gakuin University[Planning Committee]

OGAWA Eiji

Professor, Hitotsubashi University

Chairman

KAKIZAWA Koji

Individual Member, CEAC

OKABE Naoaki

Editorial Page Editor, Nihon Keizai Shimbun

Member

HIRONO Ryokichi

Individual Member, CEAC

OKAMOTO Yumiko

Professor, Doshisha University

MemberMURAKAMI Masayasu Individual Member, CEAC

OKONOGI Masao

Professor, Keio University

Member

SHINDO Eiichi

Individual Member, CEAC

SAKAKIBARA Eisuke

Professor, Keio University

MemberYOSHIDA Haruki

Individual Member, CEAC

SAKURADA Jun

Associate Professor, Toyo Gakuen University

SATO Koichi

Professor, J.F. Oberlin University

SHIMADA Haruo

Professor, Keio University

SHIMIZU Kazushi

Professor, Kyushu University

SHINDO Eiichi

Professor Emeritus, Tsukuba University

SHIOZAKI Yasuhisa

Member of the House of Representatives

SHIRAI Sayuri

Professor, Keio University

SHIRAISHI Masaya

Professor, Waseda University

SHIRAISHI Saya

Professor, the University of TokyoSHIRAISHI Takashi

Vice President, National Graduate Institutefor Policy Studies

SHUTO Motoko

Professor, Tsukuba University

SOEYA Yoshihide

Professor, Keio University

SONODA Shigeto

Professor, Waseda University

SUGIUCHI Naotoshi

Former Ambassador to Romania

SUZUKI Keisuke

Member of the House of Representatives

TAJIMA Takashi

Visiting Professor, Toyo Eiwa University

TAKAHARA Akio

Professor, the University of Tokyo

TAKEISHI Reiji

Professor, Tokyo International University

TAKESADA Hideshi

Professor, National Institute for Defense

TAKEUCHI Sawako

Professor, Kyoto University / Special

Studies
Advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TAKITA Kenji

Professor, Chuo University

TAKUBO Tadae

Visiting Professor, Kyorin University

TAMURA Jiro

Professor, Keio University

TANAKA Akihiko

Professor, the University of TokyoTANAKA Hitoshi

Senior Fellow, Japan Center for International
Exchange

TERADA Takashi

Associate Professor, Organization for AsianStudies, Waseda University

TOMIYAMA Yasushi

Editorial Writer Jiji Press

TRAN Van Tho

Professor, Waseda University

URATA Shujiro

Professor, Waseda University

WAKISAKA Noriyuki

Editorial Writer, Asahi Shimbun

WATANABE Toshio

President, Takushoku University

WATANABE Yorizumi

Professor, Keio University

YAMAKAGE Susumu

Professor, the University of Tokyo

YAMASHITA Eiji

Professor, Osaka City University

YAMAZAWA Ippei

Professor Emeritus, Hitotsubashi University

YANAGIMOTO Takuji Member of the House of Representatives
YASUE Noriko
YOSHIDA Haruki

Professor, Ritsumeikan University
President, The Yoshida Labo for Economics
and Industry, Inc.

YOSHITOMI Masaru

President

&

Chief

Research

Officer,

Research Institute of Economy, Trade &Industry36

Acknowledgement

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Council on East Asian Community (CEAC) is gratefulto its “Corporate Members” listed below for their generous
contributions. Their support is making the activities of theForum financially sustainable.

[Corporate Members]
Arigatou Foundation
Dentsu Inc.
Itogumi Co., Ltd.
Mitsubishi Corp.
Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
Nippon Steel Corp.
OMRON Corp.
ORIX Corp.
Sankyu Inc.
Sanyu Appraisal Corp.
Seiko Epson Corp.
Sumitomo Corp.
The Tokyo Electric Power Co., Ltd.
Toyota Motor Corp.

(In Alphabetical Order)37

3. An Introduction to The Pacific Forum CSIS
Based in Honolulu, Hawaii, The Pacific Forum CSIS operates as the autonomous Asia‐Pacific arm of theCenter for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. founded in 1975, the thrust of theForumʹs work is to help develop cooperative policies in the Asia‐Pacific region through debate andanalyses undertaken with the regionʹs leaders in the academic, government, and corporate arenas. The
Forumʹs programs encompass current and emerging issues in political, security, economic/business,and oceans policy issues. It collaborates with a network of more than 30 research institutes around thePacific Rim, drawing on Asian perspectives and disseminating its projectsʹ findings andrecommendations to opinion leaders, governments, and publics throughout the region.
An international Board of Governors guides the Pacific Forumʹs work; it is chaired by Brent Scowcroft,former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Forum is funded by grants fromfoundations, corporations, individuals, and governments, the latter providing a small percentage of theforumʹs $1.2 million annual budget. The forumʹs studies are objective and nonpartisan and it does notengage in classified or proprietary work.
The Pacific Forum staff is dedicated to playing an active role in fostering understanding of the
Asia‐Pacific region in Hawaii, as well as in the broader international community. To this end, theForum’s senior staff has participated in public speaking engagements for many community
organizations and is regularly involved in media interviews and discussions both in the U.S. andabroad. In addition, The Pacific Forum enjoys collaborating with the Japan‐America Society of Hawaii,
the Pacific and Asian Affairs Council, the East‐West Center, and the Asia Pacific Center for Security
Studies, as well as with local educational institutions such as the University of Hawaii, Hawaii Pacific
University, and Brigham Young Hawaii.
The Pacific Forum has various programs and projects such as Council for Security Cooperation in the
Asia Pacific (CSCAP). CSCAP was founded in 1993 by Pacific Forum and nine other institutes as thefirst region‐wide forum to foster multilateral security dialogue. Other founding institutes are based inAustralia, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.
Additional member committees include Brunei, Cambodia, China, India, Mongolia, New Zealand,
North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Vietnam, and the European Union. Taiwan scholars also
participate, increasing CSCAP’s inclusivity. CSCAP members seek to enhance regional security andstability through dialogue, consultations, and cooperation on concrete policy issues and problems of
mutual concern. CSCAP’s research and analyses support and complement the efforts of regional
governments and official multilateral dialogue mechanisms.
In addition to the weekly PacNet and the quarterly Comparative Connections journal, The Pacific Forumalso publishes the Issues & Insights series, which consists of in‐depth analyses authored by Pacific
Forum staff, senior associates, and outside scholars, including participants at various Pacific Forum
conferences and workshops. These are available free of charge from the Forum as well as on‐line. The
Forum also publishes its research in the CSIS Significant Issues Series and in The Washington Quarterly,
New Asia, and other journals both in the U.S. and abroad. Pacific Forum’s experts regularly contributecommentary and editorials to major regional publications such as the International Herald Tribune, The
Japan Times, The Korea Times, The South China Morning Post, and The Asia Times OnLine, among others.

Copy Inhibit
38

GF-Ⅲ-E-B-0040

The Global Forum of Japan (GFJ)
17-12-1301, Akasaka 2-chome Minato-ku, Tokyo, 107-0052, Japan[Tel] +81-3-3584-2193 [Fax] +81-3-3505-4406[E-mail] gfj@gfj.jp [URL] http://www.gfj.jp/