(Draft Only)
ASEAN-JAPAN CONTEMPORARY RELATIONS:
From Selective Engagement to Comprehensive Japanese InvolvementWith Focus on the Dynamics and Prospective Interface
By
Sylvano D. Mahiwo, Ph.D.
I. INTRODUCTION
This research is on contemporary ASEAN-Japan relations with focus on
the comprehensive dynamics and prospects of the interface. The emergence of
new concepts and evolving factors and processes that are shaped by thedomestic and regional and or global environments of Japan and the ASEAN asinter-relating players in Asia and in the world have ushered in somecomplexities that need to be understood and analyzed in order to grasp theevolving relationships.
The main interest of the study is to theoretically identify the loci and theevolution dynamics of contemporary interface between the ASEAN and Japan.
The presentation and the analysis involve a multi-disciplinal approach that is not
limited to one academic discipline in order to capture a comprehensive view of
the relationships. In the realm of international relations, this research attempts
to present an interface map of ASEAN and Japan, which could be used togenerally clarify the location of interaction components, process dynamics,
transitional phases, and the linkages between local and global elements in therelationships. This paper is an attempt to conduct a comprehensive theoreticalnavigation of contemporary ASEAN-Japan relations.

The changing pattern and manner of ASEAN-Japan interactions occur inaccordance with the principle that foreign affairs (foreign diplomacy and foreigninteractions) are the extensions of domestic affairs. The form, contents anddynamics of relations between the ASEAN and Japan have been the outcome of
the interplays between and among the various factors, events and changes within
and outside the two interacting entities in the economic, political, security, andsocio-cultural fields. The theoretical framework from which the discussion
proceeds will be in consideration of the evolving and expanding ASEAN-Japan
interface considering the distinct regional and global relations or international
relations environment of both ASEAN and Japan. The Metanation stateinterface will be adapted to illustrate the comprehensive and transforming
character of ASEAN-Japan contemporary relations.
Japanese foreign relations evolution and dynamics could be seen in thenation’s involvement and participation in Asian affairs, specifically with theASEAN region as a single and collective entity. Japanese interaction with theASEAN in the last four decades saw a clear transition from selective
engagement to comprehensive involvement.
The stance and involvement of postwar Japan in Asia, and in theSoutheast Asian region in particular have graduated from passive to a more
active position following the era of concentrated economic advancement in theregion. Along this line of evolving pattern, the governments and policy leaders
in both sides of the equation began to realize the emergence of deliberate andnaturally occurring widening of the limited and selective engagements thatstarted with earlier economic interactions to include the political, security, social,and cultural engagements. Thus, the channels of interaction are a mix of stateand non-state actors and players.
Regarding the ASEAN response to Japanese overtures, there is also a
gradually emerging reciprocity from Japan’s counterpart countries and entities.
The Asian neighbors in general, and the ASEAN member countries in particular,
have graduated from mere venues of economic playing grounds and foreign
investments receptacles for former Western colonizers, and for the so-calledadvanced nations including Japan. Since the 1960s, the ASEAN embarked on
the long and winding road to regional integration even as the member countries
are faced with domestic and intra-regional economic, political and social
developmental disparities in varying degrees. The ASEAN individually andcollectively currently adapt a more pragmatic and realistic acceptance of theeffects of globalization and the roles of regional and global partnerships with
Asian and Western powers. This pragmatic acceptance of outside partnerships isfurther developing with ASEAN’s conditional and heightened expectations fromthe more economically powerful and technologically/industrially-advanced
countries like Japan to play and fill in the gap in the field not only of economic
development, but in the area of comprehensive regional and global social andhuman security. Recently, this posture become more evident in the face of
threats from natural and human-made phenomena like environmental problems,
natural disasters, health, and terrorism. It is important to note that institutionally,
the responses of ASEAN to external developments has also been expanding or
being elevated on a higher scale.

The patterns and manner of reactions of ASEAN, in its individual
member countries positions and in its collective nature as a regional bloc andinteracting regional entity, vis-à-vis Japan’s evolving approach towards theregion, will be the subject of a separate study.

II. IN THE MIDST OF THE META-NATION STATE RELATIONSBefore further discussing the stages, the dynamics, and the expanded evolutionof ASEAN – Japanese interface, I would like to introduce the theoretical and practicalframework upon which the discussion could be premised. This is the Metanation state
relation (Mahiwo).
In brief, the Meta-nation state relations concept, postulates that inter-nation state
relation has been evolving and shifting from the conventional mono-channel mode of
exchanges and interchange to a multi-strata, multi-channeled structure and mode ofinterflow between and among nation states. It views interactions in a multi-level andmulti-dimensional broad prism that encompasses the components within and outside thenation state. The scope of conceptual subjects and objects in inter-state relations isfurther expanded from the traditional nation state-dominated channel and mode of interrelations, which has been the main and core of international exchanges. The Metanation
state concept still retains the nation state as the core and central foundation ofinternational relations from which most if not all sub-interactions radiate. The concept
gives the appropriate emphasis on the roles and importance of components and interface
at the secondary and sub-level loci within and outside the nation state.

In terms of structure, the Metanation state concept model comprises of thenation state strata, which are categorized into three levels: (A). the nation state level(core or principal stratum), (B). the intra-nation state level (sub-nation state stratum),and (C). the extra-nation state level (nation state peripheral stratum). These three basic
strata are the levels and or channels where all forms of exchanges particularly nation
state players cross-interact regardless of stratum location of players. The directions andcorrespondence of the levels or strata could be in variable or flexible matching andcombinations. Thus, the basic variations of the strata or levels of international andglobal relations and interactions can as follows in any order: (1). Nation state-to-nation
state strata of interactions, (2). Nation state to intra-nation state strata of interactions, (3).
Nation state to extra-nation state strata of interactions, (4). Intra-nation state to intranation state strata of interactions, (5). Intra-nation state to extra-nation state strata ofinteractions, and (6). Extra- nation state to extra-nation state strata of interactions.
Based on the Meta-nation state model, the structure and the loci of relationships
and interactions extend below the nation state (sub-nation state) and beyond the nation
state (peripheral strata) exclusive jurisdiction. The model encompasses the flow
dynamics and directions of interactions in both state and non-state interface (players andchannels).
Moreover, the individual strata in the metanation state model are not limited totheir counterpart strata in the interacting partner country. The individual strata caninterchangeably crisscross any or all strata in the interface, e.g. state players can interact
with non-state players located at the state strata, intra-nation state strata, and the extranation state strata.

Through the prism of the Meta-nation state concept, contemporary ASEANJapan interactions can be observed and understood from wide-ranging depictions,angles and perspectives. Multilateral and bilateral relations are analyzed, as they emerge
in multi-level venue, in multi-player participation, and in multi-dimensional dynamics.
The Metanation state paradigm embraces comprehensively the economic,
political, security, cultural, and other dimensions of inter-relationships. Within andthrough this model all possible forms of interactions crisscross one another regardlessof level and categories.

The Metanation State Structure of Global Interaction Channels*******************************C===========================AC
A---------------------------------------------B
B

CCCCC

B BB

---------------------------------------------A============================C********************************
Fig. 1
Legend:(A)= Nation state strata (B) = Intra-nation state strata (C) = Extra-nation state strata

Fig. 1 is the Metanation state model, which illustrates the levels andchannels through which interface occur between and among entities in global
interactions:(1). Nation state = Nation state interface(2). Nation state = Intra-nation state interface(3). Nation state = Extra-nation state interface(4). Intra-nation state = Intra-nation state interface(5). Intra-nation state = Extra-nation state interface(6). Extra-nation state = Extra-nation state interface

A---------A
A---------B
A---------C
B---------B
B---------C
C---------C

The Metanation state paradigm could illustrate and reflect the global and local
nature of present day international relations. Being local and being global are notcontradictory phenomenon in the Metanation state interface as can be observed in the
ASEAN –Japan contemporary relations. Interactions between the two can be decided,
can be initiated, and can be implemented in the “town meeting level” or in“international or regional conferences”.
In the Metanation state paradigm, the ASEAN and Japan could be treated as
actors / players and as venues / environments of the ASEAN-Japan interface.

The Quadruple I of Bilateral, Regional and Global Relations
The contemporary ASEAN-Japan relations (bilateral, regional, multi-lateral) are
subjected to the phenomenon of regionalism and globalization. The phenomenon ischaracterized by the nature of interface, which can be described in the Quadruple I:
Intensifying, Inevitable, Inter-cultural, and IT-propelled. This simply means thatquantitatively, ASEAN-Japan interactions in the Metanation state type of relations arein the increasing directions, that by geographical and geopolitical destiny, therelationship is inevitable, that the expansion from mere interflow of raw material goods,
industrial products, money and finance, information and technology, ASEAN-Japaninterface involves the movement of natural persons and therefore brings about theinteractions in the human, social and cultural dimensions. Moreover, the present age of
information technology (IT) has pushed the ASEAN-Japan partnership interactions into
the IT highways and crossroads that span national and regional boundaries which
revolutionalized the speed, the quantity, quality, contents, control, and directions of theinterflows in the relationships in almost every form and level.
The author attempts to navigate contemporary ASEAN-Japan interface in thelight of the Metanation state paradigm in juxtaposition with the quadruple I
phenomenon of globalization.

III. EVOLVING ASEAN – JAPAN INTERFACE

The pre-occupation in Japan and the Southeast Asian countries during theimmediate post-World War II years have been devoted to national reconstruction andneighborly reconciliation between the two entities. The Japanese one-track emphasis on
economic development in its relations with Asia resulted in the unintentional neglect ofother aspects of the relationship, i.e., political, cultural, and such dimensions that are notdirectly related to economic pursuits. The extent of this economically lop-sided relation
with Southeast Asia earned the label “economic animal” to describe Japan in its
involvement in the region. Moreover, the so-called “anti-Japanese” sentiments that weremanifested during the visit of Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka in the ASEAN
capitals in 1974 was attributed to the dominant economic thrust of Japan into the region
without showing interest in non-economic concerns in the relationships, although thereasons of the demonstrations that greeted the Japanese Prime Minister’s visit were notsolely anti-Japanese sentiments but were also attributed to domestic issues and internal
problems of the countries visited.
As a reflection on the part of Japan regarding its selective economic engagementin the region, non-economic ideas and concepts of pursuing diplomatic relations with
the ASEAN started to evolve.
In connection with transition, from the Japanese perspective, the approach
towards the ASEAN-Japan interaction has slowly changed from a passive or reactive
stance to an initiative-taking posture. Understandably, when the interaction involves the
mainly economic interplay, Japan has the upper hand and the relations are a one–way
traffic direction. In many cases, it was a directional flow from a developed
industrialized country to a developing country direction. However, some couple ofdecades later, some changes in the interactions started to show. At present, the conceptof partnership relations is emerging.
A. PHILOSOPHICAL & CONCEPTUAL DIMENSIONThis conceptual evolution, particularly from Japan’s side regarding its views of
the ASEAN-Japan relations could be traced to the not so distant past starting fromdomestic policy changes and foreign relations perspectives in Japan in the latter half ofthe 1970s. The offshoots of the event of the so-called anti-Japanese sentiments triggered
drastic changes in Japanese mode and perceptions of its relations towards the region.
Subsequently, Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda launched the “KOKORO TO KOKORONO FUREAI” (heart-to-heart-diplomacy) in 1977 also labeled as the Fukuda Doctrine
announced in his Manila speech. In terms of ideas regarding Japan’s security, which
includes Japanese foreign relationships Prime Minister, Masayoshi Ohira introduced the“SOGO ANZEN HOSHO” (Comprehensive Security Policy). This was an importantconceptual transformation of Japanese then selective engagement to a broader andcomprehensive involvement and initiatives in the region. Although not particularly
addressed to ASEAN-Japan relations, the comprehensive security concept, somedecades later, expanded and developed to include the mode and coverage of Japanese
foreign policy views towards the region to include non-economic relations. The
development and growth of Japanese foreign relations policy concepts could be
mirrored at present in the expanding and pro-active dynamics of Japanese involvement
in external affairs, not only in the ASEAN but also in the other Asian regions andbeyond.
The Japanese involvement in the area of peace and security in ASEAN has beenshown with the sending of the Japanese PKO in Cambodia in the 1990s. For the firsttime in postwar Japan, the Japanese Self-Defenses Forces contingent joined the PKO inforeign soil. This was a historic event in Japanese postwar foreign policy (Imagawa).
In other words, as new changes and developments are taking place,commensurate evolving responses in Japan in terms of policy coverage and policy
stance are emerging. Some of the major changes are the extension and graduation frompurely “SHIGEN GAIKOU” (natural resources diplomacy), dependence on economic
and investment relations to foreign policy concerns that involve non-material, noneconomic interactions. These can be seen in today’s Japanese human-oriented, sociocultural, and issue-focused forms of cooperation and policy interactions with ASEAN
and the outside world. The “BUNKATEKI / JINTEKI GAIKOU” has been emerging as
an expansion of the “BUSHITSUTEKI GAIKOU” in the arena of Japanese foreign
relations.

Deeply interrelated and intertwined with the cultural and human-oriented
interface in ASEAN-Japan relations is the aspect of creating the environment of trust(SHINRAI) relations and friendship between the interacting parties. This could not be
possible with emphasis only on the material interface (commercial goods, finance,technology, and business information interflows). The material-oriented relations
cannot replace the human-oriented relations. At best, depending on how they are
managed and directed, the two dimensions enhance and reinforce each other.
Also relevant to the conceptual dimension of ASEAN-Japan relations is thecultivation of the relationships in the context of what is called soft power diplomacy.
The idea of bringing and sharing development and peace in the world through nonmilitary but soft power influence is a potential ideal role for Japan. An example of this,among many, is the sharing of the ISSON IPPIN (one village one product concept) by
Morihiko Hiramatsu, former governor of Oita Prefecture. The pursuit of this kind of
sharing is seen as soft power diplomacy. As a Japan-initiated concept for development,
Hiramatsu visited Thailand, the Philippines, Mongolia and some African countries.
Definitely, these enhanced expanded and comprehensive relations between Japan andthe countries it interact with.
B. EXPANDING STRUCTURES & CHANNELS OF INTERFACEASEAN-Japan relations today have reached a stage as described in the Metanation
state relations wherein the structure of interface accommodates multiplicity of players(state and non-state actors, natural persons and juridical /collective entities, etc.). In the
Metanation state framework, from both sides, the players are the national government/sovereign instrumentalities at the state level interface (A-A level), the local

governments (LGUs) and instrumentalities at the sub-nation state level interface (B-B
level), the entities in the interactions at the extra-nation state interface (C-C level).
The non-state and non-government players (NGOs) and private entities involved in
the ASEAN-Japan interface are the MNCs, TNCs, interest groups and non-profit
organizations. They are formidable in their influence on state level policies regarding
the form and essence of interactions.
Relevant to the structure of the interface, the location of “influencing factors” incharting deliberate categories and types of relations and exchanges (trade, movementsof natural persons, etc.) could vary depending on the channel and actors involved. As
such, the so-called external pressures or “GAIATSU” that used to be the basis ofJapanese foreign relations in the not so distant past may have been transformed into
internal pressures or “NAIATSU” but still related to ASEAN factors. (For example inthe case of the negotiation of the Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement(JPEPA), the role of the Japan Nurses Association and the Philippine Nurses
Association regarding the negotiation and prospective implementation of the agreement
can be viewed as both NAIATSU or GAIATSU in influencing policy-making in bothcountries). Such is the dynamics in the Metanation state relations structure that could
apply in the ASEAN-Japan interactions. There is a confluence of the “GAIATSU”(external pressure) and the “NAITSU” (domestic pressure) factors to influence andaffect foreign policy making transformation and dynamic developments depending on
the strata involved. The interface structure accommodates certain change and adaptationin directions or patterns as the interactions interchangeably vary in intra-nation state
strata (NAIATSU) or from the extra-nation state strata (GAIATSU) levels or channels,
as the case may be.

The emergence of the multiplicity of players in the Metanation state interface
entails the multiplicity of partnerships in the multi-channel and multi-strata
relationships between ASEAN and Japan. New and innovative policy approach andnegotiation styles have to be evolved for mutual partnership benefits.

C. INSTITUTIONAL STABILIZATION & EXPANSIONIn the light of the evolution and transition of the ASEAN-Japan relations, the phaseof institutionalization of interactions is an important component. The regularity andstability of the inter-accommodation and growing cooperation between the ASEAN andJapan in various areas of interactions could be established as institutions emerge in theprocess. Through these institutions, there is clearer and predictable understanding about
the realties, issues, and prospects with regards to foreign policy theory and practice. The
four decades of ASEAN – Japan relations (1968 - 2008) can bear witness to policy
transformations from selective spheres of interactions economic-focused, trade, etc) tomore comprehensive and broadened integrated areas (to include the hitherto deliberately
subdued aspects like security cooperation, among others. Developments in the relations
occur because ad hoc strategies are minimized when institutions are involved.
It can be said that at present, Japan is manifesting an active and even pro-active
expanded view and posture in regional affairs as well as in international affairs. This isbecause of the strength of various institutionalized vessels of interactions.
The phase of institutionalization of ASEAN-JAPAN comprehensive interface wasinitiated in 1977 when Japan became one of the first Dialogue Partners of the ASEAN
in the regular consultations that are held during the ASEAN summits that provide avenue for consultation between the regional bloc and important powers in the in theworld like the US, then followed by China, India, South Korea, Australia and others.
In economic level of interactions, the establishment of the ASEAN-Japan Centre
in 1981, which has the primary goal to promote Trade, Investment, and Tourism
between the two entities, was a solid illustration of the institutionalization process. As
the economic interchanges between Japan and the ASEAN member countries arefounded strongly on the economic ties, this Centre plays and is playing a crucial role inthe comprehensive bilateral and multilateral economic relationships.
In the field of peace, security, and development relations, the most recent proactive Japanese institutionalized involvement regarding peace and security in ASEAN
was the participation of Japan’s Peace Keeping Operations (PKO) in Cambodia (1990s).
In Japan, a recent example of the evolution of selective and limited involvement to abroader institutional involvement is the elevation of the Japanese Self-Defense Forcesfrom just a government agency to a full-fledged ministry. This is a concrete institutional
development in the sphere of security policy as the Ministry of Defense now deals withthe dimension of national and regional security, which may involve both domestic andinternational roles.
In the area of human resources development and nation building, (Hitozukuri
relevant to Kunizukuri cooperation), Japan has so far conducted one of the mostintensive and extensive human exchange interface with the ASEAN in particular. The
Japanese have institutionalized educational and academic, science studies grants /scholarships

forforeignstudents

and

SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS),training andscholars(MONBUKAGAKUSHOupgrading skills program for foreign government personnel (JICA TRAINING
PROGRAMS), for private sector/industry-based training (AOTS TRAINING

PROGRAMS), for culture & the arts exchange programs (JAPAN FOUNDATIONCULTURE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS), and other types of human and personnel
exchanges. In most of these exchanges, especially until the early 1990s, the ASEAN
countries as a whole figure prominently. (Although recently, China shares a greater bulkof the exchanges). There are also exchange programs exclusively between ASEAN andJapan like Youth, Professional, Sector-specific, and or Issues- oriented exchange
programs).
The ASEAN COUNCIL OF JAPAN ALUMNI (ASCOJA / ASJA) is one of theunique institutionalized evidence in Human Resources Development (HRD diplomacy
and cooperation) between the ASEAN and Japan. To date, the ASCOJA is one of themost sustained alumni group in the ASEAN countries. The alumni associations offormer students or trainees in Japan are a solid indication of the institutionalization of
ASEAN-Japan relations in general, and of the human and personnel exchanges between
the two parties. The ASEAN JAPAN ALUMNI that comprise the ASCOJA are as
follows:
1. Brunei – Brunei Japan Alumni
2. Cambodia – Japan Alumni of Cambodia (JAC)
3. Indonesia- Perhimpunan Alumni Dari Jepang (PERSADA)
4. Malaysia- Japan Alumni Graduates Association of Malaysia (JAGAM)
5. Myanmar – Myanmar Association of Japan Alumni (MAJA)
6. The Philippines – Philippine Federation of Japan Alumni (PHILFEJA)
7. Singapore – Japan University Graduates Alumni of Singapore (JUGAS)

8. Thailand – Old Japan Students` Association. Thailand (OJSAT)
9. Vietnam – Japan Alumni of Vietnam (JAV)“ The foreign students are the treasures (TAKARA) for Japan”. This is how aJapanese high-ranking policy maker describes the importance of ASEAN alumni who
studied and obtained education in Japan. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say thatinvesting in exchanges of human persons is an investment for peace and security in the
future. The human exchanges can be sources of “CHINICHI” (Japan-knowledgeable
foreigners) and “SHINNICHI” (Japanophile and admirers of Japan). The humanexchange interaction between ASEAN and Japan is a long-term undertaking. But there
is no mistake that at the end, it is the greatest contributor to the building of humanbridge institutions (HITO NO KAKEHASHIZUKURI).

3. PEACE KEEPING OPERATIONS (PKO)
During the 1990s, specifically during the negotiations of the Cambodian
Peace, Japan for the first time showed its initiative and creative diplomacy in the region.
The first sending abroad and participation of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces Peace
Keeping Operations (PKO) contingent to Cambodia marked the postwar transformationof Japanese involvement in the region from the passive diplomacy to an active policy.
This transformation is a at the same time a show of Japanese confidence to chart
its own policy, more or less weaned from the influence of its allies like the US and theWest. Moreover, a contemporary Japanese relation with ASEAN precedes those of its
Asian powerful neighbors like China, South Korea and others. This is a clear
manifestation of the emerging confidence of Japan of its position in the ASEAN.

The involvement of Japan in security and peacekeeping can also be
institutionally relevant to the elevation of the former Self-Defense Agency to the
Ministry of Defense. The institutional presence in this sphere is greatly enhanced.

4. ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS (EPA)
In the economic and expanded field, the establishment of Economic Partnership
Agreements (EPA) with the ASEAN members individually and collectively in the
2000s indicates great institutional advancement. This comprise a “new stage” hasemerged in ASEAN-Japan interface. The EPA is very much distinguished from theearlier Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). First, on one hand, the FTA is focused on theflow of trade, the emphasis on trading of goods and commercial products and outputs
between the parties to the agreement. The EPA, on the other hand, is an expanded
version of FTA, which is a partnership agreement. Theoretically, a partnership entails amore balanced arrangement wherein mutuality in terms of responsibility / roles andbenefits from the agreement is the basis of the agreement. Secondly, one of the mostimportant distinguishing marks of EPA in most cases is the involvement and inclusionof the movement of natural persons across the national borders of the contracting
countries. Hence, the interface goes beyond the flow of mere raw materials, economic
goods, and finance. It involves human beings that are beyond economic commodities.
In ASEAN-Japan contemporary interface, the treatment of this dimension is extremely
critical and challenging in all levels of interactions.
The EPA has two levels: One is at the bilateral level between Japan and theindividual ASEAN member nations; and the other one in the All-ASEAN level referred
to as the Comprehensive Partnership (CP). The Economic partnerships agreements

(EPAs) are envisioned to enhance cooperation and further advance ASEAN-Japan
relations in the face of new changes and challenges. The EPA and the CP are important
emergent institutional developments in ASEAN-Japan contemporary relations.
In this connection, the expansion of the hitherto narrow economic relations toinclude other areas like politics, security, social and cultural relations, does not meanthat economic relations is replaced or reduced by other emerging interface. On thecontrary, the economic interface is being supported and strengthened by the otherinteractions.
It can be said that in the above-mentioned spheres, ASEAN-JAPAN relations has
been more advanced and developed quantitatively and qualitatively, compared to manyother comparable countries or regions with similar types of relationships because of thestabilized institutions which are the conduits of the interchanges.

IV. ISSUES AND PROSPECTS- Challenges and Opportunities
A. ASEAN-JAPAN Relations in its COMPLEMENTARY CHARACTER

Basically and generally, ASEAN and Japan relations is cemented by the commonly
share Asian or Oriental cultural heritage, although manifested in diversified ways. This
Asian heritage is a fundamental bind that is exclusive to the relationship.
Another complementariness in the ASEAN-Japan relations at this point in time andplace, is the phase of economic and industrial development stage in Japan and theASEAN are complementary as contrasted to the competitive nature of relations between
developed and industrialized societies or between developing and developing countries
wherein competition between inter-actors is the rule of the interplay. If thiscomplementary equation in ASEAN-Japan relations is appropriately handled, it can leadto further smooth partnership.
In terms of geopolitics and demography, compared with other relationships,
ASEAN-Japan contemporary relation in general is complementary. The young
population age of the ASEAN societies are in contrast to the aging population of Japan.
In this respect, any form of cooperation in “social engineering” can be an ideal interface,particularly in nation building and nation-maintenance, relevant to human and social
affairs.
In view of current situations characterized by the movement of natural persons
across national boundaries, the human resources development interface is an emergent
dimension inter-related with domestic economic, political and social conditions that
influence contemporary foreign relations and foreign policy directions of interacting
countries. It is evident that there is a link of the “loci” of the national interest to foreign
lands. With focus on human resources, the movement of natural persons that areprominent in human resources flow between the ASEAN and Japan are: seafarers,
technicians and IT engineers, health and medical service personnel, agricultural help,
and other industry personnel.
Considering the above conditionality, distinctively and uniquely, there is ameeting point of complementation in the area of human resources diplomacy between
the ASEAN and Japan. How the two sides could be bridged for mutual interest andbenefits is a shared responsibility and challenge to all the players in the humanresources flow of interaction.

B. ASEAN-JAPAN Relations in its ASYMMETRIC CHARACTERIn order to understand the prospective hurdles in ASEAN-Japan relations, it isimportant to factor in the gaps that are inherent in each side. This refers to the “cultural
givens” like language, traditions, values, and philosophical perceptions in the ASEAN
and in Japan. The “highly mono-ethnic tendency” in Japanese society when it interacts
with the multi-ethnic societies of Southeast Asia is a given that will remain a challenge
in the relationship that touches the political, economic, security, social, and individual
as well as organizational interaction.
The asymmetric characteristics are strong in the economic spheres of society, inthe wide gaps of living standards, the differences in political systems and democratic
maturity, and such other aspects of human individual life and in the national life of theinteracting nations.

C. ASEAN-JAPAN Relations: TOWARDS Metanationalism.
As the ASEAN-Japan relationship has evolved to new stages and planes ofinteractions, one of the challenges for both sides is how to give meaning to thepartnership. No doubt it is a complex undertaking. The will and the ability to face theMetanation state challenges and take advantage of the opportunities is part of theinteraction dynamics. The challenges entails the cultivation of a Metanation oriented
value, philosophy and approach in the interface in both the ASEAN societies andJapanese society.

Finally, it is hoped that the research would arose interest among ASEAN andJapanese policy makers, researchers, practitioners and institutions engaged in the studyof the interface to pursue further search along the following suggestions:
1. Philosophical Widening: From narrow nationalism to metanationalism
values and philosophical rethinking in both ASEAN and Japan;
2. Institutional Enlargement:

The improve and recondition present

institutional infrastructures to meet and respond to Metanation stateinterface challenges and changes;
3. InstitutionalizationofIntercultural(IBUNKA)

communication

andmanagement that will allow mutual enrichment of values and societies
without losing the distinct cultural identity (KUNIGARA) which is thereason of being in international relations.

SDM

SELECTED REFERENCE
1. Mahiwo, Sylvano D “Postwar Japan’s Human and Cultural Foreign Policy: A
Focus on ASEAN”, (Ph. D. Dissertation. The University of Tokyo. 1991).
2. “The Evolution of Japan’s Postwar Cultural Diplomacy: A Theoretical
Interpretation” in Asian Studies Journal, Asian Center, University of thePhilippines, Diliman, Q.C. Philippines. Pp. 21-45. Vol. 29, 1991.
3. Mahiwo, Sylvano D., “Sociocultural and Educational Exchanges and Labor
Migration”, pp. 87-141. In Evangelista, Oscar (Ed.), “Annotations of Selected
Works and Publications on Philippine-Japan Exchanges and Relations”, Philippine
Social Science Council, PSSC Center, Quezon City, 2006.
4. Mahiwo, Sylvano D. “Interface in the Meta-nation state Dynamics ofPhilippines & Japan” in Arnold M. Azurin and Sylvano D. Mahiwo, (Eds.),
Junctions between Filipinos and Japanese, Transborder Insights andReminiscences, Wika’atKultura, Inc. Quezon City, 2007.
(A book project funded by the Japan Foundation in celebration of the50th Anniversary of the Normalization of Diplomatic Ties between thePhilippines & Japan).
5. Mahiwo, Sylvano D., Translation, “KAMBODIA to NIPPON” (Cambodia
and Japan”, from Nihongo to English. (The book authored by Prof. andFormer Ambassador YUKIO IMAGAWA, a first hand account of Japan’s
participation in the Paris Treaty and the UN Peace Keeping Organization (PKO)in Cambodia. A Japan Foundation Translation Project) on final stage forpublication.
6. The Japan Institute of International Affairs, “Data on PKO”, Tokyo, 2008.
7. ASEAN-Japan Centre, “ASEAN-Japan Centre, Main Achievements &Future Directions”, Tokyo, July 2007.
8. -----------------------, “2007 ASEAN-Japan, Statistical Pocketbook, Tokyo, 2007”.
9. The Association for Overseas Technical Scholarships (AOTS), “AOTS Jigyo
Annai”, AOTS, Tokyo, 2007.
10. The Japan Foundation, “2006 Annual Report Yearend March 31, 2007”.

11. Interviews and Discussions:
Preliminary interviews were conducted with heads or in-charge ofinstitutions (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ASEAN-Japan Centre, Chambersof Commerce & Industry, JETRO, AOTS, Japan Foundation, ASEAN Japan
Alumni Associations, academicians and professors and practitioners,
incumbent and former diplomats, opinion makers, etc.) who are directly
and indirectly involved in ASEAN-Japan affairs, both Japanese and ASEAN
side experts on ASEAN-Japan relations.
Discussions and seminars have been conducted in joint undertakings
with members of the ASEAN COUNCIL OF JAPAN ALUMNI (ASCOJA)
and with the members of the Philippine Federation of Japan Alumni(PHILFEJA) regarding specific topics relevant to ASEAN and Japan.
All insights gained from the interviews and exchanges of ideas have beenvery useful and shall be further confirmed for more detailed discussion in the
study.

Acknowledgement
This research on “ASEAN-JAPAN CONTEMPORARY RELATIONS:
From Selective Engagement to Comprehensive Japanese InvolvementWith Focus on the Dynamics and Prospective Interface” has been made possible
through the grant from the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA). The author
wish to express his heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the JIIA Administrative Managers
in general for their kind support and cooperation; and in particular to Professor
TOMODA for his kind understanding in accepting me as his advisee, and for reallyguiding and encouraging me to pursue the research. I would like also to thank Ito-San
and Ishizuka-San for their valuable support and cooperation regarding researchadministrative matters that greatly enhanced the conduct of my research. I also thank all
JIIA researchers and staff for their warm hospitality while I was a JIIA fellow.
It is my intention to refine the research with the hope of publishing it in the
future.
Sylvano D. Mahiwo, PhD