ASEAN AND THE REGIONAL DYNAMIC OF NORTHEAST ASIA

FINAL PAPER

Regionalism in Northeast Asia:

Realists View on Regionalism in the Accession of China, Japan,
and South Korea to ASEAN+3

Erika
0706291243
International Relations Department
Academic Year 2009/2010

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA
2009

Page | 1
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background
Northeast Asia is a complex region. Despite the fact that it only contains four
member countries (People‟s Republic of China, Japan, North Korea, and South Korea), to
create a form of regionalism in Northeast Asia is indeed a difficult task. The reason why it is
so hard to bind all those countries together in a form of regional institution is because those
four countries still have too many differences that will hamper the regionalisation process
among them. Among those differences exist, the historical background and the differences in
each countries‟ political system are deemed to be the main issues that prevent Northeast
Asian countries to take further step in regionalisation process.
In his book titled “Northeast Asia‟s Stunted Regionalism: Bilateral Distrust in the
Shadow of Globalization”, Gilbert Rozman stated a few constraining factors to the emergence
of Northeast Asian regionalism.1 One of the factor is the modernization that happened among
them. The development instability that emerges as a consequence of modernization creates a
resistent of openness among Northeast Asian countries, while this openness is indeed crucial
to create a regionalism. Modernization and globalization increase the reluctancy of Northeast
Asian countries to open itself in an international arena. Therefore, the Northeast Asian
countries prefer to execute protectionism instead of to bind itself together in a form of
regional institution.
The second factor that hamper the emergence of regionalism in Northeast Asian
region is the historical background which creates abhorrence between two big countries in
Northeast Asia, Japan and China. The bad relations between Japan and China is started from
the World War II era, when the Japanese army attacked and killed Chinese people atrociously.
At that time, Hirohito who acted as Japan‟s leader, ordered Japanese army to strike and to
prevail China. The Japanese, at that time, called Chinese people as “Chancorro” (which

1
Gilbert Rozman, Northeast Asia’s Stunted Regionalism: Bilateral Distrust in the Shadow of Globalisation.
(United States: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Page | 2
means a contemptible race, much lower than human race), and because Japanese army
considered Chinese as a despicable creature, they acted like they get permission to assail
Chinese people viciously. Plundering, raping, murder, and much other criminal actions
occurred throughout China. All those actions had a common goal: to create the Emperor of
Japan in China.2 This bad historical background creates a hatred among Chinese people
towards Japanese. As we stated previously, bad historical background between China and
Japan is deemed to be the main constraining factor which hamper the regionalisation process
in Northeast Asia region. Without a reconciliation in China and Japan‟s relations, the
regionalism in Northeast Asia is still like a castle in the sky.
Another constraining factors that also hampers the creation of regionalism in
Northeast Asia region is the lack of willingness among Northeast Asian countries to negotiate
and to make a cooperation between and among them.3 This is proved by the small number of
cooperation that emerges among countries in Northeast Asia region; and if the cooperation
does exist, it always comes with the intervention of another countries outside Northeast Asian
countries. Furthermore, the cooperation that involved Northeast Asian countries oftenly be
terminated due to the the lack of intention among them. For example, Japan and South Korea
once had made a cooperation agreement, shown by the visit of South Korea President Kim
Dae Jung in Tokyo on October 1998.4 This appointment is in fact a good step towards
cooperation between Japan and South Korea. Yet after this appointment, both Japan and
South Korea had not made any further steps to maintain the relationship, so the negotiation
between them is then stalled. On the contrary, China and Japan had not made any significant
cooperation before.
Although there are many constraining factors in creating a regionalism in Northeast
Asia region, admitedly Northeast Asia is now moving towards the creation of regionalism
among them. This is proved by the willingness of China, Japan, and South Korea to join the
ASEAN+3. They have decided to sit together in a forum, leaving all the differences and
hatred behind, to create solutions as well as decision in a form of cooperation throughout

2
The writer gets this data from a movie titled “Horror in the East”, directed by Edward Herrmann.
3
Gilbert Rozman, loc.cit.
4
John Ravenhill, East Asian Regionalism, Much Ado About Nothing. (Canberra: Australian National University,
Department of International Relations, 2008), p. 22.
Page | 3
ASEAN+3. This paper will then try to analyze the reason behind China, Japan, and South
Korea‟s intention to join ASEAN+3 as a form of regionalism in Northeast Asia region.

1.2. Research Question

This paper will try to answer this specific question : Why China, Japan, and South
Korea join the ASEAN+3, based on Realist point of view in seeing the regionalism? To
answer this question, this paper will give a brief description about ASEAN+3 itself, and then
analyze the motive behind the enrollment of Japan, China, and South Korea in ASEAN+3.

1.3. Framework of Thinking

1.3.1. The Definition of Region

In a framework of International Politics and Economy theory, a region is not only
defined as countries who have the same geographic position, but also defined as how the
actors in international politics interpret the meaning of the region itself.5 While regions have
been typically defined as geographically proximate and interdependent states and regionalism
as attempts at formal coopera-tion between such states,6 it is evident that for many, these
definitions are today too narrow.7 For example some would argue, following Bruce Russett
and others, that geographical criteria are too limiting in an increasingly interdependent and
globalized world.8
Therefore, regionalism is not just about geographic concept, but also about a
dynamic process which include economic, politic, and social cultural matters.9. The region as
a social system implies ever widening trans-local relations, in which the constituent units are

5
Andrew Hurrell, “Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective”, in Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell (eds.),
Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995), p. 41.
6
Joseph Nye (ed.), International Regionalism. (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1968), p. xii.
7
Louise Fawcett, Regionalism in World Politics: Past and Present. http://www.garnet-eu.org/fileadmin/
documents/phd_school/6th_phd_school/Proffesors_papers/Fawcett1.pdf, accessed on Mei 7, 2009,08.38 PM.
8
Bruce M. Russett, International Regions and the International System: A Study in Political Ecology. (Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1967).
9
Yeo Lay Hwee, Realism and Reactive Regionalism: Where Is East Asian Regionalism Heading?
http://revistas.ucm.es/cps/16962206/articulos/UNIS0505230008A.pdf, accesed on Mei 7, 2009, 09.07 PM.
Page | 4
dependent on each other, as well as on the overall stability of the system.10 The region as
international society is characterized by norms and rules which increase the level of
predictability in the system. Regions can be ordered in the world system hierarchy. Three
structurally different types of regions can be distinguished: core regions, peripheral regions
and, between them, intermediate regions.11 The regions are distinguished, first, by their
relative degree of economic dynamism and, second, by their relative political stability, and
the dividing separating line may run through existing states. The borderlines are impermanent.
Rather, one could think of the hierarchical structure as consisting of zones which the regions
enter or leave depending on their economic position and political stability, as well as their
level of regionness. This means that the regions may be differently situated and defined at
different occasions, or at different times in world history. The level of regionness can
purposively be changed.12

1.3.2. The Definition of Regionalism

Regionalism in International Politics and Economy (IPE) is defined as the condition
by which group of nation-states, usually in the same geographical region, agree to cooperate
and share responsibility to achieve common goals.13 Regionalism itself takes as many forms
in IPE as there are possible shared goals among nation-states; for example there are regional
environmental agreements, regional economic development programs, regional scientific and
health regimes, and regional security arrangements. Regionalism is a logical response to
problems that are too big for one state to solve by itself or where the actions of one country
cause effects in another. 14 Ernst B. Haas defined regionalism as follows: „regional
cooperation is a vague term covering any interstate activity with less than universal
participation designed to meet commonly experienced need‟.15 Andrew Axline also asserted
that „regional cooperation can only be understood from the perspective of the national
10
Björn Hettne, Beyond the ‘New’ Regionalism. http://www.iei.liu.se/content/1/c4/36/46/autumn%
202005/h05%/20-%20NPE_Hettne_3.pdf, accessed on Mei 6, 2009, 08.45 AM.
11
Björn Hettne, loc.cit.
12
Ibid.
13
David N. Balaam and Michael Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy. (New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall, 2005), p. 242.
14
Ibid, p.243.
15
Ernst B. Haas, The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces (Stanford University Press,
1958), p.16.
Page | 5
interests of the individual member states, and that the politics of regional negotiations will
involve accommodating these interests for all partners‟.16
There are two kinds of regionalism, the old regionalism and the new regionalism.
The old regionalism, developed in 1930s, is a regionalisation process that engage countries in
the same geographic area which lead to the regional integration as its end goal. On the other
hand, the new regionalism, developed in 1990s, not only engage countries in the same
geographic position and does not aim to create a regional integration. 17. The new regionalism
was „open regionalism‟, which emphasized that the integration project should be
market-driven and outward-looking, should avoid high levels of protection and should form
part of the ongoing globalization and internationalization process of the world political
economy.18 Professor Björn Hettne from the University of Gothenburg defines the new
regionalism as a multidimensional process of regional integration which includes economic,
political, social, and cultural aspects.19 According to Hettne, regional integration is a package
rather than a single policy, whether concerned with economics or foreign policy. Another
difference with the old regionalism, according to Hettne, is that the new regionalism is
spontaneous and from below (firm, market, and consumer driven), whereas the old type was
imposed from above (bureaucratically flat driven) and was therefore more limited and more
20
prone to failure of the kind that grand designs invariably suffer. Finally, Caros Braga21
points to one key feature of the new regionalism: it underlines non-exclusivity, or more
accurately, inclusivity, as opposed to a regionalism which once used to be defines in terms
mainly of which barriers members of a regional group could erect to thwart non-members,
and how high there barriers were to be.
Regionalism and regionalization are two more different concepts, and much effort
16
W. Andrew Axline (ed.), “Cross-Regional Comparisons and The Theory of Regional Cooperation: Lessons
from Latin America, the Caribbean, South East Asia and the South Pacific”, in W. Andrew Axline (ed.), The
Political Economy of Regional Cooperation: Comparative Case Studies (Pinter,1994), p. 217.
17
Yeo Lay Hwee, loc.cit.
18
Kym Anderson & Richard Blackhurst (eds), Regional Integration and the Global Trading System (Harvester:
Wheatsheaf, 1993); Jaime de Melo & Arvind Panagariya (eds), New Dimensions in Regional Integration
(Cambridge University Press, 1993); and Vincent Cable & David Henderson (eds), Trade Blocs? The Future
of Regional Integration. (Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1994).
19
Björn Hettne and A. Inotai, “The New Regionalism Implications for Global Development and International
Security”, (Helsinki: UNU, 1994).
20
Robert Bouzas, Regionalism and the Global Economy, The Case of Latin America and the Caribbean,
(Netherlands: Forum on Debt and Development, 1995), p.13.
21
Carlos Braga, “The New Regionalism and Its Consequences”, World Bank (IED), (Washington DC, 1994).
Page | 6
has been devoted to the distinction between them. Regionalism refers to a tendency and a
political commitment to organize the world in terms of regions; more narrowly, the concept
refers to a specific regional project.22 In some definitions the actors behind this political
commitment are states; in other definitions the actors are not confined to states. According to
Anthony Payne and Andrew Gamble, „regionalism is a state-led or states-led project designed
to reorganize a particular regional space along defined economic and political lines‟.23

Andrew Hurrell said, regionalism could be used to tackle the bad effect of
globalization. The globalization itself, if not handled carefully, will damage the national
politic instrument. The growing globalisation, therefore, creates urgency to make a collective
arrangement, which will be implemented easily with countries that have a similar historical
background, culture and values, and similar political, security, and economy interest. 24
Therefore, the most important element in creating a regionalism is the similar identity
(history, culture, value), and the similar interest.

1.3.3. Realist View on Regionalism

Responding to the regionalism issue, Realism, as the oldest paradigm in
International Relations study, is rather skeptical in looking a regional cooperation. For Realist,
cooperation is not so important in managing relations between countries in the world,
therefore it tends to ignore cooperation in international relations. Although it tends to see
cooperation as something useless, that does not mean the Realist negates the probability of
creating regional cooperation in a form of regionalism. Realist argue, regionalism is likely to
happen if it is supported by certain motives of its member countries. Realist thinks that the
preference of a country to join a regionalism is depended on the position of that country in
the international distribution of power25, which then defines the motives of countries in
joining a regional cooperation. Realist also stresses the national interest factor, which defines

22
Björn Hettne, loc.cit.
23
Andrew Payne and Andrew Gamble, “Introduction: the Political Economy of Regionalism and World Order”,
in Andrew Gamble and Anthony Payne (eds.), Regionalism and World Order (Macmillan, 1996), p. 2.
24
Andrew Hurrell, loc.cit., p. 55-58.
25
Young Jong Choi and James A. Caporaso, “Comparative Regional Integration”, in Walter Carlsnaes et.all
(eds.), Handbook of International Relations, (London: Sage Publications, 2002), p. 486.
Page | 7
state activity in Realist‟s point of view. Although countries decide to cooperate in a form of
regionalism, that does not mean states join the regionalism whole-heartedly; there must be
certain motives that drive the willingness of countries to join regionalism, the motives that
are merely related to their national interest.
Realist view on regionalism is also presented by Joseph Grieco, with its voice
opportunity thesis. In this thesis, Grieco stated that countries tend to find ways to increase
their power in international arena by bonding theirselves together with other powerful
countries in a form of international institution and international policy. 26 With their
attachments in international institutions, countries are trying to increase their role, as well as
trying to reduce any possible obstacles that could harm their national interest. Realist also
believes that underlying power relationship are evident in a regionalism and that the more
powerful states gain more from regional institution than the less powerful. Although
regionalism gives smaller members access to larger members‟ market, the larger members
demand side payments in return.27

26
Ibid, p. 487.
27
Theodore H. Cohn. Global Political Economy, Theory and Practice. (New York: Pearson Education, 2008), p.
270.
Page | 8
 CHAPTER II
CONTENT

2.1. ASEAN+3 as a Starting Point to Create Regionalism in Northeast Asia Region

Unlike other Southeast Asian countries who intensely and voluntarily cooperate in a
form of ASEAN as a regional organization, Northeast Asian countries has so far never made
any significant regional institution. China, Japan, and South Korea seem to prefer joining
other organization made by other region, like what happened in APEC, ASEAN, ASEAN+3,
and so on. The latter form, ASEAN+3 is deemed to be the most potential organization to
create regionalism in Northeast Asia in the future.28
ASEAN+3 itself is a form of regional institution that is created as a reaction towards
Asian Crisis in 1997-1998. Many experts said, the 1997/8 Asian Crisis acted like a catalyst
for the recent enhancement of regional cooperation in Asia29, because this crisis created a
greater awareness of the region‟s shared interest and vulnerabilities. Both South and
Northeast Asian countries realized that they are indeed mutually dependent. The
interdependency among Southeast Asian and Northeast Asian countries then creates an
urgency to form a regional cooperation that binds them altogether. Asian Crisis makes East
Asian countries realized that they cannot rely completely on present organization existed,
East Asian should form a new organization to prevent another crisis that might happened in
the future.30
In reality, the cooperation between ASEAN countries and Northeast Asian countries
has started since 1997, when there is a meeting between 10 leaders of ASEAN with the
leaders of China, Japan, and South Korea in Manila, Philipphine. This meeting is called as
the Manila Framework. In Manila Framework, the three Northeast Asian countries show their
willingness to put aside any differences among them, to sit together and concentrate on
thinking the solution to overcome the crisis that happened at that time.

28
Yeo Lay Hwee, loc.cit.
29
Giovanni Capannelli, ASEAN Regionalism: How Does It Compare to Europe’s? http://www.eastasia
forum.org/2009/04/21/asian-regionalism-how-does-it-compare-to-europes/, accessed on May 7, 2009, 09.14
PM.
30
Stuart Harris, The Regional Response in Asia-Pacific and its Global Implications, paper presented on 3rd
Annual Conference di University of Warwick, September 16-18, 1999.
Page | 9
 Moreover, the Asian Crisis also reflects the failure of United States of America (US)
as a country that supposedly could guarantee the stability of international financial system.
The failure of International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help Asian countries in overcoming the
crisis creates a disappointment throughout Asian region. Due to the perceived inadequate
response by multilateral institutions, especially the IMF, Japan called for the creation of Asian
Monetary Fund, an institution to control and to supervise Asian monetary condition because
IMF is no longer fit for Asian countries.31 After a watering down of initial proposals, in 2000
the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI) established swap arrangements which would provide a
regional cushion to countries in a new crisis.32 The cooperation between South and Northeast
Asian countries in monetary and financial area is deemed to be the biggest progress in the
creation of ASEAN+3,33 which will boost further cooperation in other areas later.
In ASEAN 13th Annual Meeting in Singapore, the 13 countries (10 ASEAN
countries plus Japan, China, and South Korea) have agreed to identify many forms of
comprehensive partnership by creating four main agendas. First, politics and security
partnership, based on the need to maintain stability and peace to prevent terrorism in the
region. Second, economic and financial partnership. In trade and investment area, ASEAN+3
seek to implement the reduction and the elimination of tariff, which whill increase the trade
flow and investment throughout the region. Third, the partnership on energy, climate change
and sustainable development. Fourth, partnership on social cultural matters, and fifth,
mechanism of institutional support among ASEAN+3 members.
Most of Asian Pacific academist, like Drysdale, Elek and Soesastro stated that
cooperation between ASEAN countries and the three Northeast Asian countries is
implemented based on three basic principle: opennes, equality, and development. 34 The
principle of openness demands transparency and non-dicriminatory acts in any economic as
well as trade policy among ASEAN+3 members. On the other hand, the principle of equality
means that any activities must be put into practice to give mutual benefits to all of ASEAN+3

31
Naoko Munakata, Transforming East Asia, the Evolution of Regional Economic Integration. (Washington
D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2006), p. 102.
32
Richard Pomfret, Asian Regionalism: Threat to the WTO Based Trading System or Paper Tiger.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/309, accessed on May 7, 2009, 09.10 PM.
33
Naoko Munakata, op.cit., p. 106.
34
Yeo Lay Hwee, loc.cit.
Page | 10
members, by looking on economic and political structure of each country. Whilst, on the
principle of development, ASEAN+3 countries will develop gradually altogether to create an
economic partnership based on voluntary participation and consensus building. 35 The
partnership, moreover, will involve any forms of information exchange, policy dialogue,
regional liquidity arrangement, and decision making process in certain areas like the
coordination of exchange rate value.36

2.2. China, Japan, and South Korea’s Interest in Joining ASEAN+3

In previous section, this paper has explained the main background of China, Japan,
and South Korea to join ASEAN+3, which associated with the Asian Crisis that happened in
1997-1998. Nevertheless, irrefutably, China, Japan, and South Korea have their own motives.
This section will then explain the interest of each Northeast Asian countries in joining
ASEAN+3.

2.2.1. Japan’s Interest in Joining ASEAN+3

As for Japan, the main motives behind its membership in ASEAN+3 is particularly
to increase its own role in Southeast Asian region due to the increasing role of China as its
main enemy. The massive economic growth of China has emerged anxiety and fright in Japan,
Japan afraids this economic power of China will make China dominate Asia region, or even
worse, dominate the world. This has raised Japan‟s concern to revitalize its economy, to fight
China‟s economy in order to maintain its strong position in Southeast Asia region. Japan‟s
concern to revitalize its economy, as well as to increase its role in Southeast Asia region,
drives Japan to join ASEAN+3. By joining ASEAN+3, Japan thinks that China‟s action could
be controlled easily and its policy as well as its behavior could also be more easily to
predict.37
Japan realizes that it needs to be economically stronger if it is going to be able to
35
Peter Drysdale, et.all, “Open Regionalism: The Nature of Asia Pacific Integration,” in Peter Drysdale and
David Vines (eds.), Europe, East Asia and APEC. (Australia: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p.
105-106.
36
Masahiro Kawai, Regional Economic Integration and Cooperation in East Asia, paper presented on Experts‟
Seminar on the Impact and Coherence of OECD Country Policies on Asian Developing Economies on June
10-11, 2004, Paris.
37
Naoko Munakata, loc.cit., p. 13.
Page | 11
play a more important role in East Asia. The development of the North Korean nuclear
weapons program and the increase in Chinese defense expenditures—the transparency of
which is doubted—have placed Japan in a quandary. Japan is committed to the idea of
regional cooperation and community building as ASEAN+3 because it views it as a way to
overcome the challenges posed by China. In the meantime, despite the challenges it faces,
Japan is still the region‟s largest economy in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) and is
very important to the region in terms of trade, investment, finance, and technology.38 As long
as it gets its policies right, it will remain one of the most important members of the region.
Furthermore, another Japan‟s motives in joining ASEAN+3 is because Japan is
using its Asian production alliance in part as a platform from which to continue supplying
high-technology products to Western markets.39 So by joining ASEAN+3, Japan tries to
increase its power in the region by increasing role in the making of ASEAN+3 and also by
maintaining its economy power, and also it tries to preserve its economy production to
Western states by reckoning on its production in Asian markets.

2.2.2. China’s Interest In Joining ASEAN+3

On the other hand, China whose economy has grown rapidly, also has its own
consideration in joining ASEAN+3, which is to secure its international environment so that
China could focus more to develop its domestic economy. By joining ASEAN+3, China
expects to be more accepted by its neighbour countries. The possible attack from its
neighbours could then be prevented, thus China could concentrate more on developing its
domestic power, while also making a coalition with fellow neighbour countries in both
Southeast and Northeast Asia region to fight former superpower country, United States of
America.40
China also has the intention to preserve its power both in South and Northeast Asian
region. It has been commonly known that China has a big economy power. The rise of China
itself has been unprecedented in human history, as its economy has grown by 9.5 percent
38
Jusuf Wanandi, "East Asian Regionalism and Global Governance," in Jusuf Wanandi and Tadashi Yamamoto
(eds.), East Asia at a Crossroads. (Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, 2008), p. 19-37.
39
Walter Hatch and Kozo Yamamura, Asia in Japan’s Embrace: Building A Regional Production Alliance.
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 36.
40
Naoko Munakata, loc.cit., p.13.
Page | 12
annually for the last 25 years.41 Since 1978, China‟s GDP per capita has risen relative to that
of the world leader, the United States, in almost exactly the same way that Japan‟s rose
between 1950 and 1973, Taiwan‟s rose between 1958 and the late 1980s, and South Korea‟s
rose between 1962 and the early 1990s. China‟s real income per capita has increased by 300
percent over this period. For China, these are still the early days of the catching-up process.
So China need not to worry about its economy power, especially both in North and Southeast
Asia region in which all countries in it do not have as big economy power as China has. Yet,
if we talk about the political power, then it is a different matter. China‟s political power in
South and Northeast Asia region remains relatively low, comparing to Japan‟s. Since the
Asian Crisis, Japan has shown to be the leader of Asian countries, with its Asian Monetary
Fund proposal. Although that particular proposal has been rejected by US and by China itself,
Japan remains strong in these two regions. This condition then drives China to also try to
maintain its political power by joining ASEAN+3. China hopes, by joining ASEAN+3, it
could maintain its strong economy as well as political power in North and Southeast Asia
region.

2.2.3. South Korea’s Intention in Joining ASEAN+3

Whilst the interest of China and Japan to join ASEAN+3 is mainly about how to
fight and to prevent the emergence of threat from other countries, the third Northeast Asian
country, South Korea, have a little more different interest. As a country with less military
power and lower economy growth than its two other neighbours, the main interest of South
Korea to join ASEAN+3 is nonetheless to increase its bargaining position in international
arena. South Korea expects, its membership in ASEAN+3 will help it to have, at least, the
same position as other major powers—US, China, and Japan.42 By joining ASEAN+3, South
Korea wishes to participate more in its region economic growth, thus South Korea could (also)
be the major power in East Asia region. This is merely related to the argument that the
smaller countries wanted international recognition as mature trading partners, or as specially

41
Jusuf Wanandi, loc.cit.
42
Ibid, p. 14.
Page | 13
favoured in a „special relationship‟.43 This argument clearly defines the interest of South
Korea to join ASEAN+3. Along with this intention to have an increased bargaining position,
South Korea also expects to experience an increasing economy cooperation with other
ASEAN+3 countries, so that South Korea could also augment its economy capabilities.

2.4. The Analysis of Realist’s View on Regionalism in the Reason of China, Japan, and
South Korea in Joining ASEAN+3
Although China, Japan and South Korea have many differences and many
restraining factors that could decelerate regionalism in Northeast Asia region; China, Japan,
and South Korea remain to be able to overcome those differences to then be blended and
united in ASEAN+3. The growing modernization that happened throughout the region makes
Northeast Asian countries to close and to protect theirselves from the world. The bad
historical background between China and Japan as two major powers in Northeast Asia
region also makes many scholars think that regionalism in Northeast Asia region is unlikely
to happen. This is also be worsened by the lack of willingness among each of Northeast
Asian countries to cooperate with each other, due to the many differences within. But all of
those things are then changed after the Asian Crisis that hit and destroy the economy and
financial condition of China, Japan, and South Korea. The crisis that happened in 1997-1998
has increased awareness and understanding among China, Japan, and South Korea that the
time for cooperation has arrived; it is the time for them to put aside all the differences, to
combine power together to overcome the present crisis and to tackle the future crisis.
However, behind the motives to overcome the present crisis and to unite power
altogether; China, Japan, and South Korea each have its own agenda and motives in joining
ASEAN+3. Japan, for instance, agree to join ASEAN+3 to preclude China for predominating
regional and global economy. Admittedly, the increasing economy of China has created
awareness and anxiety in Japan, and to limit China‟s deed, Japan joins ASEN+3. This motive
of Japan in joining ASEAN+3 reflects the Realist view on Regionalism, that the preference of
a country to cooperate in regional institution is depended on the country‟s position in

43
Sheila Page, Regionalism Among Developing Countries. (London: Macmillan Press, 2000), p. 17.
Page | 14
international arena. Japan, in this case, has experienced that their position as the number one
power in Asia declines, along with the emergence of China as the new power not only in Asia,
but also in the world. Japan does not want its position in Asia being defeated by China,
therefore Japan joins ASEAN+3 and therefore, it agrees to invite China in ASEAN+3, so that
Japan could control and could predict China‟s behavior.
On the other hand, China, who experiences the increasing power in Asia, also shows
its willingness to join ASEAN+3. This is a bit perplexing, because without joining
ASEAN+3, China has been a big power in both North and Southeast Asia region. Moreover,
it also has a bad historical background with Japan. Yet that bad historical background is put
asided, China decides to join ASEAN+3 along with Japan and South Korea to fulfill its
national interest, which is to increase its domestic economy growth. By joining ASEAN+3,
China tries to build a good relations with ASEAN+3 members; so in the future, China does
not have to be afraid of threats coming from the neighbour countries, and therefore China
could concentrate more on its domestic development. China‟s motive of joining ASEAN+3
also reflects Realists‟ view of Regionalism, who sees Regionalism as a means to fulfill each
country‟s national interest, and who sees regionalism as a condition in which every members
still holds its own national interest as its main objective.
The motive of the third country, South Korea, also reflects Realist view on
Regionalism in looking ASEAN+3 phenomenon. South Korea‟s motives reflects the voice
opportunity thesis as mentioned previously in the framework of thinking section. By joining
ASEAN+3, South Korea tries to increase its bargaining position in the international arena.
South Korea realizes that it does not have as much power as Japan and China, therefore it
joins ASEAN+3 so that it could, at least, has the same bargaining position as other big
countries that also joins ASEAN+3.

Page | 15
 CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION

The case of why China, Japan, and South Korea unites in a regionalism in a form of
ASEAN+3 is indeed a unique case. While these three countries have countless differences
and bad relations to each other, they are willing to put aside their differences, to be united and
to cooperate in a form of ASEAN+3. The willingness of China, Japan, and South Korea
nonetheless could not be separated from each own country‟s intention to overcome the Asian
Crisis that happened at that time. All of the three countries realized that the present
international system is no longer fits their need, and that actually there are an
interdependence among them. This interdependence then drives these three countries to unite,
in order to solve the crisis and to prevent the future crisis together.
However, when China, Japan and South Korea decide to join the ASEAN+3, these
three countries actually have their own motives. The motives of China, Japan, and South
Korea to join ASEAN+3 reflects the view of Realist on regionalism. Although Realist tends
to be skeptical to cooperation, Realist sees regionalism as an instrument to obtain national
interest (like what happened with China‟s motive in joining ASEAN+3), as a way to prevent
and to control potential enemy (Japan‟s motive in joining ASEAN+3), and as an instrument
to increase bargaining position like stated in voice of opportunity thesis (South Korea‟s
motive in joining ASEAN+3). Therefore, the case of China, Japan, and South Korea‟s
enrollment in ASEAN+3 provides a good example to prove the fidelity of Realist view on
regionalism. The role of national interest element in predicting state‟s behavior, along with
the security dilemma that emerges from potential enemy, as well as the necessity to increase
bargaining position in international arena give a broader image to explain the reason why
China, Japan, and South Korea decide to develop a regionalism in a form of ASEAN+3.

Page | 16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reference from Book:

Rozman, Gilbert. 2004. Northeast Asia’s Stunted Regionalism: Bilateral Distrust in the
Shadow of Globalisation. United States: Cambridge University Press.
Ravenhill, John. 2008. East Asian Regionalism, Much Ado About Nothing. Canberra:
Australian National University, Department of International Relations.
Hurrell, Andrew. 1995. “Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective”, in Louise Fawcett and
Andrew Hurrell (eds.), Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and
International Order. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nye, Joseph (ed.). 1968. International Regionalism. Boston: Little Brown and Co.
Russett, Bruce M. 1967. International Regions and the International System: A Study in
Political Ecology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.
Balaam, David N., and Michael Veseth. 2005. Introduction to International Political
Economy. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haas, Ernst B. 1958. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces. Stanford
University Press.
Axline, W. Andrew (ed.). 1994. “Cross-Regional Comparisons and The Theory of Regional
Cooperation: Lessons from Latin America, the Caribbean, South East Asia and the South
Pacific”, in W. Andrew Axline (ed.), The Political Economy of Regional Cooperation:
Comparative Case Studies. Pinter Publication.
Anderson, Kym, and Richard Blackhurst (eds.). 1993. Regional Integration and the Global
Trading System. Harvester: Wheatsheaf.
de Melo, Jaime, and Arvind Panagariya (eds.). 1993. New Dimensions in Regional
Integration. Cambridge University Press.
Cable, Vincent, and David Henderson (eds.). 1994. Trade Blocs? The Future of Regional
Integration. Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Hettne, Björn, and A. Inotai. 1994. The New Regionalism Implications for Global
Development and International Security. Helsinki: UNU.
Bouzas, Robert. 1995. Regionalism and the Global Economy, The Case of Latin America and
the Caribbean. Netherlands: Forum on Debt and Development.
Page | 17
Braga, Carlos. 1994. “The New Regionalism and Its Consequences” in World Bank (IED).
Washington DC.
Payne, Andrew, and Andrew Gamble. 1996. “Introduction: the Political Economy of
Regionalism and World Order”, in Andrew Gamble and Anthony Payne (eds.),
Regionalism and World Order. Macmillan, 1996.
Choi, Young Jong, and James A. Caporaso. 2002. “Comparative Regional Integration”, in
Walter Carlsnaes et.all (eds.), Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage
Publications.
Cohn, Theodore H. 2008. Global Political Economy, Theory and Practice. New York:
Pearson Education.
Munakata, Naoko. 2006. Transforming East Asia, the Evolution of Regional Economic
Integration. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Drysdale, Peter, et.all. 1998. “Open Regionalism: The Nature of Asia Pacific Integration,” in
Peter Drysdale and David Vines (eds.), Europe, East Asia and APEC. Australia:
Cambridge University Press.
Wanandi, Jusuf. 2008. "East Asian Regionalism and Global Governance," in Jusuf Wanandi
and Tadashi Yamamoto (eds.), East Asia at a Crossroads. Tokyo: Japan Center for
International Exchange.
Hatch, Walter, and Kozo Yamamura. 1996. Asia in Japan’s Embrace: Building A Regional
Production Alliance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Page, Sheila. 2000. Regionalism Among Developing Countries. London: Macmillan Press,.

Reference from Journal:

Fawcett, Louise. Regionalism in World Politics: Past and Present.
http://www.garnet-eu.org/fileadmin/
documents/phd_school/6th_phd_school/Proffesors_papers/Fawcett1.pdf
Hwee, Yeo Lay. Realism and Reactive Regionalism: Where Is East Asian Regionalism
Heading? http://revistas.ucm.es/cps/16962206/articulos/UNIS0505230008A.pdf
Hettne, Björn. Beyond the ‘New’ Regionalism. http://www.iei.liu.se/content/1/c4/36/
46/autumn%202005/h05%/20-%20NPE_Hettne_3.pdf

Reference from Presentation Paper:

Harris, Stuart. 1999. The Regional Response in Asia-Pacific and its Global Implications,

Page | 18
 paper presented on 3rd Annual Conference di University of Warwick, September 16-18,
1999.
Kawai, Masahiro. Regional Economic Integration and Cooperation in East Asia, paper
presented on Experts‟ Seminar on the Impact and Coherence of OECD Country Policies
on Asian Developing Economies on June 10-11, 2004, Paris.

Reference from Internet:

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/04/21/asian-regionalism-how-does-it-compare-to-europe/
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/309

Page | 19