NEG-REALISM, NEO-LIBERALISM AND EAST ASIA REGIONALISM: THE CASE OF VIETNAM by MINVANPHAM A THESIS Presented to the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Individualized Program and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master ofArts June 2008 ii "Neo-realism, Neo-liberalism and East Asia Regionalism: The Case ofVietnam," a thesis prepared by Min Van Pham in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Individualized Program. This thesis has been approved and accepted by: Dr. Diane M. Dunlap, Chair of the Examining Committee Dr. Philip D. YO~g, Committee Member ~ \l.~ Dr. Katliie Carpenter, Cotrlllittee Member Date Committee in Charge: Dr. Diane M. Dunlap, Educational Leadership Dr. Philip D. Young, Anthropology Dr. Kathie Carpenter, International Studies Accepted by: Dean of the Graduate School 111 An Abstract of the Thesis of Min VanPham for the degree of Master ofArts in Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Individualized Program to be taken June 2008 Title: NEO-REALISM, NEO-LIBERALISM AND EAST ASIA REGIONALISM: THE CASE OF VIETNAM APProv~d::-··_-U .--------....-::).....-1..-------'.....' --------- Dr. Diane M. Dunlap, Chair Approved: --------..'---~'---.......__t_---~----- _ '\j)r. Philip D~Young Approved:~. ~~~~ ---\'""" .... -.............. r------v \. Dr. Kathie rarpenter East Asia regionalism emerged in the context of the end of the Cold War, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the outgrowth of regionalism in many parts of the world such as the unprecedented expansion of the European Union and the development IV ofthe North American Free Trade Agreement. It has been nearly two decades since its inception and almost every aspect of East Asian regionalism has been explored in depth with the exception of the application of theoretical explanations to East Asia regionalism. This paper is an attempt to apply international relations theories of neo-realism and neo- liberalism to East Asia regionalism. The paper has found that both neo-realism and neo- liberalism have found evidence in East Asia to support their assumptions about regionalism but neither has given fully appropriate explanations to East Asia regionalism. The case study ofVietnam' s regional cooperation is also supportive ofthat conclusion. In addition, the case ofVietnam indicates that concrete conditions of each country have played an important role in its incentives and participation into regionalism. The paper invites explanations for East Asia regionalism from other theories in international relations. CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Min Van Pham .PLACE OF BIRTH: Vietnam DATE OF BIRTH: December 04,1980 GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon College of Social Sciences and Humanities-Hanoi, Vietnam DEGREES AWARDED: Master of Arts, 2008, University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts, 2003, College of Social Sciences and Humanities-Hanoi AREAS OF SPECIAL INTERNEST: International Relations in East Asia PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Teaching Assistant, Department of International Studies, College of Social Sciences and Humanities-Hanoi, 2003-2006. Assistant, Office for International Cooperation, College of Social Sciences and Humanities-Hanoi, 2003-2006. AWARDS AND HONORS: Ford Foundation Fellowship 2006-2008 Toyota Foundation Scholarship 2000 v VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My special thanks to the distinguished faculty members who served on my committee: Professors Diane M. Dunlap (chair), Philip D. Young and Kathie Carpenter. As my advisor, Dr. Diane Dunlap has provided detailed guidance and assistance throughout my course of preparing and conducting the research. It was her belief that I would be able to finish the research strengthened me. I am grateful to Dr. Phillip Young for his valuable comments and suggestions which have significantly improved the quality of my paper. I am indebted to Dr. Kathie Carpenter for her willingness to serve on my committee, and her patient help and assistance have brought me from the beginning idea to the completed paper. Thanks to all my committee members for their support, patience, encouragement and precious comments and suggestions. My sincere thanks to Debra Otley, Assistant Dean ofthe Graduate School and Director of the Interdisciplinary Studies Program, for her continuous encouragement and her taking care ofmy study at the University of Oregon. I would also thank Professor Robert C. Proudfoot for his valuable assistance and his warm love to me during my first days at the University. I specially thank Wanda Kraybill, Loren Jutzi and their colleagues at the Center for Educational Exchange with Vietnam in both Philadelphia and Hanoi for their precious assistance and thoughtful arrangement for my study in the United States. My special thanks go to Dr. Hoang Khac Nam for his priceless time discussing the topic and his valuable materials for my research. His suggestions and long-running assistance made me confident to pursue my interest in East Asian international relations. Vll TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 Conditions Impelled East Asia Regionalism 3 Obstacles and Prospects for East Asia Regionalism 5 Complexity of Member Countries' Perspectives toward Regionalism 11 The Role of ASEAN in East Asia Regionalism........................ 12 Lessons from the European Union for East Asia........................................... 14 III. EAST ASIA AND REGIONALISM 17 The Concept of East Asia 17 Region and Regionalism 18 Defining Region 18 Regionalism and Its Varieties 23 Regionalism: Old and New........................................................................... 30 Old Regionalism 30 New Regionalism 32 III. NEO-REALISM, NEO-LIBERALISM AND EAST ASIA REGIONALISM 40 Neo-realism and East Asia Regionalism 41 Neo-liberalism and East Asia Regionalism 51 IV. VIETNAM AND EAST ASIA REGIONALISM 58 Vietnam's Participation in and Contributions to ASEAN Plus Three 59 Opportunities from ASEAN Plus Three for Vietnam 65 Challenges from ASEAN Plus Three to Vietnam 70 Some Recommendation for Vietnam in ASEAN Plus Three 76 V. CONCLUSION 83 APPENDIX: ABRREVIATIONS AND ACROMYMS 88 BIBLIOGRAPHy........ 90 1CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Regionalism, intergovernmental cooperation on a geographically limited basis, has gradually developed since the end of the Second World War. However, it was not until after the end of th-e Cold War that it began flourishing throughout the world. In this most recent wave, the world community has witnessed the process of transforming into regionalism of East Asian countries. This process of East Asian collaboration attracts much attention because East Asia possesses a commonly-known strategic position in the world agenda. East Asia intersects the vital national security and strategic interests of the world's most powerful nations: the United States, China; Russia arid Japan, and its development "bears a great potential to re-craft the shape of global relations which has so far been largely dominated by the United States" (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2005, para.1). As Bergsten points out, "East Asia countries are getting together to make their own economic arrangements. Therefore, for the first time in history, the world is becoming a three bloc configuration" (2000, p. 23); namely North America, European Union and East Asia. The strong growth of East Asia regionalism seems to have been accompanied by an implicit agreement on the tenn "East Asia" to refer to the region which includes the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, 2Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, and the three Northeast Asian countries of China, Japan and the Republic ofKorea (Korea henceforth). Due to its strategic position and emerging influence on the world stage, East Asia regionalism has invited much attention from the world community. Since its emergence in the early 1990s, the study of East Asia regionalism has inspired an extensive discussion in the academic community of international relations and has produced a rich store ofliterature. In general, the literature has so far focused on the following thematic issues: a) sets of conditions that impelled East Asia regionalism; b) obstacles and prospects for East Asia regionalism; c) the complexity of member countries' perspectives toward East Asia regionalism; d) the role of ASEAN in the process of East Asia regionalism; and e) comparative analysis, including lessons from European regionalism for East Asia. I will discuss each of these issues in greater depth in the sections that follow in this chapter. Nearly every aspect of East Asia regionalism has been explored and discussed thoroughly but there is one exception. There has been relatively little research focusing on the theoretical approaches to this matter. John Ravenhill has provided a very short and general application of theories to understand East Asia regionalism in his 2002 article: A Three Bloc World? The New East Asian Regionalism but the topic remains largely unexplored. Therefore, in this paper, I will further explore how theories of international relations can help to understand East Asia regionalism. In particular, I will examine how 3neo-realism and neo-liberalism, two recently dominant theories in intemational relations, can help to understand regionalism in East Asia. Conditions Impelled East Asia Regionalism Most efforts to understand the emergence of East Asia regionalism in the 1990s have concluded that three main forces have accelerated regionalism in East Asia; the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of Soviet Union, the increasing world globalization, and the Asian financial crisis in 1997. The East Asia regional order that remained during the time of the Cold War no longer existed after the closure of the Cold War and the dismantling of the Soviet Union. . . -.. - Ross has shown that "the end of the Cold War also ~estroyed the foundations, of the preexisting regional order and the foreign policies of every state in East Asia"; therefore, . -- . regional states and policy-makers have to pursue new policies in order to serve "their countries' respective interests and to maintain regional stability" (1995, p. xi). The second impetus for East Asia regionalism is the growth of globalization and other regional arrangements in the world. The expansion of the European Union (EU) and the emergence of the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA), coinciding with many other regional arrangements in the world, have pressed East Asian leaders for closer relations in order to balance "against the possible development of an exclusive bloc elsewhere" (Capie, 2003, p. 155). This pressure has been intensified by the European Union's continuous enlargement and the United States' efforts to expand NAFTA into a Free Trade Area of the Americas. Stubbs adds that "with a new round of World Trade 4Organization (WTO) negotiations now [2005] on track, the need for a strong East Asian voice becomes even more imperative" (2002, p. 446). The third factor that many have found decisive to the growth of East Asia regionalism was the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The crisis and its consequences have directly affected all governments in East Asia. More importantly, the crisis not only indicated the weakness of ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) . but also increased the "politics of resentment" (Higgott, 1998). ASEAN and APEC did not provide any effective help to deal with the crisis while the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United States actually worsened the sitmition (StUbbs, 2002, p. 448). - .. Regional countries believe that "the IMF's proposed measures of raising taxes and interest rates ... would aggravate economic problems and cause social umest" :.- . .' . .-. '. (Chongkittavorn, 1998, p. 45). The "politics Ofresentment" was exacerbated by the opposition of the United States, IMF and other Western governments to Japan's Asian Monetary Fund proposal at the peak of the crisis even though the proposal was welcomed by heavily affected Southeast Asian states (Lipsey, 2003, p. 96). As a result, the sense of "humiliation" after th~ crisis has motivated East Asian governments to develop their own· regional vehicle to cope with possible crises in the future. Apart from the above-mentioned impetuses, East Asian shared cultural identity and common issues of the region are often cited as another factor underpinning regionalism in this area. In its report, the East Asian Vision Group (EAVG) shows that East Asian shared" many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and 5values" that distinguish it as a "crucial region in the world" (EAVG, 2000, p. 2). Regional governments also share common concerns about many issues such as environment, human security, transnational crimes, refugees, immigrants and disease. These issues have become more pressing in the post-Cold War era, thus accelerating regional interdependence and cooperation (Liu & Regnier, 2003, p. xx). Obstacles and Prospects for East Asia Regionalism There is no doubt that the development of East Asia regionalism has been faced with many challenges. Among them, the rise of China, the great power rivalry in the region, the diversity in economic and political systems, strong nationalism in regional states and the dissatisfaction of the United States are paramount. Despite the debate concerning whether the rise of China is a threat or an opportunity for East Asia regional cooperation, many consider the rise of China as an obstacle to East Asia regionalism. The rise of China usually refers specifically to the rapid and sustained economic growth since China began to pursue its open-door policy in . the late 1J70s. The annual GDP growth of Ch!na during this time has been at 9%, the average growth in foreign trade was 15% and China attracted more foreign direct investment (FDI) than the United States in 2002 (Razak, 2006, p. 26). However, neighboring countries have suspected China's motives because it has "tried to use regional multilateral cooperation as an important way to pursue a 'favorable international environment' in neighboring areas to promote domestic constructions ... especially, after the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait crisis" (Zhang, 2006, p. 131). Although China has 6repeatedly asserted that it would be a "benign power" and has skillfully participated in regional forums and organizations, Capie contends that "China's sheer size, its proximity and its authoritarian character make it hard for it to dispel all these fears" (2003, p. 157) over the rest of the region, particularly Southeast Asia. The rise of China makes it a regional power at least on a parallel with Japan but unfortunately, the two regional great powers have long been rivals. Their rivalry may be "the most destabilizing factor to the peace and prosperity of East Asia" (Kang, 2006, p. 1). In comparing this tension with the Franco-German reconciliation in the late 1940s, Miller implies that the future of East Asia regionalism cannot even be imagined without reconciliation between China and Japan (2004, p. 12). Unfortunately, little historical interaction of China and Japan signals that Japan would accept subordination to China (Friedberg, 2000 and Razak, 2006). Although the tension between the two great powers has recently decreased partially due to their close bilateral economic ties, many scholars· still wonder how East Asia regionalism can keep going ahead in the face of the rise of China and its desire for hegemonic dominance in the region. Therefore, the China-Japan rivalry remains a huge difficulty in region-wide East Asia cooperation. Other challenges facing East Asia regionalism are the diversity of economic and political systems, strong nationalism, cultural identity, language and the like among regional states. Most of the literature addressing challenges to East Asia regionalism has focused on economic and political disparities and strong nationalism. East Asia includes different economic and political models. The majority of states in the region, according to 7Capie (2003, p. 157-158), maintain "some kind of illiberal government" that ranges from "planned economies to free-market city-states". Moreover, the distribution of economic power and political influence vary from one country to another within the region. For example, "the combined GDP [Gross Domestic Product] of three Northeast Asian economies [China, Japan and South Korea] totals more than thirteen times the GDP of the ten ASEAN states" (Capie, 2003, p. 157-158). Even putting economic and political .' disparities aside, East Asia tnustface the strong nationalism which intensified in the wake of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Stubbs (2002, p. 451) contends that in order to drive -" _. people's attention far away from "any of shortcomings in the domestic management of their economies", politicians have been willing to deliberately "employ nationalist rhetoric and contemplate reintroducing nationalist policies" which undermine regional cooperation. Additionally, many Asian leaders still recall the Japanese militarism and expansionism ofWorld War II. East Asian states remain suspicious and wary of Japan because "Japan has never formally acknowledged or apologized for the atrocities it committed against East Asian neighbors during the Pacific War" (Yip, 2001, p. 107). Evidently, strong nationalism remains an obstacle in the way of East Asia regionalism. Last but not least, the negative attitude of the United States is another challenge to East Asia regionalism. The United States has important interests in East Asia and holds two main concerns about East Asia regionalism. The first is that East Asia regionalism may replace or threaten the United 'States bilateral alliance system in the region. The other is whether this regionalism will be dominated by China, which would reduce the role of the United States in the region. The opposition of the United States can be 8illuminated dearly by two recent failures in East Asian regional efforts during the 1990s. The first was the proposal by the Malaysian Prime Minister to establish an East Asia Economic. Group (EAEG) including ASEAN members and China, Japan and South Korea. This initiative was regarded by the United States and others as an effort to gather regional countries into a group to counter other blocs in the world such as the European Union and North America. In spite of warm support from regional countries themselves, the opposition of the United States and its ally, Japan, forced Malaysia to recast EAEG into the East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC), which only provides consultancy on economic issues among regional countries. Despite the Malaysian adjustment, as Yip points out, "the continued suspicions and strong objection of the United States meant that the EAEC was for all intents and purposes a stillborn proposal" (2001, p. 107). The second failure was the death of Japan's proposalfor the Asian Monetary Fund (AMF) to deal with the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Once again, the United States objected to this proposal because its policies would undermine the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and especially, "it would mean a loss of influence [of the United States] over the developments in the region" (Yip, 2001, p. 108). In addition to these specific objections to EAEG and AMF, the United States is in general not supportive of the strong development of ASEAN plus Three cooperation which includes ten ASEAN member states and the three Northeast Asian countries of China, Japan and Korea. The United States considers APT a vehicle for China to gain influence in East Asia and enable an anti-US bloc in both economics and politics. 9Therefore, the United States may hold back the APT process by putting pressure on its regional allies such as Japan and Korea (Stubbs, 2002, p. 453). Based on the· above reasons, it is apparent that Washington's attitude to any proposals for East Asia regionalism will playa critical role in determining their successes and so far Washington's attitude has been a significant obstacle for East Asia regionalism. Despite these past failures and obstacles, which are not negligible, there are still many prospects for East Asia regio~alism.These prospects can be seen Pri~;rilyin the development of ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), the ASEAN plus Three and the Free Trade Agreements within East Asia. The ASEAN preferential trading agreement of 1977 did not have any impact on intra-ASEAN trade but in 1992 ASEAN's agreement to - - -, establish a free trade area has produced a great achievement. Yip points out that "intra- ASEAN trade doubled from $43.3 billion in 1993 to 86.3 billion in 1997" and despite the impact of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, "commitment to AFTA trade liberalization remained generally on track" (2001, p. 108). ASEAN continues to include many framework agreements to enhance regional cooperation in a variety of areas such as trade facilitation, transport and communication and e-commerce. Trade statistics further show that intra-ASEAN trade doubled from US$ 82.4 billion to US$159.5 during the period of 1993 to 2001 (Yong, 2004, para.6). In conclusion, Yip argues that the continuous development of AFTA continues to successfully "push regional cooperation beyond the efforts undertaken at the multilateral level" (2001, p. 108). 10 The birth and development of ASEAN plus Three (APT) is another source of optimism for East Asia regionalism. Started in 1997 and institutionalized in 1999, APT has greatly contributed to "strengthening and deepening East Asia cooperation at various levels and in various areas, particularly in economic, political, and other fields" (ASEAN, 2004, para.2). Further dev-elopment of APT was intensified by the birth of East Asia . Summits, two of which have been held in December 2005 and January 2007. Under the APT process, there have been 48 mechanisms that co-ordinate 16 areas of APT cooperation such economic, political and security, monetary, finance, agriculture and so on. ASEAN provides that "total trade value between ASEAN and the Plus Three Countries reached US$ 195.6 billion in 2003 compared to US$170.8 billion in 2002, marking a growth of 14.49% in 2003" (2004, para.7). It is evident that APT is the most successful process for East Asia cooperation and has provided strong confidence in further East Asia regionalism. The last two decades have seen a proliferation of free trade arrangements in the .Asia-Pacific region and in the East Asia area. In the late 1990s, AFTA was the only major foreign trade arrangement in theregion but by 2002, there were many such arrangements in the process of being enacted, negotiated or studied (Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2005). In 2005, the FTAs between ASEAN and each country in Northeast Asia were established and the Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement USEPA) was the first FTA between a Southeast Asian country and a Northeast Asia country. The development of those FTAs illustrates the cooperation and interdependence among East Asia countries and is a good preparation for an East 11 Asia Free Trade Area. In parallel with the development of AFTA as an axis and APT process, this reality ofFTA proliferation contributes to regional efforts to speed up East Asia regionalism. Complexity of Member Countries' Perspectives toward Regionalism Owing to the diversity of economic_ and political systems, nationalism l cultural identity, language and the like among regional states as w~ll as bilateral relationships with outsiders, each state holds its own unique perspective concerning regionalism aligned with its own national interest. This complexity of regional states' perspectives is also a salient concern and has produced a considerable amount of literature. The complexity hinges largely on whether East Asia regionalism should be exclusive or inclusive. On the one hand, some countries insist on inclusiveness, notably Japan, Singapore, The Philippines and Thailand. These countries call for an enlargement of East Asia cooperation and establishing an East Asia Community (EAC) which would include India, Australia and New Zealand. In fact, these three countries were invited to attend both East Asia Summits in 2005 and 2007. Before the East Asia Summit in 2005, Japan suggested that "Australia, New Zealand and India could be admitted as members of the proposed East Asia Community" (Kyodo News International, 2004, para. I) and Tokyo has reaffirmed its "long-standing position that East Asia regionalism must be open and pan-Pacific in orientation" (Miller, 2004, p. 13). Singapore and The Philippines not only support an "inclusive East Asia" but also want to add the United States in this community. Both The Philippines and Singapore see the importance of the United States 12 to balance China (Hund, 2003, p. 387-388). On the other hand, some countries, including Malaysia and China, favor an "exclusive East Asia" which would not include Australia, India and New Zealand. At the 2005 East Asia Summit, Malaysian Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi, called India and New Zealand "outsiders" to East Asia and he also strongly emphasized that "Australia was not geographically part of East Asia and he did not see how it could regard itself as such" (Levett, 2005, para.2). China shares this Malaysian position and Panda (2006, p. 33) shows that China "wants to ensure that only ·the ASEAN Plus Three will be responsible for creating an East Asia Community, forming the core of what communityproponents hope will become Asia's main 'multilateral body". This is 'at least partly because China does not want to have any major competitors, especially because India also has emerged as a strong economic power. Other regional countries such as Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia'and Myanmar stand somewhere in·between. This may be becaus~ oftheir weak voices or because they simply have made no clear decision yet about inclusiveness and exclusiveness of East Asia. However, this view and the other two have complicated the picture of East Asia regionalism. The Role of ASEAN in East Asia Regionalism The role of ASEAN is yet another significant topic for analyses of East Asia regionalism. ASEAN has thus far taken a central role in the regional cooperation process, in spite of some limitations. ASEAN has been a central player in many regional architectures, including ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the Treaty ofAmity and 13 Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) and ASEAN plus Three. Established by ASEAN in 1994, ARF has been so far the only institution gathering 25 countries who have interests in regional security for intergovernmental dialogue on security in the Asia-Pacific. ARF acknowledges the diversity of regional security while aiming at regional stability and prosperity. The influence of ASEAN in the region is also clear in its TAC and its principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. ASEAN requires any country who wishes to join in ASEAN to sign the TAC which therefore is a requirement for any country that wishes to strengthen relations with ASEAN. China, India, Japan, and Korea has signed the Treaty and "it has come to be that all countries who wish to promote comprehensive economic partnership or cooperation with ASEAN accede to the TAC" (Yamakage, 2005, p. 3). Finally, ASEAN plays a crucial role in ASEAN plus Three - a direct attempt to further East Asia regionalism. ASEAN not only is a creator but also forms the core of this cooperative mechanism through which substantial levels of cooperation among regional states have been already achieved. Some limitations of ASEAN have been claimed which challenge its central role in East Asia regionalism. These limitations are attributed to ASEAN's principles of "consensus" and non-intervention in internal affairs.ofother country - which both characterize the "ASEAN way" (Narine, 2002). The "ASEAN way" may prevent its members from building a community; therefore, it becomes weaker, especially when China and Japan want to take the lead. The East Asia Study Group (EASG) also expressed its concern that "ASEAN may be marginalized if the transition towards an EAS moves too fast" (2002, p. 5). In spite of the fact that ASEAN clearly has limitations, 14 Liu and Regnier contend that "ASEAN has played a leading role in driving regional agendas forward" and "all existing regional architectures have more or less accorded, if not linked, with ASEAN's vision of community building" (2003, p. xxiii). Both are also of the opinion that "East Asia regionalism is gradually progressing in-the vein of 'ASEANization'" (Liu & Regnier, 2003, p. xxiii). Additionally, ASEAN continues strengthening intra-ASEAN cooperation in order to maintain its position in East Asia. ASEAN has-ratified its Gharter for the legal and institutional framework as "the premier inter-governmental organization of the region" which will "serve the organization well in three interrelated ways, such as, formally accord ASEAN legal personality, establish greater institutional accountability and compliance system, and reinforce the perception of ASEANas a serious regional player in the future of the Asia Pacific region" (ASEAN, 2007, paraA). ASEAN's contributions toward promoting regional cooperation have maintained its position as a crucial actor in East Asia regionalism. Lessons from the European Union for East Asia Lessons for East Asia from the European Union (EU), the most successful model of regional integration in the world are also important concerns for analysts of East Asia regionalism. However, there are many differences between EU- and East Asia in terms of history and culture. European regionalism emerged in the context ofthe end of World War II while that of East Asia emerged out of the Cold War. Another important difference is the attitude ofthe United States. In the case of European regionalism, the United States strongly ~upported this trend to prevent the expansion of communism. But 15 in East Asia, the United States has developed bilateral relations with its allies in the region and kept its negative attitude toward communist states; therefore, it constrains this regionalism rather than enables it (Beeson, 2005); - However, there have been studies that indicate some lessons from EU for East Asia. Severino and Moeller (2006) point out three lessons applicable to any region without regard to cultural and historical similarities and differences. The first lesson is that regionalism needs statesmen's visions and practical steps must be launched to realize .those visions. Another lesson is that regionalism is a step-by-step process in which each step must be characterized by clear goals. For instance, the European regionalism process had set as its goals achieving a common market, a common agricultural policy, a permanent common trade policy, and a common currency. The third lesson is that regionalism must be pursued in a 'win-win' manner that makes regional members feel "better off inside than outside" (Severino & Moeller, 2006, p. 2). In the same vein, focusing on economic integration as an important step towards regionalism, Tersen (n.d.) provides some lessons for East Asia. These lessons suggest that "common projects and concrete realizations by pooling resources" (Ternsen, n.d, para.16), political commitment of regional state governments to promote regionalism, a core group of some states taking leading role in regionalism and governmental commitments to domestic reforms are important prerequisites for regionalism. Even without regard to cultural and historical differences between the European Union and East Asia, those who have looked at the EU as a model ofregionalism have provided valuable lessons for East Asia countries to 16 promote their regionalism. These lessons range from the general to the concrete, applicable to the region as a whole and to any state as a participant. Chapter 2 of this paper will examine some key theoretical concepts ofEast Asia, region and regionalism as a background for discussion in chapter 3. Not only theoretical concepts of East Asia, region and regionalism but also the origins and characteristics of old and new regionalism will be explored in chapter 2. Chapter 3 will examine whether neo-realism and neo-liberalism can help explain regionalism in East Asia. By looking at· key assumptions ofneo-realism and neo-liberalism and applying them to East Asia regionalism, I will consider the relevance of the assumptions to East Asia regionalism; The case study ofVietnam is the subject of chapter 4 which will explore Vietnam in East Asia regionalism through its participation and contributions to ASEAN Plus Three process and the opportunities and challenges that Vietnam faces in ASEAN Plus Three cooperation. Based on this discussion ofVietnam, recommendations are made for Vietnam to improve its position in regional cooperation; The discussion ofVietnam in regional cooperationis an attempt to illustrate the participation of a developing country in regional cooperation. The last chapter of the paper will be a-conclusion which is to sum up the discussion of the paper. 17 CHAPTER II EAST ASIA AND REGIONALISM The Concept of East Asia The concept ofEast Asia as a region is a relatively new one. Two decades after the Second World War, there was no "East Asia" in existence because of the shadows of the Cold War and of regional hot wars such as wars in Vietnam and the Korean peninsula (Tanaka, n.d.). However,East Asia used to refer to a sub-region of Asia that includes' China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam. For example, in the preface ofEast Asia: A New History, Murphey defines "East Asia is the single most populous unit of the world, comprising China, Korea, Vietnam and Japan" (1997, p. xi). Culturally, East Asia has been used to refer to the grouping of countries that have long shared together the Chinese cultural sphere. For Ravenhill (2002, p. 174), "the concept of 'East Asia' has conventionally referred only to those states of Confucian heritage". Ko1b divides the world into sev€n cultural subcontinents in which "the Chinese" is understood as "the East Asian" (1971, p. 1). These understandings of East Asia as a region have excluded other countries located in Southeast Asia, except for Vietnam in some cases. Not until the 1990s did the concept of East Asia as a region that included both Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian countries become widespread. The proposal of the East Asian Economic Group (EAEG, downgraded to the East Asian Economic Caucus- 18 EAEC) by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir was a starting point for a strong conceptual framework for East Asia as a whole (Terada, 2003, p. 251). The initiation of ASEAN plus Three and the first East Asia Summit in 2005 have strongly acknowledged a new concept of East Asia. According to Kim (2004, p. 46), "the concept of East Asia embedded in the EAEG proposal survived, resonating in all regional forums and debates throughout 1990s". As a result, the concept of East Asia is widely used for the region that includes both ten ASEAN members and three Northeast Asian countries of China, Japan and Republic of Korea. There has been a consensus about this concept of East Asia and it has been widely used by those who study East Asia regionalism because East Asia regionalism is initiated and developed by those thirteen regional states. East Asia regionalism in this paper also refers to the cooperation among governments of ten ASEAN member states and of three Northeast Asian states of China, Japan and Korea. However, this new concept of East Asia only delineates the members geographically. But what "region" and "regionalism" refer to is still an unanswered question and it invites us first to examine the theoretical explanations of region and regionalism. Region and Regionalism Defining "Region" The term "region" as used in this study refers to a region in the international system, not a region within a nation-state because "region" is sometimes used to refer to a geographical unit within one country. In international relations, this term is used in different contexts with different meanings and these meanings are sometimes 19 overlapping. "Region" is still a contested concept. It is common that international regions refer to geographical proximity. However, geographical contiguity is only one of several characteristics of a region and newly emerged definitions of a region have challenged the idea that "region" is simply a geographical concept. According to Evans and Newnham, "the primary, common sense usage [of region] connotes physical contiguity. Indeed proximity seems to be a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for confident· stipulation of a region" (1998, p. 472). Palmer adduces the discussion ofregions by Bruce M. Russett who defines a region by listing its five.characteristics including "geographical proximity", "social and cultural homogeneity", "shared political attitudes and behavior", "political interdependence in the 'form of shared institutional membership" and "economic interdependence" (1991, p. 7). Nevertheless; there are areas called regions .in the world even though they do not have all five ·characteristics. For ·example,South Asia is commonly defined as a region but it lacks a "social and cultural homogeneity" (Palmer, 1991, p. 7). In 1968, Joseph Nye provided a less complex definition of a region. For him; region is defined as "a limited number of states linked together by a geographical relationship and by a degree ofmutual interdependence" (Nye, 1968, p. vii). But he had also to mention that "there are no 'absolute' or 'nationally determined' regions. Relevant geographical boundaries vary with different purposes... [and one] relevant region for security may not be one for economic integration" (Nye, 1968, p. vi). There have been many efforts to define "region" in international relations but for many scholars, there has been no definition that can be descriptive of the complexity of the issue. This is because the structure of the world is always changing and "regions 20 disappear and reappear as they are transformed by various economic, political, and cultural factors ... [and because] ... both the character and functions of regions have recently experienced a major transformation" (VayTynen, 2003, p. 25-26). This transformation has brought about two other approaches to define a "region" in literature. The first one focuses on physical and functional regions while-the other uses the "outside- in" and "inside-out" approach. According to VayTynen, "physical regions refer to territorial, military, and • "- < economic spaces controlled primarily by states, but functional regions are defined by nonterritoria1 factors such as culture and the market, that are often the purview of nonstate actors" (2003, p. 27). Accordingly, the difference between physical and functional regions is the distinction between a "space ofplaces" and a "space of flows" (Castells, 1996). Castells defines a place as "a locale whose form, function, and meaning are self-contained within the boundaries of physical contiguity" (1996, p. 423) and the space of flows refers to "'the material organization of the time-sharing social practices that work through flows and network" (Castells, 1996, p. 412). VayTynen points out that . - in terms ofphysical regions, "regions are defined as spatial clusters of states that the logic of anarchy has facilitated, positively or negatively, becoming dependent on each other... [and] ... the driving force in functional r~gions is ~ither the economy... the environment ~ . ", . . . . or culture" (2003, p. 27). In fact, this approach to define a region is to categorize other approaches into physical and functional groups. It consists of geographical proximity, cultural, economic, political and military factors which are seen in other definitions of a region. 21 Another way to define a region, proposed by Iver .Neumann in 1994, uses both "inside-out" and "outside-in" approaches. Neumann reviews previous literature in the study of regions and divides it into either "inside-out" or "outside-in" approach. According to the "inside-out" approach, one region can be divided -into the center or the core, where cultural traits are more similar, and the periphery (Neumann, 1994, p. 54). For example, despite a lack of institutional strategies associated with supranational cooperation, the common cultural traits were strong enough to make the Nordic countries become a region (Neumann, 1994, p. 54). Neumann points out that other scholars of the "inside-out" approach, ~uch as Amitai Etzioni and Ben,gt Sunde~ius, also focus on common cultural "background variables" and "social dynamics" to define a region. However, this approach encounters at least two difficulties in defining a region. First, the degree of cultural similarity and cultural interaction between the core and the periphery within a region is barely evaluated. Therefore, it is difficult to delineate the borders of a region. Second, one nation-state can share cultural traits with and belong to more than one core of regions, whereas it can be only one actor in the international agenda. As a result, this approach does not seem to be very helpful to defining a region in international -- - - relations. In contrast to the focus on cultural integration of the "inside-out" approach, the "outside-in" approach emphasizes geopolitics. Neumann shows that if "the 'inside-out' approaches concentrate on the naturalness of cultural criteria in delineating a region's border,the 'outside-in' approaches discard these' in favor of natural geopolitical or strategic landmarks such as mountain ranges, rivers and stretches of water" (1994, p. 56). 22 In.this perspective, the border of one region can be delineated by natural geopolitical and strategic landmarks which separate it from others. Therefore, the nature and genesis of regions are naturally given. Although "inside-out" and "outside-in" approaches focus on different criteria to define a region, most attempts to define a region stand somewhere in between these categories. In many cases, natural landmarks such as rivers and mountains are also the boundaries for cultural traits to diffuse and for economic interactivity. Like the approach ofphysical or functional regions, the "inside-out" and "outside-in" approach Catlllot alone provide a clear-cut understanding to define a region. This short review has shown that the literature on regions is not only rich in insights but also very diverse in assumptions. Most attempts to define a region share one characteristic of geographical proximity. Many others have different criteria and priorities in defining a region. "Region" is still a contested concept in international relations and it is a historical concept which has changed coinciding with the changes of the world structure. More importantly, it is variously used by students of international relations in service of their different purposes. Despite the complexity ofdefining international regions, East Asia which consists often ASEAN member states and the three Northeast Asian countries of China, Korea and Japan can be defined as a region under any approach such as physical or functional regions, "inside-out" and "outside-in" approaches. However, the degree that East Asia can meet the criteria ofdifferent approaches varies from one to another. This can be illustrated by the discussion of regionalism and its varieties. 23 Regionalism and Its Varieties Like the term "region", "regionalism" is also an ambiguous term in international relations and the debate on defining "regionalism" has not reached an agreement. The literature defining regionalism has fallen into different schools. For some analysts, regionalism is defined as "the making of regional associations in which a government's involvement will be drawn into the process through a formal gathering among regional .- . ,,--- -! -~•.. - • - -- countries" (Liu, 2003, p. 6) and therefore, this perspective emphasizes regional activities within existing formal regional establishments and their related functional development. Considering cooperation as one means to advance national interests, another school of thought defines regionalism "as cooperation among governments or non-government organizations in three or more geographically proximate and interdependent countries for the pursuit of mutual gain in one ormore issue-areas" (Alagappa, 1995, p. 362). Geographical contiguity, mutual benefit, interdependence, the participation of at least three countries, and no limitation of issue-areas for cooperation are key factors in this understanding of regionalism. In the eyes of economists, even though it may not be evident to many of them as Bhagwati points out, regionalism is broadly defined as "preferential trade agreements among a subset of nations" (1999, p. 3). Bowles holds a similar view by defining regionalism as "an economic policy choice of governments ... in the form of regional economic integration schemes" (2000, p. 433). Still others have different definitions of regionalism. A number of those who consider region as a "geographically specified area" 24 see regionalism as marked by "the disproportionate concentration of economic flows or the coordination of foreign economic policies among a group of countries in a close geographical proximity to one another" (Mansfield & Milner, 1997, p. 3). As a synthesis of the above definitions of regionalism, it is worthwhile to point out some essential features of regionalism. First, regionalism should be understood as a productof geo.graphically -proximate countries, otherwise it would become 'unmanageable'. Second, because economic interaction is one of the key elements of regionalism, it should be higher among regional countries than external ones. And last, policy and the commitment to cooperate of one individual country should be at regional level and cover Dne or more issue-areas. However, those definitions are somehow one- sided because the growth of regionalism is stipulated by a variety of factors such as culture, history, economy, and politics. Therefore, Hurrell (l995b, p. 38) advises that regionalism should be understood in terms of "social cohesiveness (ethnicity, race, language, religion, culture, history, consciousness of a common heritage), economic -cohesiveness (trade pattern, economic complementarity), political cohesiveness (regime type, ideology), and organizational cohesiveness (existence of formal institutions)". In order to do so, he breaks up the concept of "regionalism" into five different varieties: regionalization, regional awareness and identity, regional inter-state cooperation, state- promoted regional integration and regional cohesion. This break-up is helpful in terms of analyzing regionalism although these categories are related to each other both in theory and in practice. 25 According to Hurrell, regionalization "refers to the growth of societal integration within a region and to the often undirected processes of social and economic interaction" (1 995b, p. 39). One key feature of this understanding is that regionalization is an informal process because it is "undirected". The process of integration can happen through regional interactions and transactions of private individuals such as investors, traders, migrating workers and tourists. Another feature of regionalization is that it focuses on the economic interaction which leads to economic interdependence within a region. Because regionalization also refers to social integration, it involves flows of people, complex social networks and these channels will contribute to spreading ideas, cultural values, social norms from one area to another within a region. The last feature of regionalization is that it is a "natural process" rather than a state-related process in terms of policy and border. This is because "migration, markets, and social networks may lead to increased interaction and interconnectedness tying together parts of existing states and creating new cross-border region" (Hurrell, 1995b, p. 40). In this perspective, regionalization is an informal process which happens through social and economic flows and it is not mainly directed by regional states and their policies. "Regional awareness", "regional identity" and "regional consciousness" are ambiguous notions. However, they are so important that regional integration cannot be comprehensive without regional identity although security, economic and political factors are evidently critical (Liu, 2003, p. 19). These terms are understood "as a kind of common feeling and as the values that are generally shared by the people in the same region and which may help them find out what they really believe in and what they wish 26 to be like" (Liu, 2003, p. 19). The development of regional identity is going along with that of regionalization and Hurrell points out that regional identity can "rest on internal factors ... [and] ... can also be defined against some external 'other'" (1995b, p. 41). Culture, language, history, religions and traditions are examples of internal factors and a security threat is a factor defining an external "other". For instance, Neumann and Welsh (1991) provide another example of an Asian identity as a contradiction to the "West". In fact, "regional awareness", "regional identity" and "regional consciousness" deal with mental perceptions ofpeople in a same region and the formations of those are voluntary processes. Adler (1997, p. 251) provides the concept of "cognitive region" to express the idea of regional identity and he contends that any region can be defined as a "cognitive region" because of its identity, awareness and consciousness. In coordination with economic, security and political factors, regional identity, regional awareness and. regional consciousness not only contribute to accelerating regional coherence but also provide a regional self-image to the world. Those terms are ambiguous but impossible to . ignore in the study of regionalism. Regional interstate cooperation is one variety ofregionalism which refers to interstate or intergovernmental arrangements or regimes for the purpose of securing welfare gains, promoting common values, solving common problems, responding to external challenges, coordinating regional positions in international negotiations or institutions (Hurrell, 1995b, p. 42). Regional interstate cooperation has some evident characteristics. First, the cooperation has varying degrees of formality and the cooperation between governments can never be completely informal. Regional 27 cooperation can develop to a certain threshold and may lead to establishing formal institutions. However, the effectiveness of those institutions is the second feature of regional interstate cooperation, that is, institutionalization does not mean an effective cooperation among governments. This is because regional institutions maybe bas€d on loose structures, regulations and, in many cases, without sanctions against the violation of regulations. ASEAN plus Three is one example of this feature. Although it has contributed to strengthening regional cooperation, many have considered it as a loose mechanism which has no sanctions on violators of its regulations. Another characteristic is that regional interstate cooperation contributes to "the stabilization of a regional balance of power", "the institutionalization of confidence-building measures", and "negotiation of a region-wide security regime" (Hurrell, 1995a, p. 336). This characteristic is illustrated by the ASEAN's expectation that ASEAN plus Three will constrain China's power in the region and as the voice of East Asia in international negotiations. The last feature of regional interstate cooperation is that it strengthens the role and authority of the state. Governments or states have the right to decide whether or not to adjust their policies in accordance with regulations of regional institutions or regimes. These adjustments can be seen in their economic and trade policies which influence on not only regional cooperation but also others' state policies. Regional interstate cooperation, in comparison with regional identity, is more visible even though its effectiveness is uncertain. It has a set of purposes with visible forms such as institutions, policies and it is achieved by states and to advance the role of states in regionalism. - --------------- 28 There is no widely accepted concept of state-promoted regional integration. However, Hurrell defines it as specific policy decisions by governments in order to "reduce or remove barriers to mutual exchange of goods, services, capital, and people" (1995b, p. 43). Regional integration was used in the study of Western Europe's experience of regionalism and was both a process and an end product when the proGess . has passed a certain threshold (Habib, 1995, p. 305). And regional integration was understood as regional econ0mic.integration. In the same vein; Balassa holds that "cooperation includes actions aimed at lessening discrimination, the process of economic integration compromises measures that entail the suppression of some forms of. discriminations. For example, international agreements on trade policies belong to the area of international cooperation, while the removal of trade barriers is an act of economic integration" (1961, p. 2). Economic integration can have several forms with different degrees of integration such as free trade and an economic union. Dominated by the model of European regionalism, regional integration was simply understood as regional economic integration but Hurrell's definition denotes that regional integration includes both economic and social integration. Although regional integration has no clear-cut meaning, it is a subcategory of regionalism and a higher stage of regional cooperation. One region may have region cooperation but may not have regional integration if its cooperation has not passed a certain threshold. Regional cohesion can be understood as the highest variety of regionalism and it is possible when the combination of all above four processes makes a region a cohesive and consolidated unit (Hurrell, 1995a, p. 337). Regional cohesion is significant to not 29 only states within a region but also outsiders because it can impose potential and actual costs on regional states and stipulate the relationship between regional states and outsiders. Regional states may not be able to pursue their own decisions or options in domestic and foreign policies because they have to comply with regionally shared arrangements and regulations. As a consolidated unit, arrangenients and regulations of a region may condition autonomy of individual states and can impose certain sanctions on those who do not follow them. For outsiders, their policies are now dealing with a region as a cohesive actor and their relationship with one individual state of a region also has to be properly adjusted. Economic agreements are examples of how regional cohesion can influence relations with outsider states. .Both "region" and "regIonalism" are contested and ambiguous concepts in international relations. Defining these notions has att~actedmuch attention from the academic community but there has been little consensus. Putting aside the complexity of defining a region by accepting that "scholars in history and political science. .. will know a region when they see one" (Viiyrynen, 2003, p. 26) and that of defining "regionalism", other questions will come up such as when regionalism started, what are the causes of regionalism and what are their characteristics. To answer these questions requires another discussion of origins and characteristics of regionalism in the world politics. 30 Regionalism: Old and New Regionalism is not a new phenomenon in world politics. Some scholars hold that regionalism can be traced back before the Second World War. Mittelman contends that during the 1930s, "regionalism ... [wJas a movement toward territorially based autarkies" (1996, p. 190). Mansfield and Milner (1999, p. 596) even show that the first episode of regionalism started in the second half of the 19th century in Europe and regionalism has so far experienced four episodes. However, most literature of regionalism has focused on regionalism since the end of World War II and divided it into two waves, commonly known as "old regionalism" or the first wave of regionalism and "new regionalism" or the second wave of regionalism. Old regionalism started from the late 1950s through early 1970s and new regionalism has emerged since the late 1970s (Hwee, 2005). These two waves of regionalism after World War II have different origins and characteristics. Old Regionalism Old regionalism arose in the context of the Cold War and the bipolar world structure in which powers were vying for influences. The first wave of regionalism was marked by the success of European projects such as European Economic Community (EEC) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and by the institutionalization of relationships among its members. At that time, developing countries also established other regional trade blocs (Mansfield & Milner, 1999, p. 600). After the Second World War, Europe was in a difficult economic and political environment because of the 31 destruction of the war and the historical rivalry between Germany and France. Beeson shows that the critical factor that helped Europe overcome its unpropitious circumstance was "a newly ascendant America" (2005, p. 974). The Marshall Plan was designed to help European economies to recover after the war destruction and to respond to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) which was established by the Soviet Union and its political allies in 1949. For developing countries, this was the time of "decolonization" in their hist~ry. For them, preferential arrangementswere to reduce their economic and political dependence on developed countries. As a result, these arrangements favored the development of domestic industries and discouraged imports from developed countries (Mansfield & Milner, 1999, p. 600). Under the analysis of Hettne (2000, p. 66), old regionalism had certain characteristics. First, geopolitical imperatives were initial forces for old regionalism instead of economic needs. The United States and Soviet Union were vying for influence by imposing their influence on a certain region and attempted to restrain each other. Second, European regionalism and CMEA show that old regionalism was designed as a "from above" model - by the superpowers: the United States took the key role in creating European regionalism while the Soviet Union was the architect of CMEA. Third, old regionalism was "closed" regionalism which favored protectionism. This feature of old regionalism might be explained by the bipolar world structure during the Cold War which was characterized by rivalry rather than cooperation. The last characteristic of old regionalism was specific-objective oriented and concerned with "formally sovereign states". Some organizations during this time were either economic or security oriented such as the Southeast Asian Treaty 32 Organization in 1954 (SEATO). Actors in old regionalism were formally sovereign states which were different from those ofthe new regionalism in contemporary times. This point will be clearly illustrated when discussing new regionalism. In short, old regionalism, emerged in the context of a bipolar world structure and the Cold War, was initiated by geopolitical imperatives, "dosed" and specific-objective oriented. It was created by the "from above" model and consisted of "formally sovereign states". All of these features of old regionalism make it distinctive from new regionalism. New Regionalism Unlike the first wave of regionalism, new regionalism has arisen in the context of a different international system. Much ofthe literature indicates that the second wave of regionalism emerged in a morefav()rable context (Robson, 1993, p. 335). It is important to discuss the origins of new regionalism and its characteristics to illustrate differences between old regionalism and new regionalism. Despite the fact that new regionalism had taken root before the close ofthe Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union, many scholars have argued these two changes "have lessened the impact of global factors in world politics and have increased the weight of regional forces that had operated all along under the surface of superpower confrontation" (Katzenstein, 1996, p. 123). In fact, the end ofthe Cold War has produced "a new attitude toward international cooperation" and the growth of regional organizations which contributed to regional cooperation (Fawcett, 1995, p. 18-19). The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union were examples of the 33 predominance of cooperation over antagonism - one characteristic of the bipolar international system. And of course, the newly ascendant trend of cooperation included regional cooperation. The Russian attitude toward international cooperation was greatly transformed in the era of Gorbachev. One feature of this transformation was its attitude toward international institutions including the United Nations. Bennett shows that in the era of Gorbachev, Russian "new thinking" saw international institutions "as areas more for cooperation with the West than for competition" (1991, p. 753). The increase in number ofregional organizations was another contributor to the growth of new regionalism. These organizations provided useful forums for states to engage in many international activities arid issues. Their important role in regional cooperation has been confirmed by Wilcox's statement that in relations with the United Nations, regional organizations are "indispensable e1ement[s] in its successful growth and functioning" (1965, p. 789). However, the idea ofthe-ris'e ofnew regionalisni\vith the end ofthe Cold War has been contested. Vayrynen (2003, p. 28) contends that the so-called unipolar international system after the Cold War has been dominated by the United States, which is not a preferable option for "pivotal states in each region". Therefore, these states prefer to align with the center ofthe unipolar international system instead ofbuilding a region. But in fact new regionalism continued to develop in the unipolar international system. This argument has called for another explanation of new regionalism: the decentralization of the international system. Of course, the decentralization ofthe international system was possibly considered as a result ofthe end ofthe Cold War because before the end ofthe Cold War, 34 the world was led by the two superpowers namely the Soviet Union and the United States. Fawcett (1995, p. 20) indicates that the decline of the two superpowers' overriding influence in the international system has given an impetus to multi-polarity and a greater importance to regional arrangements. For example, the European Union and the North_ Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have not only existed in the post-Cold War time but also admitted more members to their organizations. Moreover, both Russia and the United States became interested in regional arrangements. The United States attempted to establish regionalism in Americas. On the otherside,Russia changed its "doctrine about international relations ... [to] the idea of an international society held together by shared interests and values" and suggested a concept of "cornrnon European horne" (Malcolm, 1989, p. 659). Not only did the two"forrnersuperpowers have an interest in regionalism but also developing countries found regionalism valuable. For them, the decentralization" of the international system means that their regional affairs become their own business instead ofbeing controlled by the two superpowers. The end of Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union also put many countries such as Vietnam in a vulnerable situation. Therefore, regional alignment was considered as a way to avoid vulnerabilities. This trend was illustrated by the increase of regional security organizations in the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, regional powers have ever more influence on regional issues. Lawcett (1995, p. 21) points out that international issues appear to be at the regional level rather than the international level as before. In general, the decentralization of the international system indeed has promoted regional cooperation. 35 Another change that encouraged the development ofnew regionalism was global economic change and global issues. Some scholars refer to these changes as 'globalization'. As a result, new regionalism is considered a response to globalization (Mittelman, 1996; Varynen, 2003 and Kim, 2004). Because o£the demise of the Soviet Union and the newly ascendant EasteriiEuropean countries, developing countries had to compete with more nations in the global economicmarket. For many countries, as Fawcett shows,-the threat of economic marginalization became more dangerous than that of security (1995, p. 23); The success of European integration was considered as a model for many countries to overcome this challenge of economic-marginalization. Additionally, the success of the European economic project encouraged other regions in the world to devise economic integration policies. In fact, many regions in the world had been committed to their economic arrangements such as the Arab Maghreb Union and AJ;>EC. ASEAN was a good example of this kind of policy change. Previously an insignificant area, economic cooperation in ASEAN became a common concern among its members; In addition, as the legacy ofthe Cold War has become eroded, many countries have developed an open-minded attitude toward foreign investments and imports, and are willing to initiate bilateral and multilateral arrangements and to introduce both import-and export-oriented policies (Wyatt-Walter, 1995, p. 94-95). Moreover, there are more and more issues that one country cannot deal with alone such as enviromnental issues, transnational crimes and immigration. Such issues force states to collaborate with each other. Competition on a global scale, the threat of economic marginalization, the success of European integration and global issues have favored the 36 development of new regionalism. Robles concludes that "[new] regionalism is emerging with force as a strategic response to the pervasive and the relentless globalization process" (2000, p. 178). Along with economic changes and global issues, the reduction of Third World coalitions was another factor favoring the second wave of regionalism. During the time of the Cold War, many organizations of the Third World countries were established such as the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of77 (G-77). Such coalitions formed a so-called South-South cooperation. However, their importance was gradually reduced in the 1970s and 1980s and this was commonly referred to "the end of Third Worldism" (Fawcett, 1995, p. 26). The diversity of Third World countries in terms of wealth and power was ascribed to the ineffectiveness of their coalitions. Observing this change in the international system, Gilpin points out that "the Third World no longer exists as a meaningful single entity" (1987, p. 304). At the same time, many scenarios had been proposed for developing countries to gain better positions in the international arena. For instance, in 1974, Kothari proposed that a variety of regional coalitions, not a single southern coalition, could be a means for developing countries to improve their status on the international stage. Both the reduction of the role of the Third World coalitions and the proposals for new regional organizations can be partly explained as an outgrowth of regional arrangements in the 1990s. Hurrell concludes that "the erosion of the Third World coalition on which so many hopes has been pinned in the 1970s ... pressed developing countries in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East towards' group- solidarity' of a more limited, regional character" (l995a, p. 341). 37 The last factor in the development of regionalism was the process of "democratization" in many places in the world. Although there is a debate as to whether the process of democratization promoted regionalism or vice versa, Fawcett argues that "democratization... is more hospitable to interdependence at the regional and global level" (1995, p. 27). There is much evidence for this argument. First, the absence of democracy was considered as a cause of the ineffective regional cooperation among CMEA members (Fawcett, 1995, p. 27). Second, Tripp (1995) points out that in the Middle East, less democratic governments appear unwilling to be committed to regional cooperation. Third, similar evidence can be found in Americas and Africa. In the mid "' .;. 1980s, there was a widespread belief that Africa seemed unlikely to move toward - - democracy but in 1990s, there was a tidal wave of democratization that surprised scholars (Decalo, 1992, p. 7). In the case of the Americas, Fawcett has argued that the very civilian governments of Argentina and Brazil negotiated to join Mercosur (a regional trade agreement initially among Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay) and the same thing happened in Chile (1995, p. 29). Of course, "democratization" is not a requisite condition for regionalism but the process of democratization throughout the world has been an accelerator to new regionalism. Emerging in a different international context, new regionalism has grown up from various sources. The context and origins of new regionalism distinguished it from the first wave of regionalism. From the above discussion of the origins of both old regionalism and new regionalism, several features of new regionalism are highlighted. First, new regionalism grew up from a multi-polar world order in which the influence of 38 the two fonner superpowers degraded into a regional level rather than a global level as they were in the time ofbipolar international system. Second, new regionalism was designed in a so-called "from below" model. If the United States and the Soviet Union were major architects of old regionalism, regional countries became more involved in new regional arrangements in the second wave. The enlargement of EU and ASEAN are good examples of this feature. Third, in tenns of participants, new regionalism has attracted not only fonnally sovereign states but also international and regional organizations. More small states got involved in regional arrangements. Eor instance, Ethier points out that new regionalism "involves one or more small countries linking up with a larger country" such as Mexico in NAFTA, Finland and Sweden in the EU(1998, p. 1150-1151). Fourth, unlike the specific-objective oriented oldregionalisrn, new regionalism covers more areas in cooperation. Therefore, new regionalismis a comprehensive and multilateral process. Finally, new regionalism is an "open" regionalism. Because of the diversity of participants, global issues, outward-oriented policies of many countries and economic interdependence, new regionalism is sometimes referred as an "outward-looking focus on external links with other regions" (Hwee, 2005, p. 2). Evidently, new regionalism is more complex than old regionalism. The transfonnation from old regionalism into new regionalism was the transfonnation from a bipolar world order into a multi-polar one. There have been many global structural changes and the East-West confrontation dominated in international relations. Consequently, theories of international relations in the 20th century have focused on the global level in their analyses and interpretations. In the time of new 39 regionalism, regional actors become more and more influential on the international stage. With the growth of new regionalism in many places such as North America and East Asia, European regionalism is no longer the only model ofregionalism. This reality invites more attention to studying regionalism in world politics. The review of "region" and "regionalism" has provided a theoretical background and shown differences between old and new regionalism. Based on this theoretical background, East Asia is a "region" and regionalism in East Asia has been developing through formal cooperation among states, flows of people and culhlral values and the like. East Asia regionalism belongs to new regionalism. The above discussion of old regionalism and new regionalism has not drawn any lines among various theories of international relations. However, it is important to discuss how theories of international relations explain the development of regionalism. Since neo-realism and neo-liberalism are two dominant theories in international relations and East Asia is widely considered a typical example of new regionalism, the explanations of East Asia regionalism put forth by these two theories of international relations are the subject of chapter III. 40 CHAPTER III NEO-REALISM, NEO-LIBERALISM AND EAST ASIA REGIONALISM Chapter II has shown tilat the literatl:lre of regionalism is not only rich in insights but also diverse in assumptions. Neo-realism and neo-liberalism are two of the principal approaches to regionalism. Both are types of systemic theories, which emphasize "the importance of the broader political and economic structures within which regionalist schemes are embedded and the impact of outside pressures working on the region" (Hurrell, 1995a, p. 339). In terms of international cooperation, both neo-realism and neo- liberalism contend that international cooperation is possible but they differ in their assumptions and the possibility for international cooperation to occur. Neo-realism "stresses the constraints of the anarchical international system and the importance of power-political competition ... [while neo-liberalism emphasizes] the changing character of the international system and the impact of economic and technological change" (Hurrell, 1995a, p. 339). It would be overly ambitious to apply the whole literature of these two theories to explain East Asia regionalism. Instead, in this chapter, I will consider the relevance of some key assumptions of these two theories for East Asia regionalism. My argument is that both neo-realism and neo-liberalism find evidence to support their international cooperation argument but neither theory can fully explain the development of East Asia regionalism. 41 Neo-realism and East Asia Regionalism Neo-realism, sometimes referred as structural realism, shares with "realism" the key assumptions that states are dominant and self-interested actors in the international system. According to realism's premises, "(1) states (or city-state) are the key units of actions; (2) they seek power, either as an end in itself or as a means to other ends; and (3) they behave in ways that are, by and large, rational, and therefore comprehensible to outsiders in rational terms" (Keohane, 1986, p. 7). States win natunil1y pursue1heii national interests which are defined in terms of power. Power is both an end in itself and a means for states to protect their survival. Consequently, states are always competing for their power with other competitors in order to mainta.in a balance of power. Because every state seeks powerand "because of the absence of any world government or universal arbiter", the international system is anarchical arid conflietuaI in nature (Collard-Wexler, 2006, p. 399). Complete inteniational cooperation in the eyes of neo- realists seems to be impossible because states are more concerned about relative gains than absolute gains in their cooperation. Waltz, a father of neo-realism, gives a clear explanation for relative gains. When faced with the possibility of cooperating for mutual gain, states that feel unsecure must ask how the gain will be divided. They are compelled to ask not "Will both of us gain?" but "Who will gain more?" If an expected gain is to be divided, say, in the ratio of two to one, one state may use its disproportionate gain to implement a policy intended to damage or destroy the other. Even the prospect oflarge absolute gains for both parties does not elicit their cooperation so long as each fears how the other will use its increased capabilities... the condition of insecurity - at the least, the uncertainty of each about the other's future intentions and actions - works against their cooperation" (Waltz, 1979, p. 105). 42 Waltz contends that "in a condition of anarchy, relative gain is more important than absolute gain" (1954, p. 198). Moreover, one state may be worried about its dependence on others "through cooperative endeavors and exchanges of goods and services" (Waltz, 1979, p. 106). These neo-rea1ist arguments appear not to see inter-state cooperation as possible. However, given the anarchical and conflictua1 nature of the international system, neo-rea1ism can provide some important explanations for regional cooperation. These explanations focus on regional cooperation as a response to an . ~ . . . . external threat or challenge, small states' perceptions to regional cooperation and the role of both external hegemon and internal hegemon in regionalism. These premises will be tested with evidence found in the case of East Asia regionalism. By looking at the region from the outside-in and analyzing its position in the broader international system, 'neo-rea1ists contend that regional cooperation can be formed as a response to external threats or challenges (Hurrell, 1995b, p. 430; Collard- Welex, 2006, p. 401 and Snida1, 1991, p. 722). When states are faced collectively with an external challenge or threat, but one state is unable to deal with the threat/challenge, they tend to cooperate with each other. In this case, states are willing to accept dependence on each other for their survival. There is considerable historical evidence for this argument ofneo-rea1ism. For example, ASEAN was initially a response to Vietnam and the Gulf Cooperation Council was against Iran. Weber points out that "if the level of external threat is high, countries are likely to prefer an arrangement that gives them greater assurance" (1997, p. 325). In this view, East Asia regionalism is considered as a "defensive response" or "reactionary regionalism". East Asia regionalism emerged in the 43 context of the growth of regionalism in every part of the world. During the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21 st century, the European Union was expanding to include former Eastern Bloc states and the United States was working to complete the North American Free Trade Area. In Africa, in 2002 the Organization for African Unity was officially replaced by the African Unionwhose structure was based on that of the European Union. Moreover, Stubbs (2002, p. 446) adds that the new round of the World Trade 0rganization (WTO) intensified the need for a strong voice ofEast Asian countries as a whole. This common voice of East Asian countries would protectthem from WIO's future rules and regulations that do not favor their interests. All of these developments in . the world pushed East Asian governments to pursue closer cooperation to "give the region balance against the possible development of an exclusive bloc elsewhere" (Capie, 2003, p. 155). Beeson concludes that "East Asia has ... been marked primarily by a process of regionalization in which external economic forces have played a major role in encouraging [regional] integration" (2003, p. 253). This conclusion has definitely favored the neo-realist argument of regional cooperation as a response to external challenges. . -- For small ,states in the international system, neo-realists hold that "smaller powers will seek regional-arrangements : .: because they hope that a regional institution will enable them to constrain the hegemon's freedom ofaction" (Ravenhill, 2002; p. 69). Hurrell (l995b, p. 341) points out that regional arrangements are seen as responses of small states who are trapped in the world of the strong, In the case of East Asia regionalism, small countries have to deal with both the hegemon within the region, China, and outside-region hegemon, the United States. China is now considered as an 44 actual hegemon in the region because its influence in the region is much greater than that of Japan. Roy shows that China "faces less resistance than Japan to building a superpower-sized military... [and] ... economic development will make China more assertive and less cooperative with its neighbors ... whereas .. Japan's inherent weaknesses create doubts about the ability of the Japanese to increase or sustain their present level of economic power" (1994, p. 149-150). Southeast Asian countries are small countries in comparison with China. They are seeking cooperation with China, as neo-realists argue, to constrain China from its freedom of action. In terms of security, most ASEAN countries have so far maintained an uneasy relationship with China. For example, several Southeast Asian countries, such as Vietnam, Brunei and the Philippines,· have sea disputes with China. Therefore, ASEAN countries have attempted to seek cooperation with China by driving it into regional institutions to constrain its freedom of . action. The very first effort of ASEAN countries was to require China to sign its Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) as a condition if China wants to initiate cooperation with ASEAN. In 2003, China signed the TAC in the ASEAN-China summit. This prerequisite condition was also applied to Japan and Korea when both countries initiated their cooperation with ASEAN countries. Additionally, ASEAN engaged China step by step into institutionalizing cooperation between both sides. During the first half of the 1990s, the cooperation between ASEAN and China was institutionalized by the establishments of several dialogue mechanisms in political, scientific and technological areas, and trade consultations (Goh, 2007, p. 816). ASEAN was also pleased to see China's participation in other multilateral institutions such as the ASEAN Regional 45 Forum (ARF) and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). ARF is considered as a useful mechanism for a strong ASEAN voice over security issues because it gathers participants from the Asia-Pacific region including the United States, Australia and Russia. One of the successes of ARF was that it shifted disputable issues such as the South China Sea from the bilateral agenda into the multilateral one (Singh, 2000). More recently, China joined ASEAN Plus Three which is considered as the most successful institution for regional cooperation so far. Although China finds much benefit from participating in -- those multilateral institutions itself, for smallstatesjn the region, those institutions have contributed to constraining China from its freedom of action. One example of multilateral institutions' effects was the objection of ASEAN to China's sea dispute with the Philippines over the Mischief Reef and China "was undoubtedly taken aback by ASEAN's reaction" (StoreY,1999, p. 105). Despite concerns about security issues, ASEAN countries have various responses to the rapid growth of China's economy. According to neo-realist logic, ASEAN could be expected to balance itself against China in order to reduce interdependence with China. However, Ravenhill shows that ASEAN members' interests in China's proposal for an ASEAN-China Free Trade Area show their willingness to "contemplate bandwagoning with a rising power" (2002, p. 172). The indicator of this willingness was the establishment of an ASEAN-China Expert Group on EconomIc Cooperation (ACEGEC) whose responsibility is to study how "to further enhance integration and economic cooperation between ... [ASEAN and China] ... including the possibility of establishing a free trade area" (ASEAN, 2001, p. 4). Clearly, ASEAN countries are seeking closer 46 economic cooperation with the regional hegemon, which produces interdependence rather than independence between ASEAN and China. In contrast to China, which can be seen as a regional hegemon, the United States is the outside-region hegemon of East Asia regionalism. The end of the Cold War had made the United States an "undisputable" superpower in the world. As the superpower in the world and with its bilateral military alliances with East Asian countries such as Japan, Korea and the Philippines, the United States seems to produce no incentive that encourages regional small states to balance it. In terms of economics, what happened in - the 1990s appeared to discourage East Asian states from pursuing the need to constrain the United States. First, the economic interdependence, illustrated in their export share, between East Asia and the United States remained static during the time East Asia regionalism took off. For instance, Ravenhill suggests that "the US share of East Asia's export in 1999 was 23%, only one percentage point up on its share in 1990, and substantially below the peak of28.6% in 1985 ... [and] its overall significance as a market for the region was less than it had been a decade before" (2002, p. 170). Second, the dispute between Kodak and Fuji became a problem between the United States and Japan. Kodak claimed that "Fuji and Japan's Ministry of Intemational Trade and Industry (MITI) conspired to exclude Kodak from Japan's distribution outlets" and in 1997, the decision of the World Trade Organization's panel finally favored the Fuji and MITI (Tsurumi & Tsurumi, 1999, p. 813). This was a loss of a major trade dispute for the United States. For East Asian countries, the result of the case indicated the strength of the WTO and the limit of the United States. For them, multilateral institutions are now able 47 to be the world arbiter. Those developments have more or less decreased East Asian small states' incentives to constrain the United States. All those events coincided with the dramatic development of East Asian regionalism. Clearly, there has been little evidence in both security and economic areas supporting the argument that East Asian states are seeking cooperation with the United States in order to constrain it. In other words, regionalism may not be an effort to constrain the outside hegemon. Responses of small states in East Asia to both internal hegemon and external hegemon have not formed a single clear path. Another argument of neo-realism provides an explanation for East Asian . regionalism. This alternative argues that "the presence of a hegemonic power is necessary if regionalism is to succeed - because a hegemon alone has both the means and the incentive to supply the collective goods that will induce small states to enter into collaboration in a regional arrangement with it" (Ravenhill, 2002, p. 169). China and the United States - two hegemons - are tested in the case of East Asian regionalism to illustrate the relevance of this neo-realist argument pertaining to regional cooperation. So far China has been actively participating in East Asia regional cooperation through its participation in different multilateral institutions and cooperative mechanisms. However, what has China provided or what will it potentially provide as collective goods which attract other states into regional arrangements? From an economic standpoint, although there is a ramification of ASEAN members' perception toward China, some scholars have shown that Southeast Asian countries view China as an opportunity rather 48 than a threat. According to Cunha, "in Southeast Asia ... there is a widespread perception that China will be the new engine of growth for the entire region, displacing Japan, which had played that role for the past thirty years or more" (1998, p. 115). The role of China as an "engine of growth for the entire region" was intensified during the 1997 financial crisis. Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs, H. Alexander Downer (2001), holds that China's effort to keep the value of its currency has greatly contributed to stabilizing East Asian economics during the 1997 Asian economic crisis. Indeed, the crisis has helped China gain the trust from ASEAN and strengthened its role in East Asia cooperation. In 2001, a report of ASEAN-China Expert Group on Economic Cooperation . . (ACEGEC), consisting of representatives from all ASEAN countries and China, also viewed China as an economic opportunity. Based on reports of individual ASEAN countries and the economic benefits that China may bring to ASEAN, the ACEGEC recommended the creation of an ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ASEAN, 2001). The group was confident that "[an] ASEAN-China free trade area would represent an important move forward in terms of economic integration in East Asia ... [and would] serve as a foundation for the more ambitious vision of an East Asia Free Trade Area, encompassing ASEAN, China, Japan and Korea" (ASEAN, 2001, p. 30). China has so far been considered as a provider of collective goods. For example, as a big economy in East Asia, China's decision not to devalue its currency helped stabilize regional economies in the 1997 financial crisis and China was expected to have a great contribution to the Asian Monetary Fund which was proposed by Japan. Such collective goods of China may stimulate East Asian countries to enter into regional cooperation. However, China is not 49 seen as a benign power in tenns of security. Long disputes relating to the South China Sea between China and some ASEAN countries still exist. Most ASEAN countries are still suspicious ofChina in the security area. Moreover, the United States' military engagementin East Asia through its military alliance with several regional countries including Japan, South Korea and the Philippines has constrained the role of China. The United States' engagement in regional security was strengthened after post.:ll September 2001 events under the US-led "war on terrorism". This war on telTorism brought Washington and severaL East Asian partners intoc1oser diplomatic and military relations, a trend which was not welcomed by China (Capie, 2003, p. 159). More recently, at the time of this writing, disputes over the South China Sea are reemerging among China, Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan (The Brunei Times, 2008) All these moves in the region have proved that China -is not viewed by its neighbors as a source of collective _ good in the security area. The American factor in East Asia regionalism is undeniable but does this factor stimulate the development of regional cooperation? The influence of the United States in East Asia regionalism has been emphasized by many scholars. Gilson (2007, p. 146) contends that "the US continues to playa significant role in East Asia" and Kim even emphasizes that "the United States is of central importance to all the East Asian states" (2004, p. 45). However, the United States has not supported the development of East Asia regionalism. First, this attitude of the United States is illustrated by its strong objection to the Malaysian Prime Minister's proposal of East Asian Economic Group in 1990. Second, the United States objected to Japan's proposal of creating an Asian Monetary 50 Fund at the time of the 1997 financial crisi51 because an Asian Monetary Fund would decrease the influence of the United States in the region (Yip, 2001, p.l 08). Another major objection of the United States to East Asia regionalism was its disfavor of ASEAN Plus Three. The United States views ASEAN Plus Three as a vehicle for China to expand its influence in the region and to enable an anti-American bloc. The influence of the United States in East Asia regionalism is undisputable but it has not increased the momentum toward regional cooperation as neo-realists would expect. In contrast, the United States has held back East Asiaregionalism. In fact, the United States has been "fracturing the [East Asian] region and making any region-wide integration or identity impossible" (Beeson, 2003, p. 254). Neo-realism has greatly contributed to understanding international cooperation at the regional level. The neo-realist argument is that regionalism can be understood as a response to external threats or challenges. Regional small states participate in regional arrangements and institutions to constrain the freedom of action of the hegemon. The presence of the hegemon is considered necessary to the success of regionalism because the hegemon can provide collective goods to encourage small states intoregional cooperation. In the case of East Asia regionalism, neo-realists have found evidence to support their assumptions, but East Asia regionalism provides evidence that disfavors the neo-realist argument. For instance, China can be viewed as a provider of collective goods in economics but it is viewed as a threat in the security realm and the United States has been an objector rather than a hegemon that stimulates East Asia regionalism. East Asia 51 regionalism continues to develop despite all those realities that might have favored or disfavored it and it invites another theoretical explanation. Neo-liberalism and East Asia Regionalism Neo-liberalism is sometimes referred to as "neoliberal institutionalism" and is seen as a response to neo-realism. Despite their agreement with neo-realists about the anarchy of the international system and about states as key actors, neo-liberals contend . .-<'!!t ' " -_. that the importance and the effect of the anarchy of the international system have "been exaggerated and moreover that realists/neo-realists underestimated the varieties of cooperative behavior possible within such a decentralized system" (Evans & Newnham, 1998, p. 361). In international cooperation, neo-liberals hold, "states focus primarily on their individual absolute gains and are indifferent to the gains of others. Whether cooperation results in a relative gain or loss is not important to a state ... as long as it brings an absolute gain" (Powell, 1991, p. 1303). Absolute gain can be appreciated because of comparative advantages. Every state can get benefits from cooperation and benefits will include not only power but also economic and cultural gains. Apart from states, neo-liberalism recognizes that there are many other actors in the international system such as international organizations, transnational enterprises and other non-state players. Keohane and Nye (1989, p. 24-25) show that the international system is .".. becoming more and more interdependent because of multiple channels that connect societies including formal and informal ties among states, the "absence of hierarchy among issues" such as energy, resources and environment, and the dismissed role of 52 military power as a consequence of interdependence. Due to this "complex interdependence", states will focus on international institution-building, regime creation and absolute gains as their policy strategies, which will all promote international cooperation. Institutions and regimes can advance inter-state cooperation by improving their communications, lessening suspicions and attaining mutual benefits and therefore, promoting their relationships. Consequently, the role of states is decreased. In spite of not