According to UKM's Prof Lee Poh Ping, the contagious effect of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis has demonstrated that the East Asian countries are very interconnected and the idea of an East Asian Community is still viable, although there have been some changes in political and economic landscapes in Northeast and Southeast Asia.

Last year's Asean and East Asian summits held in Malaysia not only saw the conspicuous absence of the United States, but also a public row between China and Japan. Meanwhile, serious debates about the limit of East Asia's organizational inclusiveness, coherence and identity of Asean as well as its role and effectiveness in the current international and regional situation continues.

To address these multifaceted issues affecting the region, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) has recently published a timely book titled The Emerging East Asian Community Security & Economic Issues. The book is jointly edited by Professors Lee Poh Ping, Tham Siew Yean and George T Tu and its contributors include other prominent scholars such as China's Professor Zhu Mingquan and Dr Liu Aming as well as Singapore's Professor Wang Gung Wu.

The book was published just before last year's Asean and East Asian summits held in Kuala Lumpur.

Lee is the Principal Fellow of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (Ikmas) and also president of Malaysian Association of Japanese Studies (Majas).

Reproduced below is the full text of an email interview with Prof Lee:

Q: In your article titled "Small States in the European Community and Asean in Asian Regional Groupings Compared", you observe that the economic disparity between Asean's member-states is larger. So, will this pose an obstacle to the economic integration of Asean and also the East Asian Community? How long will it take to overcome the intra-Asean economic disparity?

A: The economic disparity among Asean members and between Asean and the richer members of an East Asian Community like Japan is obviously an obstacle to close integration in both Asean and the Community. Poorer members in both groupings fear that the richer members will be the main beneficiaries of economic arrangements that might be effected such as free trade and so on.

It is therefore very important for the richer members to reaasure the poorer members that what economic arrangements that are adopted will also benefit them. One thing that an East Asian Community can consider will be something like the structural funds of the European Union where funds from the Union can be transferred to the poorer regions to help in their development.

How long will it take to overcome the intra-Asean instability? This is a question that cannot be answered easily. Membership of a regional grouping sympathetic to the poorer members can only help so much. Ultimately, the poorer members have to find for themselves the formula for successful economic development.


You also mention in your article that, besides economic disparity, Asean's 10 national members are also divided along ethnic, religious, cultural, linguistic and political lines without at least one common heritage like Christianity in Europe. Are these natural divides serious obstacles to the integration of Asean as a truly cohesive regional community like the European Union? How to overcome these natural divides to strengthen Asean's coherence and identity?

Asean consists of groups that are divided across every conceivable line of division of mankind. Asean members are divided according to race, ethnicity, tribe, language, religion, region and so on. These divisions are obviously very serious obstacles to integration. Yet the remarkable achievement of Asean has been its survival as a grouping for about four decades despite such divisions. There must be something in the "Asean Way" that has ensured sure Asean longevity.


Due to their different historical experiences, collective memory and geo-strategic positions, members of Asean also differ in their attitudes towards super or big powers like the United States, China, Japan, India, South Korea, Australia and Russia. How important is this factor in the efforts to strengthen Asean's coherence and identity and ensure that Asean will not effectively break up by big-power competition or potential rivalries in Southeast Asia?

Asean fear of big power domination and the loss of identity and cohesion in membership of Asian regional groupings is very real. In fact these two factors have been the dominant considerations in the history of Asean membership of Asian regional groupings. This is why Asean has always wanted to be in the driver's seat so as to safeguard its identity and autonomy. Thus Asean is quite happy with the Asean Plus Three grouping(APT) because of it being in the driver's seat and less enthusiastic about the Asia-Pacific Cooperation(Apec) because it is not in a good position to influence the APEC agenda.


In last year's Asean and East Asian summits, it was asserted that Asean would be in the driver's seat in charting the direction of the development of the East Asian Community which now includes China, Japan, South Korea, India and Australia. Is Asean (1) economically and politically strong, (2) cohesive and united, (3) administratively capable enough, (4) in reality to make these big powers, to serve Asean's own interest rather than the other way round?

For the moment Asean is in a good position to be in the driver's seat for the APT and the East Asia Summit as the other powers, especially Japan and China do not trust each other. Any attempt by either to take the lead will probably doom the grouping as the other power will not accept such leadership. Japan and China on the other hand do not distrust Asean.

There are however limits to Asean leadership of the APT or any East Asian Community. Asean has become a bit unwieldy as a result of its expansion to ten nations. Also the Asian financial crisis has weakened Asean which has yet to recover from it. Hence its capacity to lead is not that strong. At the same time the big powers in an East Asian Community when its vital interests (particularly in the security arena) are involved may act independently of the community they are in, and not heed Asean's wishes.

The United States did not participate in last year's East Asian Summit. What are the real reasons? Can any viable East Asian grouping realistically succeed without the direct participation of the United States who has substantial economic and military presence in the Asia-Pacific?

On the surface,the US was not considered for membership of the East Asia Summit because it will not sign the Asean Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.One can only guess at the real reasons. There is speculation that China and some Asean members are not keen on US participation because they do not want the US to dominate or the other way around, China wants to dominate. Whether an East Asian grouping can succeed without the US depends on the nature of the grouping. If it is possible for the Europeans to form a Community in the beginning without US membership despite heavy US economic (Marshall Plan and so on) and military (NATO) involvement and then develop into the successful regional grouping that it is suggests that it is possible an East Asian regional grouping can do the same.


The original idea of an East Asian grouping surfaced when the Northeast Asian states of China, Japan, Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea enjoyed stable relations and Southeast Asian countries were progressing economically before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Now, all those premises seemed to have changed since 1997. Is the idea of an East Asian Community still viable and achievable?

Indeed. The Asian Financial Crisis if anything led to the development of East Asian regional consciousness. This crisis has demonstrated that the East Asian countries are very interconnected. For what started off as a currency crisis quickly spread to other Asean countries and to a Northeast Asian country, South Korea.At the same time, the affected countries discovered that a global institution like the IMF created too much economic and political distress by its global approach.

Hence there developed the feeling that the East Asian countries should look towards its region (East Asia) for the solution to their financial crisis. Hence the momentum that developed in the APT and the adoption of the Chiang Mai Initiative. The idea of an East Asian Community is still viable, especially after the financial crisis.

JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia. He is a former DAP member of Parliament for Kampar (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily (now Sin Chew Daily). He read political science and economics at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.