Abstract
The rise of China, the decline of Japan, and the ambivalence of the United States are at the heart of the shifting balance of the East Asian region. South Korea has also longed for a balancing role among its giant neighbors, albeit with limited success. Despite its structural limitations, the Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has shown a certain degree of institutional resilience and adaptability in the emergence of “ASEAN+X” forums such as ASEAN+1, +3, +6, and +8. The complex balance of power and interests in this region does not allow for a single pacesetter, thus motivating these countries to consider sharing (and competing for) regional leadership and influence with each other through the ASEAN+X forums.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The conceptual framework of securitization and de-securitization draws heavily on Koo 2011.
- 2.
For more details about the San Francisco system, see Calder (2004).
- 3.
Under these circumstances, President Clinton said: “Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other. They make better trading partners and partners in diplomacy” (President William Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 25, 1994).
- 4.
Some contributors to this volume raised this question during the second project meeting.
- 5.
According to Bergsten (2000, 22), “most East Asians feel that they were both let down and put upon by the West in the crisis.” They believe that the West, in particular the US, “let down” Asia because Western financial institutions and other actors caused or exacerbated the crisis by withdrawing their money from the region and then refused, as did the US, to take part in rescue operations to manage it. They believe that East Asia has been “put upon” by the West because of the way in which, through the IMF, the West dictated the international response to the crisis and because of the perceived consequences of the IMF’s prescriptions. See also Pempel (1999) and Wade (2000).
- 6.
See Chow’s chapter in this volume.
- 7.
- 8.
Ironically, the ASEAN+3 effort began with an outside impetus from the EU. When ASEAN members asked that Japan, China, and South Korea to join the ASEAN-Europe (ASEM) meeting, the ASEAN+3 forum began to take shape.
- 9.
According to Aggarwal (1998), the notion of linkages captures the intellectual basis for connecting different issues. If two issues are considered unrelated but become tied together in negotiations because of a political power play, this can be considered a tactical link. By contrast, if the issues exhibit some intellectual coherence, then the linkage can be seen as substantive. See also the lead chapter of this volume by Aggarwal and Govella.
- 10.
China and ASEAN use the term “non-traditional security” for their cooperation in: piracy, smuggling, human trafficking, drug trade, transnational criminal organizations, illegal immigration, cyber-piracy and cyber attacks, terrorism, subversion, and ethnic/religious movements. In addition, there are natural threats such as epidemics, typhoons, earthquakes, and tsunamis that require cooperation in disaster and post-disaster relief, disease control, and food security (Arase 2010, 809).
- 11.
Arase (2010, 809) argues that this meeting-driven process constituting China-ASEAN economic and security cooperation has advanced concrete security cooperation schemes far more than either APEC or the ASEAN+3 process. By contrast, Goh (2011, 390) argues: “ASEAN’s complex strategy may not be ultimately effective in brokering the transition toward a great power bargain about norms-based power-sharing.”
- 12.
For more details about ASEAN internal politics, see Chow’s chapter in this volume.
- 13.
Subsequently, the Korea-ASEAN agreement on trade in goods was signed in August 2006 and came into force in June 2007. The Korea-ASEAN agreement on trade in services was signed in November 2007 and came into force in May 2009. Finally, the Korea-ASEAN agreement on investment was signed in June 2009 and came into force in September 2009.
- 14.
With respect to ASEAN, South Korea has made conscious efforts to mitigate the negative perception of the country as an “economic animal” following in the footsteps of Japan. Many observers of Japanese business penetration in Southeast Asia have noted that the once benevolent Japan as a “lead goose” became a “stingier bird,” only concerned about replicating its domestic system of hierarchical and potentially exploitative keiretsu networking in the region as a whole. In short, “embraced development” gave way to “captive development” (Hatch and Yamamura 1996).
- 15.
Russia’s participation was justified by its geopolitical importance to East Asia, especially with regard to energy security.
- 16.
For example, while the US wanted to bring hard security issues to the table—including free navigation and the avoidance of hegemonic dominance over the South China Sea—China clearly wanted to avoid this.
- 17.
The old functional agenda from the previous summits—including education, finance, energy, disaster management and the prevention of avian flu—also continue as there are existing mechanisms in place. Two new agenda items have been added to this: connectivity, which is lobbied for by China, and a dynamic relationship between traditional and non-traditional security, lobbied for by the US. First, physical connectivity is imperative to connect ASEAN with China (and Northeast Asia more generally) and to build an integrated East Asian community. The plan includes the construction of the Singapore-Kunming rail link that may be extended as far as the city of Surabaya in East Java. The ASEAN connectivity agenda will also include institutional and people-to-people networks, including regulatory reforms and education. Secondly, given the ongoing territorial disputes and other non-traditional security issues such as piracy in the Indian Ocean, the interplay of traditional and non-traditional security is a timely and pending issue (Wihardja 2011).
- 18.
For instance, the Chairman’s statement reaffirmed their “commitment to ensure energy security in the region by promoting energy diversification through information exchanges and researches on alternative, new, and renewable energy development, as well as energy conservation, energy efficiency, and the use of clean and environmentally-friendly technologies.” See http://www.asean.org/documents/19th %20summit/APT-CS.pdf.
- 19.
China, Japan, and South Korea will prepare 300,000 tons, 250,000 tons and 150,000 tons of rice respectively, while ASEAN countries will prepare 87,000 tons (The Jakarta Post, October 6, 2011, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/10/06/asean3-agree-emergency-rice-reserve-finances.html).
- 20.
The Straits Times, November 2, 2010.
- 21.
- 22.
For skeptics of ASEAN, ASEAN has also offered its big neighbors a minimalist, normative position from which to resist the more difficult processes of negotiating a common understanding on key strategic norms. At the same time, ASEAN’s informal approach allows China and Japan (and the US as well, to some extent) to treat regional institutions as instruments of soft balancing, more than as venues for negotiating and institutionalizing regional rules of the game (Goh 2011).
- 23.
Most recently in October 2011, the US has ratified another FTA with an Asian trading partner, namely South Korea . For the US, the Korea-US FTA (KORUS FTA) is one of the largest FTA deals since the conclusion of the North America n Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ) in 1993. For South Korea, it is the largest among its eight concluded FTA deals.
- 24.
Pempel (2010) labels such a let-the-winners-emerge-from-competition approach as “institutional Darwinism.”
References
Aggarwal, Vinod K. 1998. Reconciling multiple institutions: Bargaining, linkages, and nesting. In Asia Pacific crossroads: Regime creation and the future of APEC, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal and Charles E. Morrison. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aggarwal, Vinod. 2010. Designing trade institutions for the Asia–Pacific, paper presented “A Post 2010 Trade Agenda for the Asia-Pacific,” organized by PECC-ADBI-IDB, 1–41.
Aggarwal, Vinod K. and Shujiro Urata, eds. 2006. Bilateral trade arrangements in the Asia–Pacific: Origins, evolution, and implications. New York: Routledge.
Aggarwal, Vinod K., and Min Gyo Koo. 2008. Asia’s new institutional architecture: Evolving structures for managing trade, financial, and security relations. In Asia’s new institutional architecture: Evolving structures for managing trade, financial, and security relations, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal and Min Gyo Koo. New York: Springer.
Arase, David. 2010. Non-traditional security in China-ASEAN cooperation: The institutionalization of regional security cooperation and the evolution of East Asian regionalism. Asian Survey 50(4): 808–833.
Bergsten, Fred. 2000. Towards a tripartite world. The Economist, 15 July, 20–22.
Calder, Kent E. 2004. Securing security through prosperity: The San Francisco system in comparative perspective. The Pacific Review 17(1): 135–157.
Capling, Ann. 2008. Preferential trade agreements as instruments of foreign policy: An Australia–Japan free trade agreement and its implications for the Asia–Pacific region. The Pacific Review 21(1): 27–43.
Conti, Delia B. 1998. Reconciling free trade, fair trade, and interdependence: The rhetoric of presidential economic leadership. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Cook, Malcolm. 2008. The United States and the East Asia summit: Finding the proper home. Contemporary Southeast Asia 30(2): 293–312.
Cumings, Bruce. 1997. Japan and Northeast Asia into the twenty first century. In Network power: Japan and Asia, ed. Peter J. Katzenstein and Takashi Shiraishi. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Dieter, Heribert. 2007. The future of monetary regionalism in Asia: A joint currency or limited cooperation? In The evolution of regionalism in Asia: Economic and security issues, ed. Heribert Dieter. New York: Routledge.
Dieter, Heribert. 2009. Changing patterns of regional governance: From security to political economy? The Pacific Review 22(1): 73–90.
Dieter, Heribert and Richard Higgott. 2002. Exploring alternative theories of economic regionalism: From trade to finance in Asian Cooperation. CSGR working paper no. 89/02, University of Warwick, Jan. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/2002/wp8902.pdf. Accessed Mar 1 2012.
Fergusson, Ian F. and Bruce Vaughn. 2010. The trans-Pacific partnership agreement. CRS report for congress 7–5700, Nov 1. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Goh, Chok Tong. 2003. FTAs will ensure US and Asia remain in happy embrace. Straits Times, 9 May.
Goh, Evelyn. 2011. Institutions and the great power bargain in East Asia: ASEAN’s limited ‘brokerage’ role. International Relations of the Asia–Pacific 11: 1–29 (advance online access). doi:10.1093/irap/lcr014.
Goh, Everlyn, and Amitav Acharya. 2007. Introduction. In Reassessing security cooperation in the Asia–Pacific: Competition, congruence, and transformation, ed. Amitav Acharya and Everlyn Goh, 1–17. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Goldstein, Judith. 1988. Ideas, institutions and American trade policy. International Organization 42(1): 179–217.
Grieco, Joseph M. 1997. System sources of variation in regional institutionalization in Western Europe, East Asia, and the Americas. In The political economy of regionalism, ed. Edward E. Mansfield and Helen Milner. New York: Columbia University Press.
Harris, Stuart and Andrew Mack, eds. 1997. Asia–Pacific security: The economics–politics nexus. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Hatch, Walter, and Kozo Yamamura. 1996. Asia in Japan’s embrace: Building a regional production alliance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Higgott, Richard. 1999. The political economy of globalization in East Asia. In Globalization and the Asia–Pacific: Contested territories, ed. Kris Olds et al. London: Routledge.
Higgott, Richard. 2004. US Foreign Policy and the ‘securitization’ of economic globalization. International Politics 41: 147–175.
Hughes, Christopher W. 2009. Japan’s response to China’s rise: Regional engagement, global containment, dangers of collision. International Affairs 85(4): 837–856.
Hund, Markus. 2003. ASEAN plus three: Towards a new age of Pan-East Asian regionalism? A skeptic’s appraisal. The Pacific Review 16(3): 383–417.
Irwin, Douglas A. 1997. Managed trade: The case against import targets. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Jones, David Martin and Michael L.R. Smith. 2007. Making process, not progress: ASEAN and the evolving East Asian regional order. International Security 32(1): 148–184.
Kang, David C. 2007. China rising: Peace, power, and order in East Asia. New York: Columbia University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 1997. Introduction: Asian regionalism in comparative perspective. In Network power: Japan and Asia, ed. Peter J. Katzenstein and Takahi Shiraishi. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2005. A world of regions: Asia and Europe in the American imperium. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Koo, Min Gyo. 2009a. Embracing Asia, South Korean style: Preferential trading arrangements as instruments of foreign policy. EAI issue briefing, no. MASI 2009–08, Nov 11. http://www.eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/2009111215515244.pdf. Accessed Mar 1, 2012.
Koo, Min Gyo. 2009b. The Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute and Sino-Japanese political-economic relations: Cold politics and hot economics? The Pacific Review 22(2): 205–232.
Koo, Min Gyo. 2010. Between a rock and a hard place: The future of the East Asian maritime order. EAI issue briefing, no. MASI 2010–08, Dec 27, 2010. http://www.eai.or.kr/data/bbs/kor_report/2010122814485790.pdf. Accessed Mar 1, 2012.
Koo, Min Gyo. 2011. The US approaches to the trade-security nexus in East Asia: From securitization to re-securitization. Asian Perspective 35(1): 37–57.
Koo, Min Gyo. 2012. Same bed, different dreams: Prospects and challenges for ASEAN+‘X’ forums. Journal of International and Area Studies 19(1).
Kwei, Elaine. 2006. Chinese trade bilateralism: Politics still in command. In Bilateral trade agreements in the Asia–Pacific: Origins, evolution, and implications, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal and Shujiro Urata. New York: Routledge.
Lin, Kun-chin. 2008. Rhetoric or vision? Chinese response to U.S. unilateralism. In Northeast Asia: Ripe for integration?, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal, Min Gyo Koo, Seungjoo Lee and Chung-in Moon. New York: Springer.
Mochizuki, Mike M. 2009. Political-security competition and the FTA movement: Motivations and consequences. In Competitive regionalism: FTA diffusion in the Pacific Rim, ed. Mireya Solís, Barbara Stallings, and Saori N. Katada, 54–73. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Moore, Thomas C. 2007. China’s rise in Asia: Regional cooperation and grand strategy. In The evolution of regionalism in Asia: Economic and security issues, ed. Heribert Dieter. London: Routledge.
Pempel, T.J. 1999. Regional ups, regional downs. In The politics of the Asian economic crisis, ed. T.J. Pempel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Pempel, T.J. 2010. Soft balancing, hedging, and institutional darwinism: The economic-security nexus and East Asian regionalism. Journal of East Asian Studies 10: 209–238.
Ravenhill, John. 2000. APEC adrift: Implications for economic regionalism in Asia and the Pacific. The Pacific Review 13(2): 319–333.
Ravenhill, John. 2008. Asia’s new economic institutions. In Asia’s new institutional architecture: Evolving structures for managing trade, financial, and security relations, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal and Min Gyo Koo. New York: Springer.
Shirk, Susan L., and Christopher Twomey, eds. 1997. Power and prosperity: Economics and security linkages in the Asia–Pacific. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Sohn, Yul, and Min Gyo Koo. 2011. Securitizing trade: The case of the Korea-US free trade agreement. International Relations of the Asia–Pacific 11(3): 433–460.
Solís, Mireya, and Saori N. Katada. 2007. Understanding East Asian cross-regionalism: An analytical framework. Pacific Affairs 80(2): 229–258.
Stubbs, Richard. 2002. ASEAN plus three: Emerging East Asian regionalism? Asian Survey 42(3): 440–455.
Taylor, Brendan and Bruce Luckham. 2006. Economics and security. In Strategy and security in the Asia–Pacific, ed. Robert Ayson and Desmond Ball. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Terada, Takashi. 2010. The origins of ASEAN + 6 and Japan’s initiatives: China’s rise and the agent-structure analysis. The Pacific Review 23(1): 71–92.
Tsunekawa, Keichi. 2005. Why so many maps there? Japan and East Asian regional developments. In Remapping East Asia: The construction of a region, ed. T.J. Pempel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Tyson, Laura D’Andrea. 1990. Managed trade: Making the best of the second best. In An American trade strategy: Options for the 1990s, ed. Rudiger W. Dornbusch, Anne O. Krueger, and Laura D’Andrea Tyson. Washington: The Brookings Institution Press.
United States Trade Representative. 2007. United States and Korea conclude historic trade agreement. Apr 2. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/April/20070402154022AKllennoCcM0.2038538.html.
Wade, Robert. 2000. Wheels within wheels: Rethinking the Asian crisis and the Asian model. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 85–115.
Webber, Douglas. 2001. Two funerals and a wedding? The ups and downs of regionalism in East Asia and Asia–Pacific after the Asian crisis. The Pacific Review 14(3): 339–372.
Webber, Douglas. 2010. The regional integration that didn’t happen: Cooperation without integration in early twenty-first century East Asia. The Pacific Review 23(3): 313–333.
Wihardja, Maria Monica. 2011. 2011 East Asia summit: New members, challenges and opportunities. East Asia Forum, June 1. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/06/01/2011-east-asia-summit-new-members-challenges-and-opportunities/.
Yang, Jian. 2009. China’s competitive FTA strategy: Realism on a liberal slide. In Competitive regionalism: FTA diffusion in the Pacific Rim, ed. Mireya Solis, Barbara Stallings and Saori N. Katada. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zoellick, Robert. 2001. Free trade and hemispheric hope, Remarks before the Council of the Americas, Washington, May 7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koo, M.G. (2013). The ASEAN+‘X’ Framework and its Implications for the Economic-Security Nexus in East Asia. In: Aggarwal, V., Govella, K. (eds) Linking Trade and Security. The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific, vol 1. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4765-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4765-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4764-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4765-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)