Merging Japanese and Australian proposals for East Asian community-building; US participation.

At the fourth East Asian Summit, held on October 25^th in Thailand, the leaders of Japan and Australia had the opportunity to air their views about the future form and function of East Asian regionalism.

As Acharya has noted, these two visions may be in competition with each other. At this stage however little can be known for sure as both proposals share a level of deliberately in-built vagueness. Indeed, Hatoyama’s proposal is seemly contradictory – or at least unsure – on what role the US ought to play in the region.

While Hatoyama’s is still dissimulating about membership, Rudd’s Asia-Pacific community has signposted from the outset US participation. However, it is likely that Japan and Australia will adopt a common position in favor of US participation (i.e. Japan coming out and supporting the Australian position). Indeed, there are signs that the Japanese and Australian positions are already beginning to merge.

In many ways this is only to be expected. Japan and Australia have a record of diplomatic cooperation and joint leadership in the field of regional organization building. That does not necessarily imply that the two will coordinate this time, but there are some structural reasons which suggests that cooperation is more likely.

Specifically, Japan and Australia have common national interests in the management of China and the desire for a US presence in East Asia. Specifically, the logic of China’s rising power necessitates US involvement in Asia if Japan is to preserve its influence, a fact true also for Australia.

However, for the time being Japan has not endorsed US membership. What would bring that about?

Firstly, ASEAN. As Achrya has pointed out, ASEAN is the base on which regionalist projects will be constructed – and proposals from Australia and Japan will have to be mediated by ASEAN. Hatoyama’s rhetoric leading up to the trilateral summit suggests that Hatoyama seems to have believed that Japan could lead the formation of an East Asia community. However, due to the lack of progress at that summit, Hatoyama has likely realized the importance of ASEAN. As it becomes more likely that ASEAN will invite the US into the region, via the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, Hatoyama may well decide to “go with the flow.”

However, one ASEAN official has noted that ASEAN’s support for US participation is split 50:50; with the archipelagic southeast states in favor and those bordering China more ambivalent. This split in ASEAN is due to China’s rising influence. Indeed, China has pushed forward its credentials as a leader – this year offering Southeast Asian states a 10 billion dollar China-ASEAN investment fund (chiefly for infrastructure building it seems). Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that ASEAN states would push the US issue.

Secondly, China. It is possible that China is backing away from a strong position on US participation. One newspaper reported China’s Ambassador to ASEAN Xue HanQin (薛捍勤) stating that the US could be a participant, although whether this reflects a real change in policy is still uncertain. Has China embraced Tow’s cynical strategy of sinking a proposal by endorsing it? Certainly Chinese foreign policy makers must be aware that a strong move to exclude the US by China might have exactly the opposite effect. This uncertainty on both sides has created a situation in which neither China or Japan is willing to discuss the role of the US in East Asia, for fear of harming their political relationship.

Lastly, Australia. With ASEAN still divided on the issue of US involvement, and China-Japan circling the issue, active Australian diplomacy is more likely to pay off. What it may take is some “double edged diplomacy”, convincing Japan that ASEAN really does support US involvement. Australia has been able to play this middle power role in the past, and is in a good position now to make a valued, and potentially strategically valuable, contribution.