ERIA: Centrality, Odd men out, and quest for regional “research” leadership.

Previously, Malcolm Cook at the Lowy Interpreter and I briefly exchanged notes on the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) and its meaning in the broader East Asian context. I should like to continue those thoughts here, arguing that the story of ERIA neatly encapsulates the story of East Asian regionalism. I will show that ERIA’s formation is not a sign of strength of East Asian regionalism but another yet manifestation of the contest for centrality in East Asia between China and Japan.

The order of the title is no accident. I tend to believe that without a clear central leader, it is impossible to define regional membership (let alone borderline cases like odd men in). Indeed, contestation over the borders of the region (such as in East Asia today) is a good indication that the position of central leader is itself contested (chiefly between China and Japan). Under these conditions, any field even the esoteric (almost irrelevantly so) field of semi-formal research into economic regionalism acquires a political connotation.

So, what is ERIA? From a technocratic point of view, the ERIA is a research body designed to help with policy development and coordination in East Asia. But politically, it represents a Japanese leadership bid in response to China’s growing influence in the field of regionalism research. Specifically, Japan’s concerns were raised by China bid to house the Network of East Asia Thinktanks (NEAT) – an idea based on the recommendation of the East Asian Study Group (the first annual conference of which was held in China in 2003).

In response, Japanese policy-makers started to propose alternative groups to carry out research. Japan first pushed for the Asian Development Bank to take on this role, but meeting US resistance (and no doubt limited, if any, Chinese support at the ADB’s Board of Executives), shifted its attention to the ASEAN+3 research groups where Japanese research institutes were doing well. However, neither provided the leadership dividends Japan was after – the only option then was to start up its own “independent” research institution. Enter ERIA stage right.

Building on then Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Nikai’s proposal for a 16 party FTA, Japan’s former PM Abe called for the creation of ERIA at the 2007 ASEAN+3. ERIA was to be a research clearing house and policy coordination facility – a sort of OECD for Asia, minus the Charter and all the western legalistic trapping. At the 3rd East Asian Summit in 2008, the ERIA idea was approved unanimously – and debate shifted on where to base the secretariat.

Not withstanding the fact that Japan was to provide the money (and most of the brains) for this enterprise, ASEAN insisted on deciding amongst itself where to base the ERIA. The intense diplomacy among ASEAN nations for the privilege of housing the ERIA only subsided when the decision was made to temporary house in the ASEAN secretariat in Jarkarta, Indonesia. Thus while officially the ERIA is only temporary in Jarkarta, the green light has gone ahead to build it its own building, something of a fait accompli for Indonesia although unlikely to garner the kind of trust ERIA will require to do its work.

I am inclined to believe that this outcome reflects not so much a weakness in ASEAN as in Northeast Asia. If ERIA was to be an OECD for Asia, then it ought to be based in a Paris-equivalent city in Asia (i.e. the capitals of either China or Japan), which Jakarta (despite being very nice) simply is not. If, on the other hand, the goal of the ERIA was to boost Japan’s presence in southeast, this outcome makes more sense (Japan would likely lose political points for insisting the ERIA be based in Tokyo, better to pawn it out to ASEAN).

In fact, Japan’s influence on ERIA was clear from the outset. Firstly, Japan offered to fund the organization through its first ten years to the tune of 10 billion yen over ten years. Secondly, ERIA was established with institutional links to the Japanese External Trade Research Organisation (JETRO). The Chairman of JETRO Watanabe Osamu has carefully played down any Japanese influence within ERIA, even as it negotiated with ASEAN members were to establish the secretariat.

Unsurprisingly, the ERIA came to support the METI’s and JETRO’s position on the merits of the 16 party Free Trade Area, (known in Japan as Comprehensive Economic Partnership East Asia, CEPEA). No surprise either that Australia, New Zealand and India have stepped forward to pitch additional monies and more importantly legitimacy to the organization – often visibly and vocally supporting ERIA as something of a hat tip to Japan. These countries would be the major beneficiary of such a trade area, and perhaps just as crucially, are keen to shed their status as “odd men” and gain acceptance as a true regional member – something Japan just might be able to provide.

P.S. One of the effects of ERIA foundation was to put pressure of the NEAT process. In fact, the NEAT itself was hardly a success. NEAT is not an international institution of the same level as the ERIA, it does not possess its own headquarters, research staff or budget and is more or less an alliance of academics with good political connections. Indeed, the 2007 report entitled “Future Direction of NEAT” prepared by Thailand notes, “NEAT activities do not governmental support and are now facing possible competition from other newly established mechanisms like Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).” Additionally, the Japanese CEAC seems to have taken over running the NEAT, and the whole agenda there is shifting. It seems likely therefore that ERIA will win out as the lead research body in East Asian regionalism.