Constructing communities: the curious case of East Asian regionalism

Abstract

The prevailing scholarly orthodoxy regarding recent diplomatic initiatives in the Asia-Pacific assumes that East Asia is evolving into a distinctive regional community. The orthodoxy attributes this development to the growing influence of the diplomatic practices espoused by the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN) and its related institutions. However, a paradox remains, namely: despite the failure of ASEAN’s distinctive practice to fulfil its rhetorical promise in Southeast Asia both immediately prior to and in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis in 1997, it is nevertheless considered sufficient to validate the projection of ASEAN defined norms onto a wider Pacific canvas. This study analyses how an academic preference for constructivism has misinterpreted the growth in official rhetoric extolling East Asian regionalism since 1997 in a way that has helped produce and reinforce this paradox. By contrast, we contend that government declarations of a developing East Asian identity actually serve to obscure the continuation of traditional interstate relations and do not herald any wider, let alone inexorable, movement towards an integrated regional community.

ASEAN and the Dynamics of Resistance to Sovereignty Violation: The Case of the Third Indochina War (1978–1991)

“…As a small collection of regional states, ASEAN has little impact on the international security landscape. This view of ASEAN autonomy is consistent with existing realist literature of Leifer (1989) and Jones and Smith (2006). However, this article contributes to the literature by demonstrating that when a clear interest convergence occurs between an ASEAN state and an external power, a substantial compact is constructed.…”

The Institutional Identity of Regional Organizations, Or Mercosur’s Identity Crisis1

“…International relations scholars tend to implicitly agree with the claim that not having a clear and forceful identity undermines a regional institution’s relevance and efficiency. For instance, in opposition to the claim made above about the identity of ASEAN, for Jones and Smith (2007:175), far from being a feature of the association's identity, the ASEAN way is a rhetorical claim of little substance that has ultimately weakened the association’s capacity to deal collectively with the economic crisis:…”

The integraton by trade and FDI of emerging economies: The ASEAN example

“…Critics to this approach argue that scholars for constructivist preferences misinterpreted government declarations of developing an East-Asian identity and still today interstate relations are predominant and the notion of East-Asian regionalism steered by ASEAN is illusionary (Jones -Smith 2007b).…”