Critiquing John Ravenhill on Ease Asain Regionalism...

Critiquing John Ravenhill’s Article:

“East Asian Regionalism: Much Ado About Nothing?

22 March 2014

By: Thomas Kaydor       

In his article, “East Asian Regionalism: Much Ado About Nothing?”, Ravenhill (2009) argues that, in East Asia, negotiation and inter-governmental collaboration have increased primarily in trade and financial cooperation.  He asserts that the region’s economic agreements are largely motivated by diplomatic and strategic interests; hence ‘aggregate benefits from them are likely to be limited given the low levels of tariffs, et al.’ (Ravenhill 2009). I think the article is good because of Ravenhill’s clarity and logic, the merits and criticisms of regionalism discussed in the article, and factors militating against East Asian viable regionalism. Despite these positive elements, Ravenhill failed to provide concrete recommendations for building effective East Asian regional institutions. He also failed to appraise the impact of the US involvement in East Asia regionalism especially in the security sector.

East Asian regionalism is traceable to the 1967 formation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Ravenhill 2009). ASEAN became a genuine region-wide inter-governmental institution in 1999 when China, Japan and Korea where coopted, thus transforming it into the ASAEN Plus Three grouping. This transformation transcended handling of the aftermath of 1997-98 financial crisis to increasing intra-regional cooperation on trade, finance, disaster management, tourism, and energy. ASEAN has attracted admirers and critics. Admirers believe that East Asian regionalism thrives on respect for sovereignty and commitment to peacefully resolving disputes. They argue that ‘East Asia has created a diplomatic community, and laid the foundation for regional security architecture’ (Ravenhill 2009), although there is no substantive regional security institution, as the region is driven by individualistic interests of member states-some maintaining security cooperation with the US (Park 2001). I think the region needs a viable security cooperation. Contrarily, ASEAN’s critics believe that some gains ascribed to the institution are overstated. For instance, they contend that the late 1980s peaceful resolution of the Cambodia-Vietnam conflict was not an achievement of ASEAN, but rather an outcome of international negotiation. I disagree here because an international intervention without regional support would not have brought lasting peace between the two countries. 

On challenges confronting East Asian regionalism, regional governments fail to comply with commitments in economic agreements. They practice protectionism, and lack effective dispute settlement mechanisms. For example, East Asian states signed agreements with non-Asian WTO members and uphold those agreements, but fail to uphold agreements amongst ASEAN members (Ravenhill 2009). As a booming global economic region, I think the governments need to overcome mistrust, eschew protectionism and fulfill their obligations under regional cooperation agreements. ASEAN member states should price effective regional cooperation over national self-interests. This will allow them benefit more from regional and international trade especially when the region is strongly bonded under an effective regional institution.

To conclude, John Ravenhill’s article provides a comprehensive account of the status of East Asian regionalism, which is viewed as a shallow consultative cooperation fora where governments conduct public diplomacy while protecting their autonomy against effective regional integration (Ravenhill 2009). Despite the article’s good attributes, Ravenhill failed to proffer concrete recommendations to mitigate the challenges militating against effective East Asian regionalism. He also failed to comment on the impact of the US’ cooperation with Japan, Korea, Australia, Indonesia, etc. I think these cooperations undermine building of effective regional institutions because the US alliances provide less incentives for East Asian regionalism.

References

Park, J 2001, ‘The US-led Alliances in the Asia-Pacific: hedge against potential threats or an undesirable multilateral security order?’, The Pacific Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 137-158.

Ravenhill J 2009, ‘East Asian Regionalism: Much Ado About Nothing?’, Review of International Studies, vol. 35, pp. 215-235.