ABSTRACT

The Asia Pacific is not a natural region as shared values or culture are lacking. If a natural region entails a consciousness of regional identity or cultural affinities then the term “East Asia” may be more appropriate; traditionally this has referred to the Chinese area of civilisation, including China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam.1 Alternative definitions of East Asia are based on the use of Chinese characters and only include China, Japan and Korea.2 Others go beyond common culture and take into account economic interaction. The economist’s concept of East Asia breaks with the historian’s identification with Chinese civilisation and includes Southeast Asia on the basis of related economic systems.3 Strategic definitions of East Asia were prominent during the cold war, which included Russia as an East Asian power, together with South-East Asia.4 Strategic definitions divided the region into North-East Asia and South-East Asia, which reflected US strategic priorities in terms of containing the Soviet Union.5

The Asia Pacific region, however, is broader still and reflects the reality of regular interaction as well as common or shared values. It refers to the effort to marry the US and its Western allies, including Western Latin America, with an expanded version of East Asia, in which case regionalism defined in terms of shared values competes with regionalism defined in terms of regular interaction. A fundamental dichotomy between the West and Asia is embraced in the term “Asia Pacific” in which the tension between cultural commonality and security/economic interaction has influenced conceptions of regionalism. The impact of this dichotomy has been to stimulate identity politics and value assertion to the point where conceptions of regionalism are framed mainly in terms of culture.