Multilateralism, American Power and East Asian Regionalism

This paper looks at multilateral processes in the ‘Asia-Pacific’ region and the impact of American foreign policy on them. The paper suggests that organizations like the AsiaPacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) forum have been made increasingly irrelevant as American policy becomes more bilateral and even unilateral, and as the very definition of the ‘Asia-Pacific’ becomes less certain as a consequence. Paradoxically, we are likely to see the consolidation of a more narrowly defined East Asian region as a consequence. Introduction At the end of the 1980s when the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum was inaugurated, it looked like an idea whose time had come. APEC seemed ideally placed to benefit from and facilitate the post-Cold War preoccupation with economic development and integration. Moreover, it held out the prospect of institutionalising and managing relations between the ‘miraculous’ economies of East Asia and the economic heartland of North America. How times change. Not only are the economies of East Asia looked upon with a good deal less awe than they once were, but the basis of the relationship between the Eastern and Western sides of the Pacific has changed profoundly. This change has become especially apparent following the election of George W Bush and terrorist attacks of September 11, as the United States has moved to adopt a more overtly unilateral and/or bilateral foreign policy orientation. However, a closer examination of recent history suggests that potential obstacles to closer economic and political relations between East Asia and the U.S. – or at least, closer multilaterally-based relations have been in place throughout the post-World War II period. This paper does a number of things. First, it explores the historical background of the US-East Asian relationship. The intention is to identify the political, economic and strategic forces that have made inter-regional relations fraught at times, and rendered the idea of a coherent ‘Asia-Pacific’ region inherently problematic (Dirlik, 1992). Seen in the unique historical context in which it unfolded, the failure of APEC to realise the hopes of its supporters becomes a good deal less surprising: the relentless focus on trade liberalisation was not only unappealing to many East Asian countries with a proclivity for mercantilism and state activism, but the technocratic elites that shaped APEC’s agenda were frequently oblivious to the political and institutional obstacles the lay in the way of such reforms (Beeson, 1996). There is no intention here of simply re-telling the story of APEC’s rise and fall, however. Rather, APEC is important because it is emblematic of, and hostage to, wider historical forces and geopolitical realities. The second goal of this paper, therefore, is to explore how these enduring constraints – some East Asian, some American – have always made the idea of an all-encompassing region problematic. What the increasingly assertive and non-multilateral policy-orientation of the Bush regime has done is to make the possibility of creating an Asia-Pacific region 1 As will become apparent in what follows, there is no single US-East Asia relationship as there is – thus far at least – no organisation capable of effectively representing ‘East Asian interests’. Given these caveats, however, this formulation provides a convenient shorthand for describing some of the more universal qualities of inter-regional relations. East Asia in the context of this discussion means the ASEAN countries plus China, Japan Korea and Taiwan (although the latter is not part of ‘ASEAN+3’).