What's new

North East Asian Union? Exploring the potential of an NEA integration

Why is making sense for China and Japan formed the north East Asian Union, not because we want to change the current status quo but to create a solid triangulation amount China-Japan-US:

At current situation, US can play Japan against China by having the military cooperation, it also use China against Japan by convincing China to accept that US military present to keep Japan on check especially the nuclear arm Japan will not be in China's interest. US can drive a wedge between China and Japan but no mechanism for Japan and China to keep US on Check, both are always to be at the mercy of US. By having the NEAU, China and Japan can deter US from over exploit our differences by playing one against other and avoid US to gang up Japan such as Plazza accord with the help of Europeans countries, China and Japan can team up to defense Asia's interest regarding the finance and trade.

NEAU by no meant to marginalize US, Japan can continue the current relation with US, same with China but both China and Japan will have extra geopolitical option vis-à-vis US which Americans will have to think twice and be very cautious when dealing with Asia's affaire.
 
Last edited:
Why is making sense for China and Japan formed the north East Asian Union, not because we want to change the current status quo but to create a solid triangulation amount China-Japan-US:

At current situation, US can play Japan against China by having the military cooperation, it also use China against Japan by convincing China to accept that US military present to keep Japan on check especially the nuclear arm Japan will not be in China's interest. US can drive a wedge between China and Japan but no mechanism for Japan and China to keep US on Check, both are always to be at the mercy of US. By having the NEAU, China and Japan can deter US from over exploit our differences by playing one against other and avoid US to gang up Japan such as Plazza accord with the help of Europeans countries, China and Japan can team up to defense Asia's interest regarding the finance and trade.

NEAU by no meant to marginalize US, Japan can continue the current relation with US, same with China but both China and Japan will have extra geopolitical option vis-à-vis US which Americans will have to think twice and be very cautious when dealing with Asia's affaire.
The reality that must go away or evolved before any such fantasy union to occur: That the mutual distrust between China and JPN is greater than any repugnancy from JPN on having a US military presence on home soil, and that this distrust will always be there as long as there is a nuclear China.
 
You are right.

Don't be deceived by the soft tongue, they are already scheming and making plans! It was a Freudian slip! :agree:

Time to strengthen mother Rossiya's eastern flank! It is only natural they seek lebensraum....billion and a half squeezed on that little coastal area and a few islands....they already fished out everything in their seas.

PC-24_%C2%AB%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%81%C2%BB.JPG


Or maybe he's actually thinking long term and realizes that the US is about to become a washed-up former superpower.

Let me put it like this.

In 1969, when the US put a man on the moon with the Saturn V, the US looked like this.

O5dLqbH.jpg


Nowadays, the US looks more like this.

mLg6Ser.jpg

XDAkuVY.jpg


In a few decades, the US will be dead in some sleazy hotel room somewhere from a heroin overdose.

Can you blame Japan for trying to get off this sinking ship?:)

What a silly analogy, see on first pic, the girl is in early teens, 15, 16, while on other two pics she has undergone puberty, gained some weight, namely strengthened the hips as body clock goes towards preparing the body for motherhood.

I would ofcourse prefer to meet the said lady when she was photographed the 2nd and 3rd time, as in the first i would probably break something, while on latter pics, she's "reinforced", equipped with shock absorbers! :D
 
Last edited:
The reality that must go away or evolved before any such fantasy union to occur: That the mutual distrust between China and JPN is greater than any repugnancy from JPN on having a US military presence on home soil, and that this distrust will always be there as long as there is a nuclear China.

Sure there is distrust amount us that's why we need to have a good communication channel, NEAU will be a good platform to cultivate our relation and a good mechanism to avoid being exploited by US. Nuclear China is the answer to Nuclear US, we have policy of not first use. NEAU doesn't mean China and Japan will be at honeymoon but to safeguard mutual interest.
 
Sure there is distrust amount us that's why we need to have a good communication channel, NEAU will be a good platform to cultivate our relation and a good mechanism to avoid being exploited by US. Nuclear China is the answer to Nuclear US, we have policy of not first use. NEAU doesn't mean China and Japan will be at honeymoon but to safeguard mutual interest.
The China-JPN relationship is not even 1/10th of the US-Canada or US-Mexico relationship. For starter, neither Canada nor Mexico successfully invaded the US, occupied a portion of it, then installed a separatist/challenger government. As of now, China is still miffed at the annual visit to Yasukuni Shrine by the JPNese Prime Minister. On the other side, JPN is in no way convinced that a nuclear China is a counterbalance to a nuclear US, especially when US nuclear forces are on the other side of the world while China's is just barely a stone's throw away. The 'no first use' policy can be changed at any time and unpublished, so why should JPN have any trust in China ?

The reality is that the status quo is working just fine for all parties, near and far, involved. This union belongs in la-la land.
 
Nihonjin1051 is a pan-Asian proponent as he sees potential in a unified East Asian community, thus some Western people may likely not agree with his view about it due to geopolitical aspects, though some libertarian groups in the US would likely welcome the idea as this would lead the US government to focus more on domestic issues.

However, I don't know how we Filipinos would fit in this idea as we are only geographically Asian while we are culturally "Western" due to Spanish and American influences, as well as Roman Catholic influenced culture and morality.

My dear friend , we must always , as we analyze inter-state dialogue and dynamic, conjecture the historical, as well as social variables that influence domestic politic. Yes? Now, bear in mind with me here as we try to elucidate the truth of the matter: China and the Philippines are Vital Partners. Japan and the Philippines are Vital Partners. Despite the short-term differences in maritime interpretation processes now, we have to understand that differences will ultimately be settled through dialogue and political concession , as history has shown.

The issue with Asia in context to relegating positive conclusion on these maritime legal vagaries is because the International Maritime Settlement mechanism currently in force is by no means complete nor is it effective. As we note that since the conclusion of the 2nd World War, there have been a widespread proliferation of various judicial international organs (case in point 6 tribunals in Europe, as well as the inter-Americans judicial organs on human rights and legality concerning territoriality). In reference to Asia, again, we have to bear in mind the local predilections; the attitude toward litigation varies from culture to culture and in some cultures it is considered last resort.

This can be in reference to China's preference to settle issues on a more bilateral mechanism , which is not limited to Chinese, actually. In fact Japan and Korea (South) have not multilateralized their Liancourt Dispute (Dokdo/ Takeshima) because both Tokyo and Seoul don't want to refer to alien (outside) judicial organs as the arbiter of regional recognitionism in this aspect.

Rather, both parties preferring to shelving the dispute in an attempt to both enable future generations to make progressive settlements a la bilateral intergovernmentalism. The same issue regarding China and Korea (South) in relation to Socotra Rocks. Both are in bilateral concession dialogue to settle that. Again, this shows you my friend @Cossack25A1 of the East Asian Spirit of Compromise in the bilateral venture. So when we see China, in context to SCS dispute, her predeliction to settle this between inter-state dialogue is understandable, given the regional dialectic. It is thus important to consider this aspect. I suppose it bears to mind that nation-specific dialogue are organic processes and like inter-personal relationships --- sensitivity at the grassroots level enables players to develop long lasting and cognitively effective strategies to formulate important (positive and productive) behavioral changes. Which, ultimately leads in vital national policy changes.





Kind Regards,
 
Last edited:
The China-JPN relationship is not even 1/10th of the US-Canada or US-Mexico relationship. For starter, neither Canada nor Mexico successfully invaded the US, occupied a portion of it, then installed a separatist/challenger government. As of now, China is still miffed at the annual visit to Yasukuni Shrine by the JPNese Prime Minister. On the other side, JPN is in no way convinced that a nuclear China is a counterbalance to a nuclear US, especially when US nuclear forces are on the other side of the world while China's is just barely a stone's throw away. The 'no first use' policy can be changed at any time and unpublished, so why should JPN have any trust in China ?

The reality is that the status quo is working just fine for all parties, near and far, involved. This union belongs in la-la land.

As I said China and Japan are far from build an honeymoon relation such issue as you mentioned the Yasukuni Shrine and some history issues still unsolved but that doesn't not prevent both to create an NEAU to defend our current interest and to tackle some future issues that affect both our nation's interest such trade or financial that give American the unfair advantage.

As China nuclear, Japan has the very right to be suspicious and to be under US nuclear umbrella if they wish, when question China nuclear, they should also realized who was the first to use Nukes on their soil despite the fact that US was on the other side of the world. In Korea war US was threaten to nuke China, so we need to find the right answer to the threat. Once a journalist from US came to China in 1980s and asked the general why we're aiming the nukes at US, the general give him the straight answer "you aim at us, we aim at you...period"

Sure no one ask to alter US-Japan relation or change the status quo but NEAU will just a bonus for China and Japan which I agree with @Nihonjin1051 regarding this thread because it's in China and Japan's interests...it can't be worst.
 
Last edited:
@Nihonjin1051 Your posts concerning East Asian intergration also make me think about how European countries can link with a hypothetical Northeast Asian Union whilst dislodging American influence (I am not anti-US but I am rather sceptical towards Washington's foreign policy in all crisis zones of the globe essentially), as I am of the opinion that Eurasian intergration, not Atlanticism, is the way to go.

Precise points, indeed, and this opens up a huge potential for debate. Now, if we look at China-led Eurasianism, it is definitely development-oriented, which is appreciated and shared by all the countries across the Eurasian land mass, including the Western Europe. US-led Atlanticism is, on the other hand, anchored at the idea of security and institutionalzed by NATO. Even on th erealm of development, the US tends to securitize becasue it needs to involve its military complex, its sole diplomatic advantage, into the equation.

Well nihonjin specifically talked about a unification, i'm interested in hearing what he views the political governance of such a state would be, taking into account the diverse interests and current political governance of the 'members'. I take it your view though is the CCP would never agree to such a thing unless it was the CCP formally in charge? Off the top of it that would be my view. Such a hypothetical state under current conditions would fragment.

I'm interested in hearing how he would make it viable.

But even the title of the OP mentions "Union" and I have not had the impression that @Nihonjin1051 really meant 'unification.' The way you voice it (Should we choose CCP or LDP as our representative?) is indeed unfeasible. Even if he used the term, I believe he referred to unification in terms of constructing a community of nation-states around the ideas of common future. In fact, Nihonjin has been reiterating his position that states existed trhoughout history across the sphere influenced strongly by China and, the interaction has been largely peaceful.

A NEAsian government represented by a single political expression is defintiely the product of a wild imagination; this has never been historically so in our region. Even Europeans gave up their sovereign rights only to some degree.

What Nihonjin meant, therefore, is deep intergovernmentalism. One region-union, many systems. NEAU, in the final analysis would be as a geopolitical expression as a community-building. Therefore, it would essentially be animical to the US interests.

That's why, for example, they killed the idea of an AMF as proposed by Japan even before it was explored on the ideational level.
 
Last edited:
What Nihonjin meant, therefore, is deep intergovernmentalism. One region-union, many systems.

:tup::tup:

Even on th erealm of development, the US tends to securitize becasue it needs to involve its military complex, its sole diplomatic advantage, into the equation.

A typical trademark of American "diplomacy". Their President, Bush Jr, said it best:

 
The issue with Asia in context to relegating positive conclusion on these maritime legal vagaries is because the International Maritime Settlement mechanism currently in force is by no means complete nor is it effective. As we note that since the conclusion of the 2nd World War, there have been a widespread proliferation of various judicial international organs (case in point 6 tribunals in Europe, as well as the inter-Americans judicial organs on human rights and legality concerning territoriality). In reference to Asia, again, we have to bear in mind the local predilections; the attitude toward litigation varies from culture to culture and in some cultures it is considered last resort.

This can be in reference to China's preference to settle issues on a more bilateral mechanism , which is not limited to Chinese, actually. In fact Japan and Korea (South) have not multilateralized their Liancourt Dispute (Dokdo/ Takeshima) because both Tokyo and Seoul don't want to refer to alien (outside) judicial organs as the arbiter of regional recognitionism in this aspect.

If I may add, it also seems to me that the dynamics among the NEA region states is lacking among, say, in SEA. That could be attributed to the weakening influence of Sino-sphere as we move away from the central country. In NEA, on the other-hand, Confucious social and political ethics is strongly present; this enables the NEA states to have their own particular arrangements. Even Daioyutai/Senkaku, for that matter, remains a bilateral issue, at best. SCS disputes, on the other hand, are (albeit in a limited effect) multilateralized.
 
Precise points, indeed, and this opens up a huge potential for debate. Now, if we look at China-led Eurasianism, it is definitely development-oriented, which is appreciated and shared by all the countries across the Eurasian land mass, including the Western Europe. US-led Atlanticism is, on the other hand, anchored at the idea of security and institutionalzed by NATO. Even on th erealm of development, the US tends to securitize becasue it needs to involve its military complex, its sole diplomatic advantage, into the equation.
Definitely agree.

@Nihonjin1051 Your posts concerning East Asian intergration also make me think about how European countries can link with a hypothetical Northeast Asian Union whilst dislodging American influence (I am not anti-US but I am rather sceptical towards Washington's foreign policy in all crisis zones of the globe essentially), as I am of the opinion that Eurasian intergration, not Atlanticism, is the way to go.

Definitely @Arryn , let us conjecture the Sino-European dialogue in the realm of joint development, shall we? I believe the best example of this development-relationship is through the AIIB. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is shortened to Ya Tou Hang in Chinese, literally Asian investment bank. In fact many Japanese academics who have studied the role of AIIB to global - multilateral philosophical discourse refer to it as --- "Xin Ha Yang" since it is a public establishment rather than a market-based, speculative and profit-seeking venture; it is an international financial organization in its true sense, rather than a privately owned investment bank.

Surprise to say and to see how many Western peerage enrolled in the AIIB; it indicates the following assumptions:
  • The gradual loss of American influence on European politic
  • Europe's placing of primacy in developmentalist ventures
  • The influence of Chinese Capital , dare i say , the lucrative aspect of $3.8 Trillion in foreign reserves
  • The global correlation of China's Rise to Global Growth and Development
When we consider these points, and then juxtapose these to the paradigm of Eurasian Development as in the Silk Road , well then we see that both wings of Europe and China actually complement each other. Whatever the case, political differences and even ideological millieu matters not as Europe and even China is slowly learning to incorporate and respect each other's philosophies to build upon a new major power structure for this century. The goal, which is implicitly stated actually, is to reduce American importance and influence.

China is just too large, too diverse, too magnanimous in her reach for America and its supranational alliance systems to keep in check. It bears one to know that despite China only attaining less than 25% of its national potential , her economy is already 4x that of Japan, and nearing the United States'. Much more when this nation reaches just 50% of her potential , or 75% of her potential ? As we discuss this and as we ponder on these nation and region specific developments, @Arryn , we should consider and bear in mind the theories of IPE, or International Political Economy in context to European Integration. We are reminded that through IPE, regional trade and investments and the design of formal regional institutions are way to foster regional cooperation and even a mechanism to settling disputes (market, territorial, political).

This IPE in the European context can be applied into the paradigm of Sino-European Integration. What the AIIB shows is that managing economic interdependence , cping with non traditional security threats and also being able to secure domestic regimes are able to provide account to why nation states are engaging in regional institutional building. My doctoral analytical tendency --- deigns me to refer to configurative causality and interaction effects, which can be used to make complex analyses and identify critical functional equivalent combination of variables that can influence regional institution-building and effects to exogenous as well as global interplay.

According to the European IPE platform of nation specific and region-specific development, we can see how China , through the AIIB can valuate future extraregional processes positively. Again, the core imparting point that i want you to remember (and for the readers, LOL) is that China is progress and develop oriented, has adopted region specific dialogue and has contributed to its implementation -- either in South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and recently in Central Asia. Europe seems to be a eventual goal in terms of extranational reach.


Regards,
Kenji

@TaiShang , what's your input?
 
As I said China and Japan are far from build an honeymoon relation such issue as you mentioned the Yasukuni Shrine and some history issues still unsolved but that doesn't not prevent both to create an NEAU to defend our current interest and to tackle some future issues that affect both our nation's interest such trade or financial that give American the unfair advantage.
Look at it this way...

What you are saying is that you are willing to invite to dinner a man who, when you were weak and poor, broke into your house, robbed you of the few valuables you had, and to put it mildly, did atrocious things to your family. You are willing to do this even though the positions are reversed, that you are now in the superior and this man, while not as weak as you were once, is in no position to repeat what he did, but even so, your superiority is not enough to do the same as what he once did to you.

Hopefully, the main dish is extraordinarily tasty.

As long as China is willing to hold on to these historical issues, the JPNese is not going to be so foolish, like our academic here, to enter into this union where JPN will inevitably be treated as second class citizen. And please do not even try to convince me and the silent readers out there that China will treat JPN as an equal.
 
Hmm, why is it that even just in a friendly exchange of ideas , must we find such hostility and apprehension towards warmer relations between Tokyo and Beijing? G_d forbid the world ends ? Lol.

It always amazes me that even in the anonymity of the Internet as it is in personal experience -- whenever this issue or subject comes to light my American peers always, always react with aversion to Japan and Chinese cooperation in this region specific paradigm?

Hahaha, one really is awed. And whenever I share these experiences with other Japanese academics working abroad, they share similar experiences. Perhaps we should consider the history of Japanese-western relations ? :)
 
Hostility ? Hardly. Apprehension ? Of course. Why not ?

I have no problems with US withdrawing our military presence from Asia, other than the occasional port calls, from countries that do not want US. If JPN want US out, we should leave. If SKR want US to stay, we should stay. No matter what, to compensate for diminished immediate presence and ability to quickly respond, we should increase our defense budget so that if we do have to respond, it will be with overwhelming force to render the adversary military at least 90% reduced capacity and ability to wage war.

I have no starry-eyed view of a rising China as you do. Just as your ancestors started a war in Asia, today's China will start the next.
 
As long as China is willing to hold on to these historical issues, the JPNese is not going to be so foolish, like our academic here, to enter into this union where JPN will inevitably be treated as second class citizen. And please do not even try to convince me and the silent readers out there that China will treat JPN as an equal.

Therein lies the issue in that there is this perception that Japan and China cannot, either by lack of ability or lack of motivation, to move past these historical tragedies.

Let me be firm and austere with you, Sir, I do not view nor do i have the position that Japan was "right" in waging war in China. In an attempt to assuage the various viewpoints in both sides , I suppose one would have to agree that Japan's violations of human rights and gross military policies in China is reason to hold some kind of disdain for Japanese atrocities.

Despite these historical grievances, both Japan and China rose above petty historical perceptions during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and all the way to the turn of the 21st century. In fact the former Prime Minister of Japan, Hatoyama, even proposed the notion of an East Asian Union , to which was also considered and greatly talked about during trilateral meetings between Beijing-Seoul and Tokyo. Tho he was unable to deliver his agenda , the fact that a man like him rose to power in Japan and the fact that his party received majority votes in Japan means that the idea of an East Asian Union with Japan and China is shared by voters, tho perhaps they do not vocalize it openly (do take into consideration that Japanese psyche focuses on internalization and keeping one's feelings to one's self).

Given Hatoyama rose to power during a very precarious situation in regional history since this was the time wherein the United States feels threatened , and with injurous movements by key politicians in Japan such as the nationalization of the Senkakus (a disputed territory). So we can understand Japan's recent mistakes in failing to understand Chinese reaction , a mistake that was done not by the majority of Japanese people or politicians, but key radical right wing politicians in Tokyo.

Despite the cooling of relations in 2012-2013, it seems to me that relations are recovering and in earnest. Its also interesting ot note that relations between Tokyo and Beijing had to suffer , and was used as pretext for more bold changes to constitutional reform and legislative articulations in the Japanese Diet. Coupled with recent developments of a bolder, and more pro-active Japan , one that was contradictory to prior appropriations that Washington would have been comfortable with. So that in mind, I can beign to appreciate why politicians such as Shintaro Ishihara were allowed purchase the island since this would force the Government to nationalize it, wherein then would lead to Chinese protest, thereby used as a catalyst / pretext to increase national defense capabilities and to erode the constrictive article 9 in the constitution.

In fact, it would later lead to the commencement for creating a new constitution as introduced by the LDP , then later supported even by the DPJ, Komeito parties. In other words -- one has to understand that Japan used China (as much as China used Japan) to make deployments avid and thus restore the classical understanding of East Asian dialogue and interoperability. Furtheremore, one cannot ignore the Futenma base closure and even the failure to build the new base in Henoko, thus necessitating the US' considering of redeploying some 9,000 soldiers in Okinawa to Guam. This is one of the reasons why , i suppose, Abe has not been to harsh on Governor Onaga (of Okinawa prefecture).

I believe that the leadership in Tokyo had some architectural influence in regional happenings to further reduce and erode US presence and influence in Japan. Afterall it was Hatoyama who once opined on the ill effects of US presence in Japan and their removal. In fact during the first term of Abe, he had also held similar notions of Hatoyama; i doubt these notions and feelings were exterminated, rather, hidden to enable maneuverings. Gradually , i hope to see less dependence on the United States. And I think this will be a healthy policy change for Japan, and the East Asian Region.

As I said China and Japan are far from build an honeymoon relation such issue as you mentioned the Yasukuni Shrine and some history issues still unsolved but that doesn't not prevent both to create an NEAU to defend our current interest and to tackle some future issues that affect both our nation's interest such trade or financial that give American the unfair advantage.

As China nuclear, Japan has the very right to be suspicious and to be under US nuclear umbrella if they wish, when question China nuclear, they should also realized who was the first to use Nukes on their soil despite the fact that US was on the other side of the world. In Korea war US was threaten to nuke China, so we need to find the right answer to the threat. Once a journalist from US came to China in 1980s and asked the general why we're aiming the nukes at US, the general give him the straight answer "you aim at us, we aim at you...period"

Sure no one ask to alter US-Japan relation or change the status quo but NEAU will just a bonus for China and Japan which I agree with @Nihonjin1051 regarding this thread because it's in China and Japan's interests...it can't be worst.

Of course in such a union , there will be instances of disagreements. However if we view recent inter-legislative, inter-academic, inter-ministerial, inter-defense exchanges between Tokyo, Beijing and Seoul --- these are prepatory for eventual greater , committed organizational frameworks. Academics like myself and @TaiShang are not over-polishing the reality, but rather introducing a thinking that is rarely talked about here in PDF, but is actually greatly written about, researched about in the echelons of academia, specifically Japanese , Chinese and Korean academic settings.

The first step to this integration is economic, the second part is political, and the last part is security. It seems to me that despite regional 'sensibilities' the first part unfolding. Afterall China and Korea have recently signed their FTA. Second part now is Japan, Korea and China engaging in a wider spectrum through the CJK Trilateral FTA, which is undergoing talks as we speak.

This is a gradual , mature, process. Wherein participating powers will be tested beyond reasonable doubt , but illustrates their respective commitment for regional stability and inclusive within the CJSK spectrum.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom