Towards an Asian Union?
Towards an Asian Union?
复制标题
走向亚洲联盟？
DOI：
10.1007/s10308-005-0140-1
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Eng Tso Tze
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Eng Tso Tze
亚洲欧洲杂志（2005）3:137-140 DOI: 10.1007/s10308-005-0140-1政治和私利的方式，并随之而来的是其人民的某种多元化。因此，在欧盟内寻找欧洲身份的努力正在进行，希望能对“欧洲人”的定义达成一致。因此，“区域”的概念并不直截了当，也不仅仅是地理问题；但正如所建议的那样，这将是一个更复杂的社会结构。在东亚观察到的现象显然不是欧盟最能体现的地区主义。除了上面提到的原因外，还有许多原因表明缺乏这种能力。显然，没有任何关于建立一个旨在防止军事冲突的非盟的言论，其唯一目的是维护亚洲的“兄弟情谊”，因此排除了任何共同的反战情绪，这种情绪为欧盟的形成播下了种子。1997年的亚洲金融危机至少表明，有必要建立一个可能的东亚经济集团，最好是“东盟7国加3国”。由日本、韩国和新兴的中国组成的“三国”与东盟国家一起讨论了这样一个集团的重要性以及货币一体化的前景。因此，考虑到各种经济利益，如防范未来危机和万一发生危机时的互助，区域化仍然是一个难以实现的目标。后者是那些在1997年金融危机中遭受重创的亚洲最弱小国家的普遍看法，这些国家不得不接受国际货币基金组织为它们准备的任何援助计划。这个集团最终将在规模和经济地位上与欧盟相当，但必须包括日本和韩国等东北亚国家。然而，正如Scollay（2002）所发现的，日本在东亚内部的贸易份额虽然令人印象深刻，但仍然明显低于欧盟成员国之间的欧盟内部贸易份额，后者总是超过50%。此外，值得注意的是，日本和韩国在东亚内部进出口贸易中都处于最底层。考虑到日本在未来可能成立的非盟中扮演的角色，这一点至关重要。长期以来，日本一直不相信地区主义，一直被吹捧为与中国一道，在未来的非盟中充当火车头的角色，就像法德在欧盟中的合作一样。关注中国同样重要，因为东亚的大部分历史都是以中国为中心的。从广州的贸易平台，到建立新加坡的传奇海上通道，中国人一直是一个无处不在、勇于进取的民族。不出所料，鉴于其新兴的全球经济地位，这个非专业的亚洲国家相信，地区主义最终将导致中国的主导地位，而这是东南亚穆斯林所不希望看到的。此外，种族主义问题虽然从来没有沸腾过，但仍然根深蒂固，特别是在东南亚，其历史显示出中国经济优势的统治。Pempel（2004）解释了“亚洲碎片化”的概念，他根据外部影响描述了亚洲的困境。从历史上看，“亚洲的每个人……名义上都接受了中国的等级制度和不平等制度，这在很多方面使每个人都相对自由和独立地在和平中运作。”“今天，类似的情况仍然存在，但当与种族或宗教有关的小问题出现时，例如新加坡的穆斯林头饰案，这种名义上的地位似乎受到了破坏。97年的危机除了肆虐之外…
Asia Europe Journal (2005) 3: 137–140 DOI: 10.1007/s10308-005-0140-1 manner of politics and self-gain and ensues in a certain pluralism of its people. Hence the ongoing search for a European identity in the EU, in the hope of arriving at a definition of what it means to be ‘‘European.’’The notion of a ‘‘region’’is therefore not straightforward and hardly a mere matter of geography; but as suggested, it would be more of a complex social construction. The phenomenon observed in East Asia is clearly not that of regionalism which is probably best embodied in the EU. There are many reasons aside from the one mentioned above which would suggest the absence of such. Obviously, there has not been any talk of creating an AU purporting to prevent military conflicts in the sole aim of preserving an Asian ‘‘brotherhood,’’thus ruling out any common sentiment against war that seeded the formation of the EU. In fact, the likelihood of political peace may seem a trite faraway especially with ongoing disputes between China and Taiwan, North and South Korea. The Asian Financial Crisis of’97 has at least shown a necessity to establish a possible East Asian economic bloc, most favourably, the ‘ASEAN 7 plus three.’The ‘‘three’’comprising of Japan, Korea and emerging China, together with the ASEAN countries have discussed the significance of such a bloc along with the prospect of monetary integration. Regionalization is thus still a formidable goal to achieve, considering the various economic benefits like hedging against future crises and mutual aid in the event of one. The latter being a common sentiment held by the weakest of the Asian countries hurt in the’97 crisis that had to accept whatever aid plans that were in store for them by the IMF. This bloc would ultimately be comparable to the EU in size and economic status but it was imperative that the Northeast Asian countries of Japan and Korea had to be included. However, as Scollay (2002) found, Japan’s intra-East Asian trade shares though impressive, remain significantly lower than shares of intra-EU trade among EU member states which invariably exceed fifty percent. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Japan and Korea lie at the bottom of the ranges of intra-East Asian trade for both imports and exports. This is key when considering Japan’s future role in a possible AU. Japan, long unconvinced about regionalism, has been touted as the player together with China to be the locomotive force in a prospective AU similar to the Franco-German collaboration in the EU.It is just as important to focus on China since much of East Asian history is Sino-centric. From its trading platforms in Canton to the legendary sea lanes that founded Singapore, the Chinese have been a ubiquitous and enterprising people. Unsurprisingly, with its nascent global economic status, the lay Asian believes that regionalism will lead eventually to Chinese dominance, a state that Muslim Southeast Asia will not look forward to. Moreover, issues of racism though never effervescent, still run deep especially in Southeast Asia where its history shows a reign of Chinese economic superiority. Pempel (2004) explains the notion of ‘Asian fragmentation’whereby he describes Asia’s plight in light of external influences. Historically reflecting,‘‘everyone in Asia… nominally accepted a position of Chinese hierarchy and a system of inequality that in many ways left everyone relatively free and alone to operate in peace.’’Today, a similar situation still exists but when minor issues bordering upon race or religion emerge, such as the Muslim headdress case in Singapore, this nominal position appears to be undermined. The’97 crisis in addition to wreaking …