Eva John

a Franco-German journalist who feels deeply European, I think it is fruitful to compare the potential of a deeper East Asian partnership with Europe''s "ever closer union".

First, of course, we should acknowledge a contrast. When the cornerstones of Europe were laid, both France and Germany were economically very weakened. Given East Asia''s economic power, its situation is more advantageous than Western Europe''s following WWII. Indeed, that Seoul is the first Asian city to host a G20 summit is a potent symbol of the combined strength of Korea, China, and Japan—together they now have a nominal GDP of $10.9tn, about 20% of global output.

Thus one could retort that these three successful countries don''t need to invest time and effort in the construction of a regional community. Yet there are at least three major arguments that plead for considering the European Union''s achievements and imperfections in order to ensure East Asia''s progress going forward.

First, East Asian countries would benefit from new rules facilitating the sharing of natural resources. Natural resource conflicts are historically sources of strategic tension. Europe learned this lesson after WWII, as it established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). This body—which became today''s European Union—was tasked with jointly managing regional development of coal and iron ore. East Asia should also learn this lesson. China''s halt to exports of rare earth minerals has recently been a source of tension with Japan. Korea and Japan both have rich fishing grounds, but sustaining them will require joint measures to manage stocks. All three countries are poor in hydrocarbons. Cooperation in exploring potential oil and gas fields could lower costs and contribute to increased regional energy security.

Indeed, an East Asian natural resource commission resembling the ECSC''s High Authority would be a decisive tool in reducing the region''s future occurrence of diplomatic or economic stresses caused by resource competition.

Second, building an East Asian community could ease the creation of coherent financial safety nets and regulatory/policy frameworks for reacting to and preventing financial crises. The EU has gone furthest down the path of regional economic integration, and certainly there is no serious immediate possibility of an East Asian common market, harmonized fiscal policy, monetary union, or even closely coordinated monetary and exchange rate policies. Nor is the EU''s economic and fiscal/budgetary record spotless. Still, East Asian countries should note that a divided Europe—the Europe of the past—would have reacted very incoherently to the recent crises. Instead, austerity measures have been introduced where necessary and coordinated EU policies have prevented healthy economies, like Germany and France, from catching the contagion of weaker countries. For East Asia the lesson dates back to 1998: we should remember that the Asian financial crisis was exacerbated by beggar-thy-neighbor reactions which coordinated EU policies are designed to preclude. Despite its current strength, East Asia is not immune to financial crises and could benefit from an institutionalized framework for cooperation to meet the negative effects of future financial market volatility. Finally, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And in this regard East Asia should ask itself how it can implement the type of coordination effort that has led Europe to adopt stricter measures on unregulated market behavior as well as capital and liquidity requirements. These types of measures make markets more transparent and discourage irresponsible speculative activity.

Third, despite its solid economic performance East Asia harbors several bilateral conflicts that both prevent successful political cooperation and in some cases represent a real security danger. These issues are perhaps the main justification for the establishment of an East Asian community on the EU model. After all, the EU''s greatest claim to fame is that in its sixty years of existence peace has reigned within its borders. East Asia is not yet interdependent enough to make "war unthinkable and materially impossible," as Robert Schumann described the aim of the ECSC. In fact territorial disputes remain a problem. Korea and Japan have clearly not yet digested their past—witness the continuing discord over the Dokdo/Takeshima islets. Meanwhile China and Japan have recently vigorously argued about sovereignty over the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. Beijing and Seoul have seen diplomatic relations chill since the Cheonan incident. And none of this is to mention the tricky situation and permanent threat of North Korea. Surely a common approach to the Hermit Kingdom would reduce the likelihood of unpredictable flare-ups.

Thus, as we commemorate in 2010 the 100th anniversary of the annexation of Korea by Japan, and the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War, it is time for East Asian countries to make progress towards reconciliation. This is a condition for a prosperous dynamic and the achievement of regional stability.

We can be optimistic. The reconciliation process between China, Japan, and Korea is taking noticeable steps. A multinational group of historians and civic activists will jointly publish a history book about the region next year, just as France and Germany did in 2006 . This is a concrete, constructive, and promising step for the future. A further logical step would be the creation of an East Asian exchange program equivalent in scope to Europe''s Erasmus scholarship. This would support the development of language skills, cross-cultural knowledge, and a sense of solidarity. Ultimately politicians should keep in mind that an East Asian community won''t be possible without a special focus on younger generations, more likely to overcome past antagonisms and think beyond national borders.

Eva John