European peace through dialogue, confidence-building and multilateral institutions has long been a source of envy for East Asia, which suffers from territorial and historical feuds that have escalated with a rise in nationalism.

After two devastating wars, European nations shared a need to reconcile and pursue durable peace. Its drive for stability was so strong that Europe was able to build a series of cooperative mechanisms, including the Helsinki process, that helped build multilateral trust and eventually end the Cold War.

East Asian countries have also explored the possibility of fostering multilateralism for regional security, while searching for lessons from European integration and cooperation in the security and political realms.

But there are doubts as to whether Europe’s formula for peace can be applied to Asia. Instead realpolitik appears to be taking hold amid growing uncertainties in the security landscape, which is being reshaped by the rise of China and a relative decline of U.S. power.

Can East Asia create a multilateral security platform that is modeled after what Europe has achieved? Is it possible to bring all countries in the region together for the common goal of peace when the dynamics of power are shifting?

It is quite difficult to positively respond to these questions, as there does not seem to be enough enthusiasm for regional multilateralism: Historical antagonism between South Korea and Japan has deepened, while China has engaged in a risky territorial quarrel with Japan and a series of maritime disputes with Southeast Asian states. What’s worse, growing nationalism in each country is limiting options for practical-minded policymakers.

To ease regional tensions and steer Asia in the direction of reconciliation and cooperation, South Korean President Park Geun-hye has pushed for the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation initiative ― an Asian version of the Helsinki process that forged critical momentum to entrench peace in a divided Europe during the Cold War.

Park’s initiative seeks to build trust first in soft, nonpolitical areas such as climate change, antiterrorism and nuclear energy, and then through tougher “high-politics” issues such as security, and ultimately forge multilateral confidence for peace.

She has promoted the initiative as a means to address what she calls the “Asia paradox” an escalation in territorial and historical disputes in contrast to the region’s deepening economic cooperation. Her initiative, however, has made little progress as regional tensions have continued with no signs of abating.

One of the region’s major challenges to security and political cooperation is the intensifying competition between the U.S. and China for regional dominance.

Based on its increasing economic and military might, China has been increasingly assertive in regional and global affairs. Amid its continuing rise as a global power, it has been more aggressive in securing its interests beyond its shores and begun more intense maritime rows with its neighbors in the South China Sea.
The U.S. sees China’s aggressive behavior as a dangerous move to challenge the “rule-based” regional order, which has been fostered since the end of World War II. The U.S. appears particularly concerned about the possibility of China attempting to break the status quo and block what it bills the global commons, such as freedom of maritime navigation.

China has already revealed its determination to alter the regional security and financial order. Beijing has recently sought to build a new regional security architecture and set up the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, both of which are expected to exclude the participation of the U.S. and other Western powers. These moves appear aimed at laying the foundation for China’s regional dominance, some observers say.

To counter these moves, the U.S. has been pushing for a “rebalancing policy” to strengthen its diplomatic and military engagement in the Asia-Pacific. Through the policy, the U.S. seeks to strengthen its network of bilateral alliances with South Korea, Japan and Australia, and security partnerships with other countries. China sees the policy as an attempt to militarily encircle it ― or contain it ― and counter its rise.

It may be too pessimistic to assume that East Asia can only be a region of intense security rivalries and territorial conflicts. Deepening economic interdependence, tourism, and cultural and academic exchanges have given many optimism about the future of cooperation in the region.

A set of multilateral forums and institutions such as the East Asia Summit, the South Korea-China-Japan cooperation secretariat and the ASEAN Regional Forum could serve as a basis for regional confidence-building and cooperation on an array of transnational issues.

But given that the U.S. has strengthened its bilateral alliances with South Korea and Japan over more than six decades, and the deep-seated distrust among many nations in the region, achieving deeper-level security cooperation appears a Herculean task.

As John Mearsheimer, a leading international relations theorist, wrote in the new edition of the “Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” there is also skepticism over the liberalist argument that economic interdependence will play a crucial role in promoting peace.

“At the most basic level, political calculations often trump economic ones when they come into conflict. This is certainly true regarding matters of national security because concerns about survival are invariably at stake in the security realm,” he said. He added that politics also tends to win out over concerns about prosperity when nationalism affects the issue at stake.

Despite all these negative security projections for both the short- and long-terms, Europe could play a role in helping form a robust basis for multilateral cooperation as it is seen as being relatively impartial in Asian affairs, having no territorial ambitions and posing no security threat given its geographical distance.

Europe could share its long-accumulated know-how to enhance trust and address conflicting interests among East Asian nations, even though there might be limits to trust-building as long as territorial and historical disputes continue unabated.

Europe’s evolving approach for regional cooperation might not work wonders in resolving tensions in Asia considering the increasing presence of realpolitik and nationalism in East Asian politics. But the region could consider adopting some features of the European peace-promotion endeavors to help improve the overall security environment.

By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldcorp.com)