| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Why are there no legally constituted institutions in the Asia-Pacific? Some analysts have argued that this situation is a result of US foreign policy, which promoted bilateralism in Asia in order to ensure its dominance in the aftermath of World War II. Focusing on Japan's first regionalism during the 1950s, this article aims to show that this line of argument should be modified. A close analysis of US foreign policy in the region during this period reveals that, rather than attempting to contain Asian regionalism, influential US policy makers repeatedly pursued it. This pursuit gave impetus to Japan's attempts to revive its regional agenda, which during the war had taken form as the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and which now seemed possible in a different form, most notably in gaining financial support from the United States, Japan's former wartime enemy. However, at this particular juncture in history, the diversity of South and Southeast Asian countries and their nation-building priorities inhibited regional economic cooperation. A "pan-Asian-feeling" did not exist. Rather, mutual suspicion of each other's motives and ambitions, and various political rivalries and antagonisms, collectively prevented cooperation between countries in the region. Such different political regimes made it difficult, if not impossible, to establish a multilateral institution. These obstacles led the US to abandon multilateralism in favour of bilateralism as its preferred strategy in the Asia-Pacific until the end of the 1980s.
|