Economic Integration and National Identity in Northeast Asia: A European Perspective

The “Asian Paradox” in the Northeast of the continent appears to be particularly evident if seen through European eyes. While one of the tightest networks of intra-regional trade binds the economies of China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, their political leaders hardly ever connect with each other in substantive exchanges. Cold images of frozen faces and of an “icy lady” seem to contrast with the warm embraces that businesspeople enjoy after successful deals over borders. However, is this the view only in the eyes of the European beholder, who is used to the myriad of regular institutionalised meetings at all political and bureaucratic levels of the EU? Northeast Asia comprises two of the three biggest national economies in the world and on the basis of its interdependence flourishes economically – with the exception of Japan – with GDP growth-rates above OECD average. At the same time, in view of unresolved historical legacies their leading politicians still feel forced to keep frozen faces because of voters’ gazes of self-instilled nationalisms back home. Homogeneous cultures of Confucianism and shame rather than guilt, notably on the islands and the peninsula, maintain a very high level of national identity, in spite of a growing awareness of economic interdependence and globalisation that even conservative schoolbooks and dominant mainstream media cannot refute anymore. Nevertheless, fledgeling attempts to facilitate the flow of goods and services across national borders through bilateral and plurilateral free trade agreements seem to advance, albeit only slowly. China, Japan and South Korea have managed to institutionalise at the level of rotating ambassadors at the tri-lateral secretariat in Seoul some forms of cooperation. “Hot-lines” of emergency communications have been installed at the highest level to fend off sudden misunderstandings related to still looming territorial disputes. This paper will explore the above issues with concrete evidence and examples, notwithstanding the author’s perspective as an observer from Europe