Of late, the principle of ASEAN centrality has come under strain as various stakeholders of East Asia’s evolving regional architecture have questioned ASEAN’s ability and will to lead the region effectively. Recent signs of disunity among ASEAN member countries and the slow progress made towards establishing the ASEAN Community have not helped ASEAN’s case either. On the other hand, even critics of ASEAN grudgingly admit that no regional arrangement in East Asia would likely succeed without ASEAN’s involvement in a leading capacity. Against that backdrop, there are at least five interrelated ways ASEAN centrality has been understood and appropriated by its devotees and detractors alike. Centrality has been defined in terms of ASEAN as leader or driver, as convener or facilitator, as hub or key node, as an agent of (proposed) progress (and not just process), and as little more than an expedient device to preserve ASEAN’s primacy in Asian regionalism and to ward off any form of architectural renovation which could lead to its marginalization.
Open Regionalism and Regional Governance: A Revival of Open Regionalism and Japan’s Perspectives on East Asia Summit