There exist various forms of regionalism through out East Asia. Political scientists conceptualize them according to many criteria: Whether East Asian regionalism has open, or closed membership; maritime or continental; based on extensive Japanese production networks or overseas Chinese informal business links; benign or aggressive.

Since 1900, East Asia has experienced all of them. Regionalism, in other words, has a long pedigree and even richer permutations. Japanese scholars, like Ryuhei Hatsuse at the Kyoto Women's University, have in turn provided a useful typology.

According to her, regionalism can be distinguished in terms of mega-regions (trans-Pacific a la "APEC"), macro-regions (such as the emerging East Asia), meso-regions (such as Southeast Asia), and micro-regions (such as "growth triangles" and "sub regional economic cooperation").

Currently, East Asia experiences various forms of such regionalism in different parts of the region, all at the same time. This means social, economic, and political forces are all at work to compel people, firms, and governments, to 'pool' their resources together.

Regional political leaders are, of course, not distracted, by the many 'regionalisms' that have prevailed in East Asia for the last 100 years. To them, regionalism is akin to pedaling a bicycle. Once stopped, the bicycle will fall. Hence, regionalism must always be maintained through a multitude of initiatives.

Recently, the interest in building an East Asia community, what could otherwise be called `meta-regionalism` as it seeks to create a common regional identity, took one more step further, albeit equaled to a big leap.

At the second East Asia forum on December 6, Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Badawi, announced seven milestones to be achieved:

・ HOLDING of the East Asia Summit;
・ DRAWING up a charter of East Asia community;
・ ESTABLISHING an East Asia free trade area;
・ HAVING an agreement on East Asia monetary and financial co-operation;
・ ESTABLISHING an East Asia zone of amity and co-operation;
・ SETTING up an East Asia transportation and communications network;
and
・ DRAWING up an East Asia declaration of human rights and obligations.

What is notable about current talk about an East Asian community is that it is backed by impressive empirical evidences that the region is getting more and more inter-linked in future.

Intra-regional trade between members of the East Asia conclave are now at slightly above 65 %, a marked improvement from 15 years ago when the figure was still hovering at 40 %. Additionally, there are more than 500 senior official meetings generated by ASEAN and its regional counterparts in Northeast Asia each year, with another 200 meetings between the semi governmental think tanks close to the governments. Asian swap currency agreement has been put in place since 2000; with meetings among central bankers getting more common

To be sure, East Asia is clearly growing. Mathematically, nor is this feat a simple achievement.

According to the study of World Bank in 1993, the prospect of all countries in East Asia growing at a fast rate is historically rare, almost miraculous. The study put the prospect at 1/10,000. That East Asia can now integrate gradually, albeit without a pan-regional institution, is all the more remarkable.

But why has Northeast Asia since 1998 reached southward to seek ASEAN's guide to create an East Asian community? The reasons are simple: This is because Northeast Asia, according to Tsuneo Akaha at Monterrey Institute of International Studies, remains a geographical referent merely. It is not a unified political and economic entity, despite claiming up to 92% of the intra-regional trade.

In fact, regional consciousness, regional institutions, deep economic integration, political community, effective leadership, or vibrant transnational actors are all lacking.

Indeed, despite Robert Scalapino's claim that Northeast Asia is a 'natural economic territory' (NET), it remains a region that has an inexhaustible supply of national rivalries, unresolved historical animosities, negative mutual images, political and ideological conflicts, divided states, incompatible economic systems, crumbling economies (eg. in Russia, Mongolia and North Korea) and cultural and civilizational divides. It is a rough and unforgiving neighborhood where nationalism repeatedly trumps regionalism.

To overcome narrow nationalism, which obviously can become disastrous given the region's profile as a potential powder-keg, Northeast Asian countries seek regionalism as an important foil to enhance mutual cooperation that is otherwise absent in their diplomacy.

In this context, whether countries like China, Japan and Korea are genuinely seeking an East Asian identity or not, the fact of the matter is that more cooperation is naturally better than none at all.

That this process is guided by 7 'steps,' invariably coordinated at ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta, makes the process studier and simple than ever before, which in turn makes the establishment of an East Asia community more achievable, though slow.