Where should be the line drawn in working out the framework for membership of the proposed East Asia Community? The leaders of Asian countries, gathering in Kuala Lumpur late in 2005, agreed to meet regularly every year in two groups -- one that could be referred to as the "inner moat," comprising the 10 ASEAN nations plus South Korea, Japan and China, and the other, which could be called the "outer moat," consisting of the 16 countries, including the above-mentioned 13 plus India, Australia and New Zealand, that took part in the East Asia Summit.

The difference in perspective and the struggle for leadership between Japan and China have been much talked about, but things appear to have settled as generally expected.

It was also fortunate that it was decided to open the summit to outside countries, taking into account the desire of Russia, Mongolia, the EU and other countries to participate in it. In consideration of a possible request from the United States to participate in the future, South Korea has taken the position that the summit should be open, outward-looking, and comprehensive.

Another aspect of the East Asia summit also impressed me. That is the fact that China and India, which -- until about half a century ago -- had been the epitome of inert societies, have awoken from their slumbers and emerged as economic powerhouses of the 21st century. In particular, India has in recent years emerged as a "dialogue partner" for ASEAN countries and its presence has acquired greater substance as a result of its participation in the first East Asia Summit.

In its annual report for the year 2003, Goldman Sachs of the United States made reference to four nations -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- which make up a newly rising economic sphere and termed them "BRICs." The report particularly pointed out that India has the potential to chalk up economic growth of 5 to 6 percent a year for the next 30-50 years. It also predicts that the gross domestic product (GDP) of India will overtake that of Japan in 2035 and that it will become the world's third economic superpower after China and the United States.

The celebrated author of "The Zero-Sum Society," Professor Lester C. Thurow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), once set out data which indicated that Japan was the only nation in Asia found in the list of the world's top 20 nations in terms of per capita gross national product (GNP) during the roughly 100-year period from 1880 to 1988. Today, however, if the scale of a country's economy is taken as a yardstick, the names of other Asian countries besides Japan can be found in the list of the top 20. They are China, ranked 7th in the world, India, ranked 10th, and South Korea, ranked 11th. This can probably be said to show the effect of major changes over a period of time.

It is not well-known in Japan that two of the above-mentioned countries, namely India and South Korea, maintain a close relationship.

When South and North Korea were in a state of confrontation during the Cold War era, South Korea made efforts to promote friendships with India, which was a leader of non-aligned nations. Furthermore, in the economic field, South Korean firms began making inroads into India during the first half of the 1980s and invested in such fields as automobiles, household appliances and telecommunications. Today, LG and Samsung products hold about 50 percent of the home appliance market in India, and automobiles manufactured by the Hyundai Motor Company account for about 20 percent of the small vehicle market. South Korean companies also have a strong interest in the information technology (IT) sector.

During my term in office as South Korean foreign minister, I helped bring about President Kim Yong-San's visit to India in 1996 and worked to revitalize economic relations between the two countries.

When a ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) was held in Hong Kong recently, South Korean farming groups staged street demonstrations in opposition to the WTO's globalization policy, with South Korean television channels and newspapers reporting on the demonstrations. We must, however, remember that the emergence of Asian countries today is due to the GATT/WTO system, which played a major role in promoting the liberalization of global trade in the post-WWII era.

Leaving aside the political and security sectors, I believe that the East Asia Community which Asian countries are trying to establish will in 10 to 20 years produce in economic, social and cultural areas relationships of mutual dependence far closer than those which exist today.

The struggle for leadership in establishing the community is more likely to be a contest of soft power rather than hegemony. In this respect, Japan's proposal to supply additional support to combat avian flu at the "ASEAN plus 3 summit," as well as at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference, was extremely constructive and warrants special mention.