The first East Asian summit was held in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur in December 2005. The meeting was regarded as a crucial step toward the creation of an East Asian community. However, the summit ended without detailed discussion concerning its objectives and content, as well as the process to be followed in moving towards its formation. That was mainly because Japan and China could not reach a compromise over the framework of the proposed community. China insisted on limiting the community's membership to the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) plus 3 (Japan, China and South Korea), while Japan maintained that it should also include India, Australia and New Zealand.

It was probably fortunate that this most fundamental issue came to light at the outset, because the creation of a community certainly will not be something that can be accomplished easily. On the other hand, however, this problem should be handled skillfully and with the utmost care in order that work to create the framework will be kept from being delayed further.

There are two salient points in this regard. One is the presence of China, which keeps growing politically, economically and militarily. The other is the shadow of the United States behind people who have strong concerns about China.

China stresses the peaceful nature of its expansion, while it conspicuously keeps building up its military strength in Asia, where there is little probability of a war breaking out. It is also actively carrying out land and sea military exercises, including joint maneuvers with Russia and India, while actual figures for the country's defense budget and the way in which the funds are used remain obscure. Furthermore, concerns about a range of problems, including the active development of energy resources in the seas around China and the cross-border environmental pollution, are no longer matters that can simply be dismissed as being unfounded. China's attitude of "watching actions rather than words" over the Yasukuni Shrine issue is understandable but, at the same time, it also should display, by acting rather than speaking, its readiness to dispel regional concern about such matters as its military buildup.

Because the country lacks what is required to convince others concerning the above points, opinions concerning the threat posed by China have not been eliminated. The sense of caution towards China felt in the United States and growing Japanese distrust of China are leading to a stepped-up Japan-U.S. security tie-up. In that circumstance, China will begin feeling increasingly wary of the United States and Japan and consider taking counter-measures, thereby triggering the start of a negative spiral. Nobody will benefit from such a situation. On the other hand, however, a politically-focused strategic dialogue is under way between the United States and China while, economically, the three countries are strengthening relationships of mutual dependence.

In this context, I would like to propose the establishment of a mechanism for "comprehensive strategic dialogue among Japan, the U.S. and China."

Three pillars will support the mechanism. In the area of security, the framework of Japan-U.S. security consultations will not view China with hostility and will rather attempt to bring it around to joining a new security framework for the Asia-Pacific area which has Japan, the U.S. and China at its core. Economically, the three countries will address themselves to such issues as worsening trade friction between the U.S. and China and the question of intellectual property rights, based upon the past experience of Japan-U.S. trade friction. Furthermore, in relation to perceptions of history, discussions should involve the United States in order to aim at a more objective and authoritative agreement. I believe that acceleration of this kind of dialogue and enhanced mutual understanding will be indispensable for the creation of an East Asian community.

Furthermore, it is necessary to return to basics and consider why such a regional community is needed.

Firstly, we need a system to ensure in a stable fashion the region's economic integration and development. Secondly, Asians should have a mechanism for solving, on their own, the problems of Asia. The third point of significance is that, for the first time in history, Asians will cooperate with one another to create an institution that will assist them to contribute to the international community.

I would like here to make a further proposal, namely the creation of a cooperative system for nurturing persons of talent.

In Europe, member countries of the European Union (EU) have jointly launched a project known as Erasmus (short for European community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) designed to exchange students and foster people versed in one another's cultures, languages and societies. The history of the EU as a community cannot be discussed without consideration being given to endeavors such as this.

What we need is a system under which selected young people gather from all nations and regions, study under specialized curricula such subjects as energy, environment, regional revitalization, peace building and cultural and information interchanges, and take part in actual field programs. Programs for student exchanges should also be put in place. If this kind of system works effectively and turns out talented young Asians in large numbers, the argument over the membership of the proposed community may lose its significance.