The process of East Asian regionalism received a shot in the arm in 2008 with the proposal made by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd about restructuring the Asia-Pacific regional architecture. This was followed by the proposal made by Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama on an East Asian community. There are substantive differences between the two concepts (one being that the former has been much more developed over time while the latter has been left for further discussion). Both, however, have attracted quite a bit of attention, not primarily because of their substantive content but more because of their implications for how currently existing regional institutions seem to be falling short of expectation thus creating the need to explore alternative arrangements. In an indirect way, this is reflective of how much its partners are beginning to grow weary of the ASEAN Way and of the way ASEAN has driven the process.

The very success, however, of ASEAN in managing intra-ASEAN relations to the point of being able to make the prospect of conflict between ASEAN member states unlikely (as well as its involvement in the Cambodian conflict) gave it an international stature out of proportion to the status of its individual member states. This was in fact recognized by its dialogue partners when they accepted the idea that the Association should chair the post-Cold War forum that would oversee discussions and dialogue on the security of the Asia-Pacific region. The fact that it was also called the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) when it was established in 1994 more than stamped the ASEAN mark upon it — it signified the adoption of ASEAN norms (especially the consensus-based method of decision-making) as the foundation for what was effectively a nascent attempt at extra-ASEAN regionalism. That it did so with much misgiving did not detract from its determination to show the applicability of the ASEAN “model” to a wider Asia-Pacific scope. This started ASEAN on its way to a significant shift in the evolution of its identity — from an association dedicated to keeping the Southeast Asian region free from being enmeshed in great power rivalries to one which accepted its “centrality” in a wider East Asian and Asia-Pacific regionalism, a process that would entail accepting the involvement of and engaging the major powers in the context of the region.