The pillar toward the establishment of East Asian regional integration is the market integration through an intense intra-regional trade and investment that preceded other arenas of activity.

The opportunity and inclination for East Asian regional integration are still on the rise after the WTO Doha meeting. This represents a mutually enhancing process of Asian dynamism and the benefits of competitive liberalization.

The relationship between Japan and ASEAN and that between China and the regional association are different in characteristics. Japan, in principle, has built bilateral relationships with respective ASEAN nations, but from now on, Japan would shift the focus of its relationship to an integrated ASEAN, which in turn would produce a variety of business opportunities and induce more foreign investment in ASEAN. In order for this to materialize, tariff barriers within ASEAN should be abolished, and further, it is necessary to minimize distribution cost within the region.

An FTA between Japan and Korea has a beneficial aspects: increased productivity and lower cost would give rise to globally-competitive Japanese and Korean corporations. At the same time, there are some obstacles, such as: 1) it is highly likely that Japanese companies would overwhelm their Korean counterparts; and, 2) Korean distrust of Japan is strong.

The size of a combined Sino-Japanese-Korean economy is large, making economic justification for a trilateral FTA convincing, but currently such an agreement is seen mostly in a negative sense, due to the present differences of economic systems and the Chinese and Korean distrust of Japan.

A more realistic approach, on the other hand, would be a Japanese FTA with the ASEAN+3. ASEAN has the role of a hub that connects Japan and China. South Korea can play the role of a hub between Japan and China, too, as a business hub of Northeastern Asia. Progress with such an approach may be slow, but we need to start with what we can, in parallel to other FTAs, by being careful to avoid the trade diversion effects

An East Asian Economic System would mean the sharing of a single economic system. As economies and corporations are aiming for globalization, efficiency would be prioritized, making the Anglo-American standard, in which an economic liberalism centered on private companies is a dominant theme, a model. East Asia, however, contains within it a variety of systems and organizations, and thus there is no choice but to coexist by maintaining those differences. It follows that the East Asian Economic System should possess a maximum flexibility in allowing the coexistence of different systems and organizations

        East Asia cannot be integrated just by purely economic approaches. As mutual economic dependency increases, a higher level of regional integration in which homogeneity and sameness can be seen culturally and socially should be achieved. In order to promote regional integration in East Asia in the near future, it is necessary to: 1) secure economic interest of each nation; 2) secure a regional leader; and 3) adopt an open governance system.

        In order to construct an East Asian Community, Japan, China, and South Korea should take leadership roles, as in the case of France and Germany in the European Union, and the United States and Canada in the NAFTA. A Sino-Japanese-Korean FTA should be prioritized in this way; however, there is the agricultural issue between China and Japan, and Japanese distrust of China. But I do not think Japan needs to worry, as available land area in China is small, and Japanese technological development capabilities are high.

Japan, although it is an economic superpower, had an ambivalent attitude toward the ASEAN as a group. Japan had mainly approached the ASEAN on a bilateral, nation-to-nation level, but it finally started to perceive ASEAN as an integral market, as the AFTA and ASEAN free trade agreement were launched.
      China is trying to expand its FTA with Thailand from specific items to overall trade. Furthermore, China has the political will to develop such an FTA into a multilateral one, to have a comprehensive relationship with the enlarged ASEAN.
      South Korea had entered FTA negotiations with Thailand, Chile, and Japan, but has ceased such talks due to the lack of tangible benefits. However, in the long-run, FTAs would benefit South Korea, and I hope that the nation would resume the FTA talks.
      A Sino-Japanese-Korean FTA faces a variety of tests, including the issue of differences in interpretations of history. Between China and Japan, especially, it would be difficult for Japan to shift its main industries to China, and China, too, would feel reluctant to accept the industries that are declining in Japan.

Thailand has entered FTA negotiations with India and China, and is expected to launch FTA talks with Australia next year. the United States has expressed interest in starting similar negotiations with The Thai government, but since the basis of such talks would be the AEI (American Enterprise Initiative), the U.S. government desires to apply the right to sue the Thai government and some NAFTA-inspired articles. Under such circumstances, the talks are likely to hit difficulties.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has announced that agricultural items may be included in the Thai-Japanese FTA negotiations, but the Thai side has become cautious about the so-called sensitive items.

How about holding regular Sino-Japanese-Korean summit in order to realize the successful establishment of the East Asian Community to a success? It would be ideal if mutual visits promotes mutual understanding, and in turn pursuit of common interests.

it would be possible to take optimistic views about the currency and financial issues compared to trade, for the following three reasons: 1) Within the ASEAN+3 framework, basic infrastructure for currency and finances would be further developed; 2) the high Asian savings rate would enable investment within the region; and 3) a more profitable asset investment would be possible in regards to fluidity.

Why has the degree of ASEAN's trade connections with other Asian nations decreased, except for China, in 2000 compared to 1990? It would mean a progression of the ASEAN's globalized economic integration.

Is it accurate to say that the panelists' definition of East Asia is dualistic, one being Northeast Asia that shares Confucius and Chinese-character cultures, and the other being the region that contains both Confucius and Buddhist-inspired Southeast Asian cultures?

The impetus for the European integration has been the strengths of political wills among member nations. On the other hand, is it not be the lack of Japanese leadership that has produced the slow progress of intra-Asian cooperation and integration? Didn't the present momentum for such cooperation and integration derive largely from the efforts of ASEAN and South Korea? It would be necessary for Japan to have a strong political will and take leadership with China.

Would it be problematic for Thailand and Singapore to take independent leaderships within the ASEAN.

What is the mechanism of a potential Sino-ASEAN FTA? Is it the case that the fragile ASEAN Secretariat is in charge of negotiations with China? Or is it that individual member nations are in talks with China under the table?

Would it be productive for elite members of Japanese society to launch joint research with Chinese and South Korean elites who will carry the future of those nations?

Trade liberalization between two nations would mean increased benefits for both nations, but domestically, winners and losers would inevitably emerge. Therefore, some kind of adjustment is necessary to deal with that kind of situation.

Things would not move in Sino-Japanese negotiations because of Japanese farmers, who comprise only two percent of the voter population, while in China, the interests of Chinese farmers, who make up seventy percent of the population, would be abandoned under the name of Chinese national interest. We must consider necessary adjustment for this circumstance.

Mutual understanding in the Japanese-Korean relationship is deepening, since both nations possess democratic values and share many issues, such as labor, distrust against politicians, opposition to the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and populism in the media. Therefore, I am optimistic about the Japanese-Korean FTA negotiations.

It would be beneficial for the ASEAN member nations to promote free trade agreement negotiations on the consensus base, but its FTAs would lose strength if not all members put their efforts together? In order to promote parallel cooperation, we need to share a framework of East Asian citizens, and thereby increase intra-region investment.

Intra-regional currency cooperation is going well, and we should keep it that way.

It would be important for Japan to successfully implement an educational reform in order to solve the difficult problem it faces.

Political opposition for FTA would be minimum if the perceived ease of negotiations is considered in choosing partner nations, but at the same time, the economic benefits would be also minimal. Sometimes top-down and "big-bang" approaches are necessary. Therefore, why not try to give priority to the conclusion of a Sino-Japanese FTA? Since the Sino-Japanese relationship is largely mutually supplementing, the conclusion of such an FTA would leave no choice for smaller nations but to join such agreements with large economic benefits.

I do not agree with the argument that the different interpretations of history are preventing regional integration. A transcendence of the history, precisely because unfortunate history exists, as in the case of Franco-German relationship, is now being called for.

We should take a note that the APEC's Bogor Declaration stipulated that a single free trade sphere would be achieved by 2010 among advanced Asia-Pacific nations, and by 2020 among all APEC nations, including developing ones.

Japan would not be expected to play a major role in the region unless its economic reform makes a progress.

South Korea can play the role of mediator for Japan and China, but before assuming that role, South Korea needs to accomplish the following two points: 1) domestic reforms; and 2) the ability to view things with international perspectives rather than with narrow, nationalistic ones

This kind of informal forum is very important, for such a meeting can play the role of building common recognitions and shared visions.

Chinese decision-makers would first listen to opinions of experts before making decisions. China did not start to suddenly say that it wants an FTA with the ASEAN. In fact, China and ASEAN member nations took about half a year to conduct a joint study, and then agreed that an FTA should be concluded within ten years.

An FTA is a system that analyzes the benefits and drawbacks of such an agreement for the partner nation, and that seeks to benefit both nations. China and ASEAN are expected to continue joint research for more than ten years.

The EU was originally formed for political purposes, because economic terms could not be fulfilled.

It is not the case that Japan has not exercised its leadership, but that Japanese leaders had given regional integration a low priority.

I do not intend to support FTAs. Thailand accepts multilateral trade negotiations because it is a small nation. It would be easier to conclude an FTA between two small nations, but there are many issues to be solved before an FTA is concluded between small and large nations. Singapore is a duty-free nation, has a small population, and its future is dependent upon trade. But for Thailand, FTA has its benefits and drawbacks.

A Sino-Japanese-Korean FTA would be the best option for East Asian regionalism, but in reality, such an agreement would be very difficult to achieve. Therefore we must think about other options, too.

In order to avoid trade diversion effects in case certain parts of FTAs in East Asia hastily implemented, we need to promote other arrangements as well. FTAs are good in themselves, but we need to make efforts to expand them in a global liberalization.

Financial cooperation with respect to exchange rate has not made a progress. Should the valuation issue of the Chinese Yuan cause a large shock, a currency crisis may occur. The reality is that currency cooperation has not progressed on that front, either.

The ASEAN+3 process has gained a wide range of support. In the process, it would be an appropriate that the member nations start what they can, but discussions are necessary for processes for what is being left out.

Economic benefits are prerequisites, but political processes are also necessary. It is not that Japan lacks leadership, but that it has a different style in leadership. Leadership is necessary, but the Japanese style is characterized by "leadership from behind," and takes into deep consideration the issues of CLMV, for example. We need to understand and accept this style.

We need to consider the linkage between domestic reform and regional cooperation.