In a WPR feature essay on economic integration and security competition in Asia, Amitav Acharya used our article in Foreign Policy, “A Tale of Two Asias,” as a conceptual framework for thinking about the region's future. But his piece does not address our key arguments about how security competition endangers the gains achieved by economic integration in this dynamic and important part of the world.

The Problem With Two Asias

In a recent WPR feature essay on economic integration and security competition in Asia, Amitav Acharya used our article in Foreign Policy, “A Tale of Two Asias,” as a conceptual framework for thinking about the future of this dynamic and important region. But his piece, “Why Two Asias May be Better Than None,” misunderstands or fails to address many of our key arguments.

On some points, we agree with Acharya. For example, he notes that Japan “started the process” of economic integration in Asia, or what we call “Economic Asia,” and “still plays a vital role in it.” We made precisely this point when we argued that “Tokyo has long been an exemplar of Economic Asia and a motive force behind the quest for greater regional economic integration.” ...

To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review

Individual
Free Trial

  • TWO WEEKS FREE.
  • Cancel any time.
  • After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
subscribe

Institutional
Subscriptions

Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.

request trial

Login

Already a member? Click the button below to login.

login