Bilateral trade between India and Korea has increased significantly in recent years. The strength of this bilateral relationship today can be ascertained from the fact that while bilateral trade in the financial year 1992-1993 was a mere US$530 million, in 2010-2011 it has reached US$20 billion. Until now, however, India-Korea cooperation has only been viewed in terms of trade and investment between the two countries. But the time has now come when both countries need to extend their bilateral relations for regional cooperation, an area which has been ignored by both governments so far. Asia is in the middle of regaining the dominant global position which it held three centuries ago, prior to the industrial revolution in Europe. According to the Asian Development Bank, if Asia continues to follow its recent trajectory, by 2050 its per capita income could rise six times in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms to reach the present income levels of Europe. This would enable an additional 3 billion Asians to enjoy living standards similar to those in Europe today.

While this promising outcome, premised on the major economies sustaining the present growth trajectory, it is plausible but does not imply that the path ahead is just doing more of the same. Indeed, just maintaining the present growth momentum will require an urgent tackling of a broad array of politically difficult issues in the region. Asia’s rise is by no means preordained. Indeed, this outcome is fraught with challenges which are not mutually exclusive. They can impact one another and multiply existing conflicts between Asian nations, or even create new pressure points within and across Asia that threaten its growth, stability and security.

Thus in order to maintain this growth momentum, the region needs to have robust cooperation among its nations. Yet the movement towards closer cooperation in East Asia has certainly been developing within the last ten years. The ASEAN Plus Three (APT) and East Asian Summit (EAS) have emerged as potential regional frameworks of cooperation. These regional frameworks are “process-based regionalism”–a series of meetings, dialogues, and consultations–rather than “results-based regionalism.” There are a number of obstacles to the further development of East Asian regional cooperation. First of all, the lack of confidence-building among the countries in the region may impede the institutionalization of regional cooperation. Amongst the reasons for this are historical legacies, ideological confrontation and territorial disputes. Secondly, a series of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) have been signed or are being negotiated by East Asian countries. However, the majority of trade agreements that they have negotiated or are currently negotiating are with states outside the region. Thus, there is the possibility that they will divert governments from the task of developing the regional economic cooperation process.

Thirdly, East Asian regionalism, which gained great attention from East Asian leaders after the Asian economic crisis in the late 1990s, seems to fail in achieving its primary objective. The East Asian Summit, which initially started with an “Asia only” concept, included the United States and Russia in its last summit and thus makes regional cooperation ineffective, just like the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). This might prove to be one of the biggest long-term impediments in developing the security mechanism structure in the region. By logic it is not necessary that the USA and Russia must be a part of every East Asian regional security grouping. East Asia can and should have some institutions where only regional countries participate and debate about their future.

It is clear that the road to East Asia’s regional cooperation is rocky. The pressing question is which regional arrangement should lead East Asian regional cooperation. The first alternative is ‘ASEAN+3’ which includes the ten countries of ASEAN as well as China, Japan, and South Korea. But the major problem within this framework is the Japan-China discord. Moreover, many Southeast Asian countries are concerned over China’s growing influence in this ASEAN+3 arrangement. Thus, despite some development, its future potential will largely depend on how the member states deal with China’s growing dominance in this framework.

The second alternative is ‘ASEAN+6’, which includes Southeast Asian and Northeast Asian countries, along with India, Australia, and New Zealand. This framework seems to have considerable promise in future as it includes all major nations in the region. An economic community consisting of these primary countries, including India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and ASEAN, would have an economy roughly equal to the European Union (EU) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in terms of GDP. Thus, in the future they have the potential to form an economic bloc vis-à-vis the EU and NAFTA.

Where do India and Korea fit in this ongoing regional integration process?
Korea is one of the founding members of the ‘ASEAN+3’ and the East Asia Summit. So far it has a maintained a neutral position on the issue of membership in the regional frameworks. However, recently it has become more proactive in regional security cooperation. The India-Korea strategic agreement, whereby both countries are cooperating and consulting with each other in developing regional architecture in the broader Asia-Pacific region, points South Korea’s new policy approach towards that direction.

It can be safely argued that Korea’s role in building regional institution in East Asia has thus far been quite low. The Korean regional policy approach has mostly been reactive, incremental, and without any grand vision. It has mainly limited its foreign policy engagement to two issues, namely, the North Korea issue and the USA-Korea alliance. There is a very common perception in Korea that the North Korean issue is the most significant for South Korea and that they cannot guide their foreign policy without regard for it. But this perception of South Korea may not be entirely correct. Today South Korea is a relatively strong nation and it has to play a more substantial role in Asian regional affairs.

South Korea’s expanded involvement in Asian regional affairs can also be expected to help it resolve the North Korea issue through Asian frameworks. Until now South Korea has heavily depended on the United States and China to help move the North Korea issue forward. Now the time has come for South Korea to rethink its policies. There is need to adopt a new kind of approach to resolve this issue. It needs to bring about the Asian Regional frameworks into the fold, in which the United States is not the dominant player. This will send a signal that South Korea is ready to adopt a new thinking in this new era of Asian reemergence. From this perspective South Korea might be well advised to adopt a more conciliatory approach towards the North while reducing the United States’ strategic role in the Korean peninsula.

Until now India has also been seen as an ‘invited player’ in building regional institutions in the Asian region. For this reason it has remained a mere participant rather than a pro-active shaper of the East Asian integration process. Despite India’s claim to be an Asia-Pacific power, no country has yet taken seriously India’s role in the regional integration process. So far its membership within East Asian regional forums has been a result of attempts by some of these countries to balance China’s growing influence in the area. India is not there as a ‘natural contender’, as the case should be in the first place. Notably, Japan brought India into the ASEAN+6 to dilute the ASEAN+3 process, where China is dominant, while South East Asian countries like Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia played a more significant role in bringing India into the East Asia Summit. Many scholars see India as a counterweight to China’s increasing influence in the region. But this argument has limitations. India is a “natural and historical partner” of East Asian nation states and thus must not be seen as a function of growing rivalry between the two primary groups in the region. Its robust cultural and civilization connections with East Asia must not be underestimated in this regard.

East Asian integration is essential to realize an Asian century. And that India will have a key role in shaping it cannot be stressed enough. For this India needs a more active policy initiative towards East Asia. India must revitalize its “Look East Policy” that was initiated two decades ago to ensure it is an indispensable player in this part of the world. It has to take on a leadership role in bringing all East Asian nations to the same table. The recent visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Korea was a great opportunity to reassert its position as Asia-Pacific power. But unfortunately nothing much came out of it in this regard, and the visit has been passed off without getting any attention from Korean and regional observers. There was much talk, no action. A great opportunity lost!

Until now, in order to formulate policies on East Asian affairs India has been heavily dependent on either foreign policy establishments which are terribly overstretched or else Western-trained experts with limited knowledge and access to the region. According to recent reports, a small country like Singapore might have more diplomatic resources in the field than a country of 1.2 billion people. It says something of the sad state of affairs of Indian foreign policy establishment.

That Indian policy makers are generally ill-informed can be seen from some of the recent foreign policy decisions they have taken regarding the region. India needs to develop more field scholarship resources to assert its position as an Asia-Pacific power. Nobody will take its claim seriously when its top policy makers display a lack of touch with the region in their statements and speeches.

India needs to develop a much clearer vision of its role in East Asia. It has to involve itself in the region more actively. For this, it will have to understand East Asian people’s perceptions about the world and their role in it. It is very important for the Indian foreign establishment to understand that what East Asian countries are thinking about India is more significant than what India is thinking about them.

India and Korea can play a leading role in integrating the region as both countries share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy and respect for basic human rights. Both countries need to have a joint approach towards regional cooperation so that Asia will be able to realize its century without any further delay.