Nonetheless, it can still be useful to do so as it provides future benchmarks for the region either to emulate or discard Europe's experiences.

As the European Union celebrates its fifth decade, Asia is still struggling to define the scope of its geographical boundaries. The EU has 27 members now and could expand further to reach the edge of Asia, while Asia itself has yet to overcome its identity crisis.

Looking at Asia in broad terms, the designation of exact geographical boundaries is difficult and often misleading. In the past, East Asia referred to China, Japan and South Korea; in certain circumstances, it included the newly developed economies of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Of course, some traditionalists would prefer the terms "Orient" or "Far East".

After 1997, this whole dynamic economic region meant a combination of the above countries and the 10-member Asean group. Previously, their leaders insisted that the two regions were different and not connected in any way. But the economic turmoil of 1997 which hit South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia, coupled with the Korean Peninsula crisis and squabbling in the South China Sea, changed this attitude. They realised the two regions were interlinked. To solve common problems, they had to stick together. First, it was the financial crisis but now it includes a whole gamut of social and security problems. Trans-national problems such as disease pandemics, terrorism, climate change and nuclear proliferation, which used to be on the backburner, have become more prominent.

When the first East Asian Summit (EAS) was convened in Kuala Lumpur in 2005, Australia, New Zealand and India were elated, as they were among the 16 founding members. Soon after, they learned that the EAS community building process was not something they had envisaged. It is a forum for strategic matters - another talk shop, but a more exclusive one, at least for now. India could not hide its disappointment. New Delhi thought erroneously that it could march forward in full force and join the rest of Asia permanently. In May 2004, Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh proudly announced the country's Asian Community initiative.

Strange but true, it was only after India joined the EAS that the membership of the Asia-Europe Meeting, founded in 1996, was really considered. One wonders why the world's largest democracy, with the world's second largest population, had to wait a decade to join the Asia bandwagon. In a similar vein, it also took Pakistan a decade to be recognised as a country with a geographical footprint in Asia before it could join the Asean Regional Forum in 2004.

What were the obstacles then? As it turns out, the obstacles lie deep within in the Asian mindset. Thanks to Europe's assertiveness and unity, resulting from closer integration and community enlargement, Asian countries have been forced to soul search, especially in regard to their prejudices against each other. Suddenly, India, Pakistan and Mongolia were admitted to Asem last year. The numbers will grow further because Asia needs to counter the rapid expansion of the EU. But unfortunately, as far as community building in Asia is concerned, it is still a pipe dream. At this juncture, Asean plus three (China, Japan and South Korea) is the only regional expansion process that Asean trusts, albeit in a discriminatory way. In other words, it is the only foundation that any future East Asian Community (Japan) or Asian Community (India) or Pan-Asian Community (Thailand under Thaksin) would be constructed upon, if any.

A bigger and more dynamic European grouping helps to extend the Asian geographical reach. For decades, when it came to economic cooperation, Asia was pretty satisfied with its traditional designations. But the opposite was true when it came to sport gatherings. The number of Asian countries has increased many-fold, including the countries in Central Asia and Palestine. At the last Asian Games in Doha, 45 Asian countries took part in the competition. Two dozen of these have never been mentioned in the overall scheme of things in East Asia, or Asia as a whole. When Thailand promoted the Asian Cooperation Dialogue framework in 2001, it envisaged an Asia that would stretch from East of Suez to the Kamchatka Peninsula. At the end of the day, Asia must come to terms with its identity and start counting which among its countries overcome their prejudice. Asean has taken the lead by default in the community building of the whole of Asia. More powerful countries like China and Japan have not yet established a level of comfort and mutual trust necessary for further bloc building as has been carried out in Europe.

It is a daunting task for Asean to lead, as it is now struggling to formalise its cooperation over the past four decades. Within Asia, the dynamics from other regional groupings that will allow a broader Asia to emerge must be channelled into the Asean plus three process and help in its transformation. Otherwise, Asian integration as a whole will be held hostage to the Asean-led integration, which is at least another eight years away on paper.

 Kavi Chongkittavorn