Lee Jong-Wha's idea of an "Asian century" may just be a wishful thinking, given the ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity as well as different political - communist, authoritarian and democratic - systems in Asia. Although the continent is vast, he focuses on the region that stretches from the northeast to southeast, where China, India and Japan are vying for influence. While countries in northeast Asia share more or less the same Confucian values, southeast Asia had been colonised by different European powers and exposed to various cultures.

Ties have been forged that led to establishment of regional organisations. Nevertheless institutionalism is weak across Asia, and the depth and breadth of cooperation among member states leaves much to be desired. Southeast Asia has multilateral organisations like Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), ASEAN+3 (the ten members of the ASEAN plus China, Japan, and South Korea) and the East Asia Summit (EAS), while bilateral relations determine foreign policies between China, Japan and South Korea. Northeast Asia lacks a definite regional organisation, except for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) - multilateral alliances that involve the three global economic powerhouses. Although there is much talk of dropping tariff barriers and boosting trade with each other, few except the most robust economies are willing to totally remove all protection for domestic industries.

There is little unity within ASEAN, which makes up of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore, Brunei, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar and Cambodia. Many of them are grappling with uncertainties and political instability. Some complain about being hurt by the unregulated forces of globalisation, while others speak of the importance of embracing market liberalisation. The call for greater accountability, democracy and removal of protectionism creates divisions and not everyone benefits from growing prosperity. Political reforms are necessary among member states, but domestic developments are a sensitive area, due to the principle of "non-intervention" - no meddling in other countries' affairs. This paralysis has the potential of pulling ASEAN apart.

Even though "such institutions will be critical to resolving conflicts and establishing a framework for peace that can support regional prosperity and global leadership," the link between economic and political fortunes is strong. Sadly Asia is "home to some of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints." If we leave out Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent and Southwest Asia, the territorial disputes between China and the littoral countries in both the East and South China Seas remain resolved. The Korean peninsula risks of being a venue of nuclear arms race. North Korea defies the internatinal community with its missile tests, with China being reluctant to rein in Kim Jong-un's unruly behaviour.

The author urges for more "high-level political commitments to integration," involving "bureaucracies and the private sector, including business leaders and academics." Even if support is available, and even with all the advantages of integration - "the exchange of valuable knowledge, from effective economic and social policies to technological and scientific insight" - nationalism is still the obstacle to "forums and dialogues on regional public goods." Jingoistic leaders resort often to populist rhetoric to distract their citizens from failures and grievances.

It is true that "at a time when the global order is increasingly uncertain, Asia should take its fate into its own hands, by pursuing closer economic and political regional cooperation. If Asian countries can develop a shared vision for an economic community and a political association, this century could be theirs." The problem is that they need to overcome their decades-old rivalry, prejudices and hostilities. Besides it is difficult to place regional interests ahead of nationalist policies in times of economic hardships.