This thesis set out to ascertain the position of recent Australian Governments on the latest instalments of Asian regionalism in the context of an assessment of whether there has been a redefinition of Asia and thus a redefinition of Australia???s engagement with Asia. It will concentrate on the broad themes of politico-strategic and economic engagement. Whilst there has been extensive research and documentation on the Asian economic crisis there has been less work on the issue of a new Asian regionalism and the implications for Australia???s complex and variable engagement with the region. This is the basis for the claim to originality of this thesis, a claim supported by its focus on the practical and policy implications of Australia???s engagement, or lack of it, with regional institutions. The process of regional integration has been extremely slow, thus supporting the conclusion that there is no evidence of a major redefinition of Asia. Efforts at Asian regionalism are meeting obstacles that pose immense challenges. Asian regionalism remains nascent and poorly defined. This reflects the diversity and enormous disparities in cultures, political systems and the levels of economic development and differences over economic philosophies within East Asia. What is discernible is that the regionalism is proceeding more rapidly on financial issues than on trade, and in the security area it is conspicuously absent. This research highlights the fact that the question of Asian engagement remains a sensitive issue in Australia and continues to grow more complex. Australia???s engagement with Asia since 1996 has been variable because of the Howard Government???s broader balance of priorities between global and regional issues, and because of the changing nature of the Asian region. The perception gleaned from sources is that, for the Australian Government, regionalism initiatives are characterised by much discussion but lack substance. Consequently, this appears to have led the Government to the position that exclusion from some manifestations of regionalism is not so important. Australia is excluded from some of the regional architectures being constructed. In its efforts to seek inclusion in ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, Australia is facing the same barriers that have stood in the way of an AFTA-CER agreement. Exclusion would be important if the performance of regional groupings was not so indifferent. Exclusion from ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, however, does not equate to Australia???s exclusion from the region.

This thesis set out to ascertain the position of recent Australian Governments on the latest instalments of Asian regionalism in the context of an assessment of whether there has been a redefinition of Asia and thus a redefinition of Australia???s engagement with Asia. It will concentrate on the broad themes of politico-strategic and economic engagement. Whilst there has been extensive research and documentation on the Asian economic crisis there has been less work on the issue of a new Asian regionalism and the implications for Australia???s complex and variable engagement with the region. This is the basis for the claim to originality of this thesis, a claim supported by its focus on the practical and policy implications of Australia???s engagement, or lack of it, with regional institutions. The process of regional integration has been extremely slow, thus supporting the conclusion that there is no evidence of a major redefinition of Asia. Efforts at Asian regionalism are meeting obstacles that pose immense challenges. Asian regionalism remains nascent and poorly defined. This reflects the diversity and enormous disparities in cultures, political systems and the levels of economic development and differences over economic philosophies within East Asia. What is discernible is that the regionalism is proceeding more rapidly on financial issues than on trade, and in the security area it is conspicuously absent. This research highlights the fact that the question of Asian engagement remains a sensitive issue in Australia and continues to grow more complex. Australia???s engagement with Asia since 1996 has been variable because of the Howard Government???s broader balance of priorities between global and regional issues, and because of the changing nature of the Asian region. The perception gleaned from sources is that, for the Australian Government, regionalism initiatives are characterised by much discussion but lack substance. Consequently, this appears to have led the Government to the position that exclusion from some manifestations of regionalism is not so important. Australia is excluded from some of the regional architectures being constructed. In its efforts to seek inclusion in ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, Australia is facing the same barriers that have stood in the way of an AFTA-CER agreement. Exclusion would be important if the performance of regional groupings was not so indifferent. Exclusion from ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, however, does not equate to Australia???s exclusion from the region.

No events of international consequences likely to bring Japan to Australia’s attention occurred before the Sino-Japanese war (1894-5). Japan had as yet shown no sign of her military power. Probably as far as Australians felt any insecurity, their anxieties centred on the expansion of European powers into the Pacific, the might of Russia and the Chinese hordes. In such conditions they were free to think of Japan chiefly as a country of cherry blossom and quaint people. Only the question of Japanese immigration which began to assume large proportions after about 1890 gave any basis for feelings of hostility.