Last September, Japan got a new government. For once the country had not only a change of leadership but also a change of party at the helm of the government. This has indeed been a rare event in post war Japan, particularly after 1955 when the Liberal-Democratic Party had been formed. Very early in his tenure the new prime minister Yukio Hatoyama made it clear that he wanted to focus on Japan’s neighbours, namely South Korea and China.

In the recent past, relations between the three countries had not been good, mainly because of the shadows of World War II, when Japan had occupied the Korean peninsula and large swathes of China. Now there is talk of intensified regional cooperation in east Asia.

So far, the most successful instrument of regional cooperation in Asia has been the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean). Of course, this body has not yet reached the level of integration of the European Union. But it has become an important pillar of stability in a potentially fragmented region. Once an instrument of cold war politics, Asean has in the meantime admitted communist Vietnam. Compared to Asean the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (Saarc) is still in its infancy.

While the world talks of Asia as a continent like America or Europe, these efforts at regional cooperation should remind us that Asia is much more than a single geographical entity. It is not only the enormous geographical dimensions that distinguish Asia from Europe. The cultural and religious diversity of Asia is unique. Europe’s foundations have been laid by the Roman Empire and later on by the Roman Catholic Church. It traditionally defines itself as a Christian continent. This explains why many Europeans have difficulty with admitting Turkey to the European Union. Those who are in favour of Ankara joining the EU push forward economic and security interests. On the other side are powerful voices that have strong reservations against diluting the cohesive religious identity of the EU by admitting a country with a massive Muslim majority.

It is in the same context that many Europeans are worried about immigration from countries that do not belong to the western, the Christian orbit. Asia is a totally different case. The Japanese define themselves as Buddhist and Shinto. The Chinese who are rediscovering religion, flock to Christianity and Buddhism. Indonesia and Pakistan have solid Muslim majorities. India, the mother country of Buddhism, is over four fifth Hindu.

While it is common to define European identity by referring to Christianity, a single religious identity does not work to identify what it means to be Asian. The same holds true for culture and language. Asia has without any doubt the greatest cultural diversity. There are only a few minor languages in Europe that do not belong to the Indo-German family. Even the Indian Union on its own has a population of greater linguistic diversity than the whole of Europe, Russia included.

Then there is the issue of political systems. The European Union has always defined itself as a body of democratic states and no exceptions to this rule have been made. Spain, Greece and Portugal joined the EU only after they had made successful transitions to democracy and the rule of law. The same holds true for the expansion of the EU into central and eastern Europe as well as into the Balkans. Compare that with the membership of Asean, which ranges from democracy to military dictatorship and communist regimes. It is obvious that Japanese prime minister Hatoyama does not look at the issue of political or cultural cohesion. When he speaks of regional cooperation in east Asia he has also a presence of Australia, maybe even India and the United States in his mind, which is obviously not too much to the liking of the Chinese. In any case this project is only in the initial stage.

While in the G-7 and G-8 Japan is the sole representative of Asia and while in the UN Security Council, China is the only permanent member from Asia, the Asian presence in the G-20 is much more diverse and much more representative.

The more importance the G-20 will gain, the more relevant this broader Asian presence will be. It is obvious that China, India, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia have very different economic and geopolitical interests. Nevertheless, particularly the two biggest Asian countries, India and China, have a historic obligation to make sure that there is a minimum in all-Asian understanding. The future will bring important challenges in terms of monetary stability and rivalries for scarce raw materials. Here, it is important that Asians do stand together so as not to become once again victims of the old western game of “divide and rule”

The writer is the Far East correspondent of Swiss daily Neue Zurcher Zeitung