Abstract EN:

The american region-building policy applied at global level was a crucial factor that helped generate the difference between European region-building and Asian regionbuilding. Instead of encouraging regional identity as they did in western Europe, U. S. Officials had deep fear vis-a-vis Asian regionalism misused for a Japanese expansion in the form of pan-Asianism. If European region-building was partly based on the revival of the mediaval tradition of European civilization against modern nationalism, regionbuilding in maritime East Asia was basically under the setting of american expansionism competing against Japanese unilateralism, as well as with European unilateralism in Asia. The worst possible threat to the eyes of the u. S. Officials was the combination of communism with pan-Asianism in favor of the putative soviet "power complex. " the U. S. Officials who opposed, at first stage, the forma colonialism persisting in hullian view, began to admit the enlarged European interest in maritime east Asia. When European region-building was brought to a deadlock because of the chronic dollar gap, u. S. Foreign officers attached their hope to an "alliance with European powers" for their east Asian interests to smother nationalistic communist threat. In the final phase, however, the U. S. Foreign officials wanted to combine their enlarged interest of maritime east Asia with the revival of greater east Asia co-prosperity sphere. This resulted in an "american-Japanese consortium" in maritime east Asia preventing a genuine Asian regional cooperation.