PYQ Vault · Paper 2 · Regionalisation of World Politics
How successful has the ‘ASEAN Plus Three’ been in addressing regional problems? Support your answer with Specific examples.
How the answer moves
The flow snapshot — the routes in, the body, the counter-view and the routes out.
Flow snapshot — how the answer moves
Intro routes
R1 APT = ASEAN 10 + China, Japan, South Korea → born of the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis → record has followed that origin → economic/technical problems addressed, political /strategic ones not / R2 success must be graded by the type of regional problem → APT was designed as a crisis-response body → strong where the problem is technical, weak where it is strategic
Body flow
financial safety net: CMIM (liquidity) + AMRO (surveillance) → tested and held in the 2008-09 global financial crisis and COVID-19 → Mitrany: cooperation begins in technical areas, habits build a working peace → Haas'’s spillover, but confined to the economic domain → FTAs and RCEP; intra-APT trade above 30% of regional total → food and energy security; renewable-energy investment across Southeast Asia
Counter-view
spillover halts at the political frontier → China-Japan-Korea rivalry + sharpening US- China competition → non-binding, consensus-bound design; liberal intergovernmentalism — members keep pace and direction → Morgenthau: such consensus blocs serve the balance of power → structural agenda (manufacturing upgrade, high-skill services, infrastructure gap) still awaits execution
Conclusion routes
rR! successful crisis manager and capable economic integrator → little reach over political disputes → judged by the problem it was built for, it has worked / R2 success is bounded by design → what consensus can settle, APT has settled; what needs binding commitment lies beyond it
Model answer
Handwritten, in the form it would be written in the examination hall.
