By his own admission, Amitav Archarya, a professor at York University (Canada) is not an Asianist. Rather, his niche is "Asian Pacific regionalism". Two questions obviously emerge: Can an entity as diverse as Asia-Pacific be labeled a "region" without skewing the meaning of the term? More importantly, has contemporary social sciences developed the necessary tools and lenses to examine it?

"The Quest for Identity: International Relations of Southeast Asia" answers to the affirmative on both counts, albeit with the analytical scope restricted to Southeast Asia alone, rather than Northeast Asia. Indeed, the book is Amitav Archarya's first attempt to define, if not to defend, the "existence" of Southeast Asia, and he did the job immensely well.

For what it is worth, this book is extremely insightful, timely, and instructive. For years, political scientists have tended to look at Southeast Asia either as a colonial construct-alas a geographical space that is devoid of its own indigenous identity, political network, trade matrix, and common culture-or a region too diverse to be deemed a region in the first place.

Bringing historical materials to bear, Amitav Archarya marshaled his resources and facts well to affirm categorically that prior to the onset of colonialism in Southeast Asia in the early 16th century, ancient dynasties and kingdoms have already existed. Not only do they exist, but they have had various forms of ties that mirror contemporary international relations in Southeast Asia too. Dynasties such as Funan, Champa, Pagan, Srivijaya, Angkor, Majapahit and Ayutthya, just to name a few, were known as thriving centers of commerce and power from as early as 1st century A.D.

History, however, is not the forte of this book. Most of the discussions on history were drawn from the works of other historians who had studied the region. Thus, there is not much use of new or primary research materials. What makes Amitav's contribution to the regional studies of Southeast Asia an important one, however, is his foray into the region's attempt, especially since 1967, at fostering a common identity-such as through the creation of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), now comprised of 10 members that formed what is collectively known as Southeast Asia.

Be that as it may, Amitav's book did not seriously quibble if what regionalism achieved through what constructivists called identity-formation can overcome regime differences too. Myammar, for instance, has become bolder in asserting its different standard of governance after becoming a member of ASEAN. Does this imply that ASEAN has failed in drawing Myammar into accepting a minimum set of values? Indeed, if ASEAN is creating a common identity, a key thesis of this book, what is stopping Myammar, or for that matter, Vietnam, in liberalizing their regimes further? After all, if the external environment is made safer through their membership in ASEAN, shouldn't these countries be more receptive to suggestions and initiatives for change?

The above questions are important because tackling them would avail us an understanding of whether regionalism, as promoted by ASEAN, is real or fictive. In other words, is Southeast Asia growing closer together because it is a region simply discovering "lost roots"-one of the key premises of the book-or is it becoming "regionalized" due to a panoply of other causes, which include the rise of China, the advent of globalization, and the imbalance of power between Northeast and Southeast Asia. Any combination of the latter would of course aggravate the insecurity of certain member states in Southeast Asia, rather than to assuage it. Therefore, attempts to turn Southeast Asia into a single region, for better or for worse, are induced probably as a result of negative forces of fear rather than positive forces of peace. Just as it is plausible to point to the growing integration of Southeast Asia as a result of identity formation, a skilled realist scholar such as Michael Leifer of the London School of Economics, for instance, could turn the same claim on its head by looking at power-related variables.

In any case, this book has done an exceptional job in getting the debate going. But for a more thorough understanding of the growing bond of Southeast Asia, other causes cannot be discounted. Realist scholarship that has dominated the study of Southeast Asia may yet live to see another day.

That said, it is a testament to Amitav's originality and scholarship that he chose to study Southeast Asia from the standpoint of identity formation, hence indirectly social-constructivism. It is a promising approach, though one that is still in need of greater analysis.