Asia aspires to lead the world. That is the chief message from the meetings of Asia-Pacific leaders that convened last weekend in Thailand. The region's rapid emergence from the global economic downturn has confirmed the belief among its leaders that it is time for an Asian community to emerge — a group that will have a defined shape and purpose, and may even look a lot like the European Union. While those ambitions reflect rapidly growing confidence, there is also considerable anxiety. There is concern not only that Asia's reach exceeds its grasp, but that the region's divisions are too formidable to overcome.

Asian nations have good reason to be proud. They have been less damaged by the global recession than other nations and have been quickest to return to growth. In a speech last weekend at the summit, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh crowed: "The world's eyes are on Asia as the region which can lead the global economic revival."

But leading the recovery is not enough. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, along with other regional leaders, believes the crisis is proof that Asia must change its ways. As Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, the meeting host, explained: "The old growth model where, simply put, we have to rely on consumption in the West for goods and services produced here, we feel will no longer serve us as we move to the future." Instead, the region must rely more on itself — and the key to enabling that evolution is the creation of an East Asian community.

For Mr. Hatoyama, this group would consist of 16 members — the ASEAN 10 plus China, Japan, South Korea, along with Australia, New Zealand and India. Modeled after the EU, the Asian community would eventually account for nearly one-quarter of global economic output and would have a shared currency. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has proposed a broader Asia-Pacific Community that would include more nations, including the United States, but would have a narrower focus, primarily responding to regional crises. While the U.S. is not a member of Mr. Hatoyama's envisaged community, he insists the U.S. has a vital role to play in the region.

In fact, a regional economic community is being forged. ASEAN has agreed to develop a free trade area among its members by 2010; a social and political community is supposed to follow by 2015. The group has signed, or is close to signing, trade pacts with Japan, China and South Korea; it concluded a free trade agreement with India at last weekend's summit.

But a broader Asian community will be more than just the sum of its parts. Reaching consensus on its precise form will be difficult. First, there is no agreement among Asian nations about who should be included. Mr. Hatoyama's vision is contested by Chinese leaders who prefer a 13-nation group of ASEAN, China, Japan and South Korea — better know as the ASEAN Plus Three. The declaration released at the end of that group's summit last weekend said those 13 countries would form the "main vehicle towards the long-term goal of building an East Asian Community."

The competing schemes illustrate the undercurrent of suspicion that is the first obstacle to the realization of an Asian community. Japan wants a bigger group to balance China's size and influence; China is understandably reluctant to marginalize itself. Competition between Tokyo and Beijing was also evident in the various proposals discussed last weekend to provide aid and assistance to Southeast Asia.

Nonetheless, ASEAN insists that its plan to forge a free trade area is on track. That confidence is belied by the Philippines' insistence last week that it is not prepared to implement proposed cuts in its rice import tariffs. Then there was the contretemps surrounding the launch of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, ASEAN's first human rights watchdog. The body is supposed to promote human rights, but it will have no power to investigate governments or impose sanctions. Civil rights activists also complain that they had no say in the selection of commissioners, and several of them walked out when civil society representatives from five countries were rejected by their governments and not allowed to meet leaders last weekend.

Fears that the new human rights body will be toothless are well grounded. ASEAN has refused to criticize member governments out of respect for the doctrine of noninterference; its refusal to criticize the military junta in Myanmar is the most appalling example, but it is not the only one.

Creation of the ASEAN free trade area and its human rights body are the first steps toward the realization of an Asian community. Simply existing is not enough, however: They must work. That will be a test of ASEAN's commitment to real leadership and provide the ballast for a genuine community of nations.