The EU as a Security Actor in Southeast Asia
Dr Yeo Lay Hwee’s contribution provides the introductory framework to consider security politics in Asia and Europe. The paper traces how the EU’s relationship with ASEAN grew from a primarily economic and political partnership to one that encompasses security elements. Particularly from 2003 onwards, the EU made clear its intent to engage ASEAN more strategically. For the first time, a common fight against terrorism and non-traditional security issues emerged in discourse as among EU priorities in its affairs with Southeast Asia. The paper assesses the prospects and challenges for a “comprehensive” security partnership to be realised between the regions. It suggests that obstacles remain; among them, fundamentally differing views of security; with the EU subscribing to a “human security” doctrine and ASEAN still in favour of a more state-centric concept of security. The paper examines in detail the innovations of the Lisbon Treaty and ongoing reforms within EU security and defence policy, and how these could enhance, or not, its ambition to be a strategic security player in this region.
Institutional Regionalism versus Networked Regionalism: Europe and Asia Compared
This article compares the characteristics and workings of institutional versus networked regionalism through the integration experience of the European Union (EU) and East Asia. It provides a succinct overview of the many factors as to why and how the EU and East Asia evolved different trajectories of integration. For East Asia, the catalysts to integration include the Asian financial crisis that underscored the interdependency between Southeast and Northeast Asia, the role of ASEAN, the spillover effect from growing transnational inter-connectedness in business production and markets, and, critically, the improving relationship between China and Japan. Without rapproachement, central leadership as seen in the EU cannot take the place in East Asia, and hence one way for East Asian regionalism to proceed is through issues-based leadership. Through the experience of APEC, ASEAN and now East Asia, the paper presents how regionalism can develop non-teleologically and with added benefits for the networked model; such as fluidity and having more options by adopting ‘variable geometry’ in cooperation. The paper suggests that less rigid, less hierachical networked forms may be growing in acceptance as an alternative to the more formal and institutional form of regionalism that informed region-building in Europe.
Regionalisation and Decentralisation in a Comparative Perspective: Eastern Europe and Poland
The paper establishes the importance of the EU’s regionalisation and decentralisation policies in the transformation of post-communist Eastern European states and success of the EU cohesion policy. The author proposes that the path dependencies of different Eastern European states and presence of minorities are two vital factors affecting the regionalisation process. He outlines how the post-communist challenges were substantial but differentiated in the Eastern states (for instance, the Baltic states, due to the massive presence of Russians, opted for “bureaucratic” regionalisation with little decentralisation and financial devolution, whereas for the Czech Republic decentralisation was impeded by the ruling party). Using Poland as exemplar of the success of Europeanisation, he demonstrates how in spite of Poland’s cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity, it had progressed in debating a mature consensus in its regionalisation process. Although EU reforms shortly prior to accession in 2004 changed dynamics, the process itself allowed Poland to develop a new political axis, balance of powers, learn how to build a regional programme and to manage structural funds. The paper proposes that far from being imposed by one EU model, the new states negotiated their own trajectory and gained access to EU funds in regionalisation with the result of strengthened sovereignty. The paper demonstrates how the crux of this result was supported by the EU principle of subsidiarity and enforcement of rule of law. It concludes with questions on the choice that European policy makers of the future will need to make: between “renationalising” regionalism at the risk of European solidarity, or, reinforcing multi-level governance such as through more power sharing in R&D, migration, child and women protection and climate change.
The March 2010 paper, reproduced here with the permission of the author, was published under the aegis of the Polish Ministry of Regional Development.
East European Civil Societies in the 90s: A Legacy of Solidarnosc (Solidarity) or Completely Different Historical Paths?
In the nascent years of post-communism, the systemic changes in Central and Eastern European countries were accompanied by a revival in civil society. The picture going into the later years of the first decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union is remarkably different. Most studies asserted that civil society in Eastern Europe was weak, inspite of the progress and stability of democratic polities. This working paper proposes that the interconnect between democratic order, modernisation (progress) and civil society maybe an assumption of western literature. The author presents and examines key findings on the different evolutions and profiles of civil society in the differing East European countries and the unique confluence of historical factors behind the ‘decline’ of civil society. The paper asks if the ‘non-political’, informal and private networks that had existed even before the fall of communism could be a hybrid or alternative to the organisational capacity and social ties associated with western civil sphere. In its journey, the paper examines the effectiveness of the EU’s intervention in Eastern Europe, specifically in regionalisation policy and euroregion building. You will also be presented an overview of the theories and functions of civil society from philosophical and sociological traditions.
This March 2010 publication, reproduced here with the permission of the author, is from the “Governance and Globalization Working Paper Series 18” published by Sciences Po.
The Origins and Development of ASEM and EU-East Asia Relations
Three regions of economic power- North America, Europe and East Asia- are projected to dominate global trade and investment well into the 21st Century. Yet in this triangle, the Europe-East Asia relationship is seen as the weakest link of the three. The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) was conceived to develop dialogue and cooperation between the European Union and East Asia. It has been touted as the most ambitious framework for EU-East Asia relations. Yet questions remain as to whether ASEM has strengthened relationships between the two blocs and contributed tangibly to global governance. The book chapter explains the constellation of forces that led to ASEM’s establishment. These include the end of the Cold War ideological battle in Asia, the strategic interests of Singapore and the EU, the challenge of globalisation, as well as business and market factors. It charts ASEM’s development since inception and evaluates its progress in face of competing frameworks, such as the EU-ASEAN, EU-China, EU-Japan and EU-Korea dialogue, incongruent priorities of the EU and East Asians, and complexity of the EU and ASEM’s own enlargements. With the other strands of EU-East Asia engagement likely to gain momentum, the paper questions if a new partnership can be forged where EU-East Asia relationship can grow through a multi-layered and multi-pronged approach. It presents two keys for ASEM to unlock its importance as an interregional forum and help shape world order.
Towards a Common European Policy on China? Economic, Diplomatic and Human Rights Trends Since 1985
This paper analyses trends in European Union economic, political and human rights policies towards China since 1985. It advocates that policies between the European Commission and those of EU member states have gradually adopted more convergence if not coherence over the years, and is today no longer hostage to national or historical rivalries. Dr Wong uses the larger nations of Germany, France and the UK as the key state level actors in his discussion, which takes place in the larger context of the Europeanisation of EU foreign policy. The author argues that economic and trade priorities and ‘silent’ diplomacy, such as those adopted by Germany towards China, had reaped economic success. This is among the factors that have influenced the other EU nation states in their China policy. However the EU member states are also increasingly relying on a pan European card, such as the Trade Commission, to side step political or domestic pressures, or to tackle trade issues such as trade imbalances and disputes. He suggests that all three states have been steadily building their own political and strategic relationships with China since the 1985 European Community and China Trade and Cooperation Agreement, barring temporary “setbacks” such as Tiananmen or arms sales to Taiwan. The projection of the key states onto EU policy, coupled with emerging European-China collaborations, such as in aerospace, and networks such as the Asia Europe Meeting, have influenced decision making in Brussels itself. The impact can be seen in the EU’s unwillingness to co-sponsor the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) issues and in the toning down by individual member states in their critique of China. This article and other papers by the same author can be found below.
Regionalism and InterRegionalism in the ASEM Context: Current Dynamics and Theoretical Approaches
The authors contributed two papers to the CIDOB Asia series that explored how regionalism and interregionism have developed particularly through the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). They presented how and why ASEM came about, its achievements and challenges, and what the alliance must do to remain strategically relevant in the face of a possible resurgence of narrow state-dominated interests and erosion of multilateralism. In the first paper, Dr Yeo Lay Hwee argues that ASEM has lost potency to advance regionalism and Inter-regionalism due to factors such as its diffused membership, lack of focus and want of a more concrete entente between China and Japan. ASEM has been overshadowed by ASEAN+3 (China, Japan, South Korea), whose framework together with the impetus of the ’97 Asian financial crisis, instead helped advance an East Asian regionalism and North-South Inter-regionalism . ASEM’s usefulness in enhancing the EU-Asia dialogue was further complicated by a lack of clarity as to whether the EU’s relationship with ASEM falls under the CFSP or its external relations umbrella in pillar one, and burgeoning competing forums; EU-China; EU-Japan and EU-ASEAN. Dr Yeo rounded off by proposing issues where ASEM can align its interests regionally and interregionally in order to be of a greater influence on world governance. Lluc López i Vidal presented a comprehensive sweep of various theories of regionalism and Inter-regionalism . He contrasted the ‘old’ regionalism driven by geographic/historical/socio-cultural proximity, institution building and formal statutes, with the ‘new’ regionalism of Asia driven by economic liberalisation, regulated by ‘soft’ laws and deferred to preservation of state sovereignty. Vidal evaluates ASEM’s contribution as a power-balancer, agenda-setter and builder of both the Asian identity and the EU’s actorness in a globalised world. So far, ASEM has not been able to “forge a common position to take to multilateral organisations” such as the WTO or UN and Asia “still suffers from a lack of regional awareness”. ASEM is at risk of losing momentum and global significance. Hence cross-cutting issues such as climate change, terrorism, human rights, “must continue to find a place on the ASEM agenda”. Vidal closed with areas of further research, taking into account evolving regional and interregional connections.
Perceptions of the European Union among Tertiary Education Students in Singapore
In the first such study here, Assoc Prof Barnard Turner polled some 700 students from Singapore’s three main universities during the third quarter of 2008 to assess their perceptions of the European Union/Europe. They represented a statistically valid 1% of students at NUS, NTU and SMU, a demographically important group. The survey extends an earlier project led by National Centre for Research on Europe (NCRE), which measured media, public and elite perceptions of the EU in Asia. The chapter on Singapore, by A/Prof Turner and Ma Shaohua, is available in the volume “The EU through the Eyes of Asia” edited by Martin Holland et al (Singapore-Warsaw 2007), also profiled in this website’s section. The results of the university survey mirrored the NCRE survey only in some respects; other results were “surprising”. In spite of being one of Singapore’s top trading partners, tertiary students put China, Asia, India and the US ahead of the EU in importance, perhaps suggesting that respondents are more certain of Asia’s role as a region than for Europe’s. EU-China relations were ranked higher in impacting EU/Europe-Singapore relations than the Asia-Europe Meeting. Interestingly, zones where there were a higher proportion of Asian respondents registered a lower interest in EU/Europe. Still, the survey overall found strong interest in both the EU and Europe, albeit a low level of actual knowledge as to the specifics of what constitutes the Union. 9 in 10 believed they could or should know more about EU/Europe. But students were equally divided when asked if they could make clear distinction between the EU and Europe as a whole. They were unclear on how far the EU’s eastern geographic boundaries extend. Only 1.4 in 100 got the task right, most of whom were European exchange students! Substantial numbers omitted Finland, half omitted the Baltics, and many, Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, perhaps in a sign that the EU tends to be perceived as a ‘Western European’ construct, or that Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ still remains for many an operational mindset. 2 in 5 did not recognize the EU flag. Then again, fewer students could identify the ASEAN flag. Gender, year of study and frequency of access to media did not seem to affect the results significantly. The level of interest in the EU has yet to lead to higher recruitment numbers for European Studies. Turner suggested that visits to European companies, over 2000 of which have offices in Singapore, events such as sponsored movie nights and adopting a more holistic approach by focusing more on European culture, informal talks and outreach activities, might prove useful to gradually expand the idea of Europe.
Note- You can access the Asia-Europe Journal online if you or your institution subscribes to the journal.
Seeing the EU in Singapore: Media, Public and Elite Representation
Assoc Prof Barnard Turner and PhD candidate Ma Shaohua contributed the Singapore chapter of “The EU through the Eyes of Asia: Media, Public and Elite Interviews in China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand” compilation. Based on research led by the National Centre for Research on Europe (NCRE), the book presents 2006 perceptions of the EU in several Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) countries. “Seeing the EU in Singapore: Media, Public and Elite Representation” puts together the results of the Singapore study. The survey found quite a high level of EU coverage in local media, compared with the other countries polled, particularly in the papers throughout the year, with the exception of prime time Chinese news bulletins, where the EU in international news was “virtually invisible”. The selection of news was largely determined by its impact on Asia and relevance to Singapore. News coverage spiked in tandem with events such as the Danish paper ‘cartoon’ controversy, EU efforts to negotiate with Iran to halt uranium enrichment, and the WTO and ASEM summits. The Chapter offers varied insights as to why these events influenced media coverage, and further categorises the representation of the EU in its political, social and economic roles. Overall, reporting on the EU was neutral to modestly positive. EU action in the Middle East was well regarded compared to the 2006 the European Central Bank interest rate hikes. The Singaporean general public however, accorded the EU less emphasis and importance than an objective assessment of its status would have expected it to command. Despite being a top trading partner of Singapore, the EU’s dealings with China and ASEAN were considered among the most important of the EU’s external relations. 9 in 10 viewed EU-Singapore relations favourably. When asked about their top three thoughts of the EU, answers could be grouped into “EU integration”, the “euro” and “economic power”. The elites recognised the EU as an economic and cultural power, but not a political player. The political elites however, considered the EU as strong in international relations, but saw its role as more “broker” than “change leader”. Some elites regarded the EU as a model, especially for ASEAN and regional integration. Most felt that the EU business environment was protectionist but acknowledged that the EU was a “very good” leader in championing environmental issues. They also saw the euro as a real alternative to the US dollar. The authors concluded that there was a gap between the growing importance of the Union and public perception of it. With Singaporeans fluent in English, having more continental European news reported in English rather than the vernacular might be helpful, as would be shifting foci from “institutions, economics and finance” to “culture, lifestyle and human interest”.
The Everlasting Love for Comparison: Reflections on EU and ASEAN Integration
ASEAN and the EU have both seemed to hit a snag in their region-building processes as they confront new global challenges. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations drafted the 2007 ASEAN Charter amid high hopes that this would be the catalyst for a formal and legal framework for closer integration, particularly economic integration, and establish the mechanisms, institutions and processes for the Association to effectively take on the new challenges and strategic re-alignments of the 21st century. Critics aver the reality was closer to a safe re-hash of ASEAN’s principle of non-interference and consensus decision-making— a bark without bite so to speak— that effectively ground the process to a standstill. In the recent years, despite a rousing success in economic integration and successive enlargements, EU-fatigue appears to have set in, with Euro-scepticism on the upswing, reaching its apex in the rejection of the draft Constitution by the French and Dutch in 2005 and then the Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty) by the Irish public in 2008. In a critical and comprehensive discussion, Dr Yeo Lay Hwee examines if regional integration has reached its limits, via a historical review of the remarkably different raison d’êtres for the EU and ASEAN’s being in the first place, and how both groupings regionalisms have had to evolve to cope with common challenges, the post-Cold War international political economy, increasing globalisation and management of world order. She identifies the core problems and presents possible ways forward so that ASEAN and the EU can overcome their current setbacks. Amongst them, for the EU to close ranks and march ahead to a new constitution, it must close the perception gap between elites and the people, and reconsolidate and explain the emergent goals of further integration. Similarly, ASEAN can take a leaf from the lessons learnt. Chiefly, clarity in defining the benefits of deepening, and the need for political will to steer the grouping from confidence building to community building, where rules, institutions and supranational mechanisms could facilitate. The chapter was published in "The United States and Europe in a Changing World", ed. Roger E Kanet, Dordrecht: Republic of Letters Publishing, 2009.
EU-ASEAN Relations and Policy-Learning
The EU may be the oldest and first dialogue partner of ASEAN but this relationship has evolved and changed over the years, from an unequal donor-recipient relationship to one where the dynamism of Southeast Asian economies enabled the grouping to assert itself with a stronger voice. This book chapter seeks to analyse the EU-ASEAN relationship and ask whether there was policy learning between the two regional blocs, and if so, what were evidences of this exchange. It analyses dialectically the depth, quality and extent of ASEAN ‘policy learning’ and assesses the changes were more cosmetic than concrete, attributable to the EU or driven by other factors, such as the role played by epistemic community (the ASEAN-Institute of Strategic and International Studies). These changes include the adoption of the ASEAN Charter and ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, as well as consolidation of ASEAN ministerial meetings into the economic, security and socio-cultural Councils. The chapter points out the geopolitical and economic turning points that have impacted the EU and ASEAN’s respective style of integrations. Finally, it also presents and discusses key theories of policy learning.
European Union Centre in Singapore 11 Slim Barracks Rise (off North Buona Vista Road), #06-01 Executive Centre (NTU@one-north), Singapore 138664