Comment Paper I
LI TING
I36026
2014/12/01
Essay Question:
What are the main differences and similarities between the
European and regional cooperation in Asia? Do you think
regional integration of European can be replicated in Asian
region?
Introduction
This paper highlights the similarities and differences between the
European and Asian regional cooperation. From the perspective of
comparative regionalism, the formality of the European Union (EU) and
the informality of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
represent two models of regional integration although they also share
some values in common. What’s more, we also argue that the EU can
serve as a kind of reference for Asian regional cooperation, especially
ASEAN, but can’t serve as a model and be replicated in Asian regional
cooperation. Asia could take inspiration from EU’s experience in creating
common institutions and follow of EU’s governance’s principles.
The comparison and contrast between European and regional
cooperation in Asia
Triggered by different historical events, Europe by WWII and the very
term “Southeast Asia” by colonialism and rising disputes and rivalry
between major powers, the states in both regions chose to work together
to secure peace and stability. The aims of ASEAN and EU are almost the
same, or at least comparable. The pursue the peace and security of
national independence against interference from external states, the
economic prosperity and social security, and more and more the
preservation of the national competitiveness in the age of globalization
However, the fundamental background and the approaches to regional
integration were totally different of those two regions.
Regionalism has progressed much earlier in Europe than in Asia.
European states’ decision of working together to bind their economies
and societies was driven by the destruction and hardship caused by two
world wars. They realized that by sharing sovereignty with regional
partners in certain areas could generate much higher benefits than by
acting individually. By drafting common rules, promoting close
coordination among national authorities, and developing strong regional
institutions that advance economic integration based on a legalistic
approach to regional cooperation and encompassing the development of
strong regional institutions, EU was able to generate substantial economic
gains through the creation of a single market and a common currency, and
by close coordination among national authorities in several economic,
political, and social issues. After adopting a common trade policy,
European countries agreed to the free movement of goods, labor, capital
and services.
In contrast, regionalism in Asia has developed rather differently. At
the same time, the Asian model is the one following a much more
pragmatic and flexible approach. As the postcolonial period generated
many modern Asian nations, regionalism and the idea of sovereignty was
not the priority for the regional cooperation. Regional cooperation was to
be built by an ‘ASEAN WAY’ based on consultation, consensual
decision-making, and flexibility. Rather than starting with ambitious
political commitments, ASEAN would process by small, informal, and
voluntary steps, which could eventually become more binding and
institutionalized. In Asia are market forces more than governments that
have shaped regional economic integration. Treaties are usually short and
meant to formalize informal interactions among members rather than
introducing a complex set of binding rules and related sanctions like it
was in Europe. The triggering factor for enhancing regional cooperation
in Asia during the past decades was the 1997-1998 financial crisis, which
also led to a new format of cooperation with China, Japan, and South
Korea as ‘ASEAN PLUS Three’ (APT), seen by some as the realization
of the idea of underlying the East Asian Economic Caucus. Asia lacks
strong regional institutions and a bureaucratic body to serve the region.
Asia’s few regional institutions are small and lean, with a limited
mandate from national authorities to manage external shocks, internalize
regional spillovers, and provide effective regional public goods.
European regionalism is dominated by the EU, while Asian regionalism
is based on many overlapping sub regional organizations that cooperate
to varying degrees in different areas and provide a solid backbone to
connect markets and people.
Aside from these differences, the most critical distinction between the
EU and ASEAN is their regard for sovereignty. For Europe, the reduction
of national sovereignty is necessary for integration, but for ASEAN the
preservation of national sovereignty is the thrust behind its regionalism.
Since most Asian countries have just achieved their independence from
colonialism in the last decades of the last century, they consider
sovereignty as vital and non-negotiable. Because of this, ASEAN remains
largely intergovernmental.
EU can be replicated in Asian regional integration?
Asia can learn from the EU’s successful experience in the principles for
governance like the combination of majority ruling and decisions that
require consensus among all members, depending on the issue. Also, Asia
could be inspired by the proactive approach Europe applied in creating
common institutions, which Asia lacks of establishing strong institutions
for regional cooperation. The regional integration, somehow, implies the
loss of state sovereignty, which is evident in EU. It works on a formal
system of supranational institutions with the methods of decision-making,
resulting in a more politically and economically integrated region.
However, the Asian regionalism like ASEAN operates on the principle of
open regionalism, which does not require the loss of sovereignty.
Following the principles of mutual respect, non-interference, and
peaceful settlement of differences, ASEAN’s intergovernmental structure
functions with less regulated systems and institutions, based on a
consensus-based approach to decision making. ASEAN member states
seek to be flexible enough to align their national interests towards a
shared compromise in order to make the organization more effective and
relevant. As the Singaporean diplomat Tommy Koh put it, the EU is an
“inspiration, but not a model” for ASEAN. The implication here is that
while EU has demonstrated the successful experience for the states to
overcome a history of internecine warfare and divergent national interests
through socialization, and also that is inspirational for Asia, the EU model
of cooperation is so different and specific that cannot be replicated in
Asia. Asian regional cooperation is unique and is following its own way
to pursue a more diverse and its acquisition of full sovereignty in the
aspects of culture, economy and politics.
Conclusion
In summary, by comparing the EU and Asian regional cooperation,
especially ASEAN, we try to argue that regional development between
those two regions have different patterns and models, which cannot be
replicated but can be kind of reference for the regional cooperation.
References
Acharya, A. (2006) “Europe and Asia: Reflections on a Tale of Two Regionalisms,” in
Fort, B./Webber, B. (eds), Regional Integration in East Asia and Europe:
Convergence or Divergence? London and New York: Routledge.
Amitav Acharya, “Regionalism and Integration: EU and Southeast Asian
Experiences”, International Culture Dialogue, Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Katinka Barysch, “A New Reality for the European Union” CFR Working Paper
(2010)
Koh, Tommy (2008) ‘Not perfect but Charter is good start on road to regional
progress: response to Barry Desker’s criticism of ASEAN Charter’, Straits Times, 21
July.
Lindberg, Lena, A status report on the ASEAN and EU Economic integration in 2007,
Singapore 2007
Wong, Andrea Chloe, 2014: The EU and ASEAN: Prospects for Inter-Regional
Coope- ration. NFG Policy Paper Series, No. 03, January 2014