Abstract
In 2007, the European Union (EU) and the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) started interregional negotiations on a free trade agreement, which failed 2 years later. Relying on document analysis and elite interviews with officials from the EU and ASEAN’s members, this article addresses why and the extent to which the interregional negotiations failed. By rooting the theoretical model in a power-based approach, the analysis demonstrates that the EU has attempted to secure its economic and regulatory power in Southeast Asia. In striving for such power, interregionalism was initially the intuitive way because the EU perceived ASEAN as a cohesive bloc. However, the EU’s ambitious vision for comprehensive agreements clashed with the actual heterogeneity of ASEAN member states. The failure of the interregional approach is, thus, a result of the EU’s delicate balance between political and economic interests in Southeast Asia, which it pursues with trade-specific issues.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The interviewer assured the interviewees complete anonymity so that the paper refers to the semistructured interviews by indicating the institutional affiliation, place, and date of talk.
An alternative explanation for the EU’s use of interregionalism is the Commission’s limited resources. Assuming limited capacities, it is less costly for the Commission to negotiate one interregional agreement instead of ten bilateral agreements. This is plausible but cannot explain why the EU shifted to bilateralism after it invested 2 years into preparatory talks for an interregional FTA.
Scholars have assessed the extent to which the EU-Korea FTA could have served as a benchmark for the EU-ASEAN FTA (e.g., Pollet-Fort 2011). Whether the EU has used this FTA as a benchmark is largely an empirical question. None of the interviewees reported such an impact. Rather, interviewees hoped that the EU-Singapore FTA would set a benchmark for further bilateral FTAs after 2009 (Interview #9 2014).
References
Aggarwal V, Fogarty E (2004) Explaining trends in EU interregionalism. In: Aggarwal V, Fogarty E (eds) European Union trade strategies: between globalism and regionalism. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Aggarwal V, Govella K (2013) The trade-security nexus in the Asia-Pacific. In: Aggarwal V, Govella K (eds) Linking trade and security: evolving institutions and strategies in Asia, Europe, and the United States. Springer, New York, pp 1–23
Andreosso-O’Callaghan B et al (2006) A qualitative analysis of a potential free trade agreement between the European Union and ASEAN: a report prepared for the European Commission and EU-ASEAN Vision Group. Brussels
Astuto M (2010) EU-ASEAN free trade agreement-negotiations. ISPI Working Paper No 26, Milano
Ba AD (2003) China and ASEAN: renavigating relations for a 21st-century Asia. Asian Surv 43(4):622–647
Blockmans S (2013) EU trade policy: more bilateralism, less WTO?. In: Council on Foreign Relations (ed.) Conference Papers: Asia at the crossroads: regional priorities for the twenty-first century. New York: Council on Foreign Relations
Bradford A (2012) The Brussels effect. Northwest Univ Law Rev 107(1):1–68
Camroux D (2006) The rise and decline of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) assymetric [sic!] bilateralism and the limitations of interregionalism. Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po no. 04/2006
Camroux D (2010) Interregionalism or merely a fourth-level game? An examination of the EU-ASEAN relationship. East Asia 27:57–77
CARIS (2011) Economic integration in South East Asia and the impact on the EU. Final report. Centre for the Analysis of Regional Integration at Sussex, Sussex
China FTA Network (2014) China-ASEAN FTA. Chinese Government. http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/topic/chinaasean.shtml. Accessed 24 Sept 2014
Civil Society Dialogue (2008) DG trade civil society dialogue: bilateral Asian free trade agreements: state of play. European Commission, Brussels
Civil Society Dialogue (2009) Bilateral free trade agreements: state of play: ASEAN, India, Korea, Ukraine, Central American States, Andean countries. European Commission, Brussels
Commission (2007) European Commission welcomes adoption of negotiation mandates for new free trade agreements with India, South Korea, ASEAN. European Commission, Brussels
Commission (2013a) Bandar Seri Begawan plan of action to strengthen the ASEAN-EU enhanced partnership (2013–2017). European Commission, Brussels
Commission (2013b) EU investment negotiations with China and ASEAN. European Commission, Brussels
Cuyvers L (2007) An EU-ASEAN free trade agreement: reflection on issues, priorities, strategies. Centre for ASEAN Studies Discussion Paper No 53, Antwerp
Da Conceição-Heldt E, Meunier S (2014) Speaking with a single voice: internal cohesiveness and external effectiveness of the EU in global governance. J Eur Public Policy 21(7):961–979
Damro C (2012) Market power Europe. J Eur Public Policy 19(5):682–699
DeRosa DA (2004) US free trade agreements with ASEAN. In: Schott JJ (ed) Free trade agreements, US strategies and priorities. Peterson Institute Press, Washington, pp 117–171
Drezner DW (2007) All politics is global: explaining international regulatory regimes. Cambridge University Press, Princeton
ECORYS (2009) Public meeting TSIA EU-ASEAN draft final report. European Commission, Brussels
Elgström O, Larsén M (2010) Free to trade? Commission autonomy in the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations. J Eur Public Policy 17(2):205–223
Elsig M (2007) The EU’s choice of regulatory venues for trade negotiations: a tale of agency power? J Common Mark Stud 45(4):927–948
Elsig M, Dupont C (2012) European Union meets South Korea: bureaucratic interests, exporter discrimination and the negotiations of free trade agreements. J Common Mark Stud 50(3):492–507
Fernández R (1997) Returns to regionalism: an evaluation of nontraditional gains from regional trade agreements. New York University, WP 1816
Gilson J (2005) New interregionalism? The EU and East Asia. Eur Integr 27(3):207–326
Gupwell D, Gupta N (2009) EU FTA negotiations with India, ASEAN and Korea: the question of fair labour standards. Asia Europe Journal 7(1):79–95
Hettne B, Söderbaum F (2005) Civilian power or soft imperialism: the EU as a global actor and the role of interregionalism. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 10(4):575–594
Interview #1 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 08
Interview #10 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 24
Interview #11 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 28
Interview #2 (2014) European External Action Service. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 11
Interview #3 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 21
Interview #4 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 16
Interview #5 (2014) Embassy. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 18
Interview #6 (2014) Embassy. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 07
Interview #7 (2014) Embassy. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 09
Interview #8 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 14
Interview #9 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 19
Khandekar G (2014) Mapping EU-ASEAN relations. FRIDE, Brussels
Khorana S, García M (2013) European Union-India trade negotiations: one step forward, one back? J Common Mark Stud 51(4):684–700
Langhammer RJ, Hiemenz U (1990) Regional integration among developing countries. Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel, Tübingen
Lijun S (2003) China-ASEAN free trade area: origins, developments and strategic motivations. ISEAS Working Paper International Politics & Security Issues Series No. 1
Lindberg L (2007) The national element in regional trade agreements: the role of Southeast Asian countries in ASEAN-EU trade. J Southeast Asian Econ 24(2):1–6
Lindberg L, Alvstam CG (2007) The National Element in Regional Trade agreements: the role of Southeast Asian countries in ASEAN-EU trade. ASEAN Econ Bull 24(2):267–275
Lindberg L, Alvstam CG (2008) EU-ASEAN trade facing free trade negotiations. Presented at the 10th Annual Conference on European Integration, 20–23 May, 2008. Sweden
Meunier S (2007) Managing globalization? The EU in international trade negotiations. J Common Mark Stud 45(4):905–926
Ong KY (2008) One ASEAN: a partner for Europe. Asia Europe Journal 5:443–445
Orbie J, Khorana S (2015) Normative versus market power Europe? The EU-India trade agreement. Asia Europe Journal 13(3):253–264
Poletti A, de Bièvre D (2013) The political science of European trade policy: a literature review with a research outlook. Comp Eur Polit 12:101–119
Pollet-Fort A (2011) The EU-Korea FTA and its implications for the future EU-Singapore FTA. EU Centre Background Brief no. 4/2011
Robles AC (2008) An EU-ASEAN FTA: the EU’s failures as an international actor. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 13:541–560
Roloff R (2006) Interregionalism in theoretical perspective: state of the art. In: Hänggi H, Roloff R, Rüland J (eds) Interregionalism and international relations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 17–31
Rüland J (2000) ASEAN and the Asian crisis: theoretical implications and practical consequences for Southeast Asian regionalism. Pac Rev 13(3):421–451
Rüland J (2001) ASEAN and the European Union: a bumpy interregional relationship. Discussion Paper C 95, Bonn
Siles-Brügge G (2011) Resisting protectionism after the crisis: strategic economic discourse and the EU-Korea free trade agreement. New Polit Econ 16(5):627–653
Smith M (2004) Foreign economic policy. In: Carlsnaes W, Sjursen H, White B (eds) Contemporary European foreign policy. Sage, London, pp 75–91
Söderbaum F (2016) Rethinking regionalism. Palgrave, London
UN Comtrade (2012) United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. http://comtrade.un.org/db/. Accessed 06 May 2012
Vision Group (2006) Report of the ASEAN-EU vision group: transregional partnership for shared and sustainable prosperity. Vision Group on ASEAN-EU Economic Partnership, Ha Noi
Wong J, Chan S (2003) China-ASEAN free trade agreement: shaping future economic relations. Asian Surv 43(3):507–526
Yeo HL (2007) Political cooperation between the EU and ASEAN: searching for a long-term agenda and joint projects. In: Welfens PJJ, Ryan C, Chirathivat S, Knipping F (eds) EU-ASEAN: facing economic globalisation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 45–56
Young A, Peterson J (2014) Parochial global Europe: 21st century trade politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Zimmermann H (2007) Realist power Europe? The EU in the negotiations about China’s and Russia’s WTO accession. J Common Mark Stud 45(4):813–832
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to the Institute for European Studies for hosting me during my fieldwork in Brussels, Belgium, in March and April 2014, to Magnus Schoeller for his support, and to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meissner, K.L. A case of failed interregionalism? Analyzing the EU-ASEAN free trade agreement negotiations. Asia Eur J 14, 319–336 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-016-0450-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-016-0450-5