Abstract
Drawing primarily from social constructivist perspectives, this essay traces the contemporary interregional relations of East Asia and the European Union (EU). Considering the constructivist themes of shared identity and interests, I argue that there are fundamental difficulties found in these interregional relations, which must be urgently addressed. Despite the relatively strong economic and political engagement of the Union, the EU continues to be under-valued and misunderstood in the eyes of the East Asian public. With the rise of China as a global power, Europe must reinforce its political capital in other strategic world regions amidst the failures of the EU to reconcile its policy inconsistencies juxtaposed with its self-perception as a ‘normative power.’ This can be seen in EU’s recent engagements with ASEAN as the former has been seen as undetermined in promoting human rights and democratic norms in the region. Nonetheless, EU-ASEAN relations may still be considered as a promising case for the EU to export its model of multi-level governance, and enhance its ‘actorness’ and institutional legitimacy. Finally, in order for interregional relations to be reinvigorated, the two regions must identify and pursue their mutually shared interests such as economic development, democratic proliferation, and human rights provisions.
This essay is an updated and revised version of an earlier peer-reviewed article: Regilme, S.S.F. (2010) The Chimera of Europe’s Normative Power in East Asia: A Constructivist Analysis. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies Volume 5 Issue 1 pp. 69–90
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Asia”, in this case, broadly refers to ASEAN members as well as the Northeast Asian states (Japan, South Korea and China), and when the term “East Asia” is used, it includes both the ASEAN member states as well as the Northeast Asian states.
- 2.
- 3.
The economic strength of East Asia can be gleaned from the East Asian miracle story as well as the economic boom that first started by Japan. For further literature review on East Asian “economic miracle” story, see: Meredith Woo-Cummings. The Developmental State. (Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999) 346 pages; Chalmers Johnson. MITI and the Japanese Miracle. (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1982), 412 pages; Charles Polidano. “Don’t Discard State Autonomy: Revisiting the East Asian Experience of Development”, in Political Studies Review 49:3 (2001): 513–527; Mark Thompson, “Late industrialisers, Late democratizers: developmental states in the Asia-Pacific”, in Third World Quarterly. (1996), 17(4): 625–647.
- 4.
Alfredo Robles (2008a) contends that the failure of EU-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement can be gleaned from the breakdown of EU’s negotiations with Mercosur wherein “special differentiated treatment” (SDT) was not applied for low-income Mercosur countries. It must be noted, as Robles asserts, that ASEAN’s low-income countries may be the only one who can expect for such “SDT”. Nonetheless, even the high- and middle-income ASEAN countries may still face a very arduous task competing with key EU economic players. In addition, in Robles (2008b), it was contended that there is a misguided perception on how the fast-paced process of EU and ASEAN towards FTA negotiations was considered a success. Accordingly, the EU was compelled to agree to take the ASEAN negotiation format that implied the inclusion of Myanmar, amidst the reinstatement of EU sanctions against Myanmar. This clearly shows another policy inconsistency of the EU in its relations with East Asia. Refer to: Alfredo Robles, “The EU and the ASEAN: Learning from the Failed EU-Mercosur FTA Negotiations,” ASEAN Economic Bulletin 25 (3) (2008a):334–344; Alfredo Robles, “An EU-ASEAN FTA: The EU’s Failures as an International Actor,” European Affairs Review 13: (2008b): 541–560.
References
About Asia-Europe Meeting. (2010). Retrieved January 22, 2010 from http://www.aseminfoboard.org/page.phtml?code=About#character
Alcaraz, P. P. (2003). Casualties of the war on terror? Human rights in Southeast Asia before and after 9/11. Barcelona: Documentos CIDOB.
ASEAN. (2005). Text of treaty of amity and cooperation in Southeast Asia and related information: ASEAN knowledge kit. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://www.aseansec.org/TAC-KnowledgeKit.pdf
ASEAN. (2009a). ASEAN-European Union. Retrieved May 9, 2012 from http://www.aseansec.org/9395.htm
ASEAN. (2009b). Overview of ASEAN-EU dialogue relations. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://www.aseansec.org/5612.htm
ASEAN. (2010). Overview of ASEAN-EU dialogue relations. Accessed September 4, 2010 from http://www.aseansec.org/23216.htm (as cited in Vaezi, M. (2010). The new geopolitics of Asia: Towards cooperation and interdependency. Geopolitics Quarterly, 6(4), 108–123).
Barkin, S. (2003). Realist constructivism. International Studies Review, 5(3), 325–342.
BBC. (2010, December 2). ASEAN, EU minister urge closer cooperation to tackle economic crisis.
Castro, R. D. (2009). The US-Philippine alliance: An evolving hedge against an emerging China challenge. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 31(3), 399–423. doi:10.1355/cs31-3b.
Chaban, N. (2006). The European Union as others see it. European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, 245–262.
Chaban, N., & Holland, M. (2005). The EU through the eyes of the Asia-Pacific: Selected findings from a four-country survey of media coverage and public opinion. Canterbury: University of Canterbury, NCRE. Retrieved May 17, 2012 from http://www.eusa-japan.org/download/eusa_ap/paper_MartinHolland.pdf
Chaban, N., & Holland, M. (2008). In the eyes of the world. Public Service Review: European Union, 26, 441–443.
Checkel, J. (1998). The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics, 50(2), 324–348.
Crawford, G. (2002). Evaluating EU promotion of human rights, democracy and good governance: Towards a participatory approach. Journal of International Development, 14(6), 911–936.
Dent, C. (2001). ASEM and the “ Cinderella Complex ” of EU-East Asia economic relations. Pacific Affairs, 74(1), 25–52.
Dent, C. (2004). The Asia-Europe meeting and interregionalism: Toward a theory of multilateral utility. Asian Survey, 44(2), 214–215.
Duchene, F. (1972). Europe’s role in world peace. In R. Mayne (Ed.), Europe tomorrow: Sixteen Europeans look ahead (pp. 32–47). London: Fontana.
East Asia Summit: Regional Unity Decades Away. (2010). Asia Monitor: Southeast Asia Monitor, 1(21).
Economy, E. (2005). China’s rise in Southeast Asia: implications for the United States. Journal of Contemporary China, 14(44), 409–425. doi:10.1080/10670560500115184.
European Commission. (2007). European Commission, Regional Programming for Asia: Strategy Document 2007–2013. Retrieved May 17, 2012 from http://eeas.europa.eu/asia/rsp/07_13_en.pdf
European Economic and Trade Office. (2007). External relations. Retrieved May 17, 2012 from http://www.europe.bg/en/htmls/page.php?category=179
Fabbrini, S. (2005). Democracy and federalism in the European Union and the United States: Exploring post-national governance. London: Routledge.
Flynn, G., & Farrell, H. (1999). Piecing together the democratic peace: The CSCE, Norms, and the “Construction” of security in Post-Cold War Europe. International Organization, 53(3), 505.
Fox, J., & Godement, F. (2009, April 22). Running rings around the EU China II. International Herald Tribune, p. 6.
Gaens, B. (2008). Europe-Asia interregional relations: A decade of ASEM (p. 200). Hampshire: Ashgate.
Gilson, J. (2005). New interregionalism? The EU and East Asia. Journal of European Integration, 27(3), 307–326.
Grimes, W. (2009). Currency and contest in East Asia: The great power politics of financial regionalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Grinter, L. E. (2006). China, the United States, and Mainland Southeast Asia: Opportunism and the limits of power. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 28(3), 447–465. doi:10.1355/CS28-3E.
Haenggi, H. (2000, May 18). Interregionalism: empirical and theoretical perspectives. Paper prepared for the workshop “Dollars, Democracy and Trade: External Influence on Economic Integration in the Americas” Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved May 17, 2012 from http://www.ipw.unisg.ch/org/ipw/web.nsf/SysWebRessources/h%C3%A4nggi/$FILE/Haenggi.pdf
Hay, C., & Wincott, D. (1998). Structure, agency and historical institutionalism. Political Studies, 46(5), 951–957.
Hill, C. (1990). European Foreign Policy: Power bloc, civilian model – or flop? (pp. 31–55). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Holland, M. (2009). The EU through the eyes of Asia (Volume 2: New Cases, New Findings; p. 271). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
It’s Time Europe paid serious attention to ASEM. (2009, June 12). The New Straits Times Malaysia.
Jacques, M. (2009). When China rules the world: The rise of the Middle Kingdom and the end of the Western World (p. 550). New York: Penguin Press.
John, E. G. (2009). Extrajudicial killings in the Philippines: Strategies to end the violence. Pacific Affairs. Washington DC. Retrieved May 17, 2012 from http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2007/81754.htm
Jones, L. (2008). ASEAN and the norm of non-interference in Southeast Asia: A quest for social order. Oxford: Palgrave.
Katzenstein, P. (1998). International organization and the study of world politics. International Organization, 52(4), 645–685.
Katzenstein, P. (2000). Regionalism and Asia. New Political Economy, 5(3), 353.
Lukas, A. (1998). EC-ASEAN in the context of inter-regional cooperation. In G. Schiavone (Ed.), Western Europe and South-East Asia: Co-operation or competition (pp. 105–116). London: Macmillan.
Mahbubani, K. (2008). The New Asian Hemisphere: The irresistible shift of global power to the East (p. 336). New York: Public Affairs.
Mahoney, J., & Snyder, R. (1999). Rethinking agency and structure in the study of regime change. Studies in Comparative International Development, 34(2), 3–32. doi:10.1007/BF02687620.
Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.
Manyin, M. (2004). U.S. accession to ASEAN’s treaty of amity and cooperation (pp. 1–23). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
McCoy, A. (2009). Policing America’s empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the rise of the surveillance state. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison Press.
Misik, M. (2008). Fish v. National identity: Iceland and the EU from constructivist point of view. Sociologia, 40(4), 299–325.
Mols, M. (1990). Cooperation with ASEAN: A success story. In Europe’s global links. The European Community and inter-regional cooperation (pp. 66–83). London: Pinter Publishers.
Mydans, S. (2009). EU reacts sharply to ruling by Myanmar. International Herald Tribune, p. 4.
Patten, C. (2002). The relationship between the EU and Asia: one or many? EU Commission for External Relations. Retrieved May 17, 2012 from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/02/368&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Regilme, S. S. F. (2010). Making sense of China. Global Politics: An International Affairs Magazine. Retrieved May 14, 2012 from http://www.global-politics.co.uk/blog/2010/08/26/making-sense-china/
Regilme, S. S. F. (2011). Review: Alfred McCoy: Policing America’s empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the rise of the surveillance state. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 29(4), 122–126.
Regilme, S. S. F. (2012). Currency and contest in East Asia: The great power politics of financial regionalism. Retrieved May 14, 2012 from http://asianintegration.org/index.php?option=com_joomlib&task=view&id=68&Itemid=75
Reiterer, M. (2006). Interregionalism as a new diplomatic tool: The EU and East Asia. European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, 223–243.
Reus-Smit, C. (1999). The moral purpose of the state: Culture, social identity, and institutional rationality in international relations (p. 210). Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Reus-Smit, C. (2004). Constructivism. In S. Burchill (Ed.), Theories of international relations (pp. 189–200). London: Palgrave.
Risse-Kappen, T. (1996). Exploring the nature of the beast: International relations theory and comparative policy analysis meet the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1), 53–80.
Ritzer, G., & Goodman, D. (2000). Modern sociological theory. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Robles, A. C. (2008a). An EU-ASEAN FTA: The EU’s failures as an international actor. European Foreign Affairs Review, 13(4), 541–560.
Robles, A. C. (2008b). The EU and the ASEAN: Learning from the failed EU-Mercosur FTA negotiations. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 25(3), 334–344.
Sidel, J. T. (2007). The Islamist threat in Southeast Asia: A reassessment. Washington, DC: East–West Center.
Stronger EU-Asean Relations Seen. (2010). Inquirer global nation. Retrieved May 14, 2012 from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20100214-253132/Stronger-EU-Asean-relations-seen
Swaine, M. D. (2011). America’s challenge: Engaging a rising China in the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Turner, B. (2009). The perceptions of the European Union among tertiary education students in Singapore. Asia Europe Journal, 7(2), 225–240.
Twigg, S. (2005). Preface. In P. Fiske de Gouveia & H. Plumridge (Eds.), European Infopolitik: Developing EU pubic strategy (pp. VI–VII). London: The Foreign Policy Center.
van Keersbergen, K., & Verbeek, B. (2007). The politics of international norms: Subsidiarity and the imperfect competence regime of the European Union. European Journal of International Relations, 13(2), 217–238.
Wallstroem, M. (2009). Communicating a Europe in stormy waters. Retrieved May 14, 2012 from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/396&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing international politics. International Security, 20(1), 71–81.
Wiessala, G. (2006). Re-orienting the fundamentals: Human rights and new connections in EU-Asia relations. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Xinhua News Agency. (2009). ASEAN, EU sign two agreements about EU’s accession to TAC. Retrieved May 17, 2012 from http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=472273&publicationSubCategoryId=200
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Regilme, S.S.F. (2013). It Takes Two to Tango: A Constructivist Analysis of EU-ASEAN Interregional Relations. In: Boening, A., Kremer, JF., van Loon, A. (eds) Global Power Europe - Vol. 2. Global Power Shift. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32416-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32416-1_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32415-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32416-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)