consensus and peaceful resolution of disputes”. 104 Detailed description of ASEAN Way is in the next subchapter which focuses on the norms and institutional format of organization
3.2. ASEAN-EU inter-regional development:
3.2.1. ASEAN–EU relations before Karlsruhe Meeting (1970s and 1980s)
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 93 of 334
rights mechanism has overcome the internal objection and has been approved in a consensus way.
As the result the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) was established in 2009. Not only did the Charter make a move towards greater institutionalization of the organization; it also extended ASEAN’s direction towards more participatory and inclusive for non-state actors and civil society to engage in the process of Community building. This shows a major transformation in the Association’s nature, that for the first time, overcoming internal dispute, talks about democratic values, human rights and good governance. In the same time, the Charter reconfirms the core principles such as: non-interference.
This phase is characterized with ASEAN seeking for its own identity and actively promoting shared norms. Perhaps at the middle-age, the inward-looking tendency is necessary for reaffirming itself and convincing other actors about its relevance. With external conditions of loomingly rising China in the region and many, often overlapping and also to some extend competitive, regional processes, ASEAN needs to readjust itself. It has been named the driving force of regionalism in the Asia-Pacific region, being at the center of multilateral institutions in the region. Yet, facing current competition challenges, ASEAN is questioned about ability to maintain the centrality position. Hence, looking back to own foundations seems natural as it tries to strengthen its capacity and unity.
3.2. ASEAN-EU inter-regional development:
3.2.1. ASEAN–EU relations before Karlsruhe Meeting (1970s and 1980s)
This phase of relationship between ASEAN and EU was dominated by the Cold War heritage. Bilateral relations as a group-to-group dialogue can be traced back to the 1970s. Prior to that time112 there had been very little contact with either Asian countries in general or ASEAN in particular. In 1972 ASEAN set up a Special Coordinating Committee of ASEAN Nations (SCCAN) consisting of the ASEAN Ministers of Trade, and the ASEAN Brussels Committee (ABC) composed of the ASEAN Ambassadors and to the European Community.113 In the same
112 The time frame is set after the decolonization period, not reaching further than the contemporary history.
113 Robert Hull, "European Community – ASEAN Relations: A Model for International Partnership," Asian Affairs 15, no. 1 (1984).15-26.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 94 of 334
year ASEAN-EU became Dialogue Partners; in 1975 the ASEAN-EC Joint Study Group was created to look into trade-related matters, which was followed by inauguration of ASEAN-EC Ministerial Meeting (AEMM) in 1978.
At that stage initiative came from ASEAN side, as a response to economic integration in Europe. After the UK accessed the European Community, Singapore and Malaysia, the former British colonies, started to be concerned about their trade preferences of Commonwealth (Bridges 1999, Ruland 2001, Ruland and Storz 2008114). This market-driven rationale initiated rapprochement to Brussels. The main motivation behind was to mitigate discriminatory effect of trade as a result of European Common Market. It was also ASEAN’s strategy to diversify its trade relations from Japanese and American dominance.
From the EC’s point of view, ASEAN relevance was primarily for its richness in natural resources and strategic geography. At the political level, its position was considered a zone of stability in South East Asia and a bulwark against the Communist threat in the region. For ASEAN, the EC was important not only for the ideological level of democracy and free enterprise system, but also because of the moderating role it plays in the international meetings between the developing and developed countries.115 ASEAN countries also had material incentives, including trade, investment and financial regulations, to reach out to Europe.
The formalization of ASEAN-EC relations came in 1980s with EC-ASEAN Cooperation Agreement. However, despite those positive signals in the relationship, ASEAN remained at the bottom of EC’s hierarchy of external relations, below the African, Caribbean and Pacific and Latin American countries.116 Moreover, at that stage the relationship still was heavily asymmetrical, based on donor-recipient mode as ASEAN was much dependent on the EC in terms of investment, development aid, and technology. The Cooperation Agreement made specific reference that despite ASEAN’s rapid development it remained very much a developing region, and the EC would aim to expand its cooperation to accelerate the development of the
114 Brian Bridges, Europe and the challenge of the Asia Pacific : change, continuity and crisis Ch h m E E 1999 , Asian-European relations : building blocks for global governance?
115Hull, "European Community – ASEAN Relations: A Model for International Partnership." P. 15-26.
116 Yeo Lay Hwee, “S h s As L b c ” P p p s EU OSEAS 98 mb 3-6 September 1998.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 95 of 334
ASEAN countries and of the region as a whole.117 It established an unequal relationship in which the ASEAN countries were inevitably in a weaker bargaining position. This “distantly friendly
relationship”
118 remained until the end of the Cold War.Despite the existing arrangements of relations, the relationship suffered obstacles on the deeper levels of cultural and perceptual norms. Such “cold” relationship shows that the mutual interests were reflected by the psychological distance. This gap that was later recognized by both sides, and therefore there was a need to build a bridge in the form of ASEM.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of bipolarity of world order, the US and EC were “less inclined to cooperate with authoritarian, albeit pro-Western, regimes”119. Hence, EC was free to intensify its conditionality of liberal democracy, respect for human rights, and market economy and disarmament cornerstones in European foreign policy. European criticism of Southeast Asian countries for their human rights situation worsened the relationship.
The admission of Myanmar120 to the ASEAN membership and Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor created ad deadlock in ASEAN-EC relations. Moreover, European conditionality linking trade and aid to issues of human rights, democratization and environmental protection was not well received in many Southeast Asian countries. This moralism was criticized as a “neo-colonialism” tendency by the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad.121
Moralism referred is tightly correlated to the cultural and perceptual norms. The European attachment to human rights reflects their perception of importance of human rights norms even in economic or political dialogue. This confirms my argument that international relations, whether within region or inter-regionally, are all affected by cognitive factors.
The breakthrough came in September 1994 at 11th ASEAN-EC Ministerial Meeting in Karlsruhe. It was when the EC’s New Asian Strategy policy made a debut, taking back EU from normative to more pragmatic policy towards ASEAN. Up till that time, EC was characterized by
117Hull, "European Community – ASEAN Relations: A Model for International Partnership."
118 , Asian-European relations : building blocks for global governance; ibid. P. 7
119 Ibid. P.7
120 The repressive regime of military junta was disapproved by the EU due to the bad human right records.
121 , Asian-European relations : building blocks for global governance? P.7
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 96 of 334
inward-looking attitude. It was for the first time that EU elevated Asia to a priority of its external relations and stated the need for more equal partnership. Europe’s “rediscovery of Asia” 122 in 1990s was determined by growing awareness of the region as an awakening economic world power and it was also a response to the formation of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), to which Europe was not invited.
The New Asia Strategy, the fundamental document behind the European Union’s engagement with East Asia,123 stated three main objectives: multi-dimensional cooperation, equality overcoming the old “donor-recipients”, and comprehensive approach overarching economic, strategic, and developmental collaboration tailored to the regional conditions124. It acknowledged that there is a need to go beyond economic and cover political, security and cultural areas. In this period, the EU deliberately pursued the role of an external federator in relations to ASEAN using two strategies: (1) functioning as a regional integration model, and (2) a partner in the inter-regional dialogue.125
The novelty of the New Asia Strategy included the following elements: firstly, multi-dimensional approach reflected Europe’s realization of the need to revise the neglected relations after the colonial period. Secondly, the new strategy emphasized relations between equals in contrast to the old donor-recipient relationship the EU had with many Asian countries. And thirdly, the conception of a comprehensive approach toward Asia was to be one that made a clear differentiation between the policy instruments employed according to the partner country or group of countries and their levels of development, and which focused resources with maximum impact on effectiveness and profile. The policy instruments referred to included the existing bilateral and regional cooperation agreements; multilateral trade systems; development aid; and investment and financial facilities.126
122 Bart Gaens, Europe-Asia interregional relations : a decade of ASEM, The international political economy of new regionalisms series. (Aldershot, Hampshire, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008). P. 25
123 East Asian and most of ASEAN countries were the first target partners, ASEM expanded to other Asian members in the following years.
124 Gaens, Europe-Asia interregional relations : a decade of ASEM. P.9-10
125 Rüland, "ASEAN and the European Union: A Bumpy Inter-regional Relationship."
126 Gaens, Europe-Asia interregional relations : a decade of ASEM. P. 18-19.