NORMS, VALUES AND IDENTITY- THE VALUE OF DIALOGUING
4.1. Asia-Europe Meeting as the dialogue between norms, values and modules of cooperation
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 131 of 334
The second part of this chapter continues the discussion on norms and takes it to the level of identity. Recognition of distinctiveness and similarities contribute to the feeling of affiliation or polarization. The Asia-Europe setting interestingly illustrates both. Hence, the second part of this chapter will treat regional identity as a process of social communication where interaction process takes central role in mutual learning and building own regional identity.
4.1. Asia-Europe Meeting as the dialogue between norms, values and modules of cooperation
On the inter-regional level, apparent differences surface, making them not only obstacles of cooperation, but also a kind of the reference points for defining who is whom and who is not whom. This chapter examines the role of norms’ differences in the inter-regional dialogue. It looks at the communication difficulties that the process experiences due to the diverse spectrum of its members. It asks the question about the effectiveness of communication in the process by looking at institutional arrangements and culture of cooperation in Asia and Europe contexts.
Perceptions and values are taken into consideration, as they affect the process and also outcomes of meetings. Issues like culture, values, norms and understanding in the politics affect the perceptions, understanding (or misunderstanding) and values affect the inter-regional
Awakening • Learning (first contact)
• Differentiating
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 132 of 334
cooperation. ASEM is the only political cooperation mechanism where culture factor comes to the forefront of the organization’s purpose.
This section explores the importance of culture as a factor in the political dialogue between the regions. It looks at the effectiveness of ASEM through the lenses of cultures of cooperation distinctive to Asian and European members. From a very highly anticipated forum that could have had great potential of global governance to an expanding organization beyond Asia and Europe, but with little impact. While horizontally it kept growing in size, vertically, its impact remains (or even become more) shallow.
This chapter addresses both dimensions of recognition and differentiating of the cognitive model I suggest. The analysis of norms and cooperation styles is complemented by an inquiry about the development of regional identities through ASEM framework. The following section continues the discussion about norms and their role in defining regions.
Distinctiveness of norms and cooperation cultures is connected to the concept of regional identity. Often created on the basis of binary and contrast, regional identity underlines the differentiation. The Asia-Europe Meeting, by its nature of naming the regions, contributes to the discourse of region-building through Self-Other juxtaposition. The final section of this chapter shall explore the process of regional identity creation in the context of Asia meeting Europe.
4.1.1. ASEAN Way versus European institutionalism/ ASEAN norms in the Asia-Europe context
As discussed in the previous chapter, ASEAN possesses a certain distinctiveness of the political and cultural norms that affects its cooperation mechanism. This chapter look at those characteristic norms in the context of effectiveness of the inter-regional cooperation of Asia-Europe.
In addressing norms in international relations, this study refers to the discourse of social constructivism. Stefan Rother in “Wendt meets East” (2012) discusses possibilities of applying Western theories to non-Western International Relations studies and he takes into consideration specific historical, ideational and cultural contexts.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 133 of 334
Based on Alexander Wendt’s concepts of social constructivism, he argues that collective identity can manifest itself in distinctive logics of cultures of anarchy. These are based on norms of conflict and cooperation that are established through interaction, can be proposed by outside agents and localized, or can be affected by the re-negotiation of state identity cause by domestic events. Cultural path dependencies like norms rooted in the cultural memory or consciousness of a region should not be ignored in analyzing models of cooperation. Social constructivism, proposed by Alexander Wendt, brings some modification to the conventional constructivism by introducing the notion of ‘cultures of anarchy’. 201
Constructivism is chosen because it is more flexible and less based on preconceived notions than the other major schools in international relations. It sees the core characteristics and behavior of states as not given, but socially constructed. And while it is based on Western thoughts, it acknowledges that there is possible existence of other logics of anarchy.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations has gained attention from scholars because of the ‘cultural’ factor. The Asian economic growth in the 1990s has led some politicians to believe that some set of ‘Asian values’ were the guiding principle behind their regionalization success. ASEAN has a particular role in this discourse, representing a form of successful political exercise, where “Western” theories of international relations do not necessarily exhaust.
The ASEAN Way in particular that represents a set of conduct that Amitav Acharya described as “not so much about the substance or structure of multilateral interactions, but a
claim about the process, through which such interactions are carried out.”
202This study also underlines the importance of interaction, not only within ASEAN, but also beyond, in this particular case, the Asia-Europe inter-regional dialogue. To understand the nature, challenges and contribution of the process of interaction, norms and characteristics of ASEAN and ASEAN Way, which was able to be transmitted beyond ASEAN, are discussed. To
201 Stefan Rother, "Wendt meets East: ASEAN cultures of conflict and cooperation," Cooperation and Conflict 47, no.
1 (2012). P. 51
202 Acharya, "Ideas, identity and institution-building: From the 'ASEAN Way' to the 'Asia-Pacific Way?'." P. 329
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 134 of 334
use Acharya’s argumentation again, “theoretical work on Asian regionalism continues to ignore
local, national, or regional political context central to those writing on Asian regionalism.”
203In the case of ASEAN it is particularly apparent that social and cultural norms are intertwined with political and organizational ones. In the Southeast Asian context, one can say that “cultures of anarchy are what regional organizations make out of them.” 204 Regional organizations take up the role of defining the region by the expanse of their members and the norms and rules that are adopted. Moreover, the nature of the region is frequently determined by the ideas and beliefs that extra and intra-regional actors have about themselves as well.
Following Amitav Acharya’s categorization to legal-rational norms and socio-cultural norms, this section has shown how in case of ASEAN the both types of norms are inter-related.
The diversity among ASEAN states has been often mentioned as the hampering factor for the regionalism process. Acharya phrased it this way: “Since cultural and political homogeneity
could not serve as an adequate basis for regionalism, the latter has to be constructed through interaction.”
205ASEAN norms are the mix of social, cultural, and political milieu.
Because of the important role of norms in the ASEAN’s organization, working style that determined Association’s personality and identity, constructivism has been favoured approach to understand ASEAN’s version of regionalism (Acharya 2000, 2001, Ba 2009206). Amitav Archarya has defined shared norms in ASEAN that create regional community. Alice Ba also stressed the importance of norms and norm development, but focusing on the process of
interactive dialogues that create the norms
207. And those cultural norms, characteristic for village societies were translated into institutional norms, strong adhered to throughout over 40 years of Association’s existence. Together with common strategic interests, which simply could203 Amitav Acharya, "Why is there no NATO in Asia? The normative origins of Asian multilateralism," Weatherhead Working Paper 5(2005).
204 Rother, "Wendt meets East: ASEAN cultures of conflict and cooperation." P. 57
205 Acharya, Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia : ASEAN and the problem of regional order. P.47
206 Amitav Acharya, The quest for identity : international relations of Southeast Asia (Singapore ; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Acharya, Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia : ASEAN and the problem of regional order; Alice D. Ba, (Re)negotiating East and Southeast Asia : region, regionalism, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Studies in Asian security (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2009).
207 Cockerham, "Regional Integration in ASEAN: Institutional Design and the ASEAN Way." P. 167
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 135 of 334
be summarized as sovereignty protection, they have provided “driving force behind the choice
and development of ASEAN institutionalization”.
208As shall be discussed in the following section, not only organizational norms differentiate the Asian and European groupings. It is often the issue of goal and content of the cooperation that bring controversies. The most contentious, and outstanding at the same time, is the different attitudes towards human rights. Upon this example of addressing the human rights I shall show the value of socialization process in this Asia-Europe dialogue.
4.1.2. Conflicting cooperation cultures
In discussing the dialogue between the civilizations and regions, cooperation culture refers to the norms of cooperation that are formally and informally expressed within an international or regional institution. Cooperation cultures are embedded in different political, social, economic and historical contexts which have a significant impact on the way states cooperate or behave towards each other. Two types of norms are distinguished:
(1) regulatory which shape the actors’ behavior, and (2) constitutive which express actors’ identities.209
Different cooperation norms and culture exists and they have an effect on the way actors form different (regional) institutions behave towards each other, thereby influencing the course and nature of policy interaction and ideological debates. In assuming that there are different cooperation cultures, there is an expectation that the nature and effectiveness of inter-regional cooperation would be affected by them too. In other words, there are three components that are affected by that difference:
(1) attitude/ perception of the actors in the dialogue;
(2) the institutional arrangements of cooperation; and
208 Ibid. P. 169
209 Howard Loewen, "Democracy and Human Rights in the European-Asian Dialogue: A Clash of Cooperation Cultures?," German Institute of Global Area Studies Working Paper 92(2008).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 136 of 334
(3) the issue/agenda of the cooperation upon which both sides need to agree upon and commit to.
The Asia-Europe Meeting, like no other institution, has “married” the European and Asian cooperation styles. Empirical study proves that there are antagonistic cooperation principles between Asian style favoring informality, non-binding agreements and negotiation;
whereas European style favors high level of institutionalization, legally-binding agreements and outcome-oriented approach. In other words, the Asian Way (which is an extension of the ASEAN Way by expanding membership of East Asian regional groupings adopting the ASEAN working format) is juxtaposed with the EU cooperation style as following:
Table 12: Most discussed distinctive norms in Asian and European cooperation cultures