ASEM and the future of Asia-Europe relations: Background,characteristics and challenges

The article mainly discusses the background and implications of Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), from an Asian perspective. It will be clarified that the ASEM process was a by-product of increasing tensions between multilateralism and regionalism. As a comprehensive cooperation forum between the EU and 10 East Asian countries, comprising political, economic and cultural agenda, ASEMs approach so far was multi-purposed and multi-faceted. The Asian members of ASEM have shown different strategic behavior in approaching ASEM, which is the result of their diverse geopolitical positions. However, the Asians, especially since the financial crisis of 1997, are well aware of the utility and necessity of their own regionalism, and many initiatives have already been brought into effect, negotiated or even feasibility-studied. The ASEM process may, therefore, find itself in increasing tension with this increasing regionalist tendency in East Asia. It is an immediate task for both European and Asian members of ASEM to revitalize the dynamics of ASEM cooperation.     

The challenge of institution-building in Asia and its implications for Asia-Europe relations

  East Asia, including Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, has developed tightly-linked production/distribution networks through globalizing corporate activities. The vertical chain of production in East Asia has been even more sophisticated than economic integration in East Europe or Latin America. However, the political environment of East Asia for trade and investment has been far from borderless. The integration effort at the policy level has been very much limited so far, due to the historical background as well as geopolitics surrounding East Asia. The Asian currency/financial crisis provided these countries a historical turning point. After the burst of the crisis, East Asians realized that they have to take care of themselves in their difficulties, not depending on outside forces. A natural choice for them was to step into the realm of regionalism. In 1998, Japan and Korea officially announced that they would discard the long-lasting GATT/WTO-only approach and adapt the multi-layered approach, including both regionalism and multilateralism. The ultimate goal of regionalism would be a region-wide integration including ASEAN+3. As a steppingstone, Japan signed the Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement (JSEPA) in January 2002. In a parallel move, the ASEAN and China Leaders announced in November 2001 the establishment of an ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) within 10 years. This article will follow up the most recent advancement of regional institutional building in East Asia with the emphasis on peculiar characteristics of economic integration in the region and discuss its implications for Asia-Europe relations. This paper is heavily drawn from Kimura (2002, 2003).     

Trade creation and diversion: effects of EU enlargement on agricultural and food products and selected Asian countries

Based on estimation of the gravity equation, this article aims to scrutinise the trade effects emanating from the economic integration of the European Union (EU) by focusing on the trade diversion and trade creation effects of the fifth EU enlargement on 12 groups of agricultural and food products. This paper analyses the changes due to the EU’s enlargement of trade patterns in the agricultural and food sectors among the EU member states and between EU and non-EU countries as well as the effects of the enlargement on exports of agricultural and food products from selected Asian countries to the EU market. Our analysis shows no decline in exports from EU to non-EU countries. Trade creation effects are significantly high for 4 product groups: seafood, woody plants, beverages and tobacco, and animal and vegetable materials. However, trade diversion effects are found in animal and vegetable oils and textile fibres. Moreover, the economic integration has had no significant effect on exports from Asian countries, namely agricultural and food products. The data of 38 countries cover the period 1999–2015.     

泛东亚经济一体化与中国FTA战略选择研究

文章运用GTAP模型和Walmsley等递归动态法,针对中国-印度自由贸易区的构建,以及在此基础上动态扩展的泛东亚其他三种区域合作方案,就成员国GDP、福利水平、贸易规模、贸易结构等产生的经济影响进行了一般均衡模拟分析。研究表明,区域经济合作将极大改进世界总福利水平,但由于各成员国产业竞争力的差异以及在既有的贸易安排中地位的不同,各自在利益分配上出现不均衡性;尽管各FTA方案均对成员国的进出口有着积极的促进作用,但促进效果各有不同,在进口与出口上显现出非对称性,表现为进口增长快于出口增长。     

China's Development:Implications for Asian Economy

正In 2013,under the circumstance of meager recovery and continued sluggish economic growth of the whole world,China’s economy still maintained a growth rate of 7.7 per cent and the economic aggregate jumped onto a new stage-it was predicted that the share of China’s economy in the global aggregate could exceed 12 per cent compared with only 2% in 1980.The status of China as an important global economic power has been entrenched and the rise of the manufacturing     

EU trade relations with Emerging Asia: identifying the issues

Trade interdependence between Europe and Asia has rapidly increased in recent years. Europe–Asia trade flows now constitute a ‘third link’ in the global economy. As trade expands, however, global trade governance has declined and free trade agreements (FTAs) have increased. Hence, the Global Europe strategy has been designed to enhance trade relations with emerging Asia which is the most dynamic region in the global economy today. But Asia’s model of export led growth leaves it more exposed to shocks emanating from outside the region than ever before raising questions about its sustainability. Deep integration agreements between Europe and Asia are needed to foster economic growth. They also need a development dimension to help Asian countries address their key development challenges. Brigid Gavin was the Research Coordinator of the workshop on ‘Deep Integration and North–South Free Trade Agreements: EU Strategy for a Global Economy’ which provided the papers and discussion forum for the articles in this special edition. The workshop took place at the United Nations University-Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS) centre in Bruges, Belgium on 19–20 June, 2008. She wishes to express her thanks to Mr Luk Van Langenhove, Director of UNU-CRIS for financial support and to all the authors and participants in the workshop for their contribution to making this project a real success. A special word of thanks goes to Lars Nilsson, Chief Economist Unit, DG Trade, European Commission for his opening presentation to the workshop. Alice Sindzingre is Research Fellow, National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), University of Paris and Visiting Lecturer at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. This analysis draws from her paper ‘The EU Economic Partnership Agreements with Africa’ which she presented at the workshop and available on the UNU-CRIS website.

---

Asian perception of the EU after Brexit: the case of Taiwan

The Brexit was in general interpreted as damage to the EU image abroad. In order to understand this damage and to propose some remedies for the EU public diplomacy in Asia, the authors conducted a media analysis of mainstream newspapers between May and October 2016 and a general survey between July 2016 and February 2017 in Taiwan. Based upon this analysis and survey, the authors intended to give a picture of EU image in Taiwanese media and people’s perception after the Brexit and find out key factors shaping this image. According to them, EU was frequently reported as a reference rather than a focus in Asian media, of which a majority of reports were neither positive nor negative. Brexit did increase visibility of the EU but in a very negative way. In order to remedy this damage and promote EU image in the aftermath of Brexit, the authors proposed two approaches after an in-depth study of all of those news reports and the general survey. It is suggested that EU should continue to strengthen its bilateral relationship with Asian countries and, at the same time, adopt normative actions on the world stage.     

Interregional relations and legitimacy in global governance: the EU in ASEM

This article explores the ramifications of the European Union’s (EU) internal legitimacy debate for its external relations. It applies the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) as a case study to examine the EU’s attempts to promote legitimacy in global governance, more specifically in interregional institutions. The article’s theoretical framework draws from the EU’s legitimacy debate. It identifies three key sources of legitimacy, namely, (i) input legitimacy or democratic control and accountability, (ii) output legitimacy or performance and achievement of core purposes, and (iii) the degree of common identity as externalised through collective representation and the articulation of shared norms and values. The empirical analysis thereafter leads to three observations. First, the EU’s presence has contributed to an increased democratic involvement by ASEM’s different stakeholders including parliaments and civil society. Second, purely from an institutional legitimacy perspective ASEM achieves its purpose as a forum to ‘constructively engage’ with Asian countries and address issues relating to global governance. Third, ASEM reveals the EU’s dual identity as an intergovernmental grouping and an organisation with a gradually increasing capacity of collective representation. However, the advancement of the EU’s normative objectives through ASEM has been problematic, leading to a more interest-based and pragmatic policy path. The article concludes that the EU’s legitimacy debate has had a bearing on relations with Asia and, in particular, with ASEM. Importantly, and given the EU’s setbacks, some elements of the ‘EU’s way’ have proven successful in promoting democratic notions of legitimacy beyond the state.     

Inter-Korean relations and the roles of the US and of the EU

The North Korean nuclear standoff has escalated since North Korea let slip that it was developing nuclear weapons while James Kelly, U.S. Assistant Secretary of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, was visiting Pyongyang in October 2002. The Bush administration has acknowledged that the United States will not discount a preemptive military strike on the suspected nuclear development facilities, and North Korea has stood firm against any pressure to halt its nuclear development from the international community. Dialogue and meetings for international cooperation among the major countries concerned, including Korea, the U.S., Japan and China, have been activated to resolve the nuclear crisis in the Korean Peninsula, especially after the U.S. pronounced an end to its war against Iraq in early May of this year. In the middle of the rapidly changing situation on the Korean peninsula, the inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation initiated by the Sunshine Policy of the Kim Dae Jung administration and followed by the Roh Moo-hyun administrations Policy of Peace and Prosperity are not separable from the nuclear situation. This paper follows recent developments of inter-Korean relations, illustrates South Koreas stance on the issue and suggests the EUs role on the nuclear issue. This is a revised version of the paper presented at the Asia-EU Journalists Seminar organized by the Asia Europe Foundation and the Korea Press Foundation (KPF), held in Brussels, Belgium, May 22 2003. Financial support from the KPF is gratefully acknowledged.     

Introduction: the EU,East Asian conflicts,and the norm of integration

The promotion of regional integration is a core objective of the European Union’s (EU) foreign policy and has been seen as part of its attempt to transform international society and to make the world a more peaceful place to live. However, the success of this regionalization strategy has been limited and East Asia has been a particularly problematic case. This introduction raises some fundamental questions by first presenting some basic concepts so that the overall studies of the special issue can be systematically undertaken. The underlying questions are the following: How bleak is the picture with regard to regionalism in East Asia and the roles of the EU? Has the EU had no effect on the development of East Asian regionalism? And what potential does regional integration have in helping the transformation of conflicts in East Asia? In addition to these questions, it also discusses and conceptualizes underlying discourses on regional integration, conflict transformation, and regionalism in East Asia. By doing so, it aims to point out that the East Asia region is changing, the EU does play a role in this, and regionalization cannot be ignored as an institutional context that has the potential to assist conflict transformation, especially if windows of opportunity for such engagement arise in the future.     

EU and Asian countries policies and programmes for the diffusion of sustainable energy technologies

The Asian region accounts for already over 40% of the global economy, and is becoming the world’s main manufacturing hub. Unprecedented changes in economic growth and trade in the last couple of decades have resulted in severe degradation of the regional, as well as the global environment that could offset the advantages that economic growth has brought to the countries and their populations. In this framework the need to deploy sustainable energy technologies is a key concern for the global community. This paper gives an overview of EU programmes and policies to develop sustainable energy technologies and the common barriers faced to technology implementation in EU and Asian countries. Following that, the approaches and mechanisms that are used internationally for overcoming the barriers to technology transfer and implementation are presented. After having assessed barriers to technology implementation and possible ways and programmes to help overcome them, the paper provides specific examples of success stories of how government policies and programmes, in combination with involvement of the private sector, can be effective in sustainable energy technology transfer and implementation in both EU and Asian countries. Finally, the opportunity that has recently arisen to enhance the introduction of sustainable energy technologies in developing countries through the development of programmes of related activities as CDM projects is presented and indicative mutual benefits for the strengthening of the EU Asian partnership are highlighted.

---

The bush administration's security strategy: Implications for transatlantic relations

There are signs of growing transatlantic estrangement over multiple international issues. An important catalyst for this estrangement is the National Security Strategy (NSS) that the Bush administration promulgated in September 2002, a document that is a detailed imperial blueprint. Despite its pretensions, however, it is not a global strategy, but instead appears to apply primarily to the 'Islamic Arc'--the territory from North Africa to the border of India. The administration's security strategy has important implications for the transatlantic relationship, since the United States is encouraging NATO to become a junior partner for missions throughout the Islamic Arc. Given the growing divergence in US and European interests and policy perspectives, the role that the Bush administration envisages for NATO is probably not sustainable. The 'West' was an artificial geostrategic concept that needed an extraordinarily threatening common adversary (the Soviet Union) to give it substance. The US and its allies will continue to drift apart strategically, and the Bush administration's security strategy may actually hasten that process. It is uncertain, however, whether the European Union will achieve the cohesion necessary to counterbalance US power. The main task facing statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic is to learn how to disagree about specific policies without becoming disagreeable.     

Shaping factors of EU–East Asia relations

Six shaping factors will determine the short-to-medium term outlook for East Asia. Two of these are geo-political flashpoints, with implications beyond the region—North Korea and China–Taiwan cross-strait relations. For both of these at least some logic of a’ solution’ will need to be worked out. Intra-regional tensions between China, the fastest growing economy in the world, and Japan, the second largest economy in the world, will need accommodation and compromise. Fourthly, the relationship between the US and China remains ambivalent, veering between strategic partnership and strategic competition. Long term stability in the region will require that the US–China relationship becomes more predictable, which will only be possible if both players define their long-term interests innovatively and in different ways. Probably the most important shaping factor for the region is the domestic political economy of China. The nexus between Chinese economic growth and its domestic political stability needs to remain in tact—without economic growth no political stability, while stability is a precondition for continued growth. These five shaping factors together will determine the scope of multi-lateral problem-solving frameworks for the region. The Kuala Lumpur first East Asia Summit has shown the determination of leaders in the region to co-ordinate, share information and exchange views. However, the decision not to go beyond the current institutional set-up and to retain ASEAN’s centrality points to a continuation of the present ‘shallow’ integration for some time to come.