Asian perceptions about the EU in the Asia�CEurope Meeting (ASEM)

The inauguration of the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Bangkok in March 1996 has created enthusiasm and hopes for closer inter-regional relations between Asia and Europe. This article observes how behaviors of European countries representatives in the ASEM process have significantly shaped the perceptions of Asian officials and people about the EU and European intentions to develop mutually beneficial relations with Asia. It employs a constructivist framework in which the ASEM process is treated as a dynamic social setting for not only Asia–Europe inter-regional interactions but also intra-Asia socialization. Methodologically, it is a qualitative research with an inductive process and interpretive method. The research uses qualitative data, gathered from various sources and 82 in-depth interviews with diplomats, scholars, journalists, business peoples and civil society representatives in five Asian countries. This study finds that some behaviors of EU participants at ASEM or ASEF interregional forums are counterproductive for EU efforts to develop robust relations with Asian countries. The polarization between Asian and European groups in the ASEM or ASEF meetings, caused by political issues and colonial memory, contributed to the difficulties in trust-building between Asian and European participants. In addition, by their frequent absence from ASEM Summits, EU leaders squandered rare opportunities for a ‘meeting of minds and hearts’ with their Asian counterparts. This process seems to be a precondition for Asians to develop tangible cooperation.     

Japan, China and East Asian regionalism: implications for the European Union

East Asia is becoming an increasingly coherent regional entity in political economic terms, and remains a region of enormous geo-strategic significance for the European Union. Europe’s links with China and Japan are especially important, and moreover these two countries are looking in various ways to exercise various forms of regional leadership in East Asia. This has critical implications for the EU’s relations with the East Asia region generally, and also for the wider international system. Similar and related impacts maybe construed from deepening East Asian regionalism, involving processes where both Japan and China play vitally important roles. The analysis presented here examines the both micro and macro level developments in East Asian regionalism, and issues relating to Japan, China and regional leadership. It concludes by discusses the implications of these matters for the European Union, and recommends that the EU should pay particularly close attention to emergent exercises of regional leadership in East Asia, most likely to be performed by Japan and/or China.

---

Focusing on political and civil concerns in news media? European refugee issue seen from China

Asia Europe Journal - The European refugee issue has become one of the major topics in Europe’s media narratives, its public discourses, and political debates, particularly in the peak period...     

Strategic considerations in the US–China relationship and the role of European soft power

This paper analyses strategic considerations within the conceptual, the policy and the systemic dimension of US–Sino relations. Furthermore, the role of the EU’s soft power in the context of US–China relations will be assessed. It will be argued that current US–China relations are mainly a function of the current US foreign policy towards China, which doesn’t take into account that an engagement policy towards China needs to be paralleled by an engagement policy towards the East Asian region. A functional equivalent of the EU’s soft power and its approach of bilateral and multilateral engagement of East Asian actors is a missing element in US–China relations. The thinking on China affairs in the USA can be broadly structured into two different schools of thought. On the one side there are those who favour an engagement policy vis-à-vis China. The engagement school argues that bilateral and multilateral cooperation with China needs to be intensified. Traditionally members of this school are found in the Department of State and the Bureau of the US Trade Representative. On the other side there are those who think of China as a threat that needs to be contained. The politicians and experts that belong to the threat school (e.g. in the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute) emphasize their fears of China’s future role on the regional and global level. Though China has supported the US’s “war on terrorism” after the attacks of 9/11, Beijing’s increasing military budget, its neglect of non-proliferation agreements (e.g. in its relations with Pakistan) and its behaviour within the Six-Party Talks are taken as examples of the China threat. Security policies do not solely determine the relationship between the USA and China. The US China policy is a function of both the US’s economic and security interests. This explains why Washington follows a dual policy of simultaneous engagement and containment, i.e. a policy of hedged engagement. But the current state of affair of the Sino–US relationship does not reflect the rise of China as a de facto hegemon of an East Asian community. It is the inherent danger of the current US China policy that the missing regional component in US–China relations could facilitate the formation of a fortress Asia. Since Beijing holds the key to Asian regionalism, China should be the main target of European soft power in Asia by exporting the principles of regionalism and multilateralism to Asia. To what extent the EU and its model of intraregional cooperation and integration can influence the objective and trajectory of Asian regionalism will demonstrate partly the extent of Europe’s soft power in the international system.

---

China-EU convergence 1957–2003: towards a ‘strategic partnership’

This article looks at how the ‘strategic partnership’ announced in 2003 between the People’s Republic of China and the European Union came to be. Strategic geopolitical balancing and containment towards other third parties have been prominent features of their convergence, during a period when the EU developed more of a foreign policy dimension and China continued its economic surge. To some extent both actors in various ways began to see each others as partners in dealing with the Soviet Union and with the United States, and helping their own rise in the international system. Strategic convergence has taken place, though one could still notice China’s emphasis on geo-politics and multipolarization and the EU’s greater stress on geo-economics and multilateralism.     

The European Union in the eyes of India

The multifaceted engagement between India and the European Union (EU) has grown exponentially in recent years, leading to a strategic partnership, which is one of the three that the EU has in Asia. Based on a content analysis of three prominent Indian newspapers, which were monitored on a daily basis for a period of 6 months (1 July–31 December 2009), and interviews conducted with political, business, media, and civil society “elites,” this article seeks to analyze and assess the perceptions of the EU in India.     

Japan and the European Union: shared foreign policy interests

Background  Japan and the European Union (Reiterer (2004b) 2:33–42) are both interested in enhancing their international standing in order to overcome their perceived status as economic giants but political dwarfs. While the reasons for this endeavour as well as the inherent characteristics of the actors involved—a traditional nation state as compared to the most advanced integration structure world-wide—are quite different, both entities see themselves primarily as civilian powers (Whitman (2006) 11(1):1–15) without neglecting the need to endow themselves with a military capacity in order to be more effective and credible on a world-wide scale. The ‘EU is emerging as a key regional actor in certain global affairs, particularly in such areas as finance, trade, environment and development, and current policy is directed towards enhancing the role of the European Union in the global governance system. To this end, the European Commission is actively engaged in such issues as the global governance of trade, the protection of human rights, the promotion of democracy, strengthening of regional and global security communities, and encouraging regional integration in other parts of the world.’ (Farrel (2005) 10(4):452–453)—all areas, except the latter task, where the EU and Japan could potentially cooperate closely.Objectives  Before identifying shared foreign policy interests between the EU and Japan, I will first bring to light some of the interests the EU has in East Asia in general; secondly I will chart the major Japanese foreign policy interests which will allow me to map out areas of potential common interest and concern.Adjunct Professor for International Politics, University of Innsbruck; Minister and Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Japan; the author expresses his own views which should not be attributed to the European Commission. The author whishes to recognize the research assistance of Ms. Sachi Claringbould.

---

Global Economic Governance between China and the EU: the case of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

The recent establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the initiative launched by the People’s Republic of China in 2013 underpins Beijing’s intensions to promote its own narrative about global economic governance (GEG) as well as China’s readiness to play a far more proactive role at the international level. In the age of global power shifting and with 14 EU member-states part of the AIIB, the European Union (EU) necessitates to engage further with China, in particular, within the context of multilateral institutions. This article analyses the impact of China’s evolving global governance policies on the EU. China’s and EU’s approaches to the reform of global governance present both differences and similarities, yet, the article highlights EU’s needs to make sense to what extent China’s growing ascent in the realm of global governance is reshaping world’s regional and global architectures vis-à-vis financial multilateral cooperation.     

Clutching at the apron strings? New Zealand’s relationship with the EU and the possible consequences for ASEM

The Asia–Europe Meeting forum (ASEM) was established as a mechanism to facilitate meaningful connections and dialogue between Asia and Europe. In 2010, a new chapter in European–Asian relations is being embarked upon. Standing on the brink of Asia, New Zealand and Australia (alongside Russia) are set to join ASEM. Of the three countries set to join ASEM, New Zealand presents a particular case. Traditionally, New Zealand has been seen as the most British of its former colonies, but it is increasingly both viewed and identifies itself as Asian. Using public opinion surveys and media content analysis conducted in 2009, this article demonstrates that New Zealanders continue to feel a strong connection with Britain which in turn influences its perceptions of the EU. Furthermore, New Zealand’s increasing Asian links, coupled with its Commonwealth connections and British heritage, has the potential to positively influence events at ASEM.     

How do Asians evaluate Europe’s strategic involvement in East Asia?

Europe is neither in the centre of Southeast Asia’s nor of Northeast Asia’s strategic interest. For both, Asians and Europeans it has been equally difficult to articulate their visions of each other’s role in security matters. However, Asia recognizes positively the EU’s civilian dominated approach in peacekeeping missions, e.g. in East Timor or in Aceh. Europe’s contribution to the Asia Regional Forum has been rather modest. But due to the increasing importance of comprehensive security, Europe’s experiences as a soft power could well change this position, provided both sides pay more attention to the constraints of the two regions. China as the major power in the region is somehow caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: on one side, it neither wants nor expects Europe to play a strategic role in East Asia. On the other, it would like to see Europe to become a power of its own in a China-US-EU triangle. This paper is based on a speech given by the author in Paris/France on 8th December 2006 at a conference on ‘French and European Strategic Interests in East Asia’ organised by the ‘Asia Centre’ with the support of the Secrétariat général de la défense nationale (SGDN). Mr. Norbert von Hofmann is an independent consultant on Southeast Asian-European co-operation in Germany. Formerly he was the Head of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung’s Office for Regional Cooperation in Southeast Asia in Singapore.     

Let's talk Turkey! US influence on EU–Turkey relations

Turkey is of paramount importance to the United States and to the European Union. The United States is not only the first and foremost partner of both the EU and Turkey. It is also amongst the most committed supporters of Turkey's European integration. In support of Turkey's EU membership bid, Washington has set forth a variety of arguments and has attempted to influence EU decisions at different points in time. US advocacy throughout the 1990s was key to kick-starting Turkey's accession process. By contrast, US influence on Turkey's EU accession decreased visibly in the twenty-first century. The style of US advocacy goes some way towards explaining why this has been the case. When American advocacy has prioritized quiet, behind-closed-doors diplomacy it has tended to be more effective. When instead US officials have relied on loud public diplomacy, European reactions have been generally negative. More importantly however, it is the content of American arguments that has affected their relative impact on European perceptions of Turkey. Depending on whether the US has spoken to the rights-, the interest- or the identity-based logic of enlargement, the influence of the United States on Turkey's EU membership prospects has varied. On the grounds of this analysis, this article concludes by outlining broad policy suggestions regarding how the United States could contribute more effectively to Turkey's European integration.     

Cooling the earth? The changing priorities of EU–Asia technology cooperation

External crises such as the Bird Flu epidemic, as well as severe environmental problems, are changing overall attitudes towards research in human health and the environment. At present, the EU is putting pressure on developing countries in Asia and elsewhere to increase their environmental capacities and put forward methods of environmental management that support innovation and competitiveness. They are also being encouraged to participate in the Kyoto protocol and Bali processes on climate change. This paper aims to address the current issues faced by the EU in promoting environmentally friendly technologies in Southeast Asia, as well as to examine the opportunities for technological cooperation between Europe and Asia. It will use Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam—some of the EU’s chosen recipients of official development assistance in the region—as case studies, in order to examine how these countries implement policies that incorporate environmental technology strategies designed to promote sustainable development. It will also attempt to identify the type of actions that are being pursued by their respective governments, with the support of the EU and its member states. Finally, the paper will suggest which types of environmentally friendly technologies and best practice could be transferred from Europe to Southeast Asia, and to the wider Asian region. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the ‘EU–Asia Relations: A Critical Review’ conference at the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence at the University of Melbourne, 27–28 March 2008. I would like to express my gratitude to the conference participants for their comments and suggestions.

---

Can the EU be a serious security actor in Asia?

Following the US “pivot” to Asia, the European Union (EU) announced its own pivot to Asia in 2012 with stepped-up engagement. A flurry of high-level visits to Asia, and in particular, Southeast Asia, by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy followed. The EU is looking for a much more comprehensive engagement of Asia, but at the same time, within Asia; there is always this nagging doubt as to whether the EU can be a serious security actor in Asia. This short brief surveys the constructive role that the EU can play in Asia and argues that the EU should stop fretting about whether it is seen as a serious security actor in Asia and instead focus on what it can do best and do its best in Asia.     

European Union visibility in Indonesia

This paper examines the academic visibility of the European Union in Indonesia. Good visibility is important in strengthening the growing significance of the EU-Indonesia relations. It uses a quantitative analysis on Indonesias position in this realm in Asia and among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) using a comparative perspective. It finds that the Union was least visible in Indonesia compared to other Asian and ASEAN nations. It is further proposed to set up centres of excellence as vehicles to improve the Unions visibility in the country. Such centres of excellence would be vital and a most effective means to improve the EU visibility amongst academic and policy making circles.     

Anger and protest: referenda and opposition to the EU in Greece and the United Kingdom

The public image of the European Union (EU) has met increasingly negative evaluations since the economic and financial crisis hit its peak. Although opposition towards the EU has been pitched as a temporary phenomenon, it has now become a distinctive characteristic of European integration, described as ‘embedded’. Recent analyses on citizens’ attitudes towards the EU underline a rational utilitarian dimension, stressing that EU attachment is affected by future life expectations. Are rationalist perspectives the only possible explanation behind the rise of Euroscepticism, though? This article offers an alternative approach, by using discourse analysis, and examines how emotions, as embedded in Eurosceptic discursive frames and practices, may affect attitudes towards the EU. We argue that an analysis of citizens’ opposition through emotions when the salience of the EU increases can show how a Eurosceptic emotion-laden public discourse may become prominent at the domestic level.     

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.     

The European Union’s common foreign and security policy reforms and its implications for Northeast Asia

The European Union (EU) is at a turning point. With the bipolar order of the Cold War fast becoming a distant memory, the European Union must quickly establish itself on the global stage before it loses the opportunity to do so. With Northeast Asia fast emerging as a new economic giant and political center for world affairs, the EU must reform its Common Foreign and Security Policy in order to develop a reputation and image as a global actor of soft power, based on its long-standing values and peaceful diplomacy. However, despite major reforms in the Lisbon Treaty (2009), the EU has not been able to form cohesion amongst its members, thus hindering its progress in achieving such international recognition. This paper therefore analyses the reforms taken place so far and suggests further reforms that will build a strong foundation for a united and cohesive foreign policy. It will then look at how the reformed framework will allow the EU to establish itself as a global actor in political affairs, in particular in Northeast Asia.     

Russia's energy diplomacy toward Europe and Northeast Asia: a comparative study

This paper aims first to illuminate the key aspects of Russia's energy diplomacy toward the EU and how the EU copes with it and then to apply the pattern found in Europe to Northeast Asia and compare the differences. In Europe, Russia has been quite effective in consolidating its dominant position as energy suppliers, and has been equally successful in nullifying the EU's collective attempts to produce a united front by forming individual energy relationships with various EU member states. A strategy of ‘divide-and-rule’ has been at the center of Moscow's energy diplomacy toward Europe. In Northeast Asia, by contrast, the progress of energy cooperation between Russia and Northeast Asian countries has been slower than both sides initially hoped. Overall, it could be attributed to Russia's failure to gain the trust of Northeast Asian countries in the course of its energy diplomacy under the Putin administration.     

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.

---

Comparing regional organisations in global multilateral institutions: ASEAN, the EU and the UN

Structural change brought about by the end of the Cold War and accelerated globalisation have transformed the global environment. A global governance complex is emerging, characterised by an ever-greater functional and regulatory role for multilateral organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and its associated agencies. The evolving global governance framework has created opportunities for regional organisations to participate as actors within the UN (and other multilateral institutions). This article compares the European Union (EU) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as actors within the UN network. It begins by extrapolating framework conditions for the emergence of EU and ASEAN actorness from the literature. The core argument of this article is that EU and ASEAN actorness is evolving in two succinct stages: Changes in the global environment create opportunities for the participation of regional organisations in global governance institutions, exposing representation and cohesion problems at the regional level. In response, ASEAN and the EU have initiated processes of institutional adaptation.