2nd ASEAN-EU Policy Dialogue on Human Rights - 29 November 2017, http://asean.org/2nd-asean-eu-policy-dialogue-on-human-rights/
A new Asia-Europe partnership for development
By Shada Islam
It used to be fairly simple – but it did not get results. Aid from rich industrialized countries to poorer ones was seen as the key to growth and development. Ministers and officials spent hours haggling over aid packages and critics routinely referred “hand-outs” to poor countries. Official aid from rich to poor countries remains a vital tool in the combat against poverty. However, for many middle-income countries in Asia, such assistance is dwarfed by private sector financial transfers.
In the 21st Century, working for growth and development is no longer merely about increasing development aid. This is particularly true in Asia where many countries are progressing from low income to middle-income status. True, while extreme poverty is still a reality in Asia, many countries in the region have developed through domestic effort, trade and access to private financial flows – with little aid.
Andris Piebalgs, European Commissioner responsible for development told an ASEM î conference in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, on May 26, the changes prompted by Asia’s rise demand a rethink of EU development aid to the region. “We can’t treat China the same way as Cambodia,” he said.“In some countries it is about putting in place basic services, in others it is about accompanying growth, jobs and development…we will listen to countries needs
and adapt our instruments and cooperation,” the Commissioner told the 200 high-level Asian and European experts and officials as well as representatives of international organizations and civil-society groups, attending the meeting in Yogyakarta. Certainly, poverty-alleviation is still an over-arching global challenge. An estimated 1.4 billion people continue to live in extreme poverty and, according to the World Bank, the current global economic crisis will take a serious toll, with as many as another 53 million people being thrust into living on less than $1.25 a day, the definition of “extreme poverty”. The meeting in Indonesia noted countries’ commitment to pursue the goal of poverty eradication and achieve the anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), adopted by world leaders in 2000 - and which call on developed countries to set aside 0.7 per cent of their GNI (gross national income) for Official Development Assistance (ODA) by 2015.
The current economic crisis has shown that aid is still very important in poorer
Asian countries such as Afghanistan where it represents about 45% of GDP. But
in larger countries, aid accounts for much less in terms of GDP: in India, 0.18% 7
and in Indonesia, 0.24%. In addition, progress in achieving the MDGs is patchy,
a point likely to be made when world leaders meet in New York for a review conference in September this year. Sustainable development hinges on more than aid. As Koos Richelle, Director General for Development at the European Commission pointed out in Manila, aid
has “never got countries out of poverty.” Growth and development comes from “the policy of the country and efforts of the people,” he said. Crucially, ensuring growth requires the mobilization of a range of “non-aid” policies to support development. It is conditional on good governance – including fair taxation and anti-corruption action - adopted by national
governments. The focus is on political and economic reform and building market economies. Development cannot be imposed from outside, it has to be “owned” by countries. Developing countries have to implement the correct policies and strategies, involving both state and non-state actors.
“We wish to work in a spirit where countries take ownership of their own development…we don’t have any longer a donor-recipient approach but work as equal partners in a challenging global village,” said Piebalgs. In other words, development cooperation is no longer about charity, it is about enlightened mutual self-interest. As China has illustrated, in an inter-connected globalised world, an increase in prosperity in one country or region translates into rising trade, investments and sales in other parts of the world. ASEM provides a good framework for innovative and creative thinking on how to make aid more effective, ensure better coordination among donors, facilitate trade and encourage open markets. Encouraging private investments and financial flows, fostering public-private partnerships, bolstering the work of civil society actors and ensuring policy coherence so that all international policies work in the same direction – namely to reduce poverty, hunger and disease – are important.
“Smarter aid”, ie assistance that is more selective, innovative and effective, has to be the name of the game. These and other issues need to be explored further within the ASEM context. First, because the EU is the largest provider of ODA in the world, giving almost 4
billion euros a year in assistance to the less well-off Asian countries which are members of ASEM.
Second, there are still many people living in extreme poverty in Asia. Third, there is a compelling need for stronger cooperation and coordination between the EU and Asian countries which are also aid donors, including Japan and China and also India. Fourth, the EU and Asian countries need to reassess whether aid development cooperation should continue to play a significant role in Asia’s middle income countries and emerging economies China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand – or whether it is time to look at other ways of raising development resources.
At a time when overall aid resources are limited, there is an argument in favour of focusing development funds on poorer Asian countries. This does not mean ignoring the plight of poor people in Asia’s middle-income countries; but it does require that more creative thinking is used to raise funds in such nations. “EU aid should act as a catalyst for additional investment,” Pielbags told the meeting in Yogyakarta, “…it should be used in a way that one euro generates two or more additional euros.” Having given a 200 million euro grant to Indonesia’s Ministry of Education and announced the setting up of an Asian Investment
Facility, Piebalgs also said Europe would work to unlock the power of trade and investment, support infrastructure projects but also help countries in health and education.
The meeting in Yogyakarta underlined that “Europe and Asia are engaged in a multi-dimensional partnership that goes beyond aid.” The ASEM 8 summit in Brussels on October 4-5 will provide another opportunity for Asian and European leaders to elaborate on forging a new partnership which goes further – much further – than aid.
Europe and Asia as Global Security Actors
by Shada Islam
Asia-Europe relations used to be about business, not politics. The emergence of the Southeast Asian "tiger" economies in the 1980s and Europe's quest for a share of the region's booming market helped spur the drive for closer Asia-Europe relations and the launch in Bangkok in 1996 of ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting), an informal platform for discussion between the two sides.
Business between the two regions is still booming. EU trade with Asia amounted to over 750 billion euros in 2009 and total European investments in the region are estimated at 350 billion euros. These strong ties provide the basis for a solid ASEM partnership.
However, in a globalised and interdependent world, Asia and Europe are under pressure to take on a more forceful political and diplomatic role both in their neighbourhood and in the wider world. They also need to engage more strongly with each other to deal with shared security challenges.
Both regions are taking important security-related initiatives which illustrate a similar commitment to tackling both traditional, military threats as well as non-traditional security challenges including terrorism, poverty and disease, access to and security of sea lanes and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Neither Asia nor Europe can - or have any ambition to - take over America's primordial global security role. In Europe, NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) remains the pivotal defence alliance despite Europe's determination to boost its clout on the world stage through a common defence and security policy.
Europe has deployed over 20 civilian and military missions in 3 continents so far as part of its emerging security and defense policy. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in January this year, the nomination of Catherine Ashton as the European Union's first-ever "foreign minister" and agreement on the establishment of a Europe-wide diplomatic corps known as the "external action service" have raised further hopes that the 27-nation bloc will finally starting punching its weight on the global stage.
Meanwhile, Pax Americana continues to reign supreme in Asia, a region fraught with historical grievances and ongoing tensions. However, Japan, China, India and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are seeking to tackle regional and global security challenges through an array of pan-regional organisations and alliances, including the Asean Regional Forum (ARF), the East Asia Summit and the informal "Shangri-La Dialogue" that meets every year in Singapore to discuss security questions.
Japan and Australia have further intensified the debate on regional architecture by making new proposals for different forms of a wider Asian community. Former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama proposed the creation of an East Asia Community last year while Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called for the setting up of an Asia Pacific Community. Japan's new prime minister, NaotoKan, has said he will continue to push ahead along the same lines.
The plethora of regional cooperation initiatives are an encouraging sign that Asians are overcoming longstanding rivalries. At a recent "Shangri La Dialogue" meeting in Singapore, organised by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies and attended by the US and several European states, there was agreement that Asia-Pacific states must forge a coherent and collaborative response to the region's complex security risks.
Food and energy security, ethnic conflicts, insurgencies and rising tensions on the KoreanPeninsula were Asia-Europe relations used to be about business, not politics. The emergence of the Southeast Asian "tiger" economies in the 1980s and Europe's quest for a share of the region's booming market helped spur the drive for closer Asia-Europe relations and the launch in Bangkok in 1996 of ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting), an informal platform for discussion between the two sides.
Business between the two regions is still booming. EU trade with Asia amounted to over 750 billion euros in 2009 and total European investments in the region are estimated at 350 billion euros. These strong ties provide the basis for a solid ASEM partnership.
However, in a globalised and interdependent world, Asia and Europe are under pressure to take on a more forceful political and diplomatic role both in their neighbourhood and in the wider world. They also need to engage more strongly with each other to deal with shared security challenges.
Both regions are taking important security-related initiatives which illustrate a similar commitment to tackling both traditional, military threats as well as non-traditional security challenges including terrorism, poverty and disease, access to and security of sea lanes and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Neither Asia nor Europe can - or have any ambition to - take over America's primordial global security role. In Europe, NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) remains the pivotal defence alliance despite Europe's determination to boost its clout on the world stage through a common defence and security policy.
Europe has deployed over 20 civilian and military missions in 3 continents so far as part of its emerging security and defense policy. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in January this year, the nomination of Catherine Ashton as the European Union's first-ever "foreign minister" and agreement on the establishment of a Europe-wide diplomatic corps known as the "external action service" have raised further hopes that the 27-nation bloc will finally starting punching its weight on the global stage.
Meanwhile, Pax Americana continues to reign supreme in Asia, a region fraught with historical grievances and ongoing tensions. However, Japan, China, India and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are seeking to tackle regional and global security challenges through an array of pan-regional organisations and alliances, including the Asean Regional Forum (ARF), the East Asia Summit and the informal "Shangri-La Dialogue" that meets every year in Singapore to discuss security questions.
Japan and Australia have further intensified the debate on regional architecture by making new proposals for different forms of a wider Asian community. Former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama proposed the creation of an East Asia Community last year while Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called for the setting up of an Asia Pacific Community. Japan's new prime minister, NaotoKan, has said he will continue to push ahead along the same lines.
The plethora of regional cooperation initiatives are an encouraging sign that Asians are overcoming longstanding rivalries. At a recent "Shangri La Dialogue" meeting in Singapore, organised by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies and attended by the US and several European states, there was agreement that Asia-Pacific states must forge a coherent and collaborative response to the region's complex security risks.
Enhancing Human Rights Protection and Promoting Democracy
Voicu Alis-Ștefania*
The EU-ASEAN relations proved to be strong and long-lasting with benefits for both regions involved. Their cooperation flourished quickly and expanded from the field of politics and security to the economic and socio-cultural sphere. Besides from strengthening the commercial ties and improving investment relations, supporting the development of a powerful socio-cultural community has become one of the main objectives of the EU-ASEAN dialogue. Part of the cooperation comes through policy dialogue and also through the EU support programmes. ASEAN benefits from EU programmes in various areas such as education, environment and climate change, health, governance, science and innovation, etc. Moreover, enhancing the cooperation in order to maintain peace and stability in the ASEAN member states also means paying attention to vital social issues such as strengthening the protection of human rights, building an active civil society, highlighting the benefits of cultural diversity and encouraging interfaith dialogue. I believe that it is necessary for the European Union to engage ASEAN in a manner that recognizes the cultures of its (ASEAN’s) member states. The cultural aspect is very important in order to develop a productive relationship between the two regional partners especially because above all it brings together people with different cultures and slightly distinctive points of view on specific subjects (as, for example, regarding the necessity of religious education in schools, promoting economic growth through culture and tourism, etc.). It is essential that EU should not be seen as imposing its own views as it offers its cooperation and assistance in key areas such as human development and promoting democracy. I consider that a vital aspect of the relationship between the EU and ASEAN lies in creating a friendly environment where the cultural and religious diversity is respected and promoted, along with the process of democracy building, enhancing human rights protection, and sustaining education. State members of both groups are rich in experiences and may share valuable information about these areas that can serve, later on, as examples for the world community. In my opinion, democracy building focuses mainly on creating a solid and active civil society with a growing interest for sustainable development and a better national and global understanding. I also think that human rights represent a strong point of interest which should put together the efforts of both sides, EU’s and ASEAN’s, in order to be effectively applied in society. For instance, a programme for capacity enhancement in democracy building must be developed in close consultation with the cooperating member states. The EU’s role should be of an organization that wants to listen and learn in order to strengthen and sustain partnership. Regarding the promotion and improvement of human rights, ASEAN followed the example of the United Nations, borrowing similar initiatives which were to be put in practice. By adopting the ASEAN Charter in 2007 the basic principles of a human rights project were initialized, the references to be found in:
Preamble - “adhering to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms” and in
Articles 1.7 -“to strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law, and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, with due regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Member states of ASEAN”, 2.2 (h) - “adherence to the rule of law, good governance, the principles of democracy and constitutional government, 2.2 (i)- “respect for fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice, 2.2 (l) respect for the different cultures, languages and religions of the peoples of ASEAN, while emphasizing their common values in the spirit of unity in diversity”.
As a follow up of the provisions of the ASEAN Charter, in 2009 the specifically guided ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) was created. The human rights body serves as the promoter and protector of democracy and addresses democratic deficits in the region. AICHR is comprised of ten government representatives; one per ASEAN member state. ASEAN members contribute in equal amounts to AICHR’s budget. AICHR activities are also funded by international donors such as the European Union. The AICHR releases annual reports regarding the conducted meetings and activities (such as workshops, dialogues, forums, etc.) which are available on the Human Rights in ASEAN Online Platform, AICHR’s Terms of Reference define its purpose, mandate and functions. The Terms of Reference impose AICHR to keep the public periodically informed of its work and activities. AICHR has done so by issuing press releases, publishing information brochures, and creating a dedicated website. AICHR is mandated to: develop strategies for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, develop an ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, enhance public awareness of human rights through education, research, and dissemination of information, undertake capacity building for the effective implementation of ASEAN member states’ international human rights treaty obligations and ASEAN human rights instruments, encourage ASEAN member states to ratify international human rights instruments, provide ASEAN with advisory services and technical assistance on human rights matters upon request, engage in dialogue and consultation with other ASEAN bodies and entities associated with ASEAN, including civil society organizations and other stakeholders, obtain information from ASEAN member states on the promotion and protection of human rights, develop common approaches and positions on human rights matters of interest to ASEAN, prepare thematic human rights studies and perform any other tasks assigned by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting. In the context of the EU and ASEAN bridging, this important evolution in the ASEAN view and action, even unrealised by the time analysts, it is very relevant to the EU’s offer to cooperate with ASEAN in its democracy building efforts. Since the 1990s, ASEAN-EU relations have been affected by human rights issues. It is important for both parties to clarify their perceptions of each other’s positions and views on human rights. Such clarification was and still is necessary especially because both sides recognize each other’s strategic importance in the midst of worsening global economic, environmental and security crises. In addition, the promotion of flow of information, which is an extension right of freedom of expression was included in the political and security pillar for the first time. I was very pleased to find out that the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and the Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC) – a regional human rights institution – was established in 2010; an intergovernmental commission comprising 20 representatives, two from each of the ASEAN ten member states. It promotes the implementation of international and ASEAN instruments on the rights of women and children, advocates on behalf of women and children, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized, and encourage ASEAN member states to improve their situation, to collect and analyse sex disaggregated data, and undertake periodic reviews of national legislation, policies, and practices related to the rights of women and children and also supports the participation of ASEAN women and children in dialogue and consultation processes in ASEAN related to the promotion and protection of their rights. I was equally satisfied that the first ever EU policy exchange engaging all ASEAN human rights bodies and committees took place in 2015 in Brussels, proving EU’s commitment to engaging further with ASEAN and opening new avenues of cooperation. Upon the invitation of the EU, the ACWC visited the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels on 18-22 February 2013 to exchange experiences in promoting and protecting women’s and children’s rights in Europe and Southeast Asia and to explore cooperation in areas of mutual interest. The visit also allowed ACWC representatives to better understand EU institutions, mechanisms, instruments and policy priorities on a broad spectrum of issues relating to women’s and children’s rights. However, I have the feeling that for a short or a little bit longer period, human rights remain a predominant concern of the EU’s bilateral relations with ASEAN and I think it is necessary that EU recognize ASEAN’s real achievements in human rights promotion. This, I think, will last until the core of the matter will be understood in the sense that even democracy it is different and based on the national background of every people and country. The way I understand, the sensitivity of some ASEAN member states over the issue of human rights and their defensive attitude to criticism from their dialogue partners must be seen in the context of the nature and composition of ASEAN as an intergovernmental organization. The ASEAN member states have been protective of the organization’s principles of non-interference and mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. Consensus-building is seen as an essential part of the so-called ASEAN Way. In my opinion, this sensitivity in ASEAN-EU bridging comes as well from different perspectives on human rights due to the diverse circumstances of their respective member states mostly because: most ASEAN states won their national independence less than half a century ago and thus place a premium on sovereignty and freedom from external interference, the ASEAN states that serve as models for economic success are strong developmental states that have achieved economic growth and political unity through state patronage and national discipline, there is a wide economic disparity between and within many ASEAN states, the organizational development of ASEAN has differed from that of the EU, and it has not led to the type of supranational institutions favoured by the EU. It is obvious and important to underline that the ASEAN-EU bridging has an encouraging positive trend. The EU is a major development partner for ASEAN, actively supporting the ASEAN member states and institutions in their efforts to deepen regional integration. EU is lending support to ASEAN institutions that are instrumental in supporting ASEAN’s regional integration objectives. For 2014-2020, the EU has significantly increased its development cooperation funds. More than €170 million has been earmarked to fund the ongoing and post-2015 ASEAN regional integration agenda — more than doubling the amount for 2007-2013. In addition, the EU has pledged over €3 billion to reduce poverty and address development gaps in low-income ASEAN countries. Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action to strengthen the ASEAN-EU enhanced partnership (2013-2017) aims to bring cooperation to a higher level, through addressing regional and global challenges of shared concern. It covers a wide range of areas – political/security, economic/trade, socio-cultural – reflecting the multifaceted character of ASEAN-EU relations. Promoting the exchange of experience and best practices among ASEAN member states and the EU on policies and programmes for the well-being of women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and migrant workers, gender equality and socio-economic women empowerment and also the exchange of cultural performers and scholars among ASEAN and the EU member states which improves access to understanding of different cultures between both regions and enhance regional awareness are very important points for the ASEAN-EU cooperation. Providing support to ASEAN's socio-cultural community constitutes a relatively new but expanding area of the EU-ASEAN cooperation. For instance, there is an increasing exchange of students and scholars between the two regions. Each year around 250 ASEAN students receive scholarships under the EU Erasmus Mundus programme and around 25 ASEAN scholars a year benefit from Marie Curie Fellowships. Adding to this the many scholarships provided by EU Member states, more than 4,000 ASEAN students per year travel to Europe on EU scholarships. Building on the EU’s Erasmus student exchange programme, “Erasmus+” offers mobility opportunities for Asian students and teachers, notably in higher education. And in addition to “Erasmus+”, under a €10 million project called “EU Support to Higher Education in ASEAN Region”, the EU is working with ASEAN to increase student mobility by helping to harmonise the recognition systems between higher education institutions in ASEAN. Viewed as an important part of EU’s socio-cultural support for ASEAN, the project seeks to help build ASEAN higher education frameworks by sharing Europe’s experience in constructing its own Higher Education Area. The EU and ASEAN have tasked Europe’s four major academic exchange agencies to implement the project: the British Council, Campus France, Germany’s DAAD and EP-Nuffic from the Netherlands. Further support is provided by two specialised Brussels-based organisations, the European University Association (EUA) and the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). Around half of the project funds will be devoted to student mobility within ASEAN, thus contributing directly to ASEAN people-to-people connectivity and increased regional cooperation. In addition, the quality, competitiveness and internationalisation of ASEAN higher education institutions will also be enhanced. ASEAN’s work on constructing a harmonised higher education sector through comparable academic degrees, measures to ensure more transparency of content in degree programmes and increased mobility for students to better prepare them for the labour market, is very similar to the EU’s own efforts to build a European Higher Education Area. ASEAN is therefore looking at the successes and weaknesses of Europe’s experience in the sector. Europe’s experience is that building stronger connections between universities, students and academics is part of the complex task of bringing people together. As ASEAN seeks to enhance its own people-to-people connectivity, cooperation in the higher education sector looks set to become an ever-more important element of EU-ASEAN cooperation in the coming years. Furthermore the EU-ASEAN Migration and Border Management Programme aimed at increasing the exchange of information between immigration officials in ASEAN capitals and support the easing of visa requirements for ASEAN and non-ASEAN nationals within the region. Thereto another key element in expanding and improving the EU-ASEAN dialogue lies within the efforts and strategies to fight corruption. Corruption continues to be a great concern for national governments and a threat for national economies of the ASEAN member states because it holds back investment in the region and stifle growth in both the public and private sectors. By providing analysis to support policy dialogue, enhancing ASEAN countries’ understanding of international anti-corruption standards and raising awareness of the necessity of anti-corruption policies the EU supports the initiatives for this purpose together with OECD.
Conclusions The ASEAN-EU relations developed throughout the time and brought significant improvements in the area of education, human rights, good governance and democracy building. Various programmes and strategies have been implemented, sustained and funded by the EU in the fields listed above in order to support ASEAN’s objectives and efforts. Consequently the dialogue between the two regions represents an opportunity in particular for better human development, for the well-being of the people from the ASEAN member states by advancing and prioritising education, facilitating access to information and communication technology, strengthening and expanding the economic rights of women and youth, building a safe environment and promoting cultural diversity. In my opinion the cooperation represents a plus for both parties because it contributes to building a more transparent and inclusive society with respect for cultural differences, human rights and democratic values. I find very appealing the affirmation of Don Tapscott: “Collaboration is important not just because it's a better way to learn. Learning to collaborate is part of equipping yourself for effectiveness, problem solving, innovation and life-long learning.” I shall be very happy to see in a very near future that the bridge of partnership and cooperation between ASEAN and EU will become a solid pillar in this today of global development. Together they will better serve the interests, aims and dreams of their countries, enhancing human rights protection and promoting democracy.
*The Author is a 1st year Master’s student at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters, Department of Cultural Studies, Culture and Politics in European and International Context program.
References
http://asean.org/?static_post=overview-of-asean-eu-dialogue-relations
http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/asean/press_corner/all_news/news/2015/20151019_01_en.htm
http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/asean/docs/eu_asean_natural_partners_en.pdf
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/129884.pdf
https://humanrightsinasean.info/asean-intergovernmental-comission-human-rights/about.html
https://www.internews.org/sites/default/files/resources/InternewsEU_ASEAN_FoE_and_RTI_Study_2014.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/43964975.pdf
Bridging the EU and ASEAN 40 Years of Cooperation and Prosperity
Ioana Maria HOTEA (Isopescu)
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters, European Studies, CPCEI Master Program, 1st year
UNESCO Chair of Inter-religious and Inter-cultural Exchanges, Intercultural Management Master, 1st year
ABSTRACT:
The essay analyzes the relations between the two world’s leading regional organizations, EU and ASEAN, in the general context of the 2017 triple anniversary of 60 years since the foundation of the European Economic Community, 50 years since the foundation of ASEAN and 40 Years of ASEAN and EU relations. The paper will address the evolution of ASEAN-EU cooperation taking into consideration political, economic and socio-cultural aspects, with a final emphasis on the present day developments implied by a people-to-people necessary connectivity.
Keywords:EU, ASEAN, Dialogue Relations, Interregionalism, Citizen Exchange
1. Introduction
EU and ASEAN are two of the world’s leading regional organizations. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is the most successful inter-governmental organization in the developing world and the European Union is the most successful regional grouping in the Western world. This year – 2017 – is an important momentum for both, as they celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the 50th Anniversary of ASEAN and the 40th Anniversary of ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations.
This essay will address the ASEAN-EU relationship during these four decades, with an emphasis on the more recent developments that aim at bringing collaboration between the two organizations to a higher level. The first part of the paper will consist of a brief analysis of the history, the framework and the present day developments of the ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations, separating the time frame into two periods, the cold war decades, 1970s and 1980s, and the post-cold war and contemporary decades. The essay will further address the present developments of the ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations that aim to a more strategic regional cooperation in political areas, economy, but also socio-cultural and people to people cooperation. The last section of the paper will discuss specific aspects that are encompassed in the socio-cultural collaboration, like tourism, higher education and student exchange programs, as components for a better interregional cooperation and bridging of EU and ASEAN.
It is worthy to mention that the coming up of ASEAN on the architectural map of regional organization in Southeast Asia was highly and friendly received by Romania, who was one from the very few countries to officially declare from the outset that ASEAN is a genuine economic regional organization as per ASEAN Charter. Many other countries initially viewed ASEAN as a substitute to a military bloc of that time called Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Nowadays, Romania as an EU member country follows and supports the ever robust bridging between EU and ASEAN.
2. The favorable ingredients of the ASEAN-EU Cooperation
With 620 million people in ASEAN, and 510 million people in EU, the two organizations represent the third and the fourth largest entities in the world by population (2015). Regarding GDP, ASEAN and EU are the seventh and the first entities in the world, with USD 2.6 and 18.5 trillion (2014) respectively (Filippini 2016). The two organizations are profoundly distinct in terms of ethnical groups, languages, religion, values. In the same time ASEAN and EU represent distinct regional constructions, with different histories, purposes or capacities, that embody fundamentally distinct and unique cultures. Despite particularities and asymmetries, EU and ASEAN have managed to design a four decade long inter-regional cooperation that stands today as a model for interregional dialogue relations, having surpassed political turbulences, economic crisis, international turmoil, soft power confrontations or cultural differences. ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations represent an ongoing evidence of the capability of cooperation, competency, negotiation, diplomacy and mutual respect.
Dating back to the early 1970s, ASEAN-EU relations have constantly evolved into an advanced interregional forty years old relationship, characterized by a multifaceted character, reflected in a wide range of areas that can be grouped in three main categories: Political-Security, Economic-Trade and Socio-Cultural, that aim “to promote sustainable peace, security and prosperity through regional integration”[1]. The Agreement that emerged between the European Community and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations was the first interregional cooperation agreement between Western Europe as a whole and a regional body, constituted by the Southeast Asian countries that established themselves in a regional association only a few years earlier (ASEAN 1967)[2].
ASEAN-EU relationship can be defined as a bilateral interregionalism comprised of group-to-group dialogues centered around cooperation in specific policy fields (trade, investments, environment, crime prevention, narcotics trafficking etc.). In analyzing ASEAN-EU relations a distinction is usually done between the period prior to the end of the Cold War (1972-1990) and the actual multipolar era (1990-prezent).
2.1 ASEAN-EC Relations During 1972-1990
The developing of ASEAN-EC relations in the early 1970s was primarily centered around economic aspects, securing better market access for the ASEAN powerful emerging economies, agricultural commodities, attracting investment, technology transfers and development aid. ASEAN-EC dialogue relations were formalized in 1977, when an official cooperation between the two was agreed by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting. This relation was institutionalized with the signing of the ASEAN-EC Cooperation Agreement in Kuala Lumpur on 7 March 1980[3]. The treaty laid the foundation for a relationship based on mutual respect, nondiscrimination, facilitation and diversification of trade, reduction of trade barriers, technological and development cooperation[4]. The first decade of ASEAN-EC relations saw an almost ten-fold increase of trade between the two, ASEAN capturing 42% of the EC’s trade with developing countries and being the main beneficiary of the European GSP. The period was characterized by an accelerated influx of European investments in Southeast Asia that temporarily exceeded American and Japanese investments, and it contributed to changing the composition of the ASEAN trade[5]. All ASEAN member states benefited of dynamic export-oriented industrialization and sustained a favorable business climate that produced high economic growth throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Rüland 2001).
A dense network of institutions, specialized in institutionalized dialogue and diplomatic affairs, has evolved through ASEAN-EC cooperation: ambassadorial committees and delegations were established in various ASEAN and European capitals, ministerial meetings (foreign affairs, economy) were established and held regularly between the two. Cooperation between ASEAN and EC included the parliamentary level, as dialogues between the European Parliament and the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentarian Organization are taking place regularly since 1975 (Rüland 2001). And important aspect was the evolution of ASEAN-EC political dialogue in the 1980s, when the organizations acted as agenda setters in the case of the Indochinese refugees and with regard to the conflicts in Cambodia and Afghanistan.
In a concluding summary for these two decades analyzed, ASEAN-EC relationship is characterized by constant institutional development, an intensified economic cooperation and political dialogue, all indicating the establishment of many channels of communication and successful advancement in bridging the two organizations.
2.2 ASEAN and the EU after 1990
The end of the Cold War, with the collapse of socialism and bipolarity, meant the transformation of the ASEAN-EC relations. The 1990s were turbulent and adjusting years to the new, multipolar world, for both ASEAN countries and post-Maastricht EU. The ASEAN-EU interregional relations were at times characterized by clashing soft power struggles, economic fears regarding the European Single Market and shifts in the economic spectra of both organizations. ASEAN, for sure, became one of the world’s few developmental success stories. The Asian-Pacific region witnessed an unprecedented economic growth (an emerging Pacific century), followed by regional development and cooperation, exemplified by the formation of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 1989 on Japanese and Australian initiative.
ASEAN-EU relations were characterized by pragmatism, concentrating on areas of common (economic) interest. In the later part of the 1990s ASEAN-EU cooperation was marked by certain differences of opinion regarding common policies or projects, developments determined by the international political evolutions, the changing power relations, and by the 1997 Asian financial crisis that seriously affected ASEAN countries. The dialogue was back on track beginning with the 2000s and the ministerial meeting in Vientiane, Laos (December 2000). EU had become a federator example for ASEAN (and not only), fostering regional integration, closer relations between Europe and Asia and environmental improvements. The institutional evolution of EU towards an ever closer union marked a distinction in terms of regional integration and national sovereignty between the two organizations. Both EU and ASEAN are intergovernmental organizations, however the European Union is also a supranational identity, while the ASEAN way is based on informality, consensus and avoidance of binding regulation frameworks. The fundamental norm of ASEAN practice is the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of the member states. As a result, the inter-regional cooperation between the two entities, especially political and institutional cooperation, takes into consideration the different natures of regional identities revolving around inter-governmentalism and supranationalism (Camroux 2008).
The ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations have evolved in a densely institutionalized collaboration, with a multitude of meetings and working groups. The relations are now guided by the Nuremberg Declaration[6] (2007), which represents an enhanced partnership between the two that sets out a common long-term vision and commitment. The political and security cooperation is well implemented through mechanisms like the ASEAN-EU Ministerial or Senior Officials Meetings. The Ministerial Meeting held in 2012 adopted the Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action to Strengthen the ASEAN-EU Enhanced Partnership (2013-2017), that aims to a more strategic regional cooperation. Starting with 2012 when EU acceded to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, EU and ASEAN are linked in a political and security cooperation. With the institutional evolution of ASEAN and the adoption of ASEAN Charter in 2008, the two associations initiated formal diplomatic relations in March 2009, followed shortly by individual EU countries, including Romania. On 8 August 2015, on ASEAN Day, the EU established a Diplomatic Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta and appointed an EU Ambassador to ASEAN[7]. The ASSEAN-EU Ministerial meeting held in 2016 Bangkok adopted new documents in support to an ASEAN-EU Global Partnership and strengthening of the Enhanced Partnership.
The economic dimension of the ASEAN-EU relations is characterized by continuous development and strengthening. In 2003 when a new partnership between ASEAN-EU was signed[8], ASEAN and EU were reciprocally their third largest trading partners, now EU being ASEAN's second largest trade partner. In the field of Foreign Direct Investments EU remains the largest source of investment in ASEAN, with 21.3% of ASEAN’s total FDI and a total EU FDI in ASEAN accounted at US$ 20.1 billion in 2015[9]. During the last decade EU imports from ASEAN grew by more than 40 % and EU exports to ASEAN rose by more than 80 %. The institutional mechanisms that facilitates interregional economic cooperation are composed of EU-ASEAN Ministerial Dialogues on trade and investment aspects, Joint Seminars on economic issues and the EU-ASEAN Business Summit. The positive evolutions in the ASEAN-EU economic collaboration provided the background for the negotiations for an EU-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. Signing of a FTA treaty was considered a step forward for the ASEAN-EU relations. The success of such an endeavor depended primarily on the degree of economic complementarity between the two regions, an aspect analyzed and proven positive (Andreosso-O'Callaghan & Nicolas 2007). Negotiations were launched in 2007 but halted in 2009 by common agreement from both EU and ASEAN, in order to give way for bilateral negotiations conceived as building blocks towards a future region-to-region agreement[10], that remains the ultimate goal. The 2016 AEM-EU Meeting of Economic Ministers reaffirmed the commitment to working towards a future ASEAN-EU FTA.
An important aspect of the ASEAN-EU relations is represented by the socio-cultural cooperation, institutionalized by the Regional EU-ASEAN Dialogue Instrument (READI, 2011-2015)[11] – an EU initiative in support for ASEAN regional integration in non-trade-related areas that has proven to be very successful. Following the Joint Cooperation Committee of 2014, the future period will focus on connectivity (sustainable and inclusive economic integration and trade), comprehensive dialogue, climate change and disaster management. Cooperation will include the areas of higher education, migration and border management, statistical capacity, air transport integration, protection of intellectual property.[12]
Summarizing, the bridging of ASEAN and EU evolved in a close cooperation institutionalized by a framework of treaties and agreements on social, economic, trade and political levels, adapting and changing, together with the evolving status of the organizations themselves, into a long-standing partnership.
3. Bridging ASEAN and EU through people-to-people connectivity. Citizen Exchange, Tourism and Travel, Learning
People-to-people actions sometimes have the power to promote interregional collaboration, especially through projects concerning education, culture and tourism. Mobility is an effective method for harmonization, and this affirmation is valid in a wide range of activities, like higher education, tourism, scientific and technological cooperation, the labor market in general etc. This is true especially when taking into consideration that EU and ASEAN share the same goals for their citizens, peace, stability and prosperity.
People travel in huge numbers between EU and ASEAN. People-to-people interregional connectivity involves business, cultural, academic and tourist trips. The movement of business persons, skilled labor and professionals, students and scholars (citizen exchange), represents a key element for achieving integration. The EU is a pioneer in promoting the free movement of people and enhancing overall citizen mobility and connectivity. EU and ASEAN extended their long-time collaboration in 2013 by including aspects related to migration, border management or the rights of migrants. Supporting the socio-cultural aspects of the collaboration, ASEAN-EU relations comprised policies promoting greater student mobility inside ASEAN or as an interregional EU-ASEAN student exchange, an opportunity for young people to travel and become accustomed to different cultures. Also, endorsing student mobility will contribute to the harmonization and internationalization of higher education institutions inside ASEAN and EU (Jurle & Lavenex, 2016). A growing number of students and scholars receive scholarships and fellowships to study and research between EU and ASEAN. SHARE represents an exchange program provided by EU Erasmus and offers mobility opportunities for Asian students and teachers, notably in higher education. More than 4000 ASEAN students travel every year to Europe in order to study[13]. In June 2017 in Manilla took place the First ASEAN Student Mobility Forum, held with the support of the EU, attended by students and alumni who discussed the impact mobility has on individuals’ studies, employability, careers, and societies as a whole. The Forum also celebrated the anniversaries of 50 years of ASEAN, 40 years of ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations and 30 years of Erasmus+[14]. Also this year was jointly organized another informal people-to-people connectivity event, the EU-ASEAN Run in Jakarta, held to celebrate the triple anniversary of EU, ASEAN and EU-ASEAN relations.
Tourism is another important component in ASEAN-EU relations regarding connectivity and regional cooperation. Promoting tourism between EU and ASEAN is a major aspect in the dialogue relations and an important way in bridging the peoples of the two regions. Over 9.5 million tourists from the EU visited ASEAN in 2015. ASEAN represents the fifth most visited region in the world. European models like visa-free travel and Open Skies are being taken into consideration by ASEAN countries in ambitious projects for travel and tourism development[15].
Dialogue and collaboration between EU and ASEAN can be enhanced by securing bridges between people, at citizen level as well as political and institutional level. Professional, educational, business people-to-people links, tourism, student exchanges and NGO activity that supports dialogue and partnership between the two should be encouraged in order to promote a more enhanced collaboration on all levels of the two regions.
4. Conclusions
ASEAN and EU remain two of the world’s leading regional organizations. The 40th Anniversary of ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations represents a proof for an enduring commitment and pledge to regional cooperation that promotes peace, security, stability and prosperity in both regions. The evolving nature of the ASEAN-EU relations, determined by the evolving nature of the organizations themselves, provides much space for innovation. The new EU-ASEAN Plan of Action (2018-2022), which is expected to be adopted in August 2017, aims to bring cooperation between the two organizations to a higher level, bridging EU and ASEAN in an enhanced and prosperous interregional collaboration that assures tangible benefits for the people in both regions, prosperity and sustainable development.
References:
1. Andreosso-O'Callaghan, B., & Nicolas, F. (2007). Are the Economies of ASEAN and the EU Complementary? ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 24(2), 205-224;
2. Blizkovsky, P. (2013). Economic Governance: What Can the EU and ASEAN Learn from Each Other After the Economic Crises? Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 30(1), 1-18
3. Camroux, D. (2008). The European Union and ASEAN: Two to Tango? Notre Europe, published online on ResearchGate, see: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Camroux/publication/237109316_The_European_Union_and_ASEAN_Two_to_Tango/links/00b7d5326ffacd3ac2000000.pdf;
4. Doige, M. (2004). Inter-regionalism and Regional Actors: The EU-ASEAN Example, in Stokhof, W. et al. (ed) The Eurasian Space: Far More Than Two Continents, ISEAS Publications, Singapore, 39-57;
5. Filippini, C. (2016). The future of the EU-