The EU, ASEAN and Interregionalism

Regionalism Support and Norm Diffusion between the EU and ASEAN

L. Allison

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137494801
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Using a framework of norm diffusion to determine the EU's international actorness in the context of its relations with ASEAN, this book provides a timely and in-depth analysis of EU-ASEAN relations. By investigating three aspects of regionalism support by the EU it presents a comprehensive account of norm diffusion between the EU and ASEAN.

1

Ambitions of Actorness

There is now a relationship between (the) European Union (EU) and South East Asia that is mature enough that we can be ambitious and it is time to move forward … We support the centrality in the integration process of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the wider region and for the EU that’s a guarantee that these relations will remain open and inclusive.

Catherine Ashton, former European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, opening of the EU-ASEAN post-ministerial conference, 2012.

Today’s Euro-crisis has dented the belief that regional integration is the way to go.

Survey Respondent 16, EU delegation official in Southeast Asia, 2012.

The European Union’s (EU’s) ambition to be an international actor by promoting its regionalism experience to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is currently encountering significant challenges. Its ability to be an influential actor in international affairs, and particularly the notion that regional integration provides prosperity and security, have been queried by citizens and political parties within the EU’s member states and also by many beyond its borders (Longo and Murray, 2011). This questioning of the advantages, and indeed the consequences, of European integration is largely a result of ongoing financial and economic crises presently inflicting the region. These crises have demonstrated that the EU has not been immune to economic and financial shocks and that systems of governance within the organisation must continue to evolve in order to manage such moments of crisis and potentially prevent similar occurrences in the future. The current debt crises in a number of EU member states demonstrate that, despite the EU’s high level of economic integration, the fragility of individual member states’ economies impacts on the functioning, solidarity and reliability of the EU and its ability to provide for its citizens.

Nevertheless, recent statements by EU officials have defended regionalism, despite the current challenges, and have reiterated the contribution regionalism can make to ensuring peace, stability and prosperity amongst European states (Barroso, 2012a). In addition, the European Commission and the Council of the EU continue to argue for the development of regional integration in other regions of the world, such as Southeast Asia, and include the promotion and support of regional integration in their foreign policies and statements. José Manuel Barroso, former President of the European Commission, expressed the importance the EU places on the continuous integration of ASEAN at a press conference following the 9th Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Summit.

Our region-to-region relations will be further facilitated if the regional integration process in Asia, through ASEAN, makes further strides. Open regionalism is indeed a basis for effective multilateralism. (Barroso, 2012a: 1)

A dichotomy currently exists between the EU’s ability to include the promotion of regionalism beyond Europe into its external policies and the present challenges facing the EU. Gaens et al. (2012) have stated that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and subsequent debt crises in Europe have affected the EU’s self-confidence. Whilst Gaens et al. (2012: 96) state that ‘the debt crisis has discredited both the European integration model, in general, and monetary union, in particular’, this has not weakened the EU’s narrative of espousing regionalism as beneficial for other regions, as evident in the policy documents and guidelines released by the European Commission and Council of the EU (European Commission, 2003; Council of the EU, 2012a). Indeed, amidst turmoil within the EU, the message which continues to be sent out to the EU’s interlocutors is that the integration experience of the EU was not only valuable to European nation states after World War II but is also of benefit to other regions with vastly different historical, political and economic contexts, such as ASEAN.

The crisis within Europe has presented another challenge to the EU’s ability to promote regionalism beyond the European region. In addition to reassessing the value of European integration and the relevance of such an undertaking, concerns have also been raised by academics and ASEAN officials regarding the resources, both moral and material, which the EU can pledge to support the development of other regional organisations such as ASEAN (I1 AO, 2011; I3 AA, 2011). However, such apprehensions have not been realised because, in the context of the EU’s current crisis, the EU has become even more determined to promote regionalism to ASEAN. This is evident by the fact that the programmes and funding which the EU has invested in to fulfil this aim have not ceased or been downscaled.

In the face of crisis, the EU has not wavered from its position of supporting ASEAN’s regional integration development yet as I will illustrate, its actorness in this regard has been limited. In addition to its internal crisis, the EU is also encountering a maturing ASEAN which is increasingly affirming its own role as a regional organisation and defending the political, economic and institutional norms to which it adheres and which do not always align with those of the EU, or those promoted by the EU to ASEAN. As this book shows, a determined and resolute ASEAN has affected the EU’s ability to exert its actorness on its own terms and through its own policy choices in Southeast Asia.

The concept of actorness, as analysed in-depth in Chapter 2, involves determining if an actor such as the EU has the capacity to transform an environment (Lucarelli, 2007). Actorness is only realised, however, if the actor and its interlocutors both perceive it to have the responsibility and ability to do so, and once this is determined, the actor utilises its resources effectively to ensure that its aims are achieved (Lucarelli, 2007; Wunderlich, 2012).

Actorness is the focus of this book for several reasons. Firstly, when considering similar and overlapping concepts related to foreign policy such as presence, influence and power, actorness is the most comprehensive and precise concept. As will be discussed in Chapter 2, presence and influence have been included as components of actorness and therefore contribute to its analytical framework. Niemann and Bretherton (2013: 266) explain that presence is ‘a passive concept that is manifested both directly, through the unintended external consequences of internal policies and indirectly, through the subtle processes of structural power associated with perceptions of the EU’s reputation’. Allen and Smith (1990) focus on presence as opposed to actorness, however in this book, similar to Wunderlich (2012), I include presence as a criterion for actorness, enabling the analysis to be broadened to include the role of both actors under examination, the EU and ASEAN, and the expectations and perceptions of these actors, as emphasised by Allen and Smith (1990).

Secondly, in keeping with Jupille and Caporaso’s definition of actorness, the ‘capacity to act’ (1998: 214) and Sjöstedt’s definition whereby actorness refers to functioning ‘actively and deliberately in relation to other actors in the international system’ (1977: 16), presence is distinct from, and a contributing factor to, actorness. I consider influence, on the other hand, to focus too heavily on the recipient of actorness as opposed to the agent to be deemed the central framework for analysis in this book. In addition, Groen and Niemann (2012) consider influence not to be a component of actorness, but rather that actorness can enable influence to occur. How ASEAN is influenced by the EU is certainly a consideration within this book, yet of primary concern are the perceptions and reactions to the EU’s attempts to be an international actor with regard to its relations with ASEAN, enabling actorness to be the primary and preferred concept.

Finally, power focuses more on the agent than the recipient of any power exertions. Also, it often presupposes an asymmetrical relationship between two actors before the nature of the relationship has been ascertained. Power can be a useful frame of analysis to examine actors in the international arena; however, in this book, I also aim to incorporate a significant amount of analysis of the recipient of the EU’s external policies, ASEAN, and therefore have preferred actorness as my frame of assessment. Niemann and Bretherton (2013) have argued for literature on EU external action to step back from the ‘what type of EU power’ debates which have been the focus of much analysis in recent years. The civilian and normative power concepts which have emerged in relation to the EU have, according to Niemann and Bretherton (2013), often been built on the assumption that the EU possesses enough actorness to exert these forms of power. As the many studies which have attempted to apply the concept of normative power to the EU have often produced disappointing findings regarding the EU’s normativity, Niemann and Bretherton (2013) suggest that EU actorness should first be analysed before conceptualisations and investigations related to power be carried out.

Summarily, actorness is the chosen concept for analysis in this book as it is considered central to the realisation of foreign policy aims and external relations of the EU. This is because it enables an examination of the EU’s ability to act, its presence and the perceptions of the EU in Southeast Asia.

In the context of EU-ASEAN relations, the EU’s actorness has not matched its level of determination. This is primarily because ASEAN judiciously appraises whether EU integration norms are relevant to ASEAN and therefore determines the EU’s capacity to be an actor. The data collected for this book through interviews and surveys has revealed that ASEAN is content with and thankful for the support it receives from the EU with regard to the development of regionalism yet is increasingly asserting its own independence and determination to refer to the EU only when it fulfils ASEAN’s own economic and political interests. The EU may continue to be the most integrated regional organisation, and a sui generis international actor, yet the capacity for it to be an actor of consequence is becoming increasingly contingent upon the perceptions of evolving regional sui generis actors such as ASEAN and their perceptions of the EU integration experience as relevant to their own.

A reconceptualisation of EU external action

My aim in this book is to determine the EU’s actorness as a consequence of its promotion of regionalism to ASEAN. Scholars who have conducted research on the EU as an international actor with the ability to influence international affairs have commonly asserted that the EU is a certain type of power (Duchêne, 1972; Manners, 2002; 2006a; Meunier and Nicolaïdis, 2006; Aggestam, 2008; Wood, 2009; Damro, 2012). The EU’s power has previously been determined by what the EU is, does, or should do. Consequently, conceptions of the EU as a power have often been based on the normative ideals which the EU espouses, or the policy aspirations it projects. To date, a number of these conceptualisations, whilst contributing to the development of a research agenda which examines the EU’s influence beyond its borders, have been markedly introspective in their approach. These studies have often failed to include the perceptions of the EU’s external interlocutors or the impact the EU has had externally as an actor. I therefore challenge some of the established processes of conceptualising the EU as an actor and contest the use of power as the basis of such conceptualisations throughout this book.

I do so by arguing that the views of the EU’s external interlocutors and the impact the EU has had externally must be incorporated into studies of EU actorness. I draw upon aspects of the framework put forward by Allen and Smith (1990) in which they incorporate an evaluation of the EU’s presence, and the varying dimensions of presence, as a way to assess the foreign policy role of the EU. Similar to Allen and Smith (1990), I emphasise the fact that EU foreign policy is multidimensional in nature and my findings, even after 20 years since their seminal publication, echo the claim that the EU continues to be a ‘flexible’ actor which ‘expresses a collective yet pluralistic identity’ (Allen and Smith, 1990: 23). This is based on the fact that the EU is not a political entity in the same sense as a nation state. Allen and Smith’s claim in 1990 that ‘while Western Europe is clearly consequential in the international arena … its status and impact are inherently ambiguous’ (Allen and Smith, 1990: 19) remains relevant and a worthwhile starting point for investigation as the EU’s range and type of interlocutors expand and change.

ASEAN has been chosen as the subject of investigation with regard to the status and impact of the EU’s actorness as it is the most active regional institution in Asia and the institution which is at the centre of regionalism efforts in the broader Asia-Pacific region. ASEAN is therefore a useful subject of examination in the context of EU actorness and its interregional partnerships. The inclusion of an analysis of EU impact in the context of EU-ASEAN relations has thus far been overlooked in some previous studies, though not all. For example, Wong (2012) analyses ASEAN’s perception of the EU as either a model or reference point for ASEAN integration. Indeed, it is also important to examine where EU actorness has been affected by the EU’s inability to act and instances where it has not been able to achieve what it initially aimed to accomplish. Some previous studies have focused heavily on the EU’s ideals and achievements, without taking into consideration moments of policy failure and crisis (Manners, 2002; 2006a).

I contend that it is crucial to incorporate the analysis of internal and external perceptions of EU policies and actions in order to gain a comprehensive assessment of EU actorness. This allows for an analysis of reactions to policy achievements and failures as viewed by those working within the EU and external actors which interact with the EU. Furthermore, the increasing economic and political importance of the Southeast Asian region and the renewed and increasingly stronger relations between the EU and Asia in recent years have been well-noted (Christiansen et al., 2013), making it timely to undertake an in-depth analysis of EU-ASEAN relations.

Conceptualisations based on labels referring to power do not provide an accurate framework with which to understand the EU’s ability to contribute to, or shape, international affairs. The main reason for this is that the exertion of power does not always adequately reflect the dynamics of the relationship between the EU and its interlocutors. Moreover, in previous studies, the term ‘power’ has often been associated with the EU’s normative and ethical ideals and aspirations (Diez, 2005; Manners, 2006a; Aggestam, 2008; Forsberg, 2011). I argue that conflating normative values of the EU with power exertion has created an ambiguous and distorted image of EU actorness. It also does not provide an accurate account of what the EU has done or achieved based on the objective examination of empirical evidence.

To remedy the introspectiveness of previous research, I examine the EU’s promotion of its regionalism experience to ASEAN. Such a study allows for an evaluation of EU actorness based on empirical analysis and the examination of external perceptions. So as to move beyond conceptualisations based on power, I draw upon previous scholarly work on processes of norm diffusion (Manners, 2002; Acharya, 2004; 2011a). To date, scholars have not given sufficient attention to the connection between EU actorness and norm diffusion. Norm diffusion can provide a framework for assessing EU influence externally without pre-determining that its relations with external actors must centre on a conception of EU power. This is under the condition, however, that the frameworks used do not only favour EU norms and also take into consideration the norm recipient.

This book broadens the pre-existing research agenda on norm diffusion which to date has primarily covered processes of Europeanisation and also normative change within regions (Acharya, 2004; Börzel and Risse, 2012; Jetschke and Lenz, 2013) by building upon studies which have examined either the role of the norm entrepreneur (Manners, 2002) or the norm recipient (Acharya, 2004; 2011a). It is firmly grounded in the belief that actions of both the norm entrepreneur and the norm recipient must be taken into account in order to establish an accurate determination of actorness. It therefore takes the innovative approach of simultaneously evaluating the role of the norm entrepreneur, in this case the EU, and the perceptions of the targeted norm recipient, ASEAN, in the process of the EU’s promotion of its norms of regionalism so as to provide a more comprehensive assessment. It is also original in simultaneously utilising the norm diffusion framework presented by Manners (2002) to examine the norm entrepreneur role of the EU and the frameworks for norm localisation and subsidiarity developed by Acharya (2004; 2011a) to analyse the role of ASEAN as a norm recipient.

Through a study of EU-ASEAN relations I find that the EU’s actorness is not consistent. Across a range of policy areas and contexts actorness manifests in different ways and to varying degrees. By separating the study of the EU’s regionalism experience into three areas – economic integration, institutionalisation and political norms – the potential for varying results within each aspect of regionalism has been possible to determine. As I show in this book, the EU’s actorness does indeed vary across the different areas of regionalism, indicating that such an approach is of value to future studies on actorness, comparative regionalism and norm diffusion. If the EU is conceptualised less as a homogenous international actor and more focus is given to the variations of actorness across policy areas, as has been done by some scholars such as Langan (2012) and Smith (2012), a more accurate and nuanced assessment of the EU as an international actor would be possible.

In this book I present the hypothesis that the EU has set itself up as a norms diffuser in its engagement with ASEAN. This diffusion is contingent upon ASEAN’s receptiveness. It is therefore ASEAN which has the determining role in the realisation of the EU’s regionalism promotion policies.

The questions which guide this study are:

• Why ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Code for Interview and Survey Responses
• List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
• 1 Ambitions of Actorness
• 2 Seeking to Reconceptualise the EU as a ‘Power’
• 3 Drivers of Interregionalism: EU–ASEAN Engagement
• 4 The EU, ASEAN and Economic Integration
• 5 The EU, ASEAN and Institutionalisation
• 6 The EU, ASEAN and Political Norms
• 7 The Implications of Regionalism Support and Norm Diffusion on EU Actorness
• Notes
• References
• Index