Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO05040 | Europe’s Crisis and Asia
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO05040 | Europe’s Crisis and Asia
    Amitav Acharya

    04 July 2005

    download pdf

    Commentary

    THE present EU crisis over its constitution and budget has revived the question whether the European Union represents a model of regional cooperation that Asia and other parts of the developing world should emulate.

    With their minimal bureaucracy, avoidance of legalistic mechanisms, and strong commitment to the non-interference principle, Asian regional organisations present a sharp contrast to the EU, which is known for its extensive institutionalisation and the “Brussels bureaucracy.”

    The EU has been for some time regarded as the most advanced form of regionalism in the world, and there is a tendency in the academic community and Western policy circles to judge the progress of regional cooperation elsewhere by comparing it to the EU. For example, before the current European crisis, it was commonplace among Western scholars to note that while the EU had overcome age-old rivalries and fostered a common “European” identity, Asia’s regionalism remained mired in competitive nationalisms and the naked pursuit of state sovereignty.

    Asian policy-makers and analysts have generally rejected the EU as a suitable model for Asia. Instead, they have presented the Association of South-east Asian Nations or ASEAN as an alternative and distinctive form of regionalism, as captured in the phrase “ASEAN Way”. When Asia developed new forms of regional cooperation after the end of the Cold War, these institutions, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Plus Three, were built on the ASEAN model, rather than the EU’s.

    But were the EU’s institutional mechanisms really supplanting national interests and identities? And is the ASEAN process as unique as claimed?

    These and related questions about the design and performance of regional organisations around the world are the focus of a joint research project launched in 2002 by the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore and the Asia Center and the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. Co-directed by the author and Harvard Professor Iain Johnston, the findings of the project challenge both propositions.

    First, the EU’s claim to have developed a collective identity did not stand up to scrutiny. In his paper on the EU, Jeffrey Checkel of Oslo University, found that “the identities, discourses and public spheres fostered by European institutions are still dominated by their national counterparts or, at best, co-exist uneasily side by side with them”. While European institutions were and will remain different compared to other regions, these differences might be narrowing.

    As the EU expands its membership and scope, covering new policy areas such as citizenship, immigration policy, and fundamental rights, “one might expect the importance of national contexts to increase – and to do so in a direction that likely weakens the degree of cooperation”. Completed in May 2004, Checkel’s paper anticipated the EU’s present constitutional crisis.

    What about the distinctiveness of the ASEAN model? This too does not stand up to scrutiny. The findings of the project show that sovereignty and non-intervention remain the core principle of all the regional groups in the developing world. For example, in his paper on Latin America, Jorge Dominguez, who directs the Weatherhead Center at Harvard, describes Latin Americans as “rule innovators” who “pioneered the defence of ‘hard shell’ notions of sovereignty and non-intervention”. While qualified somewhat by the Organization of American States’ new agenda of democracy promotion, non-intervention remains a robust norm in the OAS.

    Similarly, the consensus principle is not distinctive to ASEAN, but has been followed by all other regional groupings, including the African Union (formerly the Organisation of African Unity) the Arab League, and most strikingly NATO, whose effectiveness in the post-Cold War era, as German scholar Frank Schimmelfennig points out, has been subject to its ability to forge intra-mural consensus, rather than to American dominance.

    Moreover, while regional institutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America are deemed to be “weak” when compared to the heavily institutionalised EU, this institutional weakness is part of a deliberate strategy to protect state sovereignty and ensure regime survival. Weak institutions are desired by African leaders as a means to self-preservation, argues the author of the study of the OAU/AU, Jeffrey Herbst of Princeton University.

    Indeed, a consistent and common feature of all regional organisations is the importance of domestic political considerations in shaping the agenda and extent of regional cooperation. The study on Asian regionalism, co-authored by Yuen Foong Khong of Oxford University and Helen Nesadurai of IDSS, points to the tendency among Asian states to be “extremely protective of their sovereignty” and focus on “regime legitimacy and survival” while participating in regional projects.

    But Asia is hardly unique. Regional cooperation, whether in Europe or elsewhere, works best if it helps leaders to address their domestic problems and bolster their legitimacy. Hence, it is a mistake to assume that there is an inevitable conflict between sovereignty (or, more precisely, the prerogatives of individual leaders) and regional cooperation. African leaders, for example, usually seek to promote regional or continental agreements in order to enhance their own domestic standing and to cement their state’s sovereignty. And in France, we have an example of how the politically significant domestic farming constituency has dictated Paris’ reluctance to accept the elimination of the EU’s controversial farm subsidies.

    The project also found that regional cooperation based on an ideology of unification, such as pan-Arabism or pan-Africanism, has been a failure everywhere.

    But if success is defined as the ability of a regional group to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity, then the performance of regional groups in Africa, Asia and Middle East can be seen in a different light. The OAU developed a successful regime to preserve post- colonial boundaries, whose alteration by nationalist leaders would have been profoundly destabilising. The Arab League, normally regarded as a failed institution, could claim a major achievement; this, as pointed out by the paper co-authored by Michael Barnett of University of Minnesota and Etel Solingen of University of California at Irvine, was to frustrate Nasser’s attempts to unify the Arab world, which ran counter to the nationalist aspirations of fellow Middle Eastern leaders.

    In terms of its policy implications, the project’s findings are a reminder that there need be no single measure of success in regional cooperation, defined by the EU’s single currency and constitution. Success should be measured in terms of the regional context and the initial goals that regional organisations set for themselves. At the same time, differences in the objectives and approach among regional organisations, implicit in labels such as the “European model,” or the “ASEAN Way,” could be overstated. Regional cooperation, in the EU as elsewhere, is not a linear process, but proceeds through a series of ups and downs.

    The EU, NATO and ASEAN face similar challenges related to agenda and membership expansion. Finally, the past or future success of the EU lies not in creating a pan-European state, but in ensuring that political and other differences within the existing nation-state system are not settled through zero-sum competition and the use of force. Instead of looking at the EU’s constitution and other experiments in supranationalism as unsuitable referent objects (which they may well be), regional organisations in Asia and other parts of the developing world should focus on lessons from the EU that might help them to ensure a stable peace among their members. This singular accomplishment of the EU is yet to be damaged by the current constitutional and budgetary crisis.

    About the Author

    The author, deputy director of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore, co-directs the IDSS-Harvard Project “Crafting Cooperation: The Design and Effectiveness of Regional Institutions in Comparative Perspective.”

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series

    Commentary

    THE present EU crisis over its constitution and budget has revived the question whether the European Union represents a model of regional cooperation that Asia and other parts of the developing world should emulate.

    With their minimal bureaucracy, avoidance of legalistic mechanisms, and strong commitment to the non-interference principle, Asian regional organisations present a sharp contrast to the EU, which is known for its extensive institutionalisation and the “Brussels bureaucracy.”

    The EU has been for some time regarded as the most advanced form of regionalism in the world, and there is a tendency in the academic community and Western policy circles to judge the progress of regional cooperation elsewhere by comparing it to the EU. For example, before the current European crisis, it was commonplace among Western scholars to note that while the EU had overcome age-old rivalries and fostered a common “European” identity, Asia’s regionalism remained mired in competitive nationalisms and the naked pursuit of state sovereignty.

    Asian policy-makers and analysts have generally rejected the EU as a suitable model for Asia. Instead, they have presented the Association of South-east Asian Nations or ASEAN as an alternative and distinctive form of regionalism, as captured in the phrase “ASEAN Way”. When Asia developed new forms of regional cooperation after the end of the Cold War, these institutions, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Plus Three, were built on the ASEAN model, rather than the EU’s.

    But were the EU’s institutional mechanisms really supplanting national interests and identities? And is the ASEAN process as unique as claimed?

    These and related questions about the design and performance of regional organisations around the world are the focus of a joint research project launched in 2002 by the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore and the Asia Center and the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. Co-directed by the author and Harvard Professor Iain Johnston, the findings of the project challenge both propositions.

    First, the EU’s claim to have developed a collective identity did not stand up to scrutiny. In his paper on the EU, Jeffrey Checkel of Oslo University, found that “the identities, discourses and public spheres fostered by European institutions are still dominated by their national counterparts or, at best, co-exist uneasily side by side with them”. While European institutions were and will remain different compared to other regions, these differences might be narrowing.

    As the EU expands its membership and scope, covering new policy areas such as citizenship, immigration policy, and fundamental rights, “one might expect the importance of national contexts to increase – and to do so in a direction that likely weakens the degree of cooperation”. Completed in May 2004, Checkel’s paper anticipated the EU’s present constitutional crisis.

    What about the distinctiveness of the ASEAN model? This too does not stand up to scrutiny. The findings of the project show that sovereignty and non-intervention remain the core principle of all the regional groups in the developing world. For example, in his paper on Latin America, Jorge Dominguez, who directs the Weatherhead Center at Harvard, describes Latin Americans as “rule innovators” who “pioneered the defence of ‘hard shell’ notions of sovereignty and non-intervention”. While qualified somewhat by the Organization of American States’ new agenda of democracy promotion, non-intervention remains a robust norm in the OAS.

    Similarly, the consensus principle is not distinctive to ASEAN, but has been followed by all other regional groupings, including the African Union (formerly the Organisation of African Unity) the Arab League, and most strikingly NATO, whose effectiveness in the post-Cold War era, as German scholar Frank Schimmelfennig points out, has been subject to its ability to forge intra-mural consensus, rather than to American dominance.

    Moreover, while regional institutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America are deemed to be “weak” when compared to the heavily institutionalised EU, this institutional weakness is part of a deliberate strategy to protect state sovereignty and ensure regime survival. Weak institutions are desired by African leaders as a means to self-preservation, argues the author of the study of the OAU/AU, Jeffrey Herbst of Princeton University.

    Indeed, a consistent and common feature of all regional organisations is the importance of domestic political considerations in shaping the agenda and extent of regional cooperation. The study on Asian regionalism, co-authored by Yuen Foong Khong of Oxford University and Helen Nesadurai of IDSS, points to the tendency among Asian states to be “extremely protective of their sovereignty” and focus on “regime legitimacy and survival” while participating in regional projects.

    But Asia is hardly unique. Regional cooperation, whether in Europe or elsewhere, works best if it helps leaders to address their domestic problems and bolster their legitimacy. Hence, it is a mistake to assume that there is an inevitable conflict between sovereignty (or, more precisely, the prerogatives of individual leaders) and regional cooperation. African leaders, for example, usually seek to promote regional or continental agreements in order to enhance their own domestic standing and to cement their state’s sovereignty. And in France, we have an example of how the politically significant domestic farming constituency has dictated Paris’ reluctance to accept the elimination of the EU’s controversial farm subsidies.

    The project also found that regional cooperation based on an ideology of unification, such as pan-Arabism or pan-Africanism, has been a failure everywhere.

    But if success is defined as the ability of a regional group to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity, then the performance of regional groups in Africa, Asia and Middle East can be seen in a different light. The OAU developed a successful regime to preserve post- colonial boundaries, whose alteration by nationalist leaders would have been profoundly destabilising. The Arab League, normally regarded as a failed institution, could claim a major achievement; this, as pointed out by the paper co-authored by Michael Barnett of University of Minnesota and Etel Solingen of University of California at Irvine, was to frustrate Nasser’s attempts to unify the Arab world, which ran counter to the nationalist aspirations of fellow Middle Eastern leaders.

    In terms of its policy implications, the project’s findings are a reminder that there need be no single measure of success in regional cooperation, defined by the EU’s single currency and constitution. Success should be measured in terms of the regional context and the initial goals that regional organisations set for themselves. At the same time, differences in the objectives and approach among regional organisations, implicit in labels such as the “European model,” or the “ASEAN Way,” could be overstated. Regional cooperation, in the EU as elsewhere, is not a linear process, but proceeds through a series of ups and downs.

    The EU, NATO and ASEAN face similar challenges related to agenda and membership expansion. Finally, the past or future success of the EU lies not in creating a pan-European state, but in ensuring that political and other differences within the existing nation-state system are not settled through zero-sum competition and the use of force. Instead of looking at the EU’s constitution and other experiments in supranationalism as unsuitable referent objects (which they may well be), regional organisations in Asia and other parts of the developing world should focus on lessons from the EU that might help them to ensure a stable peace among their members. This singular accomplishment of the EU is yet to be damaged by the current constitutional and budgetary crisis.

    About the Author

    The author, deputy director of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore, co-directs the IDSS-Harvard Project “Crafting Cooperation: The Design and Effectiveness of Regional Institutions in Comparative Perspective.”

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info