Comparison Of The Eu And Asean Regional System Politics Essay

Comparison Of The Eu And Aoceann Regional System Politics leavenThe Commissi 1r for External Relations and European Neighbourhood insurance, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, stated The EU and ASEAN be two successful examples of regional integration in the world ASEANs integration is advancing. It is earn its institutions and organise experience.1Todays new regionalism intends to provide solutions to developmental problems, but many believe that these problems ar also the source of many internal conflicts. This new regionalism is found on territorial size and economies of scale as the traditional one, but it also explains new fears from the new century.2The European conjunction (EU) and the Association of South eastmost Asian Nations (ASEAN) be seen as examples, because twain of them are part of the regionalism approach.3Some academics consider the EU as a world model in miniature or until now as a blueprint for other regions,4 musical composition others believe that this model can be transferred to areas such as the ASEAN. Thus, the European Commission (EC) has stated that the EU supports those regions that want to emulate us.5However, many non-Europeans have insisted on how difficult it is to transfer the European model, because of the disparities in their history and socio-cultural blanketground, their values and views, manage of law,6degree of institutionalization, objectives and praxis, and so on.7 disdain these differences, there are some commonalityalities for instance, both regions emphasize integrity and respect of national sovereignty. Although, they differ in level and channels, the European region applies the subsidiarity concept, while the Asian area believes in the principle of non-interference. In addition, both regions must tackle the new concept of security, like growth, stability, poverty alleviation, uncontrolled migration flows, energy, climate change, etc., ground on their historical development, systemic geopolitical and economical c onstraints, and finally their domestic organisation and consensus.8For this reason, the analysis of issues, such as the uncontrolled flows of migrations in ASEAN and the EU, would increase our consciousness of the different measures adopted in many areas as well as the features of their integration.At this initial point, some psyches arise how can we compare the different regionalization processes? To what bound is it interesting to compare these two regions? Is new regionalism an opportunity to solve social problems? Thus, the goal of this research is to understand their commonalities and divergences of these two regions based on two episodes at sea involving immigrants. These episodes are not referred to the political or economical field as they used to be by contrast, they are based on immigration policy. I chose this example because it also reflects degrees of integration, relation with social policies, human rights, and international law. It is not only a good example to un derstand their different integration processes, but it is also a polemic situation for both regions.This study is divided into five sections. The first section will introduce the theoretical role model in which this study is supported. The second one will examine selected cases about immigration problems in the area of the Mediterranean coast within the EU area. The third base section will explain the problems involved with the Burmese refugees in the South East coast within the ASEAN framework. The fourth part will compare both integration processes. These cases will help to exemplify the differences and similarities of both regions, and at the alike time, they will allow us to explore how effective are regional systems to realize or protect their population. Finally, the conclusion will open doors for further research and improvement in the systems.2. Theoretical frameworkDifferent theoretical approaches have been apply for this kind of studies. On one hand, realist, construct ivist and liberal approaches have been applied for the study of the role of ideas and interests.9For instance, the constructivist approach states that in heterogeneous and newly formed regional groupings interregionalism whitethorn stimulate regional identity-building.10The realist approach, however, heights inflames power and balances as essential characteristics of inter- and transregional relations11. On the other hand, in the last two decades new theoretical approaches have been developed, videlicet globalisation and regionalisation.12Globalization is part of a process of internalization, and it is related to governance, since it implies the need to find alternatives for sustainable development, efficient and transparent government, as well as polite participation. Moreover, it has respected the rule of law and a system of rights.13Many scholars understand it as a reform of the international system since the end of the Cold War,14a phenomenon which in some way undermines the power of the states and their territorial dimension. Some governments are reluctant to reduce the impact of globalization to protect their territorial control. Regionalism is thus one of the surmount formulas,15because Some issues can best be handled at the regional level among states that are heavily involved in overlapping interests.16Although the traditional economic model, through its dialogue and cooperation17in economy, trade18and binding arrangements19among States, has favoured regionalism as a means of stabilizing the area, some scholars have emphasized a series of differences which are significant for the development of this paperOld regionalismNew regionalismFormed in a bipolar Cold War systemFormed in a multipolar worldCreated from above (superpower intervention)Spontaneous process from the regions. privation of cooperation to tackle new global challengesInward oriented and protectionist in economic termsOpen, compatible with an interdependent world economySpecific obj ectivesComprehensive, multidimensional processConcerned with relations among nation statesGlobal structural transformation, non-state actors are active and operating at several(prenominal) levels.Harmonization of trade policies leading to deeper economic integration, with political integration as a possible future result.Transformation of a region from relative heterogeneousness to increased homogeneity in regard to culture, security, economic policies and political regimes. reservoir Own elaboration (based on Bjrn Hettne, Globalization, the new regionalism, and East Asia)The New regionalism expand the regional framework beyond European borders. Today, ASEAN has be sum the second most advanced regional system,20and its habitual purposes are (1) to secure peace (2) to provide orthogonal security (3) to carry out economic tasks (4) to address environmental issues and (5) to secure human rights.21Brian Dai argued that the EU is the best example to demonstrate that regional integrati on is the best solution to regional peace and security as well as bringing common benefit to the population.22European integration the case of immigrants at sea and their rightsThe EU is the oldest regional system although it is quiet changing, not only in structure, but also deepening its policies, it is a unique supranational institutional entity with special characteristics (1) collective memory of the devastation of WW II (2) overcrowded region in terms of population and the number of states (3) similar political system (4) alike social wel furtheste systems and (5) relatively similar culture and religion.23In 2004, the Hague programme, called Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU, was adopted it is based on one of the main objectives of the EU to create an area of freedom, security and justice. It adopted common legislative instruments and improvement of coordination of national policies, practical cooperation, and regular information exchange between Member States (MSs) and the Commission.24In this context, it is significant to clarify the definition of il level-headed immigration given by the Commission it includes third-country nationals who enter the territory of a MS illegally by land, sea and air.25MSs real to create a common immigration policy at EU level. The Commissions proposals had become EU legislation in 2005 a debate was re-launched with the Green report card on an EU approach to managing economic migration later that year, a Policy Plan on Legal Migration was adopted listing the actions and legislative initiatives. In kinsfolk 2007, the Commission presented the Third Annual Report on Migration and Integration, which monitors the process of admission and integration of third-country immigrants in the EU.26The EU developed a Global Approach to migration which supports general principles such as subsidiarity, solidarity, human rights, fundamental freedoms, access to asylum, and Geneva Convention,27thourgh which foster co operation with third countries, particularly in the Mediterranean. This approach is within the European Neighbourhood Policy framework through bilateral dialogues. However, the approach and adoption of those general principles sought to be endured by strong political committeemen, particularly because resources should be mobilised to fight export and trafficking networks, and protect the immigrants asking for asylum.28There are some cases described below in which immigrants have been found in waters of the Mediterranean sea. Initially, they were not rescued because of MSs national interests. Additionally, many other cases have been reported during recent years.29The first case took place in May 2007 an Italian news agency certain that 27 men coming from Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Niger, Senegal and Togo asked for help to a Maltese trawlers tuna fish pen, Budafel. The ship-owner did not provide assistance to the immigrants. In the meantime, Maltese and Libyan aut horities were engaged in diplomatic dialogues to clarify who had to take responsibility for the immigrants the Italian Coastguard was notified about the incident and took the responsibility for them.30The second case also was in May 2007 26 people were recued by the Spanish tug Monfalco. This boat was between Libya and Malta waters. The ship-owner did not have space on board for all the immigrants, but Maltese authorities refused to allow the people to disembark. The Spanish government thus made the decision to bring them to Spain. They claimed that they could be possible applicants who appear to have come from the Ivory Coast, a country at war.31However, this humanitarian argument is not always used by the Spanish government, as was the case of the two ships leatherneck I and Happy Day.In both cases, Maltese authorities did not rescue the immigrants or arrange a safety place. Although there always is another(prenominal) side of the coin and Maltese officials declared and provided documents to defend themselves from these accusations. De bitterness this fact, Maltese authorities knew that Libya had not ratified the 1951 Geneva Convention, thus their practices towards immigrants or asylum seekers did not respect their rights. For this reason, Malta government violated art. 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), art. 33 of the Geneva Convention, art. 3 of the UN Convention against Torture and art. 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, Malta authorities also infringed the International Maritime Legislation, which is related to the non refoulement principle.32These incidents prompted the Council to discuss a system of share-out responsibilities (COREPER).33In May 2008, COREPER drafted Return Directive, which stated that MSs were not obliged to assist the immigrants without legal costs. It was adopted by the European Parliament (EP) and Council at the end of the year, concealment common standards and proce dures for returning illegal immigrants.34The same year, the Joint Operation Nautilus was launched, which enhanced the control in Mediterranean borders.35By contrast, the EP did not share the same opinion and declared that MSs should respect the International Law on Human Rights, Asylum and Refugee Law, and ECHR, and that new legislation should be passes to fill the holes in the current law,36 specially on the the rescue and detention operations of the immigrants.374. ASEAN integrationASEAN integration started with abstract ideas, asymmetric national interests and competing for hegemony and born within a communist threat period.38Its members cherished to establish a new period outside the Cold War paradigm. The ASEAN was not created to solve conflicts among members, but rather to become a forum based on the non-interference principle where members could discuss issues not related with sensitive matters.39In this context, a new concept appears to support the economic integration, Con fucian capitalism, but later the financial crisis in 1997 it lost supporters.40However, the economic integration originally was not the aim, a growing global competition forced ASEAN should pay more oversight to these issues.41After the Free Trade Area (AFTA) was created, their cooperation has been deeper and covers service, finance, investment and monetary sectors.42Some scholars agree that ASEAN+3 process is even a more important and Byzantine cooperation than ASEAN itself.43In 1998, during the 6th ASEAN Summit, the Hanoi Plan of carry out (HPA) was adopted promoting social development. The same year, ASEAN ministers on Rural Development and Poverty Eradication established the Action Plan on kindly Safety Nets in Jakarta.44During the 3rd Meeting of ASEAN, Maung Htay, ASEAN Director-General of Immigration Department, stated that an improvement of the cooperation on immigration issues was required and accepted the idea of creating an Ad hoc gamey Level Experts assembly on imm igration issues organized in the Philippines 2000. In addition, Htay also declared that ASEAN raft 2020 and HPA will contribute to sell this matter.45Steps forward were undertaken when, during the 6th Meeting, a work programme was launched entailing practical initiatives and measures, and also the Plan of Action established in the Philippines 2000.46Moreover, in October 2007, during the 6th ASEAN Peoples congregation (APA), the question of Myanmar and human rights was tackled, and the implications of the Human Rights Body in the ASEAN Charter, were discussed.47The situation of refugees and human rights are of concern, curiously the Karen or Karenni, a Muslim ethnic group in Burma. Thailand shares about 2000 km of border with Burma with a great flow of refugees,48and around 140.000 refugees live in nine camps in Thailand,49a situation shared by countries like Malaysia, Bangladesh and India. The subhuman conditions of these refugees is complicated, because new generations have bee n born in the camps and they are forbidden to leave,50and suffer harasment and abuses from smugglers, detention, discrimination.51The Thai government, however, pays no attention to international organizations and wants to send them back to Myanmar, allowing no more boats to disembark on its coasts.52The main problem is that neither Thailand nor other asylum countries for Burmese refugees had not signed the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees or the 1967 Protocol.53To them, refugees are illegal immigrants.54ASEAN has a policy of constructive engagement, but it is more complex since it has semi-supporters as China and India, interested in its natural resources. ASEAN members failed to tackle this question in March 2009,55and in the Bali Process in Indonesia. The issue was not discussed at the plenary session or in the concluding statement.56The Working Group for ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism remind the Myanmar Government that it should respect the fundamental rights of its citizens. It also recalls that its entrance in 1997 compromised a long-term plan towards democratization. In fact, Myanmar has to achieve the ASEAN Vision 2010 as well, in which its Working Group declared, a peaceful and still Southeast Asia, where the causes for conflict have been eliminated through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law.57ComparisonThis comparison is based on Brzells model58in which similarities and differences in regard to values and identity, institutional design, nature of rules, domestic level actors, and conflicts among them are identified. This section will discuss the differences which are subdivided into five components ideas, institutionalization, domestic level, political field, and economic field. The cases we saw above illustrate these disparities and similitudes and this comparison should shed some light to better understand the reactions, implements, channels, behaviours, further steps, etc.SimilaritiesDespite controversial opinions, the EU and ASEAN have several similarities, which have been pointed out by Underhill.59But in spite of these similarities, Park and Kim60added that both regions have a sense of Community and experienced similar difficulties during the current financial crisis, while some academics would rather suggest that the ASEAN sparing Community is an idea inspired by the EEC and expressed in similar wording.61Both regions had to tackle similar security issues which raise new challenges. A holistic approach is required in order to face these new matters, and particularly to enhance immigration law and cooperation. The differences can be observed in the sideline figure (Franck et al., pp. 306-307)DifferencesIdeasEuropean UnionASEANAfter WW II, ideas generated by politiciansToday politicians + intellectuals + societyProject based on idealistic concepts from intellectualsFrance and Germany allianceChina and japan still workingGermany recognized its war crimesJapan did not recognized them reluctant to join ASEAN+3, pr oposals ASEAN+6Horrors of WW II, origin of the integration in EuropeMembers do not have a common historyClear concept of Europe 2762Unclear concept of Asia lack of clearly defined borders, common culture and religionWestern values democracy, respect of universal human rights, rule of law. They are codified and legally-bindingAsian identity, Asian family, Asian Values community, capitalism, and relativism Decoded and not legally-bindingIdentity based on 50 years of integrationAsianism based on Sino-center world, protectionist tendencies, for centuriesCleavages based on social welfare between west and east are decreasing. There are not latent conflictsStrong cleavages based on ideology maintain latent conflicts between north and southEU is a contiguous landmassIt is an enormous archipelago difficulties for contacts, transport, mobility, etc.Source Own elaboration based on the following authors Kim, Berkofsky, Park Kim, Rland, Franck, Defraigne, Moriam et al.InstitutionalizationEUASEA NHigh level institutionalizationLow level institutionalizationCommon institutions built on treaties and rule of law.E.g. OSCE, Council, ECHR, etc.No common institutions built on voluntary commitments and weaker tradition of law. E.g. APEC, ASEM, ASF antiauthoritarian structure precondition for integrationNetwork-style interpersonal and informal relationsUS supported integration four-lobedismUS did/do not support integration, preference of bilateralismPhilosophy more complex issues, deeper institutionalizationPhilosophy informal contacts and negotiationsAlliances between official and civilian actorsCivilian organizations started to be involveLessonsformal and informal practices should coexist as well as strict and flexible toolsSource Own elaboration based on the following authors Dong Heidul, Cuyvers, Berkofsky, Park Kim, Franck, Defraigne, Moriam et al.Domestic LevelEUASEANStrong normative principlesNeed a set of normative principles, e.g. Myanmar is not only about HRMix of Su pranational and Intergovernmental structure Commission (propose), Council and EP (pass or reject), and MS implement or sanction.Intergovernmental structureDecision-making process unanimity, co-decision, assent, consultationDecision-making process consensus and unanimityHarmonisation with strict legal basisBuilding harmonization, not legal basisTreatiesAgreementsCharter adopted 2007 propose framework and legal foundation, restructure mechanisms and improve decision-making process. Strengthen institutions.63Source Own elaboration based on the following authors Underhill, Laursen, Franck, Defraigne, Moriam et al.Political fieldEUASEANFar from a single political actor, but some consistencyHigh level of fragmentationMS pussy sovereignty in some areas = EU disposes deeper and more powerful mechanism of solidarityMS reluctant to pool sovereignty = national approach = less mechanismEuropean Structural FundsSub-regional cooperation, e.g. Informal and facilitated by ADB, who supplies technic al, administrative and logistical supportFixed exchange rate system on macro-economic solidarity. E.g. wealthier countries support weaker drift exchange rate system on macro-economic solidarity. E.g. contribution to erode social attainmentsFree movement of goods, services, people, labour, etc.Not free movement goods, labour, etc.Social policies and cooperation European Social Fund.Subsidiarity principleLisbon Treaty sets up a social agenda, but not concrete progressNational approach, far away from the development of social policies.Some actions 1998, Hanoi Plan Action poverty reduction 1998, Action Plan on Social Safety NetsSource Own elaboration based on the following authors Underhill, Laursen, Park Kim, Ruelan, and Cuyvers.Economic fieldEUASEANMonetary UnionSingle market unclear notion, especially for business and consumersTransparent and accountable financial and banking systemNeed to create transparent and accountable financial and banking systemEU relies on its own institutio nsNeed to rely on non-ASEAN institutions, e.g. 1992, ADB assisted Greater Mekong Sub-region for economic cooperationSuccessful EMU needs political willingnessEU is the only successful single marketAFTA is still unclear, deadline 2010.AEC is far away from the EU single market, e.g. it does not have common external tariff policy to create customs union.It has two main preconditions high level of economic integration and independent judicial institutionsCustom Union, no need of border inspectionNeed border inspection, restrictions.European Monetary Union 1999 weak mechanism due to the monetarist mandate of the ECBChiang Mai Initiative64of ASEAN+3 creation of a network of bilateral swap arrangementsExchange rate fixed and stable influences financial integrationExchange rate volatility, e.g. during financial crisis caused more economic problems, reduced economic growth.Source Own elaboration based on the following authors Laursen, Dong Heidul, Plummer, Underhill, Berkofsky, and European Policy Center.ConclusionAs we have seen along the paper, regional organisations are important for the international system and embrace a multilateral approach, which tries to solve problems with different means other than military solutions. Regionalism is a good formula to provid