"How Are Regions Formed: Comparing Asia with Europe"

Transcription

1 "How Are Regions Formed: Comparing Asia with Europe" Bernhard Zepter Ambassador and Head of Delegation Speech 2003/02/22

2 2 Introduction Hand in hand with a new cycle of globalisation we have seen over recent years a wave of regional integration across the world - especially in Europe, but also in other parts of the world such as Asia and America. The European Union, as the most advanced regional body in the world is often referred to as a positive example for other regional groupings. But in comparison to other arrangements the EU remains unique as it builds on far-reaching commitments including shared sovereignty and integration that come about with the establishment of the Single Market, a common currency and an autonomous economic policy inter alia with respect to trade, competition and agriculture. EU regionalisation is a voluntary process, based on integration ("méthode communautaire") and enhanced co-operation in many fields where integration has not been achieved so far. The EU is not a "top down" initiative, forced upon others by a hegemon, like the defunct COMECON under the dictatorship of the former Soviet Union but "bottom up" concept, designed to build appropriate institutional and democratic structures in order to solve concrete problems which we are convinced can only be solved in common. It might sound like a paradox, but global challenges are often prompting a return to more regional thinking : people, scared by the global perspective, tend to go back to their roots and traditions in order to weigh anchor in the stormy waters of internationalisation and globalisation. They want to feel at ease with things familiar in response to worldwide uncertainties. Once this principle and logic are accepted it appears only consistent that regional groupings are becoming more comprehensive and multidimensional. Earlier groupings were formed on the basis of single issues like security, NATO in the transatlantic dimension, or SEATO in the Asia Pacific region are relevant examples. Groupings like the OECD were formed on the basis of economics. The European Union, however, originally built on the pooling of coal and steel resources, turned very quickly into a trading bloc and is today drawing up a constitution, defining common policies as well as rights and duties in a whole range of public affairs. Even if the notion of the "United States of Europe" is rejected by many out of hand, the idea of an institution with state-like powers is at least on the drawing board. Regionalisation throughout the world is therefore gaining momentum: the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the cooperation between ASEAN and the EU in the Asia- Europe dimension, the Transatlantic Partnership between Europe and America; MERCOSUR, NAFTA, the Andean Pact, APEC between America and the Asia-Pacific region to mention just the most important ones. Last but not least today's AEF symposium is part of the heightened attention to the role of regions in world politics. The European Union : the new dimension of regional integration After the Roman Empire, Europe first experienced a regional identity under Charlemagne in the 9th Century: this was not only a political, but also a cultural and religious identity. With the break-up of the Holy Roman Empire, Europe's political identity as a region may have diminished but even by the late Middle Ages Europeans (at least among the educated élite) experienced a common cultural identity. The rise of nation states from the 16th century on and bloody religious wars weakened the con-

3 3 science of a common cultural heritage. The Westphalian order and the process of state-building based on sovereignty in the 17th and 18th centuries further fragmented a continental European identity with the French Revolution marking the breakthrough of the notion of the classical nation state as defined by the French philosopher Montesquieu. The consolidation of nation states on European soil drove a deeper and deeper wedge into our continent. Nationalism and imperialism did their part to split the continent further, culminating in the 20th century with the two world wars which have been described by historians as "European civil wars". The maxim "never war between us" became, therefore, the guiding principle of the Founding Fathers of the Rome Treaty. The origin of recent regional integration in Europe was to free the continent from war and to promote peace and prosperity through co-operation. The EEC and its forerunner the ECSC were built on the principles of mutual dependence and reconciliation. It is significant that it was France and Germany, the two major antagonists on the continent and belligerents in three long-lasting European wars within one hundred years, who were the driving force behind European integration. To begin the integration process with industrial production like coal and steel was not unintentional : To submit them to a common integrated structure allowed control of two important industrial items which had been in the past the basis for military power and aggression. Part of the process of regionalisation is economic and political convergence : which implies the sharing of common values, such as the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law. These are the prerequisites for becoming a Member of the European Union. But to succeed economically, a basic degree of convergence is also required in our economic policy. To achieve this, free trade is not enough. In order to create a homogeneous single market, economic integration and a common currency are, in our view, indispensable. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 marked the decisive landmark in the process of overcoming totalitarianism, nationalism and militarism in Europe. In addition, EU enlargement towards the South and more recently towards the East removes both the North-South and East-West divide of the European Continent. Only in December last year Heads of State and Government of the EU agreed a new dimension of enlargement with ten countries joining by May 2004 and others to follow still in the present decade. The collapse of Communism in Europe also brought to an end the Cold War mentality that had overshadowed European politics for nearly fifty years. These new developments have allowed Europe to concentrate on deepening integration through liberalisation of their markets and deregulation of their economies by harmonising basic policies, setting common standards, cutting red tape and by increasing co-operation between Member States. The establishment of the Single Market, the introduction of the euro, the important decision to integrate parts of our domestic and legal policies are symbols of our will to create - on the European Continent - a zone of peace, stability and prosperity. But it also demonstrates our determination to work towards a better future, bring our interests to bear in the process of globalisation and at the same time preserve our national and cultural specificities. Slogan : "Unity in diversity".

4 4 There is even remarkable progress in the field of security and defence : The EU is presently establishing its own integrated rapid reaction force, special police force as well as an intelligence and command structures in order to respond to new security threats, to combat terrorism as well as to aid fight against trans-border crimes and illegal immigration. The New Dimension of Regional Cooperation in Asia It is neither my intention nor would it be appropriate to recommend to our Asian partners the adoption of the European model of regional cooperation. There are obvious differences between Europe and Asia: In Asia there is a much greater diversity of history, culture, religion, language and forms of government. This diversity and - not to underestimate - the geographical distances have long served as a barrier to regional co-operation. Rapid economic growth and export orientation in the 1960s and 70s also saw Asian countries becoming more outward-looking reducing the need to create an "inward looking" trading bloc. Being competitors on the international market might have even been a disincentive for regional cooperation. To define Asia as a regional entity is therefore problematic. The enormous size of this continent in itself does not allow to speak in terms of a "region". I tend to agree with those identifying at least five separate sub-regions with their own particularities and history which define the way that all Asian countries group together. South-East Asia and the regional grouping ASEAN is the most easily identifiable. While ASEAN and its predecessor the East Asian Economic Caucus got off to "a slow start" and still suffer from weak collective decision making mechanisms, it remains a fact, however, that ASEAN and its emerging free-trade area is still the most developed example of regional integration in Asia. There remains, of course, the problem of what is called the "two-tier" ASEAN with its original 6 members and Brunei as first tier and the 4 countries admitted in the late nineties (Vietnam, Burma, Laos and Cambodia) as the second tier. The political and economic gulf between the two remains large. The economy of the ASEAN region is, however, increasingly integrated with that of North-East Asia - Japan, China and Korea. This emerging regional cooperation translates into what is now called "ASEAN plus 3".But of course the idea of an East Asian Community is still a few years down the road of regional integration. This move towards integration could assist East Asia to translate its economic strength into more political coherence, thereby increasing its influence and efficiency on the international level. I know that this is a very ambitious target. As the discussion on the war with Iraq shows it is also the most difficult part of European integration. To create any kind of effective regional group in Asia the gaps within ASEAN and between A-

5 5 SEAN and North-East Asia must be bridged. As we all know, for many South-East Asian countries China appears to be a little too strong, creating a sort of imbalance within the grouping in the light of its mushrooming economic strength. Japan, on the other hand, meets with distrust not only because of its economic strength but also because of its colonial past. Neighbours expect it still to address a number of unresolved issues relating to its wartime occupation. As I mentioned earlier, the driving force of European integration was the reconciliation between France and Germany after decades of hostility. Germany was only able to play this role because of its readiness for reconciliation and integration into a political and economic framework which allowed smaller European countries to participate in a network of mutual control. One could imagine that in the case of Japan a similar gesture of modesty and self-restraint could also help to overcome the demons of the past and reassure less powerful neighbours. As Jacques Delors, the former Commission President put it once : "In order to be strong, one must be generous!" Even in South Asia, which, because of decades of conflict, has been more isolated from the rest of Asia, a process of reconciliation and co-operation has started through SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation) - albeit an embryonic regional grouping. Needless to mention, that South Asia would gain enormously in political and economic stability from the settlement of disputes between India and Pakistan. Europe as a model? As I said before : European integration is not a blueprint which can be transferred from one continent to another. However, the underlying ideas and concepts can serve as a source of inspiration. It is in particular our specific experience as well as our errors in a painful learning process which are worthy of study. It is equally important to understand : European regional integration is not the solution to a political problem, it is an ongoing process of "learning by doing"; a process of trial and error. But it has clearly brought about tremendous achievements in terms of political stability and economic prosperity. It is after all a very solid, well-reflected way to proceed without the pitfalls of : "boom and bust". The success of European integration has made the EU a pole of attraction within the European continent itself, as the rapid enlargement of the EU shows. There might be, of course, a danger that the EU becomes the victim of its own success. This is the reason why the Commission in particular always reminds Member States that apart from our vision our success can only be assured in the longer term by proceeding thoroughly and professionally. What is needed is a clear idea of what we want to achieve and an appropriate methodology for achieving our goal. As European integration is a process - one could say that the journey is the destination - it needs a mechanism for constant adaptation and reform. After all, in the modern world of globalisation our societies are in constant flux and mutual competition. Those who believe that they have made clear gains might lean back in satisfaction to realise some years later that others have in the meantime done better and have taken the lead.

6 6 Regional cooperation and integration are the best tools to overcome this dangerous temptation for self-satisfaction as a country remains under constant scrutiny by its fellow countries and acts in a much more competitive environment. However, I think that like the EU, any nascent regional grouping in Asia or elsewhere must have a political identity as its goal, like securing peace and prosperity among Asian partners. Asia as well needs to aim higher than creating a mere trade bloc. The recent spate of bilateral "free trade agreements" makes much more sense if they are just the first step of a more ambitious form of cooperation in political, economic and other matters. In the actual context, securing peace and stability should be high on the agenda - as many of the world's trouble spots are presently focussed in Asia: the Korean Peninsula, the South China Sea, Burma/Myanmar, Nepal, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia to name the most striking. On the other hand, Asia is a continent with reborn dynamism, eager to reach out for the leading role it had for so many centuries when Europe was just a gathering of uncilivised warrior states. But it will develop its potentials only in what I would call competitive togetherness. Regional arrangements providing a political, or even better, a legal framework for solving regional problems would certainly contribute to reach this goal. The appropriate framework would, last but not least, also be a stabilising factor in which competition among Japan and China for pre-eminence in Asia, with India and South Korea watching at the sidelines, will not be perceived as a threat, but as a win-win situation in the region and as a welcome contribution to revitalise the world economy. Which, as we know, is in all our interests. I wish you a successful symposium.