Post on 21-Feb-2016
description
Cooperation Vs. Confrontation: Asia’s New
MultilateralismHannah Perry 4013R360-8
Definitions of MultilateralismRobert Keohane: Cooperation or coordination of three or
more nations in any form
John Ruggie: Cooperation that is institutionalised through common rules and norms within the multilateral form
James Caporaso: Multilateral cooperation that is regulated by general norms and indivisibility of values
John Duffield: Highest form of multilateral institutionalisation that involves clear rules, compliance, commitment and an institutionalised third-party mediator
Cold War: The Rise of Asian Regionalism
US bilateral partnerships:1951: Australia, New Zealand, Philippines 1953: South Korea1954: Japan, Thailand, Taiwan
1954: Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand,
UK, USA
1967: Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)Founding members: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand
Post Cold War: “Asianisation”1989: Asia-Pacific Economic Forum (APEC) – Australia, Brunei,
Canada, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, USA 1993: APEC formally institutionalised and headquartered in
Singapore with 21 participating members
1994: ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) – 27 countries First Asia-Pacific multilateral forum for consultations on peace and
security issues
2001: Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) – China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Russia, Uzbekistan Summits on political, economic and security issues
Post Cold War: “Asianisation”ASEAN Expansion
1997: ASEAN Plus Three- Japan, China, South Korea (APT) APT summit 2002 proposed East Asian Free Trade Agreement
under the ‘East Asia Summit’ (EAS)
2005: Inaugural EAS Membership criteria announced
Members must have close relations with ASEANMembers must be full dialogue partners with ASEANMembers must be signatories of ASEAN Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation (TAC)
Asian institutional architecture
Successful Asianisation? Asian regionalism characterised by:
Bilateral MultilateralNew Asian institutional ‘architecture’
New regional architecture allows for greater fluidityBloc-based system vs. open regionalism Asia proper vs. Broader Asia Pacific EAS vs. APT – uneasy coexistence Power centres in the region – China? Japan?
Ad Hoc Multilateralism – ‘Minilaterals’
What is ad hoc multilateralism/minilateralism?
Impromptu organisations, bringing together like-minded countries in the face of imminent threats in order to address and resolve common issues
Example: The threat from North Korean nuclear ambitions
1995: Korean Energy Development Organisation – USA, Japan, South Korea, EU
1997/1999: Four Party Talks convened between China, USA, North Korea and South Korea
2003: Six Party Talks – China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Russia and USA
Ad Hoc Multilateralism – ‘Minilaterals’
Why is the ad hoc process appealing?
Capability to focus on specific, mutually shared problems
‘Coalitions of the willing’
Including China in minilateral coalitions reinforces stability in the region
Obstacles to the process of regional integration
1. Who is in Asia? – Discrepancies in geographic scope Each state attempts to pursue individual national interests USA prefers trans-pacific agreementsChina prefers narrow geographic definitions of Asia in order to
increase its weight and influenceHowever; a combination of exclusivity and inclusivity remains
Obstacles to the process of regional integration
2. What Agenda? What Norms? EU members had a set of common norms that allowed for
effective integration and development of the EU Japan vs. China – an ideational contest
China aims to preserve diversity of norms and value-neutral cooperation
Japan aims to narrow normative gaps between countries on issues such as democracy and human rights
Obstacles to the process of regional integration
3. What kind of economic integration? Issues regarding
SpeedInclusivityReduction of barriers to trade and investment US investment
Asia has largely focused on bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTA)
Only proposals and potential for more inclusive economic integration – FTAAP, APT-FTA
Obstacles to the process of regional integration
4. Who provides public goods?US remains the most important actor in humanitarian crises or
state failure – A reliance on US military capabilities Stability sits on the shoulders of the US network of alliances in
the region Problem of bilateral military cooperation between ASEAN
states and the US rather than between ASEAN states
Can multilateralism work?Socialisation effect – where states are eager to acquire an
Asian identity through involvement with multilateral institutions states acquire regional norms
Common lexicon – rising use of concepts including ‘East Asian Community’ and ‘open and inclusive regionalism’
Collective action becoming the common norm
States beginning to cede aspects of national sovereignty in order to promote cooperation
Findings and Implications Gill and Green Define Asia’s new multilateralism; ‘extension and intersection of national power and purpose rather than as an objective force in itself’ (p.3)
Positive Findings: Clear desire within the region for Asian led institutions Notable increase in the number of multilateral mechanisms Economic integration largely prioritised over security cooperation
Negative Findings: Continued under-institutionalisation in Asia compared to Europe Attempts to establish a balance of power dynamic remains Continued over-reliance on the US
Asia vs. Europe National sovereignty and power of the nation state remains
overwhelmingly important in Asia
Asian model is more fluid and flexible whilst Europe is based on a formal legality approach
Asia = diversity of political systems, economic levels, social conditions etc.
Asian institutionalisation is often responding to crises and discontinuity
No equivalent to the European Coal and Steel Union
What does the Future hold? ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) – 2015
Goal of regional economic integration with free movement of goods & services, labour etc.
AEC blueprint adopted in 2007
Concerns: Problems of form over substance – creating numerous new forums
may be redundant more beneficial to strengthen or enlarge existing forums
Necessary to focus on stability and not just the language of community building
Competition due to ad hoc agreements may create new security dilemmas
Conclusion/CommentsProblematic to compare Asian multilateralism to European
integration
Problematic to apply academic definitions of multilateralism directly
Necessary to draw a distinction between collective action and action based on mutual constraint
Gradualism – slow pace in development
Conclusion/CommentsCan ASEAN remain a dominant institution in the region as multilateral
institutions continues to incorporate powerful, arguably more influential and not necessarily Asian states?
Is US focus on bilateral and sub-regional FTAs impeding economic integration in the region? Or is Asia proper simply prone to protectionism
Will the proliferation of FTAs contribute to or undermine Asian regional integration
Is Asian multilateralism affected by the fact that it can be considered the ‘world’s most dynamic region’?
Can Asia escape the tradition of a hierarchical regional order? – Is ‘community building’ therefore simply a front?