• Hungdah SuHungdah Su

• Married, two boys

• Professor and Jean Monnet Chair at National Taiwan University

• Director General of EU Centre in Taiwan

• Member of Council of Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe

• Chief editor of Books Series on EU Studies in Taiwan

• Doctorat of IH of University Paris-Sorbonne

• Master of EC Law of University Pantheon-Sorboone

• Master of Diplomacy and International Law of Cheng-Chi University in Taiwan

• BA of National Taiwan University

EU experience and the Competing Asian Regionalism in the aftermath of Financial Crisis

Dr. Hungdah SuProfessor and Jean Monnet Chair at National Taiwan University

Director General of EU Centre in Taiwan (EUTW)

September 18, 2014

EU Centre of Excellence at Carleton University, Canada

Outline

1. Introduction

2. Development of Asian regionalism

3. Competing approaches to Asian regionalism

4. China and Asian regionalism

5. Evaluation of these competing approaches in light of EU experiences

6. Prospect of Asian regionalism

Asia as a geographical region

Political map of Asia

The largest Asia

• Area 44.6 million km2

(4 Canada)

• Population 3.9 billion (55% of global population)

• Polities 47 (including Cypruses, Turkey, Taiwan etc.)

Asia defined by UN (without Siberia)

Asia defined by the US (ADB)

Asia in the context of Asia Pacific

Asia defined by EU (ASEM)

Some structural but evolving facts 2013State Population

(million) (est. 2014)

Area

(th. Km2)

(2014)

GDP

( trillion $) (2013)

Income

(U) (calc.)

Exports/

Imports

(rank) (2013)

PRC 1,356 9,597 8.94 6,594 1/3

Japan 127 378 5.01 39,393 5/5

N.Korea 25 121 0.03 1,127 121/130

S.Korea 49 100 1.20 24,429 7/8

Taiwan 23 36 0.49 20,749 21/20

ASEAN 630 4,481 1.63 2,563 X

India 1,236 3,287 1.76 1,422 19/9

EU 509 4,325 17.03 33,434 2/1

USA 319 9,827 16.72 52,432 3/2

State People (million) (est. 2014)

Area (th. km2) (2014)

Brunei 0.42 5.8

Burma 56 677

Cambodia 15 181

Indonesia 254 1,905

Laos 6.8 237

Malaysia 30 330

Philippines 108 300

Singapore 5.6 0.7

Vietnam 93 331

Thailand 68 513

ASEAN

Foreign Exchange Reserve (billion $) (est. 2013)

State FER

PRC 3820 Brazil 378

Japan 1268 S. Korea 342

Eurozone 812 HK 309

Saudi 740 India 277

Russia 517 Singapore 271

Taiwan 415

Regimes and alliances in 2013

International structure in Asia

Potentially military conflicts

Territorial disputes

Conflicts in South China Sea

Young nation-buildings based upon old civilizations

Young nation-buildings

• 1867 Meiji Reform in Japan

• 1911 Creation of ROC

• 1939 Creation of Modern Thailand

• 1945 Independence of Koreas, Indonesia

• 1947 Independence of India and Pakistan

• 1948 Independence of Burma

• 1949 Creation of PRC

• 1953 Independence of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos

• 1957 Creation of Malaysia

• 1967 Indepenedence of Singapore

• 1984 Independence of Brunei

• 2002 East Timor

Debate

• Do Asian values exist?

- Community is more important than individuals.

- Order is more important than liberty.

- Consensus replaces confrontation.

- Virtue to work hard rather than enjoy life.

- ………

Integration in light of EU experience

• Integration means a pooling of sovereignty of member states into common institutions. This pooling process could be started with establishment of intergovernmental cooperation, which later developed into supranational integration.

Schimmelfennig, Frank and Sedelmeier, Ulrich (2002). Theorizing EU enlargement: research focus, hypotheses,

and the state of research. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(4), 500-528.

• Integratioin is defined here as ‘vertical institutionalisation’, which includes all the institutionalising developments of intergovernmental cooperation, common policies and Community building.

Definition for Asian integration

• All developments based upon the integovernmental agreements in the region that aim to constitute any step enumerated by Balassa are defined as parts of Asian integration.

Integration in Asia:

• Integratoin without strong institutionalization.

• Integration without supranational inspiration.

• Integration without strong regional identity.

Asian integration in comparison

• Compared to Europe – No integration/reconciliation among US allies

in Asia though US-led alliances guaranteed the regional security.

– Regional economy is now driven partly and increasingly by PRC, a non ally of US

– All regional projects must include PRC, a non ally of US, a dominant power in Asia.

2. Development of Asian regionalism

Until 1945, Asia was dominated by imperialism.

Before 1945

• 1924 Su Yat sen proposed Greater Asianism or Pan Asianism in Kobei, Japan, which aimed to persuade Japanese leaders to help liberate Asians from Western imperioalism and build up an Asians’ Asia. Then Sino-Japanese cooperation should constitute the driving force of Asian regionalism.

1940-45 Japan intended to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as part of

Japanese militarism in Asia.

During the Cold War period

• 1966 Asian Development Bank (ADB)

• 1967 Pacific Basin Economic Cooperation (PBEC); ASEAN

• 1980 Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC)

Since 1989

• 1989 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

• 2002 ASEAN plus Process

• 2008 Charter of ASEAN; TPP with US

• 2010 ASEAN plus PRC; ECFA

• 2012 RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership)

Asian regionalism

• 1960-1980 Japan-initiated integration• Late 1980- mid 1990 US/Australia-led

integration• Mid 1990 – early 2000 ASEAN-centred

integration• Early 2000 – 2010 China-centred

integration• Since 2010 Rising competition between

US and China

Competing approaches to regionalism in Asia

ASEAN

APEC

SAARC

ASEAN Plus (East Asian Summit) xxxxxxxxxxxx

SCO

Asian IGOs: ASEAN

Asian IGOs: APEC

SAARC

E. Asian Summit (ASEAN plus)

Asian IGOs: ASEAN plus

• ASEAN 10• ASEAN 10 plus 1: ASEAN + PRC• ASEAN 10 plus 3: + Japan, S. Korea

(East Asian Community)• ASEAN 10 plus 3 plus 3: + India, Australia,

New Zealand (East Asian Summit)• ASEAN 10 plus 3 plu 3 plu 1: + USA

(APEC +)

SCO

3. Competing approaches to Asian regionalism

Different and even conflicting approaches

American strategy

APEC (TPP)

Asian Integrat

-ion

Regionalism of Japan

JP

ASEAN strategy: A tripartite balance

Indian strategy: a balance plus a linkage

Regionalism of PRC

PRC

4. China’s strategy towards Asian regionalism

Debate

• Is regionalism or Asian regionalism in China’s interest?

PRC-preferred integration

SCO RCEP

Qua of China’s diplomacy

Bilateral summits

G 20

Regionalism

BRICS

Chronology

• 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis• 2001PRC accession to WTO• 2001Declaration on Conduct of Parties

in the South China Sea• 2002ASEAN plus 1 • 2008Japan initiated Asian Community

ASEAN signed ASEAN Charter• 2010ASEAN plus 1 and ECFA entered

into effect

• 2010ASEAN plus Korea effective

ASEAN plus India effective

ASEAN-Japan Economic Partnership effective

• 2012RCEP was started

K-C-J FTA negotiations were stated.• 2014C-K FTA will be signed.(?)

5. Evaluation of Asian regionalism in light of EU

Experiences

Theoretical debate

• Liberal Intergovrnmentalism

• Neofuctionalism

• Institutionalism

Liberal intergovernmentalism

• Two-level games– National– International

• Three-step formulation– Struggle between interest groups– Power struggle between countries– Options for new institutions

Neofunctionalism

• Transnational cooperation between elite as leadership

• Sector integration as the source of spillover

Institutionalism

• Rational choice approach: supranational institutional leaders

• Sociological approach: normative and cognitive forces (values, norms, identities etc.)

• Historical approach: path dependency (historical legacies)

Evaluation

A very tentative balance sheetPower structure

Elite cooper-ation

Sector integr-ation

Regul-atory power

Norm-ative power

Cognitive power

Historical legacies

USA strong strong Weak Weak strong strong Strong

Japan Middle Weak None None Weak Weak Weak

PRC Middle Middle Strong Weak Weak Middle Middle

ASEAN Weak Weak Weak Weak Strong Weak Strong

India middle Weak None Weak Weak Weak Weak

A very tentative conclusion

• The PRC will never be granted leadership as long as it is governed by a communist regime.

• The further the PRC-led integration advances, the more the US will strengthen the trans-Pacificism or, to a lesser degree, support the Japanese approach to Asian integration.

• The real challenge to the US is the fact that, as the only global superpower, US can never participate in a region-building project. Its policy towards regionalism is always passive and defensive.

6. Prospects

1. Lacking fast track mandate from the Congress and suffering low reputation, Obama government will fail to make TPP adopted by the Congress.

2. On the contrary, negotiations on RCEP could be closed before the end of 2015.

• Facing increasing pressure to reform its economy, China will be obliged to participate in the TPP negotiations and open negotiations on FTA with the EU.

• These developments may bring US and China to negotiate FTA during the coming years, transforming the dualism of TPP and RCEP into G2 negotiations in the Pacific.

• Hungdah SuHungdah Su

• Thank you!Thank you!

• Merci!Merci!