Can the EU Serve as an Integration Model for ASEAN?

Can the EU Serve as an Integration form for ASEAN?The age old saying of thithers more than mavin focal point to skin a cat has served as a clichd phrase to adequately illustrate and paint the basisvas of the archetypal branch, precedent standard or the perfect specimen isnt the sufferd avenue to success. This expression has been applicable as life advice, in competitive sports, race choices, as well as habitual daily-life in achieving greatness, the idiom has in both case lent to Inter provinceal Relations. Cooperation at any level is considered an achievement in all respectful fields the king to set aside differences, make out special Kality for a purpose and the overlapping determi nation in arrival that ambition. The success of cooperating in global Relations points the form of nation states attack together in alliance on the basis of prevalentality towards an ambitious goal, furthering into nation states in regions linking arms in pursuit for a embodied obj ective. This profound bond is the grouping of nation states in a sphere exuding behaviors as a incorporated who understand differences, identify common interests and puree towards a unified goal. The prototypes of regionalization would be of the European yoke, the EU, and the familiarity of Southeast Asiatic Nations or ASEAN. While the two regional groupings take away been known to be successful, the level of integrating in the midst of the two differ quite considerably. The EUs level of integrating furthers ASEAN by many folds the qualification to ruffle non only areas for uninvolved business, barely the unification of the market, currency, common passport, a customs wedlock and a commonality in inappropriate insurance as a region all by dint of a common institution. The overwhelming success of the European join dwarfs that of ASEAN where the Asian counterpart has only been able to achieve integrating regionally through free trade and sparing movement. The difference in level of consolidation begs the question of whether the EU stupefy has the ability to befit that of ASEAN and provide take outlines and shew to be case in regional integrating. To begin whether the EU specimen is capable of providing as a structural guideline for ASEAN, we inspect the circumstances of the purpose distri al superstarively integration from its origins, and examine the validity of the two thence systematically stipulate whether the EU warning is capable of befitting that of ASEAN to achieve paralleling success in the East. The integration of the European coalescence isherald as the greatest union of nation states in a region, gameyest achievementin integration of a common currency, customs union, single market, commonpassport and foreign polity under a common institution. The ability for the outgrowths to share sovereignty and forego to a bodied long-term goal of aregional cooperation higher up domestic interests creates a supportive envir onment inchanneling political go away. The European Union marked the pi unityer for regional integrationwhich exhibited a collective political theory of a familiarity fire earlier than thetraditional equilibrium of power mode accrediting Robert Schuman of France and KonradAndenauer of Germany. The collective to channel political volition conduct to theconstruction of a legally binding common institution which oversaw the integrationproject. This horse opera determine empowered the consensus approach with a pronged initiatoryof solidarity and tolerance by non isolating any member regarding major(ip)domestic issues of a banking crisis resulting in an increase in man debt.Greece represents the startle test to the European Unions Single currencyresulting in a great increase in both public debt and deficit. The consensusapproach meant that Union were hesitant in decision-makings as well asimplementing policies until the coarse majority of member states were pursued tocoll ectively pursue and implement such(prenominal) policies. The process of proposalspassed through the Working Party, then to the Permanent RepresentativesCommittee (Coreper) then finally a Council configuration secures that aproposal befits the interests of the entire Union. The willingness to providesignificant pecuniary channelise to help poorer members catch up with thecollective norm meant that stronger members in the Union saw the importance of pecuniary weaker nation states and placed collective will power above domestic interests and meant a lag and a pull back on financial capabilities for further advancements.Under theleadership of France and Germany meant that Paris and Berlin were the driving forcescrew the EU integration, and under this leadership can attri howevere to thesuccess of the integration itself in the ability for the two countries tooverlook historic differences between the two and step together for a successof a better tomorrow. The hyper comminuted element that make regionalism successful inEurope in achieving the European Union was the ability to push asidedifferences the capability in cooperative historical pasts. With historicalreconciliation, especially between France and Germany with a turbulenthistorical past of the war of 1870, the First and Second World War. The reconciliation brought the coherence that allowed for the development of relationship building and thenecessary political will for cooperation and ultimately integration. Theachievement through years of sustained political effort from leaders of bothcountries surface way that facilitated the mend of commonality towards sculptinga regional familiarity. This is a manifestation of the European Unions ability andcommunity approach and through a common institution of the European Econmic partnership formed a Free Trade Area, instill a tradition Union that light-emitting diode to aSingle Market and Single Currency. The regional cooperation of sparings wasntthe limit as foreign policy overlapped amongst the members which allowed for acommon passport. These aspects and byproducts through political will inachieving an ambitious common goal forged an atmosphere of peace, prosperityand security in the European environment. With an ambitious idea seen through to the very end can prove to solidify and validate the EU molding of integration especially in its historical record of responding to crisis. The validity of cooperation is tested in the face of uproar and with such response by the European Union model, this integration has be time and time again that in crisis it has responded astoundingly, as well stimulate mechanisms that eliminate repeating failures. Crisis that brought leveraged adversity namely the failed plan for a European Community in 1954 led to the creation of the European Economic Community, the EEC, the resign chair crisis of 1965 led to the de facto acceptance of the Qualified Majority Voting reflecting the consensus approach, QMV, and its eventual(prenominal) acceptance resulting in the 1986 Single European Act. A currency crisis of the eighties birthed to the European Monetary System and ultimately the Euro, and finally the demise of communism in Europe led to the establishment of a common foreign and security policy paving way for the widest overstatement EU members into the Unions integration.Inretrospect, there were many directments that had to be met for legion(predicate) nationstates to come together in unison linked by interests. Requirements that placesthe tie beam of Southeast Asian Nations to the test in its own integration. The process of the European integration may agree had the head start and set an example to other regions for the strive forregionalism only if the European Union isnt without flaws, flaws that formerlyexamined may unveil why the tungstenern model is ill suited for ASEAN. The EuropeanUnion has been the most developed model of regional integration, althoughhistorica lly through common institutions and the sharing of sovereignty forproblem solving, recent crises harbourt been handled well. Shaken by an economicand financial crisis, and the neediness of a timely and coherent response to theEurozone crisis called into question the integrity of the union and increasedoubts of the integration process altogether. The financial crisis revealedstructural and institutional fault lines which led to a decline of the Westernorientated area power into one that gave rise to Asia and its market power.Mechanisms in place that aimed to reverse or wing the effects of the economicand financial crisis were economic adjustments or austerity measures but cameoff as flagellumening towards domestic affairs. The adjustments allowed for thefragility of political ropiness and stability the capital of Portugal Treaty, also known asthe Reform Treaty, that replaced the European Constitution. One of majorchanges of the Lisbon Treaty will be the sore president of the Eu ropean council withtwo and half year term which will replace the current presidency rotatingbetween member states every half a dozen months. Although the Lisbon Treaty sought areform that would restructure leadership, it paved way for a failure that wouldundermine the integrity of the share collective that the European union heraldgreatly. The obstacle that the Lisbon Treaty face up was that Ireland placed theLisbon Treaty on referendum, and the Irish public did not accept the Treaty andrejected its ratification. With this wave of doubt in the ratification, the CzechoslovakianSenate voted for the Lisbon but lacked the signatory approval of the Czechpresident, without such prove his Euro-Skeptic attitudes towards it sandfueled a demonstration of the Czech public who share disapproval of thisTreaty. With this apparent failure convinced the interests to stray away fromany further institutional changes, More Europe, no more. This exampleexplores that a regional restricting that a dual-lane collective no longer spreadsthe region evenly, the regions interest has slowly diminished and nationalinterests have overtaken decisions do in this Union. Evident of this change of heart is Germanys gear inperception, as one of the strongest advocate and champ of integration, Germanyleaned towards the skeptic clique as well as issuing public doubts of theEurozone. The growing compulsion rising from the problems of the European Union is that rapid integration without commensurate modify of political and economic institutions. The emerging gaps can allow for lessons to be acquire by other regional groupings in terms of institutional cleverness and necessary coordination in integration. The take exceptions that follows of the EU integration can be received to fiscal coordination, amidst a worsening of economic outlook the reform adjustments to meliorate the financial system with austerity measures led to fragility of economies of EU member states like Greece, Spain , Portugal and renewed speculation in the financial market. The second challenge that the European Union faces is a long-standing identity crisis, the Eurozone with 16 members, European Union members allotting at 27 issues a high number heterogeneity. The attachment of European capital to national sovereignty and its reluctance to give power to capital of Belgium for decision making lends to a decrease in the willingness to share sovereignty. On a recent note, at the Copenhagen climate change multitude in December 2009, the EU inability to collectively voice at the throng revealed the Unions weakness as an international actor. The conclusion of the conference ended with the EU agreeing to a overlay that leaders of the region concur that no masses would have been a better deal, endorsing a deal with no legal bindings, and an on the loose(p) setting of promises to curb emissions speaks volumes on EU being unable to assert itself at the most critical juncture on the world stage a nd stains the legacy of its integration and its ability to conform to differences and shared sovereignty in the region. If the deal wasnt endorsed, it would have rallied a collective of voices who share the sentiment that such a deal would make no changes to the environment. The European Union in many of its successes poses numerous present-day challenges that undermine the achievements of this regional integration, its inability to respond to difficulties of a financial crisis and the burdening increase of doubt spreading throughout the region on the tip of an aligned collective interest. The Asian counterpart to the European Union isthe Association of Southeast Asian Nations, also known as ASEAN. When foreignministers from Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and capital of Singaporecame together to sign the Bangkok Declaration on August 8th, 1976 it set up this newly founded association, in hopes to manage and look intointra-regional conflicts. The Association grew to ten members with the additional Singapore, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. The goal extended tomaintaining peace, and bringing stability in a community marred by war toensure that each member is free to pursue domestic development in their several(prenominal) nations. The success of ASEAN was the ability to house a communityof nations whom were independent and sovereign with different historical pasts,multitudes in diversity of languages and beliefs and rarely any overlap ofculture to peacefully co-exist. Aspects of diversifying historical pasts, and intra-regionalconflicts didnt hinder the forging of the association, the ten Southeast Asiannations were able to overcome suspicions of one another and set aside possiblehostilities. ASEAN in its inception established a means ofnon-intervention and non-binding agreement, the inability to get down disciplineson any of its members. The approach to the ASEAN model is under the foundationof citation and consensus which allows for a decision ground on the majoritybefore implementation. In attesting the ASEAN model, the process and approachto solving issues relies on the ASEAN expression that reflects and respects ethnicalnorms in Southeast Asia, A working process or ardor that is informal and personal. Policymakers constantly utilize compromise consensus, and consultation in the informal decision-making process. Quiet diplomacy allows ASEAN leaders to communicate without bringing the discussions into the public view. (Masilamni and Peterson) ASEAN did then get along with but without flawsand missteps of their own, this Asian collective failed to resemble the relegate of the EU with historical pasts un settle downd and still damagingrelationships between Southeast Asian members. For example, the dispute of thePreah Vihear Temple located in Cambodia standing as a World Heritage place, struggledto resolve with Thailand. The historical site stands on Cambodian sovereigntybut was under Thai occupation until C ambodias freedom in 1954. The UN hasgranted that Thailand remove military personnel as the site rightfully belongsto Cambodia, this territorial dispute has sparks major clashes between theborder of the adjacent Southeast Asian countries. One settled by the UnitedNations through the International Court of Justice but stands as contentionbetween Cambodia and Thailand. Reconciliation hasnt been an agenda between thetwo over a 900-year-old Hindu temple. Althoughthere are territorial disputes, and misalignment in political institutions, ASEANis by far the most advanced of cooperatives amongst the efforts to regionalgroupings, taking the EU not by ambition but by examples. The ability forASEAN to adapt progress of the integration model of the EU into ASEANapplicable means plays homage to the ASEAN way of doing things that aresometimes unorthodox and against the grain. An example of using the EU as anexemplar inspiration and not by example is regularly send delegates toBrussels to seek id eas from the EU experience. In this admiration ofinspiration of the ASEAN of the progress of the EU, displays elements thatdiffer from the Asian Association to that of the European Union and how theWestern model isnt necessary applicable to befit the Asian. ASEAN establishesa strictly inter- giving medicational body, with no interest in or indication ofrelinquishing means to share sovereignty between the nation members, andadditionally, for ASEAN to simulate the EU model would require the ASEAN membersto prerequisite a certain set of requirements to progress into integrationbased the EU model. Requirements that predetermine that integration breedsmutual political will and shared beliefs in the success of the long-term goalof the high level of integration is historical reconciliation for ASEAN members.Reconciliation did not take place as the nations differed on many aspects forexampleWithout such reconciliation, the necessarypolitical will and shared belief towards a long-standing g oal of integration onthe merits of shared sovereignty diminished which led to the operations andleader of ASEAN to be one of inter-governmental rather than through a commoninstitution. Although ASEAN has made innumerable declarations to emulate theEuropean Union integration model, their words of rhetoric reflected in theiractions as unmatched with their words. The present ASEAN development process poses a challenge to the traditional Anglo-Saxon capitalist models as it contested the reformed rules-based system of world(a) governance. The pressure that the EU and the EU places on ASEAN members regarding labor, social environment, and human rights if seen through as a success in pressure assimilation, actually presents itself as a disadvantaging stage in the development of the Asian model if enforced as the model itself is far beyond Western pressures to curb issues. The ideology of ASEAN itself embodied the ASEAN Way, a means of consultation and consensus, similar to that of the EU model but in the Eastern agenda, practiced non-interference with non-binding agreements to accompany decisions made and policies to follow. The problem with an open-ended agreement meant no enforcement to curb behaviors and the inability to visit disciplines, essentially heavy-hearted words with empty actions to fulfill promises. ASEANs point of enlargement on taking new members in 1997 introduced members of Myanmar and Laos with the expectation to solve and contain regional problems with Myanmar at the time housed a closed economy with a military government as leadership, economic crisis and cross-border pollution. The trifecta of expectations created the illusion of integration with the assurance between members but instead exhibited loose inter-governmental cooperation. Myanmars triple threat posed a threat to an initiating cooperative of its region members but ASEAN unnoted this threat and extended the membership regardless.The incorporation of countries like Myanmarwith its military regime and closed economy represented a new extreme inASEANs diversity. This in itself would have tested the Associations aver todeeper integration as ASEAN has not found a way to release its breadth withits attempts to achieve a greater depth of integration (Henderson 1999, 74-76).The ASEAN Way became a means to avoidrather than solve issues and conflict, the complementing of informal operationsand non-binding agreements imposed no tangible means of success andintegration. The ASEAN Way in this examination doesnt pose as a threat to theintegration of its members but rather examined through a behavioral lens of informality in actions that isnt present in the European Union attributes, thelack of formal operations and behaviors may ill-fit the EU model.The inceptions of the European Union position with the later formation of ASEAN provides a historical overview onthe ability in identifying commonalities and interests for the two groups ofnations coming together as a colle ctive. In their respective collectives, ASEANand the EU share numerous elements that prove their successful integration, buthaving the EU being the superior model lends the thought of the possibilityto befit the Western model with the Eastern. With the two models explained anddeciphered, we resume the suitability in befitting the EU model within thefixtures of the ASEAN structure. The two are known and documented as both elicitingeconomic integration and community building to both boost and maintainsecurity as well as further economic development. The best description ofASEANs use of the existing EU model without imposition from the Union to befitguidelines would be admiration, not aspiration, this pronounces volumes on theactions ASEAN have already undertaken from both the successes and failures ofthe European Union. The admiration and not emulation can be attributed toskepticisms especially with Brexit and the consequences of the post-event inaddition to EU-style regional integr ation increases doubt on the validity ofnot the EU model but its emulated nature on ASEANs. ASEANs inability andlatent behavior to reconcile historical past illustrates the initial step ofASEANs incapability in emulating the EU model. ASEAN has never been moreunanimous on the need for greater integration, but the capacity to make thenecessary domestic political and economic adjustments to implement the reformsthat are necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of integration in peckishamongst the different ASEAN member states. The late former secretariat toASEAN, Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, elaborated that the EU served as an inspiration forASEAN but never a model. An inspiration to guide ASEAN rather than an imposedsteer of how-to suggests a road heading to demise. personatesin their generality suggest emulation but downplays learning, without learningit inhibits growth, change and innovation, emulation doesnt produce lessonslearned and nor does it generate dynamic innovators but rath er passive mimics.ASEAN can adopt many aspects and successes of the European Union but merely asan inspiring element and not a mature guide as the two entities differ inmannerisms, operations and behaviors in their procedures that hinder suchtransfer of mimicking. The ASEAN Way of operations is the mannerisms thatprohibits such transfer of guidelines and procedural operations housed by theEuropean Union, the Qualified Majority choose suggests a similarity in theconsensus approach but the backroom conferences secluded from the public byASEAN members suggests differently. Emulation creates subjective benchmarks which allows for no feasible alternatives to the dominant model, in the case ASEAN and EU, the imposition of EU onto ASEAN breeds a form of Eurocentrism. The imposition by the EU regardless of validity of model strikes a force by the West onto Asia which romances dominance, although the European Union exhibits soft power with inclinations on inwrought values, there are other means of assertion rather than communicate imposition. The imposed force from the West, although in good intent to improve and plump out markets in the East, presents itself as a dominant force by the West to handle the East. This imposition and emulation of the EU model would have viewed as the West to overtake the East, and with the current rise of China, Asian nation states hankering not to look beyond the Pacific for inspiration let altogether a steer from elsewhere. The necessities that ASEAN must take in orderto inspiringly succeed like the European Union and not simply emulate it wouldbe to learn from the Unions failures and adapting it to ASEAN in a manner than hold inter-governmental operations as well promote unifying political willin attaining a long-term goal of sustained integration. An investment thatASEAN can consider follow in the footsteps of the Union would be placingnational governments interests of achieving long term goal of regionalintegration by all memb er states above domestic priorities. The push forintegration should be one that synchronizes the public as well as thegovernment that It is in their vital national interest to integrate. Theseelements borrow the attributes that the European Union succeeds on and adaptsit to the ASEAN model, this inspiration proves key points for ASEAN to improvein its own integration but suggests that the EU model needs improvement inorder to be applied. The learning of the crisis in Europe that threatens theEuropean Union fuels the need for ASEAN to take inspiration from the EU modelrather than at total replicating. The merits of the European Union serve asinspiration for ASEAN integration and not as a total guideline for theSoutheast Asian collective, the missteps and struggles of the EU model provideslearning points for ASEAN to improve and implement, the successes of overcomehistorical differences between regional members provides reflection thatdifferences in Southeast Asia are still prominent. The EU model holisticallyill-fits the ASEAN model by the diversifying approach by the two collectives, theevolved formality of operations by each differ considerably and the approach tocrisis cements that each deal with struggles in differently. The European Unionstill stands as the most successful regional collective to integrate upon acommon goal, this Union presents itself as an admonitory model of both trialsand tribulations of nations integrating, one that ASEAN views admirably and inspired.Success takes many forms and there is no single paved way to achieve it, theEuropean Union represents one road to success and its success speaks volumesthat outweigh their struggles that on the world stage provides lessons forinspired regions to integrate. As for the Association of Southeast AsianNations, it is unforgiving that ASEAN will make its own Way in achieving a highlevel of integration one that doesnt mimic the EU model but mirrors in itssuccess. BibliographyThe European Unionas a Model for Regional Integration. Council on Foreign Relations. September24, 2010. https//www.cfr.org/report/european-union-model-regional-integration.Should the EU be considered a model for ASEAN? EastAsia Forum. August 05, 2017. Accessed January 02, 2018. http//www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/08/06/should-the-eu-be-considered-a-model-for-asean/.Hwee, Yeo Lay. THE INTER-REGIONAL DIMENSION OF EU-ASIARELATIONS EU-ASEAN AND THE ASIA-EUROPE contact (ASEM) PROCESS.BrillOnline. January 01, 2007. Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?BBC News. December 22, 2009. Accessed January 05, 2018. http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8426835.stm.Lisbon Treaty Possible Failure of theLisbon Treaty, EnlargeEU Newsletter, Analytica Thinking Laboratory (October2009)Greece marks failure of EU integration.Transnational Institute. November 10, 2014. Accessed January 05, 2018. https//www.tni.org/es/node/14497.Cameron, Fraser. The geopolitics of Asia What role forthe European Union? SpringerLink. April 02, 2 010. Accessed January 05,2018. https//link.springer.com/article/10.1057/ip.2010.10.Holland, Martin, The EU finished the Eyes ofAsia, The Volume II Assuming Superpower Status? Evolving Asian Perceptionsof the EU as a Political and Economic Actor (2009) Hill, Christopher and Smith, Michael.International Relations and the European Union Themes and Issues. May 25th,2017. Chapter 1The decision-making process in the Council. Thedecision-making process in the Council Consilium. October 05, 2017.