The impact of EU crisis on EU-ASEAN Relations
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries have watched the crisis in Euro zone closely. Southeast Asia countries experience similar crisis towards the end of 1990s which shattered ‘the Asian micracle’ and, arguably, shifted EU interests away from the region.
Nowadays, peoples and governments in ASEAN countries perceived the EU crisis differently. These mixed responses reflect how Asian countries have assessed suspected sources and impacts of the crisis on the European integration. From those mixed responses, one may analyse some possible directions of EU-ASEAN relations.
This article addresses the impacts of EU financial crisis to inter-regional cooperation between EU and ASEAN such as EU-ASEAN dialogue, ASEAN Regional Forum, and Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). It is built around the argument that ASEAN countries would keep EU as an important partner but the character of the inter-regional relations is likely to change Despite EU financial difficulties and integration problems, people in ASEAN countries still believe that historically-proven European endurance would bring EU survive the crisis. The financial crisis, however, make the Southeast Asians not only perceive EU less powerful than before but also find out that the global power has shifted to Asia. The study is based on primary and secondary data gathered from document study, Focus Group Discussion (FGD), interview with key actors, and observation of EU activities in ASEAN countries
The organization of the article is as follow: a short explanation on the importance and significance of the study is succeeded by an elaboration on the existing inter-regional relations between ASEAN and EU. It is continued with a description on economic and diplomatic relations based on quantitative and qualitative data. Finally, the article analyses the impacts of the crisis on ASEAN-EU relations.
A. EU crisis and the need to study ASEAN-EU inter-regionalism
Crisis in Euro zone unfolded since 2009 has halted EU’s efforts to maintain a high standard welfare to peoples in its member countries. Indeed, the austerity packages in the crisis-thorned countries –the PIGS- to save their economies and the Euro have driven some people to question the objective of EU integration. The crisis in Euro zone started in Greece in 2009. A year later, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain experienced similar troubles. This crisis has brough EU to continuing financial problems.
In Southeast Asia in which severe financial crisis rampaged toward the end of 1990s, bringing down some of the strongest regimes and collapsed what so-called ‘Asian economic tigers’, the EU crisis has been perceived with a mixed response. Some are surprised given the fact that Euro was stronger than the US dollars for many years. Others see the crisis as the consequence of EU strange economic arrangement – having a single currency but maintaining independent fiscal policies. Some other are more positive toward the European strength, thinking crisis is natural in Europe and the people would overcome the crisis with their resilience that they would re-emerge stronger after the crisis. Nevertheless, a few people believe that the crisis is a ‘karma’ to the Europeans because of what they did to Asian people during the Asian financial crisis. These mixed responses reflect how Asian countries have assessed suspected sources and impacts of the crisis on the European integration. From those mixed response, one may analyse some possible directions of EU-ASEAN relations.
Within the context of Euro zone crisis and the mixed responses from people in Southeast Asia, the question on the future of EU-ASEAN inter-regionalism deserves a careful study. The question is important as the two regional institutions represent almost one third of world’s population and can form an alternative axis of global trade. ASEAN and EU key figures can be seen below:
The significance of the study lies in three aspects. Firstly, ASEAN-EU inter-regionalis excludes the US, creating an alternative international relations from politico-strategic as well as economic and cultural perspectives. Secondly, the region-to-region, rather than country-to-country relations are a distinctive and new practice in international relations that requires an understanding of its merit and limitations. This inter-regional pattern of interactions in international relations has arisen in the last two decades, so it is reasonable to investigate what can work or not work and what can be expected from such relations. Thirdly, the relations between Europe and Southeast Asia date back to more than five centuries ago when the first European fleet when through the Straits of Malacca and started establishing colonialism. The centuries European occupation and trade monopoly have left various colonial legacies –positive and negative- in Southeast Asian countries. Any contemporary interactions between the two regions can not be made immune from the colonial experience and the feeling of anti-colonialism sometime emerge from the Asian side. The feeling sometimes stronger as the Southeast Asian countries shared common historica legacy vis-a-vis their European counterparts in the inter-regional relations.
The term ‘inter-regionalism’ refers to region-to-region relations, defining as a group of countries that become the member of regional institutuions, which in this study focus on ASEAN and EU. ASEAN countries consist of ten countries in Southeast, ie. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. The EU consists of 27 member states namely Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Pepublic, Crovatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Findland, French, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Greece, Malta, Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuvania, Luxemburg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom. ‘Regionalism’ refers to the design and implementation of a set of preferential policies among countries within the same geographical area in order to build harmonious relations in any or all aspects such as politic-security, economy or socio-culture. Regionalization is defined as ‘the grow of societal integration within a region and to the often undirected process of social and economic interaction’ (Hurrell 1995). Thus, what differentiates regionalism from regionalization is the design; while the former is directed by governmental agreements the latter is officially undirected and grows more naturally among non-state actors. This study is focused on the inter-regionalism.
Previous scholars have written on the inter-regionalism between ASEAN and EU. The inter-regionalism of ASEAN and EU were observed within the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), as an exercise ground for a new pattern of global relationship ASEM has been observed as an exercise ground for a new pattern of global relationship (Dent 1997/1998; Cammak and Richards 1999; Gilson 2002, 2005). Nevertheless, there are two contrasting views of the application of the interregional framework. The earlier studies of ASEM treat the inter-regional relations between Asia and Europe in ASEM as the consequence of the failure of ASEAN-EU relations in 1980s and as an alternative axis in the regional-based world order (Dent 1997/1998; Hanggi 1999; Cammak and Richards 1999; Dent 2001; Yeo 2007). Later studies on the inter-regional level of analysis and suggest that the inter-regionalism should be examined with a focus on the relations of the two regions, that is the social interactions between them, rather than as the consequence of some outside phenomenon (Gilson 2002, 2005).
The focus on the importance of the inter-regional framework between Asia and European countries is particularly relevant when accepting the notion that the post-Cold War era is the time for the emergence of regional order, substituting the strategic competition of a bipolar world with cooperation and discord in the regional framework). ASEAN-EU has also posed challenges in its mission to connect the Asian and European countries as they have different approaches to cooperation and international relations. Despite the rhetoric in ASEM’s summit statements that call for a deeper understanding towards each other, the Asian and European countries brought their own cooperation culture and approaches to international relations, thereby creating divertgent of interest. At the end, inter-regional relationships such as ASEM and ASEAN-EU may work in both functional and cognitive ways (Gilson 2005, p. 310).
The inter-regionalism can also be approached with constructivist framework. In their analysis on inter-regionalism, Hettne and Soderbaum (2002), and Fawcett (2004) emphasize that regionalism is socially constructed through cognitive processes as actors respond to each other and to their environmental pressures. The framework helps identify the emergence of a defensive identity vis-à-vis external actors (Lee and Park 2001; Yeo 2003). It was also applied by Gilson (2002) in investigating the cognitive process of ASEM inter-regionalism which reveals the social construction of regional identity for both ASEAN countries and their partners in Northeast Asia vis-a-vis EU countries through communication and interpretation of ‘us’ and ‘other’.
Study the inter-regionalism between EU and ASEAN as the consequences of the financial crisis in Euro zone area, thus, could provide insights into not only the competences of ASEAN and EU as regional actors but also recent perceptions of ASEAN and EU towards ecah other.
B. History of EU-ASEAN inter-regionalism
ASEAN and EU have been linked since 1970s when the European Economic Community (EEC) became the first institution that built a linkage for dialogue and cooperation with countries in the Southeast Asia. This linkage was formalized in 1977 in the 10th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting which followed by the first forum in Brussels. Despite the creation of EU-ASEAN Cooperation Agreement in 1980, however, the inter-regional framework could not develop further to enhance the relations of the two regions. Geographical distance between the two regions is a problem to strengthen economic and socio-cultural relations, nevertheless the difference of political values and agenda of cooperation seem to be the main reason for the deadlock. The most disagreement is on political issues, especially on human rights and democratization (Palmujoki 1997; Wisela 2007). Autoritarian governments in ASEAN countries were irritated with criticism from EU countries while the Europeans thought they should participate actively in global politics as the champion of human rights and democratization. Therefore, the contacts in 1970s and 1980s were more rhetorical than substantial in nature (Leifer and Djiwandono1998, p. 203; Stockhof and van der Velde 1999).
It was the rapid and high economic development in East and Southeast Asia during the 1980s that drew the Europeans’ attention to what was perceived as ‘the world’s most dynamic region in the 21st century’ (Edwards and Regelsberger, 1990, p. 5; see also Richards and Kirkpatrick, 1999; Forster 1999). Consequently, EU launched ‘the New Asia Strategy’ in 1994 that underpinned the need of European countries to resume close ties with the Asian countries whose economic growth had been seen as a world phenomenon (European Commission, 1994).
The inauguration of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Bangkok in 1996 was celebrated with enthusiasm and hopes in the two regions because this region-to-region forum represented a breakthrough in Asia-Europe relations and a unique arrangement: it did not include the United States (US) and was the first forum to which Asian countries have been summoned as a group to sit vis-à-vis their Europeans counterparts. For Southeast Asian countries, the region-to-region relations between Asian and European countries in ASEM have some characteristics that are unusual in terms of their engagements in regional and global affairs. ASEM does not include the United States (US) and it was initially expected to balance the US-EU-Asia triangle. In addition, ASEM is the first forum in which Southeast Asian countries have been able to meet and coordinate collectively with countries in Northeast Asia, namely Japan, China and South Korea vis-à-visanother partner. However, the enthusiasm soon shifted toward pessimism and criticism after the Asian financial crisis in 1997/1998 and following the war against terrorism after 9/11. Nevertheless, ASEM –now has 51 members- has survived despite the many criticisms about its ineffectiveness (Fitriani 2010).
The climate for inter-regional discourse has also been changing. Despite some downturns at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, the inter-regional relations between Asia and Europe in ASEM have been constructed during a critical period of world history when East Asia has been developing as an economic powerhouse, while Europe has been seeking an identity as a global actor under EU. In January 2003 EU and ASEAN sigh joint declaration on Cooperation to Combat Terrorism. In July of the same year, EU commission launced its policy paper ‘A new partnership with Southeast Asia’. This inter-regional cooperation was expanded in 2007 with the Nurenberg Declaration on the enhancement of EU-ASEAN Partnership followed by the Plan of Action which is adopted in the first ASEAN-EU Commemorative Summit in Singapore. A year later, the inter-regional cooperation was planned for a free trade as the two regional entities agreed to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA). This plan has been suspended in 2010 and EU started negotiating bilateral FTA with several ASEAN member states such as Singapore (concluded), Malaysia, and Thailand.
The development of the inter-regional relations between EU and ASEAN has been revivalized since 2012. In April the two adopted Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action 2013-2017 to define to rout map of cooperation in the next five year. In July, EU also signed the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC). EU delegation in ASEAN countries has also been busy with various approaches and events to speed up the cooperation, not only between Government-to-Government but also between Business-to-Business.
C. Impact of the Euro crisis on ASEAN-EU economic relation
The crisis in Euro zone and the continuing problems of settlement process have put a stress on Euro value. The exchange rate on this currently has decreased significantly since 2008 the when first hit of global financial crises took place. Chart1 shows the drecreasing trend of the Euro value against the US Dollars.
The Euro crisis and the financial crisis in the US have caused a shard declined of global trade experienced (see Chart 2 below). The collapsed of the rate of global trade in the period of 2008 to 2010 was believed as badly as the financial crisis during the great recession in 1930s.
The declined global trade seems to bring no impact on EU-ASEAN trade relations as the trade between the two regions has kept growing after a sudden drop in 2009. The following chart show the development of EU-ASEAN trade from 1995 to 2011.
Despite the increasing trend of EU-ASEAN trade in term of value, the place of EU among ASEAN trading partners decresed. The main trading partners of ASEAN countries are their Southeast Asian neighbours. Chart 4 below implies that ASEA’s intra-regional trade remains the highest.
In term of investment, EU countries has maintained their collective position as the second biggest source of FDI to ASEAN countries. The value of EU investment increased in 2011, however its proportion to the total investment in ASEAN fell. The table below shows the figures from 2009 to 2011 gatherred by the ASEAN Secretariat.
Notes: Details may not add up to totals due to rounding off errors.
1/ Ranked according to FDI inflows in 2011; covers countries on which data is available.
2/ Includes inflow from all other countries, as well as total reinvested earnings and inter-company loans in the Philippines.
3/Singapore’s data for 2011 excludes inter-company loans as geographical and industry breakdown are presently not available. Inter-company loans with intra-/extra-ASEAN breakdown for 2011 shown are estimated by the ASEAN Secretariat.
Source: ASEAN Secretariat FDI Statistic
The gap left by EU investors was quickly filled by intra-regional ones. The data in the following table reveals that capital inflows inform of FDI to ASEAN countries has increased drastically –threefold- since 2009.
The above data also bring about the fact that for the first time, intra-ASEAN investment has grown significantly, jumping from 6,000 million US$ to almost 26,000 million US$ in three years. Economic integration among ASEAN economies, besides the worsening investment conditions in other parts of the world, may have encouraged ASEAN countries to send FDI to each other.
The financial crisis in the Eurozone also hit official development assistant from EU to ASEAN countries. The figures are fluctuated with a decreasing trend. While reached the highest in 2008, the annual growth of EU ODA to the Southeast Asian countries decreased in 2009 before hiked again in 2010 and followed with a drastic drop in 2011.
The data shows that the financial crisi in Euro zone has brought some negative impacts on EU economic engagements in ASEAN countries. The conclusion of FTA negotiation between EU with Singapore and negotiation with Thailand and Malaysia seems to contribute to the rise of the trade value between EU and ASEAN countries. The EU position among ASEAN trading partners, however, decreased in 2011. Trading with China and intra-ASEAN continue to dominate ASEAN trade. Similar trend –increasing in value but decreasing in proportion againts other ASEAN partners- also took place in regard to EU investment in ASEAN countries. It is unavoidably the result of EU financial difficulties. In addition, the shortage of EU financial resource also hit the flow of development assistant from EU to ASEAN countries that have been fluctuated since 2006. The total amount of FDI flow from EU to ASEAN countries has decreased since 2010 despite the fact that EU maintains a position as the second biggest source of FDI for Southeast Asia. Similarly, the annual growth of ODA from EU to ASEAN countries has slowed down to 20% in 2011 compared with 80% in 2008. In short, in economic relations, EU is an important partner of the ASEAN countries; the European countries, however, are not the most important one.
D. Impact of the Euro crisis on ASEAN-EU
Previous section has shown briefly the economic impacts of the Euro crisis on EU-ASEAN relations. This section analysis further impacts of prolonged crisis on the European and Southeast Asian countries political and diplomatic interactions.
Toward the end of the first decade of the 21st century, whereas the Euro zone experienced financial crisis, the ASEAN countries enjoyed an economic growth accelerated by the rise of China economy. Indeed, the East Asia became the engine of the global growth when the EU and the US suffered from the financial problems. The Southeast Asian region that was overlooked by the EU due to the financial crisis a decade before was transformed to a lucratic market of 600 million population with growing middle classes and increasing purchasing power. Consequently, there is an increasing trend in which EU pays more attention to ASEAN countries. As a global trading actor, EU naturally turns to see ASEAN countries as it main interests. Since 2009, there has been more enthusiasm from the EU side to approach to ASEAN. In the same year, EU started appointing Ambassadors as representative to ASEAN after the Southeast Asian countries launched the ASEAN Charter that transform the regional institution as a legal entity.
In the subsequent years, EU launched an active economic diplomacy toward ASEAN. In 2011 the ASEAN-EU Business Summit (AEBS) was conducted in Jakarta to be followed by the second Summit in Phnom Penh a year after. EU Delegation in Southeast Asia and member states also exercised an active diplomacy to attract ASEAN investors. The regional FTA, which had been negotiated since 2007, was aborted in 2010. Subsequently, EU changed its strategy to approach ASEAN countries through bilateral FTA with the most advanced countries in Southeast Asia. The shift of efforts to establish regional FTA (EU-ASEAN) to bilateral FTA with several ASEAN countries shows EU short term strategy to accelerate trade relations with the most convenient partners while accepting the fact that ASEAN countries so vary in term of economic development and the readiness to wage effective trade relations. Despite the change of FTA strategy, EU trade deficit against the ASEAN countries prevailed.
Nevertheless, EU is keen to support the ASEAN integration. Provide funds for ASEAN integration projects. Since 2007, EU has actively assisted ASEAN integration. The amount of official development assistants that EU provided for projects towards ASEAN integration to 70 million Euro for the period of 2007-2012. It was used for various initiative in supporting ASEAN three communities.
Table 3 shows that EU supports for the regional integration of ASEAN vary from establishing trust to trade liberalization and climate change. On one hand, those various supports reflect EU competence to play its role as a partner in regional development. On other hand, however, the supports were likely to be ineffective since they were operated through the project-based cycles in which sustainability is problematic. EU officials frequently stated that a more integrated ASEAN is better for the EU. This opinion perhaps derived from their frustration in negotiating with ASEAN member states. With the decreased of EU development assistant to ASEAN as showed in Chart 6, the European support for the regional integration in ASEAN is also under questions.
Under the active economic diplomacy, leaders of EU institutions as well as EU member states have frequently visited ASEAN countries. All top leaders from EU biggest member states took the difficulties of long haul flights from Europe to meet their counterparts in the capital cities of ASEAN member states. This trend – so many high profile figures from EU and EU member states to visit ASEAN countries- is never seen before. This phenomenon is in contrast with the frequent absence of EU leaders in the ASEM summits, especially those after the Asian financial crisis.
EU active economic diplomacy and the frequent visit of U top leaders have created a better atmosphere in EU-ASEAN relations. EU criticism on social or political practices in ASEAN countries continues but with a less frequency and intensity. This change on EU diplomatic style may derive from several factors. The first is EU leaders and official realized that they had a higher priority to pursue economic interests vis-à-vis the ASEAN countries. Secondly, the changes that took place in Southeast Asian countries have addressed different perspectives between EU and ASEAN countries, especially in political issues and human rights. The political openness and transformation in Myanmar, that used to be the problems in EU-ASEAN relations, seem to contribute indispensably in this improvement of political atmosphere. Thirdly, perhaps by paying more attention to ASEAN countries and by realizing their interest in the region, the Europeans are able to build a more culturally, socially, and politically sensitive approach in their diplomacy with ASEAN. With this kind of approach, the EU officials as well as officials of EU member states seem to be more open mind and more ‘appreciate’ to what have been considered as Asian values and ‘ASEAN way’. The approach is reflected in more prudent comments on political issues in ASEAN countries and more restrain in putting forward criticism towards the ‘ASEAN way’. One of strategic steps taken by the EU is to accede to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in July 2012.
The crisis in the Euro zone and its impacts on EU active diplomacy in Southeast Asia has created mixed perceptions in ASEAN. An optimist view sees EU as a crisis fighter and believe that, as those in the past, the European countries would reemerge from the crisis stronger. However, the financial crisis has also spread skeptical views on regional integration and strengthened the refusal of ASEAN Economic Community. Those who adopt the latter perspective believe that the European integration and the common currency are very risky experiments that could create social, political and economic disaster if not chaos. The crisis in the Euro zone is a valuable lesson learn for regional integration in other parts of the world including in Southeast Asia. In addition, what has happened in Europe encourage perceptions that EU’s power is decreasing.
Despite the financial crisis and challenges to EU’s role as a global player, EU has shown an intention to deepen its relations with ASEAN. In April 2012, the two regional entities adopted the Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action which states to strengthen EU-ASEAN enhanced partnership for 2013-2017. The plan to enhance the inter-regional relations includes cooperation in policy and security. In 2012 and 2013, EU Representatives and high level officials from member states frequently stated that they expect EU could play a bigger role in the regional security. However, it is not clear the reason behind this intention and what kind of role that EU could play in the Asian security. For ASEAN countries, China’s rise, its increasing assertiveness and the US’ pivot have increased tension in the regional politics and security. It would be a question whether EU needs a pivot to Southeast Asia too.
Inter-regional relations between ASEAN and EU have been established since 1970s. This region-to-region engagement has gone through three crises that shape not only the nature of the relations but also the perceptions of each side towards each other. The first is the strained relations during 1980s due to different political values that can be categorized as the crisis of common values between ASEAN and EU. This crisis hampered the development of the inter-regional relations; EU however preceded by enhancing bilateral relations with individual ASEAN countries namely Singapore and Thailand. The second is the Asian financial crisis that cracked some ASEAN countries towards the end of 1990s; the crisis that switched European previous interests and hopes on what so called ‘Asian economic miracle’. In the context of EU-ASEAN relations, this crisis loomed the relations and created a substantial negative feeling among affected ASEAN countries as the EU economies failed to respond as sincere partners that could be relied on for real supports and needed assistance. This crisis halted the development of not only ASEAN-EU relations but also their relations in the ASEM process. EU countries seem lost their interests in ASEAN and switched their attention to newly integrated countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The third and most recent event is the financial crisis in the Euro zone that has been responded variously by people and key persons from ASEAN, creating a momentum to re-address the inter-regional relations. This period is concomitantly with continuously high economic growth in East Asia, including main countries in ASEAN, encouraging the EU countries to realize on the importance of ASEAN economies for their own. The relations mirror those in early 2000s when enthusiasm in at side was met by cautiousness and restrained at the other side.
The data collected for this study show that economic relations between the two regions have been influenced by the crisis in the Euro zone since 2009. In term of trade, export and import of goods between the two regions has increased steadily after a drop in 2009. The data implies that the Euro crisis has boasted trade between the two regions, indicated by more active governments and business from EU countries to approach their partners in Asia. The trade, nevertheless, booked a surplus for the ASEAN countries. The increased trend of an active engagement in the inter-regional trade did not take place in investment and official development assistant.
The Euro crisis has created a more balanced enthusiasm in EU-ASEAN relations. Whereas EU seems to lost interests in Southeast Asia after the Asian financial crisis, the European countries return their attention to the lucratic market of ASEAN countries when they experience the crisis. It may not ideal relations but economic interests continue to be the primary motive of the relations between the two regions.
The financial crisis in Euro zone makes the Southeast Asians not only perceive EU less powerful than before but also find out that the global power has shifted to Asia. It seems that ASEAN countries would keep EU as an important partner either in ASEAN-EU Dialogue Forum, ARF or ASEM; however, the character of the inter-regional relations is likely to change.
Bajrektarevic, A. (2013) Future of Europe, Europe’s World Journal, Brussels
Cammak, P & Richards, G 1999, ‘ASEM and interregionalism’, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-12.
Dent, C 1997/1998, ‘The ASEM: Managing the new framework of the EU’s economic relations with East Asia’, Pacific Affairs, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 25-52.
Dent, C 2001, ‘ASEM and “Cinderella complex” of EU-East Asia economic relations’, Pacific Affairs, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 495-516.
Edwards, G and Regelsberger, E 1990 (eds), Europe’s global links: The European Community and inter-regional cooperation, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
European Commission (EC) 1994, ‘Towards a new Asia strategy’, European Commission, Brussels 13.7.1994, C0M (94) 314 final, European Union (EU), viewed 10 October 2008 <http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ library /publications>
European Commission (EC) 2003, ’A new partnership with South East Asia’, European Commission, Brussels, COM (2003) 399/4, European Union (EU), viewed 10 October 2008, <http://ec.europa.eu/ external_relations/ library /publications/09seaen.pdf>
European Commission 2013, ‘EU-ASEAN: Natural Partner’, EU Delegation, Jakarta
Fawcett, L 2004, ‘Exploring regional domains: A comparative historical regionalism’, International Affairs, vol. 80, no. 3, pp.429-447.
Fawcett, L and Hurrell, A (eds) 1995, ‘Introduction’, in L Fawcett and A Hurrell, Regionalism in world politics: regional organization and international order, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fitriani, E 2010, ‘Observing ASEM from Southeast Asia’, PhD Thesis, Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian National University.
Forster, A 1999, ‘The European Union in South-East Asia: Continuity and change in turbulent times’, International Affairs, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 743-758.
Gilson, J 2002, Asia meets Europe: Inter-Regionalism and the Asia-Europe Meeting, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Gilson, J 2005, ‘New Inter-regionalism? The EU and East Asia’, European Integration, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 307-326.
Hanggi, H 1999, ‘ASEM and the construction of the New Triad’, The Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 56-80.
Hettne, B & Soderbaum, F 2002, ‘Theorizing the rise of regionness’, in S Breslin, C Hughes, N Phillips & B Rosamond (Eds), New regionalism in the global political economy, Routledge, London.
Hurrell, A (eds) 1995, ‘Regionalism in theoretical perspectives’ in L Fawcett and A Hurrell, Regionalism in world politics: regional organization and international order, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Katzenstein, P 2000, ‘Regionalism and Asia’, New Political Economy, vol.5 no.3, pp. 353-368.
Lee, J & Park, J 2001, ‘The role of regional identity in Asia-Europe relations with special reference to ASEM’, in Global Economic Review, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 19-33.
Leifer, M & Djiwandono, S 1998, ‘Europe and Southeast Asia’ in H Maull, G Segal, & J Wanandi (eds), Europe and the Asia Pacific, Routledge, London.
Richards, G & Kirkpatrick, C 1999, ‘Reorienting interregional cooperation in the global political economy: Europe’s East Asia Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 683-710.
Stockhof, W & van der Velde, P (eds) 1999, ASEM: A window of opportunity, Kegan Paul International, London.
Yeo, L 1997, ‘The Bangkok ASEM and the future of Asian-Europe Relations’, Southeast Asian Affairs, vol. 33, pp. 33-44.
Yeo, L 2003, Asia & Europe: The development and different dimensions of ASEM, Routledge, London
Brick By Brick, BRICS Now a New Bridge for a New World
Measuring BRICS in single decades, in 2001, BRIC started as an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, and China; Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill claimed that by 2050 the four BRIC economies would come to dominate the global economy. So South Africa was added to BRIC in 2010. The following countries are now expressing interest in joining: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Is this now the awakening of BRICS+ or BRICS power?
BRICS+ by 2030 will add dozen new members and carve new indices, and by 2040, it will lead to new intellectualism on geopolitics and socio-economies for the super complex 2050 age of smart living.
Historically, BRICS nations pushed on their people-power agenda over super-power titles. They made extreme value-creation economic models over focusing on powerful military-industrial complexes. They focused on nation-building and avoided special mandates to manage global affairs. They have been on a quest to upgrade them. They were feeding hungry mouths, as they were population rich, constantly up-skilling, and improving value creation as they were SME rich. They kept a steady watch to create multilateralism to uplift humankind.
They, too, made mistakes, as did the rest of the world
In the third decade of the third millennium, come 2020, three transformations erupted. First, futurism changed the rules on the ‘physicality of work’ and created a new imbalance with the ‘mentality of performance’; this has divided the workforce of world; the old system of over a billion commuting daily to the center of a complex maze to arrive daily at the sanctum of the company and create climate change. So now, in response, some 50% of the world’s workforce has chosen to stay away and work remotely in the surroundings of wide-open choices. Furthermore, technology uplifted micro-power-nations and exposed Western economies now stripped naked in bubble baths on slippery floors, they tippy-toe practicing conga-lines
Newly magnified economy: Behold, what microscopes exposed the magnified inner workings of the body. Similarly, the integrated networks have exposed the digital connectivity and working of millions of villages, cities, and nations with additional billions of people to interact, trade, improve grassroots prosperity and create a well-informed and opinionated citizenry. Some 100 years ago, if only 1% of the world’s population knew what was happening, today it is a dozen times more, and by 2030 double again. Why would these numbers change the global economic matrix when translated into micro-trading, micro-manufacturing, and micro-exporting? International opinion today is already strong enough to crush any national opinion of any nation still lingering under the illusion of a self-promoted victory.
When the SME sector already exists within each nation, the global markets are always hungry for good quality goods and services, and the rains of almost free digital technologies make such transformation a quick turnaround. Therefore, mindsets are critically essential; the need to define the difference between the job seeker mindset that builds the organizations and the job creator mindset that originates and creates that organization in the first place.
So what are the lessons, key features, and blueprints in sight?
Mistakes and new lessons: Last many decades, as the new world was rising, Western citizens felt like China experts, and their regular visits to local China towns restaurants in each city misguided them that Laundromat trained Chinese could only produce some chicken fried rice. Ever since the advent of the camera, the East was always projected as poor and dysfunctional; mesmerized by the media coverage during the last many decades, the West was equally convinced that India, a land of only snake charmers and fakirs, finally someday speak better English. The general perceptions about Asia, besides eating rice, if they could ever make cheaper products for the West. The rest is history, mistakes, and lessons.
After the big ding-dong nights of 2000 New Year’s Eve, today’s new story starts from the 20th chapter. Now China and India alone have created some 500 million new entrepreneurs, not by a magic pill or meta-crypto-wand but by National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism, a slow, painful deployment of SMEs across the nation, and by creating mobilization protocols to identify, classify, and digitizing based on multiple factors from type and size to the evaluation of their “respectable” role in future communities and economic factors. This methodology was far more advanced in strategy and stern management over the globalization frenzy from the West, where sudden exporting of manufacturing of the industrial plants to kill manufacturing and destroying the middle class out of the West already declared globalization a great success.
The other mistake is to assume this is an economic or an academic study, at best, like an Oscar Slap on sleepy rotundas occupied with endless printing of money across the Western economies. Instead, this is an entrepreneurial response for the entrepreneurial nations to awaken hidden entrepreneurial talents in up-skilling SMEs and re-skilling manufacturers at national levels.
Recommendations and warnings: No airline can survive with only Flight Engineers and Frequent Flyers stuffed inside the cockpits; that space is only reserved for highly trained pilots. Henceforth, across the world, any economic development of any size, shape, or authority may find other more suitable alternate paths of occupation if they still cannot demonstrate any levels of understanding, applicable skills, or mobilization mastery on the National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism to up-skill exporters and re-skill manufactures and uplift national SME sector as the most prominent economic contributor of the nation. Study the biggest error of economic thinking
Underestimating the hidden powers of early thinking and starting a tiny unknown SME is a mistake of mindsets; here, entrepreneurialism like a saga unfolds, like a voluminous piece of literature but demanding literacy, understanding the job seeker mindsets and the ability to differentiate with entrepreneurial job creator mindset is already winning half the battle. Study the Mindset Hypotheses
Nations failing to realize the power of the billion SME rising in Asia and still unable to declare a national agenda of national mobilization of SMEs now must acquire an understanding of the 4B Factor: a billion displaced due to the pandemic, a billion replaced due to technology, a billion misplaced in wrong jobs now a billion on starvation watch. Furthermore, this 4 billion ever digitally connected mass of people ever in the history of humankind is now the most significant force of global opinion. Notice nations are already intoxicated with joy over the popularity of their national public opinion while having just an opposite international opinion on the world stage.
Recommendation; everyone is born an entrepreneur; our system chips away at this talent. Nevertheless, 10% to 50% high potential SMEs of any nation once are identified, classified, and digitized within 100 days. The uplifting digital platforms of up-skilling exporters and re-skilling manufacturers will result in 10% to 50% quadrupling their performance, productivity, and profitability. Imagine how much-regimented efforts will activate a positive national economic revolution based on real value creation, uplifting grassroots prosperity. How soon is a nation ready for a significant change? The rest is easy.
Promoting Economic Security: Enhancing Stability and Well-being
The stability and well-being of people, communities, and countries are critically dependent on economic security. It covers a range of topics, such as access to necessities, work opportunities, stable incomes, and defense against economic shocks. The need of guaranteeing economic security has increased significantly in the modern world, which is characterized by technical developments, geopolitical shifts, and unexpected disasters. The importance of economic security is examined in this article, along with important tactics for promoting adaptability and preserving people’s quality of life.
The value of economic security to individuals, communities, and countries cannot be overstated. By fostering an atmosphere where people and families can achieve their basic needs without suffering undue stress, it promotes stability. Because of this stability, people can recuperate and start over after severe shocks like economic downturns, natural disasters, or health crises.
Furthermore, economic security contributes to social cohesion by reducing inequality and fostering inclusivity. When individuals feel economically secure, they are more likely to actively participate in society, contribute to their communities, and engage in productive endeavors. This sense of security leads to greater social harmony and a collective feeling of prosperity.
Moreover, economic security is vital for long-term sustainable development. It enables individuals and societies to invest in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and innovation. These investments drive economic growth, improve overall well-being, and create the foundation for a prosperous future. By ensuring economic security, countries can build resilient and sustainable economies that benefit their citizens and contribute to global progress.
To enhance economic security, several key strategies can be implemented. Firstly, governments and businesses should prioritize diversifying their economies by promoting sectors with growth potential and resilience. By reducing reliance on a single industry or market, countries can mitigate the impact of economic downturns and build a more robust and diversified economy.
Investing in education and skills development is another crucial strategy. Governments and organizations must focus on providing quality education, vocational training, and lifelong learning opportunities. Equipping individuals with the necessary tools and knowledge enables them to adapt to changing economic landscapes and remain competitive in the job market.
Strong social safety nets are necessary to protect people during times of economic upheaval. The most disadvantaged populations should be given priority in the design and implementation of comprehensive social welfare systems by the government. Creating a safety net for all citizens entails implementing programs for income support, healthcare coverage, and unemployment benefits.
Promoting entrepreneurship and innovation can create new opportunities for economic growth and job creation. Governments can support aspiring entrepreneurs by providing access to capital, mentorship programs, and favorable regulatory environments. Embracing technological advancements and fostering a culture of innovation further enhances economic security, particularly in an increasingly digital world.
International cooperation is essential since economic security is a global issue. Cooperation between nations is necessary to advance ethical business practices, lessen economic inequality, and improve financial stability. Initiating discourse, coordinating policy, and assisting nations in economic crises are all important functions of multilateral organizations.
Societies can improve their economic security and create a more secure and prosperous future by putting these strategies into practice: diversifying the economy, investing in education and skills, creating social safety nets, encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation, and fostering international cooperation.
Having economic security is crucial in a world that is uncertain and changing quickly. Governments, corporations, and individuals may all work together to create an environment that promotes economic security by putting a priority on stability, resilience, and inclusivity. We can create a more resilient and prosperous future for everybody through diversity, education, social safety nets, entrepreneurship, and international cooperation. By making investments in financial stability, we build a more just and sustainable world.
The Impact of Globalization on the South Asian Economy
Globalization refers to the process by which economies, societies, and cultures from different countries become integrated with one another. The economies of the countries that make up South-East Asia, which include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, have been significantly impacted by the spread of globalization in recent decades. The effects of globalization on the economies of South Asian countries have been mixed, with some positive and some negative results.
Positive Impacts of Globalization on the South Asian Economy
The expansion of South-East Asia’s trade and investment opportunities is one of the aspects of globalization that has had the most positive impact on the region’s economy. Because of its large consumer base, low labor costs, and strategic location, the region has become an attractive destination for foreign investors. As a consequence of this, the level of foreign direct investment (FDI) in South Asia has significantly increased, which has led to the development of new industries and the production of new jobs.
The expansion of the service industry in Sout-East Asia can also be attributed to the effects of globalization. South Asian countries have emerged as a hub for the outsourcing of services such as information technology (IT) and business process outsourcing as a result of the emergence of new technologies and the increased availability of skilled labor (BPO). As a direct consequence of this, the area has benefited from an increase in both the number of available jobs and the amount of money it brings.
Last but not least, globalization has facilitated greater cultural interaction and integration throughout South-East Asia. The region possesses a significant cultural legacy, and the advent of globalization has made it possible for South Asian music, films, and cuisine to become popular all over the world. This has not only contributed to a greater awareness of the region’s cultural heritage, but it has also opened up new doors for the travel and hospitality industry.
Negative Impacts of Globalization on the South-East Asian Economy
Even though there have been some positive effects, there have also been some negative effects that globalization has had on the South Asian economy. The widening gap between rich and poor is one of the most pressing problems that we face today. The advantages brought about by globalization have accrued almost entirely to a relatively small number of people, which has contributed to a widening income gap. As a consequence of this, social unrest and a wider gap in incomes have emerged.
Another significant obstacle that has been presented is the displacement of workers and traditional industries. Due to the effects of globalization, many smaller businesses have been forced to shut down, and their employees have been relocated to larger companies that are more productive. As a consequence of this, there has been an increase in unemployment as well as social unrest, particularly in rural areas.
Globalization has contributed to the deterioration of the environment in South Asia. The region has seen a growth in industries such as the textile industry, both of which have had a significant impact on the environment as a result of their expansion. The population’s health and well-being have suffered as a direct result of environmental degradation, which can be traced back to the increased consumption of natural resources and the improper disposal of waste produced by industrial processes.
The economy of the South-East Asian region has been affected in both positive and negative ways by the phenomenon of globalization. While it has resulted in the growth of industries and increased cultural exchange, it has also resulted in the displacement of workers and the widening of income inequality. While it has contributed to the growth of industries and increased cultural exchange, it has also resulted in the displacement of workers. In order to address these challenges, policy interventions that foster inclusive growth, protect the environment, and create new opportunities for the population will be required. By acting in this manner, countries in South Asia will be able to take advantage of globalization’s positive aspects while mitigating some of its more damaging effects.
Newsweek: “Putin scores a win in Turkey’s election”
Russian President Vladimir Putin secured a victory in Turkey’s presidential election results on Sunday, writes ‘Newsweek’. Turkish President Recep Tayyip...
Larry Johnson: The aftermath of Bakhmut and why the CIA is in trouble
The West is desperate to avoid having any meaningful discussion or review of the Battle of Bakhmut because it was...
Drone attack on Moscow
The Russian Defence Ministry: – This morning, the Kiev regime has launched a terrorist drone attack on the city of...
Horn of Africa Crisis: Critical Challenges Ahead
Ultimately the situation in the Horn of Africa is rapidly deteriorating due to frequent militant attacks and terrorists’ pressures in...
Can Erdogan repay the people’s trust?
The Turkiye nation has concluded the most important election in the country’s modern history. The people of modern Turkey came...
The Sino-Russian-led World Order: A Better Choice for the Globe?
International forums, which were once established to promote cooperation and dialogue among the world’s states, are now increasingly being used...
Political Crisis, Power Distribution and Taliban in Pakistan
The political crisis in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan tends to evolve. Elite groups in the government and the opposition...
Southeast Asia4 days ago
Behind the cancellation of Tesla’s investment in Indonesia
World News3 days ago
Gen. Milley: “F-16s won’t be a ‘magic weapon’ for Ukraine”
Middle East4 days ago
The 32nd Arab League meeting will have a far-reaching impact
Africa4 days ago
Africa Day 2023: Remembering the Past and Looking for a Better Future
Europe3 days ago
Genocide, Serbia and the Ukraine War: Geopolitics Matters
Americas3 days ago
Can the U.S. afford to lose the Middle East?
World News3 days ago
Report: Russia adapted arms and tactics ahead of Ukraine offensive
Health & Wellness4 days ago
6 Ways to Effectively Treat Trauma and Take Charge of Your Life