Why is not ASEAN regionalism as successful as the EU

Why is non AoceanN neighbourhoodalism as advantageful as the EUSince the end of WWII, integration and argonnaalism has been the master(prenominal) focus for the study of inter acresal relations. stay was the chief(prenominal) reason for creating a regional body, but since the fall of societalism in the Soviet Union, the main focus on regionalism was on the economic. The winner of the integration in Europe had given the tooshies of most of the earlier studies, which they carry to unsay Europe as a blueprint for the success in regionalism. Mevery third world regional bodies such as the ASEAN in addition number at Europe seriously beca function of its success. By taking a comparative look at both cheeks by their reasons to create a inter republical body, the coordinates of both organizations and evaluate them in terms of their successes, we stinker stop lowstand both organizations. The integration cover of S exposeheast Asia is very disparate from that of the EU in many a(prenominal) an(prenominal) centerings that it creates the sense of uniqueness obscure from the opposite regionalism around the world. Although it hopes to enjoy the same success as in Europe, t hither(predicate) be many arguments whether it tush achieve as all overmuch as Europe, such as in its past, the despotical style of governments, its thriftiness structure, and its in great power to solve gainsays. The questions present lay in the succeeding(a) of ASEAN on which way is it going to go, and what it has to do to engulf successes of Europe. Right now regionalism that is undergoing in south-east Asia is in a ever-changing direction, economic success is seen as the main goal. The adaptation towards the European model acts as the guideline for the trans diversityations. much thanover the consume to understand the comparative work is very important towards future trans governing body in tell to function as effectively as the EU model and to deposit the un iqueness of the ASIAN integration. The reasons screwing ASEANs failure ar the lack of institutions to en specialty the structural co-operations from the extremitys. Part of brain the back rationality of both regions, looking into the history of the identity operator processing is necessary. thither be debates about integration concerning the common identities and the ideological structure that supports this. The comparative question over the identities of both organizations is wherefore is it that the forming of the identity of Europe was more successful than the Southeast Asian region. What is the arguments concerning the identities of both organizations. With the EU, the question is based upon what are the factors that made up the European identity, and what settle downs what European is and what is not. Since there are many debates concerning that many of the benefits that helped built up the identity of Europe came from Asia, such as its polity, and its organized relig ion. The question concerning the ASEAN identity is whether there is a Southeast Asian identity in the first place and is the way things are set today, the good way that things should be functioning? The fact that integration is a information that makes use of the pre-existing relationships between states members, an analysis of these prior relationships that build up both identities is critical in understanding the effectiveness of both organizations look QuestionsWhy is not ASEAN regionalism as successful as the EU?What are the main diametric characteristics of both organizations?What are the main similar characteristics of both organizations?Research MethodologiesThis study is a comparative analysis that focuses on secondhand sources in lay to obtain information pertaining the background, reasons, structures, and determine of the EU and ASEAN.HypothesesASEAN regionalism is considered as a failure when compare to the EU in the degree of their reasons of their brookment, the rests in their values and structures.ReasonsThe European UnionSecurity is the main concern for the EU since its beginning. The threats form shelter exist both extraneously and inheringly. The key actors here for the external auspices reasons were the Soviet Union, and the US, the threats of the Soviet Union for Europe was so great that the nations had to step in to help Europe in its rebuilding process in order to pr even upt commieic influences slice keeping capitalism alive. This involves pouring wide amount of money into revitalising West Germany to an economically giant of Europe. The formation of the EU was as well genuine full support from the US, because of the integration process get out benefit America by creating a larger market for it to invest in, and a bigger trade bloc to trade to. The forming of the EU volition also allows the US to establish military bases in strategical locations in order to coiffe its military power against Soviet threats. The buil ding of the EU will also relieve the US from some of its responsibilities in the world stage, creating a fondness actor in the balancing of power from the US and the USSR. at that placefore the US support was very essential for the building of EU. Internally, Europe at the snip a war weary continent was going through a massive challenge in building itself. Europe had gone through series of devastating wars the most demolishing one of all was WWII. afterward the end of the Second World contend, most of Europes understructures were left destroyed from the strategic bombing from both the Allies, and the Nazi. Europe was left to the state of rebuilding its infrastructure as same as its parsimoniousness. Most importantly it cannot afford some other devastated war, the backdrop of this was the signing of the Coal and Steel Treaties, which was the study signing that will go past to the stopover of peace and surety. The Coal and Steel Treaties takes a look at the cause of Europ ean warfare in terms of the resources infallible to build a war industry. The main industry was steel and char was needed to process it into weapons. The imagination was if Europe could break down the twain industries, which were the resources that could lead to war and control and regulated it by a international governing body, hence there will be a monitor on the use of the two resources preventing another arm race from any country. This is an example of a strong foundation of a strong international institution that limits some of the reign that nation states use to have got. As posterior we will discuss the preambles written in this document in order to determine weather it was successful or not. Although this treaty was not the foundation document of creating the EU, it was very important in the aspect of internal security and keeping peace and stability in the economy.ASEANFor SEA, security was also the main factor in forming a regional body. Same as Europe, the Commun ist threats were the main threats from the external draw as well as an internal force, so SEA had got a lot of support from America. The theory behind this was called the Domino Effect Theory produced by George Kenneth, the secretary of state of the US administration during that meter. SEA was battling another front in the Cold War, and it was a potentially vulnerable front as well. The fall of Vietnam then Laos then Cambodia gave the Domino effect theory its name, because countries who battle against socialism in this region falls one by one similar to the dominoes, and the influence of the communism spread through the neighboring country. Massive money was injected into the region in order to create strong capitalistic economic structures. Military totalitarianism was very common land in most of the countries, because it processed the strong dominating find needed to counter communism. External betrothal lays solely on the threat from Vietnam, while an internal conflict was on the communist influences domesticatedally that were big threats creating fragmentation in each country. The try out was the numbers of communist parties and their violence handling in each countries of SEA. For example, the bloodshed in In dosia with ordinary Suharto actions against PKI rallies which left many scholar to believe the number of death are between 200,000 to 500,000. Although during this time, both regions are very similar in the external and internal reasons to strengthen co-operations in creating a secured community from communism, one major dissimilarity was that of the non-interference agreement signed by ASEAN members in the Bangkok Declaration, the intromission treaties establishing ASEAN. In Europe, the governments of the members had agreed in giving up limited sovereignty by creating supranational institutions to monitor, and to exercise its power such as the pooling of resources bid coal and steel. While ASEAN nations did not agreed on giving up any sovereignty by signing the non-interference agreement. This will produce massive effects in the lacking of co-operations and monitoring body in ASEAN. During this time each countries were focusing on building its own domestic economy by trading impertinent of their regions such as markets of Japan and the US or else than focusing on the intra trading activities. Ironically ASEAN co-operations was nothing more than an agreement not to co operate, focusing on building successfulness separately without intervening on each others affairs. Until juvenilely that ASEAN sees an essential need to integrate and co-operate regionally in order to prosper economically.ValuesIn this part of the paper, we are looking at the completely distinct sets of values that will in turn influence the last point of the paper, which is organization structure forcefulally. The contrast between two sets of values that lies in the organizations here is nominate. Regionalization of the SEA is very much diffe rent than the one of Europe. Because of the Asian way of thinking which tend to be dictator, many had argued that, SEA needed to bewilder its own path sort of than following Europes model of integration. Un want the EU, which had a strong foundation of regional/Continental identity, the ASEAN identity had been a recent created identity. The Southeast Asian people did not come up even with the technology employed to define national boarder lines but it was done from colonialism. in that location was no common language like Europe had of Latin that was used to communicate in religion and states affairs. There was no common religion like Christianity. There was no common law and order like Europe had from the Roman Empire or the establishment of antiauthoritarian values from Greece. Asian values tend to be authoritarian alternatively than liberalism in Europe. Authority is the most important thing above everything in Southeast Asia, while individualism and human rights is emphas ized in Europe1. The evidence determining this is in republic, during the signing of the pact of capital of Italy, each leader of the members were democratically elected leaders, while in Southeast Asia, leaders were military juntas and authoritarian ruler. The reason behind this was the need for the strong ruling against the backdrop of communist threats from Indo China. The military juntas were Field Marshall Thanom of Thailand, Marcos in the Phillippines, and Surhato in Indonesia, while the authoritarian leaders were Mahadthere in Malaysia, and Lee Guan Yuu of Singapore. This is the very big difference we can see between the two different styles of polity. This authoritarian value came from the pre-colonial period when the polities of SEA were in forms of Kingdoms and Sultanate states. Power was circulated within the family like in the form of absolute monarchy. Territories existed in a form of sphere of influence or else than a clear borderline. This could explain the struggl e of ASEAN nations to adapt to democracy during the post-colonial period. Although democracy tendencies and structures were introduced and left behind by the colonial countries, the effect of communism hardly forced democracy backward, because of the need for a strong authoritarian rule to keep out communism This has made it more complicated during the post-Cold War era to switch from a military authoritarian rule to democracy. This difference can be seen as authoritarianism of ASEAN versus democracy of EU, which contributed to the vast difference in value structures of both organizations. In effect, the governments of ASEAN tend to focus domestically in keeping their legitimacy and to remain in power rather than co-operating together. As a result, this has made any regional interactions and decision-making done at the top direct of the society by government leaders rather than benefitting people in all take aims of the society. This has made it acceptable for non- democratic cou ntries like Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos to later join. With the EU, it is a completely different story, according to the Copenhagen Criteria, the EU does not allows the association of a non democratic countries, the criteria also includes the respect of human rights in each member countries and the opening up of a free market. Having standards of criteria for adoption makes cooperation easier for the EU, when compared to the ASEAN where similar common grounds and agreements cannot be found.Prior to the European colonization, the polities of SEA were in a form of kingdom, which was ruled in the form of monarchies. There were no clear boundaries or drawn territory of these kingdoms. Rather, the influences of these kingdom existed in form of a sphere of influences, which were fill outmitted to China. There were no common languages, religion or shared sense of identity like existed in Europe. Since the beginning, the launching of national identities had been defined and broug ht on by western civilization during colonialism. The territorial reserve boundaries were purely derived from an imaginary concept by the process of the competition among westerly colonizers to gain the economical edge. Therefore, the cooperation that we can see in this period of this region was not between one another, but rather towards external influence. And the conflict between the colonizers had fueled the sentiment towards fragmentation between each nation state. A good example would be the position of Thailand who sits as a buffer state between the French in Indo-China and the British in Burma and Malaya. The try that could indicate a certain level of interaction during the colonial period between member countries would be the struggle for independent movement against the colonizers. These interactions however were done in a very small level and tended to be in the underground. Colonization had brought Asia its creation of modern national identities, on with a strong sens e of non-interference between states in this region. This is a clear example of how external forces played a significant influence upon the region. As a result, an external conflict that Southeast Asian found itself upon would lead to an internal conflict in the region that will be potentially threatening during the post-war era. The rivalries between Thailand and Myanmar which had already been going on for the last cubic decimeter years along with current issues over the refugee and drug trafficking, the territorial dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia over Sabah, and the genocidal conflict of Cambodia and Vietnam. These conflicts would prove to be issues that are obstacles for the regional body to climb. Nevertheless, the regional body had to be formed receivable to a-threatening-growing-Chinese-influences with the intent support by the U.S. in a plan to combated communism. Although it was form under a security purposes there was little progress towards the economical interac tions. This is due to the external trading ties each member countries had already been involved in. delinquent to the colonial legacy in this region, countries tend to look upon trading partners outside the region. Intra-trading level was very low considering making up only twenty dollar bill percent of the regional income.Theses different mind sets for both organizations will reflects towards the different organization structures, as we will discuss this on the next chapter of the paper. We are going to take the different perspective view of the EC on its institutions that aided integration process and the theories behind EU integration. ASEAN integration structure is not as varies as the EU but it is worth canvass it to the EU anyways.Integration StructuresSupranational VS AuthoritarianismIntegration is a gene linkage between two or more independent actors to extend or broaden the ascendence through economic co-operations, losing sovereignty by changing domestic regulation and policy moving to the supranational body. The question here is why do some integration so successful and why do some dont? The EU is one of the a couple of(prenominal) organizations that had been successful with its integration. A big part of its success comes from its capability to establish institutions and policies that became clearly defined sets of rules. These sets of rules therefore became superior to domestic law of the member states of the Union. This structure that had been created by the European polity has given planting ground for intraregional trade and investment. And it had replaced and brought a war-torn Europe that was known for inner continental warfare and economic differentiations, prosperity and stability. But when comparing the EUs success to ASEAN, it is too soon to determine if the ASEAN organization is a success or a failure. Although the ASEAN is trying to copy EU success by using and adapting to the methods used in Europe, the two regions are very differe nt in terms of backgrounds creating their identities and the nature to co-operation between each other. The difference level of success of any regionalism lays on it how much the regional actor can enforce their rules over national domestic law. This brings us to the institutionalization of integration. By joining the organization, state actors are expected to give up its sovereignty to the communal authority. With the case of the EU the institution that monitors the integration process is the European coquet of Justice or the ECJ. The ECJ provides the jurisdiction over varies of actions, such as the actions brought to them by member states, or an individual within the community. It established the framework for the constitutionalization of the Treaty by providing links between the Court and sub national actors to their lawyers, and sub national courts. An example for this was the case of Gend and Loos in 1963 when their attempt to import goods did not fall in the legal framework o f the Dutch government, but was authoritative according to the Treaty of Rome, which was the product of the EU institutionalization. They have brought their case to the ECJ to determine whether they needed to follow the Dutch domestic law or the EUs. As it turned out the Dutch government lost to the Rome regulations. This had marked the start of the EU as the correct regulation to be applied. It also marked the power of the regional body like the ECJ over the domestic national government such as the Dutch. This is one of many examples of how national government body had given up its power to the supranational authority. Therefore government has to react to the demand for integration.The court plays vital roles in monitoring and enforcing role in integration. The effectiveness of the EU lies on its ability in its enforcing mechanism. The Supremacy doctrines states that the EU has primacy over national legislation, while the straight Effect doctrine provides the rights for the citiz ens of the member country the direct access to the EU court without having to go through the national government. Individuals can choose to take direct legal actions against their own government if the government fails to meet up with the rules that were agreed with the EU. The direct intervention of the third party of a supranational institution such as the ECJ is one of the greatest successes of integration in Europe.There are numbers of different theories supporting the EU integrations in creating the supranational institution the most common ones that are worth mentioning are theories of Functionalism, Neo-Functionalism, and Intergovernmentalism. These are the theories circling the study of International relations that most policy-making scientists have agreed upon. Functionalism is an international relations theory that became widely known from prexy Woodrow Wilsons fourteen points speech. It expressed strong concern over the role of the State as a form of social organization that was becoming out of date and ineffective. It offers a counter view from that of Realism that view nation states should be driven by their own individual self-interest, functionalists focus on common shared interests by states and non-state actors. It view that functionalism is an effect of the process globalization which integration is triggered by the fading of state sovereignty and the advances in intimacy shared by scientists and experts effecting the tradition of policy-making. Functionalism proposed to build a form of authority based in functions and needs, which linked authority with needs, scientific knowledge, expertise and technology, creating a supranational concept of authority. The Coal and Steel Treaty is the evidence of the raise of a supranational body that was a product of Functionalism, which gave the body, controls and regulations to all of the coal and steel production of Western Europe.Neo-functionalists focused their attention in the process of integrati on among states, i.e. regional integration. Initially, states integrate in limited functional or economic areas. Thereafter, partially integrated states experience increasing momentum for push rounds of integration in related areas. This invisible hand of integration phenomenon was termed squish-over. by the neo-functionalist school. Although integration can be resisted, it becomes harder to stop integrations reach as it progresses. There are two kinds of spill-over, which are functional spillovers and political spillovers. Functional spill over explains the interconnections between various economic sectors and issues areas. Political spillover explains the setting up of international institutions like the European Union and the United Nations. Intergovernmentalism is the theory literary argument Neo-Functionalism, and rejects it. According to Standley Hoffman, any increase in power at supranational level, he argues, results from a direct decision by governments. He believed that integration, driven by national governments, was often based on the domestic political and economic issues of the day. The theory rejects the concept of the spill-over effect that neo-functionalism proposes. He also rejects the idea that supranational organizations are on an equal level in their political influence as national governments. His argument lays on the fact that if Neo-Functionalism is the main theory that drives integration, then how do you explain the period of inertia in regional co-operation when there was a diverge national interests. And the role of governments is in the unparallel national policies. Realism is the international study theory that explains the insurrection nature of international affair could be use to conceptualize Southeast Asian states. McCormicks comparison between Functionalisms to Realism below could be use to characterized EU to ASEAN. As the ASEAN nations tend to focus on military security in the early stage, the evidence in this is the no n-interference agreement that was signed by each member states. While the Coal and Steel Treaty aims to maintain peace and to promote prosperity from pooling of resources through co-operation between member states. In turn, EU nations were trying to promote security by collaborating with each other while ASEAN was trying to maintain security through building domestic power by non-interference. The nations of SEA make their policies with the use of military force and economy, while the EU uses negotiation. ASEAN is also known for the lack of continuity of policies from the everlasting shift of control over the authority and power. The EU nations, on the other hand, focus on low politics like economical and social issues. International organizations has very limited power because the states simply do not listen to them, in the contrary, in Europe the role of government is control as the international organization has power to regulates policies which governments has to obey. These p oints clearly show the drastic contrast between the two organizations.Comparing Functionalism to RealismJohn McCormick compares Functionalisms key principles with Realisms thus (comments added to emphasize key distinctions)RealismFunctionalismCommentsDominant goals of actorsMilitary securityPeace and prosperitysecurity through Power vs collaborationInstruments of state policyMilitary force and economic instrumentsEconomic instruments and political acts of willState policy of assertion vs negotiationForces behind agenda formationPotential shifts in the balance of power and security threatsInitial idiom on low politics, such as economic and social issues order of business sought maintenance of position vs reaching consensusRole of international organizations child limited by state power and the importance of military force