Cooperation Vs. Confrontation: Asia’s New Multilateralism Hannah Perry 4013R360-8.

Cooperation Vs. Confrontation: Asia’s New

MultilateralismHannah Perry 4013R360-8

Definitions of MultilateralismRobert Keohane: Cooperation or coordination of three or

more nations in any form

John Ruggie: Cooperation that is institutionalised through common rules and norms within the multilateral form

James Caporaso: Multilateral cooperation that is regulated by general norms and indivisibility of values

John Duffield: Highest form of multilateral institutionalisation that involves clear rules, compliance, commitment and an institutionalised third-party mediator

Cold War: The Rise of Asian Regionalism

US bilateral partnerships:1951: Australia, New Zealand, Philippines 1953: South Korea1954: Japan, Thailand, Taiwan

1954: Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines,

Thailand, UK, USA

1967: Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)Founding members: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,

Singapore, Thailand

Post Cold War: “Asianisation”1989: Asia-Pacific Economic Forum (APEC) – Australia,

Brunei, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, USA 1993: APEC formally institutionalised and headquartered in

Singapore with 21 participating members

1994: ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) – 27 countries First Asia-Pacific multilateral forum for consultations on peace

and security issues

2001: Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) – China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Russia, Uzbekistan Summits on political, economic and security issues

Post Cold War: “Asianisation”ASEAN Expansion

1997: ASEAN Plus Three- Japan, China, South Korea (APT) APT summit 2002 proposed East Asian Free Trade Agreement

under the ‘East Asia Summit’ (EAS)

2005: Inaugural EAS Membership criteria announced

Members must have close relations with ASEANMembers must be full dialogue partners with ASEANMembers must be signatories of ASEAN Treaty of Amity and

Cooperation (TAC)

Asian institutional architecture

Successful Asianisation? Asian regionalism characterised by:

Bilateral MultilateralNew Asian institutional ‘architecture’

New regional architecture allows for greater fluidity

Bloc-based system vs. open regionalism Asia proper vs. Broader Asia Pacific EAS vs. APT – uneasy coexistence Power centres in the region – China? Japan?

Ad Hoc Multilateralism – ‘Minilaterals’

What is ad hoc multilateralism/minilateralism?

Impromptu organisations, bringing together like-minded countries in the face of imminent threats in order to address and resolve common issues

Example: The threat from North Korean nuclear ambitions

1995: Korean Energy Development Organisation – USA, Japan, South Korea, EU

1997/1999: Four Party Talks convened between China, USA, North Korea and South Korea

2003: Six Party Talks – China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Russia and USA

Ad Hoc Multilateralism – ‘Minilaterals’

Why is the ad hoc process appealing?

Capability to focus on specific, mutually shared problems

‘Coalitions of the willing’

Including China in minilateral coalitions reinforces stability in the region

Obstacles to the process of regional integration

1. Who is in Asia? – Discrepancies in geographic scope Each state attempts to pursue individual national interests USA prefers trans-pacific agreementsChina prefers narrow geographic definitions of Asia in order to

increase its weight and influenceHowever; a combination of exclusivity and inclusivity remains

Obstacles to the process of regional integration

2. What Agenda? What Norms? EU members had a set of common norms that allowed for

effective integration and development of the EU Japan vs. China – an ideational contest

China aims to preserve diversity of norms and value-neutral cooperation

Japan aims to narrow normative gaps between countries on issues such as democracy and human rights

Obstacles to the process of regional integration

3. What kind of economic integration? Issues regarding

SpeedInclusivityReduction of barriers to trade and investment US investment

Asia has largely focused on bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTA)

Only proposals and potential for more inclusive economic integration – FTAAP, APT-FTA

Obstacles to the process of regional integration

4. Who provides public goods?US remains the most important actor in humanitarian crises or

state failure – A reliance on US military capabilities Stability sits on the shoulders of the US network of alliances in

the region Problem of bilateral military cooperation between ASEAN

states and the US rather than between ASEAN states

Can multilateralism work?Socialisation effect – where states are eager to acquire an

Asian identity through involvement with multilateral institutions states acquire regional norms

Common lexicon – rising use of concepts including ‘East Asian Community’ and ‘open and inclusive regionalism’

Collective action becoming the common norm

States beginning to cede aspects of national sovereignty in order to promote cooperation

Findings and Implications Gill and Green Define Asia’s new multilateralism; ‘extension and intersection of national power and purpose rather than as an objective force in itself’ (p.3)

Positive Findings: Clear desire within the region for Asian led institutions Notable increase in the number of multilateral mechanisms Economic integration largely prioritised over security cooperation

Negative Findings: Continued under-institutionalisation in Asia compared to Europe Attempts to establish a balance of power dynamic remains Continued over-reliance on the US

Asia vs. Europe National sovereignty and power of the nation state remains

overwhelmingly important in Asia

Asian model is more fluid and flexible whilst Europe is based on a formal legality approach

Asia = diversity of political systems, economic levels, social conditions etc.

Asian institutionalisation is often responding to crises and discontinuity

No equivalent to the European Coal and Steel Union

What does the Future hold? ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) – 2015

Goal of regional economic integration with free movement of goods & services, labour etc.

AEC blueprint adopted in 2007

Concerns: Problems of form over substance – creating numerous new forums

may be redundant more beneficial to strengthen or enlarge existing forums

Necessary to focus on stability and not just the language of community building

Competition due to ad hoc agreements may create new security dilemmas

Conclusion/CommentsProblematic to compare Asian multilateralism to European

integration

Problematic to apply academic definitions of multilateralism directly

Necessary to draw a distinction between collective action and action based on mutual constraint

Gradualism – slow pace in development

Conclusion/CommentsCan ASEAN remain a dominant institution in the region as multilateral

institutions continues to incorporate powerful, arguably more influential and not necessarily Asian states?

Is US focus on bilateral and sub-regional FTAs impeding economic integration in the region? Or is Asia proper simply prone to protectionism

Will the proliferation of FTAs contribute to or undermine Asian regional integration

Is Asian multilateralism affected by the fact that it can be considered the ‘world’s most dynamic region’?

Can Asia escape the tradition of a hierarchical regional order? – Is ‘community building’ therefore simply a front?