Re-orienting the Fundamentals: Human Rights, and New Connections in Eu-asia Relations

Citation preview

RE-ORIENTING THE FUNDAMENTALS

For Mim

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals Human Rights and New Connections in EU-Asia Relations

GEORG WIESSALA University of Central Lancashire, UK

© Georg Wiessala 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Georg Wiessala has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Gower House Croft Road Aldershot Hampshire GU11 3HR England

Ashgate Publishing Company Suite 420 101 Cherry Street Burlington, VT 05401-4405 USA

Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Wiessala, Georg, 1962Re-orienting the fundamentals : human rights and new connections in EU-Asia relations 1. Human rights - Asia 2. European Union countries - Foreign relations - Asia 3. Asia - Foreign relations - European Union countries I. Title 327.4'05 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wiessala, Georg, 1962Re-orienting the fundamentals : human rights and new connections in EU-Asia relations / by Georg Wiessala. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-7546-4363-0 ISBN-10: 0-7546-4363-8 1. Human rights--Asia. 2. European Union countries--Relations--Asia. 3. Asia-Relations--European Union countries. I. Title. JC599.A78W54 2006 323.095--dc22 2006018479 ISBN-13: 978-0-7546-4363-0 ISBN-10: 0-7546-4363-8

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd. Bodmin, Cornwall.

Contents Foreword Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations

ix xi xiii

Part 1: Foundations and Debates 1

2

3

Introduction

3

The Reasons for this Book Foundations, Dynamics, Paradigms: Aims and Scope of the Book The ‘Iceberg-Issues’ of Asia Europe Relations: Some Pointers

3 5 9

Theoretical Perspectives of EU Foreign Policy in Asia

15

Introduction and Definitions of Key Terms Connecting International Relations Theory and EU Foreign Policy Power Politics and its Alternatives Conceptualizing the EU as an External Actor and the CFSP Beyond Terra Incognita: Integrating a Constructivist Framework Chapter Conclusions

15 16 18 19 22 26

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

29

Human Rights, Culture, Norms and Values in EU-Asia Relations The Rise of ‘Normative-Power Europe’ The Rôles of Culture and Identity in EU-Asia Relations The ‘Patterns of Affinity or Aloofness’: Human Rights and Value-Export Cosmopolitan versus Communitarian Readings of Human Rights Summary: Normative Ethics and EU-Asia Relations Rice or Rights? The ‘Asian Values’ Debate and its Repercussions Government Power or Buddha-Power? Buddhism and Human Rights Regional Human Rights Discourses: China, Indonesia, Burma, Thailand Chapter Conclusions

29 30 32 34 37 39 40 44 47 50

vi

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Part 2: Dynamics, Discourses and Dilemmas 4

The ‘Enabling’ Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue Introduction: Mechanisms and Processes of an EU Human Rights Agenda for Asia The Incremental Advance of Human Rights in the EU Polity Actors and Processes in EU Human Rights Promotion Human Rights and the Decade of EU ‘Asia-Strategies’ (1994 – 2004) Potential and Prospects of Human Rights in Asia The Sheep and the Goats: Human Rights and Development Policy Chapter Conclusions

5

55

55 56 60 62 65 68 73

The ‘Inhibitory’ Aspects of Human Rights in EU-Asia Dialogue

75

Regionalism, EU-Asia Dialogue and Human Rights Cooperation, Integration, Regionalisation: Theoretical Approaches EU-ASEAN Relations and the Human Rights Dilemma The Asia-Europe Meeting and the Marginalization of Human Rights Chapter Conclusions

75 75 78 83 90

Part 3: Patterns and Paradigms 6

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy Realpolitik v Moralpolitik: Human Rights and EU Policy Choices Combined Coordination: EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in Asia Corporations Invest, Dictators Profit and the People Suffer – Co-ordinated Coercion and the Politics of EU-Burma Relations Constructive Engagement: EU-China Relations and Human Rights Constitutional Consolidation: EU-Indonesia Relations and Human Rights Chapter Conclusions

7

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

95

95 96 99 105 112 116

119

Contents

The ‘East-West-www’ of Learning: Education and EU-Asia Contacts Comprehensive Extension: Future and Potential of EU-Asia Dialogue The Potential of EU-Asia Political Coordination in Counterterrorism Chapter Conclusions 8

Political, Legal and Ethical Perspectives in the Guise of a Conclusion

Bibliography Index

vii

119 127 131 135

137 141 175

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword

The sixth Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) held in Helsinki in September 2006 drew attention once again to the Janus nature of the EU’s relations with the Asian region. On the one-hand this high-level meeting profiled the importance of the relationship; and yet on the other hand, it pointed to the comparative lack of substance behind the diplomatic and political posturings. This paradoxical reality is also reflected in the general academic interest and writings on the EU-Asian dialogue: with a few noted exceptions, analytical interest in EU-ASEM or EU-ASEAN relations is comparatively modest and remains a partially unexplored area of the EU’s external action. This latest book by Georg Wiessala therefore is an important contribution to the field of EU-Asian studies. Its specific focus around questions of Human Rights – from both and EU and Asian perspective – stresses the importance of exchanging ideas and ‘learning from one another’ while avoiding the trap of Western ethnocentrism. The inter-connections with EU foreign policy, values and identity proved a powerful constructivist framework within which the author is able to present current key examples and pointers to problematics in the evolution of the EU-Asian relationship. The book raises important questions concerning the potentially selective nature of values, the problems associated with defining and operationalising effective regionalism and consistency within the EU’s external relations. As such, the analysis transcends EU-Asian relations and will inform a wider audience of scholars and practitioners engaged in the EU’s global agenda. Contemporary work has identified a worrying gap in the perceptions of the EU held by Asia in general. Such misperceptions risk generating misinformed policy choices that downplay the importance of the EU-Asia dialogue. This book is a contribution to readdressing this communication gap and deserves to be widely read in Brussels and throughout the capitals of Asia and elsewhere. Martin Holland Jean Monnet Chair ad personam Director, National Centre for Research on Europe University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements I have incurred a number of debts, in both Asia and Europe, in the process of researching, preparing and writing this book over at least the last two years. I would like to say a big ‘thank you’, in the first place, to all my colleagues and students at the Interdisciplinary Centre for European Studies of Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. I am especially grateful to Professor Apirat Petchsiri, for all the help given with research, for those invaluable comments on draft chapters and for opening son many doors to resources and fellow researchers across Bangkok, Thailand and Asia. I gratefully acknowledge the meticulous and methodical work of Miss Kriwan Phamorabutra (‘Tem’), my Thai research assistant in July 2005, and of Mrs Yupin Chancharoensin and Miss Vilai Tongtam in the Chula Library European Studies Resources Section. Many warm thanks also to Miss Paveena Sutthisripok (‘Top’); Miss Jiraporn Choorat (‘Mam’) and Miss Pannee Saengkam (‘Noi’) in the MAEUS Office, for helping with all those copies, appointments, travel arrangements and with innumerable other things. As far as the Delegation of the European Commission in Bangkok is concerned, I am grateful to Steve Needham, for opening the Delegation’s resources to me and for smooth the progress of many other contacts and interviews over a period of time. In Singapore, I would like to record my sincere thanks to the Konrad Adenauer foundation, especially to Dr. Colin Dürkop and Miss Sharon Loo, for advice and for facilitating an earlier publication of some of the material assembled here. I further acknowledge the assistance of the Delegation of the European Commission to Singapore. Moving to Europe, I am, now as on many previous occasions, appreciative of the support given to me by the European Institute for Asian Studies in Brussels. I am especially grateful to Dr. Willem van der Geest and John Quigley, for their backing and for a number of research opportunities, in the shape of conferences, lunchtime seminars, publications and the use of the EIAS library. Closer to home, I would like to convey my respect and gratitude to Professor Ian Levitt at the University of Central Lancashire, for reading, and commenting on, previous versions of this book and some of its chapters, and to Brian Rosebury and Keith Faulks, my past and present Heads of Department, for the financial and other support given in connection with my applications for sabbatical leave, which gave me the time to write this book. Last, but by no means least, I would like to reaffirm my love and thankfulness to my wife Maureen and my stepchildren, Rebecca and James for providing me with the time and dependable support required for the completion of this project. I hope the readers of this text will find something here to stimulate their interest in the relations between European and Asian countries. If they do, this is due to the input

and assistance provided by the people mentioned above and many others besides. Any errors, misrepresentations or omissions in subject matter, on the other hand, are entirely my own responsibility. Any feedback on this book is totally desirable and always welcome. I am looking forward to it. Georg Wiessala, April 2006 ([email protected])

List of Abbreviations ACP ADB AEBF AEETC AEMM AETW AFTA ALA AOCG APEC ARF ASEAN ASEAN + 3 ASEAN-EU-SOM ASEAN-EU-JCC ASEF ASEM ASEP BIMST-EC

CAEC CAP CEPT CFSP CIS COASI CSCAP CTBT DIPECHO EAEC EC

African, Caribbean and Pacific countries Asian Development Bank Asia-Europe Business Forum Asia Europe Environmental Technology Centre ASEAN-European Union Ministerial Meeting Asia Europe Trade Week ASEAN Free Trade Area Asian and Latin American countries Asia-Oceania Council Group Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation ASEAN Regional Forum Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN plus China, Japan and Korea ASEAN-European Union Senior Officials’ Meeting ASEAN-European Union Joint-Cooperation Committee Asia Europe Foundation Asia-Europe Meeting Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership Bangladesh-India-Myanmar-Sri LankaThailand: Economic Cooperation (a.k.a.: ‘Bayof-Bengal-Group’) Council for Asia-Europe Co-operation Common Agricultural Policy Common Effective Preferential Tariff (ASEAN) Common Foreign and Security Policy Commonwealth of Independent States Working Party for Asia and the Pacific Council for Security Cooperation in the AsiaPacific Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty EC Humanitarian Office Disaster Prevention Programme East Asian Economic Caucus European Community

xiv

EC/UNFPA RHIYA

ECHO EEC EIAS EIB EPG EU EU-ASAC EURATOM FDI FEER G8 GATT GMS GNP GSP HSAR IGC IFOR IOR-ARC IPAP KEDO KMT LDC MFN MPLP II MSAR NAFTA NGO NIC NLD ODA OHCHR OSCE PAP PRASAC

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

European Commission/ United Nations Population Fund Reproductive Health Initiative for Youth in Asia European Community Humanitarian Office European Economic Community European Institute for Asian Studies (Brussels) European Investment Bank Eminent Persons’ Group (ASEAN - AEMM) European Union EU Assistance on Curbing Small Arms and Light Weapons in Cambodia European Atomic Energy Community Foreign Direct Investment Far Eastern Economic Review Group of Seven Most Industrialised Nations plus Russia General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Greater Mekong Sub-Region Gross National Product Generalised System of Preferences Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Intergovernmental Conference Implementation Force (Former Yugoslavia) Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation Investment Promotion Action Plan Korean Energy Development Organisation Kuomintang (China / Taiwan) Least Developed Countries Most Favoured Nation (Status) Micro-Projects Luang Phrabang (Phase II) Macao Special Administrative Region North American Free Trade Area Non-Governmental Organisation Newly Industrialising Country National League for Democracy (Burma) Official Development Assistance Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe People’s Action Party (Singapore) Programme de Réhabilitation et d’Appui au Secteur Agricole du Cambodge

List of Abbreviations

SAARC

xv

UMNO UN WB WEU

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong & Macao) Shanghai Co-operation Organisation Stability Force (Former Yugoslavia) State Law and Order Restoration Council (Burma) Senior Officials’ Meeting (ASEM) State Peace and Development Council (Burma) Trade Facilitation Action Plan (ASEM) Universal Declaration of Human Rights University of Malaya European Studies Programme United Malays National Organization United Nations World Bank Western European Union

WTO

World Trade Organisation

SAR SCO SFOR SLORC SOM SPDC TFAP UDHR UMESP

This page intentionally left blank

PART 1 Foundations and Debates

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Introduction

The Reasons for this Book Out of the innumerable current developments in International Relations and European Studies, three major issues, in particular, have propelled me towards the writing of this book. My first motivation was my long-standing, professional and personal, fascination with the ever-evolving, multi-faceted, and yet so surprisingly under-researched, subject-matter of Europe-Asia Relations and EU Asia Policies. True, issues such as the economic health of the Asian continent, the spread of avian flu, the Indian Ocean tsunami 1 and other natural and man-made disasters, terrorism and the so-called ‘war’ against it, repeatedly catapult Asian countries to the top of newspaper headlines and onto the radar screens of those within the European Union (EU) concerned about East-West affairs. True also, that over the last decade or so the European Union has made significant efforts at constructing some of the fundamental pillars of a Go-East-Policy, an ‘Asia Strategy’, to use the official term. And yet, much of the ‘widening’ of the EU’s concerns towards countries in Asia still appears haphazard. A further, conceptual, EU ‘enlargement’, in the sense of a wider awareness of the ‘Other East’, the ‘Far-Abroad’, still seems some way off. In spite of the manifold levels, networks and channels of cooperation, and of an amount of theorizing in this area, a meaningful, systematic, cultural-mental and practical-political EU-Asia interaction, which would inform policies on either side to a greater and more systematic degree, emerges only very slowly. Dinan’s foreign policy metaphor in regard of the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as a whole, applies equally well, if not better, to the field of EUAsia dialogue. It can be, ‘like a caterpillar into a butterfly which is colourless and cumbersome and had great difficulty getting off the ground’ (Dinan, 1999: 508). On one level, it is, therefore, one of the central concerns of this book to review, analyse, and stimulate the debate about the progress or otherwise, of the EU-Asia dialogue, its theoretical grounding, its manifestations, achievements and drawbacks, its levels, actors and players and the likely course it might take in the future. Moreover, it is very important to me to offer a structured investigation of what may be termed the ‘enabling’ and the ‘inhibitory’ sides of EU-Asia relations. I am doing this through the lens of a number of specific issues and, above all, through the 1 See: Special ‘Tsunami’ Issue of the EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 9, Nrs. 1 & 2, JanuaryFebruary 2005.

4

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

analytic prism of human rights. Quite apart from a general lack of critical spotlight thrown on this area, there are two principal reasons which eventually led me to choose to focus on human rights matters in East-West relations. Perhaps most importantly, I have come to understand that, unlike few other political and legal topics, human rights bring out and amplify the light and the shadow, the dynamism and the lethargy, of general EU-Asia dialogue and, for that matter, of EU foreign policy in general. It seems to me that the European-Asian discourse on ‘individuality’, ‘rights’, ‘liberties’, ‘entitlements’ and, conversely, on ‘communality’, ‘duties’, ‘restrictions’ and ‘commitments’ to society, explains and illustrates almost perfectly why there is so much that is promising and empowering in EU-Asia cooperation - and why, on the other hand, there is also so much that is inhibiting and obstructive, weighing down the other side of the scales. In general, I hope to be able, throughout the pages of this book, to stimulate the debate about how human rights matters are played out in the present and future EU-Asia civilisational, political, economic and cultural dialogues; I further hope to show that thinking about the promotion, deployment and impact of human rights arguments and policies throughout the many areas of EU-Asia co-operation, can foster a fuller understanding of East-West interaction as a whole, and of some likely future scenarios which will affect and alter it over the next decade or so. In the course of the text, I argue that a social-constructivist interpretation of International Relations can be particularly helpful in explaining the pivotal rôle of values and rights, ideas and identities, communication and ‘people-to-people-contacts’ in EU-Asia relations. This is because of the fundamental, yet frequently neglected, insight that all kinds of political actors continually ‘construct’ their political arena, defining and using world-views and basic assumptions. ‘Social Constructivism’, or simply ‘Constructivism’, in the context of this book is assumed to mean that political ideas and perceptions form a part of cognitive structures which imbue the material world with meaning (cf. Aggestam 2004, 82). In the course of this argument, I seek to address some of the major tenets of constructivist thought, such as ‘the power of ideas’, ‘agencies, structures and rôles’, ‘the interaction of ideas, identities and policies’ and ‘the powers of learning, social interaction, communication and alternative lines of enquiry’, to name just the major ones. Enlarging these and other relevant aspects of Constructivist thought, I relate them to several distinct sections of EU-Asia relations, suggesting new ways of thinking in the domain of Asia-Europe relations. Apart from this, a third, very significant, driving force for this text has been my desire to show that contemporary EU-Asia dialogue, far from being ‘an issue-area of low policy salience’ (Hazel Smith 2002, 201), represents a richly-textured and varied field, akin, perhaps, to a Belgian Tapestry. It has been my aim to suspend this tapestry, as it were, from a ‘curtain rail’ of human rights. I hope to demonstrate that this intercontinental cooperation exists as just one policy area within the increasingly global reach, challenge and ambition of the European Union. As I hope the reader will see reasonably soon, this tapestry does, of course, have brighter and darker hues;

Introduction

5

sometimes it has basic faults in its fabric; sometimes the details can be hard to see and some threads, so I argue, are missing altogether. In this context, another of the core points I am trying to make with this book is a call to realise and implement to a much higher degree as has hitherto been done, the potential of human rights matters for EU policy formulation, debate and implementation. When I use the terms ‘inclusive’, ‘innovative’ or even ‘holistic’ in connection with human rights in some of the later chapters of the following text, I am only partly borrowing a metaphor from Asian medicine. My concern is to convey that, when the EU seeks to employ, as it does, a mixed set of policies vis-à-vis a number of its Asian partners, there is, in fact, considerably more scope available to the Union, to draw together the threads, to make those policies more internationally coherent, logical, complementary and effective. I would argue that, among other approaches, a constructivist perspective can help both to investigate and unlock this potential. In purposely focusing on the issue of the ‘wider potential’ of the EU’s human-rights-guided and other Asia-related policies, I am quite aware that I have chosen to write, in many ways, against some of the current grain of opinion. This is deliberate. By this method I wish to highlight, and partly counteract, the insidious ‘narrowing’ and global erosion of human rights, civil liberties and individual freedoms in the wake of the so-called ‘international war against terrorism’, which too many individuals, institutions and governments appear to take for granted as the necessary ‘price’ of safety, security and peace of mind. I would set the tone for the rest of this book by arguing that this is a delusional fallacy, a dangerous tide, entirely counterproductive both to anti-terrorism and to EU-Asia relations, a political, legal and cultural entrapment, which the European Union, above all other international organisations, must guard against on its ambitious route towards the global promotion of democracy, ‘good governance’ and human rights. Foundations, Dynamics, Paradigms: Aims and Scope of the Book Against the backdrop of these preliminary remarks, it has been my aim for this book to offer a critical interrogation of selected aspects of European Union (EU) foreign policy interaction with Asian countries. I have chosen, for the reasons explained above, to offer a particular emphasis throughout this text, on the ways and means in which the EU engages with its Asian partners over issues of democracy, human rights and the protection and promotion of certain specific concepts of rights and values. While questions of human rights sparked a wide-ranging academic debate and resulted in enhanced levels of public scrutiny over the last decade, the research presented in this book attempts to fill a significant gap in scholarly attention: it does so by offering a critique of the theoretical approaches towards, and the practical manifestations of, human rights promotion initiatives, particularly in the context of EU policy interaction with countries in Asia. This book therefore seeks primarily to interrogate prevailing EU foreign policy concepts. It endeavours to address three key lines of inquiry, which are meant to

6

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

form over-arching ‘themes’ throughout the text: firstly, do human rights and civil liberties play any meaningful rôle in contemporary EU-Asia relations? Secondly, what are some of the underlying theoretical concepts, value-judgments, normative assumptions and ideas of identity which have shaped the EU-Asia dialogue over human rights on both sides? And thirdly, this book is positing the question of what scope, if any, there is for human rights concerns, at present and in the future, to contribute to a coherent and systematic expansion of EU policies towards Asia. In attempting to suggest answers to these questions, I make use of some of the results of constructivist research, linking human rights matters with ideas, identities, structures, rôles and agents, mechanisms of social construction and powers of communication, as briefly outlined above. With these three main themes in mind, I have, correspondingly, broken this investigation down into three main parts: in part one, Foundations and Debates, Chapters Two and Three form the ‘theoretical core’ of the book. These chapters offer an overall analytical framework for the evaluation of the EU as a promoter of human rights across Asia. They do so by at first seeking to embed EU human rights policy in the context of International Relations Theory (IRT). Subsequently, there is an examination of how the EU can be conceptualised as an external actor in world politics. Finally, I offer an analysis of how, and through which main EU actors, mechanisms and processes these theoretical concepts are translated into the ‘incremental’ strategies the EU has chosen to adopt towards Asian countries. The first section also seeks to explain how the evolution of EU human rights policies was paralleled by a more deliberate moulding of a new ‘international identity’ for the Union, a development which, essentially, constitutes a typical process of social construction. The constructivist ‘take’ on these two chapters is to be found in questions such as the impact of the concepts of ‘identity’ and ‘culture’ on political strategies, institutions and structures. Chapters Two and Three thus form the main point of departure for the perspective which informed my research. In my view, a theoretical perspective informed by social-constructivist ideas can be of significant value in trying to understand the pervasive ‘ideational’, ‘identity-related’, aspects of EU diplomacy towards Asia. The question of how ideas continue to shape EU-Asia cooperation is scrutinised in particular detail in Chapter Three. This chapter concentrates on the many guises in which the debate about ‘Asian Values’ continues to surface. The section aims to signpost the way for the rest of the book, by offering a critical investigation of normative debates and of ‘cosmopolitan’ versus ‘communitarian’ viewpoints, which are so frequently overlooked, yet underlie all levels of EU-Asia interaction. Taking up the themes of ‘identity’ and EU foreign policy construction, Chapter Three closes with a specific investigation of the rôle that issues of ‘values’, ‘culture’ and ‘identity’ play in current East-West dialogue. This includes a survey on perceptions of human rights in Buddhist countries, set in the context of an analysis of the impact of local and regional discourses about ‘rights’ across Asian countries. This scrutiny of the ‘mental foundations’ and practical implications of the Asian values debate paves the way for the second part of the book, made up of Chapters

Introduction

7

Four and Five, and entitled Dynamics, Discourses and Dilemmas. In these two interconnected chapters, I aim to examine both the ‘enabling’ and ‘inhibitory’ potential of human rights matters and of EU human rights promotion in Asia. While I deliberately focus on the European Commission’s Asia Strategies between 1994 and 2005, and on Development Policy, in order to illustrate the positive potential of human rights matters, I do not intend to represent these subjects as all-inclusive illustrations of the ‘enabling’ power of human rights; they serve merely as examples, which I found especially revealing in the context of those EU-wide Asia policies which are particularly informed by human rights concerns. By the same token, and throughout Chapter Five, I do not wish to single out the cooperation between the EU and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the process of Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM) as exclusively containing all the negative aspects of EU-Asia dialogue; my aim here is to suggest and illustrate the dangers of a ‘marginalization’ of human rights matters in what has become known as the ‘AsiaEurope group-to-group dialogue’. Throughout Section Two of the book, I both argue and imply that the contributions Constructivist theory can make to our understanding in those areas, are delineated by the mutual co-determination of ‘agency’ and ‘structure’ for the political process, by mechanisms and understandings of rôles in connection with the constitution and shaping of that process, and by the significance of structures, policies and identities in connection with the construction of inter-regional relations linking the EU and Asia, in which discourses surrounding human rights are continually played out, tested and over-hauled, and are thus contributing to the very shape, structural, environment and intellectual climate of the EU-Asia dialogue. The third, and last, part of this book consists of the remaining Chapters Six and Seven and is headlined Patterns and Paradigms. Here, I endeavour to apply the findings of the preceding chapters to a closer investigation of EU cooperation with Asia. In doing so, I have chosen to place a particular emphasis on three Asian countries: the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Burma (The Union of Myanmar) and the Republic of Indonesia. Much of the evidence surveyed for this book indicates that, in respect of its Asian partners, the EU interacted with its Asian interlocutors through many formats, in a ‘casuistic’ manner and with varying degrees of success. The main focus of Chapter Six is on the question of whether it is possible to detect general ‘prototypes’, ‘policy-habits’ and ‘models’ among the plethora of EU foreign policy approaches to Asia, and whether these can be conceptualised in a meaningful manner, in order to provide lessons for a future which grows more uncertain by the year. It is my contention that it is possible to identify and appraise, at the very least, four distinct EU policy approaches, which evolved out of a number of traditional foreign policy categories: they range from some incentives-based and coordinated measures to the more coercive and punitive diplomatic arsenal. I would suggest, in particular, that the EU’s distinct approaches to China, Burma and Indonesia can be categorised as examples, respectively, of Constructive Engagement, Co-ordinated Coercion and Constitutional Cohesion, while the Union’s ‘Asian Chapter’ of the Common

8

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) may be conceived of as a case of Combined Co-ordination. This part of the book endeavours to link those case studies to aspects of Constructivist thinking, represented by concepts such as the rôle of ‘practices’ in maintaining structures, the ‘interaction between ideas, institutions and policies’ and the significance of ‘mind-maps’, education and learning. Where appropriate, this part of the text further elaborates on the successes and failures of EU policy agendas, with reference to the parameters of EU-Asia discourse over values and human rights, analysed at an earlier stage, in Parts One and Two of the book. Chapter Seven represents a special case in the book. Here, I discuss the further paradigm of Comprehensive Extension in order to represent and promote two key aspects of my overall argument. The first aspect is the considerable potential of human rights matters, to inform - and to be more constructively integrated into - a much wider range of EU policies towards Asia. In this context, I am placing a special emphasis on cultural and educational exchange between Europe and Asia and on what I would call the ‘two-fold learning-dimension’ within EU-Asia relations: the importance, and the potential of, learning ‘about’ one another and ‘from’ one another. I have chosen this particularly significant portion of the ‘people-to-peopledimension’ of Asia-Europe, in order to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the intercontinental dialogue, and for the purpose of showing what potential there is in EU-Asia relations for an inclusion of more all-encompassing, lateral, issues. From the ‘success-story’ of exchange, particularly in the area of higher education, I move on to some lesser-developed facets of East-West contact, which are, nevertheless, beginning to show evidence of a widening of the EU’s focus. Most of the material analysed in this part of the chapter refers to the EU’s ambitions and achievements across South East Asia and identifies aspects of cooperation, ranging from security to preservation of heritage, which lend themselves particularly well to the construction a more unified, integrative, EU Asia Policy. Last but not least, Chapter Seven includes an investigation of EU-Asia cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism, an example which shows where the challenges, limits and difficulties of a lateral policy-approach lie, and how much leeway there is for the development of such an approach, which often touches upon matters of human rights, values and civil liberties. The inspiration – and some of the unifying framework – for looking at these issues comes from the remaining two aspects of Constructivist scholarship which I would stress in this book: the rôle and effect of communicative discourses, and the constitutive effect of the programmes and institutions of cooperation on interlocutors in Asia and the EU. This last chapter of this book also helps to develop a number of ‘scenarios’, which, I would argue, are conducive to a much wider conception of EU-Asia cooperation and of the place of human rights within it. I have used the terms ‘holistic’ and ‘nontraditional’ interchangeably, in order to flesh out this approach, which, I argue is both feasible and overdue. I argue that such an enlarged notion can contribute significantly to both the ‘deepening’ and the ‘widening’ of our understanding of issues such as regionalism, inter-regional co-operation and globalisation within the Asia-Europe relationship.

Introduction

9

The ‘Iceberg-Issues’ of Asia-Europe Relations: Some Pointers […] it is really only from Euro-centric convention that we continue to describe Europe as a distinct continent at all. Europe and Asia are joined at the broadest points of both, not at their narrowest points like Asia and Africa. Therefore, Europe is really a sub-continent of Asia, or Eurasia, just as the Indian sub-continent is (Letter to the Independent, 17 October 2005: 32).

As I hope is reasonably clear by now, this book covers the subject of the position of human rights within EU-Asia cooperation. It makes no attempt at providing more than a most general overview of the different levels, initiatives and programmes which characterise EU-Asia economic, political and cultural cooperation. Neither is it an examination of the long and continuing tradition of EU Member State interaction with Asian countries. I investigated some of these issues in an earlier text (Wiessala 2002). In addition to this, a number of authors have offered very comprehensive and eloquent contributions to the academic literature on EU-Asia relations (Nguyen Duy Quy et al 2004; Robles 2004; Letta 2003; Chirathivat et al 2001; Yeo Lay Hwee and Asad Latif 2000; Dent 1999; Maull et al 1998; Fukasaku et al 1998). There are also some dedicated book chapters regarding EU-Asia (Dosch 2004, 104-118; Holland 2002, 52-84; Hazel Smith 2002; Cosgrove-Sacks 1999, 237-283; Piening 1997, 139-167; Grilli 1993, 271-295). Last but not least interested readers can consult some surveys of EU-Asia cooperation in article format (Algieri 1999; Richards and Kirkpatrick, 1999). However, in order to prepare the ground, as it were, for what follows, I thought it advisable to include a few remarks on ‘the wider picture’ of Europe-Asia contacts. This aims to provide the reader with signposts, which s/he may want to pursue. These signposts also point to what may be termed the ‘iceberg issues’ of EU-Asia relations: areas which are rarely outspoken, can easily be overlooked, and lie largely below the surface of day-to-day Asia-Europe interaction. Needless to say that it is often those ‘below-the-waterline areas’, which carry both considerable weight and treacherous potential for misunderstanding, if wilfully or casually neglected. 2 First and foremost, I believe it is elementary to any contemporary approaches to Asia-Europe dialogue to remember the ways in which Europe and Asia have perceived – and often misunderstood - one another in the past, especially how images, ideas

2 The following texts are excellent introductions to sme of these issues: Brotton, Jerry: The Renaissance Bazaar (2002); Curtin, P.D.: The World and the West (2000); Goody, Jack: The East in the West (1996); Hobson, John M.: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (2004); Lach, Donald: Asia in the Making of Europe (1994-1998); Pagden, Anthony: The Idea of Europe from Antiquity to the European Union (2002); Patten, Chris: East and West (1998); Ravi, Srilata; Rutten, Mario; Goh, Beng-Lan: Asia in Europe, Europe in Asia (2004); Said, Edward: Orientalism (1978); Spence, Jonathan: The Chan’s Great Continent: China in Western Minds (1998).

10

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

and identities were constructed and perpetuated. The histories of both Continents are replete with cultural references to one another. As Pagden points out (2001 34/5), Europe’s very foundation myths (Davies 1996, xv-xvii) surrounded The Rape of Europa, an Asian woman abducted to the West, and The Trojan War, a clash over a Western woman abducted to the East. Europa appears in Ovid’s Metamorphoses and pervades European art history (Wilson and van der Dussen 1995; De Bartillat and Roba 2000). These myths are reminders of the indebtedness of European Civilization to the East. Some observers express this through the old adage of the light from the Orient: ex Oriente lux. Others again have seen the myth as proof that ‘the separation of Asia and Europe was the basis for Europe and its Renaissance – i.e. that Europe could only be defined against the east, in opposition to it’ (Brotton 2002, 34). The examination of themes like ‘The Eastern Roots of Europe’, ‘Europe in Asia’ and ‘Asia in the Making of Europe’ is a long-established focus for East-West scholarship (Ravi et al 2004; Pagden, 2001; Larner 2001; Milton 2001; Curtin 2000; Corn 1999; Lach and van Kley 1998; Embree and Gluck 1997; Goody 1996; Lach and Flaumenhaft 1965; Nakamura, Hajime and Wiener 1964). In The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, John M Hobson (2004) recently re-conceptualised this area under the keyword of a historical ‘Oriental Globalisation’, stressing the processes of diffusion, assimilation and appropriation of Eastern ‘resource portfolios’ (ideas, institutions and technologies) throughout and by the West. In the context of this book in particular, it is important to realise some of the leitmotivs of this longstanding cultural interaction, simply because they still reverberate today. Some of the most prominent writers of Antiquity arguably ‘fired the first shots’ in the debate about ‘Asian’ values; there has been cross-fire ever since. One can detect in the Politics by Aristotle, the Histories by Herodotus and in The Persians by Aeschylus, the identity-constructions of the day: the world order is a ‘clash of cultures’, to use modern parlance (Mahbubani 1996), between the Western ‘rule of law’ and Oriental ‘despotism’. It was those ‘euro-centric’ views, which, in Pagden’s analysis (2001, 16), Kant and Hegel blamed for the demise of Hellenic culture, but which, one might say, have travelled very well down the centuries in one way or another. A further ‘constant’ in Europe-Asia relations has been the way in which Europe, in its imagination of Asia, has always mixed the ‘fact’ with the ‘fiction’ of ‘Asia’, interspersed the ‘real’ with the ‘exotic’ and chimerical. Many of the roots of this may be attributed to the varying intensity of exchange over time: what was not known about Asia through travel (cf. van der Cruysse 2003) and exchange, was filled in by classical memories, popular imagination and Biblical Scripture which supplied the further templates: Asia became the location of the Earthly Paradise, Noah’s Ark, the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, the Tower of Babel, the Apostle Thomas’s tomb - but it is also the stage for the final battle of Armageddon. St. Augustine’s City of God perpetuated those templates, as did Christian romances surrounding Alexander the

Introduction

11

Great, Prester (Priest) John, Sir John Mandeville and Marco Polo.3 But the legacy of those and other sources does not only lie in the fact that they fired the imagination of Leonardo or Columbus; from today’s perspective, they also carry the seeds of political perspectives, constructions and connotations regarding early European strategic thinking on issues like ‘Eurocentrism’, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘National Identity’, ‘The China Threat’, ‘Asian Terrorism’ and Asia in general. The European ‘Revelation’ of Asia, the patterns of the Industrial Revolution, the politics of Imperialism and the unravelling of Decolonisation thus left key markers, which today’s policy-makers can – and do sometimes – overlook very much at their own peril. In addition to this, there is a third major point: it is imperative, in a book about politics and identities in Asia and Europe, to acknowledge that there are some very much more specific legacies of past ages which continue to make themselves felt in ours by influencing the way notions of ‘values’ and ‘rights’ are perceived. I would stress four examples in particular, which represent some considerable ‘historical baggage’ in Asia-Europe relations: firstly, in a relationship which purports to derive much of its main clout from economics, there is an inescapable, economic reality, in itself a legacy of the past. Chris Patten put this into sobering words (Patten 1998, 130): In the early decades of the 19th Century, with Britain still in the throes of its own Industrial Revolution, which really defined the beginning of the modern age, and with the United States about to embark on its similar economic journey, Asia still accounted for about 58 per cent of the world’s GDP. By 1920, this figure had been more than halved. Over the following 20 years, Asia’s share fell further, to 19 per cent, though Asia was home to 60 per cent of the world’s population. Recent growth has now (1992 figures) almost doubled that figure, to 37 per cent. The Asian Development Bank believes that, on what is described as ‘plausible assumptions’ (which, I hope, are indeed still ‘plausible’), Asia could get back to slightly less than its early-nineteenth-century share of the world’s wealth by 2025. It will have been a long journey back to ‘Go’.

Economically-speaking, the past also resonates in other ways: many ‘national’ Asia policies – formulated by EU member states and fed into the Council of Ministers and other EU institutions – are testimony to patterns of trade and diplomacy established by the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French or English East India Trading Companies. A significant proportion of the EU’s cultural and human rights education efforts in Asian countries, for instance, builds on the presence, priorities and profiles of national cultural institutions acting as the member states’ established ‘cultural ambassadors’. Chapter Seven of this book offers a somewhat more detailed look at his area.

3 On the details and development of the ‘Prester-John’ myth, cf. Silverberg, R (2001), The Realm of Rrester John (London: Phoenix Press); Regarding Sir John Mandeville, Milton, Giles (1996), The Riddle and the Knight (London: Hodder and Stoughton) is entertaining and informative; the Marco Polo story is traced well in: Larner, John (2001), Marco Polo and the Discovery of the World (New Haven and London: Yale University Press).

12

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

But even where European Colonialism had but a minor effect, the modern dialogue of some Asian countries with Europe often feeds on political patterns and prejudices forged in the past. In this context, Apirat Petchsiri (2005, 110/111) has pointed to the different ‘lenses’ and ‘time-frames’ within which Asian perceptions of Europe are coloured. Philip Curtin (2002) has offered the concrete examples of ‘defensive’ and ‘revolutionary’ modernization, in order to explain this and to account for the roots of European relations with countries such as Thailand and Japan. On the broader canvas of cultural history, it is difficult to overstate the rôle which historical European attitudes regarding ‘Christianity’, ‘Civilization’, ‘Asia’ or ‘Law’ play in modern EU-Asia relations (Petchsiri, 2004). Coogan (2001, ix) reminds us of the second, more problematical, part of the aphorism used above: … ex Occidente lex may mean that Civilization did originate in the East, but, ‘…it took the genius of Rome to order the undeniable, but undisciplined, creativity of the peoples east of the Mediterranean’. Europe’s long and wholesale, equation of its own self-image with Roman law and the received Judeo-Christian tradition was forged, imagined, as Hobson points out (2004, 112), ‘in contra-distinction to the Islamic Middle East’. This is a challenging basis for contemporary discourses about the universal validity or otherwise, of ethical precepts and human rights. Today, these discourses unfold in the China-Europe Human Rights Dialogue, the ‘Asian Values’ debate, in comparative examinations of ‘Western’ and Asian legal traditions (Petchsiri 1987, 2004) and through the study of modern diplomatic interaction and negotiation between the EU and Asian interlocutors, for example, over the terrorist threat. For many, the fallout from the so-called ‘International War on Terror’, and the questions surrounding Turkish EU membership, also draw meaning from these mechanisms. A number of these issues will be addressed more comprehensively throughout this book. Closely entwined with this point, previous fluctuations in the intellectual exchanges between Asia and Europe form the precedents of some of the modern phenomena of ‘Orientalising’, ‘Othering’, ‘Exoticizing’ and other intractable forms of stereotyping. Ravi et al (2004, 3) are right in pointing to the fact that it is still useful to work with the rhetorical definition of ‘Asia’ as the ‘ideological Other’ of Europe. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ambiguity of some European approaches to Islam in Asia, and in the frequent changes in the climate of opinion governing Sino-EU contacts. A number of these threads are taken up in later Chapters. For now, suffice it to say that the confrontations and confluences of the modern ChinaEurope dialogue are based, to no small degree, on historical precedents and ‘attitude reversals’, which have vacillated between admiration and contempt, acceptance and xenophobia. Numerous writers, for instance, have speculated about how the European respect for Chinese achievement, which informed the writings of Ricci, Montaigne, Leibniz and Voltaire, could mutate into the end of le rêve Chinois in the 19th and 20th Centuries (Gregory 2003, 43-8 and 116-7; Brotton 2002; Spence 1998; Lach 1994). In a 1996 report, the Brussels-based European Institute for Asian Studies attempted to identify some contemporary reasons for this age-old ambivalence; its findings revealed a basic discrepancy (EIAS 1996, 1):

Introduction

13

In Europe, and perhaps elsewhere, there is an unconscious – certainly unquestioned – assumption that all the Asian countries are gradually becoming ‘more like Europe’ or ‘more Western’. It colours policy statements at all levels, including the new Asia strategy, as well as the behaviour of businessmen, the activities of non-governmental organizations and editorials in the quality newspapers in the EU.

If one can manage to look past these issues of identity, definition and indistinctness, a composite picture emerges which, in a manner of speaking, ‘completes the circle’ of past Asia-Europe contacts and establishes some kind of continuity with the Spice Trade or the Silk Roads of earlier ages: this kind of portrait of Asia-Europe is at the heart of this book: it is about the linkages between political, legal and cultural EU-Asia relations and their imprints on human minds. In the context of debates on ‘Asian Values’ or Human Rights, modern terminologies regarding the ‘Asian Century’, ‘Asian Tigers’, the ‘Asian Financial Crisis’, ‘Asian Contagion’ and the ‘Asian Threat’ both stimulate the imagination and form evidence of strong bonds between the international relations arena and the perception of the people who are interacting and communicating in it. Therefore, when underlying legal, political or cultural dynamics change, so do the attitudes amongst the interlocutors. Last but certainly not least, many lines of enquiry pursued in this book necessarily draw on ideas and conceptual frameworks which have long been established as part of other disciplines, such as Postcolonial Discourse, Development Studies, Cultural Studies and Islamic Studies. When, for instance, in an African context, analysts like Zack-Williams (2004, 21-24) discuss the impact of ‘modernity’ and ‘traditionality’, referring to ‘constructing the other’, many of his assertions resonate strongly throughout the discipline of Asia-Europe Studies. Similarly, Ravi et al point to the significance of Foucault’s notion of power-discourse and Said’s work on ‘power relations inherent to representational formations’ (2004, 3 and 5). Other examples are Goody’s research on economic practices, the rise of the West and notions of ‘rationality’, Lawson’s work regarding the politics of culture and representation, and Hobson’s analysis of the Eurocentric mechanisms of denial regarding Oriental agency in world history (Goody 1996; Lawson 2001 and 2003; Hobson 2004). Much of the reasoning throughout this book is, of course, indebted in many ways to the very fruitful findings of these and other disciplines, studies and researches. Taking these observations as a starting point for what follows, there is reason to believe that at the beginning of the Twenty-First Century, European attitudes towards Asia are, once again, on the move. One of the reasons for this may be human rights, another one terrorism, yet another, perhaps, globalization. When seen in connection with the implications of the European Industrial Revolution and the traces of Colonialism and Orientalism, this leaves room for a powerful conglomerate of possible ‘modern’ viewpoints towards Asian nations, especially if one considers issues of ‘rights’, ‘participation’ and ‘representation’. It is the impact of some of these attitudes seen in the context of the human rights policies of the European Union towards Asia which the following pages seek to address.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2

Theoretical Perspectives of EU Foreign Policy in Asia

Introduction and Definitions of Key Terms It may be helpful, to begin with, to stand back for a moment; to think backwards from the present and to consider some of the ‘big questions’ first: how did the European Union (EU) manage to manoeuvre itself into a position which allows it to be a promoter of democracy and human rights, both on a global scale and, specifically, across Asia? What kind of actor is the EU? Are there any theoretical foundations, justifications and pre-cursors for a human-rights-inspired foreign policy, especially one that has Asian countries in its focus? Which processes and mechanisms are the constituents of this policy? Were there any catalytic events, which propelled human rights concerns to the top of the Union’s foreign policy agenda in Asia, or did these matters evolve slowly, incrementally, over time? Is it true, as a former President of the European Commission has argued (Prodi 2000, 34), that ‘without the profound values of tolerance and respect for human rights, which found their highest expression precisely in France, the world would be less civilized’? And are, as less prominent observers have posited, the European Union’s ‘human values’ really the ‘best in the world’?1 This chapter seeks to offer some answers to these and other questions. It does so by ‘anchoring’ the subsequent investigation of EU human rights policies towards Asia in a more general theoretical framework. This will presage the more detailed investigation of the rôle of perceptions and identities in Asia-EU relations, offered in Chapter Three. The theoretical framework referred to here comprises primarily those strands and directions of International Relations Theory (IRT), and European Integration Theory which have a direct bearing on the EU position as a promoter of human rights and an exporter of a specific set of values towards Asia. Establishing links between IRT, EU integration and foreign policy results, in the logic of this book, in the examination and adoption of a Constructivist model of international relations, within which the EU’s external, especially Asia-related, policies can be situated. The working definition of EU ‘Foreign Policy’ in this text follows Andreatta (2005, 19) and is delineated as an ‘attempt of the European Union and its member states to

1

European Voice, 29 January – 4 February 2004: 12.

16

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

ensure that their many and various external relations present as coherent a face as possible to the outside world’. Next to an examination of some models and case studies of EU-Asia interaction, a significant proportion of this chapter is concerned with some of the underlying issues shaping the Asia-EU relationship. Against this background, the concepts of ‘culture’ and ‘identity’, ‘norms’ and ‘structures’, ‘values’ and ‘rights’ have a particular resonance throughout the text. It is therefore helpful to briefly clarify what exactly is meant by these terms: for the purposes of this book, ‘rights’ are defined as entitlements, either to act, or to be treated in a particular way. They can be either legal or moral in character, and are sometimes both. ‘Human Rights’ are those rights to which people are entitled by virtue of being human (Heywood 2000, 131; Close and Askew 2004, 18). They are essentially seen as moral rights in this study, although it is important to bear in mind in an EU context that they have frequently been incorporated into international, European and domestic law. The term ‘values’, in the understanding of this study, encompasses both the legal and moral aspects of human rights, but also extends to religiously-informed and culturally-conditioned assumptions. In the following, ‘values’ are sometimes referred to as ‘cultural software’. ‘Culture’, in its broadest sense, is defined as the entire ‘way of life’ in a particular society, the social environment of human agents and its collective, shared, system of meanings (Risse 2004, 160; Friedman 2000, 29). Moreover, in the words of Freeman (2000, 48), ‘culture’ refers to the ‘beliefs, values, norms, sentiments and practices that support, give meaning, and, (at least in favourable cases) value to human lives’. This includes all those experiences of the human being which are social, as opposed to biological. The term encompasses what is learnt by means of our contacts with other humans and the way it is transmitted in specific ways (Haralambos and Holborn 2004, 790/1). This book adopts the idea that the idea of ‘culture’ is closely related to the concept of ‘identity’ and that, indeed, ‘culture transcends ideology and is about the substance of identity for individuals in a society’ (Murden 2001, 456). ‘Identity’ here is conceived, following the social-psychology derived approach of analysts such as Karen Smith (2003, 14), as the ‘images of individuality and distinctiveness (‘self-hood’) held and projected by an actor and formed – and modified over time – through relations with significant ‘others’. It is therefore negotiable and created, and re-created, in the processes of human interaction. ‘Norms’, in the context of this examination, are defined, following H. Sjursen (2003, 43), as ‘inter-subjective beliefs about the social and natural worlds. They define actors and constitute their preferences and worldviews’. For the purposes of this study, ‘structures’ are defined as inter-subjective systems of meaning (Bretherton and Vogler 1999, 31). Connecting International Relations Theory and EU Foreign Policy How then does the EU fit in with concepts of International Relations Theory (IRT) or, to use Christopher Hill’s words (2005a, 12): ‘Is EU Foreign Policy a Problem for

Theoretical Perspectives of EU Foreign Policy in Asia

17

IR Theory?’ It is possible to argue, with Hill and others, that in the context of EUAsia relations it is, and furthermore that four theoretical issues, in particular, have a bearing on EU-Asia interaction over human rights. They are: (1) what perspectives can IR Theory, Comparative Politics and European Integration Theory provide in helping to understand EU foreign policy? (2) how can the EU be theorized as a Global Actor, a system of international relations and author of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)? (3) is there a theoretical model, which best encapsulates the EU’s efforts to promote human rights across Asia? And (4) which rôle do ideas, norms, values and identities play in EU foreign policy in general and EU-Asia in particular? What follows cannot, of course, be intended as a comprehensive study of IRT as applied to EU foreign policy: for readers interested in systematization, conceptualization and categorization the overviews provided by Ben Tonra (2000) and, more recently, by Carlsnaes et al (2004) and by Christopher Hill and Michael Smith (2005), provide an excellent starting point; in the following, I wish merely to point at connections, suggest conceptual ‘coat-hangers’, as it were, on which to place some of material examined in the second part of this book. While selected aspects of the first three of these questions are investigated in this chapter, the issue of norms, values and identities will form the theoretical backdrop to the following one. The EU’s priorities and policy initiatives with regard to its Asian partners ultimately flow from wider issues of how the Union is constructing - sometimes reinventing - itself as a global political force, which has acquired certain competencies in such areas as foreign policy or human rights. Consequently, perceptions of EU external relations, in Asia and elsewhere, are subject to debates surrounding the process of European integration itself. Pollack pointed out (2003, 222) that theorizing the processes of EU integration and external action had to involve a closer scrutiny of International Relations Theory (IRT). Knodt and Princen even regarded the analysis of EU external relations as a ‘laboratory’ for International Relations Theory (Knodt and Princen 2003, 207). What is more, Ben Rosamond argued that IR Theory could not a priori be discarded as a disciplinary ‘home domain’ for EU Studies. He pointed out that constructivist approaches in IRT, in particular, were directly applicable to the study of the status and policies of the EU (Rosamond 2000, 165/6). On this basis, and depending on how closely European Integration Theory was linked with the ‘three-cornered race’ (Christiansen, Jørgensen and Wiener 2001, 11) of Comparative Politics, International Relations Theory (IRT) or sui generis models, the major foci of attention among theorists of the EU were the EU integration process itself, the EU’s capacity to act (its ‘actorness’), its aggregate capabilities, legal environment and rôle on the international stage. Many examinations of European integration were structured along ‘classical’ fragmentations in foreign policy analysis into the close scrutiny of ‘actors’, ‘issues’ and ‘interests’ shaping the foreign policy arena (Webber and Smith 2002, 29 and 39; Carlsnaes 2004). The classical ‘typology’ of European Integration Theory is frequently conceptualized as a dichotomy of the two variables of the motives and end results of integration (for example, Andreatta 2005, 24). Thus, in traditional EU integration theory, analysts were divided between

18

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

a neo-functionalist perspective – enlarging the processes of integration itself, its potential ‘spill-over’ effects, future levels and supranationalist manifestations – and a federalist approach, grounded in Realist theory (Andreatta 2005, 24). More recent research has moved away from these categories to postulate new models of the EU in the context of International Relations. Hill and Smith (2005), for instance propose examining the EU as a sub-system of IR, in the context of the processes of IR, and as a power in IR. Power Politics and its Alternatives Many of the Realist-inspired arguments were based on an examination of the limits of cooperation and the accumulation, maintenance and exercise of state-centred power in an ‘anarchic’ system (for example, Karen Smith, 2003, 4). This approach often focused on EU member states’ governments and on the EU as an expression of ‘lowest common denominator politics’ (Tonra and Christiansen 2004, 7). It assumed that the driving factors of integration were essentially power-differentials between sovereign states as ‘players’, preference-guided interstate bargaining, lowestcommon-denominator decisions and Realpolitik (Bretherton and Vogler 1999, 17; Pollack 2003, 222; Risse 2004, 160; Karen Smith 2003). For Realists, foreign policy serves the national interest and seeking to protect international human rights standards would essentially distract from this goal. Realism consequently affords little significance to international institutions. Moreover, the lack of emphasis on the ‘ideational’ or ‘normative’ structures and mechanisms in international relations and EU foreign policy makes a Realist paradigm a less pertinent tool in an area of a foreign policy, such as EU-Asia relations, which frequently hinges on the promulgation of values and rights. Alternative, more pluralist, analytical perspectives considered in this context, corresponded to notions by Young (1972) and others, of the Union as a ‘mixedactor-system’. The focus of realist or neo-realist theory on national survival and the centrality of states as ‘self-interested actors’ (Sjursen 2003, 35) driven by power, not normative values or identities, and operating in an ‘anarchical’ context without a unifying authority, makes it unsuitable to explain such a system. In sum, a Realist perspective can provide limited contributions to an understanding of EU-Asia relations. It may, in some instances, help to explain the ‘national’ driving forces behind EU Asia policies, the construction of significant ‘national’ Asia Policies developed by individual member states such as Sweden, Germany or Italy and selected aspects of the EU’s CFSP in Asia. Overall though, a Realist model cannot do justice to the external dynamics of the EU in Asia, which, more often than not, go beyond mere coalitions of national interest. By contrast to realist viewpoints, liberal and neo-liberal lines of enquiry, based on a focus on actors, international organisations, institutions and inter-state networks, soon predicted that EU foreign policies were instrumental in defining how the Union acts on a global scale (for example, Hix 1999, 333). Other, more specific,

Theoretical Perspectives of EU Foreign Policy in Asia

19

approaches, such as Andrew Moravcsik’s concept of Liberal Intergovernmentalism extended EU foreign policy analysis to matters of absolute gains, median interestbargaining and national preference-formation, phenomena which, however, were still seen as ‘given’ (Moravcsik 1997, 1999). Thus, by contrast to Realist thought, international organisations mattered, but were still, essentially, seen as tools for the pursuing of state interests and sovereignty. Moravcsik’s model of domesticallygenerated preferences, played out in the European arena can, indeed, explain how significant national inputs to Asia policy can influence EU policy. But it can contribute little to an analysis of overall EU policy formation, the increase in competencies, institutional legitimisation and the dynamics of the EU’s larger, agenda-setting, institutions, such as the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament (cf. Pollack 2003, 227). Alternative, more issue-guided, approaches to European integration with a similarly limited applicability to EU external relations and international relations included the study of ‘networks’ (for example, Peterson, 2004), games theory (for example, Putnam, 1988) and ‘multi-level governance’ (for example, Jachtenfuchs, 2004), particularly in the context of the CFSP. Although able to theorize the European integration process as a whole, these approaches were less applicable to particular interactions between specific actors, such as those encountered in the EU-Asia dialogue and in the context of inter-regional dialogue. Conceptualizing the EU as an External Actor and the CFSP Theoretical models seeking to explain the EU as an organisation with a ‘global reach’ (Wiessala 2000b) assume a central position in the context of EU external relations. Knodt and Princen (2003, 2) even remark that: ‘scientific occupation with this topic has been as heterogeneous as the EU’s involvement in external policies itself’. Often, the scholarly scrutiny of this field was mainly concerned with the EU as a ‘silent global player’, a ‘state-like actor’, a ‘proto-state’, a ‘superpower in the making’ (Galtung, 1973), a ‘hybrid’ body (Manners and Whitman 2003, 388), a ‘state-centered formation’ (Close and Askew 2004, 94) or – perhaps the most frequent characterisation – an international organisation sui generis. These conceptualizations of the EU frequently focused on its lack of political clout commensurate with its perceived economic importance (for example, Dinan 1999, 483). The proponents of these lines of enquiry typically interpreted the EU as an ‘economic heavyweight but political lightweight’ (Hix 1999, 355), a ‘non-state’, an ‘economic giant’ on the one hand, and a ‘political pygmy’ on the other (Nugent 1999, 446/7). Many such approaches to EU external actorship were predicated on a perceived ‘capabilities-expectations gap’ (Hill 1993, 1998; Hix 1999, 347). This debate was often conditioned by what Petiteville (2003, 127) termed the ‘relative hegemony of realism’. This proved increasingly inadequate to conceptualise the EU’s presence on the global stage. Responding to these concerns, neo-functionalist theories emphasised the rôle of procedural consensus and Community institutions in exerting pressures for the

20

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

purpose of EU foreign policy action (Rosamond 2000, 50). A neo-functionalist perspective can help to explain certain aspects of EU-Asia policy, with which this book is concerned. Neo-Functionalists would argue, for example, that the European Commission and the European Parliament can be instrumental in the articulation and promotion of policy options and common European interests, standards and norms and that they can work towards a broader member state consensus on matters such as human rights and democracy. A number of official EU pronouncements on its ‘Asian CFSP’ were written and promulgated in this spirit.2 Some themes of this book can, indeed, be interpreted from a neo-functionalist perspective. Some aspects of the political cooperation between the EU and Asian countries, for instance, can be seen as the result, to some degree, of a process of ‘spill-over’ from economic integration to the development of foreign policy. Development Policy and human rights ‘conditionality’ are one example of this (see below). Much of the later literature on EU external relations encompassed questions of identity, the nature and format of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the functions and limits of international institutions and the mechanisms underlying the acquisition of competencies in such areas as human rights and foreign policy. The construction of the EUs ‘global’ position was, more often than not, characterised by notions of ‘rôle’, ‘actorness’ or ‘presence’, delineating the EU’s evolving ‘international identity’ and its activities in areas such as trade, development, foreign policy and interregional dialogue (Hill 1993, 1998; Rosamond 2000, 175/6; Whitman 1997, 1998; Manners and Whitman 2003, 388). Its conceptualization required, for some, a general change in critical emphasis from ‘actors’ to ‘processes’ (Knodt and Princen 2003, 204/5). Michael Smith’s suggestion of the EU as a developing ‘negotiated order’, which functioned along the lines of rule-based processes of negotiation, in order to attain global policy outcomes (Smith 1996), represented an approach with particular relevance to the EU’s external projection of an internallynegotiated human rights consensus. Others stressed the perceptions and expectations of outsiders in the construction of shared understandings and sought to investigate links between external reactions and EU policy responses in the construction of EU ‘actorness’. The model, developed in particular by Bretherton and Vogler (1999), of EU external action conditioned by an interaction of ‘presence’, ‘opportunity’ and ‘capability’ has an important bearing on EU attempts to promote human rights and democracy in Asia. If one accepts the definition of ‘presence’ in this model, as a function of ‘the ability to exert influence, to reshape the perceptions and expectations of others’ (Bretherton and Vogler 1999, 5), then it is highly significant that one of the EU’s avowed aims in every Asia Strategy since 1994 was to increase its ‘presence’ on the Asian Continent, since it is this ‘presence’, through which EU actorness is legitimized. Rosamond (2000, 175) interpreted the biennial Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM) in the same way, stating that these summits, ‘certainly operate with the 2 See, for example, ‘What does Europe’s CFSP Mean for Asia?’ SPEECH/00/276 by Chris Patten.

Theoretical Perspectives of EU Foreign Policy in Asia

21

presumption that ‘Europe’ has some kind of distinctive presence’. If, furthermore, ‘opportunity’ is seen as an identifying characteristic of EU actorness, then it is no coincidence that the EU’s human rights policies across the globe proliferated since the end of the Cold War and that the first coordinated EU approach towards Asia emerged in the early 1990s. Bretherton’s and Vogler’s model can find further application in its emphasis on ‘capability’ in the construction of actorness, since – as the later part of this chapter will show – the ‘incremental’ – at times ad hoc – increase of EU competencies, capabilities and legal instruments was one of the defining aspects of the EU as a human rights polity. In the framework of this book, the interaction of ‘presence’, ‘opportunity’ and ‘capability’ therefore emerges as an appropriate conceptualization of the EU’s human rights and democratisation policies in Asia. In connection with questions of EU decision-making, ‘actorness’ and ‘capabilities’, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and its delimitation from wider EU foreign policy, continues to be a focal point for many policy analysts (for example, Holland 1997, 2003; Tonra 2003; Mahncke et al 2004; Jørgensen 2004a; Tonra and Christiansen 2004). Indeed, Jørgensen remarks that (2004a, 14): ‘every imaginable theory has been applied’ to it. The majority of those approaches homed in, critically, on its ‘logic’ and speed, the degree to which it could be seen as ‘inevitable’, and on the degree of ‘unity’, ‘fragmentation’ or ‘common political will’ which the CFSP could foster in EU foreign policy. But attempts to theorise the CFSP also revolved around the mechanisms through which it could be said to penetrate, or filter down into, national foreign policies. In the perspective of this book, this ‘transformatory’ capacity of the CFSP (Sjursen 2003, 39/40 and 50), was in evidence in the interplay of EU and notable ‘national’ Asia policies in some EU member states, such as Sweden, France or Germany. However, as Tonra and Christiansen argue convincingly (2004, 3), most critical investigations of the CFSP, with some notable exceptions (Jørgensen 2004a), were coloured by a realist perspective. Theorising the CFSP thus often (for example, Pijpers 1991) focused on institutionalisation and consensus-building, stressing the degree to which the national interests of the EU member states could converge in the interest of overall EU policy formation. Much of the literature attempted to assess the EU’s CFSP behaviour under Pillar Two, examining relevant policy structures and instruments, frequently uncovering rather ‘pessimistic’ findings. Dinan’s sentiments (1999, 508) were representative of many others: ‘European Political Cooperation transmogrified into the CFSP, like a caterpillar into a butterfly, during the 1991 Intergovernmental Conference that resulted in the Treaty on European Union. Unlike a beautiful butterfly, however, the CFSP is cumbersome and colorless and has had great difficulty getting off the ground’. McCormick echoed similar viewpoints: ‘The world does not yet quite know what to make of the European Union, in large part, because the European Union does not yet quite know what to make of itself’ (McCormick 1999, 202). This led some observers (Holland 2004, 1) to deplore a degree of ‘ghettoization’ in EU foreign policy and call for a wider EU foreign policy which transcends the CFSP.

22

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Beyond Terra Incognita: Integrating a Constructivist Framework The overwhelming majority of the prevailing theories of European integration or EU external activity, be they neo-functionalist, liberal-intergovernmentalist, multilevel-governance-oriented, or CFS-linked, were welded to positivist or rationalist perspectives and assumptions about what exists (ontologies). They remained focused on ‘normalizing’ EU politics (Christiansen, Jørgensen and Wiener 2001, 5), on issues of ‘power’ and ‘agency’, and on ‘actors’, seeking to ‘maximise’ outcomes. However, these theoretical attempts to explain EU foreign policy are problematical on several accounts. One obvious problem is what Hill calls the ‘dearth of hard power’ available to the EU (Hill 2005a, 12). EU Foreign Policy and the CFSP, in particular, demonstrate that competencies and responsibilities on the EU level are, indeed, often overlapping, multilevel, in flux and complex to unravel. In addition to this, traditional interpretations, realist or liberal, leave a sense of incompleteness; beyond the unquestioned relevance of institutions and policies, a conceptual stimulus suitable for a more in-depth investigation of EU human rights policies requires more. One of the main arguments in this book is that what is required is a stronger recognition of the possibility that EU external activities can also constitute the results of the events and the very processes of cooperation which underlie it. Surveying some of the shifts in Constructivist scholarship on the EU, analysts such as Friedrichs (2004, 106) confirmed that as a ‘middle ground’ alternative, Constructivism remains ‘a diverse source of both ontological and epistemological challenges to positive science’. Constructivist, ‘meta-theory’ does not make substantive claims about European integration (Christiansen, Jørgensen and Wiener 2001, 3; Risse 2004, 160; Jørgensen 2004a, 16; Pollack 2005, 22). Indeed, many key texts on Constructivism (Katzenstein 1996; Wendt, 1987 and 1999; Guzzini and Leander, 2006) have more to say about the concept of security than about the EC/EU. Others, however, have seen some potential in a Constructivist approach for the study of the EU and postulate that Constructivism ‘need not and, indeed, should not, be viewed as terra incognita to Europeanists (Checkel 2001, 60). Brian White points to the core of the issue (2004, 23): ‘beyond specific insights, potentially the most radical contribution of constructivist approach to understanding European foreign policy is to change the research agenda by asking different sorts of questions about foreign policy’. And Jørgensen states (2004a, 13) that ‘European foreign policy appears to be an ideal case for showing the potential and limits of social constructivism’. The systematization proposed by Thomas Risse, in particular, appears directly transferable to EU foreign policy and EU-Asia relations; it inspires and underpins a number of arguments of this book. Echoing what appears to be an emerging consensus on three ‘core ontological propositions’ of Constructivism (for example, Reus-Smit 2001, 216/7). Risse claims that the theory can make substantial contributions to an understanding of the EU in three main areas: through its focus on the mutual constitutiveness of ‘agency’ and ‘structure’, in regard of the constitutive effects of European law, rules and policies and with reference to communicative practices and discursive construction. Thus, issues such as statehood, social identities and

Theoretical Perspectives of EU Foreign Policy in Asia

23

interests of actors become accessible to analysis from a constructivist point of view (Christiansen et al 2001; Risse 2004, 165/6). At the same time, Risse points to the limits inherent in this approach, stressing that a constructivist emphasis, especially when focused on ‘national preferences’ within the EU, ‘complements rather than substitutes an agency-based, rationalist account’ (Risse 2004, 161). Much of the recent scholarship has opened up alternative avenues of research: thus White states (2004, 22): ‘an approach that reflects upon the socially constructed nature of European foreign policy has considerable potential’. Rosamond (2000, 171) reflects on the fact that, ‘rather then there being a single constructivist approach, there are many Constructivisms’, a perspective reflected in both the findings which have influenced this present text, and in its very structure and organisation of topics. Others (for example, Christiansen et al 1999) have examined more specific constructivist research agendas, pointing to the EU’s ‘ideational’ boundaries, social institutions, identities, interests, federal structures, policy formulations and, in particular, its multi-level governance system and the aspect of ‘intergovernmental bargaining’ in the context of the CFSP (Rosamond 2000, 173; Christiansen et al 2001; Risse 2004, 160; White 2004, 22/3; Sedelmeier 2004). Helene Sjursen’s suggestions about ‘communicatively competent’ or ‘communicatively rational’ actors, who uphold social norms and institutions, ‘because they consider them valid’ (2003, 45; 2004, 64), are set in the context of European security and defence in the first place. But they readily lend themselves to an interpretation of political interaction in EU-Asia relations. In the context of this text, as in other areas of EU foreign policy, Sjursen’s points about ‘communicative action’ can show how ‘shared respect for norms and institutions is established as the outcome of a process of deliberation in which different viewpoints are communicated and scrutinized’ (Sjursen 2003, 45). Furthermore, communication and argumentation become, in the view of Jørgesen (2004a, 12): ‘essential features of the system’. This is particularly salient in connection with an examination of the rôles of education, exchange, ‘people-to-people-contact’ and what has been termed the twofold ‘learning dimension’ of EU-Asia relations, all of which are a central concern in some of the later parts of this book. These approaches are helpful in facilitating our understanding about how bodies such as the EU initiate and mould expectations and incentives of individuals, governments, NGOs and others, in both Asia and Europe. They can explain how identities are the basis of interests (Reus-Smit 2001, 217) and how political actors’ interests and identities are ‘relational’, socialised and constituted through situation, interaction and cooperation (Pollack 2003, 234 and 237; Karen Smith 2003, 8). Friedrichs pointed to some of the ‘core’ of constructivist reasoning in the context of the EU (2004, 116) describing, ‘its inter-subjective epistemology and its social ontology, consisting in identity and ideas, norms and institutions, language and discourse’. And Tonra and Christiansen encapsulate this in the suggestion (2004, 8) that ‘EU foreign policy might also be seen not to be about rationalist calculation at all but be understood as being all about identity creation’. Observers such as Larsen (2004) have taken this one logical step further and have convincingly made the case

24

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

for an application of discourse analysis to European foreign policy and the EU’s ‘values’ – a method which touches on many issues dealt with in Chapter Two, but which otherwise lies outside the scope of this book (cf. Christiansen et al 2001). In the more specific context of the EU human rights agenda in Asia, a Constructivist explanation of EU foreign policy appears feasible, because this approach concentrates on establishing the parameters of a situation, a strategy or a policy, in order to analyse it. It looks at the development of policies, cooperation and institutionalization by taking into account processes of internalizing new identities and interests. This results, naturally, in a focus on the rôle of shared ideas, mutual understanding, common rules, norms and joint practices, and on how those are disseminated and become dominant in a given context. Jackson and Sørensen (2003, 256) specifically point to human rights as an example of how, ‘people manage to create and sustain social, economic and political relations in spite of their social differences’. This kind of emphasis is relevant for this book, since, arguably, the most common denominator of EU Asia policy formulated in this study is that the EU sought, through the initiatives and normative structures examined below, to ‘socialise’ elites into a more consensual adherence to democratic rules and standards of ‘good governance’ and human rights. A social-constructivist inspired reasoning is also suited to the task of investigating EU-Asia foreign policy interaction, on account of the emphasis it places on the ‘enabling’ aspects of social structures in global politics, and on the ‘ideational’ dimension in international relations. Some more specific examinations of the inter-regional aspects of EU-Asia relations have recently developed this point in areas such as Regionalism and the Political Economy of Asia-Europe (cf. Robles 2004). A constructivist viewpoint thus embraces the analysis of the balance between ‘structures’ and ‘agency’ and can go some way towards explaining the rôle of ‘identity’, ‘norms’, ‘discursive influence’ and ‘actorship’ in International Relations, all of which are significant to this book . The preference of this book is therefore for a constructivist frame of reference, which represents, in Rosamond’s words (2000, 171), the ‘connection of international theory with long-standing sociological concerns with the social construction of reality’. In the context of this investigation, a perspective of this kind is best able to give prominence to issues of values, ‘inter-subjective awareness’ (Jackson and Sørensen 2003, 253/4) and ‘ideational dynamics’, and to elaborate the kind of foreign policy ‘agency’ which links EU action with the international dissemination of political norms (Youngs 2001, 5; 2004, 415). In the view assumed here, identities, preferences, perceptions and interests are not assumed to be exogenously given. By contrast, the ‘rôle of ideas, the impact of shared beliefs, the effects of dominant discursive practices and processes of communicative action’ become central to the argument (Rosamond, 2000, 173; Risse 2004, 164). Generally speaking, the emphasis of analysis thus shifts to interests, motivations and identities of actors as endogenous variables, dependent on certain cognitive conditions (Knodt and Princen 2003, 43/4; White 2004, 22; Andreatta 2005, 31). It is above all the constructivist assertion that norms are constructed through interaction, which invests the EU with a particular pre-eminence as an international actor.

Theoretical Perspectives of EU Foreign Policy in Asia

25

This perspective is particularly pertinent for the study of EU-Asia relations, since it can help to explain the effects of EU institutional policies and rules on individuals and member states. Structures provide ‘patterns of opportunity and constraint within which agency is displayed’ (Bretherton and Vogler 1999, 29). It will be further demonstrated in the chapters which follow that, in this perspective, both the ‘enabling’ and the ‘inhibitory’ aspects of the EU-Asia dialogue can be interpreted as a dialectical, mutually constitutive, co-determined, relationship between ‘agency’ and ‘structure’ (Wendt 1987; Rosamond 2000, 122; Reus-Smit 2001, 218; Risse 2004, 161/2; White 2004, 22; Weber 2005, 64, 67). Furthermore, a constructivist viewpoint can shed light on the ways in which values and ‘cultural software’ shape social identities, political priorities and preferences of political actors. When applied to the EU’s external relations in general, and to EU-Asia dialogue in particular, this approach provides a tool for the analysis of value-based policies and their constitutive effect on actors’ normative identities. It can also accommodate traditional, CFSP-focused, approaches to the EU, reflecting, in Smith’s analysis, the ‘interaction of three strands: ideas, institutions and policies’ (Michael Smith 2004, 82). It can help to explain, in the sense of March and Olsen (1998), how EU external and human rights policy works as an institutionalised system, structured by norms, rules, routines and conceptions of identity. Last but not least, a constructivist framework leaves room for the investigation of changed and alternative lines of enquiry, or learning and education and of the personal, human dimension of EastWest contacts. Against this background, each of the chapters that follow focuses on a particular aspect or broad theme of Constructivist thinking and seeks to connect it to specific areas of EU-Asia relations. Thus, the following chapter looks at human rights in connection with the rôle of ‘values’, ‘identities’ and the ‘ideational’ construction of the EU-Asia political space. Chapter Four examines the rôle of human rights in EU foreign policies with reference to ‘agency’ and ‘structure’. It examines how political action is institutionalised through structures. Chapter Five investigates human rights and the influence of policy-networks on decision-making and the perceptions of ‘actors’ and ‘interests’ in an inter-regional context. Chapters Four and Five show how actors like the EU and its interlocutors across Asia construct their own environment of policy, debate and advocacy in the area of human rights; they demonstrate also, how different the resulting road maps and policy capabilities can be. The penultimate chapter of this book (Chapter Six) relates to the interaction of ideas, institutions and policies. It investigates how, in the area of EU human rights promotion in Asia, a number of divergent policy-choices and policy-patterns on human rights is defined and maintained. The investigation in this chapter is inspired, principally, by the general issues of political practices in maintaining structures and the governance regime of policies. Other constructivist approaches which have influenced the examination in this chapter are Elisabeth Aggestam’s suggestions relating to ‘rôleconceptions’ and Helene Sjursen’s proposals on logic of ‘appropriateness of actions’ according to rôles and identities.

26

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

There is, in the framework of this book, one last aspect of Constructivist scholarship which tallies particularly well with the course of contemporary EU-Asia relations: this aspect brings to the fore the importance of pursuing alternative lines of enquiry, of developing a much wider, more ‘integrated’ and ‘holistic’ perspective on human rights, EU Asia policy and Asia-Europe relations in general. I would argue that this can be conceptualized as the necessary ‘Re-Orientation’ of the EUAsia dialogue, in order to include more innovative, broader concepts regarding the integration of human rights concerns into policies, EU programmes and dialogues. Chapter Seven, in particular, in examining where the future of EU-Asia dialogue lies, is guided by this facet of Constructivism. In theoretical terms, some of the conceptual ‘hinges’ for this perspective are found in the concepts of ‘learning through interaction’, ‘knowledge and practice’ and of ‘communicatively-competent’ actors. By this, I mean only partly the ‘people-to-people-contacts’ and the investigation of the rôle of learning of exchange in the context of EU-Asia contacts - significant as they may be. In a wider perspective, ‘learning’ refers to policy-processes originally derived from a constructivist analysis of the CFSP: the high density of multilateral interactions and the ‘continuous communication and adjustment’ which, in the view of some analysts (Aggestam 1999, Glarbo 2001; Sjursen 2003) lead to a learning process. ‘Learning’, as Sjursen suggests (2003, 47), ‘is seen as something other than a mere adaptation, as the result of external constraints, or as a result of calculations of expected benefits of changing behaviour, to include the introduction of changes to concepts of problem-solving – resulting from the recognition that they and other actors face similar conditions, have mutual interests, and share inspirations’. Checkel (2001, 53) conceptualises this kind of learning as ‘processes whereby actors, through interactions with broader institutional contexts (norms or discursive structures) acquire new interests and preferences’. Glarbo (2001, 154) subsumes it under the term ‘self-reflection’, referring to the capacity of agents to interpret their own thoughts and behaviour within social contexts. Chapter Conclusions This chapter has reviewed the position of the European Union within International Relations Theory, in an attempt to conceptualise the EU as an international actor. It has found that – while traditional, Realist and Neo-functionalist theories may explain some aspects of EU human rights promotion policies in Asia – many areas of socialconstructivist thought appear suitable to an investigation of the Union’s foreign policy activities in such contexts as identity and human rights. This does not mean, of course, that Constructivism is the only feasible theoretical approach to the EU-Asia dialogue. But, as I argue throughout this book, a constructivist-inspired logic can be an ample toolbox which can add many new, deeper, more satisfying, perspectives and explanations to our understanding of EU-Asia contacts. A number of constructivist viewpoints can, indeed, help to unlock and conceptualize areas of East-West dialogue which other theories can either not reach at all or illuminate but insufficiently. The

Theoretical Perspectives of EU Foreign Policy in Asia

27

creation, power and projection of identities and ideas, the perceptions of ‘culture’ and ‘norms’ and the debates about ‘values’ in EU-Asia relations represent some such areas fundamental to the very structure of inter-continental dialogue. They will be scrutinised in some detail the following chapters.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

Nowadays we can talk freely about western civilisation without any sense that we are referring to a specifically European form of civilisation. At the same time, a specific European identity is emerging ever more clearly within the wider category of western civilisation. It is not when we visit other countries in Europe that this is most evident – on such occasions we are more inclined to note how different things are. It is when we come into contact with a non-European culture that our European identity really comes out (Umberto Eco: ‘See China, learn what Europe must become’; in: The Sunday Times, New Review, 8 August 2004: 4).

Human Rights, Culture, Norms and Values in EU-Asia Relations This chapter has a twofold remit. It seeks, firstly, to provide a second theoretical pillar for this book, by investigating how a constructivist perspective on EU-Asia relations can unfold in some more detail and how it applies to human rights. The analysis offered here focuses on a number of aspects which are, I would argue, central to any understanding of East-West relations. I refer, in particular, to normative theory and to the rôle that issues such as ‘culture’, ‘identity’, ‘ideas’ and ‘values’ play in the EU-Asia dialogue. The chapter focuses on the legitimacy of some of cultural interpretations of human rights in the context of EU-Asia dialogue and on the EU as a ‘normative’ power, which seeks to actively promote certain values and norms. It investigates the background, in normative theory, of an active EU human rights promotion and analyses the rôle of the ‘culture’ and ‘identity’, concepts widely seen to be functioning as repositories and catalysts for rules and norms. One of the key foci of this section concerns the EU as a ‘normative power’, which is constructing, re-inventing and exporting a particular set of values, through the vehicle of its human rights promotion policies across Asia. Against this background, the rationale behind the formulation of ‘common’ EU ‘values’, their ideological anchoring in concepts of ‘culture’ and ‘European identity’ and their ‘export’, in the shape of particular human rights policies in Asia, will be the subject of the investigation in what follows. Secondly, this chapter contrasts those areas which relate specifically to the construction and dissemination of a ‘human rights identity’ in EU-Asia policy with major Asian intellectual perspectives, drawn from a number of areas of enquiry.

30

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

The analysis offered examines the validity of ‘universalist’ versus ‘relativist’, and ‘cosmopolitan’ versus ‘communitarian’, readings of ‘values’ and ‘rights’ and demonstrates the implications of these dichotomies for contemporary EU-Asia relations. Consequently, the principle case study in this context surrounds the ongoing discourse over ‘Asian’ versus ‘Western’ values, including its conceptualization and instrumentalization by a number of actors, and its relevance for Asia-EU dialogue. In addition, this chapter also incorporates an examination of Buddhist perspectives of human rights and a short study of some facets of human rights discourse in Thailand. The Rise of ‘Normative-Power Europe’ Constructivist approaches of the nature described in some detail in the last chapter have been credited with helping to reinvigorate normative theorising in international relations (for example, Burchill et al 2001, 226). Thus, issues of ‘presence’, ‘opportunity’ and ‘capability’, ‘EU identity’, ‘actorness’ and ‘rule-creation’, when seen through a social-constructivist lens, result in the adoption of a number of functions and rôles adopted by the EU. In the context of this book, the EU’s ‘normative’, external rôle as a promoter of human rights and democracy, both on a global scale and in on the Asian Continent, is at the centre of the analysis. Bretherton and Vogler mapped out what is, perhaps, the most general theoretical perspective on this, when they argued that (1999, 34): ‘the rôle of the EU can be conceptualized, in the broadest sense, as contributing to overall ‘Western’ policy, in terms of maintenance within and extension beyond the West of values and beliefs which are the product of an essentially European culture and, more specifically, of the European Enlightenment. These include optimism concerning the possibility of progress through human endeavour, belief in the worth and dignity of the human individual, liberal-democratic political arrangements and the capitalist economic system’. The mechanisms which lead to the articulation, accumulation and acceptance of collective norms such as human rights standards, require the adoption of theoretical perspectives which can co-exist with, and complement, the predominant social constructivist paradigms. Some analysts argue in this mould: Jackson and Sørensen, for example (2004, 262), prepare the ground through an exercise in delimitation: ‘normative theorists and constructivists share a common approach in focussing on inter-subjective ideas and beliefs. But most constructivists are hoping to create a proper social science whereas most normative theorists are content to preserve, transmit and augment the classical political theory on international relations’. In this vein, writers such as Karen Smith, investigate EU policy against a background of ‘normative globalization’ and EU-specific ‘values’, arguing that EU policy activities reflect international law and ‘the Zeitgeist of the post-Cold War world order’. The values the EU promotes internationally are inseparable from its international identity and ‘inherently linked to the internal dynamics of the Union itself’ (Karen Smith

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

31

2001, 2003, 17 and 19). Sjursen’s suggestions (2003, 44/5; 2004, 60 and 64; see also Chapter One, above), with regard to ‘communicatively-rational’ actors moving within a context of dialogue about supranational norms, represents an alternative point of view, since these norms could be based in questions of cultural identities and in a sense of shared respect for institutions and the establishment of norms. In this view, claiming a ‘logic of appropriateness’, actors do not tend to align themselves according to a fixed set of rules; they rather enquire which kind of action seems appropriate in any given situation. (Sjursen 2003, 43; Sedelmeier 2004, 129; Pollack 2005, 23). This kind of conceptualization allows for a stronger connection to be made between actions in the political sphere and actors’ identities. It can help to explain how EU policy patterns are formed and how political co-ordination pertaining to human rights is taking place within a context of actors in Europe and Asia making normative evaluations about different courses of action. As regards ‘normative-power-Europe’, Manners (2002) argues for an extension of the analytical toolkit on the EU as a global actor. Engaging with criticism of the EU’s ‘civil-power’ and ‘military-power’ status (for example, Bull, 1982), Manners emphasises that that the EU functioned as a ‘promoter of norms which displace the state as the centre of concern’ (Manners 2002, 236). Focusing on the ‘ideational’ impact of the Union and on cognitive processes, rather than on an ‘unhealthy concentration on how much like a state the EU looks’ (Manners 2002, 239), this argument traces the roots of the EU’s ‘normative power’ to its history, its ‘hybrid’ (supranational and intergovernmental) polity and its politico-legal constitution. In this view, respect for human rights and democracy counts amongst the ‘core norms’ of the EU acquis communautaire (Manners, 2002, 242). This approach posits that normative power consisted in the ability to diffuse such norms as ‘human rights’ or ‘sustainable development’ (cf. for the latter: Lightfoot and Burchell 2005) on to the world stage. It distinguishes a number of mechanisms according to which EU norms are to be diffused globally. Among those, several are pertinent to the dialogue on human rights in EU-Asia relations: Manners’s model of ‘informational’ diffusion, for instance, is clearly evident in the Commissions many ‘strategy papers’ as regards Asian partners. Norm diffusion by ‘transference’ – defined as the exchange of goods, trade, aid or technical assistance – occurs through the EU’s sanctions-led policy in Burma and, in a wider sense, in the area of Development Policy. What Manners terms ‘overt diffusion’ – the result of the physical presence of the EU in third countries – may be seen in the work of the Commission Delegations in Asia and Australasia. Last but not least, the category of norm diffusion through ‘cultural filters’, is at work in initiatives such as the EU-China dialogue. In a similar context, Checkel (2001, 57) points to another norm diffusion mechanism: ‘social learning’. Here, ‘agents – typically elite decision-makers – adopt prescriptions embodied in norms; they then become internalized and constitute a set of shared, intersubjective, understandings that make behavioural claims’. This mechanism can be seen to be at work in a range of EU policies regarding human rights and EU-Asia relations.

32

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

The Rôles of Culture and Identity in EU-Asia Relations In the narrower context of Asia-Europe relations, a number of observers scrutinize the normative dimension of notions of ‘culture’ and ‘identity’. Some authors investigate the ‘return’ of the interdisciplinary contest for these concepts (Lapid and Kratochwil 1996, 3, especially: Sujata Chakrabarti Pasic 1996, 95). Contemporary scholarly emphasis highlights the social construction of these notions, the cultural embedding of human rights and the resulting, contested, representations of culture, identity and national heritage (for example, Jacobsen and Bruun 2000, 2; Freeman 2000, 45). These perspectives mean that many theorists of International Relations are challenged to adopt a broader, explicitly ‘cultural’, context for their endeavours, particularly in regard to the expansion of European systems or relations between societies from different civilisational spheres (Sujata Chakrabarti Pasic 1996, 95). ‘European identity’, which was strengthened by contact with ‘Others’, could thus be conceptualized as a cultural construct (ibid, 98/9). In a related field of study these lines of enquiry, both reflect, and form part of a wider, post-colonial discourse which determines the angle of analysis for many aspects of the relationship between Asian, African and European countries. Regarding the culture-identity linkage, Stephanie Lawson points to the reemergence of cultural theory and the centrality of ‘values’ in a wider, more inclusive, concept of ‘culture’, can be a concept which has ‘relativizing properties’ (Lawson 2001, 31), is constitutive of identity (Lawson 2003, 4-7) and present on both sides of the universalist- relativist divide (Lawson 1998, 253/4). Lawson’s position is significant for the argument in this book, because of its emphasis on the ideological links between cultural issues – especially those relating to human rights – and political power, interpretation and control. Lawson’s method can also explain how concepts such as ‘individualism’ and ‘enlightenment universalism’ form the background to identity-formation and representation of the EU and how they underpin EU-Asian exchange about ‘universal’ versus ‘relative’ value systems, democracy and human rights. One aspect, in particular, of Lawson’s position, concurs with the stance taken in this book in a major way: an attempt to identify a pluralist, ‘middle’ ground in between strict universalism and rigid relativism (Lawson 1998, 262/3) can avoid both a single, dogmatic, prescription of what democracy and human rights should be and precludes the use of value debates, and the abuse of ‘culture’, in order to mask authoritarian practices. Against this background, the discussion of ‘culture’, ‘identity’ and ‘human rights’ can be understood as an examination of discourse as a process of the construction of meaning, ‘allowing for the promotion of specific interpretations, while excluding others’ (Risse 2004, 165). Regarding the EU’s Asia policy, many analysts make the general observation that ‘culture’ is far too creative and dynamic a concept to allow for ‘stereotyped’ constructions and artificial, EastWest dichotomies (for example, Jacobsen and Bruun 2000, 7). Notwithstanding this widely-held opinion, the connections between cultural variables, such as ideological affiliations and legal definitions, on the one hand, and

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

33

collective identities on the other, continue to be subject to a variety of representations and interpretations. With regard to ‘Asian Flu’ and ‘Asian Values’, for instance, Stokke demonstrates how ‘culture’ can be explained as a model of social organisation producing optimal economic growth, as a ‘prime nation-building component’ and the social key to economic strength (Stokke 2000, 143). Close and Askew claim (2004, 45) that, ‘culture, power and the political economy, especially at the global level are the pivotal considerations, factors and forces in shaping human rights matters of all kinds and everywhere’. In regard to the specific area of Asia-Europe relations, some writers focus on the accentuation of a common, culture-defined European sense of identity, coupled with a sense of ‘otherness’ in regard to different (in this case, Asian,) communities. In many cases, attempts at norm diffusion thus intersect with notions of ‘culture’, ‘otherness’ and ‘European’ (and ‘EU’) collective identity (cf. Risse 2004, 169; Sedelmeier 2004, 127). The relationship between ‘identity’, ‘interests’ and ‘institutions’ on the one hand, and the socio-cognitive dimensions of foreign policy on the other, continues to be the subject of significant amounts of theorising (for example, Aggestam and Hyde-Price 2000; Karen Smith and M. Light 2001; Carlsnaes et al 2004). Indeed, for Aggestam and Hyde-Price (2000, 6), this issue is situated ‘at the very heart’ of contemporary political theory. For Sedelmeier (2004, 125), the issue consists of two questions: whether the EU has acquired a ‘collective’ identity and what the attributes of this identity are. The aspects of this debate which are most relevant to this study focus on the rôle of institutions, such as the EU ones, in the process of identity-formation and identity-dissemination, and on the interaction of ‘European’ conceptions of identity with other, non-European ones, for example, in East or Southeast Asia. The writings in regard to the ‘Asian values’ discourse, examined in detail below, constitute one branch of this wider discourse, albeit a branch which directly transposes the general debates to the subject of this book. Mathew Doidge is one of a number of observers establishing this express link for the area of EU-ASEAN relations, concluding that interregional dialogue encourages the formation of collective identities. Where this process is deliberate, as in the case of the EU as an external ‘facilitator’, seeking to ‘induce closer cohesion’ in its Asian interlocutors, this ‘was to involve the creation or rediscovery of “Asian values” as a challenge to the Western position, and at times vitriolic debate’ (ibid, 51). According to Bretherton and Vogler (1999, 223), the establishment of a collective ‘EU’– identity – defined as a ‘desire to belong’ – is a function of the EU’s ‘presence’, and is linked to questions of legitimacy and ‘actorness’. In addition, Risse points out that ‘the EU as an active identity builder has successfully achieved ‘identity hegemony’, in terms of increasingly defining what it means to belong to “Europe”’. Distinguishing between ‘cultural’ and ‘civic’ variants of identity, Risse argues that the EU was increasingly successful in constructing a post-national civic identity in the Habermasian sense, that is, through an emphasis on human rights as ‘constitutive’ values of the EU (Risse 2004, 169/170). Moreover, Manners and Whitman suggest a picture of the EU as a ‘hybrid’ international entity, which can be found represented in three divergent rôles: civilian,

34

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

military and normative. (Manners and Whitman 2003, 388/9). Manners and Whitman differentiate between ‘active’ and ‘reflexive’ dimensions of the EU’s identity, claiming that ‘conditionality’, ‘principles’ and respect for human rights are ‘constitutive’ of its international diffusion and its ‘principled identity’ (Manners and Whitman 2003, 380, 382, 398). The emphasis placed here on ‘reflexive’ aspects, located in the ‘construction’ and ‘representation’ of the EU, is suggestive of its ‘principled’ identity and ‘normative’ rôle, which is its ‘most overlooked conceptualization’ (ibid, 389, 398). The ‘Patterns of Affinity or Aloofness’: Human Rights and Value-Export In the context of this book, this more sociological approach to questions of the EU’s international identity has the advantage of bearing out the overall constructivist perspective: it opens the door to an understanding of the relationships between human actions, social institutions and social identity, all of which are crucially important to the relationships between Europeans and non-Europeans (cf. Manners and Whitman 2003, 394). With particular reference to EU-Asia relations, concepts such as that of the EU as a ‘difference-engine’, acting as a ‘multiplier of differences between the EU and the world’ (Manners and Whitman 2003, 395) make eminent practical sense. In addition to this, when Sedelmeier (2004, 126/7) locates the two key variants of ‘EU identity’ in the ‘reflection’ of ‘common’ member state traits and in the ‘creation’ and ‘articulation’ of a ‘collective’ EU identity, then issues such as identity creation through interaction with the EU’s external environment, and definition of an EU identity by means of the parallel construction of an ‘Other’, become central. The analytical focus of some of the later chapters in this present volume is, consequently, on policies and discursive practices which Sedelmeier (2004, 127) termed ‘patterns of affinity (or aloofness) towards particular countries or regions’ (see Chapter Six). Theoretical approaches such as these eventually provide useful analytical tools in at least three more ways. Firstly, they can provide useful insights in connection with the debate about ‘Western’ versus ‘Asian’ values and the rôles which processes of ‘othering’ play in the construction of identity. Secondly, they can help to understand EU human rights criteria in Asia which determine the ‘right to belong’. And, thirdly, identity-related interpretations can be useful when analysing the ‘inhibitory’ potential of Asia-Europe dialogue, for instance, the structures and participants of a number of EU-Asia dialogue fora like the Asia-Europe Meetings (cf. Chapters Four and Five). In this context of the key idea of ‘identity’, Lisbeth Aggestam suggests the useful concept of ‘rôle conception’ in her investigation of how and why cultural norms matter in foreign policy. In this constructivist-inspired perspective, ‘rôle conception’ refers to normative views of expected foreign policy behaviour held by policy-makers (Aggestam, 2000, 87, 94/5; 2004, 88). According to this view (Aggestam 2004, 82), ‘rôle-concepts provide us with an analytical and operational link between identity constructions and patterns of foreign policy behaviour’, between ‘agent’ and ‘structure’. They suggest how, ‘cultural norms and values are

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

35

translated into verbal statements about expected foreign policy behaviour and action orientation’. Communicative processes, in this perspective’ (ibid, 86) ‘may affect and shape’ actors’ identities and interests. Applied to the EU’s human rights policies in Asia, Aggestam’s suggestions regarding ‘rôle-conception’ are significant in a number of ways. The concept, firstly, embodies a ‘mixture of norms, intentions and descriptions of reality’ (ibid, 89), which is an apt characterisation of the position of human rights dialogue between the EU and Asian countries. Secondly, the idea of ‘rôle-conceptions’ allows for a wider political-cultural approach to foreign policy analysis and leaves room to transcend ‘traditional’ realist perspectives. The idea can therefore help to unlock many of the underlying issues, such as divergent Asian and European cultural backgrounds, EU versus member state Asia policies and the EU’s conception of itself as a global human rights promoter, all of which form part of the investigation offered in this book. The work of Petiteville (2003) represents a substantial contribution to the study of human rights and the international identity of the EU. Many of the arguments he advances are pertinent to the issues investigated in this book. In particular, Petiteville frames issues of identity in a wider context of an ‘export’ of ‘common’ European values. He characterises this as a form of ‘soft EU diplomacy’, tracing its rationale to the collapse of Eastern European socialism and to the ‘common values rooted in the political culture’ of the EU member states. Referring to enhanced weight for both supranationalism and EU legitimacy, Petiteville argues that the Union utilized more ‘resources of international influence in a process of incremental politicization of economic cooperation than in the CFSP machinery’ (Petiteville 2003, 128, 133/4). This emphasis on economic and cultural influence links the EU’s conveyance of political values to more general concepts of competence, guided by an understanding of the EU as a ‘civilian power’ (Whitman 1998; Karen Smith 2003). The case studies in this book bear out many parts of this hypothesis, especially in terms of a comparison of the EU’s sanctions-led, CFSP-grounded, approach to Burma (Myanmar) on the one hand and its more ‘deliberative’ policy towards Indonesia on the other (see below, Chapter Six). Approaches such as the ones posited by Manners, Whitman and Petiteville can thus help to understand the EU’s impact, internationally and in Asia, on human rights matters and its function as a provider of binding, ‘normative power’ in world politics. In an attempt to reconcile the critical analysis of human rights in a constructivist or ideational mould with ‘power-politics rationalism’ and traditional security studies, Richard Youngs, last but not least, demonstrates how ‘value-driven’ foreign policy and EU promotion of human rights are constituent elements of a European identity. While this method can be grounded in the above concepts of ‘soft power’, Youngs’s model goes further, to show how EU foreign policy is galvanized by the EU’s deepening self-identity’ referring to a set of distinctive, ‘essential’ or ‘core’ European values which reinforce the Union’s sense of legitimacy (Youngs 2004, 416). Youngs also employs the concepts of ‘agency’, ‘motives’ and ‘strategy’ (Youngs 2001), adhering to a strict conceptual distinction between democracy promotion and ‘traditional’ human rights policies in countries labelled ‘incipient’

36

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

or ‘restrictive’ democracies. He emphasises the activities of external, rather than domestic, agents in global human rights promotion and attempted to integrate a constructivist approach with wider theories of globalization. As a result, Youngs can situate EU human rights policies in a theoretical environment characterised by the ascent of non-European political assertiveness in the 1990s and by the tension between universalistic and culturally relative, approaches to rights. Youngs’s approach provides a particularly valuable contribution to the examination of issues pertinent to this book, such as the ‘Asian Values’ discourse (see below) or the emergence of the EU’s ‘good governance’ agenda. Youngs’s assessments (2001, 21) regarding EU ‘actorship’, ‘conditionality’ and ‘engagement’ are very relevant in connection with EU policies in Asia, as the case study of China shows (see: Chapter Six). However, as the other case-studies demonstrate, Youngs’s categorisations appear, at times, a little too blunt an instrument for a more comprehensive appraisal of the contemporary EU-Asia dialogue: while Youngs’s main concern is the EU’s ‘export’ of human rights models to the (2004) enlargement candidates and the Mediterranean (Youngs 2001; 2003), this book argues that these processes of identity-related, normative legitimation are equally as relevant in the areas of Development Assistance, EU-ACP relations and EU-Asia-Pacific dialogue. International terrorism, events in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Indonesia and Iraq, arguably, further reinforced the dynamics of EU’ proactive external projection in the name of values and made it more central to EU identity formation. The case studies in Chapter Six address one of Youngs’s main concerns: EU human rights policies in Burma, Indonesia and China are examples of how the incorporation of norms into policies on the one hand, and aspects of traditional, ‘security-predicated rationalism’ (Youngs 2004, 421) on the other hand, can co-exist and be mutually reinforcing in a number of complex ways. One of the main arguments of this text – that the EU has adopted a strategically-conditioned variety of human rights responses towards a number of Asian countries – can be explained by the existence of overlaps and choices between a rationalist and a constructivist logic underlying EU Asia policy. Thus, much of this book rests on the argument that instrumentalist, strategic control and ideational, value-based policy both informed the EU’s policies towards its Asian partners. Evidence for this can be found in a threefold manner: firstly, in the components of the EU’s human rights strategies in Asia; secondly, in the instrumentalization of EU human rights policies on the Asian continent, for instance through the vehicles of Development Policy or human rights conditionality; and thirdly in the creation, proliferation and reassignment of human rights oriented decision-making structures such as the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). Against this background, the EU represents, in practice, a diverse set of ‘strategies’ of human rights promotion for different Asian countries, which this book conceptualizes as ‘constructive engagement’, ‘co-ordinated coercion’, ‘constitutional cohesion’ and ‘comprehensive extension’ (see: Chapters Six and Seven). In the cases of Afghanistan, Cambodia and Indonesia, for instance, it can be shown how EU strategy is employed with the express aims of strengthening local

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

37

and regional powers, power-sharing and shoring up support for the development of nascent democratic change (cf. the example in Youngs 2004, 423/4). By comparison, EU ‘engagement’ policies towards the People’s Republic of China contained a more instrumentalist logic of EU policy: many human rights related initiatives served as tools for the prevention of further re-nationalisation and political fragmentation within the PRC and for the benefit of promoting social, economic and political change. The following section examines how the EU’s emerging policy agendas for Asian partners were constituted by wider intellectual debates about ‘cosmopolitan’ versus ‘communitarian’ readings and interpretations of ‘rights’, ‘duties’ and values. It analyses how varying, and divergent, interpretations of culture and identity became central for an investigation of how actors’ preferences are ‘constituted’, and expectations developed, through concrete political cooperation. The interrelatedness of choices regarding the most appropriate ‘policy-mix’ for the EU’s Asian interlocutors and its links to a wider discourse about democratic values is illustrated by the prism of the ‘Asian Values’ debate which has already coloured both EU-Asia human rights policies and assumptions about rights over at least the last two decades, and continues to do so. Cosmopolitan versus Communitarian Readings of Human Rights As has been shown above, divergent ‘readings’ of ‘fundamentals’, such as culture and identity, influence, in particular, the construction of the EU’s ‘value-based’, external identity and the external projection of its human-rights guided self-image. One aspect of this can be discerned in the EU’s global dissemination of norms and human rights standards, which is frequently at odds with assumptions in other world regions. The previous section investigated how the EU conceived of human rights promotion as a way of expressing and enlarging its own international identity. However, identity formation also matters on another level. This becomes clear in conjunction with concepts such as ‘culture’, ‘values’, ‘universalism’ and ‘cultural relativism’. In the case of Asia-Europe relations, these issues come to the fore, when examined against the background of the wider discourse regarding notions of ‘culture’ and ‘identity’ in normative international relations theory. The discourse about Cosmopolitanism and Communitarianism in international relations (Brown 1992; Cochrane 1995) assumes a particular relevance in a context of Asia-Europe relations. ‘Cosmopolitanism’ is understood here as a normative doctrine which, ‘focuses on individual human beings, and on the whole community of humankind as the basic right-and-duty bearing units of world politics’ (Jackson and Sørensen 2003, 260). Moreover, following Paul Taylor, this book regards cosmopolitanism as ‘proactive’, that is, a ‘deliberate attempt to create a consensus about values and behaviour – a cosmopolitan community – among diverse communities; and the reflection and promotion of cosmopolitan values through specific new activities in international organisations such as the United Nations’ (Taylor 1999, 540). Taylor’s definition is directly applicable to a European Union

38

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

in which international human rights policies are deliberately identity-based and in which the member states are seen to be, in Smith’s words, ‘using the EU to promote universal values (or what they consider should be universal)’ (Karen Smith 2003, 197). Communitarianism is taken here as the antonym of Cosmopolitanism. It is defined, with Andrew Haywood (2000, 51), as a theoretical position, which centres on the ‘belief that the self or person is constituted through the community, in the sense that individuals are shaped by the communities to which they belong and thus owe them a debt of respect and consideration’. Furthermore, Chris Brown’s characterization underlies this book: Communitarianism means that the individual is finding: ‘meaning in life by virtue of his or her membership of a political community’ (Brown 1992, 55; Jackson and Sørensen 2003, 260). These definitions have a particularly strong resonance for an investigation of EU-Asia dialogue. This is, firstly, because Communitarianism is widely seen as ‘but one parallel to the Asian values discourse’ (Jacobsen and Bruun 2000, 8), secondly, on account of Buddhist preoccupations with the ‘self’ (or, rather, the lack of a permanent ‘self’, cf. Harvey 2000, 36/7; Clammer 2003, 26; Burton 2004, 11-14, 61) and, thirdly, because of Confucian traditions, which have called attention to the community over the individual (see below, and Eldridge 2002, 36). The impact of normative ethics on international relations is characterised as an intellectual ‘revival’ (Brown 1992, 9 and 195). Chris Brown identifies the roots of the cosmopolitan position in Kantian social and legal philosophy, Utilitarianism and Marxist thought. He conceives of Cosmopolitanism as an implication of a general philosophical position, contrasting it with realist thought which was ‘a positive block to understanding’ (ibid, 26) as regards the ethics of international relations. In tracing the origins of the communitarian view to the Kant-Hegel dichotomy as regards the position of the individual within society (ibid, 62), Brown homes in on the legitimacy of state force, justice, equality and intervention but expounds little in connection with individual rights and values. From a more general point of view, Cochran (1999) surveys the ‘static’ cosmopolitan-communitarian divide and argues some of the ‘core tension’ (ibid, 7) between the positions should be resolved in order to explain contemporary issues in international relations. Cochrane’s achievements lie in the clearer identification of the component parts of this debate: the concept of personhood, the ‘morality’ of states and the conceptual links between Cosmopolitanism and Universalism on the one hand, and Communitarianism and Particularism on the other (ibid, for example, 48, 75). Cochrane’s investigation paves the way for a widening of the discourse about ‘universality’, ‘cultural relativity’ or ‘natural existence’ of human rights and the construction of a ‘human rights culture’ (ibid, 146, 159/60). These issues inform Asia-Europe relations on all levels, in a way which Cochrane describes as ‘the nature of encounters between the ‘we’ of a human rights culture and ‘outsiders’ (ibid, 161). Her insights can legitimately be transferred to the construction of a European (or ‘EU’-) identity (cf. above), in contrast to ‘Asian’ identities. They can also form the

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

39

foundations of a closer examination of the EU’s export of its own ‘human rights culture’. In the context of human rights cultures, identities and norm diffusion, the work of Mervyn Frost on normative theory is relevant for EU-Asia relations. Adopting a wider angle of analysis than many previous observers, Frost challenges the prevailing, ‘positivist bias’ against normative theory in international relations. Instead, he constructs a model which attempts to reconcile theories of individual human rights, institutions and state sovereignty. Through his ‘constitutive theory of individuality’, which contrasts with social-contract-derived concepts of rights, Frost contends that a person is ‘constituted as a rights holder of a certain sort, within the context of a specific social relationship’ (ibid, 138, 156), in which both rights and institutions are shaped by a different, ‘holist’, concept of individuality. Individuals give value mutual recognition to one another by virtue of certain social practices, for example, the family, civil society or the state (cf. ASEF 2001). Acts such as human rights violations thus have to take into account how individuals’ rights cohere with one another in a given community or situation. A civil society, in which individual rights are not actualized, can lack recognition and legitimacy. Frost seeks to apply his theory to cases of ‘unconventional’ political violence, such as terrorism. However, in the context of this book, another question emerges: is it possible, or appropriate, to apply human rights criteria to a situation, such as Asia-Europe cooperation, in which a coherent ‘civil society’ – in which such rights would be embedded – does not exist? Summary: Normative Ethics and EU-Asia Relations These normative debates have implications for the EU-Asia context on a number of levels. They have a significant general resonance in the debates about the manifestations and directions of civil society in Asia (Munich Institute for Social Science 2001). Mervyn Frost’s ‘constitutive theory of individuality’, in particular, has significant practical implications for Asia-Europe relations. If its communitarian thrust is accepted, and policy-prescriptions are derived from it, then there would be a pressing need for creating, in Frost’s words, framework conditions within which the institutions of reciprocal recognition may grow (Frost 1996, 211). A closer inspection of the ‘enabling’ and ‘inhibitory’ conditions and the argumentative potential of such fora as the Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM) or the EU-ASEAN dialogue would thus become essential. It will be attempted in Chapter Five and throughout this book. In the wider perspective of the Cosmopolitan-Communitarian Debate, the key question – whether individuals can conceive of their identity in terms of an inclusive cosmopolitanism, or whether individuals achieve meaning and a sense of value by belonging to particular communities – constitutes an important, but frequently overlooked, part of the foundations of EU-Asia dialogue. It forms the backcloth to the ‘Asian Values Debate’, investigated in some detail below. Moreover, the question of whether human rights stem from natural rights and the ability to reason

40

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

– and are therefore universal – or whether individuals possess rights in the more limited context of the community they live in, has not only long divided normative theorists of international relations (Brown 1992), but also impinges directly on the prospects for the success of EU human rights promotion policies. Rice or Rights? The ‘Asian Values’ Debate and its Repercussions The discussion surrounding an ‘Asian’ versus a ‘Western’ set of values is, perhaps, as old as Asia-Europe interaction itself. It can, at the very least be traced back to Meiji Japan in the 19th Century (Barr 2001); arguably it reaches back much further into European Antiquity to embrace the Persian wars and their aftermath (see Chapter One). Although some of the finer points of the ‘Asian Values Debate’ of the 1990s have now receded into the background (Barr 2002, 177/8) the discourse is far from dead, and, as Mahbubani shrewdly observes (2004, 35) ‘the desire to bury Asian values revealed the real pain that had been inflicted during that debate’. The contemporary version of this debate has often been conceptualised in the context of issues of ‘diversity’ and ‘convergence’ in the Asia-Pacific (Mackerras et al 1998 15), or as a version of ‘cultural critique’ regarding the moral authority of human rights (Sen 2001, 228-231). The principal thrust of these ‘Asian Way’ arguments is the propagation of a flavour of cultural relativism, which attempts to ‘taint’ universalist human rights conceptions with the broad brush of cultural imperialism (Barr 2001, 4). Throughout Asia, both the relevant regional associations such as ASEAN (see Chapter Five), and many individual politicians, economists and academics subscribe to an argument which emphasises the rights of family, state and society over those of the individual and the primacy of ‘development-rights’ or ‘subsistence-rights’ over political ones. Secondary arguments highlight the value of education, hard work and team-spirit. Among the current and former Asian leaders most prominent in the dissemination of this communitarian viewpoint are, notably, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, Mahatir Mohamad of Malaysia, Jiang Zemin of China and others (cf. Eldridge 2002). The debate manifests itself in contemporary political discourse in a number of ways: on, perhaps, the most general level, it represents an enquiry as to who was ‘morally and epistemologically competent’ to interpret the diverse cultures and identities of the world (Freeman 2000, 47). It is also an attempt to give meaning to a particular kind of cultural relativism (Barr 2002, 4) and a dispute over who was to determine whose culture was interpreted at the national level. The debate further embraces a critique of ‘autochthonous’, Asian, traditions of democracy and an examination of human rights in the context of cultural specificity and individual regions and events in Asia. It is thus, as Eldridge has observed (2002, 32), ‘a conscious attempt to draw together common elements from diverse cultural strands into a coherent alternative concept of politics and society’. In this vein, observers such as Jacobsen and Bruun (2000, 3) contextualize this discourse within a wider consideration of Asian forms of modernity and dissect

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

41

the debate into ‘cultural’, ‘collective’, ‘disciplinary’ and ‘organic’ argumentative strands. Others argue that the central issue consists simply in the question of who is ruling groups at particular moments in history (Friedman 2000, 37). In general though, many writers approach ‘human rights’ and ‘Asian values’ through a prism largely informed by post-colonialism. They investigate, in particular, the challenges to western (intellectual) ‘hegemony’ and linkages between power, globalisation, natural law (Naturrecht), rights, values and ‘constructions’ of region (Lawson 2001, 38; Wiessala 2002b; 2002d; 2002e; Aziz 1999; Muzaffar 1999; Hwee and Latif 2000; Jacobsen and Bruun 2000; Clammer 2003). The ‘peaceful evolution’ sub-debate is but an example of this: it contests that the advocacy of values by the US, the UN and the EU (‘human-rights-diplomacy’) merely reflects western attempts to transform Eastern, especially socialist, societies into members of the capitalist, ‘free world’ (Chih-Yu Shih 1999, 111/112). Within this intellectual framework, the articulation and assertion of specifically ‘Asian’ values, and ‘Asian Democracy’ or a ‘Pacific Way’, based on the politics of culture, identity or traditionalism, constitutes an ‘alternative regional discourse’ (Preston 2002, 19; Lawson 2003, 1, 231/2, 241). It concentrates on the question of whether absolute standards and universalism are a conditio sine qua non of any ethics debate (Symonides 1998, 24; Kausikan 1998; Lawson 2001; Preston and Gilson 2001; Jayasuriya 2001; Lawson 2003, 9). An early locus classicus for this dispute was the rejection, by Nakamura and Wiener (1985, 3), of any polarized distinctions, between ‘Orient’ and ‘Occident’, a viewpoint echoed in Francis Fukuyama’s later rejection of Asian exceptionalism (Fukuyama 1998, 226/7). Analysts with an Asian provenance, such as Thanh-Dam Truong (1998, 48/9) frequently trace the broadening of the discourse about ‘Asian’ v ‘Western’ values, from issues of development to those of governance, the international trade agenda, ‘freedoms’ (cf. Algieri 1999, 84-89) and civil liberties. The conglomerate of values or assumptions, which may be seen as forming the societal glue, or ‘cultural software’, of societies, helping to ‘unlock’ Asian values, are an underlying – but frequently neglected – theme of this debate (EIAS 1996, Pelkmans 1996, 162; Wiessala 2002f). I have noted elsewhere, how this branch of the argument homes in on East-West ‘asymmetries’ concerning the rule of law, the ‘rights-versus-duties’ dichotomy and ‘individual’ versus ‘collective’ ownership of rights (Weggel 1994, 24; Hernandez 1998, 32/3; Muntabhorn 1998, 6; Uhlin 1999; Chih-Yu Shih 1999; Martin Lee 2001; Wiessala 2002b, 2002d). In this context, some observers (for example, Clammer 2003, 20) found that, while Europe was allowed to ‘interrogate’ Asia on issues such as human rights, a reciprocal interrogation was not permitted. Events such as the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 accelerated the articulation of this discourse about ‘European’ and ‘Asian’ approaches to human rights (Carnegie Council, 1994-98; Kelly 1998a, 5; Symonides 1998, 25; Muntarbhorn 1998, 11; Christie and Roy 2001, 10). The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997/8, the political work of Chris Patten as Governor of Hong Kong (cf. Patten 1998), the accession of Burma to ASEAN (Tay and Goh Chien Yen 1999, 47) and an increasing interdependence between Europe

42

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

and Asia, were further catalysts of the ‘Asian Values’ debate. In the context of an intense scholarly focus on ‘Asian Flu’ (Lincoln 1999, 125), globalisation, or US global dominance following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the debate is now undergoing a new round of academic scrutiny. Authors concentrate on economics, a ‘shrinking globe’ (Wiessala 2002e, 8) and governance in Asia, or on the rôle of the state and of market forces in the attainment of human rights (Apodaca 2002, 884, 891; van der Geest and Tränkmann 1998). Others focus on the analysis of a perceived ‘clash of civilizations’, constructing a particularist alternative to the ‘Asian values’ discourse (Huntington 1993, 22-49, 1998, 32/3, 107-109; Stokke 2000; Wiessala 2002e, 22-24; Lawson 2003, 8). Some alternative views concentrate on ‘Orientalist’, ‘inverted Orientalist’, ‘self-Orientalist (Jacobsen and Bruun 2000, 5) or ‘Occidentalist’ (Lawson 1998, 267; 2003, 1, 233/4, 241; Marina Svensson 2000, 204/5) styles of intellectual discourse and on the Asia-Europe Meetings (Cauquelin et al 1998; De Bary 1998b; Jacobsen and Bruun 2000; Buruma 2000, ix; Lim 1999b, 6; Lim 2001; Mahbubani 1996, 1998, 1999; Mason 2000; Sheridan 2000; Gilson 2000: Preston and Gilson 2001). Many writers are seeking to locate the debate about human rights and freedom in a predominantly Asian cultural, historical and legal context. David Kelly’s ‘Asian Lexical Matrix’ (Kelly 1998a, 15), examining the idea of ‘rights’ and ‘freedom’ in Asia through linguistic analysis, constitutes a unique approach to these claims. Other analysts derive a framework of indigenous Asian thought on rights from a critique of Asia-Europe legal history and inter-jurisdictional dialogue, from processes of ‘colonial law diffusion’ and from an incisive analysis of Asian legal rules, traditions, practices and local customs (in particular Petchsiri 1987 and 2001; JSPS 2002). Connected to these lines of enquiry, the notion of a return to an ‘Asian’ tradition of democratic forms, contributes to the academic debate through legal, philosophical, historical, political or religious perspectives. These frequently delineate an ‘Asian’ heritage of freedom, the nature and diffusion of which is postulated to be fundamentally different from the Western, Judaeo-Christian tradition (Petchsiri 1987, 94, 113; DaeJung 1994, 138/9). These considerations can engender a wider debate, which looks to Asia as a ‘fount of universal human rights’ (Friedman 1999, 56). This school of thought focuses on ‘indigenous’ forces, such as the Asian anti-colonial struggle and attempts to explain human rights against an Asian historical, intellectual and cultural background (Carnegie Council 1995-1998; Jenner 1998; Kelly 1998; Friedman 1999, 73; 2000, 26). Sometimes, prominent figures from Asian history are subsumed into the modern human rights debate. A recurring example surrounds the Mauryan king A oka, who is often seen as a kind of ‘3rd Century BC human rights champion’ and the embodiment of a righteous ruler (cakravarti-r ja), who, by means of his legislation, renounced violence (Sangharakshita 2001, 31), converted to Buddhism and became widely acknowledged as a catalyst of individual and social transformation, ‘good government’ and ethical policies. Thus, Amartya Sen states that (2001, 236), ‘on the domain and coverage of tolerance, A oka was a universalist’. A number of observers have refocused the arguments surrounding indigenous human rights traditions towards country-specific conditions in areas such as press

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

43

freedom (for example, Mahbubani 1996; 1999). A specific branch of contemporary discourse surrounds the area of human rights, Chinese thought and what Angle calls the ‘rhetoric of challenge’ (Angle 2002, 196, 208-213; cf. also Chih-Yu Shih 1999). This branch of academic writing emphasises a much more distinctive and diverse Chinese rights discourse. It appears, however, that the main outside challenge facing this line of argument consists in finding linguistic, cultural and conceptual equivalences between competing Western and Chinese interpretations of such notions as ‘law’ (fa), ‘rights’ (quanli), ‘freedom’ (ziyou), ‘justice’ (yi) or ‘punishment’ (xing) (Angle 2002, 3; Ching 1998, 71-77, Kelly and Reid 1998, 15; Gungwu 2003, 18/9). In China and beyond its borders, examinations of Taoist ideals of harmony and of the ‘five moral relationships’1 of Confucianism have underpinned much scrutiny of these themes (Ching 1998, 72; Lach and Van Kley 1998, Vol.3, Bk.4, 1652; Gungwu 2003, 16-44 and 46-73; Barr 2002). John H. and Evelyn Nagai Berthrong, for instance, demonstrate how the contemporary economic success of East Asia, in particular, is being linked to Confucian values of hierarchy, love of education, respect for family, hard work, and the desire for a social order built on consensus and harmony rather than individual competition’. Relations within the family are of particular importance as a source of guidance for all (Ebrey 2000, 45; ASEF 2001; Barr 2002, 164/5). But it seems Confucius cannot be easily recruited to the ‘Asian Values’ flag. De Bary stands for many when he asserts (1998b, 15): ‘a constitutional order supportive of some liberal democratic values and human rights, though not at all an assured prospect on Confucian grounds or Chinese calculations alone, nevertheless was not an idea totally foreign to Confucian thinking’. Others agree that the five relationships are compatible with a human rights ethic and that Confucius’s Analects advocate balanced government, personal integrity and trust (Chan 1998, 37; De Bary 1998 a, 15, 23/4, 29; 1998c, 53). However, Barr also comments (2002, 168) that ‘rights’, in Confucian cultures, tend to defend the strong, not the weak. Notwithstanding this, it is frequently argued that Confucius ‘recognised’ a tradition of justified rebellion against an unjust government – a politician thus fails whenever he needs to employ force and use soldiers (for example, Christie and Roy 2001, 220; Weggel 2001, 67; Sen 2001, 234/5). Governmental legitimacy takes its cue from a priori moral standards and a sense of justice (Gang Xu 1999, 426; Nuyen 1999, 195). It therefore seems possible to conclude with Weggel (2001, 67) Henkin (1998, 313) and others that the human rights idea is not alien to Confucian values, that Confucianism does not present an insuperable object in the search for universalistic humanistic values in ‘Asian values’ (Barr 2002, 173), and that ‘collective justice’ and ‘social rights’ can never justify a Tiananmen Square massacre. As Amartya Sen argues (2001, 234): ‘indeed, it is by no means clear to me that Confucius is more authoritarian in this respect than, say, Plato or St. Augustine’. Ruiping Fan summarizes a Confucian perspective (2004, 154): ‘even if rights are not necessary 1 Those between parent and child, ruler and minister, husband and wife, elder and younger siblings and between friends; see for details: Ching 1998, 72; Gungwu 2003, 24; ASEF 2001; Lach 1994, 1652.

44

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

when the virtues prevail in society … they are necessary when the virtues do not prevail’. Government Power or Buddha-Power? Buddhism and Human Rights A large cluster of analytical writing from the ‘Asian values’ debate deals with the contributions made by Asian belief systems to the development of an ‘Asian ethic’ as regards ‘rights’, ‘individualism’ and ‘personhood’ (Wiessala 2002b, 27; 2002e, 2427). The religious language, moral precepts and philosophical idioms of Buddhism, in particular, have frequently been integrated into the wider dialogue about democracy and human rights between Asian and European partners. In part, this has happened through the numerous concrete intercultural exchanges involving religion or civil society in Asia (for example, Munich Institute for Social Science 2001; Barr 2002, 181/2; Mantaha and Tingsabadh 2003). But there is a much wider scrutiny of the interaction of religion and politics throughout Asian countries (Lach and Van Kley 1998, Vol.3, Bk.4, 1652; Chan 1998, 37/8; De Bary 1998a-c; Henkin 1998, 313; Jenner 1998, 67; Gang Xu 1999, 426; Nguyen 1999, 195; Ebrey 2000, 45; Nagai Berthrong 2000; Christie and Roy 2001, 220; Gungwu 2003, 46-73; Clammer 2003, 26/7; Mou 2003). It has been argued, in particular, that Buddhist teachings contain a human rights ethic applicable to, or at least adaptable to, significant parts of contemporary democracy and human rights discourse.2 At times, prominent characters from Asian history, such as the 3rd Century (BC) Buddhist emperor A oka (Ashoka), have been cited in the context of the contemporary human rights debate (cf. above, p.42; Sen 2001, 236; Jones 2003, 45). There are, perhaps, two main reasons for what Barr (2002, 147) calls the ‘search for humanism in Buddhism’: firstly, in spite of the fundamental differences between the Christian and the Buddhist view of the human person and the universe (Mantaha and Tingsabadh 2003; Sangharakshita, 2001), there appears to be some resonance of some Buddhist thinking on the human person with some Christian, (especially Catholic) and Islamic thought (Barr 2002, 139). In particular, Buddhism emphasises the impermanence of, respect for, and inter-relatedness of, all kinds of living beings; for many, these teachings are easily transferable to a system of Buddhist ‘ethics of intention’ (Sangharakshita 2001, 167) or ‘virtue-ethics’ (Keown 2005, 25), which embraces such topics as animal rights, the environment, abortion, human rights and counterterrorism (Harvey 2000; Barr 2002; Chappell 2003; Keown 2005). Secondly, the activities of outstanding Buddhist personalities are often cited to provide further evidence for the political dimension and ‘human rights friendliness’ of Buddhism. The resistance of Nobel Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the Free Tibet Movement represented by Tenzin Gyatso (the current 14th Dalai Lama) and others, or the peace work of the Cambodian monk Maha Ghosananda, are cited in 2 The fascinating history of the reception of Buddhist Thought in Europe is outlined in such diverse writings as Lach (1998); Allen (2002) and Streight & Vohnson (2003).

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

45

this context. Other cases are the Vietnamese cleric Thich Nhat Hanh, one of the influences behind Martin Luther King Jr, or, more recently, the adoption of a more visible ‘Buddhist Human Rights activism’ by Hollywood ‘celebrity-Buddhists’, such as Harrison Ford, Steven Seagal or Richard Gere. The Vietnamese form of a more socially involved, ‘activist’ Buddhism, in particular, was born ‘out of the crucible of the years of colonialism and war in Vietnam’ (Hunt-Perry and Fine 2001, 35). But to what degree is it legitimate to subsume religious and philosophical norms into this wider debate? Is it possible to draw direct inferences from Asian religion to human rights? Can aspects of traditional Asian religion be used to justify the modern political notions which are often attributed to it? The debate about Buddhism and human rights is diverse and differentiated. In general, Buddhist notions regarding ‘human dignity’ or the ‘uniquely human potential for enlightenment’ lend themselves to an investigation of their compatibility with a moral idiom based on ‘rights’ and ‘liberties’. In this context, Buddhism, especially in the shape of ‘Engaged Buddhism’, ‘Buddhism as Postmodernism’ or ‘Buddhism as Civil Religion’ (Swearer 1995; Queen 2000; Barr 2002; Chappell 2003; Clammer 2003; Jones 2003), receives significant scholarly attention from writers who endeavour to establish firmer links between spirituality, human rights and contemporary politics in Asia. In these writings, Buddhism was often seen to contain the assumption that it is possible to ‘derive an “ought” from an “is”’ (Burton 2004, 55), in other words, that moral knowledge was entailed by the understanding of an ontological state of affairs. Consequently, a number of authors investigate whether the Buddhist dharma or doctrine offers a kind of ‘social-contract’ model, which may underpin modern notions of ‘rights’, ‘freedom’ and ‘human nature’ (Wei-hsun Fu and Wawrytko 1991, 146/7; Mabbett 1998; Harris 1999, 3, 7, 8, 19; Harvey 2000, 114/5, 118/9, 121; Keown 2000, 64-75). Others, many of them ‘engaged’ Buddhists, debate how the Buddhist teachings might evolve into a catalyst for contemporary social, environmental or civil society concerns from which ultimately a human rights ethic might be derived (Harvey 1990, 196-216; Keown 1995, 3-27, 2000, 57, 62; Mabbett 1998, 21, 25; Thanh-Dam Truong 1998, 53, 56; Bell 2000, 397-422; Queen 2000; Hershock 2000, 10/11; Hunt-Perry and Fine 2001, 35; King 2003, Swearer 2003).3 On an individual level, something akin to human rights in Buddhist Thought was to be derived from the concepts of ‘freedom’, ‘emancipation’, a person’s right to self-development, ‘equality under the law of karma’, the ‘potentiality of man’ and ‘equal rights and partnership between men and women’ (Chamarik Saneh 2000, 50/51’ Jones, 2003, 182). A first book-length treatment of the subject of Buddhism and Human Rights appeared in 1998 (Keown, Prebish and Husted 1998), three years after the proclamation of a landmark Declaration on Buddhism and Human Rights.4 Moreover, in Human Rights from a Buddhist Perspective, Hershock (2000, 10/11) argues that it 3 4

See also: http://jbe.la.psu.edu/2/rightbib.html. See: http://jbe.la.psu.edu/1995conf/closing.html.

46

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

is impossible to detach the politico-legal contents of human rights from their more ‘metaphysical’ background. However, on account of Buddhist karmic laws and the interdependence of all things, he claimes that human rights should not have the primary function of promoting minimal universal standards. Other analysts posit that public power can be limited by Buddhist ethics (Harris 1999, 3-19). Harvey (2000, 114/5) detects in Buddhist scripture some evidence for a form of ‘socialcontract-model’ of government, which, ‘clearly gives a ruler no right to abuse the people he rules for the very basis of his legitimacy is that he should benefit them’ (Harvey 2000, 118; Barr 2004, 144/5). I argue elsewhere (Wiessala 2002, 54/5) that the relationship between Buddhism and human rights remains ambivalent: Buddhists are much more inclined to conceive of human rights under socio-cultural preferences, that is, by focusing, introspectively, on ‘reciprocity’, ‘responsibility’, ‘obligation’ and ‘duty’. Buddhist views on concepts such as ‘equality’ or ‘rights’ tend to rest on a ‘humanistic’, rather than a ‘legalistic’ consciousness (Nilsawas Pafun 1999, 7). Thus, alternative Buddhist conceptualisations stress human ‘conscience’, ‘freedom’ and ‘dignity’ in connection with the attainment of ‘liberating knowledge’, and emphasise ‘compassion’ and ‘wisdom’ in connection with the attainment of ‘equality’ and ‘solidarity’. Saneh Chamarik encapsulates this well (2002, 76): ‘[men]… are equal in dignity and rights – that is to say, dignity and rights to their own salvation’. This and similar points of view may be attributable to Buddhist teachings on ‘impermanence’, ‘non-substantiality’, ‘suffering’, ‘selfhood’, ‘interdependence’ and ‘identity’, all of which are essentially ‘de-constructivist’, in that they do not readily acknowledge an unchanging, essential ‘self’, which could be a titleholder and owner of rights. But Barr argues (2002, 149) that, in spite of this, Buddhism proves to be ‘surprisingly individualistic’, and Harvey (2000, 119) states that a negation of the perception of ‘self’ does not forestall entitlement to rights. Keown (1995, 3-27) points out that Human Rights flow from human nature and are not therefore alien to Buddhist thought. Furthermore, the Declaration on Buddhism and Human Rights, proclaimed during an online conference in 1995,5 emphasises principles of dignity, humane treatment, and equality: ‘those who have the good fortune to have a “rare and precious human rebirth”, with all its potential for awareness, sensitivity and freedom, have a duty not to abuse the rights of others’ (see also Harvey 2000, 121). Buddhism rejects discrimination and advocates the value of life, compassion tolerance, sovereignty, consensus or the quasi-contractual nature of government (Marbett 1998, 21, 25; Thanh-Dam Truong 1998, 53, 56). It encourages ethical behaviour towards humans, animals and plants, guided by compassion and the moral precepts (Harvey 1990, 196-216). As a result, it seems, at the very least, difficult to verify that Buddhism fully carries the political notions attributed to it under the human rights or ‘Asian Values’ labels. On the other hand, however, there seems a lot of truth in Barr’s assertion (2002, 149) that ‘it is tempting simply to accept that Buddhism has assimilated itself into modernity so fully that it is completely comfortable with – and well placed 5

http://jbe.la.psu.edu/1995conf/closing.html.

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

47

to contribute to – the human rights discourse’. Saneh Chamarik is, perhaps, most poignant when he compares Buddhist and Western human rights notions to the familiar fable about the blind men and the elephant (Chamarik 2000, 85/6). Regional Human Rights Discourses: China, Indonesia, Burma, Thailand Turning from the religious-philosophical aspects of human rights discourses throughout Asia, to their regional dimensions, it is useful to recall some of the general developments which continue to shape Asian perceptions on human rights. Of the key aspects of an ‘Asian take’ on the subject, the fundamental rôle of religion has already been mentioned. But a number of Asia-Europe watchers have repeatedly demonstrated another point: many of the debates over values, ‘traditions’ or rights were ambivalent and easily instrumentalized in the context of Asia-Europe relations. Anwar Ibrahim, for example, an outspoken Asian proponent of universalism, argues in the context of ‘inter-civilizational dialogue’, to provide a specific rallying point for a social-conservative opposition, both in his native Malaysia and in Europe (Ibrahim 1996, 28, 40; Barr 2001, 18; Eldridge 2002, 34; FEER, 16 September 2004, 31). As regards the more specific case of the People’s Republic of China, Hutchings (2000, 38) investigates how ‘Asian Values’ arguments were deployed by the Chinese government, to buttress demands for a recognition of its ‘special place’ in Asia (Barr 2001, 55/6) and of its much-advocated principle of ‘non-interference’. A number of other authors acknowledge the place of ‘values’ in early political and philosophical post-Enlightenment interchange between Europe and China, tracing the intellectual ‘tectonic shift’, from an earlier, and unquestioned, ‘Sinophilia’, to a wholesale contempt of China in the works of European intellectuals like Montaigne, Ricci, Leibnitz or Voltaire (Edmonds 2002, 1; Gregory 2003, 43-48; Lach 1994: Vol. II, Bk. 2, 297; Bk. 3, 561; Lach and Van Kley 1998, Vol. III, Bk. 1, 359; Bk 4, 1593/4, 1753, 1890; Spence 2000, 33; VandeWalle 1998, 191; Wills 2001, 132 ). On a more abstract level, observers such as Jenner (1998, 78) or Yun Xiang (2002, 8), point to the links between religious freedom and the development of personal and political liberty in China’s history, while Okabe (1998, 174) focuses more on the fragmented nature of Chinese society as an obstacle to democratization in the PRC. He Baogang (1996, 110-113) examines politico-philosophical notions of ‘human nature’, ‘goodness’ and ‘potential evil’ as a tool to analyze problems associated with the transition to democracy in China. By contrast to this, Zhao and McGough (2001, 154) defend the ‘unsuitability’ of ‘Western’ models of governance for China by coining the term ‘rational authoritarianism’. These and similar arguments appear to provide evidence of a tangible link between ‘Asian’ views on issues such as values, liberty or rights and public incumbency, exercise of government authority and positioning for power. Like other observers before him, Kelly argues (1998b, 101/2) that this line of argument stands in the tradition of scholars attempting to subordinate the discourse on Chinese rights and freedoms to a wider one surrounding ‘civilization’, ‘economic circumstances’, ‘equality’, ‘subsistence’ or guoquing (translated as:

48

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

‘national conditions’ (cf. also Hutchings 2000, 38). Sullivan, in particular (1999, 132/3), scrutinizes this ‘developmentalist’ branch of Chinese human rights discourse, looking at the ‘legitimising’ priority of a ‘right to development over and above other entitlements. Marina Svensson (2000) critiques the relativism-versus-universalism debate in China and the Chinese discourse on the ‘boundaries’ of human rights and the ‘socialist human rights system’. In their early 21st century reincarnations, many of these arguments are again rehearsed in the shapes of the ‘democracy-versus-development’ debate (for example, Yun Xiang 2002, 7; van der Geest and Tränkmann 1998) and the ‘dialogue-orpressure’ dispute regarding western human rights interaction with China (Angle 2002, 256/7; Human Rights in China, 1997). Chih-Yu Shih, who calls human rights the ‘most direct challenge to the Chinese Communist Party’s existing philosophy of law’ (1999, 99), conceptualises the issue against the background of an analysis of diverse pro-human-rights and rule-of-law-based schools of thought, some of which advocated a hybrid form of ‘constitutional Party rule’ (dangzhu lixian) for China (1999, 97/8, 104-107). Wang Gungwu (2003, 16-73) situates human rights discourse within a framework of ‘maintenance (i.e.: continuity), ‘mindset’, ‘morality’ and ‘Marxism’, elucidating the relationship between ‘rights’, ‘duties’, ‘reciprocity’ and ‘power’ against the background of both Confucian Thought and Chinese history. In the case of Indonesia, and building, in part, on Liddle (1998), the work of Anthony Reid (1998, 142) regarding the concept of merdeka (freedom), makes a conceptual connection between the ‘Asian Values’ debate and the examination of indigenous legal concepts. In addition to this, Vatikiotis contrasts ‘Asian values’, with Indonesian élite perceptions of change, social control or the rôle of the media in Indonesia (1993, 168/9; 2001, 145). He criticises European policies as a ‘climax of moral self-righteousness’, indicative of a ‘triumphant’ West, ‘brandishing its values’ (1993, 200) in the faces of Indonesians whilst pressing for the human rights agenda to be more stringently enforced in areas of the world other than Europe. In Vatikiotis’s treatment, these trends replace East-West polarization by a new North-South antipathy. It is tempting to interpret this approach as a contemporary extension of Thommy Svensson’s investigation of liberalism and democracy in an earlier, colonial, period in Indonesia (Svensson 1994). It may also be linked to Curtin’s observations regarding post-colonial ‘guided democracy’ and ‘viable independence’ in Indonesia (Curtin 2000, 232-252) or to the analysis of violence, radicalism, reform and ‘élite failures’ offered by the more recent Indonesia scholarship (for example, Nguyen and Richter 2003). Uhlin (1999, 5, 11) rejects the instrumentalisation of the Indonesian ‘Asian values’ discourse, which serves only the construction of a democracy without opposition. He argues against both dogmatic universalism and dogmatic relativism, advocating the inclusion of a ‘bottom-up’ approach, which possesses the potential to integrate dissent. Eldridge (2002, 58/9) points to ‘participatory traditions’ in Indonesian culture which provide stong ‘in-principle support’ for democratic institutions. Similarly, Mulyana W. Kusumah (2001) investigates the prospects of entrenching, or ‘institutionalising’, democracy in Indonesia through ‘de-legitimization movements’. He concludes that the democracy discourse in

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

49

Indonesia was likely to be conditioned through attempts at political reconciliation. Other Indonesianists (Widjojo 2001; Friend 2003; Nguyen and Richter 2003) go one step further, examining the rôle of the Indonesian military in the socio-political process. Jun Honna, in particular (2003, 89-107), offers a detailed critique of the military’s changing patterns of response to globalization and human rights demands from within the country, in the shape of student movements, church groups and other agents. Friend ponders (2003, 418/9): ‘I wondered about Indonesia in systematic economic crash, trying to administer democracy as a cure. Would an overdose be lethal? Would a cultural equivalent of organ-transplant rejection occur?’ With regard to Burma (Myanmar), Nobel Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who, on 24 October 2005, had been imprisoned in her house for a decade has been called the ‘single, dominant voice in defence of freedom’ (Silverstein 1998, 187). In many of her writings, she convincingly makes the case for the protection of human rights in Burma. (for example, 1995, 175). In the analysis of Burma watchers, the intellectual concept of ‘freedom’ which Aung San Suu Kyi embodies can be traced to the legacy of indigenous Buddhist thought (Silverstein 1998, 188). In a similar vein, Barr points out that Aung San Suu Kyi’s critical position of the Burmese junta is less attributable to a ‘Western’ liberal agenda and more akin to Asian social conservatism and sources which lie in Burmese, and Buddhist, ethics and spirituality (Barr 2001, 19). This interpretation appears, indeed, quite dominant in the literature dealing with both the Burmese Government and the opposition. It is reflected in authors’ tendencies to conceptualize human rights discourse through the prism of autochthonous Buddhism. What is interesting in the case of Burma is that a political or conceptual appropriation of Buddhist thought appears to happen in two directions: on the one hand Buddhism becomes an agent recruited to bestow legitimacy on the ruling junta and to endow with authority the discourse about Burmese nationhood. Alternatively, the power of the Buddhist faith also evolves into a repository of popular protest and politicised resistance (Matthews 1999, 38-40). Much of the remaining literature on Burma focuses in detail on the plethora of ongoing human rights abuses in the country, on the international response - or lack of response - to it. A large number of critical texts revolve around the ‘engagement-versus-isolation’ debate in international relations (for example, Sein Win 2001). The contemporary human rights discourse in the Kingdom of Thailand represents this chapter’s last example of an Asia-specific debate over rights and values. It is briefly analysed here, as Thailand and Thai-EU relations form a minor recurring theme throughout this book. The thread concerning the position and potential of Thailand-Europe cooperation will be taken up again in the context of education and exchange in Chapter Seven of the book, where I will argue that academic cooperation can be a conduit for learning and social awareness on human rights; conversely, human rights can be a catalyst for educational exchange and debate, with the ultimate aims of a meaningful, ‘comprehensive extension’ of EU-Asia contacts. Thai writings on human rights can be said to derive from several main strands, perhaps best categorised as comparative, introspective-historical and philosophicalreligious in approach. Much domestic analysis surrounds the (1997) Constitution,

50

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

the work of the Thai Human Rights Commission (2001), issues connected with the policies of the Thaksin government and Thailand’s position as a signatory of the major international human rights covenants. Regarding identities and international relations, Somchai Homla (1997) focuses on the rôle of tradition and religion in the forming of Southeast Asian identities and the preference for autocratic, rather than participatory, governance. In his analysis, human rights violations in Asia occur not only through ASEAN inaction, authoritarian governmental control and denial of popular participation, but also as a consequence of deeply-rooted beliefs, ethnic strife and outdated traditions (ibid, 5). Like many Thai analysts, Homla is aware of the history of Asia-Europe relations and of the dominance of economics in this relationship, which results in the potential to create wealth differentials throughout Asian societies. Sulak Sivaraksa – perhaps the best-known, most outspoken, Thai Buddhist intellectual and activist – connects issues of identity, human rights and social justice with a call for the deliberate building of ‘cultures of peace’ (Swearer 1995; Harris 1999, 218-220; Chappell 2003; Jones 2003, 153/4, 189/90). On account of the many published works by Sulak and other progenitors of Thai Buddhist social activism, the protection of social and cultural rights features prominently throughout Thai human rights discourse. Last but not least, in a re-interpretation of the ‘universality-versus-relativity’ debate in a South East Asian context, writers such as Narisa Vuttipanyalert (2002) stress both the dangers of Western cultural imperialism and the potential for Asia-Europe cooperation through cross-cultural exchange, the search for common ground and the confronting of misperceptions surrounding human rights (ibid, 41-45). Where Thai writers comment specifically on the EU and human rights, they often concentrate on the development of the EU’s legal and institutional competencies (Pinitpuvadol 2002), on education (ibid, 138, 155) and on practical issues ‘closer to home’, such the protection of women and children. Relevant Thai government departments thus frequently emphasise the right to Development, calling for a ‘priority of rights’, in tune with the country’s developmental needs Consequently, rights to health, food, education and housing feature high on this agenda.6 Chapter Conclusions This chapter has examined what may be summarised as the power of ideas and the formation of identities in the EU-Asia relationship from a number of vantage points. It has continued to analyse the EU’s Asia policies in the area of human rights in the context of the constructivist perspective outlined in Chapter Two, focusing, in particular on the effect of ideational structures on agent’s policy-behaviour and on EU-Asia foreign policy relations. This has led to an investigation of the EU as a ‘normative’ power, which articulates, amends and disseminates values and rules on human rights and democracy through a number of mechanisms. The academic 6 Department of International Organizations, Social Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview in 2005 (see: http://www.mfa.go.th/web/24.php).

The Power of Ideas and the Politics of Identity

51

literature in this field offers a large number of explanations for these processes, including models of ‘soft diplomacy’, ‘norm-diffusion’, ‘communicative action’, ‘rôle-conception’ and ‘appropriate action’ in foreign policy. The idea of a ‘valuedriven’ EU foreign policy, ‘exporting’ human rights models by means of its Asia policies, was of particular interest in explaining the construction of a collective, EU foreign-policy identity through cultural variables. A social-constructivist approach to human rights in Asia-Europe relations has, furthermore, been a useful tool for embedding these mechanisms in the wider discourse about the universality, or otherwise, of norms and rules and in connection with cosmopolitan versus communitarian interpretations of human rights. The chapter has surveyed some of the major strands of this discourse with reference to normative ethics, and through an investigation of the parallel discourse known as the ‘Asian values’ debate. It has brought more recent scholarship on this debate up to date in order to outline the framework conditions of the EU-Asia relationship, within which the institutions and policies of reciprocal respect and recognition can grow. The last part of the chapter has offered an overview of relevant scholarship on normative ethics and indigenous traditions of human rights, pertaining to the countries which are the subject of the case studies in the later parts of this book, especially the People’s Republic China, Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar) and Thailand. This included a case study reviewing academic discussions of human rights in Buddhist countries, which found that, although there is little room for the western-style concepts of human rights in Buddhist ethics, human rights in their derivation from human nature are not entirely alien to Buddhist thought. On the basis of these main findings on values, identities, norms and rights, the following chapter will enlarge the theme of the development of a human rights agenda across Asia and, in particular, in the policies and external relations of the European Union.

This page intentionally left blank

PART 2 Dynamics, Discourses and Dilemmas

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 4

The ‘Enabling’ Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

Introduction: Mechanisms and Processes of an EU Human Rights Agenda for Asia The Common Market is exhausted as a vision for further integration; neither does it provide an indication where European integration should go from here. Human Rights, by contrast, provides [sic] a most intriguing prospect (von Bogdandy 2000, 1337).

The previous chapter placed a specific emphasis on an examination of the ‘ideational’ dynamics of EU foreign policy and on the ways in which rules such as human rights norms are generated and disseminated in the context of general EU foreign policy and EU-Asia interaction. The arguments focusing on the capacity of the EU to produce, change and enforce norms internationally are very much strengthened by the widening of the legal base enabling the EU to pursue a policy of human rights promotion across the globe. In the context of this book, the principle mechanism for the translation of normative values and human rights into foreign policy has been a two-track process: on the one hand, the EU has taken a course of action by means of which legal competencies in the area of human rights and civil liberties were incrementally extended and linked to the relevant fields of activity of other international organisations, such as the Council of Europe or the United Nations (cf. World Affairs, 1998). On the other hand, this ‘incremental’ widening of EU competencies, investigated in some detail below, is accompanied by a deliberate re-fashioning of the Union’s identity. The construction of the EU’s legal framework, and the inclusion of a human rights ethic above all, is frequently identified as the single most significant feature distinguishing the Union from other international organisations (for example, Whitman, 1998, 179 2004). Sedelmeier points to this central feature of EU identity (2004: 128/9): ‘Through its policy practice the EU has not only acknowledged that it is a community that is based on, and adheres to, these principles, but also that it has formulated a rôle for itself actively to promote and defend them both internally and externally’. In deriving the centrality of ‘communicative’ and ‘discursive’ practices from the diffuse nature of EU identity, those aspects of EU foreign policy, which stress the significance of actual ‘policy practice’, or ‘declaratory diplomacy’ become an important focus of analysis. This section investigates some of the mechanics and

56

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

discursive practices of these processes of ‘identity-construction’ and ‘extension of competences’ and their implications for the ‘human rights theme’ in EU-Asia cooperation, which is at the centre of this text. The principle argument of this chapter is that it is possible to identify a number of areas of EU-Asia dialogue, in which human rights have had a positive effect – an enabling dynamic – on the development of the intercontinental relationship. These will be contrasted with examples of more problematic EU-Asia human rights relations in later chapters. Two specific, ‘human-rights-enabling’, policy areas in particular, are scrutinised in this chapter: firstly, the Commission’s multiple ‘Asia Strategies’, from 1994 to 2004, and their various branches and sub-divisions are analysed as an example of ‘declaratory’ human rights diplomacy. The chapter attempts to show that, although ‘declaratory’ policies in general have limited intrinsic value, the example of the EU Asia Strategies demonstrates how what has been referred to as ‘informational dissemination’ above, prepares the ground for, and enables, a more tangible inclusion of human rights in concrete areas of EU-Asia policy-interaction. Secondly, the subsequent investigation of the significance of human rights concerns in EC Development Policy provides just one example of this enabling dynamism which is, so I argue, transferable to EU Asia Policy. The Incremental Advance of Human Rights in the EU Polity By contrast to more traditional common policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy or the Customs Union, ‘fundamental rights’ were relatively new to the European Union. A human rights ‘agenda’ was not part of the original Community framework, nor was it among the chief considerations of the founding fathers of Europe (Schiavone, 2000, 166). In terms of the ‘Foundation’ Treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957), it is difficult to read anything but wider philosophical concerns with post-Enlightenment values and a value-based polity into them: the incipient Communities interpreted ‘freedom’ as an exclusively commercial phenomenon, and ‘non-discrimination’ was a concept applied to goods, services and economic ‘operators’, rather than people. Between 1945 and the end of the Cold War, human rights matters were primarily the remit of non-EC bodies such as the United Nations (UN), the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). A global human rights ethic was articulated most authoritatively through the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) of 10 December 1948 and the less ambitious European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) of 4 November 1950 (UN, 1995 docs. 8 and 10). Subsequently, human rights were integrated into the European Treaty architecture, often in a rather makeshift way. This occurred, at first, in order to limit the discretion of the emerging supranational institutions, but later helped to demonstrate the growth in legitimacy of the EC, later the EU (Wiessala 2000a, 35/6). Alston and Weiler argue that the development of human rights in the EU was an erratic move from ‘negative’ to ‘positive’ integration, evolving from an

Enabling Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

57

emphasis on prohibitions towards the implementation of more proactive initiatives (Alston and Weiler 1999, 10). The EC’s paradigm-shift from ‘civilian’ to ‘normative’ power and ‘human rights promoter’ occurred by stealth and often through the mechanisms of integration through law (Whitman 1998; Wiessala 2000a, 35-37; Haltern 2004, 184-191). Increased ‘democratic pressure’ conditioned the Union’s acquis communautaire, defined as the ‘sum of the Union’s past and present aspirations, actions and legal achievements’ (Wiessala 2000a, 30; Church and Phinnemore 2002, 97). This was facilitated by three parallel developments which accompanied the transition from the European Community to the contemporary European Union: these were, firstly, the multiplication of supranational policy competencies, a process described as ‘deepening’ or ‘communitarization’; secondly, the ‘demise’ of the former Eastern bloc and the dual processes of EU reform and enlargement (Wiessala 1999b, 48/9; 2000b, 46); and thirdly what was interpreted as the ‘acquisition of the external’, meaning the growth of EU foreign policy competencies, including a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) (Wiessala 2000b, 42 and 51-54). These processes were tied in with a re-shaping of the Community’s ‘integrative’ identity and by the strong rôle that the ECJ played in the process of European integration and in giving human rights issues a high profile in Europe (Whitman 1998, 175; Wiessala 2000a, 26, 31/2; Forsythe 2000, 10). Moreover, as Haltern shows (2004, 184-186), the area of rights was where questions of identity, integration, citizenship and law inter-locked: ‘common rights, via common values, are linked to a culture of rights giving birth to a common sense of belonging’. At the beginning of EU human rights policy, ‘declaratory diplomacy’ played a significant part. In December 1973, for instance, Ministers adopted the Copenhagen Declaration on European Identity,1 which referred to human rights as part of a shared ‘European heritage’. Whitman argues (1998, 79) that this document, in particular, defined the future regional strategic interests of the EU. It did, however, not (yet) amount to a formulation of common foreign policy aims. Moreover, the Declaration proved controversial, because it effortlessly joined the concept of European ‘identity’ with the idea of European ‘unity’, and because it failed to address an underlying issue which Lawson (2003, 2) identifies in a European-Asian context: ‘against what is this identity defined?’ Notwithstanding these questions, the 1973 Declaration introduced human rights into EC external relations and envisaged, for example, ‘exchanges in various fields’ with countries such as China. The EU’s Declaration on Human Rights of 5 April 19772 provided another step towards assimilation of human rights into Community Law. The document anticipated the Single European Act (SEA),3 which subsumed human rights into the Treaty architecture. European Political Cooperation (EPC) produced a further, vague, Declaration on Human Rights in 1986.4 In this 1 2 3 4

Copenhagen Summit (14 December 1973): EC Bulletin, 12-1973. OJ C 103, 27 April 1977. OJ L 169, 29 June 1987. Bulletin 7/8/1986, para. 2.4.4.

58

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

context, Karen Smith offers a detailed analysis of how human rights policies became an integral part of EPC throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Karen Smith 2003, 102/3). However, the EU’s declaratory diplomacy and dialogue acquired a more tangible substance only in the 1990s. At the time of Communism’s decline in Eastern Europe, sentiments surrounding a new phase in world history, or even the ‘end of history’ itself (Fukuyama, 1992), exerted considerable intellectual influence. What Youngs (2001, 2) identifies as the core EU ‘democracy promotion commitment’ appeared in the early 1990s. It was made by the Council of Ministers in 19915 and through a key Resolution6 by the European Parliament. In it, Parliament advocated more concrete links between Development Aid and human rights (ibid, points 1 and 2). This was in line with Parliament’s strengthening rôle as a more active promoter of human rights. These measures became significant in terms of EC Development Policy (Simma et al, 1999, 578, 582). However, they gained wider significance only when they were incorporated into ‘mainstream’ EU foreign policy via the 1993 Treaty on European Union (TEU). The new provisions welded international human rights documents, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the EU’s legal and political framework (UN, 1995, Documents 31 and 32). Although, the ‘general objectives clause’ of Article 2 EU did not include any reference to the protection of human rights, the Maastricht Treaty endowed the EU with a responsibility for human rights and democracy in regard to the institutions on the inside (article 6.2 [ex F] TEU). It also stipulated an explicit mandate for the protection of these values in its external relations, especially in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP; article 11.1 and 11.2 [ex J1] TEU) and Development Policy (articles 177 et seq. [ex-130u] TEU). In legal terms, the TEU transformed human rights into a primary source of Community Law, establishing justiciability on the grounds of their infringement. This profoundly altered the EU’s identity and self-perception. Subsequent amendments to the Treaties further extended the scope of human rights competencies. The Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) produced a provision (article 7) which allowed for the imposition of sanctions on the grounds of a preceding, ‘serious and persistent’ human rights violation by an EU member state. However, as Karen Smith points out, these provisions were agreed upon in lieu of a decision to allow the EC to accede to the ECHR (K Smith, 2003, 100; see ECJ Opinion 2/94, 28 March 1996). Regarding foreign policy, the Amsterdam Treaty linked Union policy to a more active engagement for democracy, the rule of law and human rights (article 177). The Nice Treaty (2000) inserted a similar provision (article 181a), concerning cooperation with third countries. A new article 301 made possible 5 European Council Resolution, June 1991, EC Bulletin No. 6, 1991, Annex V: Declaration on Human Rights; Resolution of the Council and the member states meeting in the Council on Human Rights, Democracy and Development, of 28 November 1991, EC Bulletin No. 11, 1991. 6 Resolution of 22 November 1991; B3-1783/91; PV 44 II; PE 155.084/Ann; see points A, 1, 2, 8.

Enabling Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

59

economic sanctions in EU agreements with third parties, which might be based, for instance, on differences in the interpretation of human rights standards. The Treaty of Nice further empowered the EU to act, through the suspension of voting rights, where it anticipated a future breach of human violation by a Member state (article 7). As Church and Phinnemore observes (2002, 87), this initiative was predicated on the emergence of Jörg Haider’s neo-fascist Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (‘Freedom’ Party) in Austria. Last, but not least, through the technical-legal tool of the Treaty Preamble of the TEU, the Union’s provisions on ‘enhanced cooperation’ between member states now embraced a firmer commitment to values and rights (TEU, preamble [recital three], articles 27a, 43). These processes represented an ‘incremental’, legal integration of human rights into EU structures. They were accompanied by recurring criticism of the inconsistencies and paradoxes of an EU human rights policy (for example, K Smith 2001, 2003) and by calls for a more systematic and logical discrimination between EU human rights standards, entailing divergent levels of ‘stringency’ and legal scrutiny (von Bogdandy 2000, 1319, 1337). But models such as the ones suggested by von Bogdandy, proved difficult to reconcile with the Union’s avowed strategy of furthering a human rights policy ‘cut from a single cloth’. This EU method was reinforced, throughout the 1990, by a newly self-confident, more ‘assertive’ EU, which gradually expanded what has been termed a ‘global reach’ (Wiessala 2000b, 40), promoting a wide-ranging ‘ethical’ system of governance, based on rights. EU activity in this area reached a peak in 1998, during the 50th Anniversary of the ECHR (Courier, No. 174, March-April 1999: 9-11; World Affairs 1998, 12-20). New EU policy papers bore testament to a more pervasive presence of human rights in all EU policies and across all institutions. A number of dedicated conferences relevant to this study were held, with the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 perhaps the most prominent example.7 These developments were complemented by the work of the European Parliament, the ‘voice of conscience’ of the EU, in the active pursuit of human rights matters, a rôle the EP had specifically claimed for itself in a 1983 Resolution.8 The EU demonstrated further commitment to the human rights cause by backing the establishment of the International Criminal Court (EIDHR 2002, 8; K Smith 2003, 15).9 At the same time, both Council and Parliament began to issue regular reviews on human rights. This renewed EU human rights focus was reinforced by three wider constitutional changes: the incorporation of the ECHR into UK Law by means of the Human Rights Act (2 October 2000); the 7 Other examples include: European Conference on the Protection of Human Rights in the 21st Century (Dublin, 3-4 March 2000), the European Conference Against Racism (Strasbourg, 11-13 October 2000) or the Conference on the EU and Human Rights in the Framework of Conflict Prevention and Resolution (Brussels, 28-29 May 2001), see: Rapid Database, IP/02/840. 8 European Parliament Resolution on Human Rights in the World, OJ C 161/58 Recital E. 9 See the Council Common Position of 11 June 2001 (2001/443/CFSP): OJ L 155, 12 June 2001, at pp.19 – 20 and: Commission: Rapid Database MEMO/03/254, Brussels, 10 December 2003.

60

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

new, non-binding, EU Charter of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 28 July 2000, which became Title II of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (von Bogdandy 2000; Bartels 2005, 48/9);10 and the initiation of a significant EU reform programme, through the European Convention and during the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference (cf. Wiessala 1999b; 2000b, 43). A much more noticeable EU emphasis on human rights was also buttressed by a strengthening of the cooperation between the EU the UN, the Council of Europe, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In the case of the Council of Europe, this co-operation had been prescribed in Article 303 of the ECT, but laid dormant for decades.11 The evolution of contacts between the oldest and largest pan-European organisation and the EU bore fruit in the incorporation of the ECHR into the Union’s legal framework through article 6 TEU. In parallel to this, the EU’s rôle as human rights advocate through the United Nations (UN) became more significant: new CFSP provisions of the TEU made EUUN cooperation incumbent on states holding membership of either body (article 19,II) and complemented the EU’s general duty to maintain ‘appropriate relations’ with the UN (article 302 TEU). EU-UN cooperation was promoted through Treaty references to the UN Charter (for example, article 11 TEU) and an EU Declaration for the 50th Anniversary of the UNDHR.12 The Council of Ministers prioritised EUUN cooperation13 on conflict prevention, election observation14 and human rights work, and the EU Millennium Declaration rendered EU support for the UN more visible. In general, however, although the EU’s own human rights agenda was, more often than not, in harmony with the work of the UN (Commission, 2003d), its position was often hampered by the absence of unity (as in the case of China from 1996, see below) or by lack of tangible influence of the EU over the UN Security Council (Clapham 1999 681/2; King 1999, 320/1). Actors and Processes in EU Human Rights Promotion On the basis of this gradual, ‘incremental’, integration of human rights into its legislative and political frameworks, as described above, and against the background of an often deliberately dichotomous ‘Asian Values’ debate discussed in the last chapter, the EU developed a complex set of priorities and agendas regarding human rights promotion in Asia. The overall thrust of this process was the desire to enhance 10 Commission: Rapid Database, IP/00/995; 00/1148; European Access, No. 3/2001, June 2001. 11 Recent developments: Rapid Database, IIP/01/497, Brussels, 3 April 2001. 12 EU Bulletin, No. 12, 1998, page 112; on UN-EU cooperation, see also: Commission, 1995c: 4/5. 13 The Conclusions on ‘EU-UN Cooperation’ of the Göteborg European Council from 15-16 June 2001 represent one of the latest examples; see also: Rapid Database, IP/03/585. 14 See the ‘EC Statement on Human Rights’ at the UN, of 8 November 2002, Ref: PRES02-304EN, and: Simma et al 1999, 597.

Enabling Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

61

‘capacity’, ‘presence’ and ‘profile’ of the Union in foreign policy matters (Wiessala 2002c). This section examines how this method drew some of its inspiration from EC Development Policy and, subsequently, influenced the EU’s emerging, more systematic, Asia Strategy, which emerged from 1994. It identifies the different rôles and strengths of the EU’s institutions in formulating and implementing Asia policy and investigates the enabling and restraining aspects of this policy against the background of the ‘Asian Values’ debate (cf.: Wiessala 2002b; 2002e, 17-22). This is followed by an investigation of individual EU human rights strategies for Asia in the context of three case studies covering China, Indonesia and Myanmar (Burma). The EU’s general and human rights policies towards its partners in Asia constituted a conglomerate or ‘bundle’ of initiatives on different levels. However, not all parts of the EU were of equal importance in terms of its dialogue with Asia. The emphasis of this book is on an examination of the activities of the European Commission in its rôles as, firstly, the initiator of new legislative, political and diplomatic measures of the EU, secondly, the budget-holder for a number of relevant human rights funds, and, thirdly, the representative of the Union and manager of its external programmes. In spite of a degree of functional fragmentation and multiplication inside the Commission, which continues to be criticised (for example, Alston and Weiler 1999, 37/8; Petiteville 2003, 135), the Commission’s leading strategies on human rights and EU-Asia relations - in particular those constructed between 1994 and 2002 - yield many significant results for an analysis of the specific area of EU relations with Asia. In terms of the subject matter of this book, the Commission is therefore regarded as the principal representative, or agent, of the EU. It contributed very significantly to the shaping of all aspects of the EU-Asia dialogue, not only through the normative and specifically Asia-related policies it developed, but also by means of other relevant policies, such as the Common Commercial Policy, its reformed Development Policy (see below) and its relations with the group of Least Developed Countries (cf. Dearden 2004). Next to the Commission, the work of the European Parliament (EP) was very noteworthy in the development of EU policy in Asia. Parliament took a significant interest in human rights promotion, establishing strong conceptual links between human rights, the EU’s global position and its own ‘personality’ as the only democratically-elected EU institution. As such, the EP promoted human rights in numerous ways, including annual reports, debates and resolutions, through the withholding of its assent to external agreements and through calls for enhanced funding for human rights related policies and for a single human rights coordinating structure within the Commission (1997d). The European Parliament’s initiatives in this respect will be analysed, where appropriate, in the context of the EU’s relations with individual Asian countries or as regards individual human rights initiatives (see below). In general, it can be contended that the European Parliament’s activism in matters of human rights in the EU’s Asia policy emerged in both a ‘proactive’ and a ‘responsive’ capacity. Through the former, the EP debated, investigated, questioned, and frequently criticised, the evolving Asia strategies of the Union, while, in a more

62

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

reactive mode, it presented opinions and guidelines in respect of current events determining the development of the Asian region or Asia-Europe relations. In addition to the Commission’s rôle and the functions of the European Parliament, this book takes account of the activities of the EU member states, either acting on a national basis in the construction of Asia-related policies,15 or – more significantly – acting in concert in the Council of Ministers. In a more subject-focused and country-specific frame, the Council, including its rotating Presidency and the troika was an important actor in the context of EU-Asia policy. The EU Declaration on Human Rights by the Luxembourg European Council of 28 and 29 June 1991, for instance, was extremely significant in connection with the elaboration of a common EU human rights approach towards Asia. (Commission 1995c, 6). The Council’s activities in this respect came to the fore in a twofold way: firstly in an organisational sense, through the day-to-day work of its specific Committees, working groups and networks on Human Rights and regarding the Asia-Pacific;16 and secondly by means of the formulation of the general CFSP and its more Asia-focused constituent parts, for example, in the cases of Afghanistan or Burma (see case studies below). The relevant CFSP Démarches, Joint Actions or Common Positions developed the Union’s stance towards individual Asian regions or countries or in respect of specific topics, such as arms proliferation and human rights. Human Rights and the Decade of EU ‘Asia-Strategies’ (1994 – 2004) It is hardly surprising that in the more specific context of its relations with Asia too, the EU soon attempted to bring about a firmer and more comprehensive, yet equally incremental, integration of human rights into specific areas of policy. It can be argued that this process unfolded with varying degrees of success and laid bare a contradictory trend in overall EU Asia policy. On the one hand, the human rights strand in EU-Asia relations can be said to have been based on many favourable conditions and on an ‘enabling dynamic’ in certain areas of policy. In other areas, however, such as inter-regional relations and the EU’s ‘Asian Chapter’ of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), human rights were of a much more ‘inhibitory’ character, often exposing the ‘flaws’ (Sung-Hoon Park 2004, 343) of EU external relations with Asia and putting the brakes on East-West dialogue. This was evident, for instance, in the cases of Burma (Myanmar), EU-ASEAN relations and in connection with the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). I would posit that the enabling potential of human rights was present, in particular, in the field of EC relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries and in EC Development Policy, where it became a significant gateway for human rights concerns, radiating out to many other areas of EU external policy, especially Asia policy. To a somewhat lesser degree, the enabling potential 15 Germany: Federal Government, 1994 (see: FEER, 18 November 1999: 58-68); For the case of Sweden: Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 1999. 16 For example, the COHOM and COASI groups.

Enabling Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

63

of human rights was also present in a number of ‘Asia-Strategy’ papers, promoted by the Commission during the decade from 1994 to 2004. By means of these general blueprints, the EU Executive attempted to provide direction, prioritization and structure to EU-Asia contacts, shaping through the declaratory policies embedded in them. In terms of human rights, the Commission’s ‘Asia Strategies’ are, perhaps a less significant provider of templates, contractual formulations and policy practices than Development Policy. However, they constitute useful points of reference which both informed and shaped the area of EU external relations with Asia. While the more country-specific, sector-bound and thematic successors to the Commission’s general Asia communications are frequently of little import for the development of a human rights focus in EU-Asia relations, the earlier, and more general, Commission communications on Asia should, nevertheless, be interpreted as an ‘enabling mechanism’ for human rights concerns, because of the intentions embedded in them and on account of their reception and interpretation. Arguably the most significant opportunities for a more coherent engagement of all the EU institutions with old and new partners in Asia arose in the early to mid 1990s. Following the ‘1992 Project’ of the Single Market, and in parallel with enlargement negotiations with the former Eastern European, Baltic and Mediterranean candidate countries for membership, the Commission made increased efforts to ‘export’ its models of democracy and human rights to other world regions. Initially, this was limited to the ‘near-abroad’ of the EU.17 However, the extension of human rights policies to Asian countries became both a natural continuation of the logic regarding a ‘value-added’ model of human rights – guided foreign policy, and a policy prerogative all of its own, motivated by new geo-strategic realities, such as the threat of being outmanoeuvred by the US and Japanese presence in Asia. Consequently, the Commission’s 1994 paper, Towards a New Asia Strategy (Commission 1994; Wiessala 1999a, 2002g, 129), the document, which perhaps, more so than most other Commission strategies, can be portrayed as the first quintessential ‘Go-East-Statement’ of the EU (Wiessala 2002e, 14), was significant because it established some of the fundamental building blocks of the Union’s general EU approach to Asia. The dictum of the ‘dialogue of equals’, for instance, was one of the political ‘mantras’, originating in this Commission paper; others concerned the rôle of human rights, knowledge transfer, capacity-building, educational exchange, ‘peopleto-people-contacts’, and the ‘presence-profile-priorities’ formula, which informed a number of subsequent Asia papers. Although trade, investment and security emerged high on the list of priorities, the blueprint also directed a number of human rights policies at the Asian region. This approach both reflected and reiterated a number of significant EU views and agendas on human rights, such as the ‘interrelationship between human rights, democracy and development’ and the assumption of a linkage 17 See COM (2003) 294 and other Commission Policy papers: COM (94) 427; COM (95) 163; On the ‘Wider-Europe Neighbourhood’: Rapid Database, IP/03/358 and COM (2003) 104, 11 March 2003; EUROMED-Report, Issue No. 61, of 18 June 2003; Petiteville 2003, 129/30; European Voice, 27 May-2 June 2004: 15.

64

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

between economic development and political reform (for example, point III 2.2.2.). Parallel notions and formulations also underpinned the construction of the EU-ACP and the China-EU dialogue (see below). It is significant that, in a Resolution on the New Asia Strategy, the European Parliament endeavoured to promote a wider understanding of human rights matters, to include sustainable development, the improvement of living and working conditions, environmental protection, healthprotection, the rights of children and many ‘non-traditional’ security issues, such as drugs, organised crime, arms proliferation and terrorism (European Parliament: 1994, point 17). At the same time, the EU signed, between 1996 and 1999, a number of ‘thirdgeneration’ cooperation agreements with ten countries in South East Asia.18 These included clauses making human rights protection an ‘essential-element’ of relations (cf.: Ward 1998, 514; Riedel and Will 1999, 732; Bartels 2005, 33, 35, 194-227). Interestingly, it was the EC India Cooperation Agreement, which gave rise most prominently to a legal examination of the question of the legal basis for this kind of human rights clause. In Portugal v Council,19 the European Court of Justice decided that the clause was validly included in the EC-India agreement in question, on the basis of Articles 177 (2) / 181 EC, which allow for the conclusion of agreements in the area of development cooperation with the objective of promoting respect for human rights and democracy (Bartels 2005, 170, 221). Other – at times contested – legal bases for express Community competencies cited in connection with human rights clauses have included Articles 133 (Trade), 181a (Economic Cooperation), Article 310 (Association Agreements), and, controversially, Article 308 (Power to Attain Community Objectives). The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997/8 and the beginnings of the Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM, from 1996) accompanied an ‘upgrading’ of EU human rights initiatives across Asia, through a number of measures regarding certain countries in Asia from 1994 to 2003. However, rather than emphasising human rights in any specific way, these new blueprints provided selected regional or country-specific foci,20 and emerged primarily in response to specific events, such as the reversion of Hong Kong (1997) and Macao (1999) to China, or the emergence of political change in Indonesia (2000). By contrast to this, a more coherent, streamlined, EU Asia human rights policy emerged in 2000, through a Commission report On the Implementation of Measures Intended to Promote Observance of Human Rights and Democratic Principles in External Relations 1996-1999 (Commission 2000f) 18 Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Korea, Laos, Macao, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam. 19 Portugal v Council (Case C – 268/94) [1996] ECR I-6177 and Case C – 149/96) [1999] ECR I-8395. 20 (1) ASEAN and the ASEM process (‘regional’ strategies: COM (96) 413) or SEC (97) 1239); (2) EU-Asian energy and environmental matters (‘thematic’ strategies COM (96) 308 and COM (97) 490), (3) China,Hong Kong and Macao: (‘country-specific’ strategies: COM (95) 279; COM (98), 181; COM 20(00) 552; COM (2001) 265; COM (97) 171; COM (99) 484) and (4) India and Indonesia (COM (96) 275; COM (2000) 50).

Enabling Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

65

and a paper on The European Union’s Role in Promoting Human Rights and Democratisation in Third Countries, of 8 May 2001.21 Like others before them, these ‘policy landmarks’ strongly re-asserted the ideas of the ‘indivisibility’ and ‘universality’ of human rights. Many later documents reveal that the US-led attacks on Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and a higher level of concern for ‘shared values in Europe and Asia’ (S. Islam 2003, 10) rendered EU human rights policies in Asia subject to some significant strategic re-focusing, for instance towards Iran (Khan 2003, 8; EIAS Bulletin January 2003, 17; June-July 2003, 29; March-April 2005, 4-5) or Pakistan (case study: Wiessala 2002g, 132/3). The meetings of the General Affairs Council (GAC) in 2001 and 200222 and, in particular, the summits in Ghent and Laeken presaged a wider sea-change in the EU’s Asia policy: the EU was now actually ‘making waves’ in this field, rather than just ‘drifting along’ (Wiessala 2003a). Thus, the Commission’s 2001 ‘roadmap’ (Wiessala, 2002c), Europe and Asia: A Strategic Framework For Enhanced Partnerships confirmed human rights as one of six ‘key priorities’ in future EU Asia policy and in the ‘mainstream’ of cooperation activities (Commission 2001d, at points 3; 4.1.; 4.2.D; Rapid Database IP/01/1238). The more specific Country Strategy Papers on Asian countries, as well as the EU Executive’s communication of July 2003, A New Partnership with South East Asia, rather than adding anything radically new to these policies, merely reiterated that human rights were ‘indispensable element’ in the EU’s Asia diplomatic arsenal (for example, Commission 2003c, point 2b). In contrast to these pronouncements, many of the Commission’s later strategy papers appeared altogether more silent on the matter of human rights (Commission 2005). Potential and Prospects of Human Rights in Asia By contrast to the very ‘systematic’ and ‘incremental’ way in which human rights were deliberately integrated into the EU’s systems of law, governance, external contractual and foreign policy over the last two decades, the human rights situation across the Asian continent could not be more different. The picture emerging from even a cursory glance at the protection and promotion of human rights in Asia is one of heterogeneity, significant divergence and often erratic variations. Asia is now the location of a large number of human rights commissions, watchdogs, grassroots initiatives and NGOs, many of whom are connected with governments. Representative of many other analysts, Eldridge notes (2002, 63) that, ‘combined pressures to accede to UN treaties from the international community and domestic civil society has induced greater wariness in accepting new human rights instruments […]’, and that, ‘accession by ASEAN states to UN human rights instruments, though improving during the 1990s, remains weak and uneven’. Barr is more to the point

21 See: COM (95) 216; COM (96) 672; COM (2000) 726 final (14 Nov. 2000); COM (2001) 252 final (8 May 2001); Background information: EURAsia Bulletin, April-May 2001: 42. 22 For instance of 17 October, 19 November and 10 December 2001, and of 15 April 2002.

66

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

(2002, 181): ‘no one should harbour the illusion that all of these institutionalised human rights bodies can be taken at face value’. Although there is little doubt, as Brotton remarks (2002, 34), that the conceptual and geographical separation of Europe and Asia contributed to the ‘creation’ of Europe, its Renaissance and its Siècle des Lumières or Enlightenment, there was no comparable ‘historical’ event throughout Asia, which would have been formative in the unified development of human rights on the Asian Continent. Asia is still the only world region lacking any over-arching, intergovernmental, human rights mechanisms comparable with the Council of Europe and the EU, in spite of proposals which have occasionally been put forward (Schiavone, 2000, 159). Again, divergent human rights concepts may be one reason for this. And it can be argued that, as long as most East Asian states accept the ‘Asian values’ concept, then the chances of establishing a regional system that can compensate for the weaknesses of national systems of human rights protection are quite slim. Nevertheless, the very fact that Asian countries have institutionalised human rights in their national agendas ‘legitimises the concept of human rights per se’ (Barr 2002, 181). In 2006/7, the position of rights, freedoms, liberties and entitlements across Asia fell within a very wide range of political systems, from Western-style democracies on the one hand, to one-party states and military juntas on the other. At least one EU member state attempted to identify more closely those issues which framed the particularly Asian human rights situation (Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs 1999, 108): ‘the presence of armed conflict, the continued growth of civil society, the degree of military involvement in civil rule, the extent of corruption and nepotism, the spread of religious fundamentalism and the degree of harmony between internationally based laws and national, historically based common law’. Moreover, as the previous chapter attempted to demonstrate, many Asian views on human rights, governmental or not, were rather determined by concepts of ‘Asian values’, ‘human relations’ duties, security, national sovereignty and the contexts of economic stability and communitarian obligations (for example, Cambodian Institute of Human Rights 2000). This ‘communitarian’ tradition was reflected in the Bangkok Declaration of April 1993, signed by many Asian states during the United Nations organised Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, in furtherance of a hard-line, culturally relativist rather than universal, point of view (Maitland and Yao-Su Hu 1998, 36; Eldridge 2002, 61). The existence of these traditions does not mean, however, that democratisation, human rights awareness and human rights institutions in the Western sense were not developed in Asia. Several countries in Asia, Australasia and the Pacific established National Commissions on Human Rights 23 and – in cooperation with the UN - the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APFNHRI). Eldridge argues (2002, 86) that the powers of these groups to systematically scrutinise government policies, and monitor compliance with international standards, has 23 For example, Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and the Philippines.

Enabling Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

67

imbued them with ‘significant public standing’. China’s National People’s Congress passed some historically significant constitutional amendments in March 2004 regarding human rights and private property, an act which some observers have seen as ‘of considerable symbolic value’ (Close and Askew 2004, 37). The People’s Republic now publishes an annual human rights report, has a Society for Human Rights Studies (CSHRS) and, like some ASEAN member states, has ratified some international human rights treaties. In general, however, the level of ratification is still low, especially with regard to the twin International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights (cf. the tables in Eldridge 2002, 68 and Close and Askew 2004, 54/5 and 116; also: Muntarbhorn 2002, 23; Robles 2004, 141/2). Observers like Maitland and Yao-Su Hu rightly argue (1998, 39) that these developments and initiatives, although often tainted by political expediency and propaganda, mean that, ‘human rights must loom larger in the awareness of the government than otherwise would be the case’. Governmental initiatives notwithstanding, across Asia a discourse surrounding human rights, human development and specific challenges and problems was frequently driven by non-state actors, intellectuals, civil society and a very active and well-networked NGO sector on both regional and sub-regional levels. Documents such as the Declaration on Human Rights by the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) or the alternative Bangkok NGO Declaration on Human Rights (both in 1993) endeavoured to bridge the gaps between indivisibility and interdependence, individuality and responsibility. These documents, informed though they may have been by an ‘Asian-Values’ ethic, were also innovative in calling for a more holistic and integrated approach on human rights and arguing that one set of rights cannot be used as a ‘bargaining chip’ for another. Muntarbhorn (2002, 17) points out that some later NGO declarations, such as the 1997 NonGovernmental Asian Human Rights Charter posited very progressive rights, not as yet internationally acknowledged, such as the right to cultural identity. In addition to this, there are a number of significant and wide-ranging reports on the Asian human rights situation. The 1999 survey of the Asian Network for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), assessed the situation in areas such as the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression, and identified specific regional areas of concern, for example, the rights of ethnic minorities, women and children, HIV-AIDS, sexual exploitation, education and many others (Forum-Asia 1999; cf.: Commission 2003g). Regular Asia-wide dialogue fora, such as the Workshop on Regional Arrangements for the Protection of Human Rights in the Asian and Pacific Region, under the aegis of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, were important catalysts for a ‘building-blocks’ approach to the institutionalisation of the network of national human rights bodies and the creation of a regional human rights mechanism (Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism 2001, iii). These meetings spawned a number of sub-workshops concerned with four key priorities for regional concern: general human rights; human rights education; economic, cultural and social rights; and national human rights institutions in Asia (Muntarbhorn 2002, 9-15; Close and Askew 2004, 110/1). In the (narrower) case

68

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

of ASEAN, the rationale for an ASEAN Human Rights Commission, in particular, was derived from both the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 and from relevant ASEAN-initiatives, including the 1997 ASEAN Vision 2020 and the 1998 Ha Noi Plan of Action. Although these links were sometimes rather tenuous, NGO pressure resulted, in 2001, in the publication of reference materials such as the source-book on National Human Rights Institutions in the Asia-Pacific and others (Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism 2001). In spite of the background of an enhanced, frequently NGO-driven, human rights activism across Asia, the situation with regard to the protection and promotion of human rights across Asia remains ambivalent, to say the least. Such criticism as has been levelled against the current situation generally falls into two main categories. Observers firstly, concentrate on deficiencies with regard to specific areas of concern, categories of rights and target groups, such as people vulnerable on account of gender, age, ethnic origin, health problems, internal displacement or refugee status (Muntarbhorn 2002, 25-31; Commission 2003g). Alternatively, a number of analysts critically investigate the national, regional and international contexts of human rights in parts of Asia, criticising, for instance the equivocal status of human rights in the face of political opportunism, the gap between planning and implementation of human rights mechanisms, weak national constitutions, abuse of security legislation, poverty and underdevelopment, and the divergent perceptions of human rights found between governments and NGOs (Muntarbhorn 1993, 2002). The Sheep and the Goats: Human Rights and Development Policy A significant part of the ‘enabling-dynamics’ and policy innovation in relation to EU human rights policies across Asia, has arisen from EC Development Policy. European Development Assistance emerged in 1958 as an early expression of the EU’s beliefs in democratic tenets and principles. Holtz (1998, 93) explains how the new policy underwent successive stages of ‘Europeanization’, through ‘better harmonisation and coordination’. But this process has been uneven and often erratic in a number of ways: for many observers looking at countries in Africa and Asia, a first problem lay in the EU’s high degree of ‘uniformity’ in attempting to secure human rights standards in Community Development Policy. This contrasted markedly with a much more ad hoc, fragmented, picture in the Union’s relations with its more industrialised partners (Ward 1998, 510-515). Furthermore, the ‘history of European indifference’ towards Asia represented an example of another profound political imbalance (Holland 2002, 63). To this must be added, in the case of the EU’s relations with many of its partners in Asia, a number of significant about-turns in policy. One of the most far-reaching of these shifts, as Bartels shows (2005, 7) can be seen in the fact that, until roughly the mid-1970s, the European Commission took the view that development was a pre-condition of respect for human rights, rather then vice versa.

Enabling Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

69

Despite these inconsistencies, an EU human rights agenda did emerge under the influence of violent events in some countries from the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group, especially Uganda, and of shifts in international opinion on the issue. This agenda was subsequently extended to relations with states on the Asian Continent. Its articulation can be traced, amongst other areas, to EC-ACP cooperation; a 1977 Resolution of the European Parliament, on the Protection and Defence of Human Rights 24 was particularly relevant in this context (Noel 2000, 24; Bartels 2005, 10). The progress of human rights concerns in the evolving EU-ACP framework was given shape mainly by the two Yaoundé and four Lomé Conventions in between 1965 and 2000, and by the 1996/7 Green Paper on EU-ACP relations.25 Those documents are, above all, a testimony to the chequered history and the erratic nature of human rights integration into development assistance: in contrast to the Lomé II Convention, which had been silent on human rights, Lomé III (1985) contained some references to human rights (Preamble, Article 4 [t], Joint Declaration on Article 4). However, these fell short of any conditionality and were criticised as ‘largely rhetorical’ (Ward 1998, 507) and ‘timid’ (Scappucci 1999, 111). By contrast, the fourth Lomé Convention (1989/1995, Articles 5, 224 [m], 366 [a]),26 and, in particular the subsequent Cotonou Agreement (2003), sought to establish a firmer conditionality between Development Assistance and EU-ACP political dialogue (The Courier No. 200, September-October 2003: Dossier). The change from merely establishing a link between development and human rights, to making human rights an ‘essential element’ and providing for the suspension of cooperation, represented a significant legal and ethical move and occurred against the backdrop of a wider debate about universalism and cultural relativism in development studies (for example, Lund 1998). The Commission’s official position was that, intrinsic to these ‘elements’ was the fact that they ‘embraced the mechanisms for conciliation and for resolving tension and conflict’ (cf. Courier, No. 173, January-February 1999: 6). Even more optimistically, Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement was said to require ‘cooperation in areas directly affecting the human condition beyond boundaries and beyond governments’ (Commission 2003f, 18). A consultation procedure under articles 96 and 97 provided for a graduated system of deferral of EU-ACP cooperation – albeit only as an ultima ratio. These political concepts of development were in line with wider EU human rights policy agendas, which found expression, for instance, through the Preamble of the 1986 Single European Act, the Commission’s 1991 Communication on Human Rights, Democracy and Development and the Luxembourg Council Declaration on Human Rights. 27 However, many of these documents still shied away from a clause suspending cooperation. 24 OJ C 133/30. 25 COM (96) 570 final. 26 On Article 366a of the fourth Lomé Convention, see: COM (1995) 216 and COM (1996) 69. 27 SEC (91) 61, 6 (Commission); Bull EC 6-1991, I. 45 (Council).

70

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

From 1991 onwards, human rights clauses clauses were thus afforded a more unequivocal prominence in EU external policies and contractual relations. Bartels has investigated their development from a basic format, which was first used in a Cooperation Agreement with Argentina (Bartels 2005, 16), to a much more complex and differentiated system. In this system, human rights graduated from being the ‘basis’, to being an ‘essential element’, of the EU’s international agreements. The clauses could be invoked in cases of corruption or a failure to adhere to an ‘essential element’ of the Convention - such as respect for human rights. The procedure was used in a number of international crises in Africa in the 1990s, such as Nigeria, Rwanda, Burundi, Niger, Congo and Sierra Leone (Commission 1995a, 3; 1995c, 11; 2003f, 22). Two additional papers on the External Dimension of the EU’s Human Rights Policy and on the Inclusion of Respect for Democratic Principles and Human Rights in Agreements between the Community and Third Countries (Commission 1995a, 1995c) rehearsed the Commission’s human rights ideology. These blueprints became instrumental in the incremental politicization of the area of development cooperation and in the process of an increasing use of aid as a foreign policy tool, a process which was never without critics (for example, European Voice 4-10 December 2003, 6). Overall, the external dimension of the EU’s human rights policy was taking on ‘a more universal complexion than that which had appeared in the past’ (Ward 1998, 509, 513; Petiteville 2003, 132). Not unlike nation-states (cf.: Forsythe 2000, 15), the EU began to manipulate foreign assistance in the light of its policy goal of human rights advancement. The framework of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA), agreed at Cotonou, confirmed these plans. A further Commission document in 1998, on Democratisation, the Rule of Law, Respect for Human Rights and Good Governance: The Challenges of the Partnership between the EU and the ACP States (Commission 1998a)28 reasserted these views, although the Commission, at times, did its best to couch its intentions in woolly language. A Joint Council/Commission Statement of November 2000 – a gift to discourse analysts everywhere – spoke of the need to ‘mainstream cross-cutting concerns, comprising the promotion of human rights’.29 Article 1 of Council Regulation 443/92, covering Asian and Latin American countries (the ALARegulation) 30 and similar instruments with a different geographical scope (MEDA, TACIS) further cemented this programme. However, the legislative review and ‘splitting’ of this Regulation from 2002 onwards 31 reinforced concerns about the connections between the EU’s development aims and its more overtly ‘political’ and 28 COM (1998) 146, of 12 March 1998; for Africa see also: Common Position 98/350/ CFSP, of 25 May 1998, OJ L 158 of 2 June 1998; SEC (1996) 332 and Joint Action OJ L 153, 11 June 1997:1. 29 European Commission, DE105, Brussels, 10 November 2000 (quote at page 10). 30 EEC Council Regulation 443/92 [1992] OJ L 52/1, 25 February 1992, based on article 235 ECT. 31 Council of Ministers, 1992, 2002; Commission proposal of July 2002: COM (2002) 340; Rapid Database, IP/02/969; European Voice, 14-20 November 2002, 9 ; 13-19 November 2003, 2 and especially: 18-24 March 2004, 20.

Enabling Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

71

regional objectives (Quigley 2003a, 19; 2003b, 2003c, 24/5; Van der Geest 2003, 21/2). It seems appropriate to state, in Petiteville’s words (2003, 132) that: ‘in ten year’s time, the rise of the political dimension in EU-ACP relations clearly appears as a strict multidimensional political conditionality imposed by the EU to its ACP partners’. Outside the ACP framework, a number of developments directly impinge on these trends in Development Policy: the new provisions (articles 177-181) inserted into the TEC through the Treaty of Maastricht (article F.2) tied Development Aid to human rights, facilitating new EU budget lines targeting their promotion. The Commission also launched a new Human Rights and Democratization Unit,32 and instigated new financial and technical aid programmes. Most notable amongst those was the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR),33 a fundingmechanism worth approximately €100 million annually, which consolidated the EU’s main human rights concerns such as democratisation, protection of vulnerable people and a ban on torture and the death penalty (Youngs 2001, 31; Rapid Database, MEMO/03/254; Bartels 2005, 61/2). Following a ruling by the European Court of Justice in 1998, these activities were legally grounded in two Council Regulations (975/1999 and 976/1999)34 adopted under articles 179 and 308 of the ECT, one each for developing and non-developing countries. Developments were further aided by the establishment of the new EuropeAid Cooperation Office as a distribution agent (cf.: Wiessala 2002a, 102) and by the articulation of the UN Millennium Development Goals of 2000,35 which referred to issues of ‘good governance’. The Commission’s proposed new ‘GSP Plus’ scheme for 2006-2008 suggested new GSP incentives providing benefits for compliance with ‘the main international conventions on social, human rights, environmental protection and governance, including fight against drugs’[sic].36 Inspired, perhaps, by the global anti-poverty campaigns of the early 21st Century, a more cautious approach emerged concerning the use of ‘intangibles’ such as ‘good governance’ in separating ‘the sheep from the goats’ in terms of development (Mandelson 2005). However, a more forceful implementation of human rights matters was still widely seen to contribute to a more ‘politically mature’ EU-ACP relationship (Bainbridge 2002, 99). The EU-ACP dialogue was further sensitized to human rights contents when systems of contractual tendering relating to ACP countries were ‘untied’ from national providers and thus opened to Europe-wide scrutiny and competition.37 The enactment of the Cotonou Agreement on 1 April

32 European Parliament, 1997, in particular at point 5 (page 7). 33 Week in Europe, 10 May 2002; Rapid Database, IP/02/1201; IP/02/1837 for examples of funding . 34 [1999] OJL120/I and [1999] OJ L 120/8 . 35 See for instance: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. 36 Commission: New Release of 20 October 2004. 37 COM (2000) 212 of 26 April 2000; European Voice, 15-21 February 2001, 21-27 November 2002: 10 and 30 April-7 May 2003: 15; Rapid Database: IP/02/1700, 19 November 2002.

72

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

200338 and the Proposed Guidelines for ACP-EU Political Dialogue adopted by the ACP-EC Council of Ministers in May 200339 can be seen to represent a formal sanctioning of these political directions and decisions. This stricter conditionality was both accompanied by, and itself a symptom of, a wider ‘paradigmatic shift’ (Holland 2002, 219, 225/6) in EC Development Policy. This shift was characterised as a transition from non-reciprocity to comprehensive trade liberalisation in a ‘harsher’, more ‘globalised’, environment. Dearden (2004, 19) points to a parallel ambiguity, which exacerbated this trend: ‘whereas the developing country may share its overall development objectives with the EU, it is far less likely to share the EU’s broader political and economic interests’. When seen against this background, the human rights clauses, which were integrated into the EU’s cooperation agreements with a number of Asian countries set an interesting precedent, in the form of Commission-led establishment of ‘working groups on good governance and human rights’ with those countries (Quigley 2004c, 1). But in terms of coverage and effect, the overall picture remains patchy, and the human rights clauses have often been criticised for their alleged failure to stop human rights abuses and for being implemented selectively and without sufficient vigour (European Voice 18-24 March 2004, 15; 24-30; November 2005, 4). Moreover, Bartels (2005, 35) points to the most obvious shortcomings in the case of Asia: trade with China remains subject to a 1985 cooperation agreement (see below, Chapter Five), lacking a human rights clause; the 1980 EC cooperation agreement with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was concluded prior to the development of human rights clauses (see below, Chapter Four); Burma (Myanmar) remains largely excluded from contractual relations with the EU, while – outside the scope of this book, but nevertheless worth mentioning – human rights clauses have never been a prominent feature in EU agreements with any Central Asian country. In addition to this, the impact of human rights clauses on the EU’s external human rights policies has sometimes been criticised as ‘relatively modest’ (Bartels 2005, 37). Some analysts (Holland 2002, 123) comment on ‘the EU’s self-appointed rôle’ as sole adjudicator of human rights standards in the context of Development Aid, and argue that this ‘was never without critics, as much of the EU human rights agenda in Development Policy tended to reflect euro-centric political and social concerns, rather than those of the Developing World’. While these assessments may, perhaps, be underestimating the impact of legal structures on policy development, the human rights clauses in place in regard to Asian partner countries of the EU did frequently illustrate another point: the potential for dissent as regards future EU policies (Alston 1999, 591, fn. 144; Tseng 2001, 180; Courier No. 173, JanuaryFebruary 1999). Arguably, they also foreshadowed, and fuelled, another round in the ‘Asian-Values’ dispute examined earlier in this book.

38 See the European Commission Newssheet, The Week in Europe, of 4 April 2003. 39 ACP-CE2153/1/02/REV 1.

Enabling Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

73

Chapter Conclusions This chapter has examined some of the detailed mechanisms and processes through which the EU has constructed, consolidated, ‘enabled’ and exported its own human rights agenda. The constructivist perspective elaborated in the last chapter has been helpful in situating this process in terms of ‘identity-building’ in foreign policy. The dynamic inter-relationship, in particular, between discursive practices, policy prescriptions and legal processes can be perceived in large areas of the EU’s dialogue with its Asian interlocutors. The chapter examined the growth of a human rights perspective within a changing European Union, in response to both internal developments and global events. The evidence examined suggests that this development was of a gradual, multi-layered, nature. The strategic human rights initiatives of a number of EU institutional actors, chosen, at times in response to global events, at times as global agenda-setting initiatives, were part of an ‘incremental’ process, incorporating Community Law, ‘declaratory diplomacy’ and a gradual appropriation and extension of EU competencies into matters of human rights, including an obligation to protect them. The European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice were shown to have been the most active agents of these processes, many of which were deliberately linked, at all levels of EU policy, with an ideological EU commitment to a human rights based ‘European-ness’ and ‘EU identity’. This chapter found that, in this respect, the EU continues to harbour and promote a more confident self-image which affects attention to human rights, both at home and in foreign policy. The more assertive human-rights-guided self-perception developed by the EU consequently informed the growth of EU cooperation with international organisations, member states and third countries. Many of the latter were to be found in Asia. The resulting EU democracy promotion commitment conditioned a specific EU policy-mix as regards Asian regions, countries or individuals. The chapter found that, next to the Commission’s ‘Asia Strategies’ between 1994 and 2005, the area of Development Policy was especially significant as a potentially ‘enabling conduit’ for human rights agency in EU-Asia relations. The systematic integration of human rights concerns into the EU areas of governance, law and external policy stood in contrast to a more heterogeneous picture as regards human rights across Asia. The protection and promotion of human rights was subject to a significant, increasingly critical, academic and public discourse, which reflected many of the arguments examined in the context of the ‘Asian values’ debate. Human rights policies in Asia were pursued within a wide range of political systems. Their articulation and dissemination was frequently reliant on ‘grass-roots’, NGO and national initiatives, showing some signs of wider intergovernmental policy convergence. In the overall assessment of this chapter, there is substantial evidence that the EU-Asia dialogue over human rights and the EU’s ‘export’ of its own identity and values have had a significant ‘enabling’ effect on Asia-Europe cooperation. The following chapter will contrast the ‘enabling’ aspects of EU-Asia human rights dialogue investigated in the present chapter, with an examination of those areas of the relationship in which matters of

74

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

human rights have had a constraining, ‘inhibitory’ effect on the evolving Asia-EU relationship.

Chapter 5

The ‘Inhibitory’ Aspects of Human Rights in EU-Asia Dialogue

Regionalism, EU-Asia Dialogue and Human Rights Human rights are, arguably, one of the most significant fields of intellectual debate, advocacy, contention, agenda-setting and policy construction within EU-Asia relations. The preceding chapter demonstrated how, in many areas of cooperation, human rights became a catalyst, an ‘enabling’ dynamism, often an indispensable element of, the EU-Asia partnership. This section will illustrate the other side of the coin, as it were. Its central contention is that, whilst human rights policies and their promotion accelerated EU foreign policy interaction with Asia in a number of areas, they also constituted significant impediments to a further expansion of EU-Asia cooperation in other areas. Whereas, in the EU’s general policies, and in the context of most of its bilateral relations with Asian partners, human rights issues have been a largely meaningful and constructive part of the wider picture of EU-Asia exchange, this is not true for the various inter-regional ‘cooperation ventures’ (Hazel Smith 2002, 210) linking the EU and its Asian partners. In these areas, human rights are either marginalised to a significant degree, or unsuccessful in bringing about change in the long term. This chapter is an attempt to evaluate this phenomenon in the context of regionalism and to discuss some of the reasons for the marginalization of human rights matters in these sections of Asia-Europe dialogue. The conceptual framework for this part of the investigation derives from an analysis of the AsiaEurope Meetings (ASEM). Next to the EU-ASEAN relationship, this variant of the EU-Asia inter-regional dialogue, interchangeably termed ‘group-to-group-’, and ‘bloc-to-bloc-’ dialogue, is a revealing example of the significant constraints for human rights, which are inherent in the progressive ‘institutionalisation’ of the EUAsia dialogue. Cooperation, Integration, Regionalisation: Theoretical Approaches The relationship between the EU and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) forms one of the principal channels for the multilateral and inter-regional aspects of the EU’s Asia policies. EU-ASEAN contacts, initiated in 1967, are representative of the wider East-West dialogue, both in terms of their relatively long

76

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

history and evolution, and in connection with the questions of cooperation, identity and human rights which they throw into relief. Furthermore, since the 1996 Bangkok summit, which inaugurated a process of biennial Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM), another conduit for inter-regional cooperation has been open to European and Asian participants. The parallel existence of these two mechanisms raises questions of conceptualization, competencies, regional identities and inter-regional cooperation, all of which impinge on the position of EU-Asia human rights dialogue. Both EU-ASEAN relations and the ASEM process have been thoroughly conceptualized and theorized in recent academic literature on Asia-Europe relations. Whilst some of these investigations concerned issues equally pertinent to both these fora, for instance the Asian values debate, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, and the dynamics of globalisation (Higgott 2006, 20, 22, 34), others revealed significant differences in approach, attention to detail and thematic emphasis. These background disparities are responsible, to a certain degree, for considerable variations regarding the position of human rights matters on the inter-regional level of EU-Asia interaction. In order to bring these variations to the fore as clearly as possible in this chapter, the scholarship on ASEAN has, where appropriate, been separated from the literature on ASEM, whilst more ‘general’ questions concerning rights, values, legal traditions or religion are covered in earlier chapters of this book. In the area of EU-ASEAN relations, a number of clusters of theoretical enquiry emerged over the last decade: a first approach focused on the EU and ASEAN themselves as regional bodies. On ASEAN in particular, writers sought to evaluate its changing rationale, sense of community, political necessity and outward activity. ASEAN’s identity and credibility in a radically altered global environment was often a key theme in these investigations (Abad 1996, Tan and Chia Siow Yue 1997; Phatharodom 1998; Leifer 1999; Narine 1999; Ul-Haq 1999; Chalermpalanupap 2001, 2002; Fort and Webber 2006). Two significant extensions of this approach concerned, firstly, the study of ASEAN and the EU within a perceived ‘triadic’ economic world order, constituted by the three world ‘macro-economic’ engines: the US, Europe and East Asia (cf. Low 1997; Dent 1999). A second, related, sideshoot surrounded the impact of the 1997/8 Crisis on Europe (Chirathivat et al 1999, 2000). Another cluster of scholarship focused on the comparability of EU and ASEAN modes of integration, analysing, for instance, ‘European-influenced’ and ‘globalist’ strands in the study of Regionalism (Higgott 2006, 33), issues such as regional ‘leadership’ and ‘popular support’ (Bridges 2004, 393-396) and social policies and social cooperation (cf.: EurAsia Bulletin, November-December 2002). In this context, many observers were questioning whether the EU’s experiences of economic integration and monetary union might act as a kind of ‘rôle-model’ for South-East Asia, arguing it could provide both an ‘inspiration’ and a ‘warning’. Many commentators pointed to similar needs for regional security, related global political and economic ambitions, and to parallel issues of enlarging respective constituencies

Inhibitory Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

77

and enlarged memberships.1 Some analysed the potential of EU-ASEAN interaction in more specific areas such as security and diplomacy (Suwanpong 1999; Boisseau du Rocher and Fort 2005; Fort and Webber 2006). Others pointed to different aims, ambitions and speeds regarding regional integration and contrasted supranational with functional cooperation, regional with sub-regional governance, de facto regionalism in Asia, with de jure regionalism in the EU (Solidum 2003, 116-176; Bridges 2004, 390; Hettne 2005, 119). Many analysts homed in on divergent legal, cultural and institutional backgrounds in South East Asia as opposed to Europe, and on dissimilar concepts of ‘values’ and ‘rights’ (see Chapter Three). For the Commission, urgently seeking deeper links with ASEAN, these debates may have contributed to a sense of ‘impatience’ which was ‘sometimes felt in Europe’ (Commission 2003c, at 3, a1, p. 12). Paradoxically, the crisis over the EU Constitution did much to revive this debate (Cuyvers 2002; Plummer 2003; The Straits Times, 11 July 2005; Boisseau du Rocher and Fort 2005). These approaches made important individual contributions and inroads to a better understanding of the dynamics of EU-ASEAN relations. However, in the context of a human-rights-focused enquiry, they only begin to make sense when subsumed into wider frameworks of the study of inter-regional cooperation and regional integration. The political aspects of regionalism can, indeed, be said to have become the dominant discursive channel in respect of EU-ASEAN literature. McMahon (1998, 235) recognises this by stressing that the political and strategic dimensions, rather than economic considerations, drove the discourse about EU-ASEAN relations. This applied, in particular, to concepts of regionalism as an organising principle in international relations. This appears to be borne out by major shifts in scholarly emphasis over the last decade, from analyses of the economic causal factors behind regional cooperation (Fukasaku and Usata 1998; Dent 1999) to a focus on ‘values’, and on divergent legal frameworks, traditions and political concepts (Petchsiri et al 2001). Questions surrounding European integration versus Asian ‘Open Regionalism’, EU institutionalization versus Asian sub-regional cooperation and the implications of Asian regional alliances for EU-ASEAN collaboration represent some of the key themes in this branch of the literature (Phatharodom 1994, 1998; O’Brien 2001; Solidum 2003; van der Geest 2004). In this respect, ASEAN initiatives, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (Berkofsky 2003) and the ASEAN Vision 2020 became important topics for academic study. The ‘diversification’ of ASEAN’s functional cooperation with Northeast Asia through the ASEAN + 3 mechanism in particular, instigated a debate revolving around ASEAN’s international relations, the potential for future policy convergence in an East Asian Community and the implications of ASEAN-led regional networking for the EU (FEER 20 November 2003; Freeman 2003c; de Prado Yepes 2004). Van der Geest’s remarks (2004, 14) encapsulate a key theme of this debate: ‘an absence of the EU in the development of these new ‘manifestations of regionalism’ in Asia, 1 The accessions of Vietnam (1995), Burma (1997), Laos (1997) and Cambodia (1999) brought the membership of ASEAN to 10 member states.

78

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

while the US, Japan, China and others actively participate, would be to the detriment of the interests of EU business.’ China’s intentions in South East Asia were the pivot of many of these arguments and debates, as various authors emphasised a fourfold contemporary challenge facing ASEAN: to absorb the rise of China, to deal with China-Japan historical ballast,2 to re-define Japan’s security rôle and to temper the global implications of growing US unilateralism (Eckhardt 2005). Perhaps more importantly though, the literature on ASEAN + 3 referred to a dialogue inside the grouping over ‘non-traditional’ security issues, such as arms proliferation, crossborder crime and poverty. This represented a significant opportunity for a much wider reflection on the rôle of human rights in EU-ASEAN dialogue. 3 In the context of this investigation, debates about regional political integration in Europe and Asia are at their most relevant when they focus on matters of ideas and identities and on their rôle in the construction of inter-regional relations. A number of authors argue in this mould. The assertions by Boisseau du Rocher, Fort et al (2005, xvi) form a valuable starting point: ‘region-building remains a puzzling game and an erratic learning process going through ups and downs, but that process is part of a constructed collective psyche, what might be called in Benedict Anderson’s terms, ‘an imagined regional community’. Similarly, Gilson and Lay Hwee observe (2004, 25) that, ‘there are no natural regions, but they are, rather, “imagined communities”, which are “created and recreated in the process of global transformation”. Pattugalan too (1999, 55/6), stresses the rôles of values and ideas in the genesis of concepts of regionalism in Europe and Asia. Last, but not least, Doidge (2004, 39, 50), who views EU-ASEAN relations as an example of ‘collective identity formation’ and as ‘the single best example available for empirical analysis of inter-regional relationships’, examines EU-ASEAN interchange in respect of ‘actorness’, institutionalisation, agenda-setting and identity-formation as ‘deduced functions’ of inter-regional dialogue. EU-ASEAN Relations and the Human Rights Dilemma Almost as a by-product of these debates, ASEAN has thus attracted more interest from an EU for which the policy focus in the past was, more often than not, squarely on China. Paradoxically, it was the China-ASEAN rapprochement in the context of ASEAN + 3, which brought home a point made by Freeman (2003c, 18): ‘ASEAN has often accused the EU of failing to take it seriously as a potential partner. The EU has seen ASEAN, perhaps rightly when viewed from Brussels, as a pale imitation of itself, a weaker and less coherent regional grouping worthy of little sustained attention. China at least has paid lip service to taking ASEAN seriously, and taken action to add substance to the relationship […].’ 2 See: China and Japan: So Hard to be Friends (Special Report), in: The Economist, 26 March 2005: 25-27. 3 It is to be welcomed that events such as the ongoing EU/ASEAN+3 Think Tank Dialogue offers opportunities to investigate these issues.

Inhibitory Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

79

However, there is little doubt that EU-ASEAN relations carry within themselves an ambivalence which potentially inhibits any further development. This ambivalence is only partly attributable to divergent interpretations of regionalism and their implications for matters of integration, inclusion and internal affairs. A number of analysts would also link it, in more general terms, to the changed nature of relations between the EU and South East Asian countries, from colonial involvement to development assistance and, more recently, from donor-recipient paradigm to wider political, cultural and economic interlinkages (McMahon 1998, 238; Bonnet 1999, 257; Pattugalan 1999, 43; Dent 1999, 49/50; Petchsiri 2004). But the ambivalence does not stop there, extending, as it were, to practical EUASEAN cooperation and, of course, to human rights. In this context, Robles (2004, 131) even states: ‘from an examination of the conceptions of human rights dominant in Europe and Southeast Asia, it is tempting to conclude that no other area seems less suitable for forging interregional relations’. There is a repeat pattern in EUASEAN ties: on the one hand, from the point of view of the EU, contacts with ASEAN are routinely represented as a central plank, or ‘cornerstone’ of the wider EU-Asia political edifice (Commission 1998d, 5; Wiessala 1999a; 2002a, 59-73). Some observers agree with this in various terms, claiming that EU-ASEAN relations are, indeed, ‘a pillar’ of global order (for example, Dosch 2001, 57). On the other hand, the more that EU-ASEAN cooperation appeared to lose its credibility, over East Timor, Burma (Robles 2004, Chapter 6), the Asian Financial Crisis and other matters, the more the ‘keystone’ status of this ‘long-standing’ relationship of ‘special understanding’, and the need to keep it as a ‘major focus’, ‘strengthen’ or ‘revitalise it’ and make it into a ‘litmus test’ for overall EU-Asia relations, were re-affirmed. The 25th Anniversary of the 1980 EU-ASEAN Cooperation Agreement gave cause for celebration,4 but thirteen years earlier, the EU had spectacularly failed to revise the 1980 accord. As a response to this missed opportunity, the Commission drafted, from the mid-1990 onwards, new communications, such as Creating a New Dynamic in EU-ASEAN Relations (Commission 1996b). In it, the EU Executive was at pains to stress common features and experiences between the two regions and to play down any differences (Commission 1994; 1998d; 2001d; 1996b; 2003c). The Commission’s declaratory diplomacy on ASEAN and its policy-papers on Asia, specifically on South East Asia, formed a key feature in this strategy. But beyond the political rhetoric, ASEAN countries also represented the principal pivot around which the design of a plethora of EU inter-regional cooperation initiatives for South East Asia revolved (Commission 1996b; 1998d; 2003c; 2005). In 2005, these programmes represented more than half of all EUAsia cooperation initiatives. The majority of the programmes were sector-specific; with very few exceptions, there was little identification of synergies and common strands across these cooperation programmes. Initiatives ranged from development cooperation, humanitarian aid, and business internationalisation to information technology, intellectual property and energy issues. A number of them possessed a 4

See Rapid Database: IP/05/1556, f 9 December 2005.

80

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

more pronounced human rights dimension, targeting, for example, migration, urban living conditions, local government, higher education, environmental awareness and protection (Tingsabadh 1999), and health promotion.5 The EU-ASEAN relationship, dynamic as it may seem on the outside if one looks at these initiatives and programmes, is, however, also symptomatic of much of the inhibitory potential of human rights in EU-Asia relations. It can be argued that, for a number of key reasons, an integration of human rights and the ‘human challenge’ (Muntarbhorn 2001, 73) into EU-ASEAN continues to prove a difficult undertaking and determine the future success of EU-ASEAN inter-regional relations: two of those reasons concern general perceptions and attitudes, while the other two are related to more specific legal questions and problems with individual countries. The first reason lies in the fact, already mentioned above, that inter-regional dialogue on human rights highlights differences between a supranational, integrationist, ‘valuedriven’ EU and a much looser, less ‘legalistic’, non-committal, inter-governmental ASEAN, based on indigenous Asian legal history and traditions (Petchsiri et al 2001). ASEAN, as a ‘heterogeneous grouping’ (Bonnet 1999, 254), is not based on binding treaties, but on the 1967 Bangkok Declaration, on voluntary cooperation and a much weaker ambition towards integration. Muntarbhorn’s (2001, 66) paradigm of the EU representing ‘maximalist institutionalism’, versus ASEAN as an example of ‘gradual incrementalism’ is a very apt portrayal of this situation, the result of which are recurring EU-ASEAN dilemmas over issues such as trade, the environment and human rights. Intimately connected with this are the difficulties ASEAN is having in formulating a collective stance on human rights matters. ASEAN’s ‘non-interference’ principle is the much-debated political recipe6 for regional engagement and consensus. It promotes ‘restraint shown in tolerance’, ‘consensus and accommodation’ and ‘intra-mural stability’7 (Antolik 1990, 156, 159; Snitwongse 1996, 14; Christie and Roy 2001, 126; Eldridge 2002, 60, 82; Haacke 2006, 150-171). Solidum (2003, 96) summarises succinctly, that, ‘officials instinctively know when not to get involved in [one] another’s problems, even when invited to do so’. It is certainly debatable whether this ASEAN ‘creed’ or ‘spirit’ amounts to an ‘ASEAN-identity’ (Busse 1999, 39, 45, 56). But in its essence it means that preference is afforded to collective, ‘Asian’ values over individual rights and to economic development, national sovereignty and social rights over political entitlements. Consequently, the EU’s alleged ‘double-standards’ on human rights are a particular focus for widespread criticism (Leong 1997, 20; Narine 1999, 360; Bonnet 1999, 264; Stubbs 5 Some examples are: Asia Invest, Asia IT & C, Asia Urbs, Asia-Link, ECAP II, EUAsia Pro Eco and the ASEAN-EU University Network Programme ; a list can be found at: Commission, 2005, annexe 2; Wiessala 2002a, 66-73 and Delegation of the Commission to Thailand 2005b, 6-8. 6 It was enshrined in article 2c of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. 7 A frequently-used term is mushawarah, originating in Maylay culture and meaning the process of ‘consensus-making’; decisions are called ‘consensus’ or mufakat (Solidum 2003, 97).

Inhibitory Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

81

2000, 312; Wiessala 2002a, 60). But ASEAN’s method of ‘agreeing to disagree’ may be on the way out – or at least undergoing a process of gradual adjustment. ASEAN’s July 2003 Phnom Penh Communiqué berating Myanmar (Friberg 2004, 2; Haacke 2006), was widely heralded as a sign of change towards a stronger ‘ASEANdiscipline within’ and democratic change. It was, in the opinion of some analysts, ‘time to interfere’ (Ibrahim 2005, 32; Thio Li-ann 1997, 64). However, a number of more recent analysts argue convinvingly that, signs of ‘flexible engagement’ or ‘enhanced interaction’ notwithstanding, ASEAN’s ‘normative terrain’ was not ‘significantly revamped or abandoned’ (Haacke 2006, 152). Overall, documents such as the one issued in Phnom Penh are few and far between in ASEAN, and they represent the exception, rather than the rule. The EU, on the other hand, eschews any accommodation-agenda, aiming instead for an international identity informed by human rights and their worldwide promotion. As a result of this ‘value-systemfriction’ (Dent 1999, 51, 61, 71), a more active furtherance of human rights remains largely excluded from the official EU-ASEAN agenda (Chalermpalanupap 2002). Moreover, there are at least two more reasons for the ‘Cinderella’ status of human rights in EU-ASEAN dialogue: the lack of a model, or precedent, and the thorny question of how to deal with Burma. Although ASEAN has had to respond to a variety of ‘non-traditional’ security challenges, from environmental degradation to HIV/AIDS (Chalermpalanupap 2002, 198-203; Commission 2003g), there is little in the way of ‘precedent’ for taking human rights more seriously. In spite of some encouraging ASEAN-specific human rights initiatives, such as the ASEAN Programme on the Rights of Children (see also: Close and Askew 2004, 122-124), many others are little more than incomplete, post-Asian-Crisis-products. Noting positive developments, such as ASEAN peacekeeping involvement in East Timor and the ratification of key international human rights instruments, it can be argued with Muntarbhorn (2002, 56) that the term ‘ambivalence’ is, ‘most apt to describe the physiognomy of human rights in ASEAN’. In Muntarbhorn’s view, the main reasons for this, aside from the heterogeneity and diversity of political cultures across ASEAN, are the continued rehearsal of relativist, ‘Asian-Values’, arguments, the prevailing abuse of internal security legislation and an under-developed dialogue with NGOs and civil society (see previous chapter, and Patiyasevi 1999; Ridzam, 2003). Thus, many elements of an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism (AHRM) and an ASEAN Human Rights Commission continue to suffer from problems of definition, enforceability and thematic overlap (Muntarbhorn 2002, 64-70). Close and Askew (2004, 114) conclude that ‘ASEAN member states are, it would seem, reluctant to translate their verbal declarations in support of an AHRM into practice by actually installing at the regional level any body which might assume or appear to contravene the principe of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states’. Human rights lead a similarly ambivalent ‘life in the shadows’ in the politics and diplomacy of EU-ASEAN relations: the inaugural EU-ASEAN Ministerial Meeting

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

82

in 1978 in fact recognised human rights as part of the brief for co-operation.8 The EUASEAN Cooperation Agreement of 1980,9 mentioned freedom, equality and justice as the basis for further cooperation, but had little further impact on human rights. Lim (1999a, 9) finds traces of the first signs of discord over human rights in EUASEAN relations in a summit in Luxembourg in 1991; others trace this back to the discord over the Tiananmen Square massacre (Pattugalan 1999, 55). In any case, in 1991 a Joint Communique of the 24th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Kuala Lumpur in 1991 contained the assertion that human rights should remain ‘within the national sphere’ of each country (Barr 2001, 6). The 1993 ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) Declaration on Human Rights echoed a similar emphasis on national, rather than supranational, human rights mechanisms (Thio-Li-ann 1997, 67). A year before, human rights issues regarding East Timor had prevented the conclusion of an updated ASEAN-EU Cooperation Agreement. By contrast, at the Karlsruhe meeting in 1994, both sides embraced a common commitment, of sorts, to human rights and the UN Charter. As regards the EU’s own institutions, the Economic and Social Committee, in its 1996 Opinion on EU-ASEAN, pondered Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. It concluded, unhelpfully, that human rights were a ‘delicate’ and ‘tricky’ matter, representing a ‘typical case of incompatibility between good trading relations and sharp cultural and political differences’ (EcoSoc 1996). In respect of EU-ASEAN relations, the Commission’s 1994 New Asia Strategy referred to ‘consensus’ and the avoidance of ‘conflictual debate’, ‘in conformity with the principle of ASEAN itself’ (Commission, 1994 point 1.2). The first of the Commission’s, more ASEAN-specific papers (Commission 1996b), was more concerned with creating a sense of continuity and visibility, and with providing the EU-ASEAN dialogue with a ‘common project of grandeur’ (ibid, p. 8), rather than with human rights, which only received superficial attention (ibid, pp. 11/2). Its 2003 update, A New Partnership with South East Asia (Commission 2003c), inspired by the example of Development Policy, made more detailed references to new, bilateral, human rights dialogues and to the ‘essential element’ clause, which had been included in EU cooperation agreements with three countries of the region between 1996 and 1999: Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia (ibid, at points 2b and 3b). The 2003 paper mirrored two strategic shifts in the EU’s policy towards ASEAN: it heralded a move towards more bilateral, sub-regional dialogue, away from a ‘one-size-fits-all’ EU approach to ASEAN. The new method has been compared to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership; in McMahon’s words (1998, 240), ‘the new dynamic would be interregional and bilateral and activities in some areas would progress at a greater rate than others’. More significantly, although human rights were not directly addressed, this was one of the first Commission documents on ASEAN to at least reflect a higher degree of sensitivity towards the interrelationship between human rights and wider social, environmental and political problems in

8 9

Point 11 of the Joint Declaration, EC Commission, 20-21 November 1978. OJ L 144 (10 June 1980).

Inhibitory Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

83

the region, such as haze pollution and illegal logging.10 However, a number of the EU-ASEAN intergovernmental and bilateral human rights dialogues prefigured in these strategies did not come to fruition until after the financial crisis of 1997/8 and following intensive lobbying by a number of NGOs (cf. Muntarbhorn 2001, 69; Wiessala 2002e, 11; Gilson 2003). By the EU’s own admission, human rights have been a sticking point for decades and it may ‘never completely see eye to eye’ with ASEAN on this issue (Commission 1998, 8, 23). In conclusion to this section on ASEAN, there can be little doubt that a conglomerate of reasons have contributed to the ‘paralysing effect of relativism’ (Thio Li-ann 1997, 70) concerning the status of human rights in EU-ASEAN relations. Whether this ‘decision-making-paralysis’ (Bangkok Post, 13 August 2000: 3) can be overcome, with or without the issue of Burma, remains to be seen. The very least that can be said is that human rights continue to lay bare fundamental tensions and ambiguities as regards EU-ASEAN cooperation, impinging on other areas of the relations, such as trade and investment, and leaving room for much development, enhanced cooperation and commitment (Daquila 2000, 131; Pattugalan 1999, 62; Bonnet 1999, 265). The Asia-Europe Meeting and the Marginalization of Human Rights The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), the inter-regional summit linking the EU and 10 countries in Asia (Preston and Gilson 2001; Wiessala 2002e) is an offshoot of the EU-ASEAN dialogue. ASEM is therefore not, as Gilson rightly asserts (2005, 220), a new form of interaction, but has EU-ASEAN dialogue as its backbone (Hettne 2005, 121). The origins of the idea can be traced to a 1992 ASEAN summit and discussions about an East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC), suggested by former Malaysian PM Mahatir Mohamad (McMahon 1998, 241; Godement 1997, 282). In Asia, Singapore’s then PM Goh Chok Tong was instrumental in proposing the format (Serradell 1996). The project soon entered the Commission’s 1994 New Asia Strategy (Wiessala 1999a; 2002e, 14-16; 2002g, 128-131). ASEM was discussed in a 1995 Council Report (12402/95) and included in annexe 14 of the conclusions to the 1995 Madrid European Council. The Commission subsequently promoted the idea in a number of strategy papers, some of which were inspired by a report of an Asia-Europe Vision Group (AEVG 1999). Perhaps in a nod of acknowledgement to the colonial past (cf.: Bridges 1999, 183; Petchsiri 2004), these blueprints sought to identify new perspectives for the ASEM, to emphasise the ‘uniqueness’ of the format and its ethos of ‘partnership’, ‘equality’ and ‘informality’ (Commission 1996a, 1997b, 2000b, 2002a). The genesis of ASEM was also influenced, to a lesser degree, by the European Parliament (EP), which continued to stress the need for human rights, good governance and democracy in the ASEM format, but which was largely cut out of the picture by the ASEM spirit of informality and the nature of the 10 A good example of more ‘integrated’ human rights policies is the Commission’s proposal on ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’: COM (2003) 251.

84

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

collective agreements reached (Forster 2000, 797). Many resolutions of the EP,11 as well as the pronouncements of non-governmental agencies such as the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), were significant in consistently calling for a stronger emphasis on human rights commitments in ASEM (Brennan et al 1997; Foster 2000, 797; Hwee and Latif 2000, 129; European Parliament 2001, 7, 15; K Smith 2003, 104; Gilson 2003). Theorizing the ASEM Rationale Few areas of EU-Asia cooperation have been theorised more thoroughly than the Asia-Europe Meetings, and a number of theoretical approaches have been suggested to provide an ideological underpinning of the history and development of ASEM and to account for the weakness of human rights in this forum. In general, it was not surprising that analysts sometimes employed models already familiar in the context of the EU-ASEAN relationship to seek to conceptualize ASEM. These debates connected with the wider discourse on regionalism and EU-ASEAN relations surveyed above. In the case of ASEM this discourse was often adapted and extended, in order to take into account the trans-regional nature of the ASEM (Pelkmans and Shinkai 1997; O’Brien 2001, 14/15; Gilson 2002; Nguyen Duy Quy et al 2004; Boisseau du Rocher and Fort 2005). Sung-Hoon Park, for example, argue (2004, 350, and 2005, 209) that ASEM comprised ‘both inter-regional and inter-state aspects of cooperation’. But some observers are going further, seeking to identify what was unique to this new Europe-Asia ‘journey of re-discovery’ (Hwee and Latif 2000, 3, 10, 24). Much ASEM scholarship reveals a distinct Realist, geo-political, background: ASEM, it is said, was about ‘balancing’ and ‘stabilizing’. It constitutes, for some, a European effort to combat the ‘Fortress-Europe’ argument; for others it represents an alternative channel for talks, substituting the deteriorating EU-ASEAN dialogue (Forster 2000, 796; Park 2005, 199, 207). Many writers locate ASEM in the context of the ‘triangular’, or ‘trilateral’, model of international relations, comprising the global economic engines or ‘nodal points’ (Higgott 2006, 19) of North America, Western Europe and Eastern Asia, in which the Asia-Europe leg is being perceived as the weakest, or ‘missing’, link, suffering from a ‘paucity’ of relevant networks (Serradell 1996; Dent 1999, 96-107, 256/7; Hwee and Latif 2000, 7-9, 28-30; Milliot 2005, 129). In this mould, analysts rationalise ASEM as an Asian effort to decrease Asian ‘dependency’ on the US (Serradell 1996; Forster 1999, 752) and as an alternative EU access route into the APEC forum (Yeo Lay Hwee 1999, 5; 2000, 116). Additional analytical models highlight the rôle of ASEM in a number of geopolitical contexts, ranging from a further engagement of China, to attempts to curb US unilateralism and to provide an alternative to the US-Japan axis across the Asian

11 For instance: European Parliament, 1998, and: minutes of 4 October 2000 (provisional edition): B5-0768, 0769, 0770, 0773, 0774 and 0775/2000.

Inhibitory Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

85

continent (Yeo Lay Hwee 1999, 6; Nguyen Duy Quy et al 2004, 105-107, 122, 125; Reiterer 2004a; 2005). A significant number of alternative positions towards ASEM are informed by neo-liberal and constructivist views, leading analysts to examine the capacity of the ASEM summitry, among other functions, to evolve, build institutions and regimes, determine agendas, act as a ‘clearing house of interests’, counter-balance adverse effects of globalisation and establish regional identities (Yeo Lay Hwee 2003; Reiterer 2004a; 2004b; 2005; Fort and Webber 2006). Milliot (2005, 133) offer a concise dualistic rationalisation for ASEM by describing it as a ‘supportprocess’ to the multilateral system and a ‘dialogue-facilitator’ at regional level. The constructivist perspectives focused on ASEM as a force of change and a builder of identity in the Asian region. And Higgott (2006, 20/1, 27) posit that identity was an important variable in region-building and that regions were socially-constructed. More specifically, Gilson and Yeo Lay Hwee (2004, 29) conceptualise ASEM as a ‘functional structure’ and as a ‘cognitive backdrop for new forms of collective behaviour’. Inter-regional contacts thus have a direct effect on the participants and ‘political players’ involved. In the case of ASEM these aspects are specifically elaborated by researchers such as Reiterer who (2004a, 12) refers to them as the ‘fostering of regionalism through inter-regionalism’, and elsewhere (2005, 271) adds that, ‘analogue to states, in the international system, interaction between regions leads to constructing identities through mutual recognition, reference and reassertion’. Hettne (2005, 121) states that ‘by participating in an interregional process, a regional identity is created’. And Gilson (2005, 227) formulates the thesis of the use of ‘Asian ASEM’ as a label, which gave ‘more concrete expression to European ideas of the region’. In addition, some sources refer to ASEM as a kind of Asian ‘coming of age’ rite (Royal Thai Government 1996d, 30). Considerable attention is given to the fact that ASEM overlaps, in terms of topics, agendas and memberships, with a number of other Euro-Asian fora, for instance, APEC, EU-China relations and the EU-ASEAN dialogue (Lim 2001, 103; Quigley 2002). On the EU side, it is noted that ASEM served as a channel for the EU both in terms of general presence and through a stronger focus on human rights (Gilson 2005, 219). Others stress the fact that ASEM was instrumental not only in developing the notion of an East Asian regional identity, but also in contributing to the building of the ASEAN + 3 group, in bringing about a massive increase of Asia-Europe cultural exchanges and in delineating a common set of Asian values (Mantaha, and Tingsabadh 2003; Reiterer 2005). One of the results of these efforts, with particular relevance to human rights, is the conceptualization of ASEM through thematic ‘pillars’ or ‘clusters’,12 including an area of ‘political relations’. This ‘political’ pillar of ASEM, in particular, continues to be subject to contrasting evaluations: while some deplore that the existing ASEM dialogue was ‘limited to discussions on political issues’ and that ‘the political cooperation pillar has gained the least success among the three pillars of cooperation’ (Quigley 2004b, 12; Nguyen Duy Quy et al 2004, 129), others come to the conclusion 12 Source: http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asem/cluster/index.htm.

86

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

that it had ‘progressed faster than either its trade or security objectives, simply the interaction and relationship-building which accompanies the ASEM process (Mudie 1998, 34). The Commission’s newer statements on the matter are often carefully optimistic, claiming, for instance that ‘the political dimension of our relationship is increasingly matching up to the strength of our economic relationship’.13 Human Rights in ASEM: A Predictable Disagreement? In this mode of guarded optimism, it is claimed (Pelkmans and Shinkai 1997, 57) that, ‘the strong declaratory attitude by European nations and institutions on human rights, resented by Asian countries, points to the need for political dialogue’. But what of the ‘declaratory diplomacy’ of the EU in these matters? Encouragingly, the Commission’s 1996 concept paper on ASEM had stated that ASEM was to be a process, focusing on ‘opening a dialogue on the values and codes in both continents’ (Commission 1996a, at p. 4; Rapid Database: IP/96/173). This led some to see ASEM as a potentially effective forum for cooperation (Ward 1998, 523). Many analysts comment on the concomitant expectations as regards the future of EU-Asia relations, raised by the ASEM (Serradell 1996, 210; Yeo Lay Hwee 2000, 122). Notwithstanding this, there was a mismatch of expectations, inherent in ASEM from the start, which was considerably enlarged and exacerbated by the ASEM ethos of informality: whilst EU representatives were frequently more concerned about the political aspects of the dialogue, their Asian interlocutors favoured exchange about economic, culture, business exchanges, anti-poverty initiatives and the environment. The ‘negotiated-order’ approach examined by Forster (2000) offers an elegant possibility of explaining some of these divergences, by analysing the different boundaries, layers and networks of ASEM, which result in potentially contradictory pressures and loss of policy coherence. These different ‘worlds of negotiation’ constitute, arguably the core of a basic ‘design problem’ or ‘dys-functionality’ within the ASEM process in respect of human rights (cf. also Serradell 1996, 198; Cacnio 1996, 7/8; Pelkmans and Shinkai 1997, 10; Forster, 2000, 799). This mismatch is reflected in many of the documents emanating from the European Commission and from the five ASEM summits held between 1996 and 2005. Although human rights were included in the Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework (AECF) 2000, the closing statements of the first and third ASEM featured only the most cursory of references to human rights and their protection.14 This is far from ‘a major milestone in the process’, which some observers believe to have detected (for example, Serradell 1996, 201; O’Brien 2001, 22). The Commission’s 1997 Working Paper on ASEM reflected the ‘non-agenda spirit’ of ASEM, vaguely referring to human rights in the guise of ‘common rules of conduct that ensure the proper functioning of international society.’ On ‘sensitive issues’ the paper hinted at an underlying exclusionary agenda on human rights: ‘the dialogue should, however, 13 Source:http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/news/ferrero/2005/sp05_534.htm. 14 For ASEM 1, see: point II/7; for ASEM 3, see: points 8, II/5, IV/12.

Inhibitory Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

87

be developed gradually in a spirit of equality and with a view to creating a climate of confidence and mutual understanding. Topics for discussion should be selected with an emphasis on issues which would help to draw ASEM partners together’ (Commission 1997b, point 2). A follow-up Commission paper in 2000 counted ‘supporting human rights, democracy and the rule of law’ amongst its general priorities and referred to ‘new security issues’, without, however, elaborating further on the potential linkages between these two areas (Commission 2000b, point 3.1). Aside from a brief reference to ‘vulnerable women and children’ and ‘social matters including gender issues’, human rights concerns did not feature on the list of ‘results and deliverables’ of a Commission working paper preparing ASEM 4 in 2002. This apparent gap contradicted the Commission’s conclusion, in the same document, that the ASEM had become a ‘more mature process’ (Commission 2002a, points 6 and 7). From early on in the course of the ASEM summitry, the European Parliament frequently argued that the ASEM process be invested – under the ‘political pillar’ – with respect for human rights and a democratic dimension that Parliament saw as missing at the moment.15 More recent ASEM initiatives have begun, partly, to reflect these concerns. Thus, the report on ASEM in its Tenth Year: Looking Back, Looking Forward (Japan Centre for International Exchange 2006) recognised emerging dialogue channels on terrorism and human rights in ASEM but remained vague in its recommendations on human rights. The Conclusions of the 7th Informal ASEM Seminar on Human Rights of March 2006 were more concrete in prioritising certain sensitive topics such as minority rights. In general though, it remains true to state that the ASEM format demonstrates more diversity than coherence over human rights matters. This divergence means that, in terms of its potential for human rights, ASEM is perhaps better described as an ‘Asian Way with Western agenda’. Human rights issues, in the view of one observer (Park 2005, 200): ‘generated misgivings in both Asia and Europe as to each other’s policy’. There is little doubt that this resulted in a ‘dialogue of difference’ within the framework of what was termed a ‘self-otherdiscourse’ (Gilson 2001; 2003, 58, 62). In addition, Holland points out (2002, 72) that ‘implied moral hierarchies were explicitly eschewed in favour of equality of partnership’. In spite of a series of ASEM Informal Seminars on Human Rights,16 a more noteworthy human rights ‘pillar’, akin to the ACP context, was ‘only conspicuous by its absence’ (Gilson 2002, 161), and the EU appeared to show Asia ‘two faces’, failing to design a consistent policy on human rights on account of the perception of a primacy of trade interests (van Reisen 1997, 48-53). Consequentially, ASEM relied heavily on dialogue about new markets, regional integration and cultural links (Hwee and Latif 2000). Human rights remained increasingly bracketed 15 See, for example, EP minutes of 16 November 2000, B5-0872, 0874, 0876, 0877, 0879 and 0882/2000 (EP Resolution on ASEM) at points E 1, E 4 and E 6 to E 8. 16 For instance in Bali in 2001; the Fifth ASEM Informal Seminar on Human Rights took place in Bangkok on 22-23 February 2003. It focused on the theme of Human Rights and Foreign Direct Investment; cf. CES 2003, 7.

88

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

and, as it were, hors de combat. Although the ‘compartmentalization’ of ASEM into pillars was significant in the context of exchange and learning (Wiessala 2003b), the concomitant marginalization of human rights ‘by consignment to the cultural category’ (Drake 2003, 35), where the ‘light refreshments of inter-regional exchange’ were served (Gilson 2003, 50), resulted in the deliberate ‘sidelining’ of human rights for the sake of economics, inter-regional pragmatism and the premise of consensusbased agreement (Forster 2000, 800; Gilson 2005, 223). This was a risk many observers had predicted (Bauer 1994, 8; Muntarbhorn 1998, 4). Moreover, politics, trade and, above all, security and terrorism in South and South East Asia, were in the ascendancy from 11 September 2001 onwards and came to dominate large parts of the ASEM self-image and agenda (S. Islam 2002, 10/11; Ba Win 2002, 13; Wiessala 2002a, 11; 2003a; 2002g, 131-144). No Agenda, No Pressure? The resulting paucity of a human rights dimension in the ASEM process was further conditioned by a number of other issues. ASEM was meant to rely on the designprinciples of ‘equality’, ‘evolution’, ‘informality’, ‘multi-dimensionality’ and ‘highlevel leadership’. Gilson (2002, 59; 2005, 218) uses the phrase of ‘armchair-dialogue’ for this phenomenon; it denotes the idea of an ASEM that was to be agenda- (and pressure-) free, in order to maintain an atmosphere of cameraderie (Lim 1999b, 8; 2001, 97). Paribatra (2000, 147-153) encapsulates the ‘ASEM-informality’ in his characterisation of ASEM as ‘triple-non’: ‘non-exclusive’, ‘non-country-specific’ and ‘non-confrontational’. However, contrary to this deliberately ‘informal’ ethos, ASEM evolved into a specialised, institutionalised, format, which increasingly comprised of a sprawling range of structures and activities and an alphabet-soup of initiatives. The Commission was aware of the dangers of the risks inherent in an ‘uncoordinated proliferation’ (Commission 1997b, 2) but did little to halt it. This phenomenon, which was described, interchangeably, as ‘institutional overload’, ‘disorderly multiplication’ or ‘soft institutionalization’, was held responsible in producing an overall ‘forum-fatigue’ and decline in participation, to the detriment of a more productive process with a stronger human rights agenda (CAEC 1997, 25; AEVG 1999; Lim 1999b, 5; Wiessala 2002e). Critics of ASEM and its many ‘mushrooming’ initiatives claimed, for example, that: ‘their foreign ministers can be glimpsed moving between the various Asian and European capitals, while meetings between their officials, such as the cryptically designated SOMs, are too numerous for anyone to keep track of’ (EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 2003: 1). ASEM, it seemed was degenerating into a trans-continental ‘talking-shop’, producing little but confident declarations about itself, and performing little but pirouettes sémantiques on human rights (Yeo Lay Hwee 2000, 120; Gilson 2002, 161; 2003, 61; Quigley 2004b).

Inhibitory Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

89

Widening, Deepening, but no Focusing? The position of human rights in ASEM was also adversely affected by the issues of a perceived thematic overlap between ASEM and other kinds of EU-Asia interaction, such as the EU-ASEAN dialogue (Quigley 2002, 63-65). Consequentially, the diversity, which had the potential to become part of ASEM was lost: the potential to conduct ‘summits of differentiation’ frequently resulted in ‘summary duplication’. The debate about human rights and Burma (see below), exemplifies these shortcomings: the country became an ASEAN member in 1997, but the level of Burmese involvement and representation during the ASEM 5 summit in Hanoi in October 2004 remained an uncomfortable issue (King 1999, 333/4; Sein Win 2001, 115; Gilson 2002, 163/4; Ciorciari 2003, 33; Friberg 2004; Commission Press Release IP//04/1178). Last but not least, as David Fouquet observes (2002, 3): ‘preoccupations have varied from summit to summit’. Rather than embracing a human rights policy, successive ASEM summits were ‘hijacked’, by the need to ‘get to know one another’ (ASEM 1, 1996) (cf.: Royal Thai Government 1996a-c), the Asian Financial Crisis (ASEM 2, 1998), the war against the Taliban (ASEM 3, 2000) and ‘International Terrorism’ (ASEM 4, 2002; S. Islam 2002, 10/11; Wiessala 2002a, 110) and the future of the dialogue itself (ASEM 5; Quigley 2004b), 14). The Significance of Civil Society Neglect A variety of other reasons can be identified as contributory to the neglect of human rights in ASEM. Arguably the most significant among them is the relative lack of participation and status of civil society groups in the official ASEM platform. Paul Lim (2003, 7) points out the ‘cautious attitudes’ of Asian ASEM participants and the ‘independence of civil society which some Asian ASEM members still feel untenable’. Correlated issues often raised have concerned the ‘top-down’, elitist, approach of the official ASEM and the need to involve research institutes and thinktanks more methodically (Pelkmans and Shinkai 1997, 75/6; van Reisen 1997, 54/5; Ridzam 2003). At least one observer (Milliot 2005, 138) posits that involving civil society more in the relevant ASEM activities would not only enhance transparency and visibility of the process, but constitute the ‘raison d’être of these pillars’. Others (Ridzam 2003, 3) claim that civil society is the ‘missing link’ in ASEM. Moreover, Michael Reiterer (2004a, 19) suggests that the involvement of ‘grassroots elements’ was a process of socialization beyond elites, which remained a challenge for ASEM. Civil society groups from both continents organised alternative summits in parallel to each of the five ASEM gatherings so far, to form the Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF). However, in spite of the Commission’s repeated calls for civil society participation in ASEM (Commission, 2000b, point 5; 2002a, point 1), the main ASEM summits were unable to agree ‘on a common agenda for civil society participation in whole range of “soft issues”, such as the dialogue on issues of governance and human rights (Ridzam 2003, 4; Quigley 2004b, 16). Forster (2000, 800) raises the possibility of this being a deliberate design-fault in the ASEM fabric. Moreover,

90

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Gilson (2002) comments that a dialogue of the ‘learned versus the learner’ about norms and good governance, as well as the legacy of the former donor-recipient relationship, form further constraints to an effective exchange among civil society groups. Last but not least, the phenomenon of ASEM as a ‘shop-window’ of the host nation, ‘showcasing’ itself (Quigley 2004b, 13) may serve to obscure human rights matters. This is evident in some of the more-than-upbeat assessments of ASEM by some Asian host nation analysts. Thus, in 2005, a Vietnamese publication could claim that, ‘dialogues on the political pillar continue and have taken on a positive direction, i.e. switching from avoidance of sensitive issues to conducting frank dialogues on any issue’ (Nguyen Duy Quy et al 2004, 122). The reality of ASEM appears to furnish few reasons for such optimism. Summary: The ASEM Summitry and Human Rights In conclusion to this section on ASEM, a full assessment of how ‘guilty’ ASEM leaders were of excluding human rights, or, at least, of relegating them to the margins of the dialogue, was still outstanding in 2003. It became clear, however, that, in spite of the ‘holistic’ design of ASEM (Milliot 2005, 128) human rights emerged as a major inhibiting agent for the current ASEM format, pointing to a limited potential for policy conversion and rendering the ASEM ‘impotent’ on human rights in much the same way as has happened in EU-ASEAN context (McMahon 1998, 245). A statement of Danish Minister Per Stig Møller following the Danish Presidency of the Council of Ministers in 2002 summed up the Union’s basic dilemma (Møller 2001, 3): ‘we have no choice but to accept deeper involvement with governments having less than perfect records on human rights and democracy, but willing to progress in the right direction’. However, an emerging consensus among many analysts would point to the fact that it will be unrealistic to expect human rights to be downplayed forever in the ASEM political agenda. Like many others, Mudie concludes (1998, 35/6) that human rights matters will, eventually, find their way into ASEM through a number of mechanisms, such as the pressure of civil society groups and through Asia-Europe encounters in other fora. However, the evidence regarding EU-ASEAN relations, the marginalisation of pressure groups and the detrimental effect of thematic overlaps on human rights issues suggests that this may, for the time being, be an over-optimistic assessment. Chapter Conclusions This chapter set out to continue locating and evaluating the human rights issue within the overall patterns of opportunity and constraint which define EU-Asia relations. It has done so, in particular, by reviewing the position of human rights in regard to the main inter-regional channels of EU-Asia relations. In this context, the chapter surveyed theoretical approaches to regionalism in Asia and Europe in general, and the functions, speeds and integrative ambitions of relevant EU-Asia interregional fora

Inhibitory Aspects of Human Rights in the EU-Asia Dialogue

91

in particular. This has revealed significant concern, in the academic literature, with issues such as the ‘triadic’ image of world order and the application of negotiatedorder approaches to interregional EU-Asia cooperation. It was found that a special scholarly focus lies on question of how much of a ‘rôle-model’ the EU’s form of integration can, and should be, for Asia. In terms of this chapter, a constructivist position has been helpful in shedding light on regionalism and regional structures and in analysing the rôle of ideas and concepts of human rights in connection with divergent regional identities, values, legal frameworks and traditions in Asia and Europe. The chapter has focused, in particular, on the relationship between the EU and ASEAN and on the process and development of the Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM). One of the main findings of this chapter is that in these dialogue fora human rights continue to have a considerable ‘inhibitory’ effect on Asia-Europe cooperation. Diverging interpretations of regionalism, ‘non-interference’ or ‘Asian values’ are only one reason for this. The evidence surveyed in this chapter suggests that other problems holding back a more meaningful EU-Asia exchange over human rights included institutional overload and overlap and, especially in ASEM, a deliberate, and inadequate, marginalisation of human rights in the context of a ‘pillarization’ of the summitry. This stands in marked contrast to some of the other branches of the EUAsia cooperation investigated in earlier chapters. The relative lack of participation and influence of civil society, NGOs and Think-Tanks in the ASEM can be identified as another problem; it contrasts strongly with the remarkable proliferation of many ‘grass-roots initiatives’ on human rights across Asia, mentioned in earlier chapters. Where concrete human rights initiatives in ASEAN and the ASEM were pursued, they were, more often than not, held back by problems of definition, enforceability and decision-making paralysis. In the overall assessment of this chapter, it remains, therefore accurate to conclude that, in spite of some specific human rights inroads into the interregional dimension of Asia-EU relations, the current policy formats of EU-ASEAN and the ASEM reflect more diversity and disagreement than coherence over matters of good governance, democracy and human rights promotion. In consequence, EU-Asia inter-regional linkages are often being shaped by human rights debates, with both the European and the Asian sides acting and reacting, in equal measure, through renewed exchanges about politics, culture, values, identities and power. The following chapter investigates how these exchanges contributed to the formation of a number of specific EU policy-methods and dialogues with a selection of countries in Asia.

This page intentionally left blank

PART 3 Patterns and Paradigms

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 6

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

Realpolitik v Moralpolitik: Human Rights and EU Policy Choices The preceding chapters sought to address and develop a number of pertinent issues surrounding culture, identity, values and the impact of dynamic policy choices made by a hierarchy of key institutional players inside the EU polity. The present chapter takes the analysis of EU foreign policy in Asia further by emphasising, in particular, the value of concrete case studies in exploring both theoretical and external dimensions of human rights promotion and democratisation. On the basis of the argument in the theoretical part of this book, and building on what was found to constitute the enabling and constraining aspects of EU-Asia human rights discourse, the following two chapters form the third and last part of this book, entitled ‘Patterns and Paradigms’. What follows is a critical examination of a number of practical developments in the context of the EU’s human rights promotion agenda for Asia. The case studies cover aspects of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) across Asia, as well as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Myanmar (Burma) and the Republic of Indonesia. They seek to elucidate and interrogate the diverse EU agendas in the context of the Union’s strategies for bringing about a qualitatively and quantitatively enhanced level of political reform and human rights observance in Asia. Looking at relevant political developments in Asia as well as Europe, I would argue that, in 2006, these agendas can be seen to have embraced elements of traditional categories of EU human rights promotion in foreign policy: ‘constructive engagement’, incentives-based, ‘political conditionality’ and ‘coercive’ pressure. These instruments also appeared broadly in line with the EU’s general foreign policy preferences for legal arguments, persuasion and ‘positive’ measures (Youngs 2001, 192; K Smith 2001, 190; 2003, 110/1, 198). Although the evidence reviewed suggested that these measures represented, for the most part, wide-ranging achievements by the EU, there were indications too that they continued to be subject to political expediencies. Above all, the three approaches investigated through the case studies, below, can help to expose to the spotlight of critical analysis, the Union’s strategy of balancing its international cooperation with the reinforcement of its own ideological and political position as a diplomatic actor in Asia.

96

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Combined Coordination: EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in Asia It has already been noted how the European Union’s attempts to achieve this balance through the development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) have given rise to significant theorizing surrounding issues of ‘actor-ship’ and political coordination in EU foreign policy (See Chapter One). These debates are relevant for EU CFSP in Asian countries such as Afghanistan, Burma and others in at least three ways: they provide ready-made templates for discourse: focusing on the visibility of a specifically ‘Asian branch’ of the Union’s CFSP persona in Asia, often reflects, and refracts, wider arguments about the ‘evolutionary’, rather than ‘revolutionary’ character of EU foreign policy, and about gaps between ‘capabilities’ and ‘expectations’ (Hill 1993; Holland 1995, 570; Wiessala 2004). Piening (1997, 139), for instance, observes that, ‘Europe has been present in Asia for centuries, and this fact alone is key to understanding the close relationship that continues to exist between today’s European Union and much of the region.’ Paul Lim too, seeks to contextualize this issue (Lim 1999): ‘does the European Union have a CFSP in Asia? – the answer to this question is preceded by another: where is the “Common” in the CFSP?’ A former Prime Minister of Singapore asserts (2004, 324): ‘noble aspirations have not yet been able to overcome narrow self-interests. At least in its relationship with Asia, the CFSP is more often than not at the lowest common denominator.’ Questions of whether there really is an ‘Eastern Chapter’ of the CFSP and what form it takes and how efficient it is have often engaged the European Parliament1 and the Council of Ministers.2 However, they seem strangely obsolete from many Asian perspectives which have tended to interpret the CFSP as simply an inevitable sign of integration (Patharodom 1995, 32; Gilson 2000, 60). The wider debates on the CFSP are pertinent for EU-Asia relations, in as far as they are calling for less ‘getthoized’ (Holland 2004, 1) and more coherent approaches to foreign policy. The related claim that the CFSP is predicated on the acquisition of ‘competencies’, the dedication of ‘resources’ and the emergence of political ‘strategies’ holds especially true in the case of EU-Asia policies. As the examples of this and the following chapter show, many of these policies now derive as much from Commission ‘strategies’, budget allocations, Development Assistance, diplomatic cooperation and human rights initiatives, as they do from the narrower CFSP framework. Furthermore, the general discourse over the CFSP 1 Asia and the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy: One-Day Conference at the European Parliament in Brussels, Wednesday 24 November 1999; the reports of Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy are also relevant in this context (for example, Report of 11 October 2001: A50332/2001). 2 Especially the COASIE Working Group for Asia and Oceania and the COREU Network; See also the 1997 Council Report on the CFSP, referring to Asia as a ‘key CFSP priority area’.

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

97

assumes an additional salience, when seen through the ‘prism’ of the history of EastWest dialogue and colonial heritage (See the Introduction, and: Petchsiri 2004). In this context, and notwithstanding the call for more comprehensive perspectives, the development of an ‘Asian’ CFSP in itself holds many interesting clues. The claim, for instance, that identity-construction forms part of the EU’s efforts to ‘legitimize’ its CFSP, for example (Knodt and Princen 2003, 3), is reflected in some findings on a sense of an EC ‘mission’ in global politics (Ginsberg 1989, 4). It also reverberates in East-West debates concerning the ‘universality’, or otherwise, of norms and the ‘Asian Values’ debate (See Chapter Three). It is therefore possible to draw valid inferences from the ‘general’ to the ‘Asian’ side of the EU’s CFSP. In many ways, it seems straightforward to interpret the EU’s CFSP activity across Asia as a system of ‘combined coordination’ amongst the EU member states, consisting of an arsenal of prescribed and formalised foreign policy instruments, and a number of (new) Commission Delegations in Asia to translate these instruments into practice, according to Article 20 of the TEU. This system of policy-coordination, furthermore, seems coherently embedded in the wider EU-Asia policy-frameworks, such as the Commission’s ‘Strategy-Papers’ on Asia, development, human rights and related topics (See Chapter Three). Other examples are the Council’s Asia and Latin America (ALA-) Regulation and, in particular, the European Parliament’s Resolutions on human rights and the CFSP in Asia (for example, European Parliament 2000; 2001). The first significant aspect of this system of coordinated EU CFSP action in Asia is that the alternative agendas embodied by the European Parliament, in particular, appear to have shaped the thrust and direction of the Union’s Asian CFSP to an even higher degree than in other areas. One reason for this is the enhanced prominence of human rights matters across EU policies. Another explanation lies in the European Parliament’s rôle in defining the CFSP and its human rights components much more specifically, through a number of its Resolutions. Many of the more recent Parliamentary Resolutions on security and the CFSP are testimony to the higher degree of autonomy the EU’s Asian CFSP has achieved.3 The policy consequences of this have become apparent in EU policies covering areas such as the Tiananmen Square killings, gender-based persecution, mine-clearance, peacekeeping, drugs production and terrorism in Afghanistan,4 the Anwar Ibrahim trial in Indonesia and forced labour in Burma. The 1996 Common Position on Burma (See below), in

3 See OJ C 167 (1997) and OJ C 167 (1998) for earlier examples. More recently: Resolutions: B5-0659, 0662, 0668 and 0671/2000; B5-0505/2000; A5-0339/2000; A50340/2000; C5-0194/2001. 4 CFSP Instruments on Afghanistan between 1996-2001 included: Common Positions 96/746/CFSP; 98/108/CFSP, OJ L 32, 6 February 1998; 1999/73/CFSP, OJ L 23, 30 January 1999; 1999/727/CFSP, OJ L294, 16 November 1999; some of the Parliamentary Resolutions underlying these are reproduced in: OJ C 399, 10 November 1997 or OJ C 80, 16 March 1998; see also: Common Position 2000/55/CFSP, OJ L 21, 26 January 2000; 2001/56/ CFSP;2001/154/CFSP, 2001/771/CFSP.

98

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

particular, and the EU’s refusal to grant visas to members of the Burmese military are, perhaps, the best-known examples of EU CFSP instruments in Asia. At a closer glance though, the system is much more comprehensive and multidimensional, overlapping with policy-choices the EU is pursuing with individual countries in the region (see below). The second distinguishing characteristic of the EU CFSP arsenal in Asia is that, in spite of these overlaps and complexities, common denominators are not hard to find. Apart from human rights, EU CFSP in Asia over the last decade or so revolved around matters of security and stability. When, in 1999, Bridges could still argue that (1999, 153/4) ‘Europeans have tended to underestimate the linkages between security issues in Europe and Asia, feeling that out of sight means out of mind’, then this has changed in the smaller, globalized world of the new Millennium. Occasional risk assessments by the European Parliament, culminating in its 1999 Report on The Role of the EU in South East Asia paved the way for a more intensive EU involvement in Asian security matters, such as landmine clearance5 and other issues. Outside the institutional context, other reasons lie in the volume of arms sales by European to Asian countries, in the conduct of the ‘war on terrorism’ in Afghanistan, Iraq and Indonesia and in the widespread availability of weapons across Asia. Add to this the well-known regional security flashpoints involving India and Pakistan, the South China Sea, the Korean Peninsula, the Taiwan Straits and elsewhere (Wiessala 2004, 97) and it appears less surprising to find that EU CFSP instruments for Asia, long before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, have homed in on such issues as landmines and small arms in Laos and Cambodia,6 nuclear nonproliferation across South Asia,7 security and environmental stability in Indonesia and nuclear safety in North Korea8 (Wiessala 2004, 98-109). Wider EU initiatives such as codes of conduct regarding arms exports and the EU’s Everything-ButArms Initiative9 form the background to these foreign policy instruments. However, the security-game works both ways, and, as the Commission has pointed out (Commission 2000b, 12), ‘the fringes of the European Continent have their own flashpoints which are of interest to Asia’. On top of this, the EU’s Asian CFSP extends to a broad range of non-traditional (‘soft’) security issues in areas such as 5 See: European Parliament: Resolution on the Progress achieved in the Implementation of the CFSP, 30 November 2000, A5-0340/2000; Working Paper REXT 102 EN, 1999 and Resolution on Landmines, OJ C 286, 22 September 1997 and OC J 304, 6 October 1997. 6 EU Joint Actions 96/588/CFSP: OJ L 260, 12 October 1996 and 97/817/CFSP, OJ L 338, 9 December 1997; Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP, OJ L 9, 15 January 1999; Joint Action 2000/401/CFSP, OJ L 159, 30 June 2000; Council Decision 2001/328/CFSP, OJ L 116, 26 April 2001; Resolution No. 1724/2001, OJ L 234, 1 September 2001. 7 For example, Common Position 98/606/CFSP, OJ L 290, 29 October 1998; Common Position 1999/346/CFSP, OJ L 204, 4 August 1999. 8 For example, Joint Action 96/195/CFSP, OJ L 63, 13 March 1996; Common Position 97/484/CFSP, OJ L 213, 5 August 1997. 9 The EBA Initiative covers the Asian non-ACP LDC (least-developed-countries) of Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Nepal and Maldives.

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

99

health, crime and environmental matters. Funabashi in particular (1993, 111), argues that Asian nations ‘have a strong tendency to think of security not simply in military terms, but as a synthesis of military, economic, technological and social strengths’. This line of thought will be examined in greater detail in the last chapter of this book. It is important to note a third point: at times the CFSP component within the system of EU foreign policy towards Asia has been instrumental in giving shape to, and altering the course of, the overall direction of EU-Asia policy. Following ‘9/11’, for instance, the Union’s agreements and CFSP instruments regarding such partner countries as Pakistan10 and Afghanistan have been significant ‘catalysts’, paving the way for a wider re-mapping, and refining, of general EU foreign policy towards Asia as regards, for instance, Central Asia, India, Iran and the Middle East. Policies brought about by the early stages on the ‘international war on terror’ can, therefore, be seen to have helped to emphasise a number of strategic elements of a future EU Asia policy and a regionally-defined Asian CFSP, based, for example, on EU CFSP efforts towards a future ‘stabilisation with a regional dimension’.11 There can be little doubt that some of these re-orientations are clearly traceable to certain individual events or documents, such as the EU’s reactions to ‘9/11’, the 2001 Ghent European Council – which was extraordinarily fruitful in terms of the development of an ‘Asian’ CFSP12 – and the European Parliament Resolution of 30 November 2000,13 which encompassed as well as redefined a large number of CFSP key objectives in regard to the Asian region, EU-ASEAN relations and the AsiaEurope Meeting (ASEM). Corporations Invest, Dictators Profit and the People Suffer14 – Co-ordinated Coercion and the Politics of EU-Burma Relations Recently a letter from a Burmese girl living in exile was published in a local newspaper asking US President George Bush for just one missile to be used to wipe out the top government officials in Burma. She said doing so would prove to the world that the war in Iraq was not about oil and in fact about bringing down a brutal regime. (R. Huffer, 2003: 6)

The issue which has, perhaps more than any other problem in EU-Asia relations, held back dialogue on human rights and other matters, is the triangle of problems connected to Burma’s accession to ASEAN on the one hand, and the nature and development of EU-ASEAN and EU-Burma relations on the other hand (Chongkittavorn 1997, 10 Rapid Database: MEMO/01/362. 11 For example, Conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 19 November 2001 (2386th Session). 12 General Affairs Council: Conclusions of 17 October 2001; Ghent European Council Conclusions of 19 October 2001; see also: GAC Council Conclusions of 19 November 2001. 13 Resolution A5-0340/2000/CFSP, of 30 November 2000, especially points 38-45. 14 I have borrowed this phrase from an article on Burma (Heinonen 1994).

100

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

18-25; Haacke 2006, 153-155). Some media analysts calls this ‘the most sensitive topic in the Union’s relations with Asia’.15 Among human rights scholars, Close and Askew (2004, 128) are right in arguing that the many ‘divisions within ASEAN are explicable in terms of outside pressure and interference, especially from leading Western political economy players, notably the USA and the European Union’. On the strength of the economic exchange involved, EU-ASEAN dialogue was routinely promoted as a ‘backbone’ of the EU-Asia dialogue (See: Chapter Five). But relations developed their ‘dark side’ (Dosch 2001, 64) as regards the issue of Burma and the question of ‘constructive engagement’ with individual ASEAN member states (Wiessala 2002a, 65/6; Eldridge 2002, 82/3; Solidum 2003). Lim (1999a) traces the Burma-related problems in EU-ASEAN relations to events preceding Burma’s accession to ASEAN in 1997. Burma’s accession brought to the fore the differences in approaches in East and West. ASEAN, on the one hand, declined to accept discriminatory treatment of its new member and seeking to ‘constructively engage’ Burma, despite warnings that this might ‘backfire’ on ASEAN (Narine 1999, 368). The EU on the other hand, refused to extend the 1980 EEC-ASEAN Cooperation Agreement to Burma and rejected negotiations with the dictators (cf. Severino 1999). From 1997, a stalemate over Burma’s participation in the EU-ASEAN Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) ensued. It was only broken in 2000, when the JCC met in Bangkok and a compromise solution resulted in a merely passive presence for the Burmese representatives (European Voice, 6-12 April 2000; Lim 1999, 2330; Dosch 2001, 64-66). For many observers these dilemmas showed that, whilst EU-ASEAN dialogue, in the words of EU officials, was not quite ‘hostage to a [Burmese] junta’ (Lim 1999a, 25; Ciorciari 2003, 33), the Burma issue demonstrated also that in EU-ASEAN relations ambiguity remained ‘the handmaid of consensus’ (Antolik 1990, 157). A few points are worth noting in this context: there is little doubt that the issue of Burma is associated with a degree of decline in EU-ASEAN contacts. However, it is exactly this deterioration of the multilateral dimension in EU-Asia dialogue which provides the catalyst for a reinforcement of EU bilateral strategies towards other partners like Indonesia. EU-ASEAN links thus reveal both the ‘enabling’ and the ‘inhibitory’ side of EU-Asian inter-regional dialogue. The more ‘punitive’ approach, symbolised by a key EU CFSP Common Position on Burma, set it apart from the ‘constructive engagement’ method the Union pursued in the case of China and other partners (see: below). The EU’s coercive line was related to efforts by other international actors to bring Burma into a more ‘nonaligned’ position, addressing fears, especially within ASEAN, as regards Burma’s potential for regional instability and its growing military dependency on the PRC (Eldridge 2002, 82; Clark 2003, 130/1). This section builds on previous research findings (Wiessala 2002a, 142/3), and examines the single-mindedness, with which the EU, and the European Parliament in particular, homed in on human rights. Some of the reasons for this emerged through the vehicle of the EU’s ‘Asian’ Common 15 See: European Voice, 2-8 September 2004: 5.

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

101

Foreign and Security Policy (Wiessala 2000b, 51), others could be detected in the ‘new agenda’ of a European Parliament which was keener on pushing political, rather than trade-related priorities (Forster 2000, 792). There was a ‘minimal repertoire’ of EU-Burma contact outside of human rights considerations. It consisted mainly of humanitarian assistance for refugees, uprooted people and ethnic minorities (Commission 2000c; European Communities 2002, 22).16 Developing a unified policy on Burma was a sensitive task for the EU, on account of the repression of the winners of the 1990 Burmese elections, the National League for Democracy (NLD) under Aung San Suu Kyi (ABSDF 1998),17 and because - unlike in the cases of Afghanistan or Iraq - there was little chance of direct international intervention in Burmese affairs (Faulder 2003, 20/1; FEER, 12 August 2004, 2; EurAsia Bulletin, November-December 2005: 4 and 22; see quote at the head of this section). What makes EU Burma policy unique amongst other examples of EU Asia strategy is the fact that there was little to rival the strength of the human rights nexus established by the EU between its foreign policy actions towards the country and the desired human rights outcomes in Burma. The well-publicised ‘catalogue of oppression’ (Guardian 17 June 2003, 71), often perpetrated by the armed forces (Tatmadaw) and by the Orwellian-sounding18 State Law and Development Council (SLDC)19 headed by a group of Burmese ‘Generals of Mass Destruction’ (Huffer 2003, 7), included the suppression of Members of Parliament (ABSDF 1998), forced labour, population displacement, persecution of ethnic minorities and arbitrary arrests, detentions, trials and the destruction of the country’s heritage. (for example, Heinonen 1994; UN 1994; Human Rights Watch Asia 1995; FCO 1999; Gupwell 2000b; Sein Win 2001; Mon Forum 2002; Burma Issues 2002; Human Rights Documentation Unit 2002; The Economist 23 July 2005). Some Burma watchers have come to the conclusion that (Eldridge 2002, 82): ‘human rights abuses in Myanmar have been more extensive and blatant than in other ASEAN states, with the possible exception of Indonesia’. For parts of the press, the situation in Burma, quite simply, amounts to Genocide (Independent 24 16 For details, see: Council Regulation (EC) No. 443/97, of 3 March 1997, OJ L 068, 8 March 1997: 1-4 (no longer in force); Commission Staff Working Paper: Annexes to the Report from the Commission on the Implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 443/97, of 3 March 1997, on operations to aid uprooted people in Asian and Latin American developing countries, SEC (2000) 934, Brussels, 30 May 2000; on humanitarian aid, see also: Commission, Rapid Database, Press Releases IP 98/247; 98/397; 01/1196; 02/619; 02/635; 02/770 […]. 17 An insightful Interview with ‘The Lady’ is in: The Irrawaddy, Vol. 10, No. 3, April 2002: 8-9; a useful portrait of the NLD is in: ALTSEAN Burma, 2002: 22-24. 18 It has been argued that George Orwell’s Animal Farm, 1984 and Burmese Days can all be interpreted as a continuous reflection of the time he served in Burma as a British Colonial Police Office in the 1920s. 19 Re-named from State Law & Order Restoration Council, which took power in 1988; for cameo portraits of some of the SPDC members see: ALTSEAN Burma, 2002: 29, 39-45.

102

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

June 2005: 28); for others, it illustrates at the very least what Amnesty International called a ‘cynical contempt for basic human rights of the Burmese people’ (Amnesty International 1997, 1). It also highlights a number of deep-rooted dilemmas unique to Burma. Prevalent amongst them were the rôles and command structures of the armed forces and the strength and dilemma of ethnic divisions in Burma (C M Smith 2000, 34; Selth 2001, 15). The diverging EU-Asian attitudes regarding Burma’s 1997 accession to ASEAN revealed the Asian ‘engagement-oriented’ approach towards Rangoon and emphasised the contrast between a ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ Asian-style, which some called an ‘Asian inertia’ and the EU’s agenda of coercion (Solidum 2003, 106; Guardian 25 July 2003 and 12 October 2004). The debate focused on civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural ones on the other (ALTSEAN Burma 1997; Patiyasevi 1999; Tay and Goh Chien Yen 1999; Wiessala 2002a, 65/6; Solidum 2003, 60). The 1980 EU-ASEAN Cooperation Agreement was not extended to Burma, and EU policy was indicative of a system of coercion for the sake of human rights improvements. However, this EU strategy enjoyed varying support. It depended on Realpolitik (Wiessala 2002a, 144). The adoption of EUwide measures was at times predicated on single-issue lobbying (for example, for academic matters: THES 1 December 2000:3) and on specific, bilateral grievances, such as Denmark’s protest against the unexplained death of one of her diplomats20 who had been imprisoned for possessing two fax machines (King 1999, 333; Maung Myint 2000). The EU’s measures against the Burmese military aimed at compelling the junta to achieve a commitment to democracy and national reconciliation (ALTSEAN Burma 2002, 34/5). The EU legislative armoury ranged from an arms embargo to the rescinding, from 1997 onwards, of GSP trade preferences (European Parliament 1997c).21 It is worth noting that the EU’s GSP regime is unique in international comparison, in linking the granting of trade preferences additional to the WTO most-favoured-nation rate, to specific human rights conditionalities (Bartels 2005, 68). However, the bedrock of EU human rights sanctions policy in Burma was an instrument of the Common Foreign and Security Policy: Common Position 96/635/ CFSP,22 which was renewed beyond its expiry date every six months from 1996 onwards.23 This was supplemented by a number of measures, such as blanket export bans on equipment ‘which might be used for internal repression or terrorism’, visa

20 European Parliament: Written Question E-2274/96 (97/C 217/10) dealt with the case of James Leander Nichols. 21 COM (96) 711, of 18.12.1996 (industrial goods) and OJ C 35/14; COM (97) 58 (agricultural goods); Regulation (EC) No. 552/97, 24 March 1997; OJ L 85/8, 27.03.1997, p. 8; Regulation (EC) No. 1070/2003; OJ L 154/61, of 21 June 2003. 22 Common Position 96/635/CFSP, OJ L 287, 8 November 1996, p. 1; cf.: Gupwell 2000b, 23; for details of the Common Position. 23 For example, in 2003: 2003/297/CFSP, of 28 April 2003 (OJ L 106/36, 29.04.03); Commission 2003a, points 50, 753 and 958.

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

103

restrictions for members of the Burmese junta and a freeze of associated funds 24 (ALTSEAN 2003). Following the renewed arrest of Nobel Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi on 30 May 2003, the EU tightened the sanctions screw further, including, for the first time, measures against individual banks or businesses with links to the Burmese regime (Quigley 2003d, 26). The European Parliament responded to the situation in Burma on numerous occasions (Maung Myint 2000), by calling for the country to be brought before the UN Security Council and through answers to regular written questions fielded by individual MEPs.25 It appeared therefore that the EU’s strategies on Burma embodied a consummate institutional synergy between the assessments of European Parliament pressure, tactical Commission initiatives and Council of Ministers policy prescriptions. From 2004 onwards, there were signs of an emerging policy-shift. In response, perhaps, of criticism regarding its former ad-hoc approach (for example, Yawnghwe, 2005: 10), the EU now emphasised a new, twin-track, policy towards Burma, which moved it away from a sole focus on coercive measures. While unrelenting in the implementation of its sanction regime, the Union now revisited the strands of its earlier aid-oriented policy on Burma, emphasising, in particular, the plight of the Burmese population, instability along the border regions and proliferation of ethnic conflict and internal displacement, which were seen to be part of a ‘silent crisis’. The Commission now unveiled a new aid package, to the value of € 30-35 million in 2005, including funding for health, education and poverty alleviation.26 Whilst non-humanitarian and development initiatives remained suspended, the EU did open the door for programmes designed to improve democracy and human rights. A Burma-Day organised in April 2004 in order to draw attention to this policy-shift was, however, overshadowed by the EU’s decision to exclude opposition activists and Burmese human rights activists from this meeting and by a controversial report on EU sanctions policy authored by two academics. The report by Robert Taylor and Morten Pedersen called on the EU to refer to the country by its regime-name, Myanmar, to ease its sanctions regime and to resume high-level visits. The fact that it was widely perceived to represent an apologist viewpoint promulgated by a minority of anti-sanctions lobbyists showed how sensitive and politicized this issue had become (Shada Islam 2005, 15; Kent 2005, 29).

24 Council Decision (98/612/CFSP) of 26 October 1998, OJ L 291, of 30 October 1998, p. 1; Common Position 2000/346/CFSP, of 26 April 2000 and COM (2000) 299, of 16 May 2000; Council Regulation (EC) No.1081/2000, of 22 May 2000, OJ L 122/29, of 24 May 2000; see: Conclusions of 2518th Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 16 June 2003; Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1070/2003, 20 June 2003, OJ L 154/61, of 21 June 2003 […]. 25 For instance on the need for sanctions: E-2743/97 (98/C 134/25) of 1 September 1997; regarding the Karen ethnic group: E-3370/98 (1999/C297/091) of 15 October 1999. On the UN Security Council: EurAsia Bulletin, November-December 2005: 4. 26 http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/news/ferrero/2005/sp05_534.htm; see also: Commission, 2003g; ECHO, 2005.

104

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

On the whole, the EU’s policy agenda on Burma remained largely coercive and legalistic in nature. Despite the new emphasis on aid, it also remained very patchy. In early 2006, concrete links between the EU’s stance and human rights developments in Burma could not be established with any degree of certainty. On the inter-regional level, Burma developed into an obstacle to Asia-EU relations (Chongkittavorn The Nation, 4 September 1997). The ASEM 5 summit in Hanoi in October 2004, which was, for the first time, attended by Burmese representatives, added to a general sense of EU ‘inertia’ over human rights in Burma. It was the Phnom Penh Joint Communiqué, an unprecedented July 2003 rebuke from its fellow ASEAN members, rather then any previous or contemporary EU measures, which, according to some observers, prompted the SPDC into installing General Khin Nyunt as new Prime Minister in August 2003 and brought about the publication of a seven-step SPDC ‘road map’ for democratic transition in Burma, a document criticised as a ‘roadmap to nowhere’ (cf. Quigley 2003e; Friberg 2004, 2; Asian Affairs January 2005, 14/5). When Khin Nyunt was ‘permitted to retire for health reasons’ in 2004, hopes for an emerging democratic transition appeared thwarted again. There was a heightened level of EU-Burma diplomacy from 2004, aimimg at garnering international support for the setting of political criteria, akin to the ‘Copenhagen-Criteria’ for Eastern Europe, which might pave Burma’s way into ASEM. However, the Burmese generals strengthened their grip on power, were defiant towards world opinion and dug in ‘for the long haul’. The relocation of the Burmese capital to Pyinmana (Yan Lon), 250 miles north of Rangoon (Yan Gon), further isolated Burma’s democratic opposition. And in the absence of the NLD, the prospects for the widely-criticised National Convention, called for May 2004 remained bleak.27 In a parallel development, Burma began increasingly to turn to India and towards the regional economic grouping BIMST-EC28 in geo-political and economic matters (U Win Aung 2001). There was also a closer rapprochement in aid of military cooperation between Burma and ‘dangerous bedfellow’ North Korea (FEER 20 November 2003, 22). What is more, other international developments helped to undermine the EU’s attempts at coordinated coercion. Japan, Burma’s largest provider of Development Aid, began to lead Asian countries in breaking with Western-instigated sanctions. Attempts to generate a system of ‘corporate social responsibility’ sanctions, targeting multinational corporations such as Unocal who pursued harmful or simply ‘unwelcome’ business with Burma,29 became mired in a wider debate about the viability of sanctions to push for political change. This was 27 Press reporting: FEER, 25 September 2003, 16; 6 May 2004: 22; Economist 22 May 2004, 65; Bangkok Post 22 July 2005, 11; The Independent 8 November 2005, 28. 28 The Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand Economic Cooperation, or Bay-of-Bengal-Group; on BIMST-EC: Quigley 2004a, 1. 29 Laroche and Habbard (1996) have documented the case of the French Total Oil Company; on Unocal, see: The Irrawaddy Vol. 9, No. 4, May 2001, 16; Guardian 26 March 2003, 20 (Premier Oil); The Economist 12 April 2003, 61; FEER 11 July 2002, 14-16; on the withdrawal, in 2003, of British-American Tobacco (BAT): The Guardian, 7 November 2003: 23.

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

105

against the background of warnings that European investment in Burma supported internal oppression, and that ASEAN’s ‘constructive engagement’ approach was actually hurting the Burmese people (U Maung Maung 1997, 124; Transnational Institute and Burma Centrum Nederland 1998). Who was isolating whom in this game? (European Voice 18-24 October 2001; FEER 11 March 2004, 22; U Maung Maung 2003, 29; FEER 11 March 2004, 22). In conclusion to this section, EU Burma policy was a revealing example of the very limits the EU is facing as a hybrid between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism, in which foreign policy is often dependent on member states’ idiosyncrasies, histories and interstate- bargaining. Whilst it was significant that the EU did adhere to a more coercive philosophy towards Burma, the Union’s approach failed to deliver tangible change in the country. It has been suggested (for example, Friberg 2004, 3) that the immediate implications of this situation for the EU may lie in an exploitation of other ASEAN members’ diplomatic leverage on Burma, rather than in imposing what is seen as unilateral, externally-imposed, punitive sanctions. However, in mid-2006, a re-orientation of EU policies towards ASEAN along these lines was not yet apparent. Constructive Engagement: EU-China Relations and Human Rights Getting so large and complex a phenomenon as China into some reasonably accurate perspective has never been easy, even for informed and open-minded observers. China as a model, as stagnating, as heroic, as exotic and quaint, as a threat, brainwashed and regimented, in chaos and turmoil – the West has seen all those Chinas, and may yet see more. (Gregory 2003, 116).

The European Union’s policy framework regarding China (PRC) represents, arguably, the most comprehensive example30 of EU economic, cultural and general foreign policy interaction with any Asian country, embracing a large number of issues ranging from economics, trade and competition to human rights talks, science and technology. The EU-China ‘sectoral dialogues’ encompass environmental issues, energy and transport cooperation, satellite communication, tourism and a plethora of other areas, including civil aviation, textiles and academic collaboration (for example, Hong Zhou 2004). The People’s Republic of China has become the second largest trading partner of the EU after the United States. The EU is China’s largest trading partner (Eurostat: STAT/04/146; Rapid Database IP/05/924; FEER 6 May 2004, 30). In the early part of the Twenty-First Century, assessments of Sino-EU contacts were frequently positive, describing the state of relations rather idiosyncratically as ‘more than love’, and somewhere ‘between love and pragmatism’ (FEER 12 February 2004; Rapid Database SPEECH/04/227; Bersick 2005, 9). More sober 30 For a media survey of the contemporary dialogue, some good examples are: FEER 12 February 2004, 26 and 6 May 2004, 30; European Voice, 27 May – 2 June 2004, 14; see also the Commission’s ‘Stock-Taking’ Paper on China of April 2005 (FS D (2005).

106

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

assessments of the rationale for closer China-EU relations typically concentrated on a convergence of European and Chinese foreign policies and stressed the position of China and the EU as poles of an emerging global axis and fellow travellers on the road to a containment of US power (for example, Watts 2005). At the same time, more critical voices have pointed to a European Union ‘hell-bent’ on wooing China (Economist 15 January 2005, 40). EU policy on China proved, in the words of Chris Patten, ‘the most embarrassing indication of the gulf between European rhetoric and reality’ (Patten 1998, 303). Over the last decade, the most striking development in the context of the EUChina dialogue has, without doubt, been the steady increase in the mechanics and complexity of its agenda (Wiessala 2002a, 93/4; D. Freeman 2004; European Voice 23-29 October 2003, 29). As a consequence of this, Algieri’s assertion (2002, 64/5) that China now holds a ‘dominant’ status within the EU’s external relations agenda, seems entirely accurate. Investigating the Chinese point of view, Nathan and Gilley find (2002, 212) that, ‘since most of Europe shares China’s aim of checking overly assertive American power, the Chinese leaders believe that they can magnify China’s influence by cooperating with the European powers.’ This seems to be borne out by the relevant Chinese foreign policy blueprints such as the strategy paper on relations with the EU (see below). However, on account of the many well-documented human rights violations in the PRC and the setbacks in Chinese legal reform (Amnesty International 1998; FEER March 2006, 23), China-EU contacts were also often unpredictable. They continue to be so in 2006. How then have political relations and diplomatic perceptions in the Sino-EU relationship developed and how is the ChinaEU link viewed by policy-makers on both sides? Early EC-China contacts were often labelled ‘derivative’ of wider ‘world order aspirations’ (Möller 2002, 14) and of the Cold War. In addition to this, the EU’s Single Market priorities kept China largely ‘off the main EU radar screens’ for a long time (Edmonds 2002, 1). The dialogue considerably accelerated during the 1990s, owing to the demise of Communism in Eastern Europe, which led to an intensified EU agenda as regards human rights and democratisation. This coincided with significant constitutional reform in China’s post-Deng economy during a period, which Youngs (2001, 165) delineates as a development ‘from totalitarianism to authoritarian pluralism’, or ‘rational authoritarianism’ (Weber 1998; Buckley 1994 and 1999; Zhao and McGough, 2001). Zhang (2003, 12) posits that this reform process in the People’s Republic represented ‘attempts at political rationalisation aimed at facilitating rapid economic development, not democratisation as the term is understood in the West, at improving the efficiency of the existing political system, not abandoning it’. Following early Trade Agreements (in 1978 and 1985; Algieri 2002, 69), the EU managed its later China policy on the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty (Tseng, Su-Ling 2001, 171-174). The European Commission in particular, achieved a high degree of focus in its China policy, based on the ‘one-China principle’, ideas of

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

107

constructive ‘engagement’ and conditionality in human rights matters.31 (Tseng SuLing 2001, 180; Edmonds 2002, 3; Bersick 2005, 9). There are few other countries in Asia which have been the subject of such intensive strategic planning and ‘declaratory diplomacy’ on the side of the European Commission: in more than five major Communications on China in the space of eight years (Commission, 1995b, 1998b, 2000e, 2001a, 2003e) the EU Executive sought to reconcile political concerns with economic circumstances, refining its approach after the return to Hong Kong (1997) and Macao (1999) to China (Commission 1997a, 1998c, 1999, 2000a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002b, 2002c, 2003e; Hook and Santos Neves 2002).32 In March 2002, the Commission published a comprehensive Country Strategy Paper on China. This was followed, in 2003, by an updated strategy, updating the two major blueprints of 1998 and 2001. These and other relevant documents invoked a new ‘maturity’ in EU-China relations, but also censored China’s human rights record. Overall, they rehearsed the wider themes of earlier strategies: the position of the PRC as a ‘strategic partner’ of the EU, the ‘one China’ principle, ‘engagement’ of the PRC in international affairs, priority-status of human rights and enhanced EU visibility. Human rights, although partially strengthened by these strategies, remained largely subsidiary to the goals of democratization, economic opening in mainland China and the further involvement of the PRC in international affairs, multi-lateral fora and the ASEM process.33 On 13 October 2003, differences over human rights were thrown into relief by the contemporaneous publication of a set of new Council Conclusions on China on the one hand, and of the Chinese Government’s first-ever Policy Paper on China-EU Relations on the other. While the EU remained concerned about the ‘significant gap still existing between the current human rights situation in China and the internationally accepted standards’,34 the Chinese paper strongly discouraged any direct contacts between the EU and Taiwan and requested of the EU not to facilitate any ‘separatist activities of the Dalai Clique’. This was also the first ‘official’ Chinese document calling for an end to the EU’s arms embargo.35 By the end of 2003, both the Chinese strategy and the EU’s own China papers concurred, at the very least, on two general points: the one-China-principle and the desire that the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue should continue to be embedded in an increasing number of sector-specific dialogue mechanisms. In this spirit, the EUChina summits in 2003 agreed new initiatives on a wide range of areas, including

31 EU Annual Report on Human Rights, 2000, pp. 31/2, 100, 126 (pt. 3); 2001, p. 38; Council Conclusions of 18 March 2003, at point 10. 32 COM (95) 279; COM (98) 181; COM (2000) 552 and COM (2001) 265 on the PRC, COM (97) 171 (Hong Kong) and COM (99) 484 (Macao). 33 COM (2003) 533, p. 4 and at points 2, 3.1-3.3 pp. 7-15; see: Rapid Database, IP/03/1231 and: European Voice, 23-29 October 2003: 29. 34 General Affairs Council (GAC): External Relations: China Council Conclusions 13 October 2003. 35 http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/77157.htm; see: Delegation of the European Commission in China, Press Release of 14 October 2003.

108

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

satellite technology and tourism,36 while divergences over human rights continued to demonstrate the limitations of EU-China dialogue.37 Subsequent summit meetings in 2004 and 2005 and the Commission’s 2005 ‘action points’ on ‘stocktaking’ the EU-China relationship,38 have offered few diversions from this recurring pattern of a ‘mushrooming’ dialogue across many sectors.39 The advance of this EU policy of ‘constructively engaging’ Beijing was also shaped in a number of decisive ways by the European Parliament. The EP voiced its increasingly vocal criticism of China in a number of Resolutions and Declarations40 and through its own Human Rights Committee (for example, EP 1997b). The opinions of the Economic and Social Committee,41 the Conclusions of the Council of Ministers42 and a large number of statements of EU External Relations Commissioner Patten43 gave an added thrust to the EU’s policy-mix on China, emphasising, for example, such matters as human rights education, cultural rights and religious freedoms. As a consequence of these and other influences, the EU attempted in its China Policy, to build up a ‘results-orientated’ method, insisting, on numerous occasions, on ‘engaging’ the PRC, on an ‘open debate’ and on ‘progress on the ground’ and ‘dialogue backed by action’ as conditions upon which any future intensification and diversification of the dialogue would have to be predicated (Brittan 1998, 8; Möller 2002, 22; Commission 2001a, 11; 2003e, 13). In opting for this kind of foreign policy, the Commission can been said to have taken its cue from the policy arsenal of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as Human Rights in China (HRIC),44 who frequently expressed concern about the possibility that ‘dialogue without pressure is nothing but appeasement’ (Angle 2002, 256/7; HRIC 1997). In addition to this, many multilateral fora involving the EU and China, such as the 1994 ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the Shanghai Cooperation Association (Austin 2002; Nathan and Gilley 2002, 211) or the AsiaEurope Meeting (ASEM, from 1996), had already made available further blueprints for engagement-oriented policy strategies. The EU’s method of ‘constructive engagement’ in its policies towards the PRC was thus both fed and driven by a number of diverse inspirations, strategies and antecedents, many of them originating 36 On increased Chinese tourism to Europe, see: FEER, 26 February 2004: 42. 37 The Economist, 31 October 2003: 11; European Voice, 23-29 October 2003: 1 and 29; 30 October- 5 November 2003: 2; Rapid Database, IP/03/1377. 38 Brussels, FS D (2005); contact: [email protected]. 39 For the 2005 summit, see, for example, Rapid Database, IP/05/478. 40 For example, OJ C 200, 30 June 1997, p. 158; OJ C 328, 26 October 1998, p. 186; 1999-2000 Resolutions: B5-0050,0064, 0079 and 0083/2000, especially of 17 February 2000 (cf.: EURAsia Bulletin, February 2000, 22); see also: EP Document A4-0169/98, at page 18. 41 OJ C 158, 26 May 1997, p. 42. 42 General Affairs Council (GAC) 20 March 2000; 22 January 2001; 19 March 2001; 11 March 2002; 18 March 2003. 43 For example, ‘Engaging China’; EU-China Academic Network Annual Conference, London 1998. 44 http://iso.hrichina.org/iso/.

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

109

in NGO activities. Against this background, the Union’s main rationale governing its China policy, remained focused on the commercial lure of the PRC. Human rights issues, by contrast, were often given second place to trade talks. As Ward observes, these matters had to compete with ‘other considerations of foreign policy, such as commercial and geopolitical interests (Ward 1998, 505). In connection with the latter in particular, China’s international political clout was further augmented by a number of significant events: it became a member of the WTO (on 11 December 2001);45 further strengthened its position as a global manufacturing centre; and it successfully bid for the 2008 Olympic Games. Taken together, these individual developments amounted to a significant increase in Chinese standing and influence on the international stage. In parallel with these individual events, a new Chinese leadership of ‘caring communists’ under Hu Jintao (Nathan and Gilley 2002; Freeman 2003a) took office in 2003. It consolidated its position throughout 2004 and 2005 by means of the promulgation of the Three Represents Theory (sange daibiao). This concept sought to subsume entrepreneurship, private property and the emerging middle classes in China46 into the reformed strategy of the Chinese Communist Party, by seeking to encompass all Chinese national discourse while eschewing further political freedoms. Paradoxically, the move tended to accentuate areas of change in Chinese society, where the democratic deficit was articulated most keenly, such as among the new urban middles classes47 or in the case of rural ownership reform (Fewsmith 2001, 230; Jiang Zemin 2001; Nathan and Gilley 2002, 48, 88, 133, 167/8; Yang 2003, 28/29; Gungwu 2003, 10). Many of these developments had an inhibitory effect on an already awkward EU-China Human Rights Dialogue. Paul Lim astutely formulates the resulting challenge for contemporary EU-China relations (Lim 2001, 97): ‘China, in particular, does not tolerate public criticism of its human rights record, although it is willing to engage in dialogue privately’. Relevant Chinese publications such as the Human Rights Journal (Chinese Society for Human Rights Studies, 2002) or the Chinese Government’s first European Union Policy Paper of October 2003 mirrors this situation. The resulting ‘divergence of opinion’ (Fouquet 2001, 4) and what Tong Jia-Dong (2001, 196) euphemistically terms the ‘political disturbance’ in Sino-EU relations, confirmed the position of the PRC as a distant – and often a divisive – neighbour for the EU. On human rights, the Commission’s 2005 ‘stocktaking’ paper on China-EU contacts confirmed that (FS D 2005, at point 0.2), ‘the regular human rights dialogues produced marginal concrete results – more progress is needed’. Moreover, the ‘relaxation’ in the focus of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) on China from 1997 onwards (Baker 2002, 55/6; Clapham 1999, 628; Morphet 2000, 102; Edmonds 2002, 4; Möller 2002, 21/2, 24/5; King 45 The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan (‘Chinese Taipeh’, in EU parlance) joined separately in January 2002. 46 See the article by Unger in: FEER, April 2006: 27-31. 47 FEER 28 August 2003, 26 and 30 September 2004, 30; Guardian 23 December 2003, 12; The Economist, A Survey of China, 25 March 2006.

110

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

1999, 327; Close and Askew 2004, 107/8) was criticised as the result of a deliberate Chinese strategy: a ploy designed to exploit rifts between EU members (Clapham 1999, 646, fn. 59; Hutchinson 2000, 216; Close and Askew 2004, 106). The Tiananmen Square massacre of 4 June 1989 (King 1999, 323; Fewsmith 2001, 202) placed EU-Chinese relations in a further quandary, summarized concisely by Gregory (2003, 177): ‘the West remains eager to participate in, and profit from, China’s economic modernization, but is also wary of its potential power and disapproving of many of its policies both domestic and foreign’. Signs of this underlying dilemma resurfaced in a number of ways in more recent EU-China relations. One example was the widely-analysed EU refusal, in June 2004, to designate the PRC as a ‘market economy’ without action on rights (for example, D Freeman 2004, 11). In 2005, further debates raged in both the media and in academic writing about the most appropriate EU approach to the PRC. The discussions surrounded, in particular, the proposed lifting of the EU arms embargo imposed on the PRC in the aftermath of the 1989 killings (Bersick 2005, 10/11).48 Against the background of these arguments and of a Chinese government which continued to couple ‘economic liberalism’ with ‘political authoritarianism’ (Yang 2003, 40; China’s EU Policy Paper 13 October 2003), EU China strategy, on human rights as well as in other matters, concentrated on fostering a new, more ‘integrative’, dialogue. This was largely predicated upon a widely-held and muchdebated hypothesis. The idea was that economic modernisation in the PRC would engender a new middle class and tie in with political and social reforms (Apodaca 2002, 905; Damkjær 1999, 13; Hutchings 2000, 216; Lu 2003, 6; Zhang 2003, 13; The Economist 5 March 2005). This assumption regularly informed the EU’s human rights budget, as well as the Commissions China policies.49 There were, indeed, some indications of economic growth having an impact on the political-cultural orientations of the Chinese public (Wang et al 2004). But the emergence of a middle class in the PRC was not an automatic precursor to a functioning democracy and civil society (Unger 2006), and, in 2006, one survey50 concluded: ‘whereas economically, China has surged ahead in the past few years, politically it remains almost as secretive, just as risk-averse, nearly as dictatorial and every bit as determined to crush any organised dissent as it was at the turn of the decade’. Outside of human rights dialogues, EU-Chinese cooperation was situated within a framework for which Meissner (2002, 194/5) coins the term ‘enlarged culture’. EUChina cooperation was certainly of a very wide-ranging nature (Wiessala 2002a, 93/4; 2002c; Mathews 2003, 5-7). It can be argued that the very extent of relations was, in itself, a result of a strategy of ‘constructive engagement’. This was a technique that 48 EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 8, Nos. 1 & 2, January-February 2004: 1; European Voice, 6-12 May 2004: 2 and 7; 27 May - 2 June 2004: 14; 29 July – 1 September 2004: 8 FEER, 22 April 2004: 21; Guardian, 2 August 2004: 14. 49 COM (95) 279, pp. 3 – 5, 19; COM (98), 181, pp. 3, 9-11; COM (2000) 552, pp. 6, 10, 14; COM (2001) 265, pp. 3, 6, 7, 8, 20; Rapid Database: SPEECH/04/227. 50 The Economist, see Fn. 52.

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

111

was shown to have been ‘borrowed’ (Möller 2002, 22) from the ASEAN vocabulary. The annual EU-China summits (from 1997) and the biannual, institutionalised, EUChinese Human Rights Dialogue (from 1995), in many observers’ eyes, confirmed the EU’s engagement-led political dialogue with China (Baker 2002, 58; Lu 2003, 5). But they also helped to expose continuing Sino-EU rifts and divergences. The Human Rights Dialogue (HRD), which was initiated by China in 1995, very much like the wider EU-China cooperation, developed a tendency towards ‘branching out’. This took an institutionalised form, through the instigation of new, human-rights-focused, programmes, and a multi-level form, with Germany and other member states pursuing their own human rights dialogues with the PRC and the EU-China HRD both feeding from and contributing to them. On the EU level, the HRD soon spurned human-rights-themed sub-categories, such as the EU-China Human Rights Small Projects Facility, the EU-China Human Rights Legal Seminars, the EU-China Legal and Judicial Programme, the Village Governance Project and many others (cf.: Commission, 2000e,7). The EU has emphasised on many occasions that the existence of these initiatives will not distract it from criticising China’s human rights record and so far this has been largely the case. As Quigley points out (2004, 9), ‘after eight years with the China HRD, the EU has only minor successes to point to and China continues to suppress human rights’. There are many recurring issues feeding such concerns and criticisms: Chinese compliance with the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN 1995, Docs. 31 and 32; Lu 2003, 5);51 the Sinification of Tibet, the treatment of the Falun Gong religious community; the ‘anti-subversion’ legislation in Hong Kong and the Taiwan Secession Law represent just some pertinent examples of current debates (Nathan and Gilley 2002, 111; Yang 2003, 25; Amnesty International 1998; Butenhoff 1999, 116; Hook and Santos Neves 2002; Angle 2002; Cushnahan 2003; Freeman 2003b). One possible way of coming to a conclusion on the EU’s foreign policy strategies towards China is to point out, with Padolecchia (European Voice 31 May-6 June 2001), that the EU displayed much-needed diplomatic skill, caution and restraint in its China policies. In general, the fact that recent US foreign policy conceived of the PRC as a ‘strategic rival’, to be contained, and that the EU’s own approach contrasted markedly with this by constructing China as a ‘strategic partner’, rather than a competitor, was widely commented upon. The EU’s methods were lauded by some observers who, on the whole, considered it more realistic than a ‘big-stick’ policy on human rights (for example, Lu 2003, 6). However, such criticism as was levelled at the approach of ‘constructively engaging’ the PRC, revolved around market forces ‘winning’ over human rights concerns and liberties being ‘sold out’ and ‘sacrificed’ on the altar of business. Ward (1998, 520) observes that the PRC was another example of ‘a state whose relations have been structured within a framework which is immune from a legally binding commitment to human rights and democracy 51 These were signed by the PRC in 1997 and 1998. The ICESCR was ratified by China on 28 February 2001.

112

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

standards’. More specifically, Baker (2002, 62) blames disunity among EU member states for the failings of the relationship. Toby King concludes (1999, 328) that China was ‘an especially delicate test of the Union’s commitment to human rights’, and Richard Youngs emphasises (2001, 188/9) that EU human rights promotion in China became ‘disarticulated’ from wider questions of democracy, for the sake of commercial advantage. The case for human rights appeared, however, to have been made more strongly in the EU’s handling of Hong Kong or Macao, following their return to Chinese sovereignty (Wiessala 2002a, 98-101).52 In summary, it can be argued that, on the whole, the EU’s agenda of ‘constructive’, or ‘engaged’ dialogue engendered significant change in some areas. However, the dynamism of the processes supposed to lead from economic to political change in China appeared often over-stated. John S. Gregory encapsulates this best (2003, 197): ‘certainly we should not expect greater economic openness to the West to advance political freedom and diversity within China for some time yet’. Constitutional Consolidation: EU-Indonesia Relations and Human Rights This section examines the EU’s human rights stance towards Indonesia and the newly independent ‘infant micro-state’ (Friend 2003, 455) of East Timor. It argues that EU policy towards Indonesia was embedded in a wider dialogue on democracy, based on the notion of ‘shared interests’ and on the rising importance of Indonesia in the South East Asian region and globally. EU Indonesia strategy differed significantly from the Union’s agendas implemented in China or Burma. This was, firstly, because Indonesia was one of the latest countries to be targeted for human rights promotion, and, secondly, because from the point of view of the EU, Indonesia was a case of bringing ‘constitutional cohesion’ to a political culture in transition. Eldridge (2002, 58) characterises this situation as follows: ‘Indonesia is difficult to categorize, having recently experienced its first broadly “free and fair” election since 1955, but with the direction of constitutional and institutional reforms still uncertain, and the future role of the military remains unresolved (cf. also: Quigley 2004, 10-11). The EU sought to overcome this fundamental unpredictability by choosing an approach which focused on conflict prevention and the institutional entrenchment of human rights policies. Preceding the demise of President (Haji Mohamed) Suharto, Indonesia’s ‘benevolent dictator’, on 21 May 1998, the EU’s involvement with ‘NewOrder’ Indonesia (Damkjær, 1999, 13; Uhlin 1999, 1; Honna, 2003) was limited, inadequately-funded and biased by perceptions of the ‘East Timor problem’. Based on the 1980 EU-ASEAN Agreement, relations concerned aid, the CFSP and East

52 Hong Kong: COM (97) 171 (Strategy Paper), COM (98) 796; COM (2000) 294; COM (2001) 431; COM (2002) 450 (Reports); Macao: COM (1999) 484 (Strategy paper); COM (2001) 432, COM (2002) 445 (Reports).

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

113

Timor,53 until the territory became independent, as the new nation of Timor Loro Sa’e, on 20 May 2002. Youngs criticises this policy incoherence (2001, 145): ‘European policy towards Indonesia prior to 1998 provided one of the most notable cases of the paucity of both democracy promotion strategy and EU unity’. And Vatikiotis remarked (1993, 169): ‘in true mercantilist fashion, few governments with a commercial stake in Indonesia were bent on becoming too insistent on progress towards democratization, and the ostriches multiplied’. A number of subsequent developments accelerated the emergence of a more detailed EU relationship with Indonesia: EU-ASEAN relations were at an all-time low, and the issue of Burma was widely perceived to be ‘wagging the dog’ of EU policy towards the whole of Southeast Asia (Tay and Goh Chien Yen 1999; Ciorciari 2003, 33). Bilateralism in EU-Asia relations was on the ascendant. Indonesia became a beneficiary of this, because the country went through a ‘sea of troubles’ (Gupwell 2000a, 6) and slid into what Friend (2003, 460) describes as a state of ‘anarchodemocracy’. This provoked renewed debates about Indonesia’s ‘leadership-rôle’ in the region since the Asian Financial Crisis, and in the context of a perceived move away from ASEAN principles of non-interference (Haacke 2003, 165; Anwar 2003, 59-68). At the same time, democratization and economic liberalization gradually accelerated in parallel with the presidential terms of B. J. Habibie (May 1998), Abdurrahman Wahid (October 1999) Megawati Sukarnoputri (July 2001) and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (September 2004). The latter two Presidents, chosen in direct elections, presided over a fledgling constitutional reform. Some interpreted this as a sign of Indonesia ‘slouching towards democracy’ (Nguyen and Richter 2003, 73), or rising, kite-like, ‘against the wind’ (Friend 2003, 524). However, ‘Asian Flu’ in 1997/8 profoundly disrupted the country’s political and social fabric (INFID 2002; R Islam 1998, 16), and Marzuki Darusman, a former Indonesian attorney-general, cautioned (2001, 45): ‘the changes in Indonesia were crisis-induced and the crisis was financial. The change was not primarily democratically generated’. Arguing in a similar direction, Hikam added (1999, 18) that in Indonesia, ‘the democracy is hardly around the corner’. As Indonesia moved towards the 1999 General Election, the response by a clearly impressed EU intensified significantly. Indonesia’s development, after all, was seen to be crucial for the EU’s overall efforts to establish a wider human rights dialogue with an increasingly confident South East Asia (Damkjær 1999, 14). In its policies, the EU aimed at justice reform, conflict-prevention, lessening the influence of the military and the promotion of non-corrupt government in Indonesia. Soon bilateral relations were praised as ‘at their warmest for more than three decades’ (European Voice 4-10 March 1999). EU aid programming (Commission 2002d) extended to those parts of the Indonesian state which strove for more autonomy, such as West and 53 Common Positions on East Timor: 1996/407/CFSP, OJ L 168, of 6 July 1996; 1999/624/CFSP, OJ L 245, 16/17 September 1999 and 1999/479/CFSP, OJ L 188, 21 July 1999; EP Resolution: Human Rights Violations in East Timor and Indonesia, OJ C 269, p. 168, of 16 October 1995.

114

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Central Kalimantan, Central Sulawesi and Irian Jaya (cf.: Gupwell, 2000a, 7; Malley 2003, 139/140; Friend 2003, 477-480; Honna 2003). The European Union also lent its support to an agreement between the central government and the province of Aceh (Allen and Smith 2003, 109). This particular policy choice did not, however, signify any official endorsement of regional independence or decentralisation.54 As in the case of the ‘one-China-principle’, the EU attempted to walk a political tightrope between human rights promotion and cautious diplomacy, which, by and large, supported Indonesia’s overall territorial integrity, seeking, at times to present the EU as an example of successfully integrated diversity.55 The European Parliament was often more outspoken in advocating a strengthened dialogue with individual Indonesian regions.56 In the context of EU Indonesia policies, East Timor always represented a special scenario: its independence, following the UN-sponsored referendum, was widely debated. The situation was conceptualized within a framework of European, (that is, Portuguese,) ‘colonial abandonment’ by at least one observer (Singh 1995, xix). Others (Nevins 2002, 624) investigates more closely the violence during the 1999 Independence Referendum, examining issues such as ‘rogue elements’, ‘military hierarchy’ and ‘international complicity’. Friend (2003, 433, 451) in particular, focuses on the responsibilities and failures of the Indonesian military leadership. Aware of these enhanced levels of discourse (see also, Gupwell 2000c; Friend 2003, 454; Nguyen and Richter 2003), the EU reacted to the violence surrounding the Referendum, increasing its financial and humanitarian assistance.57 The Union appeared outwardly supportive of the former Portuguese colony’s independence, while, at the same time, unwilling to fully accept the illegality, and tacit international tolerance, of Indonesia’s annexation on 7 December 1975 (cf. Nevins 2002 626; Ramos-Horta 1997, 7; ECHO 2001; Rapid Database IP/00/294). This is reflected in some of the CFSP instruments the EU adopted, including an arms embargo.58 Three developments, in particular, may be seen as primarily responsible for altering the course of subsequent EU Indonesia policies: firstly, the funding released to relieve the consequences of the violence surrounding the popular consultation of 30 August 1999 (Kreissl-Dörfler 2001); secondly, the rescinding of the controversial59 1999 arms embargo (cf. Fouquet 2000, 3; EurAsia Bulletin, January 2000: 3/4) 54 On independence movements in Indonesia: Asiaweek, 26 November 1999: 30-33; Asiaweek, 16 June 2000: 24; The Economist, 2 February 2002: 62; Guardian, 10 December 2002: 6; Rapid Database: IP/02/618. 55 Speech (Chris Patten): International Dialogues Foundation, The Hague, 12/13 May 2000. 56 European Commission: General Report on the Activities of the European Union 2002, at point 956; see: EURAsia Bulletin, Vol. 6, Nos. 5 & 6, May-June 2002: 44/5 . 57 See Rapid Database, IP/00/294; IP/00/389; IP/01/778 for details. 58 For example: Common Position 96/407/CFSP; 99/479/CFSP; 99/624/CFSP. 59 Council Regulation (EC) No. 2158/1999, of 11 October 1999, OJ L 265, pp. 1-7; this was a legislative implementation instrument for Common Position 1999/624/CFSP, OJ L 245 of 17 September 1999; the EU also initiated a Common Position on the Referendum in East Timor (1999/479/CFSP).

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

115

and, thirdly, the EU Election Observation Mission (EOM) covering the Presidential election in East Timor. In 2002, and again in 2004, these three stimuli were interwoven with poverty alleviation, and other ‘cross-cutting’, development-related, themes into Country Strategy Papers for East Timor, which acknowledged the pre-independence human rights violations by Indonesia (cf. Amnesty International 1991, 1; RamosHorta 1997, 6; Singh 1995, Chapter 4). The EU’s Indonesia policy now began to take its cue from the ‘historic changes’ (EU-Indonesia Joint Declaration, 14 June 2000, Doc. No. 00/132) Indonesia was undergoing. Consequently, new policies revolved around taking a ‘non-coercive’ approach, emphasising the ‘complementarities’ of human rights promotion, poverty alleviation and other strands. The Commission’s paper on Developing Closer Relations between Indonesia and the European Union60 was a good example of this strategy: it reflected the EU’s intentions to achieve a more intensive relationship with Indonesia in the context of the Union’s ties with ASEAN and the wider South East Asian region. The strategy awarded a high priority to the achievement of constitutional reform, security, eradication of corruption, environmental cooperation, progressive detachment of the Indonesian army from their political functions (cf. Honna 2003, 89-107) and the restructuring of the economy. This method was consolidated through the conclusions of the General Affairs Council61 and the EU-Indonesia Joint Declaration of 14 June 2000. In addition to this, the Commission’s Country Strategy Paper (CSP, 2002-2006) and National Indicative Programme (NIP, 2005-2006) for Indonesia aimed at consolidating the rule of law and at moving from a ‘crony-based system to good government’ (cf.: Quigley 2004d, 10). These policy blueprints sought to institutionalize regular political and security dialogue and to promote conditions favourable to social and economic stability, decentralisation and democracy (pp. 5/6, 10, 23, 36). These new policy documents also added significant ‘updated’ policy objectives and commitments, such as counter-terrorism (cf. Chapter Seven), support to public finance management, educational and environmental issues. But in spite of this current, largely optimistic dynamism of EU-Indonesia relations, it is predominantly the human rights situation in Indonesia which continues to determine the amount of progress and stagnation in the bilateral dialogue. Christie and Roy maintain (2001, 152) that, ‘after Myanmar, the main target of western pressure for changing human rights in Southeast Asia is Indonesia’. Human rights issues in Indonesia and East Timor were the subject of a number of European Parliament Resolutions and Council Declarations over the years, especially in 1999, the year of both the Referendum in East Timor and of the General Election in Indonesia.62 The transition and mutability of Indonesian politics was further highlighted by two reports 60 COM (2000) 50, of 2 February 2000; summary at: Rapid Database: IP/00/98; EURAsia Bulletin, February 2000: 28; August-September 2000: 29/30; October 2000: 25. 61 GAC Council, 20 March 2000, for example, at points 7 a) - c) and h); GAC Council of 14/15 May 2001, for example, at points 2 (i) and (iii). 62 For example: OJ C 104, 14 April 1999; OJ C 279, 1 October 1999 (Parliament); Press Release 11129/99 (presse 278) P94/99, 21 September 1999 (Council).

116

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

in the summer of 2003, which commented on the disproportionate use of provisions on ‘defamation’ in the Indonesian Criminal Code, and on other human rights failures (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, both of July 2003). In conclusion, there are signs that the EU’s largely ‘non-coercive’ approach towards Indonesia is beginning to pay some peace dividends. On the one hand, the policy of working towards Constitutional Consolidation in Indonesia was instrumental in establishing a measure of ‘equilibrium’ between economic recovery and democratisation. There is also little doubt that EU-Indonesia policy represents one of the fastest EU responses to nascent democratic transition anywhere, showing the Union’s potential to adapt foreign policy at short notice. On the other hand, however, any political equilibrium in Indonesia remains questionable and volatile. Progress is often hampered by a sluggish reform process (FEER 26 June 2003), persisting human rights problems, rising levels of corruption and cronyism, a culture of violence and frequent leadership change at the top of the Indonesian political hierarchy. Furthermore, the Bali, Marriott Hotel, and Australian Embassy bombings, concerns over increased terrorist activity in Indonesia and the trials of alleged members of Jemaah Islamiah (Gunaratna, 2003, 232-3) are catalytic – as well as cataclysmic – events.63 Although terrorism affected Indonesia long before the Bali bombing, these events, in particular, impact heavily on Indonesia’s economy and international reputation. They also reveal some of the future challenges in EU-Indonesia relations. Moreover, whilst the EU’s approach to Indonesia was thus significant in a number of areas, it did little to resolve more long-term issues, such as ecological problems (European Voice 3-9 July 2003: 6), the resurgence of the former ruling Golkar party (FEER 18 December 2003, 24-26; Economist 20 December 2003, 92/3) the Suharto legacy or the question of ultimate responsibility for the 1999 referendum-related violence (Kreissl-Dörfler 2001; Nevins 2002; Friend 2003, 453/4). Chapter Conclusions This chapter has investigated a number of individual case studies with particular relevance to the EU’s Asia policies. Three of these case studies have covered EU cooperation with individual countries in Asia (China, Burma, Indonesia), whilst the fourth one has scrutinised a number of CFSP instruments the EU implemented in relation to countries on the Asian Continent. The chapter has examined these cases against the background of the ‘enabling’ and the ‘inhibitory’ function of human rights, which was found, throughout earlier chapters, to be a hallmark of so much of the cooperation between the EU and its Asian partners. In continuation of the previous parts of this book, this chapter has, once again, looked at EU-Asia relations from a perspective sympathetic to constructivist interpretations of international affairs. In 63 Rapid Database: IP/02/1467; IP/02/1511 and the Council Conclusions of 21 October 2002 for the EU reaction to the Bali bombing, and Commission, 2003a: at point 956; on terrorism in Indonesia and the 2004 Elections; for the Presidency see: FEER , 25 March 2004: 18; 10 June 2004: 18; 17 June 2004: 17; 8 July 2004: 14; 15 July 2004: 16 and 20.

Policy Practices, Priorities and Patterns in EU-Asia Policy

117

the context of this chapter, this has meant looking at how a range of policy-choices is defined and which ‘road-maps’, ‘interests’ and foreign policy ‘patterns’ were chosen by the EU in the construction of its detailed relationship with countries in Asia. The chapter has argued that, at the very least, four different structural routines are discernible, through which the EU attempted to transmit and communicate its human rights ideas and political agendas to Asia. Notwithstanding this, it should be emphasised that this chapter does not lay claim to offering a full and complete survey of EU-Asia ‘policy categories’, and, furthermore, that there are many overlaps between the EU’s bilateral methods analysed here, and the multilateral policyagendas of the Asia-Europe Meeting and other fora. With these caveats in place, the Combined Coordination of the members states, expressed in the format of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was found to possess a strong focus on matters of security. Whilst the EU’s ‘Asian’ CFSP embraced traditional concepts of security in the first place, on account of a plethora of security-hotspots in Asia, there were also signs that the CFSP was being used in order to address wider social and cultural matters. The last chapter of this book will look at these developments in some more detail under the keyword of Comprehensive Extension. The case study of Burma (Myanmar) was found to embody a number of aspects of the wider EUAsia relations examined throughout this book. Some of these concerned the issue of ‘Asian values’, the EU-ASEAN relationship, the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and a particular form of the EU’s Asian CFSP. Many of these issues were investigated in earlier chapters. EU policies on Burma were thus found to be another illustration of the ‘inhibitory’ potential of human rights in EU-Asia relations. In the context of this chapter, the EU’s policies on Burma were, by and large, examples of Coordinated Coercion, with a focus on human rights sanctions. On account of the mixed results this policy of isolation produced, the EU was found, in 2005/6, to be moving away from a sole focus on a punitive policy arsenal towards the implementation of new, and the strengthening of older, humanitarian, approaches embracing a wider scope. The EU’s policy-choice to the Republic of Indonesia was seen in this chapter, to have been conditioned by a three-fold development: the occurrence of rapid political change since 1998; the position Indonesia holds for overall EU relations with South East Asia; and the rôle Indonesia has, in terms of regional security and counterterrorism. EU-Indonesia relations were found to be expressing a policy-choice of Constitutional Consolidation. This was a largely non-coercive method, through which the EU sought to address urgent domestic political concerns in Indonesia, such as the entrenchment of military power and local autonomy movements, whilst at the same time working with Indonesia as a perceived ‘leader’ in ASEAN. In the case of the People’s Republic of China – representing the EU’s most diversified and ‘branched-out’ EU relationship with any Asian country – the chapter found that the EU’s perceptions and interests led to the consolidation of a strategy of Constructive Engagement. This method, partly borrowed from the ASEAN political vocabulary, relied on political assumptions regarding the potential for, and dynamics of, economic and political change in the PRC, which could not always be proven to be true. This rendered the EU-China relationship partly successful at best. In 2006, the

118

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

dialogue, including the institutionalised ‘human rights dialogue’, remained patchy and susceptible to political manipulation and a prioritisation of market forces over human rights considerations. The next chapter will home in, as it were, on those areas of EU Asia Policy, found throughout this chapter and in previous ones, which lend themselves particularly well for a consideration of the ‘widening’ of EU-Asia relations and the Comprehensive Extension of human rights concerns.

Chapter 7

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

The ‘East-West-www’ of Learning: Education and EU-Asia Contacts It seems unlikely that the EU will succeed in setting itself free from the narrowmindedness, so typical for an economic cocoon. Indicative for this state of mind was the triumphant declaration – at the European summit meeting in Lisbon – that the EU should become the “most competitive and knowledge intensive economy in the world”. A rather meager vision if this is compared with the broad perspective of the founding fathers – Schuman, Monnet, De Gasperi, Adenauer, Spaak, Beyen and many others never thought about integration as an objective in itself but as a means to serve the great cause of peace, reconciliation, prosperity and justice in our world. (Korthals Altes, 2003: 41).

This section examines how cultural and educational exchange between the EU and its Asian partners is forging a more meaningful dialogue about values, rights and duties. In this context, it is appropriate to understand human rights as an ‘enabling force’ of what is now routinely called the ‘people-to-people-dimension’ of East-West contact. In focusing on educational exchange, I refer back, on the one hand, to some of the questions surrounding ‘Asian Values’, ‘identities’ and ‘norms’ addressed in Chapters Two and Three. On the other hand, I am pointing to those parts of EU-Asia contact which a constructivist perspective can make accessible to further study: the ‘interaction between existing cultures and institutions’ (Stokhof et al 2004, 3) and the rôles of learning, the academic community and alternative lines of enquiry in East-West relations. This is important in at least three main ways: firstly, the examples of culture and learning can help to illustrate the overall emphasis of this chapter on a more lateral approach to human rights, EU-Asia relations and a global governance culture. The reason for this is that learning and mutual understanding can make inroads for discussions about shared ideas, common knowledge and joint practices. Secondly, educational and cultural cooperation contain significant potential for a rethinking of the future of Asia-Europe contacts and for a meaningful re-positioning of human rights within it. The ‘learning dimension’ of Asia-Europe, in particular, represents a dynamic area which can bring about the necessary adaptations to the challenges posed by economic, social and cultural globalization and mounting international inter-dependence. Reiterer (2004b, 368) argues that ‘education plays

120

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

a major rôle in securing an open political system, in achieving civic responsibility, social cohesion and last but not least economic success.’ Other observers (Hong Zhou 2004; Archibugi and Coco 2005) demonstrate how the academic community in Europe can be a ‘valuable asset for the acquisition of knowledge and expertise beyond the borders of countries’. Thirdly, I would argue that educational interaction between Europe and Asia is, by its very nature, a catalyst and ‘dynamic contributor’ in rejecting any ‘clash of civilizations’ (Voicu, 2002). What has become known as ‘people-to-people-contacts’, through fora such as the ASEM process and the ASEM Interfaith Dialogue, can lead to a mutual appreciation of cultural differences. Educational cooperation goes a long way towards counteracting trends such as a wholesale equation of ‘terrorism’ with any race, religion or creed in Asia and Europe. This in itself has the potential to change the nature and direction of human rights debates in East and West. A focus on education can also reveal how this area of cooperation between Europe and Asia has been ‘institutionalized’ and made into a shared responsibility, a ‘pillar’ of the dialogue between the two regions (Niemann, 2001; Reiterer 2004b, 365). The twin ‘wellsprings’ feeding into the formation of EU-Asia educational and cultural cooperation are the realization of a ‘European’ dimension of education on the side of the EU, and a firmer integration of education, training, culture and youth in EU foreign policy towards Asia on the other. This is not the place to develop a critique of EU Education Policy, but it is useful to remember those aspects of it which are pertinent for EU-Asia relations, such as the ‘social progress’ function (Moussis 2000, 167) of EU educational policies,1 the concept of ‘added value’2 and the ‘quasiconstitutional’ status the Amsterdam Treaty conferred on education (Church and Phinnemore 2002, 334). Furthermore, some of the leitmotivs of EU Education Policy have obvious repercussions for Asia-Europe exchange, for instance the emphasis on ‘trans-national mobility’, increases in language proficiency,3 distance education, ‘e-learning’ and – in particular – inter-cultural dialogue and communication.4 The Union’s Framework 6 Programme (FP6), for example, opened up the ‘European Research Area’ to developing countries in order to stimulate ‘intercontinental mobility’ between Asian and European researchers. It encouraged cooperation in a number of ‘priority areas’ pertinent to the EU-Asia dialogue, such as the ‘knowledgebased society’.5 Principles such as ‘added value’ and EU rules demanding respect for member state autonomy and cultural identity can explain some of the member state experience and 1 See: articles 2, 3 I(q), 149 and 150 EC Treaty, and: Council Decision 2002/177/EC. 2 See: Delegation, 2000: 5, and: COM (2001) 385, at 1.1. 3 See: COM (96) 462; COM (2002) 597; Commission Action Plan COM (2003) 449 on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity (Brussels, 24 July 2003). See also: Rapid Database, IP/03/1112; The year 2001 was designated as the ‘European Year of Languages’. 4 COM (2000) 318; COM (2001) 172; COM (2001) 678;COM (2002) 401 Rapid Database, IP/02/567; IP/03/168, IP/03/481, IP/03/619. 5 See: http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/citizens.htm.

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

121

intensity of inter-cultural contact outside of any EU involvement and the ‘privileged’ presence in Asia of the UK, Germany and France (ECCC 1996a; 1996b; Hodges 2003; Delegation of the European Commission to Thailand 2005a, 8). Meissner (2002, 194/5) subsumes this under the term ‘enlarged culture’. Moreover, the colonial legacy of five EU member states in Asia6 and related ‘historical recurrences’ play a key part: they continue to be mirrored in contemporary, bilateral, patterns of trade and cooperation programmes (ECCC 1996b, 106; Petchsiri 2004; 2005; Goody 1996, 224). European educational approaches to Asia varied in emphasis and directness, from development-oriented, short-term approaches to the establishment of more lasting cultural presences (ECCC 1996b, 105). But they invariably incorporated degrees of ‘cultural diffusion’ and ‘cooperation’, two ‘traditional’ types of cultural interaction. EU-Asia educational exchange thus occured in the context of some, member-state-driven, educational ‘Europeanisation’ across Asia, set against a backdrop of considerable diversity and fragmentation (ECCC 1996a, 108). In addition to this, some of the key tenets of EU educational policy, regarding a ‘Europe of Knowledge’, in a ‘Knowledge Economy’ (Archibugi and Coco 2005) a ‘Learning Society’ and the function of Universities7 as global institutions in transition impinged directly on EU-Asia relations, because they stimulated debates about educational values,8 their ideological entrenchment in inter-regional cooperation and, ultimately, on the EU’s identity and cultural vision (Korthals Altes 2003). Malcolm Subhan points out that (2004, 8), ‘the emerging knowledge-based economy requires co-operation as well as competition, simply because no one, whether Europeans, nor Americans, nor Asians, have a monopoly on knowledge’. These discourses are relevant in connection with the Union’s views regarding the ‘transformative’ rôle of education and the development of ‘democratic societies’ through educational exchange. This latter aspect is particularly, but not exclusively, evident in the European Union’s cultural and academic contacts with the People’s Republic of China (Meissner 2002; Wiessala 2002, 93/4; Hodges 2003). The many layers of EU-China cooperation reveal a plethora of education-related programmes. Most of them aim at the support for judicial and financial reform, democracy, human rights or local governance in China. In 2006, selected examples of these bilateral initiatives comprise: the EuroChina Academic Network (ECAN), the China-Europe International Business School (CEIBS), the EU-China Vocational Training Programme, the EU-China Higher Education Cooperation Programme and the EU-China European Studies Centres Programme. Through the relevant key policy papers 9 the Commission confirmed

6 The UK, Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands. 7 European Commission, DG Education and Culture, 2002: 3; COM (95) 590; COM (2003) 58. 8 Rapid Database, IP/02/1066. 9 See, for example, COM (95) 279 (at point B 2, C 1, D 1); COM (1998) 181 (at point C 2, pp. 19/20 and E); COM (2000) 552 (at points B 2, p. 7, C 2, pp. 10/11); COM (2001) 265 (at point 3, p. 5, point 5.5., p. 19).

122

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

this agenda: it envisaged Sino-EU higher education networks, European Studies Programmes and human resource development as essential tools for nurturing incipient democratic change in the PRC and called for a ‘redoubling’ of European efforts in the area of higher education.10 Educational cooperation thus evolved into a policy for the benefit of a wider EU agenda of ‘constructive engagement’ (See: Chapter Six). In other areas, the EU’s involvement in EU-Asia educational exchange has, arguably, been more that of a (financial) ‘catalyst’ and a builder of educational ‘strategy’ and ‘ideology’. The three major EU Asia policy blueprints 11 emphasise the cultural and educational dimensions in Asia-EU relations, in order to complement the otherwise overwhelmingly economic and political thrust of the EU-Asia partnership and to carry forward the European Union’s desire to increase its ‘potential’, ‘presence’ and ‘profile’ in Asia, through joint programmes, collaborative research and structural networks.12 The Commission’s 2001 paper on Strengthening Cooperation with Third Countries in the Field of Higher Education,13 highlighted the rôle of the field of ‘European Studies’, preparing an extension of relevant Community activities (Action Jean Monnet, Erasmus-Mundus) to non-European partner countries. From 2002 onwards, education was also promoted through a series of Country Strategy Papers (CSP) for individual countries in Asia.14 Later policies confirmed these overall priorities and elevated education to a ‘key priority’15 of relations. The Commission’s Stratgey Paper and Indicative Programme for Multi-Country Programmes in Asia 2005-2006 promoted cooperation in Higher Education, aiming, specifically, to ‘reinforce regional networking and mobility, raise awareness and strengthen human resources, thus making a contribution to the development of cultural diversity’.16 One of the results of these strategies was that in the EU-Asia dialogue, education was ideologically re-conceptualised in a number of ways: firstly, inspired by the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG),17 education assumed, at times, the rôle of development tool, with which the EU strove to achieve ‘progress through

10 COM (95) 279, at point D 1, p. 14 and D 2, p. 15. 11 Towards a New Asia Strategy of 1994 (COM (94) 314), Europe and Asia: A Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships (COM (2001) 469) and A New Partnership with South East Asia (COM (2003) 399/4). 12 COM (94) 314, point IV, and points 2.1.4 and 2.2.5; COM (2001) 469, points 3 and 4.2. F. 13 COM (2001) 385 of 18 July 2001; Report at: COM (2002) 323; General Report 2002, at point 519. 14 By mid-2003, the Commission had published Country Strategy Papers on the following countries and regions in Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Central Asia, China (PRC), East Timor, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. 15 COM (2003) 399/4, at page 4. 16 Especially at points 6.1.A and 7.2 cf. pages 31-34. 17 UN 2000, United Nations ‘Millennium Declaration’.

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

123

learning’18 and to improve Asian countries’ infrastructures and the fight against poverty. Secondly, and alternatively, educational exchange with Asia was seen as an instrument of scientific and infrastructural development, covering, in particular, areas such as health and private sector development.19 Thirdly, the EU sometimes perceived cultural and educational dialogue as instrumental in its ambition to build democratic institutions, thus informing the deepening East-West dialogue about human rights and political matters, as the example of China, above, demonstrates. Elsewhere, the EU has been at pains to stress the principle of ‘equality’ as a base for EU-Asian cultural partnerships (Rothermund 2001: 9), echoing similar statements pertaining to the overall EU-Asia and EU-ASEAN dialogue.20 A significant part of contemporary EU-Asian cultural and educational interaction is, indeed, embedded in the EU’s academic and technical cooperation with ASEAN (Wiessala, 2002a: 72), by means of networks such as the ASEAN-EU University Network (AUN) and the Southeast Asia-Europe University Network (ASE-Univ).21 It is, however, primarily the process of Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM) which has encouraged participants in Asia and Europe to learn both with and about one another. This two-pronged ‘learning dimension’ of ASEM constitutes the key to what I describe elsewhere as part of the underlying ‘software’ of societies in Asia and Europe (Wiessala 2002b, 18). ASEM is, arguably, the most significant, intercontinental, channel for social, cultural and educational concerns in the EuropeAsia relationship. Niemann (2001, 33) perceives the main reasons for this in the very nature of the dialogue as being ‘constructed through persuasion, consensus and peer-pressure’. Similarly, Quigley (2005a) argues for a long-term Euro-Asian cultural strategy, ‘because it is cultural ties that will mean more to ordinary people.’ What became interchangeably known as ‘people-to-people-contacts’, or as an EUAsia ‘long march to mutual understanding’ (cf.: Hodges 2003, 4) developed into both a tool for career enhancement, and a method of ‘cultural networking’ (cf. also: Meissner 2002), spinning an inter-continental, ‘original world-wide web’ (Chirathivat and Lassen 1999, 43). The emergence of this East-West www of learning was seen by some as a ‘double-edged sword’ (IEEM 2001, 142). It was accompanied by intense scholarly debate, which focused, at different times, on ASEM’s merits in addressing information deficits (Voicu 2002), on scope and methodology of ‘European Studies’ (Chirathivat and Lassen 1999, 9, 15, 21; IEEM 2001, 77, 81, 160-166), on educational exchange and global terror (IEEM 2001, 96), on the rôle of Europe in the globalised ‘knowledge-economy’ (Archibugi and Coco 2005) and on

18 See: Communication on the Commission’s approach to Future Support for the Development of the Business Sector (COM (2003) 267) and: Communication on the Reform of State-Owned Enterprises in Developing Countries with Focus on Public Utilities (COM (2003) 326). 19 COM (2003) 399/4, at pp. 17/8, 21 and Annexe III, pp. 43-44. 20 For example in COM (94) 314, at pp. 1 and 2. 21 Value: € 7.767.500 in 2002: cf.: the regular ‘ AUN Newsletters’.

124

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

the frequently ‘disproportionate’ dissemination of the yields of educational exchange (for example, IEEM 2001, 102). University cooperation in a climate of a ‘free trade in knowledge and ideas’, and the involvement of think-tanks such as the European Institute for Asian Studies, the Asia-Europe Foundation or the Asia-Europe Vision Group (AEVG) became the components in building the store of knowledge and understanding necessary for dialogue (Chirathivat and Lassen 1999, 32). ASEM-related human-resourcesinitiatives, such as the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), the ASEF University,22 the ASEM DUO Fellowship Programme, the ASEM Education Hubs Education and Research Network (AEH-EARN, 2000), and the Asia-Europe Classroom (AEC) helped to intensify the ‘inter-civilizational’, ‘cross-cultural’ dialogue between Asians and Europeans (Yeo Lay Hwee 1999, 13/4; Niemann 2001, 31-33; Reiterer 2004b, 365). The resulting, increased, mutual levels of commitment created demands for ‘educational connectivity’ and knowledge; it was consolidated by the strengthening of a cultural-educational ‘pillar’ or ‘cluster’ of the Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM) through the Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework (AECF), the ‘rule-book’ of ASEM (Chirathivat and Lassen 1999, 32, 69; IEEM 2001, 21; Niemann 2001, 28). Observers such as Park (2005, 198/99) even claim that, ‘cultural cooperation, for which the ASEF has been functioning as the main vehicle, seems to have been the most successful cooperation pillar in the ASEM process so far’. It was certainly central to the realization of more collaborative, ‘denser’, Asia-Europe research networks, in the shape of inter-University co-operation and electronic networking (Chirathivat and Lassen 1999, 39 et seq, 74/5, 105-110; IEEM 2001, 145/6). From the point of view of educational actors in both Europe and Asia, the subject of ‘European Studies’, in particular, has become an obvious conduit for these various agendas and ideas.23 Shararil Talib (in: Chirathivat and Lassen 1999, 45) points out that the study of European integration in Asia was ‘historically relevant’ for the Asian intellectual and political élites, simply because ‘nothing remotely comparable happened’ in Asia. But the emergence of ‘European Studies Programmes’ and ‘Centres for European Studies’ in at least a dozen Asian countries also shows that this exchange represents many evolutionary and dialectical encounters. One of the most significant statements in the Commission’s 2001 Asia strategy demonstrated this and pointed to the work still to be accomplished: ‘Europe has a great deal to offer in the field of higher education and scientific research, yet the great majority of Asian students studying abroad tend to go to North America and Australasia as a first priority. Equally, the number of European academics or students with links to Asia remains very small, while European Studies remains an underdeveloped field in most Asian countries.’24 This remains an important challenge for actors such as the worldwide European Union Studies Associations (ECSA, EUSA) and the UK University

22 The Eighth ASEF University was held from 7-21 September 2003 in Coventry, UK. 23 COM (2001) 385, at point 4. 23. 24 COM (2001) 469, at point 4.2. F, and at p. 19; COM (2003) 3994, at p. 25.

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

125

Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES), which in between 2000 and 2003 maintained a separate ‘Asia-Portfolio’ but has since abandoned it again.25 Whilst the perceived ‘multi-disciplinarity’ of the subject of European Studies (cf.: Petchsiri 2004; 2005) may have helped to develop it into a ‘naturally suitable’ vehicle for the promotion of the ‘human dimension’ in EU-Asia relations, the EU’s educational policy choices for Asia were also examined as to their relevance for EU-Asia relations and for individual partners, such as China (for example, Hong Zhou 2004). Yeo Lay Hwee (1999, 27) posits three criteria for separating the ‘wheat from the chaff’ in matters of EU-Asia educational exchange: (1) the participation of significant numbers of students, stable retention-rates and satisfactory ‘firstdestination’ results; (2) the provision of significant amounts of EU funding, and (3) a significant potential for long-term academic exchange, self-sufficiency and research collaboration, both inside Asian academe and internationally. Bearing these provisos in mind, a number of initiatives – not always the most ‘prominent’ or best-funded ones – reflect particularly well the diversity of the evolving ‘learning dimension’ within EU-Asia relations: amongst the more successful examples are the Campus in Asia and Campus in Europe proposals (Rothermund 2001, 10/11), the study of EU Social Policy in China (Hong Zhou 2004), the EU-China European Studies Centres Programme, the Asia-Europe Classroom,26 the Asia-Link Scheme and the dedicated European Studies Programmes in, for example, Thailand, Malaysia, The Philippines and Vietnam (cf.: Delegation of the European Commission to Thailand, 2005b). The case of European Studies in Thailand (Chirathivat and Lassen 1999, 1529; Chuasomboon and Chongussayakul 2003) is both instructive and exemplary. The Interdisciplinary European Studies Programme at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok is widely seen as one of the ‘most successful’ EU-related educational projects in the Southeast Asian region (Chirathivat and Lassen 1999, 1-9, 15-29; IEEM 2001, 81, 160-166) It is instrumental in ‘bringing the EU home’ to Thai students (Tanita Saenkhum: The Nation, 30 June 2005). The course evolved against the background of a specific historical legacy (van der Cruysse 2002) and a number of favourable social and historical conditions: the Kingdom of Thailand is one of the few Asian countries never subjected to European Colonialism. It evaded this by skilful diplomatic manœuvering in relation to 19th and early 20th Century European colonial powers and by what Curtin (2000, 150) terms ‘defensive modernization’: the ‘acceptance and assimilation’ of European cultural and technological influence, undergone in order to escape European conquest (cf. Apinan Pavanarit 2000, 127130; M.R. Chakrarot Chitrabongs 2000, 119-125). Modern Thailand thus possesses a rich and diverse tradition of interest in, and lively exchange with, Europe (van der Cruysse 2002). This is aptly symbolized in the person of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V, reigned: 1873-1910), who visited Europe in 1897, and after whom the oldest and most prestigious Thai University is now named. At the time of writing, 25 http://www.uaces.org. 26 The Third Asia-Europe Classroom International Teachers’ Conference was scheduled to take place, from 28 September tto 2 October 2003, in Bogor, Republic of Indonesia.

126

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

the Thai Higher Education system is in flux and is undergoing a process of reform in the areas of quality assurance, staff development, student skills acquisition and University autonomy.27 In mid-2006, the study and research components of the European Studies Programme at ‘Chula’ functioned within a framework of three overlapping ‘pillars’: the Thai European Community Studies Organization (Thai ECSA) – the Thai equivalent of UACES in the UK – the Centre for European Studies at Chulalongkorn University and the Interdisciplinary Master of Arts Programme in European Studies (MAEUS). The MA Programme draws on the disciplines of history, economics, law and political science and successfully marries a one-year intensive programme of study – including tuition by visiting European lecturers – with a study-trip to Europe for the participants of the programme. In conclusion to this section, educational and academic cooperation has become an indispensable part of Asia-Europe cooperation. What is now established in political parlance as ‘people-to-people-exchange’ between Asian countries and the EU has moved out from the shadow of predominantly political and economic patterns of interaction, to become a constituent part of the relationship. The higher priority both sides are now affording to issues of learning and exchange can be traced to the value both the European Union and Asian countries have traditionally put on matters of education and self-improvement and to changes to the EU’s changing agendas and priorities in education policy and human rights promotion. As a result, Asian and European partners realized, to a much higher degree, the value of learning in the context of ‘doing business’, while recognizing at the same time the many gaping lacunae in the understanding of each other’s cultures and value systems, which remained to be filled. A large number of academic and educational initiatives co-exist, exhibiting common features, such as a concentration on the study of European politics, business, law, history, and, more recently, ‘European Studies’. While duration, funding and participation rates of these programmes exhibit a degree of variation, there are some prominent examples which successfully combine the twofold ‘learning dimension’ of EU-Asia relations – learning from and with one another – with a more practical approach to teaching and research in European Studies. (The MA programme at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, mentioned above is a notable example.) In terms of future EU-Asia educational cooperation, it is to be expected that the picture will become more diversified and complex, commensurate with the growth of the EU’s stature and self-perception as an international actor and diplomatic player on the global stage. The process of ‘compartmentalization’ of education in EU-Asia relations shows few signs of abating. However, a burgeoning proliferation of academic exchange between European and Asian partners will increasingly be seen as a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it carries the undeniable potential to avoid breakdowns of communication and bring about enhanced international awareness, or simply better career prospects. On the other hand, however, it will also be seen as a ‘mushrooming’ phenomenon, leading 27 See, for instance: Thai Higher Education Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, April-June 2003: 2-3, 13-17.

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

127

to confusion, competition, overlap and ‘forum-fatigue’. There is little doubt, though, that the educational dimension will continue to make measured, but significant, progress on its way to nurturing relations between the EU and Asia. Comprehensive Extension: Future and Potential of EU-Asia Dialogue In this, the last major section of this text, the case studies which have highlighted the various EU policy choices in the areas of Asia and human rights, and the preceding remarks about the rôles of culture and education in the EU-Asia dialogue are re-visited from a different angle. I would suggest taking them as points of departure for the development of a wider ‘closing argument’ to this book, leading to the conclusions in the next section. This closing argument concerns the future development of EU-Asia cooperation and the place of human rights in it. Its main thrust can be summarized as follows: if one examines the kinds of policy-choices the EU has opted for in its foreign relations with Asian countries, it becomes increasingly clear that what can be summarized as EU ‘Asia-Policy’ is extremely varied and constantly on the move. The social-constructivist perspective adopted throughout the pages of this text has helped, so I hope, to ‘anchor’ some parts of it, and to explain why these EU strategies towards Asia arose, what shape they took and to which consequences and perceptions they led, both in terms of practical politics, and in the minds of the participants of the Asia-Europe dialogue. In addition to this, I would argue that the analysis of the central issue of this book – the rôle and development of human rights matters within the EU’s dialogue with Asian partners – can be very helpful in understanding and developing specific perspectives regarding the future development and shape of the EU-Asia exchange. The theoretical mode of thinking employed throughout this text aims to shed light on the effect of the ‘ideational’ on the ‘material’; it has revealed the sheer variety of EU policy methods, their enabling potential and, sometimes, their inhibitory effects and overall inconsistencies. But what are the practical consequences for contemporary and future EU Asia policy, and are there any signs that the EU has taken them into account? I would posit that the ‘tenor’, or ‘common denominator’, of the contemporary and future human-rights-guided, EU Asia policy is most appropriately delineated by means of the term ‘Comprehensive Extension’. The term means that, beyond bilateral policy-choices, the CFSP and individual ‘Country-Strategy-Papers’, the EU is already increasingly opting to render its human rights promotion efforts and its general Asia policies more ‘holistic’. It does so by gradually connecting human rights with wider concepts and challenges, and by introducing ‘cross-cutting’ themes and ambitions into its dialogue with Asian interlocutors, in a new, more comprehensive, ‘Politics of Human Rights’ (The Economist 18 August 2001, 9). This focus by the Union on issues of ‘soft power’, such as illegal migration, trafficking and organized crime is broadly in line with a 2005 report on the EU’s wider security interests in Asia. The report, complied by the Consortium of European Institutes for Asian Studies (Consortium 2005) argues that a focus on wider, ‘soft-power’ issues will enhance

128

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

the stability of the Asian region and address the multiplying social, economic and political challenges which Asian societies encounter. The document recommends the ‘mainstreaming’ of human rights into the EU’s aid initiatives and the ‘interweaving’ of EU-initiated and local projects concerning human rights, against a background of wider consideration of local social and cultural traditions and of a ‘demand-driven’ approach to political reform (ibid, 9-10 and 64). There are, perhaps, two major pillars in the rationale for such a policy-shift by the EU: one, no doubt, lies in the dynamics of wider, geo-political, change, in processes of ‘globalization’ and in some of the major events touching Asia-Europe over the last half a decade or so. Events such as increased international terrorist agency, global financial turmoil, the Indian Ocean tsunami and avian flu have shown that the EU, in reality, has very little choice but to find such wider connections and synergies in its many bilateral, multilateral, thematic, regional and other Asia strategies. Secondly, the EU’s re-focusing – or better, ‘de-focusing’ – of its Asia policies can, arguably, also be interpreted as a response to widespread criticism about a Union which ‘lacks conviction’ and ‘loses the plot in Asia’, failing to manifest its ‘trans-Asian alliance’ with the East. Related criticisms have focused on an EU whose relations with Asia are ‘passive rather than passionate’ (Goh Chok Tong 2004, 325), a Union which does not ‘move together with Asia into the 21st Century’, is ‘caught in a time-warp in its relations with Asia’ and does little to combat the ‘don’t know, don’t care’ attitudes in both Europe and Asia.28 Whilst many of these and related criticisms have made a point, not all of them appear altogether valid when measured against both form and substance of EU Asia Policy. Against the background of what has been said about the rôle and function of education and culture, ideas and identities, values, rights and perceptions, a constructivist ‘take’ on Asia-Europe relations, in particular, reveals that the era of Europe’s ‘benign neglect’ of Asia is definitely over. There are many new, ‘synergetic’, EU-Asia connections hitherto almost invisible. I would argue that there are already many examples of this new, ‘lateral’ thinking in EU policies, to be uncovered from the investigation in the preceding chapters. The ASEM summitry, for example, may not show East-West human rights dialogue in its best light, but it does reveal a working example of networking, making policy-linkages and adopting wider, more culturally-sensitive, inter-civilisational, perspectives on inter-regional cooperation. Moreover, the areas of cultural and educational exchange analyzed in this chapter, in particular, reveal the existence of this new, constructive, tendency in EU-Asia contacts: the ability to adopt and employ more ‘inclusive’, ‘holistic’ views and policy methods. True, this is bound to expose contradictions and inconsistencies, especially where divergent understandings of human rights are concerned, but it shows also how the actors in this process are learning through their interaction and developing new cooperation strategies, joint practices and institutions, as a result of this educational 28 See the articles in the EurAsia Bulletin by Camroux (October-November 2001: 3) and Subhan (December 2001: 9; November to December 2002: 1; January, May and December 2003: 1).

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

129

process. And this, of course, is a key assertion of social-constructivist perspectives in International Relations. If one can thus look beyond the clusters and patterns of detailed individual foreign policy methods investigated above, a number of wider subject areas can be distilled. These represent the essence of a re-direction, ‘Re-orientation’, of the EU’s Asia Policies. In areas like human rights, but also in connection with education, culture, security, disaster-management, health and regional integration, the EU is beginning, in its dialogue with Asia, to employ these wider methods more systematically and to approach challenging, divisive and ‘problematical’ issues from several points of departure at the same time. Among the major case studies examined in previous chapters, the EU’s relations with the People’s Republic of China, in particular, can easily be singled out for such ‘branching-out’ of the dialogue. Next to the ASEM format, similar processes are at work too, albeit in a more limited way, through the system of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU throughout Asia and in relation to the EU-ASEAN dialogue. A last example of EU Asia policies help to illustrate this point. It concerns the function and extension of concepts such as ‘human rights’ and ‘security’ as ‘policy-brackets’ in the EU’s relations with South East Asia. The prevalence of security-related issues and human rights has already been commented upon in connection with the Common Foreign and Security Policy, above. Beyond the CFSP, though, it appears that across all, throughout the EU’s Asia policies, a more holistic interpretation of human rights and security is gaining ground and, increasingly, informing EU policy. These new approaches are encouraging in that they speak of an enhanced awareness for an understanding of security which encompasses much more than the minimising of armed conflict and the protection against military threats. EU strategies towards much of South East Asia are an instructive example of how present and future EU Asia policies can use the potential of human rights to widen their remit and their reach. Thus, a number of challenges to human rights across contemporary South East Asia stem from the legacy of history and war, the existence of high levels of structural and actual violence, the neglect of culture, the prevalence of poverty, the absence of adequate health care and the spread of crime and small weapons. Muntarbhorn best encapsulates this thought for the case of landmines (2002, 243): ‘where they destroy bread-winners, families are often pushed into situations of poverty - the traumas inflicted are both physical and mental, generational and inter-generational. Precisely because these mines are situated in developing countries, they add to the depletion of resources which could otherwise be spent on national and human development.’ Mine-detection, de-mining-education and assistance to landmine victims, specifically but not exclusively in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, are just one example of ‘cross-cutting’ security- and human rights concerns making a growing contribution to the EU’s Asia policies. On the basis of international law, such as

130

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

the Ottawa Convention,29 the CFSP turned out to be the EU’s instrument of choice in this respect, with significant support from the European Parliament and the new Commission Delegations to Laos and Cambodia.30 But beyond restorative action, EU policies across the region are beginning to embrace and combine issues of prevention, awareness and education and broader socialisation and economic integration,31 ‘in the spirit of peace, human rights, democracy, sustainable development and good governance’ (Muntarbhorn, 2002, 250). This affects a wide range of EU programmes and policies across the region and is supported by a number of sector-specific Commission Asia-Strategies, for instance on environmental issues and energy cooperation.32 Until quite recently, many of the EU-ASEAN cooperation initiatives analysed in Chapter Four were principally business-related and showed relatively few common strands across their programme briefs and specifications. Throughout the early years of the new Millennium, however, some more lateral connections slowly emerged, linking concerns such as quality of life, local democracy, environmental impact of economic activity (cf.: Tingsabadh 1999) and education more expressly with the politics of economic, health-related and social human rights. It appears that, outside EU-ASEAN cooperation, these linkages appeared particularly evident in EU-South East Asia cooperation over weapons and armaments proliferation (EUASAC),33 reproductive health (EC/UNFPA RHIYA), electoral change, agricultural rehabilitation and rural development (PRASAC, MPLP II). Programmes and funding initiatives relating to these matters often tied in EU-Asia cooperation surrounding, for instance, the improvement of agricultural and life-stock yields, with wider matters of trade, finance and credit, governance, legislation and human rights (Delegation of the European Commission to Laos 2005). The fallouts from the Asian Financial Crisis during the later 1990s, from the Indian Ocean tsunami, and from avian flu led to an acceleration of these trends and to the creation of new initiatives throughout South East Asia, for instance the EU’s Social Support Project (SSP BAAC) in Thailand, in conjunction with local financial institutions. Representing many similar publications in the area of EU-Southeast Asia relations, the post-tsunami European Commission-Thailand Cooperation Activities Report listed ‘knowledge-society’, health, environment and social support, amongst other themes, in its directory of initiatives (Delegation of the European Commission to Thailand 2005b). 29 Ottawa Convention on the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and their Destruction, signed on 3 December 1997; it entered into force on 1 March 1999. 30 CFSP-examples: Joint Action 97/817/CFSP: OJ L 338, 9 December 1997; Council Decision 2001/328/CFSP, 24 April 2001; Resolutio No. 1724/2001: OJ L 234: 1 September 2001: 1-5. 31 See, for instance: EU-Cambodia Multilateral Trade Project (EU Delegation to Cambodia, 2005). 32 Europe-Asia Cooperation Strategy for Energy: COM (96) 308, 18 July 1996; EuropeAsia Co-operation Strategy in the Field of Environment: COM (97) 490, 13 October 1997. 33 See: EU CFSP Decisions 1999/730/CFSP,15 November 1999 (‘Cambodia I’) and 2000/724/CFSP, 21 November 2000 (‘Cambodia II’); On the EU-ASAC Programme, see: EurAsia Bulletin, May-June 2005: 4.

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

131

The Potential of EU-Asia Political Coordination in Counterterrorism The events of ‘9/11’ and the subsequent – and ongoing – so-called ‘war against terror’ have repercussions for almost all of Asia.34 These developments throw into stark relief the two phenomena outlined earlier: the security-aspects of EU-Asia cooperation on the one hand, including the Union’s security interests in Asia, and, on the other hand, the emergence of new, horizontal, concerns which link economic and social human rights to contemporary challenges facing people across Asia. International terrorism, however, also reveals some of the challenges for a more comprehensive EU-Asia dialogue. In mid-2006, the area of counterterrorist EU-Asia cooperation is still most aptly described as a ‘potential’ area of ‘comprehensive extension’ in the Asia-EU relationship. Any assessment of the significance of counterterrorism collaboration in the EU-Asia relationship is informed by at least three different aspects. On the most general level, a common, anti-terrorist agenda, of sorts, between the EU and Asia is taking shape by means of international organisations and agreements. This results from the need for the EU to coordinate with those actors who have security interests in the region. Relevant UN Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions and Conventions directly influence EU-Asia cooperation. Additionally, the activities of regional security fora in Asia, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP), the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the Korean Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) play an as yet moderate part in EU-Asia dialogue on terrorism. Thus, the 2003 EU-ASEAN Ministerial Meeting produced a Joint Declaration on Cooperation to Combat Terrorism; moreover, the Joint Co-Chairmen’s Statement of the 2005 ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting cautioned against ‘the identification of terrorism with any particular religion or ethnic group or nationality’ (ibid at point 7). This echoes similar policy-formulations in wider EU-Asia concept papers and accords with both the spirit and the letter of the Bali Interfaith Dialogue in which ASEM takes part.35 Furthermore, the Cooperation Programme and Declaration on international terrorism, agreed during the ASEM 4 summit in 2002, made a point of interweaving the counterterrorist ASEM agenda with already established ASEM initiatives targeting trans-national, organised crime and have called for efforts to better prevent prejudices and to build mutual understanding. This produced a number of ASEM Conferences of Counter-Terrorism and other follow-up initiatives. In addition to this, new fora with a focus on transatlantic, strategic, institution-building over Asia are emerging, for instance the EU-USA Transatlantic Dialogue on East Asia, which was initiated in May 2004 (cf. Bersick 2005). The directions the EU-Asia relationship receives from the emerging coordination in these fora are connected to a second issue: derived, in large parts, from such international cooperation, the EU’s own legislative and political anti-terror armoury 34 See the overview by D Gupwell, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 6, Nos. 1 & 2, JanuaryFebruary 2002. 35 The 2005 ASEM Interfaith Dialogue took place in Bali from 21-22 July 2005.

132

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

is reflected in its recent ‘domestic’ measures and institutions, for example, an EU Action Plan for Combating Terrorism, EuroJust, the European Arrest Warrant and, last but not least, the appointment in 2004 of Gijs de Vries as EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator (cf. EurAsia Bulletin Vol. 10, Nos. 1 & 2, January-February 2006). Through foreign policy and diplomacy – through the channels of ASEM, and by means of the Commission’s Asian Strategies (cf. Umbach 2004, 11/12) – these normative agendas find their way into the EU-Asia dialogue to inform potential EUAsia responses to terrorism. In its Conclusions of 11 October 2004, for instance, the Council welcomed ‘the new focus of the external policies of the EU in counter terrorism’.36 Moreover, the case study on ‘Asian’ CFSP in the previous chapter has shown how the threat of terror, internationally and on the Asian Continent, has already re-focused wider EU policies towards a number of Asian regions and countries. This applies, for example, to the cases of Central Asia and Pakistan. In connection with CFSP, analysts like Shada Islam point to the opportunities the EU is perceived to possess in Asia compared to the US (2003, 11): ‘Interestingly, Europe’s contradictions – over Iraq, for instance – have raised, not lowered, its profile in many parts of Asia as well as the Arab world’, and (ibid), ‘Europe’s much-derided status as a “soft power” is something that many in Asia like and respect’. In a similar vein, Gujral adds (2003, 67): ‘the presence of America in the security structures of Asia has not been to Asia’s best interests’. Moreover, a number of terrorist attacks, like the Bali or Jakarta bombings in Indonesia between 2002 and 2004 have simply forced the hand of political actors: they have left the EU and its Asian interlocutors little choice but to swiftly put into place anti-terror mechanisms, to devise strategies pertaining to intelligence-sharing and security cooperation and to open up more channels for dialogue. In these and other ways, anti-terrorism has been more or less successfully integrated into a number of existing relationships and cooperation frameworks, for instance in the cases of EU-Indonesia and EU-Japan relations. I would argue, though, that in the majority of other cases, the EU-Asia dialogue is not yet the ‘hinge’ for the development of an EU-Asia ‘strategic relationship’ which it could potentially be: on terrorism, by far not enough is being done and much of the potential of a wider, more integrated EU-Asia policy-coordination in this important area lies as yet underused. Such appears to be the case, in particular, in the Union’s relations with South Asia and India (cf.: The Times 27 August 2003, 16; EurAsia Bulletin Vol. 10, Nos. 1 & 2, January-February 2006, 4). Some of the general reasons for this may be seen in the widespread, international, post-9/11-phenomenon of what has euphemistically been called a ‘reconfiguration’ of the relationship between terrorism, civil liberties, law enforcement and such pernicious blanket-concepts as ‘preventative detention’, ‘terrorist threat’ and ‘national security’.37 Across Asia – as well as on a global scale – the post-9/11 abuse of existing domestic legislation 36 Press Release 2608th Council Meeting 12767/04 (presse 275), 11 October 2004. 37 Concerning Singapore, the essay by Michael Hor on ‘Terrorism and the Criminal Law: Singapore’s Solution’ (Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2002] 30-55) is revealing.

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

133

(‘Internal Security Acts’) and the introduction of a raft of new anti-terror laws (Samydorai 2003, 223-229; Gunaratna et al 2005, 16), represent, arguably one of the most efficient breeding-grounds for new discontent and future terrorist violence, impacting on human rights on an unprecedented scale and standing in the way of a more multi-faceted, comprehensive EU-Asia security dialogue. Other problems lie in the phenomenology of the terrorist threat itself, for instance its uneven spread and effect across Asia (The Economist 28 June 2003). To this may be added Asian states’ varying legacies of war and diverse historical experiences with the terrorist phenomenon in both Europe and Asia. Other obstacle exist in the shape of individual countries’ legislation governing the use of the military,38 and in divergences in understanding the motivating forces, causal factors and driving factors of terror, and of the most appropriate priority responses needed to combat it. What has been said in this book in connection with human rights, the ‘non-interference’ principle, ‘values’, normative and legal traditions, applies too in this area, potentially holding back more concrete EU-Asia efforts against terrorist agency. Gujral stands for an ‘Asian’ voice on terrorism, which is, perhaps, characteristic of many (2003, 64): ‘policy-makers seem to have forsaken any pretence of caution and idealism, to formulate a new and aggressive foreign policy doctrine reliant on military force and a self-proclaimed right to intervene in any region of the world demanded by self-interest’. Additionally, in some areas such as the Philippines or the ‘restive’ Southern Provinces of Thailand (Gunaratna et al 2005), many setbacks to a more comprehensive EU-Asia cooperation on terror arise from the combination of challenging domestic social and religious-political balances (cf.: Kadir 2002) with a basic lack of knowledge, involvement and information surrounding the root causes of terror and the international reverberations of regional conflict. Gunaratna et al (2005) make this point for the case of Southern Thailand: referring to the concept of the Muslim brotherhood, they posit that, ‘the cardinal principle in the operations of counter-terrorism is sensitivity to the issues of discontent’ (ibid, 13), that the conflict in Thailand is ‘catalytic’ and ‘likely to be placed on the global jihad map’ (ibid, 113). For the wider region, they point to the significance of ‘identity conflicts’ as a breeding ground for violence. And Kadir concludes that (2002, 18), ‘9/11 and the subsequent war on terrorism has exposed terrorist links and extremist developments in the region’. For the case of Malaysia, Umbach (2004, 18) sees these and other limitations of counterterrorist involvement embodied in the sluggish establishment of the Southeast Asia Anti-Terror Centre from 2002. Last but not least, referring to the area covered by ASEAN and the SAARC, Bharti Chhibber (2004, 86-96) points to the phenomenon of ‘narco-terrorism’, to linkages between terrorist activity, organised crime and drug-trafficking and to the complications within ASEAN, the ARF and the SAARC concerning the implementation of regional frameworks combating trans-national terrorism. Taking a broader perspective, the challenges to developing EU-Asia counterterrorism into a more pronounced area of comprehensive extension lie 38 For Japan, see the overview in: EurAsia Bulletin, October-November 2003: 18.

134

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

elsewhere: Laakso, quite justifiably, levels much criticism at the EU’s inability to harness elements of Development Policy to the fight against terrorism (European Voice, 6-12 May 2004, 9), stating that: ‘terrorism in Asia is a multidimensional phenomenon that cannot be tackled by force alone. Poverty and income disparities have grown together with the economy and can be used as justification for terrorism – but the EU is not acting upon this reality’. Other observers comment on the uncertain emphasis which documents such as the 2003 EU Security Strategy placed upon Asia. The document, encouragingly, calls for building strategic relationships with specific Asian countries; however, it offers little clarification and no concrete detail of what Europe wants in its security relations with China, India and Japan, all of the main EU partners in Asia (cf.: EurAsia Bulletin October-November 2003, 26/7). The fact that the document opens the door, ‘cautiously and partially’ (Umbach 2004, 13), to US-style principles of pre-emptive / preventive military action gives rise for grave concern. In conclusion to this section, it appears that the perspectives for interregional anti-terror cooperation between the EU and Asia constitute, therefore, a mixed bag in mid-2006. Against the background of the diplomacy of international organisations, a stronger US-EU coordination and the work of regional security fora across Asia, the issue of counterterrorism quickly moved up the agenda of EU-Asia security dialogue, to become a much more clearly defined task. As in other areas of the EU-Asia relationship, this found expression in a significantly enhanced level of ‘declaratory diplomacy’ in the relevant dialogue formats. Both the APEC and ASEM summitry (from ASEM4) and the EU-ASEAN relationship,39 for example, have produced joint declarations and action plans meant to aid in the fight against international terrorism; this has been accompanied by a number of bilateral documents, involving EU partners such as Japan. And the remarks by the EU’s counter-terrorism coordinator, Gijs de Vries, concerning an EU response which is able to tackle inequality and promote dialogue and long-term integration, are, indeed, encouraging signs. On the other hand, this situation contrasts with considerable difficulties in the promotion of joint EU-Asia anti-terrorism agendas, stemming from a lack of funds, transparency, political will and coordination. Perhaps most importantly, this segment of EUAsia collaboration is not yet part of a comprehensive extension of the relationship, because, unlike in other areas, little attempt is being made to think laterally enough and translate words into action. In the case of counterterrorism, this could mean addressing more thoroughly the underlying causes of violence and discontent, through the establishment of stronger linkages between security, development, structural violence and human rights.

39 For example, during the 14th EU-ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (January 2003).

The Learning Dimension and the Potential of EU-Asia Relations

135

Chapter Conclusions This chapter has examined areas of EU-Asia relations which are suitable, to varying degrees, for a Comprehensive Extension of the EU’s ambitions, policy aims and strategies towards its partners and interlocutors across Asia. It has singled out the ‘people-to-people’ pillar of the ASEM process and, to a lesser degree, EU-ASEAN relations, and related cultural, academic and educational initiatives, as suitable channels for the evolution of a more meaningful discourse about human rights matters and for the development of a wider perspective in the Asia-Europe dialogue. The main reasons for this can be connected to the directions and ideologies governing wider EU Education Policy, to the firmer transmission and integration of these policies into EU Asia Policy and to the existence of very significant member state experience and expertise in educational interaction with Asia. Secondly, the Chapter has identified the EU’s multi-faceted cooperation with South East Asia as a further, promising, area in which to look for horizontal connections, cross-cutting ‘themes’ and integrative approaches to the interregional dialogue. The area of security, understood in a broad sense, and inclusive of security from fear, threat and poverty was a particular focus of this investigation, owing to the legacies of decades of war and conflict throughout the region. The final part of the Chapter surveyed EU-Asia cooperation on antiterrorism as an ‘area of comprehensive extension under construction’, in which, in mid-2006, problems of understanding and difficult domestic situations across a number of Asian countries still overshadowed the potential for a more meaningful, ‘holistic’ form of collaboration. Notwithstanding this picture, there were also signs of new approaches to the root causes and manifestations of terrorist violence which were beginning to make their way into a number of EU-Asia fora, summits and policy-papers.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 8

Political, Legal and Ethical Perspectives in the Guise of a Conclusion This book has investigated a number of themes and directions pertinent to the development of contemporary EU-Asia relations. It has, in particular, offered an in-depth analysis of the position of human rights in the political dialogue between the EU and its partners across the Asian Continent, and of the EU as a promoter of human rights and democracy in Asia. The first part of the book set the scene, by anchoring the EU’s presence, agency, interests and actorness in Asia within the theoretical frameworks provided by International Relations Theory and European Integration Theory. It was found that traditional, Realist and Liberalist approaches to international relations have limited applicability to the area of EU Asia Policy. However, explanations informed by a conceptual preference for a social-constructivist model of reasoning were found to be much better suited to an EU-Asia relationship which derives much of its dynamic from ideas, perceptions, identities and the mutual construction of actors and policies. Social-constructivist thought was not found to constitute an all-encompassing theoretical model, which could embrace all of EU-Asia relations. It was, however, chosen because a constructivist take on EU-Asia relations can reveal many of the ‘patterns of opportunity and constraint’ within which political agency in EU-Asia dialogue takes place. The first part of this book therefore identified and examined those aspects of Constructivism which were most suitable in connection with the text’s overall argument. Among the most relevant ones in an EU-Asia political context were: the power of ideas and the effects of discourses; the constitutive effects of norms and institutions; the construction of identities and relations; the dialectics of agents, policy-practices and cooperative structures as mutually constitutive; the meaning of regionalisms and identities; the impact of roles, learning, in the widest possible sense, cultural interaction and discursive practices. The significance of ideas and identities was found to be particularly pronounced in the debates between Asia and the EU over human rights, norms and values. This was evident in the EU’s deliberate efforts at constructing a ‘value-based’, international foreign policy identity, which was culturally-embedded, socially-constructed, and strongly inclusive of matters of human rights, democracy and good governance. It could also be demonstrated through the continuing reverberations of the debate regarding ‘Asian’ versus ‘Western’ values and ‘Orientalist’ versus ‘Occidentalist’ modalities of discourse.

138

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Many of these discussions were shown to be underpinned by much wider ideological exchanges surrounding cosmopolitan and communitarian interpretations of human rights and democratic ideas in politics and international relations. The evidence surveyed in the book suggested furthermore that the philosophical and religious tenets of Buddhism and the indigenous human rights discourse in a number of Asian countries had a considerable, and lasting, impact on East-West relations and Asia-Europe contacts. Part Two of the book threw a detailed, analytical spotlight on the effects that human rights and the debates about human rights had on the relationship between the European Union and its Asian interlocutors. The main finding of this part of the book was that the impact of human rights on EU-Asia relations is twofold: namely ‘enabling’ and ‘inhibitory’. In a number of areas human rights were found to be an ‘enabling’ factor, supporting and driving the EU-Asia dialogue. This was the case, in particular, in connection with the successful, incremental integration of human rights concerns into EU Law and foreign policy, and in relation to the ‘declaratory diplomacy’ of the ‘Asia-Strategies’ the EU Executive conceived of in the decade from 1994 to 2004. Moreover, against the background of a hitherto limited reach of human rights concerns across many Asian countries, Community Development Policy was found to have been a specific catalyst in promoting human rights agendas in EU-Asia relations. The politicization of Development Aid, in spite of continued debates about human rights conditionality, was a driving factor in integrating human rights matters into the EU’s Asia Policy on all levels. In other areas examined by this book, the human rights dynamic of EU-Asia was not this well developed. Much of the material investigated in Part Two suggested that the ‘inhibitory’ aspects of human rights were particularly pronounced in the field of inter-regional Europe-Asia relations. Following a critical survey of divergent approaches to regionalism and regional integration in East and West, it was found that in the relations between the EU and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEN), human rights issues were as yet of little significance. This could, in part, be connected to ‘Asian values’ issues; moreover, it could be derived from different integrative ambitions in the two world regions and from widely diverging views, across Asia and Europe, on political interference in member states’ affairs. The summitry of the Asia-Europe Meeting, in particular, was found to have contributed significantly, to the ‘marginalization’ of human rights in EU-Asia relations. The reasons for this ranged from deliberate political de-emphasizing of human rights matters for the benefit of the economic ‘pillar’ of ASEM, to functional and institutional points, which, in combination, discouraged the emergence of a ‘human rights ethic’ in ASEM. In Part Three of the book, the findings of the previous two parts relating to identity-construction, strategy-building and norm-diffusion were consolidated and applied to a number of case studies of EU Asia Policy. The key finding of this part of the text was that the EU developed a variety of different approaches towards human rights protection and promotion in Asia. At least four different policy-patterns were established to guide the EU in relation to its human rights policy-mix towards Asia.

Political, Legal and Ethical Perspectives in the Guise of a Conclusion

139

These policy-paradigms, respectively entitled Combined Coordination, Co-ordinated Coercion, Constructive Engagement and Constitutional Consolidation, by and large, reflected many traditional foreign policy instruments. They ranged from incentivesbased measures to the constructive facilitation of democratic structures and the deployment of a more punitive, sanctions-led, political and diplomatic arsenal. These policy labels were found, in the majority of cases, to be appropriate denominators for the EU’s ‘Asian’ CFSP, and in relations to EU strategies towards Burma (Myanmar), the People’s Republic of China and Indonesia. They represented a non-exhaustive selection of the EU’s foreign policy agendas in Asia, but were significant and distinctive in terms of their human rights content, potential and ambition. The investigation of the case studies suggested that the EU’s human rights initiatives were both responsive to often difficult domestic situations in the countries involved, and to wider global concerns such as terrorism. The book further ascertained that the EU’s rationale for the adoption of these strategies was informed both by the Union’s own human rights identity and by the belief in the transformative power of economic changes, in terms of the engendering of political development. The last part of the text argued that these policy-patterns, found to be such vital parts of EU Asia relations, contained in them the seeds for a much wider, more lateral, development of the EU’s Asia policies. The main point made in this part of the book concerned the requirement to ‘open up’ EU Asia policies to a much higher degree, to more holistic and cross-cutting human rights concerns, and to more lateral thinking and policy-planning. The area of cultural and educational cooperation between the EU and Asia, especially in the inter-disciplinary fields of ‘European Studies’ and Higher Education exchange, was identified as one of the most promising aspects of the cooperation where this is already beginning to take place. A number of the EU’s Asia policies – inside and outside of the CFSP – were also shown to have developed in this direction, linking social and cultural rights with more mainstream EU Asia policies and addressing instances of structural violence across Asia, such as the legacies of war or destruction of cultural heritage. In contrast to these more integrative policies, the last example analysed in the text, the area of EU-Asia cooperation on counterterrorism was found to be an example of Comprehensive Extension under construction. It showed evidence of some horizontal policy-connection but was suffering from a number of difficulties and delays in the definition and interpretation of the relevant policies. Generally-speaking, it would appear that the dialogue between the EU and Asian countries about democratic standards and about the ‘right way’ to understand, promote and protect human rights, brought to the surface a number of persistent misunderstandings, stereotypes and limitations in the general inter-continental dialogue, many of them with a long pedigree. These obstacles appeared to be more significant and disruptive in areas in which EU-Asia contacts has become highly formalised and institutionalised, such as the EU-ASEAN relationship, the EUChina Human Rights Dialogue, the Asia-Europe Meeting and other fora. On the one hand, the ‘human dimension’ of Asia-Europe ‘people-to-people’ exchanges, as exemplified in cultural interaction and educational dialogue, has, no doubt,

140

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

become much more firmly entrenched in EU-Asia relations, and policy-makers on both sides have become more aware of it. I would argue that it is precisely in this format where the potential and future of the relationship lies. On the other hand, basic cultural discrepancies and divergences about values, democratic norms and rules of engagement will continue to impinge on the further course of EU-Asia relations. Whether, in the future, the EU’s Asia policies succeed or fail, will, in the final analysis, depend on the ways in which the participants of this great East-West dialogue manage to transcend the economic exchanges of the day and to engage in a much wider, more meaningful, open, unbiased and respectful exchange about ‘cultural software’, religions, civilizations and the place of human rights.

Bibliography Abad, M.C. (1996), ‘Re-engineering ASEAN’, in: Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 18, No. 3: 237-253 Aggestam, Lisbeth (2000), ‘A Common Foreign and Security Policy: Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identity in the EU’, in: Aggestam, Lisbeth and Hyde-Price, Adrian (2000): Security and Identity in Europe – Exploring the New Agenda (Basingstoke: Macmillan): 86-115 - (2004), ‘Role identity and the Europeanisation of Foreign Policy: a PoliticalCultural Approach’, Tonra, Ben and Christiansen, Thomas (eds) (2004): Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press): 81-98 Algieri, Franco (1999), ‘The Coherence Dilemma of EU External Relations – The European Asia Policy’, Journal of the Asia-Pacific Economy, 4.1: 81-99 - (2002), ’EU Economic Relations with China: An Institutionalist Perspective’, The China Quarterly, No. 169, March 2002 (Special Issue: China and Europe since 1978: A European Perspective): 64-77 All Burma Students Democratic Front (ABSDF, 1998), To Stand and be Counted – The Suppression of Burma’s Members of Parliament (ABSDF, Bangkok) Allen, Charles (2002), The Buddha and the Sahibs (London: John Murray) Allen, David and Smith, Michael (2003), ‘External Policy Developments’, Miles, Lee (ed.), The European Union: Annual Review 2002/2003 (Oxford: Blackwell): 97-114 Alston, Philip (ed., 1999), The EU and Human Rights (Oxford: OUP) Alston, P. and Weiler, J.H.H. (1999), ‘An “Ever Closer Union” in Need of a Human Rights Policy: The European Union and Human Rights’, Alston, Philip (ed., 1999): The EU and Human Rights (Oxford: OUP): 3-66 Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN; 1997), From Consensus to Controversy – ASEAN’s Relationship with Burma’s SLORC (Bangkok, ALTSEAN) - (2002), Special Report: Some Talk, Little Action - Burma’s Secret Talks, April 2002 (Bangkok: ALTSEAN) - (2003), Briefing: Black Friday & the Crackdown on the NLD, No. 03/003, June 11, 2003 (updated on 18 September 2003) Amnesty International (AI) (1991), East Timor - After the Massacre (London: 21 November 1991; AI Index: ASA 21/24/91; Distr.: SC/CO) - (1997), Myanmar – A Challenge for the International Community (London: October 1997, AI Index ASA 16/28/97; Distr.: SC/CO/GR) - (1998), People’s Republic of China: Summary of Amnesty International Concerns

142

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

(London: February 1998, AI Index: ASA 17/06/98, Distr.: SC/CO/GR/PO) - (2003), Indonesia: Old Laws – New Prisoners of Conscience (London: 10 July 2003: AI Index: ASA 21/027/2003; Andreatta, Filippo (2005), ‘Theory and the European Union’s International Relations’, Hill, Christopher and Smith, Michael (eds 2005): International Relations and the European Union (Oxford: OUP): 18-38 Angle, Stephen C. (2002), Human Rights and Chinese Thought (Cambridge: CUP) Antolik, Michael (1990), ASEAN and the Diplomacy of Accommodation (Armonk, New York: East Gate Books: M.E. Sharpe Inc) Anwar, Dewi Fortuna (2006), ‘Leadership in the History of Southeast Asian Integration: The Role of Indonesia in ASEAN’, Fort, Bertrand and Webber, Douglas (2006), Regional Integration in East Asia and Europe – Convergence or Divergence? (London: Routledge): 59-68 Apinan Pavanarit, (2000) ‘What Are the Lessons for Asia-Europe Relations Today?’ Tingsabadh, Charit (ed., 2000), King Chulalongkorn’s Visit to Europe – Reflections on Significance and Impacts (Bangkok: Centre for European Studies, Chulalongkorn University): 127-130 Apodaca, Clair (2002), ‘The Globalization of Capital in East and Southeast Asia: Measuring the Impact on Human Rights Standards’, Asian Survey, Vol. XLII, No. 6, November-December 2002 (Berkeley: University of California Press): 883 - 905 Archibugi, Daniele and Coco, Alberto (2005), ‘Is Europe Becoming the Most Dynamic Knowledge Economy in the World?’ Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3: 433-459 Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF, 2001), The Role of the Individual vis-à-vis the Family, Society and the State in Asia and Europe (Singapore: Asia-Europe Foundation) Aung San Suu Kyi (1995), Freedom from Fear (London: Penguin) - (1997), The Voice of Hope - Conversations with Alan Clements (London: Penguin) Aung Zaw (2001), ‘Burmese Feel That Sanctions must Stay’, The Irrawaddy, Vol. 9, No. 4, May 2001: 17 Austin, Greg (2002), European Union Policy Responses to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Briefing Paper No. 02/04, December 2002 (Brussels: EIAS) Aziz, Nikhil (1999), ‘The Human Rights Debate in an Era of Globalization’, Van Ness, Peter (ed.), Debating Human Rights – Critical Essays from the United States and Asia (London and New York: Routledge): 32-55 Ba Win (2002), ‘ASEM IV and a Bipolar World’, in: EURAsia Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 9, September 2002 (Brussels: EIAS): 13-14 Bainbridge, Timothy (2002), The Penguin Companion to European Union (London: Penguin) Baker, Philip (2002), ‘Human Rights, Europe and the People’s Republic of China’, The China Quarterly, No. 169, March 2002 (Special Issue: China and Europe since 1978: A European Perspective): 45-63 Barr, Michael D. (2002), Cultural Politics and Asian Values (London & New York:

Bibliography

143

RoutledgeCurzon) Bartels, Lorand (2005), Human Rights Conditionality in the EU’s International Agreements (Oxford Studies in European Law: Oxford: OUP) Bauer, Joanne (1994), ‘Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era: The Cases of North Korea, China and Burma – A Conference Report’, Human Rights Dialogue, Vol. 1, May 1994 (New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs): 1-11 Bell, Sandra (2000), ‘A Survey of Engaged Buddhism in Britain’, Queen, C. S.(ed.), Engaged Buddhism in the West (Boston: Wisdom Publications): 397-422 Bersick, Sebastian (2005), ‘Taking Responsibility: The EU’s Security Interests in East Asia’, EurAsia Bulletin, September – October 2005 (Brussels: EIAS): 9-11 Boisseau du Rocher, Sophie and Fort, Bertrand (2005), Paths to Regionalisation – Comparing Experiences in East Asia and Europe (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International) Bonnet, Mercedes (1999), ‘EU-ASEAN Relations’, Cosgrove-Sacks, Carol (ed.), The European Union and Developing Countries – The Challenges of Globalization (London, Macmillan): 254-267 Bretherton, C. and Vogler, J. (1999), The EU as a Global Actor (London: Routledge) Bridges, Brian (1999), Europe and the Challenge of the Asia Pacific – Change, Continuity and Crisis (Cheltenham: E. Elgar) - (2004), ‘Learning from Europe. Lessons for Asian Pacific Regionalism?’ Asia Europe Journal (2004), 2: 387-397 Brittan, Leon (1998), ‘Engaging China’ (Speech at the EU-China Academic Network Annual Conference, London, 2 February 1998; source: EIAS Brussels) Brotton, Jerry (2002), The Renaissance Bazaar - From the Silk Road to Michelangelo (Oxford: OUP) Brown, Chris (1992), International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (New York/ Oxford: Columbia University Press) Buckley, Richard (ed., 1994), ‘China in Transition: The Making of a New Superpower’ (Understanding Global Issues 94/10; Cheltenham: European Schoolbooks Ltd) - (1999), ‘The New China: Joining the Wider World’ (Understanding Global Issues 99/10; Cheltenham: European Schoolbooks Ltd) Bull, H. (1982), ‘Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2: 149-164 Burchill, S., with Devetak, R.; Linklater, A.; Paterson, M.; Reus-Smit, C. and True, J. (2001), Theories of International Relations (2nd ed., Basingstoke: Palgrave)ô Burma Issues (2002), ‘Human Rights Documentation’, in: Burma Issues, Vol. 12, Number 3, March 2002 Burton, David (2004), Buddhism, Knowledge and Liberation (Aldershot: Ashgate) Buruma, Ian (2000), God’s Dust. A Modern Asian Journey (London: Phoenix) Cambodian Institute of Human Rights (CIHR, 2000), Annual Report 2000 (Phnom Penh: CIHR) Carlsnaes, Walter; Sjursen, Helene and White, Brian (eds) (2004), Contemporary

144

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

European Foreign Policy (London: Sage) Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs (Carnegie Council, 1994-98), Human Rights Dialogue, 11 Volumes (New York: Carnegie Council) Cauquelin, Josiane, Lim, Paul and Mayer-König (eds, 1998), Asian Values: Encounter With Diversity (Richmond/ Surrey: Curzon Publishers) Centre for European Studies at Chulalongkorn University (CES, 2003), CES Newsletter, January-March 2003 Chakrabarti Pasic, Sujata, (1996), ‘Culturing International Relations Theory: A Call for Extension’, Lapid, Yosef and Kratochwil, Friedrich (1996), The Return of Culture and Identity in International Relations Theory (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers): 85-104 Chakrarot Chitrabongs, (2000), M. R., ‘European Cultural Influences: StandOff, Acceptance and Assimilation’, Tingsabadh, Charit (ed., 2000),: King Chulalongkorn’s Visit to Europe – Reflections on Significance and Impacts (Bangkok: Centre for European Studies, Chulalongkorn University): 119-125 Chamarik, Saneh (2000), Buddhism and Human Rights (Bangkok: Kobfire Publishing) Chalermpalanupap, Termsak (2001), ‘ASEAN Political Cooperation’, Petchsiri, Apirat; Kellermann, Alfred E.; Tingsabadh, Charit and Watananguhn, Pornsan (eds), Strengthening ASEAN Integration: Lessons from the EU’s Rule of Law (Conference Proceedings, February 2001, Bangkok: Centre for European Studies at Chulalongkorn University): 105-116 - (2002), ‘ASEAN’s Security Policy: From Non-Interference to Engagement and Integration’, Petchsiri, Apirat, Sutthisripok, Paveena and Thontiravong, Pakprapai (eds) Comparative Regional Integration: ASEAN and the EU (Monograph Series, Vol. 2; Bangkok: Interdisciplinary Department of European Studies, Chulalongkorn University): 195-204 Chan, Joseph (1998), ‘Asian Values and Human Rights: An Alternative View’, Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (eds), Democracy in East Asia (London and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press): 28-41 Chappell, David W. (2003), Socially Engaged Spirituality - Essays in Honour of Sulak Sivaraksa on his 70th Birthday (Bangkok: Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation) Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2001), ‘Social Construction and European Integration’, Christiansen, Thomas; Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Wiener, Antje (2001), The Social Construction of Europe (London: Sage): 50-64 Chhibber, Bharti (2004): ‘Regional Approaches to Transnational Organised Crime: Role of ASEAN and SAARC’, World Affairs, Vol. 8, No. 3, July-September 2004: 80-96 Chih-Yu, Shih (1999), Collective Democracy – Political and Legal Reform in China (Academic Monographs on Chinese Politics; Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press) Chinese Society for Human Rights Studies (CSHRS, 2002), Human Rights Ching, Julia (1998), ‘Human Rights: A Valid Chinese Concept?’ De Bary, Wm.

Bibliography

145

Theodore and Tu Weiming (eds), Confucianism and Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press): 67-82 Chirathivat, Suthiphand and Lassen Poul Henrik (eds, 1999), European Studies in Asia (Workshop Proceedings; Bangkok: Centre for European Studies Chulalongkorn University) Chirathivat, Suthiphand; Filippini, Carlo and Molteni, Corrado (eds, 1999), ASEANEU Economic Relations: The Long-Term Potential Beyond the Recent Turmoil (Conference Proceedings, Milan and Bangkok: Institute of Economic and Social Studies for East Asia and Bocconi University) Chirathivat, Suthiphand; Molteni, Corrado (eds, 2000), EU-ASEAN Economic Relations: The Impact of the Asian Crisis on the European Economy and the Long-Term Potential [sic] Asia-Europe Studies series, Vol. 1 (Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft) Chirathivat, Suthiphand; Knipping, Franz; Lassen Poul Henrik and Chia Siow Yue (eds, 2001), Asia-Europe on the Eve of the 21st Century (Bangkok and Singapore: Centre for European Studies at Chulalongkorn University and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies) Chongkittavorn, Kavi (1997), ‘The Evolution of “Constructive Engagement”’, Bachoe, Ralph and Stothard, Debbie (eds), From Consensus to Controversy – ASEAN’s Relationship with Burma’s SLORC (Bangkok, Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma) Christiansen, Thomas; Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Wiener, Antje (2001), The Social Construction of Europe (London: Sage) Christie, Kenneth and Roy, Denny (2001), The Politics of Human Rights in East Asia (London: Pluto Press) Chongussayakul, Rudeerus and Somboon, Piyanat (eds, 2003), European Studies from Asian Perspectives (Monograph Series Vol. 3 (2003), Bangkok: Multidisciplinary Department of European Studies, Chulalongkorn University) Church, Clive H. and Phinnemore, David (2002), The Penguin Guide to the European Treaties From Rome to Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Beyond (Penguin: London) Ciorciari, John B. (2003), ‘Hostage to a Junta - EU Policy Toward Southeast Asia’, Journal of European Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1, August 2003: 33-34 Clammer, John (2003), ‘Europe in Asia’s Imaginary - Disciplinary Knowledge and the (Mis) representation of Culture’, Lawson, Stephanie (ed.), Europe and the Asia-Pacific – Culture, Identity and Representations of Region (London: RoutledgeCurzon): 17-32 Clapham, Andrew (1999), ‘Where is the EU’s Human Rights Common Foreign Policy, and How is it Manifested in Multilateral Fora?’, Alston, Philip (ed.), The EU and Human Rights (Oxford: OUP): 627-683 Clark, A.L. (2003), ‘Burma in 2002; A Year of Transition’, Asian Survey, Vol. XLIII, No. 1, January/February 2003 (Berkeley: University of California Press): 127-134 Clarke, J.J. (1997), Oriental Enlightenment (London: Routledge) Cochrane, M. (1995), ‘Cosmopolitanism and Communitarianism in a post-Cold

146

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

War World’, Macmillan,J.and Linklater, A (eds), Boundaries in Question. New Directions in International Relations (London: Pinter): 40-53 - (1999), Normative Theory in International Relations – A Pragmatic Approach (Cambridge: CUP) Commission of the European Communities (1994), Towards a New Asia Strategy, COM (94) 314 - (1995a), On the Inclusion of Respect for Democratic Principles and Human Rights in Agreements between the Community and Third Countries, COM (1995) 216 - (1995b), A Long-Term Policy for China- Europe Relations, COM (95) 279 - (1995c), The External Dimension of the EU’s Human Rights Policy: from Rome to Maastricht and Beyond, COM (1995) 567 - (1996a), Regarding the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) to be held in Bangkok, 1-2 March 1996, COM (96) 4 - (1996b), Creating a New Dynamic in EU-ASEAN Relations, COM (96) 314 - (1997a), The European Union and Hong Kong: Beyond 1997, COM (97) 171 - (1997b), Perspectives and Priorities for the ASEM Process, SEC (97) 1239 - (1998a), Democratisation, the Rule of Law, Respect for Human Rights and Good Governance: the Challenges of the Partnership between the European Union and the ACP States, COM (1998) 146 - (1998b), Building a Comprehensive Partnership with China, COM (1998) 181 - (1998c), First Commission Report on Hong Kong, COM (98) 796 - (1998d), EU-ASEAN Relations: A Growing Partnership - (1999), The European Union and Macao: Beyond 2000, COM (99) 484 - (2000a), Second Annual Report by the European Commission on the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, COM (2000) 294 - (2000b), Perspectives and Priorities for the ASEM Process (Asia Europe Meeting) into the new Decade, COM (2000), 241 - (2000c), Annexes to the Report from the Commission on the Implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 443/97 of 3 March 1997 on operations to aid uprooted people in Asian and Latin American developing countries, SEC (2000) 934 - (2000d), Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning Community cooperation with Asian and Latin American countries and amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2258/96, COM (2002) 340 - (2000e), On the Implementation of the Communication “Building a Comprehensive Partnership with China” COM (2000) 552 - (2000f), On the Implementation of Measures Intended to Promote Observance of Human Rights and Democratic Principles in External Relations for 1996 – 1999, COM (2000) 726 - (2001a), EU Strategy towards China: Implementation of the 1998 Communication and Future Steps for a more Effective EU Policy, COM (2001) 265 - (2001b), Third Annual Report by the European Commission on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, COM (2001) 431 - (2001c), First Annual Report by the European Commission on the Macao Special

Bibliography

147

Administrative Region, COM (2001) 432 - (2001d), Europe and Asia: A Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships (COM (2001) 469) - (2002a), Fourth Asia-Europe Meeting Summit in Copenhagen, September 22-24, 2002 (ASEM 4): Unity and Strength in Diversity, SEC (2002) 874 - (2002b), Macao Special Administrative Region: Second Annual Report, COM (2002) 445 - (2002c), Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Fourth Annual Report 2001, COM (2002) 450 - (2002d), Report on the EC Conflict Prevention Assessment Mission Indonesia - (2003a), General Report on the Activities of the European Union 2002 - (2003b), Wider Europe – Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with Our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, COM (2003) 104 - (2003c), A New Partnership with South East Asia, COM (2003) 399 - (2003d), The European Union and the United Nations: The Choice of Multilateralism, COM (2003) 526 - (2003e), A Maturing Partnership: Shared Interests and Challenges in EU-China Relations, COM (2003) 533 - (2003f), ‘Dossier: Political Dialogue and Cotonou’, The Courier – The Magazine of ACP-EU Development Cooperation, No. 200, Sept.-Oct. 2003: 17-33 - (2003g), The European Union Confronts HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. A Comprehensive Strategy for the New Millennium - (2005a), Strategy Paper and Indicative Programme for Multi-Country Programmes in Asia 2005 – 2006 Connors, Michael K. (2004), ‘Culture and Politics in the Asia Pacific – Asian Values and Human Rights’, Connors, Michael K.; Davison Rémy and Dosch, Jörn (eds, 2004), The New Global Politics of the Asia-Pacific (Abingdon: Routledge/ Curzon): 199-213 Coogan, Michael D. (2001), The Oxford History of the Biblical World (Oxford: OUP) Council for Asia-Europe Cooperation (CAEC, 1997), The Rationale and Common Agenda for Asia-Europe Cooperation (London: CAEC) Council of Ministers of the European Union (1992), Council Regulation No. 443/92 of 25 February 1992, entitled On Financial and Technical Assistance to, and Economic Cooperation with, the Developing Countries of Asia and Latin America, OJ L 52, of 27 February 1992, pp. 1-6 - (2002), Regulation Concerning Community cooperation with Asian and Latin American Countries and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2258/96 (COM (2002) 340), of 2 July 2002 Cosgrove-Sacks, Carol (ed., 1999), The European Union and Developing Countries (London: Macmillan Press) Curtin, Philip, D. (2000), The World & the West – The European Challenge and the Overseas Response in the Age of Empire (Cambridge: CUP) Cushnahan, John (2003), ‘Hong Kong Security Law’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No.

148

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

4, April 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 3-4 Cuyvers, Ludo (2002), ‘Contrasting the European Union and ASEAN Integration and Solidarity’, Fourth EU-ASEAN Think-Tank Dialogue: ‘EU and ASEAN – Integration and Solidarity’, European Parliament, Brussels, 25-26 November 2002: 1-15 (Brussels: EIAS) Dae-Jung, Kim (1994), ‘Is Culture Destiny?’ Foreign Affairs, 73.6: 189-194 Damkjær, Ole (1999), ‘Indonesian Democracy Lags Behind Economy’; The Courier, No. 174, March-April 1999 (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities): 13-14 Dannreuther, Roland (2004), EU Foreign and Security Strategy – Towards a Neighbourhood Policy (London: Routledge) Daquila, Teofilo C. (2000), ‘Policy Responses to the ASEAN Financial Crisis: Some Implications Towards Closer ASEAN-EU Relations’, Chirathivat, Suthiphand; Molteni, Corrado (eds, 2000), EU-ASEAN Economic Relations: The Impact of the Asian Crisis on the European Economy and the Long-Term Potential [sic] Asia-Europe Studies series, Vol. 1 (Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft): 118-137 Darusman, Marzuki (2001), ‘Lessons from Indonesia’s Democratisation for ASEAN’, Johannen, Uwe and Gomez, James (eds), Democratic Transitions in Asia (Select Publishing and Friedrich Naumann Foundation: Singapore and Bangkok): 45-48 Davis, Michael C. (1995), Human Rights and Chinese Values – Legal, Philosophical and Political Perspectives (Oxford, New York and Hong Kong: OUP) Davies, Norman (1996), Europe – A History (OUP: Oxford) Dearden, Stephen (2004), ‘The Reform of the European Union’s Development Policy’, Journal of European Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2004 (European Policy Network) De Bary, WM Theodore (1998a), Confucianism and Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press) - (1998b), Asian Values and Human Rights – A Confucian Communitarian Perspective (London: Harvard University Press) - (1998c), ‘Confucianism and Human Rights in China’, Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (eds), Democracy in East Asia (London and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press): 42-54 Dehousse, Renaud (1998), The European Court of Justice. The Politics of Judicial Integration (Basingstoke: Macmillan) Delegation of the European Commission to Australia and New Zealand (2001), European Union News, Vol. 19, No. 1, January-February 2001 Delegation of the European Commission to Lao PDR (2005), EU Laos News, Issue 3, May 2005 (Vientiane: Delegation of the European Commission to Lao PDR) Delegation of the European Commission to Thailand (2005a), EU Today, No. 24, May 2005: 8 (Bangkok: Delegation of the European Commission to Thailand) - (2005b), European Commission – Thailand: Cooperation Activities Report 20032004 (Delegation of the European Commission to Thailand) Dent, Christopher M. (1999), The European Union and East Asia An Economic

Bibliography

149

Relationship (London: Routledge) De Prado Yepes, César (2004), ‘Is there a Convergence of East Asian Countries’ Foreign Policies? The Case Towards Europe’, Panorama 1/2004 (Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Foundation) Diamond, Larry and Plattner, Marc F. (eds) (1998), Democracy in East Asia (London and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press) Dinan, Desmond (1999), Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration (London: Macmillan) Doidge, Mathew (2004), ‘Inter-regionalism and Regional Actors: The EU-ASEAN Example’, Stokhof, Wim; van der Velde, Paul and Yeo, Lay Hwee, (2004), The Eurasian Space; Far More Than Two Continents (Singapore and Leiden: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and International Institute for Asian Studies): 39-57 Dosch, Jörn (2001), ‘The EU-ASEAN Relations: An Emerging Pillar of the New International Order?’ Chirathivat, Suthiphand, Knipping, Franz, Lassen Poul Henrik and Yue, Chia Siow (eds), Asia-Europe on the Eve of the 21st Century (Bangkok and Singapore: Centre for European Studies at Chulalongkorn University and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies): 57-71 - (2004), ‘Europe and the Asia-Pacific’, Connors, Michael K.; Davison Rémy and Dosch, Jörn: The New Global Politics of the Asia-Pacific (Abingdon: Routledge/ Curzon): 104-118 Drake, Michael S., ‘Representing “Old Countries” – The Strategic Representation of Culture as Heritage in the Asia-Europe Summit Meetings’, Lawson, Stephanie (ed.), Europe and the Asia-Pacific – Culture, Identity and Representations of Region (London: RoutledgeCurzon): 33-49 Droit, Roger-Pol (2003), The Cult of Nothingness – The Philosophers and the Buddha (Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press) Ebrey, Patricia (2000), ‘The Chinese Family and the Spread of Confucian Values’, Rosman, Gilbert, The East Asian Region (Preston: UCLAN): 42-58 Eckhardt, Jappe (2005), ‘Dynamics of East Asian Regionalism – What Implications for the EU?’ EIAS Policy Brief 05/01, January 2005 (Brussels: EIAS) Economic and Social Committee of the European Union (1996), Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on Relations between the European Union and ASEAN, OJ C 097, 01/04/96: 31 - (1997), Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Relations between the European Union and China’ (97/C 158/08), OJ C 158, of 26 May 1997, p. 42 Economist (1999), Democracy? Freedom? Justice? Law? What’s All This? 31 December 1999: 33-35 Edmonds, Richard L. (2002), ‘China and Europe since 1978: An Introduction’, The China Quarterly, No. 169, March 2002 (Special Issue: China and Europe since 1978: A European Perspective): 1-9 Eldridge, Philip J. (2002), The Politics of Human Rights in Southeast Asia (London: Routledge) Embree, A.T. and Gluck, C. (eds 1997), Asia in Western and World History (London:

150

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

M.E. Sharpe) European College for Cultural Co-operation (ECCC) (1996a), Educative, Linguistic and Cultural Policies of Co-operation with the ASEAN – A Study of the European Union Member States’ National Policies (Luxembourg: ECCC, September 1996) - (1996b), Educative, Linguistic and Cultural Policies of Co-operation with the Countries of South Asia – A Study of the European Union Member States’ National Policies (Luxembourg: ECCC, November 1996) European Communities (2002), EC Action to aid uprooted people in Asia and Latin America (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities) European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR, 2002), European Commission Support for the International Criminal Court – Report on a Conference held in Brussels on 28 and 29 January 2002 and Follow-Up (EIDHR: Brussels) European Institute for Asian Studies (EIAS) – EIAS Task Force (1996), Understanding Asian Values (Brussels: EIAS) European Parliament (1994), Resolution on the Communication from the Commission to the Council ‘Towards a new Asia Strategy’ (COM(94) 0314 – C4-0092/94; A4-0080/95) - (1997a), Resolution on the Commission Communication on a long-term policy for China-Europe Relations (COM (95)0279 – C4-0288/95), OJ C 200, of 30 June 1997, p. 158 (A4-0198/97) - (1997b), Report on the Communication from the Commission on a long term policy for China-Europe Relations (COM (95) 279 EP Reference No: –C4-0288/95; A40198/97; PE 221.588/fin of 29 May 1997) - (1997c), Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy: Report on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) temporarily withdrawing access to generalized tariff preferences for industrial [agricultural] goods from the Union of Myanmar, 10 March 1997; A4-0085/97, DOC_EN\RR\322\322230, PE 220.785 - (1997d), Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy: Report on setting up a single coordinating structure within the European Commission responsible for human rights and democratisation, A4-0393/97; SOC_EN\ RR\341\341455; PE 220.735/fin, 4 December 1997 - (1998), Resolution on the ASEM Process (OJ C 104, 06/04/1998 p. 0217) - (2000), Resolution on the Progress achieved in the Implementation of the CFSP (A5-0340/2000; C-5-0255/2000-2000/2038 (INI) - (2001), Resolution on the Progress achieved in the Implementation of the CFSP (C5-0194/2001-2001/2007 (INI)) - (2001), Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy: Report on the Commission Working Document: Perspectives and Priorities for the ASEM Process (Asia Europe Meeting) into the new Decade (COM (2000) 241) – C5-0505/2000 – 2000/2243 (COS)) Final: A5-0207/2001, of 31 May 2001; RR\441407EN.doc, PE 294.868; Rapporteur: Elmar Brok European Union Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO, 2001), Helping to Secure the

Bibliography

151

Future of East Timor (Brussels: ECHO) - (2005), Burma / Myanmar: A Silent Crisis (Brussels: ECHO) Fan, Ruiping, ‘Social Justice: Rawlsian or Confucian?’ Mou, Bo (2003), Comparative Approaches to Chinese Philosophy (Aldershot: Ashgate): 144-168 Faulder, Dominic (2003), ‘Burmese Whispers’, The Irrawaddy, May 2003, pp. 20-21 Fewsmith, Joseph (2001), China Since Tiananmen – The Politics of Transition (Cambridge: CUP) Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO, 1999), Focus International: Burma: Ten Years of Repression (London: March 1999) Forster, Anthony (1999), ‘The European Union in South-East Asia: Continuity and Change in Turbulent Times’, International Affairs, Vol. 75, No. 4: 743-758 - (2000), ‘Evaluating the EU-ASEM Relationship: a Negotiated Order Approach’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7,5: 787-805 Fort, Bertrand and Webber, Douglas (2006), Regional Integration in East Asia and Europe - Convergence or Divergence? (London: Routledge) Forsythe, David, P. (ed., 2000), Human Rights and Comparative Foreign Policy (Tokyo: United Nations University Press) Forum Asia (Asian Network for Human Rights and Development) (1999), Creating Asia: Flags of Human Rights, Seeds of Freedom (Thailand Information Centre: Chulkalongkorn University, Bangkok) Fouquet, David (2000), ‘End of EU Arms Ban to Jakarta Sends Mixed Signals’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2000 (Brussels: EIAS): 3-4 - (2001), ‘Questions in EU-China Relations’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 12, December 2001 (Brussels: EIAS): 3-5 - (2002), ‘ASEM IV in Copenhagen Seeks to Establish Identity’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 6, Nos. 7 & 8, July-August 2002 (Brussels: EIAS): 1, 3-4 Freeman, Duncan (2003a), ‘China’s New Leaders Face Challenge’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 4, April 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 17-19 - (2003b), ‘Hong Kong’s Political Crisis’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, Nos 6 & 7, JuneJuly 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 16-17 - (2003c), ‘China-ASEAN: A Deepening Relationship’, EurAsia Bulletin, October – November 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 15-18 - (2004) ‘EU Strengthening its Economic Ties with China’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 8, Nos. 5 & 6, May-June 2004 (Brussels: EIAS): 11-16 Freeman, Michael (2000), ‘Universal Rights and Particular Cultures’, in: Jacobsen, Michael and Bruun, Ole (eds 2000), Human Rights and Asian Values (Richmond/ Surrey: Curzon): 43-58 Friberg, Erik (2004), Burma/Myanmar and ASEM Enlargement 2004: What Lessons from Cambodia and ASEAN Enlargement in 1997?, EIAS Policy Brief, 04/03, July 2004 (Brussels: EIAS) Friedman, Edward (1999), ‘Asia as a Fount of Universal Human Rights’, Van Ness, Peter (ed.), Debating Human Rights – Critical Essays from the United States and Asia (London and New York: Routledge): 56-79 - (2000), ‘Since There Is No East and There Is No West, How Could Either Be the

152

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Best?’ Jacobsen, Michael and Bruun, Ole (eds, 2000), Human Rights and Asian Values (Richmond/ Surrey: Curzon): 21-42 Friedrichs, Jörg (2004), European Approaches to International Relations Theory – A House with many Mansions (London: Routledge) Friend, Theodore (2003), Indonesian Destinies (Cambridge/Ma and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press) Frost, Mervyn (1996), Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory (Cambridge: CUP) Fukasaku, Kiichiro; Kimura, Fukunari and Urata, Shujiro (1998), Asia and Europe. Beyond Competing Regionalism (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press) Fukuyama, Francis (1992), The End of History and the Last Man (London: Penguin) - (1998), ‘The Illusion of “Asian Exceptionalism”’, Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (eds), Democracy in East Asia (London and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press): 224-227 Funabashi, Yoishi (1993), ‘The Asianization of Asia’, Foreign Affairs, 72.5: 75-85 Galtung, J. (1973), The European Community: A Superpower in the Making (London: Allen and Unwin) Gilson, Julie (2000), Japan and the European Union (London, New York: Macmillan) - (2001), ‘Europe-Asia: The Formal Politics of Mutual Definition’, Preston, Peter W. and Gilson, Julie (eds), The European Union and East Asia - Interregional Linkages in a Changing Global System (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 109-121 - (2002), Asia Meets Europe – Inter-Regionalism and the Asia-Europe Meeting (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar) - (2003), ‘Making Uncommon Cause – Forging Identities on the Margins of ASEM’, Lawson, Stephanie (ed.), Europe and the Asia-Pacific – Culture, Identity and Representations of Region (London: Routledge/Curzon): 50-65 - (2005), ‘Asia Meets Europe: the View from Europe’, Mantaha, Zainal and Tanaka, Toshiro (2005), Enlarging European Union and Asia – Proceedings of the 10th ASEF University, 22 May to 5 June 2004, Tokyo, Japan (Singapore and Tokyo: Asia-Europe Foundation and Keio University): 217-229 Gilson, Julie and Lay Hwee, Yeo (2004), ‘Collective Identity-Building through Trans-regionalism: ASEM and East Asian Regional Identity’, Stokhof, Wim; van der Velde, Paul and Yeo, Lay Hwee, (eds, 2004), The Eurasian Space; Far More Than Two Continents (Singapore and Leiden: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and International Institute for Asian Studies): 23-38 Ginsberg, R.H. (1989), Foreign Policy Actions of the European Community: The Politics of Scale (Boulder: Lynne Rienner) Glarbo, Kenneth (2001), ‘Reconstructing a Common European Foreign Policy’, Christiansen, Thomas; Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Wiener, Antje (eds, 2001), The Social Construction of Europe (London: Sage): 140-157 Godement, François (1997), The New Asian Renaissance - From Colonialism to the

Bibliography

153

post-Cold War (London: Routledge) Goh Chok Tong (2004), ‘Europe’s Global Role’, Asia Europe Journal (2004) 2: 321-325 Goody, Jack (1996), The East in the West (CUP: Cambridge) Gregory, John S (2003), The West and China since 1500 (London: Palgrave / Macmillan) Grilli, Enzo R. (1993), The European Community and the Developing Countries (Cambridge: CUP) Gujral, I. K. (2003), ‘Asia in the Contemporary World’, World Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 4, October-December 2003: 62-69 (Special Issue: Dialogue of Civilisations) Gunaratna, Rohan (2003), Terrorism in the Asia-Pacific; Threat and Response (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press) Gunaratna, Rohan; Acharya, Arabinda; Chua, Sabrina (2005), Conflict and Terrorism in Southern Thailand (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press) Gungwu, Wang (2003), Ideas Won’t Keep; The Struggle for China’s Future (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press) Gupwell, Dick (2000a), ‘Indonesia’s President Wahid in a Sea of Troubles’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 4, Nos. 6 & 7, June-July 2000 (Brussels: EIAS): 6-9 - (2000b), ‘Aung San Suu Kyi Again Defies Burma’s Military Junta’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 4, Nos.8 & 9, August-September 2000 (Brussels: EIAS):1-2, 22-23 - (2000c), ‘Timor Problem Still Haunts Indonesia’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 4, No.10, October 2000 (Brussels: EIAS):11-16 - (2000d) ‘Abdurrahman Wahid’s Struggle to Reform Indonesia’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 4, Nos.11 & 12, November-December 2000 (Brussels: EIAS):11-15 Guzzini, Stefano and Leander, Anna (2006), Constructivism and International Relations – Alexander Wendt and His Critics (London: Routledge) Haacke, Jürgen (2006), ‘The Development of ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture. Not Beyond ‘Flexible Engagement’, Fort, Bertrand and Webber, Douglas (eds, 2006), Regional Integration in East Asia and Europe – Convergence or Divergence? (London: Routledge): 150-171 Haltern, Ulrich (2004), ‘Integration Through Law’, Wiener, Antje and Diez, Thomas (eds, 2004), European Integration Theory, Oxford: OUP: 177-196 Haralambos, Mike and Holborn, Martin (2004), Sociology – Themes and Perspectives (London: Harper Collins) Harris, Ian (1999), Buddhism and Politics in Twentieth-Century Asia (London: Continuum) Harvey, Peter (1990), An Introduction to Buddhism (Cambridge: CUP) - (2000), An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics (Cambridge: CUP) He, Baogang (1996), The Democratization of China (London: Routledge) Heinonen, Valerie (1994), Burma: Corporations Invest, Dictators Profit and the People Suffer - ICCR Brief, Vol. 23, No. 6, 1994 (New York: Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) Henkin, Louis (1998), ‘Confucianism, Human Rights and “Cultural Relativism”’, Theodore De Bary and Tu, Weiming (eds, 1998), Confucianism and Human

154

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Rights (New York: Columbia University Press): 308-314 Hernandez, Carolina (1998), ‘Values and Civilisations’, Maull, Hanns with Segal, Gerald and Wanandi, Jusuf (eds, 1998), Europe and the Asia Pacific (London: Routledge): 32 – 4 Herodotus (1996), The Histories (Transl.: Aubrey de Sélincourt) London: Penguin Hershock, Peter D. (2000), ‘Dramatic Intervention: Human Rights from a Buddhist Perspective’, Philosophy East and West, 50.1: 9-33 Hettne, Björn (2005), ‘Regional Governance and World Order’, Boisseau du Rocher, Sophie and Fort, Bertrand (eds, 2005), Paths to Regionalisation – Comparing Experiences in East Asia and Europe (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International): 104-127 Hikam, Muhammad A.S. (1999), Problems of Political Transition in Post New Order Indonesia, Briefing Papers of the EIAS (EIAS), BP 99/01 (Brussels: EIAS) Heywood, Andrew (2000), Key Concepts in Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan) Higgott, Richard (2006), ‘The Theory and Practice of Region: The Changing Global Context’, Fort, Bertrand and Webber, Douglas (eds, 2006), Regional Integration in East Asia and Europe – Convergence or Divergence? (London: Routledge): 17-38 Hill, Christopher (1993),The Capability-Expectation Gap, or Conceptualising Europe’s International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3: 305-328 - (1998), ‘Closing the Capability-Expectations Gap?’ Peterson, J. and Sjursen, H. (eds, 1998), A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP (London: Routledge): 18-38 - (2005a), ‘Is EU Foreign Policy a Problem for IR Theory?’ UACES News (Feature on Research), Issue 44, June – September 2005: 12/3 Hill, Christopher and Smith, Michael (eds, 2005), International Relations and the European Union (Oxford: OUP) Hix, Simon (1999), The Political System of the European Union (London: Macmillan) Hobson, John M. (2004), The Asian Origins of Western Civilization (Cambridge: CUP) Holland, Martin (1997, ed.), Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Record of Reforms (London: Pinter) - (2002), The European Union and the Third World (London: Palgrave) - (2004, ed.), Common Foreign and Security Policy – The First Ten Years (London: Continuum) Honna, Jun (2003), Military Politics and Democratization in Indonesia (Rethinking Southeast Asia series) (London: Routledge/Curzon) Hook, Brian and Santos Neves, Miguel (2002), ‘The Role of Hong Kong and Macau in China’s Relations with Europe’, The China Quarterly, No. 169, March 2002 (Special Issue: China and Europe since 1978: A European Perspective): 108-135 Holtz, Uwe (1998), ‘Towards a Europeanisation of Aid?’ The Courier, No. 170, July

Bibliography

155

– August 1998: 93-94 Huffer, Rudy (2003), ‘Demanding Sanctions that Demand Sanctions that Demand Releasing?’ Burma Issues, Vol. 13, No. 6, June 2003: 6-7 Human Rights Documentation Unit (HRDU, 2002), Burma Human Rights Yearbook 2001/2 (HRDU, Nonthaburi, Thailand, 2002) Human Rights in China (HRIC, 1997), The Dialogue Debate – A Strategy for Advancing Human Rights or a Way of Evading Responsibility? (China Rights Forum, Autumn Issue) Human Rights Watch (2003), A Return to the New Order? Political Prisoners in Megawati’s Indonesia (New York: July 2003, Vol. 15, No. 4 (C) Human Rights Watch Asia (HRWA) (1994), The Limits of Openness - Human Rights in Indonesia and East Timor (source: EIAS, Brussels) - (1995), Burma: Entrenchment or Reform? Human Rights Developments and the Need for Continued Pressure Vol. 7, No. 10, July 1995 Huntington, Samuel P. (1993),‘The Clash of Civilisations?’, Foreign Affairs, 72.3: 22- 49 - (1998), The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order (London: Touchstone) Hunt-Perry, Patricia and Fine, Lyn (2000), ‘All Buddhism is Engaged: Thich Nhat Hanh and the Order of Interbeing’, Queen, Christopher S. (ed.), Engaged Buddhism in the West (Boston: Wisdom Publications): 35-66 Hutchings, Graham (2000), Modern China – A Companion to a Rising Power (Harmondsworth: Penguin) Hyde-Price, Adrian (2004), ‘Interests, Institutions and Identities in the Study of European Foreign Policy’, Tonra, Ben and Christiansen, Thomas (eds, 2004), Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press): 99-113 Ibrahim, Anwar (1996), The Asian Renaissance (Singapore, Kuala Lumpur: Times Books International) Ibrahim, Zaid (2005), ‘ASEAN – Time to Interfere’ The Irrawaddy, April 2005: 32 Instituto de Estudos Europeus de Macau (IEEM, 2001), European Studies in Asia (Macao: IEEM and European Commission) International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID, 2002), Comprehensive Strategies Needed for Indonesia’s Recovery – INFID Position Paper on the Consultative Group for Indonesia (CGI) 2002, June 2002 (source: EIAS Brussels) Islam, Rizwanul (1998), Indonesia: Economic Crisis, Adjustment, Employment and Poverty – Issues in Development, Discussion Paper No. 23 (Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO), Development Policies Department Islam, Shada (2002), ‘Focus on Politics and Trade Gives New Life to ASEM’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 9, September 2002 (Brussels: EIAS): 10-11 - (2003), ‘Asia and Europe: shared values after the Iraq War’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No.4, April 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 10-12 - (2005), ‘Europe plans more Engagement in Burma’, The Irrawaddy, April 2005:

156

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

15-16 Jachtenfuchs, M. (2001), ‘The Governance Approach to European Integration’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39, 245-264 Jackson, Robert and Sørensen Georg (2003), Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: OUP) Jacobsen, Michael and Bruun, Ole (eds, 2000), Human Rights and Asian Values (Richmond/ Surrey: Curzon) Japan Centre for International Exchange and University of Helsinki Network for European Studies (2006), ASEM in its Tenth Year – Looking Back, Looking Forward (March 2006) Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and Kyushu University, Faculty of Law (2002), 2002 Asian Science Seminar: Law and the Open Society in Asia – Report (Fukuoka, Japan, 25 November – 5 December 2002) Jayasuriya, Kanishka (2001), ‘The Rule of Law and Regimes of Exception in East Asia’, Johannen, Uwe and Gomez, James (eds, 2001), Democratic Transitions in Asia (Select Publishing and Friedrich-Naumann Foundation: Singapore and Bangkok): 93-112 Jenner, W.J.F. (1998), ‘China and Freedom’, Kelly, D. and Reid, A. (eds, 1998), Asian Freedoms – The Idea of Freedom in East and Southeast Asia (Cambridge: CUP): 65-92 Johannen, Uwe and Gomez, James (eds, 2001), Democratic Transitions in Asia (Select Publishing and Friedrich Naumann Foundation: Singapore and Bangkok) Jones, Ken (2003), The New Social Face of Buddhism – A Call to Action (Boston: Wisdom Publications) Jørgensen, Knud Erik (2004a), ‘Theorising the European Union’s Foreign Policy’, Tonra, Ben and Christiansen, Thomas (eds, 2004), Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press): 10-25 - (2004b), ‘European Foreign Policy: Conceptualising the Domain’, Carlsnaes, Walter; Sjursen, Helene and White, Brian (eds, 2004), Contemporary European Foreign Policy (London: Sage): 32-56 Kadir, Suzaina (2002), Mapping Muslim Politics in Southeast Asia after September 11, Briefing Paper No. 02/05, December 2002 (Brussels: EIAS) Katzenstein, P. (ed.) (1996), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press) Kausikan, Bilahari (1998), ‘The “Asian Values” Debate: A View from Singapore’, Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (eds, 1998), Democracy in East Asia (London and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press): 17-27 Kent, Bruce (2005) ‘The Brussels Follies’; The Irrawaddy, April 2005: 29 Kellermann, Alfred E. (2002), ‘The Growing Impact of the Principles of Good and Corporate Governance Strengthening the Rule of Law’, Petchsiri, Apirat, Sutthisripok, Paveena and Thontiravong, Pakprapai (eds, 2002), Comparative Regional Integration: ASEAN and the EU, Monograph Series, Vol. 2 (Bangkok: Interdisciplinary Department of European Studies, Chulalongkorn University): 59-81 Kelly, David and Reid, Anthony (1998), Asian Freedoms – The Idea of Freedom in

Bibliography

157

East and Southeast Asia (Cambridge: CUP) Kelly, David (1998a).‘Freedom – A Eurasian Mosaic’, Kelly, D. and Reid, A. (eds, 1998), Asian Freedoms – The Idea of Freedom in East and Southeast Asia (Cambridge: CUP): 1-17 - (1998b), ‘The Chinese Search for Freedom as a Universal Value’, Kelly, D. and Reid, A. (eds, 1998), Asian Freedoms - The Idea of Freedom in East and Southeast Asia (Cambridge: CUP): 93-119 Keown, Damien (1995), ‘Are There “Human Rights” in Buddhism?’ Journal of Buddhist Ethics, Vol.2: 3-27 - (1996), Buddhism – A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: OUP) - (2000), Contemporary Buddhist Ethics (Richmond/Surrey: Curzon Press) - (2005), Buddhist Ethics – A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: OUP) Keown, Damien, Prebish, Charles S. and Husted, Wayne R. (eds, 1998), Buddhism and Human Rights (Surrey: Curzon Press) Khan, Nawab (2003), ‘EU-Iran Relations’ EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 8-9 King, Sallie B. (2003), ‘Buddhism and War’, Chappell, David W. (eds, 2003), Socially Engaged Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Sulak Sivaraksa on his 70th Birthday (Bangkok: Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation, 2003): 356-370 King, Toby (1999), ‘Human Rights in European Foreign Policy: Success or Failure for Postmodern Diplomacy?’ European Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, No. 2: 313-337 Korthals Altes, Edy (2003), ‘Spiritual Values in European Public Life’, Chappell, David W. (eds, 2003), Socially Engaged Spirituality - Essays in Honour of Sulak Sivaraksa on his 70th Birthday (Bangkok: Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation, 2003): 30-44 Knodt, Michèle and Princen, Sebastiaan (2003), Understanding the European Union’s External Relations (London: Routledge) Kreissl-Dörfler, Wolfgang (2001), ‘Fair and Democratic Election in East Timor’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 5, Nos. 8 & 9, August-September 2001 (Brussels: EIAS): 3-4 Kusumah, Mulyana W. (2001), ‘The Prospect of Institutionalising Democracy in Indonesia’, Johannen, Uwe and Gomez, James (eds, 2001), Democratic Transitions in Asia (Select Publishing and Friedrich Naumann Foundation: Singapore and Bangkok): 57-65 Lach, Donald F. and Flaumenhaft, Carol (1965), Asia on the Eve of Europe’s Expansion (Prentice-Hall Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey) Lach, Donald, F. (1994), Asia in the Making of Europe - Volume I, The Century of Discovery (Books 1 and 2); Volume II, A Century of Wonder (Books 1 to 3) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) Lach, Donald and J. Van Kley, Edwin (1998), Asia in the Making of Europe - Volume III: A Century of Advance (Books 1 to 4) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) Laffan, Michael (2003), ‘The Tangled Roots of Islamic Activism in Indonesia’,

158

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 2003 (Brussels: EIAS, EIAS): 22-24 Lapid, Yosef and Kratochwil, Friedrich (1996), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers) Laroche, Beatrice and Habbard, Anne-Christine (1996), ‘Burma, Total and Human Rights: Dissection of a Project’, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH): Situation Report, November 1996 (FIDH Report No. 224/2) Larsen, Henrik (2004). ‘Discourse Analysis in the Study of European Foreign Policy’, Tonra, Ben and Christiansen, Thomas (eds, 2004), Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press): 62-80 Lawson, Stephanie (1998), ‘Democracy and the Problem of Cultural Relativism: Normative Issues for International Politics’, Global Society, Vol. 12, No. 2: 251270 - (2001), ‘The Cultural Politics of Contemporary Asia-Europe Relations’, Preston, Peter W. and Gilson, Julie (eds, 2001), The European Union and East Asia. Interregional Linkages in a Changing Global System (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 29-45 - (2003, ed.), Europe and the Asia-Pacific-Culture, Identity and Representations of Region (London: Routledge Curzon) Lee, Martin (2001), ‘Rule of Law Important for Democracy in Asia’, Johannen, Uwe and Gomez, James (eds, 2001), Democratic Transitions in Asia (Select Publishing and Friedrich Naumann Foundation: Singapore and Bangkok): 89-92 Letta, Corrado G.M.(2003), EA-EU Partnerships. The Future Dynamics of the East Asia – European Union Relationships (Seoul: Sejong Institute) Leifer, M. (1999), ‘The ASEAN Peace Process: A Category Mistake’ The Pacific Review, Vol. 12, No. 1: 25-38 Leong, Stephen (1997), ‘ASEAN-EU Relations: The Political and Security Dimensions’, Chulalongkorn University Journal of European Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, July – December 1997: 17-25 Liddle, R. William (1998), ‘Indonesia - Suharto’s Tightening Grip’, Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (eds, 1998), Democracy in East Asia (London and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press): 199-214 Lightfoot, Simon and Burchill, Jon (2005), ‘The European Union and the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Normative Power Europe in Action?’ Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1: 75-95 Lim, Paul (1999a), ‘Political Issues in EU-ASEAN Relations’, Panorama 1/1999: 5-41 (Manila: Konrad-Adenauer Foundation) - (1999b), The Unfolding Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Process: Issues for ASEM III, Briefing Papers, EIAS (BP 99/04: 1-17, Brussels: EIAS) - (2000), ‘Beyond Economic Cooperation: Prospects for Mutual Social, Cultural and Educational Ties’, The 3rd Seoul ASEM and Asia-Europe Relations (Conference Proceedings, 29-30 September 2000 (Seoul: Korean Society for Contemporary European Studies): 109-133 - (2001), ‘The Unfolding Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Process’ Preston, Peter W. and Gilson, Julie (eds, 2001), The European Union and East Asia. Interregional

Bibliography

159

Linkages in a Changing Global System (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 91-108 - (2003), ‘A Hindsight Look at ASEM’, EurAsia Bulletin, December 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 5-7 Lincoln, Edward J. (1999), ‘Asian Countries and Globalization’, Krause, Joachim; May Bernhard; Niemann, Ulrich (eds, 1999), Asia, Europe and the Challenges of Globalisation, Proceedings of the First Asia-Europe Foundation Summer School in Reutlingen (Germany), 12 – 24 July 1998 (Berlin: Research Institute of the German Society/ Foreign Affairs): 115 – 126 Low, Linda (1997), ‘ASEAN-EU Relationships in the New World Order – Rethinking ASEAN-EU Trade and Investment’, Chulalongkorn University Journal of European Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, January-June 1997: 25-45 Lu, Haina (2003), ‘EU-China Rights Dialogue: An “Acceptable Option”?’ EurAsia Bulletin, June – July 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 5-6 Lund, Christian (1998), ‘Development and Rights: Tempering Universalism and Relativism’, The European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, December 1998: 1-6 Mabbett, Ian (1998), ‘Buddhism and Freedom’, Kelly, D. and Reid, A. (eds, 1998), Asian Freedoms – The Idea of Freedom in East and Southeast Asia (Cambridge: CUP): 19-36 Mackerras, C.; Maidment, R.; Schak, D. (1998), ‘Diversity and Convergence in Asia-Pacific Society and Culture’, Maidment, Richard (ed., 1998), Culture and Society in the Asia-Pacific (Routledge / Open University): 1-5 Mahbubani, Kishore (1996), ‘The Asian Values Debate Revisited’ The Straits Times, 28 January 1996 - (1998), Can Asians Think? (Singapore/ Kuala Lumpur: Times Books International) (also used: 3rd ed., 2004) - (1999), ‘An Asian Perspective on Human Rights and Freedom of the Press’, Van Ness, Peter (ed., 1999), Debating Human Rights – Critical Essays from the United States and Asia (London and New York: Routledge): 80-97 Maitland, Donald and Yao-Su Hu (1998), Europe and Emerging Asia (London: Federal Trust Report) Malley, Michael S. (2003), ‘Indonesia in 2002 – The Rising Cost of Inaction’, Asian Survey, Vol. XLIII, No. 1, January/February 2003 (Berkeley: University of California Press): 135-146 Mandeville, Sir John (1983), The Travels of Sir John Mandeville (translated with an introduction by C.W.R.D. Moseley) London: Penguin Mandelson, Peter (2005), Trade at the Service of Development: An Action Plan (Brussels: European Commission) Mahncke, D.; Ambos, A. and Reynolds, C. (2004), European Foreign Policy From Rhetoric to Reality? (College of Europe Studies No. 1: Brussels: Peter Lang) Manners, Ian (2002), ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’ Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 40, No. 2 (June 2002): 235-258 Manners, Ian and Whitman, Richard G. (2003), ‘The “Difference Engine”: Constructing and Representing the International Identity of the European Union’,

160

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 3, June 2003: 380-404 Mantaha, Zainal and Tingsabadh, Charit (2003), Asia and Europe – Towards Greater Inter-Cultural Exchanges (Proceedings of the 6th ASEF University, 27 July to 11 August 2002, Bangkok, Thailand (Singapore and Bangkok: AsiaEurope Foundation and Centre for European Studies at Chulalongkorn University Bangkok) Mantaha, Zainal and Tanaka, Toshiro (2005), Enlarging European Union and Asia – Proceedings of the 10th ASEF University, 22 May to 5 June 2004, Tokyo, Japan (Singapore and Tokyo: Asia-Europe Foundation and Keio University) March, J. and Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: Free Press) Mason, Colin (2000), A Short History of Asia (London: Macmillan) Mathews, George (2003), ‘Local Government in India and China: Learning from Each Other’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 5-7 Matthews, Bruce (1999), ‘The Legacy of Tradition and Authority: Buddhism and the Nation in Myanmar’, Harris, Ian (ed., 1999), Buddhism and Politics in TwentiethCentury Asia (London: Continuum): 26-53 Maull, Hanns; Segal, Gerald; Wanandi, Jusuf (1998), Europe and the Asia Pacific (London: Routledge) Maung Myint (2000), The International Response to the Democracy Movement in Burma Since 1962 (Stockholm University: Center for Pacific Asia Studies, December 2000) McCormick, John (1999), Understanding the European Union: A Concise Introduction (London: Macmillan) McMahon, Joseph A. (1998), ‘ASEAN and the Asia-Europe Meeting: Strengthening the European Union’s Relationship with South East Asia’, European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol. 3: 233-251 Meissner, Werner (2002), ‘Cultural Relations between China and the Member States of the European Union’, The China Quarterly, 2002: 181 – 203 Milliot, David M. (2005), ‘Asia-Europe Meeting on the International Stage’, in: Boisseau du Rocher, Sophie and Fort, Bertrand (eds, 2005), Paths to Regionalisation – Comparing Experiences in East Asia and Europe (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International): 128-144 Min Zin (2001), ‘Sanctions Revisited’, The Irrawaddy, Vol. 9,No.4, May 2001:1516 Möller, Kay (2002), ‘Diplomatic Relations and Mutual Strategic Perceptions: China and the European Union’, The China Quarterly, No. 169, March 2002 (Special Issue: China and Europe since 1978: A European Perspective): 10-32 Mon Forum, Issue No. 6/2002, 30 June 2002 (Human Rights Foundation of Monland (Burma), HURFOM) Møller, Per Stig (2001), ‘A Common EU Foreign Policy in Asia’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 3-4 Moravcsik, A. (1997), ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of

Bibliography

161

International Politics’, International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4: 513-53 - (1999): The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht (London: UCL Press) Morphet, Sally (2000), ‘British Foreign Policy and Human Rights: From Low to High Politics’, Forsythe, David, P. (ed., 2000), Human Rights and Comparative Foreign Policy (Tokyo: United Nations University Press): 87-114 Mou, Bo (2003), Comparative Approaches to Chinese Philosophy (Aldershot: Ashgate) Moussis, Nicholas (2000), A Guide to European Policies, 6th ed. (Rixensart: European Study Service) Mudie, Robyn (1998), ‘ASEM and Australia – Implications and Challenges’, Monographs on South East Asian Politics and International Relations, No. 4 (The University of Hull: Centre for South East Asian Studies and the Institute of Pacific Asia Studies) Munich Institute for Social Science (MISS), Projektgruppe Sozialforschung e.V. and Heinrich-Böll Foundation (2004), Civil Society in Southeast Asia (Conference Report: MISS: Munich/Berlin) Muntarbhorn, Vitit (1993), ‘Human Rights in South East Asia – A Challenge for the 21st Century’-Kernial S. Sadhu Memorial Lecture; Chaiyong Limthongkul Foundation’s Award in Arts and Humanities (Chulalongkorn University Bangkok: Thailand Information Centre) - (1998), ASEM Summitry The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) 1996 and Beyond (Bangkok: Child Rights, Asianet and the Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University) - (2001), ‘Strengthening ASEAN Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights: Lessons for ASEAN-EU Relations?’, Petchsiri, Apirat; Kellermann, Alfred E.; Tingsabadh, Charit and Watananguhn, Pornsan (eds, 2001), Strengthening ASEAN Integration: Lessons from the EU’s Rule of Law (Conference Proceedings, February 2001, Bangkok: Centre for European Studies at Chulalongkorn University): 65-73 - (2002), Dimensions of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region (Bangkok: Office of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand Murden, Simon, ‘Culture in World Affairs’, Baylis, J. and Smith, S. (eds), The Globalization of World Politics – An Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: OUP): 456-469 Muzaffar, Chandra (1999), ‘From Human Rights to Human Dignity’, Van Ness, Peter (ed., 1999), Debating Human Rights – Critical Essays from the United States and Asia (London and New York: Routledge): 25-31 Nagai-Berthrong, John H. and Evelyn (2000), Confucianism: A Short Introduction (Oxford: Oneworld Publications) Nakamura, Hajime and Wiener, P.P. (1964), Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawai’I Press, reprint 1984) Narine, S. (1999), ‘ASEAN into the Twenty-First Century: Problems and Prospects’, The Pacific Review, Vol 12, No. 3: 357-380 Nathan, Andrew J. and Gilley, Bruce (2002), China’s New Rulers – The Secret Files

162

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

(London: Granta Books) Nevins, Joseph (2002), ‘The Making of “Ground Zero” in East Timor in 1999: An Analysis of International Complicity in Indonesia’s Crimes’, Asian Survey, Vol. XLII, No. 4, July-August 2002 (Special Issue: The Legacy of Violence in Indonesia) (Berkeley: University of California Press): 623-641 Nilsawas, Pafun (1999), Differences between the EU and ASEAN on Human Rights in Myanmar (Bangkok: Centre for European Studies, Chulalongkorn University; Research Monograph No. 1999/30), unpublished Nguyen Duy Quy; Nguyen Thu My and Duong Phu Hiep (eds, 2004), Asia-Europe Cooperation and the Role of Vietnam (Hanoi: National Political Publishers, Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences and European Studies Programme Vietnam, ESPV) Nguyen, Thang and Richter, Frank-Jürgen (eds, 2003), Indonesia Matters – Diversity, Unity and Stability in Fragile Times (Singapore: Times Media Private Ltd.) Nguyen, Tuan (1999), ‘Chung Yung and the Greek Conception of Justice’, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 26.2: 187-202 Niemann, Ulrich (2001), ‘The Dynamics of People-to-People Exchanges between Asia and Europe’, Chulalongkorn University Journal of European Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, July-December 2001: 28-34 Noel, Antoine (2000), ‘Human Rights and International Cooperation – A New Approach’, The Courier, No. 178, December 1999 – January 2000 (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities): 24-25 Nugent, Neill (1999), The Government and Politics of the European Union (London: Macmillan) O’Brien, Nicholas (2001), ASEM: Moving from an Economic to a Political Dialogue? Breifing Paper BP 01/02, September 2001 (Brussels: EIAS) Okabe, Tatsumi (1998), ‘China’s Prospects for Change’, Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (eds, 1998), Democracy in East Asia (London and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press): 171-183 Ovid (2002), Metamorphoses (translated by Arthur Golding) London: Penguin Pagden, Anthony (2002), The Idea of Europe – From Antiquity to the European Union (Cambridge, CUP) Paribatra, Sukhumbhand (2000), ‘ASEM Political Dialogue – Now and in the Future’, Lee Chong-wha (ed., 2000), The Seoul 2000 Summit: The Way Ahead for Europe Partnership (Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy): 147-153 Park, Sung-Hoon (2004), ‘ASEM and the Future of Asia-Europe Relations: Backgrounds, Main Characteristics and New Challenges’, Asia-Europe Journal (2004) 2: 341-354 - (2005), ‘ASEM and the Future of Asia-Europe Relations: Backgrounds, Main Characteristics and New Challenges’, Mantaha, Zainal and Tanaka, Toshiro (eds, 2005), Enlarging European Union and Asia – Proceedings of the 10th ASEF University, 22 May to 5 June 2004, Tokyo, Japan (Singapore and Tokyo: Asia-

Bibliography

163

Europe Foundation and Keio University): 197-216 Patiyasevi, Rita (1999), ‘ASEAN, EU Aim for Better Ties Despite Burma’, The Nation (Bangkok), 24 May 1999 Patten, Chris (1998), East and West (London: Macmillan) Pattugalan, Gina (1999), ‘The European Union in Southeast Asia: Trends, Shifts and Issues’, Panorama 1/1999: 43-65 (Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Foundation) Pelkmans, Jacques (ed., 1996), ‘Understanding Values in Asia’, Europe-Asia Forum, Venice, 18/19 January 1996, Reference Paper, Working Group 4 (Brussels: European Institute for South and Southeast Asian Studies) Pelkmans, Jacques and Shinkai Hiroko (eds, 1997), ASEM: How Promising a Partnership? (Brussels: EIAS) Petchsiri, Apirat (1987), Eastern Importation of Western Criminal Law – Thailand as a Case Study (Publications of the Comparative Criminal Law Project, Vol. 17, Littleton, Colorado: Fred B. Rothman & Co) - (2001), The Rule of Law and Traditional Society: A Footnote on ASEAN’s Legal Culture’, Petchsiri, Apirat; Kellermann, Alfred E.; Tingsabadh, Charit and Watananguhn, Pornsan (eds, 2001), Strengthening ASEAN Integration: Lessons from the EU’s Rule of Law, Conference Proceedings, February 2001 (Bangkok: Centre for European Studies at Chulalongkorn University): 49-64 - (2004), ‘How European Integration is Perceived in Asia’; Asia-Europe Journal (2004) 2: 373-386 - (2005), ‘How European Integration is Perceived in Asia: The Academicians’ Point of View’, Mantaha, Zainal and Tanaka, Toshiro (eds, 2005), Enlarging European Union and Asia – Proceedings of the 10th ASEF University, 22 May to 5 June 2004, Tokyo, Japan (Singapore and Tokyo: Asia-Europe Foundation and Keio University): 109-127 Petchsiri, Apirat, Sutthisripok, Paveena and Thontiravong, Pakprapai (eds, 2001), Comparative Regional Integration: ASEAN and the EU (Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Bangkok: Interdisciplinary Department of European Studies, Chulalongkorn University) Peterson, John (2004), ‘Policy Networks’, Wiener, Antje and Diez, Thomas (eds, 2004), European Integration Theory (Oxford: OUP, 2004): 117-135 Petiteville, Franck (2003), ‘Exporting “Values”? EU External Co-operation as a “Soft Diplomacy”’, Knodt, Michèle and Princen, Sebastiaan (EDS., 2003), Understanding the European Union’s External Relations (London: Routledge): 127-141 Phatharodom, Vimolvan (1994), ‘ASEAN-EC Relations: From the Bangkok Declaration (1967) to the Maastricht Treaty (1992)’, Chulalongkorn University Journal of European Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, July – December 1994: 1-21 - (1998), ‘EU and ASEAN in the 1990s: A New Era of Relationship’, Chulalongkorn University Journal of European Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2: 59-83 Piening, Christopher (1997), Global Europe – The European Union in World Affairs (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers) Pijpers, A. (1991), ‘European Political Cooperation and the Realist Paradigm’,

164

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Holland, Martin (ed., 1991), The Future of European Political Cooperation (London: Macmillan): 8-35 Pinitpuvadol, Kamalinne (2002), ‘The European Union’s Role in Promoting Human Rights in Third Countries’, Chulalongkorn University Journal of European Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, July-December 2002: 119-167 Plummer, Michael, G. (2003), ‘ASEAN Integration and the European Experience’, EurAsia Bulletin, June-July 2003: 3-5 Pollack, Mark A. (2001), ‘International Relations Theory and European Integration’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2, June 2001: 221-244 - (2005), ‘Theorizing EU Policy-Making’, Wallace, Helen; Wallace, William and Pollack, Mark A.: (eds, 2005), Policy-Making in the European Union (Oxford: OUP): 13-48 Preston, Peter W. and Gilson, Julie (eds, 2001), The European Union and East Asia. Interregional Linkages in a Changing Global System (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar) Putnam, R.D. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games’, International Organisation, 42: 427-460 Queen, Christopher S. (ed., 2000), Engaged Buddhism in the West (Boston: Wisdom Publications) Quigley, John (2002), ‘The ASEAN-ASEM Framework: Complements or Duplicates’, EurAsia Bulletin, March-April 2002 (Brussels: EIAS) 63-65 - (2003a), ‘Controversial Start to ALA Review’, in: EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 2, February 2003 (Brussels, EIAS): 19-20 - (2003b), ‘ALA Regulation proposal Likely to be Rejected’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 2003 (Brussels, EIAS): 9-10 - (2003c). ‘Patten Delivers ALA Ultimatum to Parliament’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 2003 (Brussels, EIAS): 24-25 - (2003d), ‘EU Pressure on Burmese Rulers Increases’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, Nos. 6 & 7, June-July 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 26-27 - (2003e), ‘Burma holds EU-ASEAN Relations Back’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, Nos. 10 & 11, October – November 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 25-26 - (2004a), ‘Bay of Bengal Group holds Inaugural Summit’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 8, Nos. 5 & 6, May-June 2004 (Brussels: EIAS): 19 - (2004b), ‘The Outcomes of the ASEM V Summit’; EurAsia Bulletin, NovemberDecember 2004 (Brussels: EIAS): 12-17 - (2004c), ‘Human Rights in Trade and Cooperation Agreements with Asia’, EurAsia Bulletin, September – October 2004 (Brussels: EIAS): 1/2 - (2004d), ‘EU-Indonesia Relations: Stability and Prosperity in South-East Asia’, EurAsia Bulletin, November-December 2004 (Brussels: EIAS): 10-11 - (2004e), ‘EU Human Rights Dialogues with China’, EurAsia Bulletin, September – October 2004 (Brussels: EIAS): 9 - (2005a), ‘Integrating Culture into the Europe-Asia Relationship’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 9, Nos. 5 & 6, May-June 2005 (Brussels, EIAS): 1-2 Ramos-Horta, José (1997), The East Timor Conflict, Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific

Bibliography

165

and the Role of the West - Statement by José Ramos-Horta to the Joint Meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, Committee on External Economic Relations and Committee on Development and Cooperation of the European Parliament (Brussels, 22 April 1997) Ravi, Srilata; Rutten, Mario and Beng-Lan, Goh (eds, 2004), Asia in Europe – Europe in Asia (Singapore and Leiden: Institute for South East Asian Studies and International Institute for Asian Studies, 2004) Reid, Anthony (1998), ‘Merdeka: The Concept of Freedom in Indonesia’, Kelly, D. and Reid, A. (eds, 1998), Asian Freedoms – The Idea of Freedom in East and Southeast Asia (Cambridge: CUP): 141-160 Reiterer, Michael (2004a), ‘ASEM – Value-Added to International Relations and to the Asia-Europe Relationship’, Stokhof, Wim; van der Velde, Paul and Yeo, Lay Hwee, (eds, 2004), The Eurasian Space – Far More Than Two Continents (Singapore and Leiden: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and International Institute for Asian Studies): 9-22 - (2004b), ‘The Role of Education and Culture in Contemporary International Relations; A Challenge for the Asia Europe Meeting’, Asia Europe Journal (2004) 2: 365-371 - (2005), ‘Asia Europe: Do They Meet? – Revisited’, Mantaha, Zainal and Tanaka, Toshiro (eds, 2005), Enlarging European Union and Asia – Proceedings of the 10th ASEF University, 22 May to 5 June 2004, Tokyo, Japan (Singapore and Tokyo: Asia-Europe Foundation and Keio University): 249-287 Richards, Gareth A and Kirkpatrick, Colin (1999), ‘Reorienting Interregional Cooperation in the Global Political Economy: Europe’s East Asian Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4, December 1999: 683-710 Ridzam, Dato Deva Mohd. (2003), ‘ASEM and Civil Society – Need for a new Dynamic’, EurAsia Bulletin, October-November 2003 (Brussels: EIAS) 3-5 Riedel, Eibe and Will, Martin (1999), ‘Human Rights Clauses in External Agreements of the EC’, Alston, Philip (ed., 1999), The EU and Human Rights (Oxford: OUP): 723-754 Risse, Thomas (2004), ‘Social Constructivism and European Integration’, Wiener, A. and Diez, T. (eds, 2004), European Integration Theory (Oxford: OUP): 159176 Robles, Alfredo C. (2004), The Political Economy of Interregional Relations – ASEAN and the EU (Aldershot: Ashgate) Rosamond, Ben (2000), Theories of European Integration (Basingstoke: Palgrave) Rothermund, Dietmar (2001), ‘Cultural Partnership between Asia and Europe’, Chirathivat, Suthiphand, Knipping, Franz, Lassen, Poul Henrik and Chia Siow Yue (eds, 2001), Asia-Europe on the Eve of the 21st Century (Bangkok and Singapore: Centre for European Studies and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies): 9-16 Royal Thai Government (1996a), Asia-Europe Meeting, Bangkok, 1-2 March 1996: PM Banharn Silpa-Archa’s Opening Address (Bangkok: Ministry of Foreign Affairs): 11-19 - (1996b), Asia-Europe Meeting, Bangkok, 1-2 March 1996: The Asia-EU Dialogue

166

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

(Bangkok: Ministry of Foreign Affairs): 1-13 - (1996c), Asia-Europe Meeting, Bangkok, 1-2 March 1996: Asia-Europe Meeting: Dynamic Partners in the 21st Century (Bangkok: Ministry of Foreign Affairs): 1-6 - (1996d), Asia-Europe Meeting, Bangkok, 1-2 March 1996: The Rationale for the ASEM (Bangkok: Ministry of Foreign Affairs): 28-33 Said, Edward (1978), Orientalism (London: Penguin Books) Samydorai, Sinapan (2003), ‘9/11 Anti-Terrorist Measure[s] and their Impact on Human Rights in Asia’, Johannen, Uwe; Smith, Alan and Gomez, James (eds, 2003), September 11 and Political Freedom – Asian Perspectives (Singapore: Select Publishing and Bangkok: Friedrich-Naumann Foundation): 216-240 Sangharakshita (2001), A Survey of Buddhism (Birmingham: Windhorse Publications) Scappucci, Gioia (1999), ‘EU-ACP Relations in the 1990s’, Cosgrove-Sacks, Carol (ed., 1999), The European Union and Developing Countries (Basingstoke: Macmillan): 109-126 Schiavone, Giuseppe (2000), ‘The European Vision of Individual Rights and the Human Rights Policy of the European Union’, The Role of the Individual visà-vis The Family, Society and the State in Asia and Europe (Singapore: AsiaEurope Foundation): 153-170 Sedelmeier, Ulrich (2004), ‘Collective Identity’, Carlsnaes, Walter; Sjursen, Helene and White, Brian (eds, 2004), Contemporary European Foreign Policy (London: Sage): 123-140 Sein Win (2001), ’Human Rights Abuses and Violations in Burma’, Johannen, Uwe and Gomez, James (eds), Democratic Transitions in Asia (Select Publishing and Friedrich Naumann Foundation: Singapore/ Bangkok): 113-119 Selth, Andrew (2001), ‘Burma’s Armed Forces Under Civilian Rule: A Return to the Past?’ Technical Advisory Network of Burma Working Papers, WP 02/01 of May 2001 (Washington D.C.: The Burma Fund) Sen, Amartya (2001), Development as Freedom (Oxford: OUP) Serradell, Victor (1996), ‘Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM): A Historical Turning Point in Relations between the Two Regions’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 2/1996: 185-210 Severino, Rodolfo C. Jun (1999), ‘No Alternative to Regionalism’, Panorama 1/1999: 67-78 (Manila: Konrad-Adenauer Foundation) Sheridan, Greg (2000), Asian Values, Western Dreams (London: Allen and Unwin) Silverstein, Josef (1998), ‘The Idea of Freedom in Burma and the Political Thought of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’, Kelly, D. and Reid, A. (eds, 1998), Asian Freedoms – The Idea of Freedom in East and Southeast Asia (Cambridge: CUP): 187-203 Simma, Bruno; Aschenbrenner, Jo Beatrix and Schulte, Constanze (1999), ‘Human Rights Considerations in the Development Co-operation Activities of the EC’, Alston, Philip (ed., 1999), The EU and Human Rights (Oxford: OUP): 571-626 Singh, Bilveer (1995), East Timor, Indonesia and the World – Myths and Realities

Bibliography

167

(Singapore: Singapore Institute of International Affairs) Sjursen, Helene (2003), ‘Understanding the Common Foreign and Security Policy: Analytical Building Blocks’, Knodt, Michèle and Princen, Sebastiaan (eds, 2003), Understanding the European Union’s External Relations (London: Routledge): 35-53 - (2004), ‘Security and Defence’, Carlsnaes, Walter; Sjursen, Helene and White, Brian (eds, 2004), Contemporary European Foreign Policy (London: Sage): 5974 Smith, Claire M. (2000), Adapting Consociationalism: Viable Democratic Structures in Burma (Working Paper WP 03/00, November 2000, Technical Advisory Network of Burma: Working Papers, Washington D.C.: The Burma Fund) Smith, Hazel (2002), EU Foreign Policy – what it is and what it does (London: Pluto Press) Smith, Karen E. and Light, Margot (eds, 2001), Ethics and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: CUP) Smith, Karen E. (2001), ‘The EU, human rights and relations with third countries: “foreign policy” with an ethical dimension?’ Smith, Karen and Light, Margot (eds, 2001), Ethics and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: CUP): 185-203 - (2003), European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World (Cambridge: Polity Press) Smith, Michael (1996), ‘The EU as a International Actor’, J. Richardson (ed., 1996), European Union: Power and Policy-Making (London: Routledge) - (2004), ‘CFSP and ESDP: From Idea to Institution to Policy?’, Holland, Martin (ed. 2004), Common Foreign and Security Policy – The First Ten Years (London: Continuum): 78-88 Somchai Homla-or (1997), Problems of Human Rights in Asia (Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University) Solidum, Estrella D. (2003), The Politics of ASEAN (Singapore: Eastern University Press) Spence, Jonathan (1998), The Chan’s Great Continent - China in Western Minds (London: Penguin) St. Augustine (2000), The City of God (Introduction by Thomas Merton) New York: The Modern Library Steans, Jill and Pettiford, Lloyd (2001), International Relations: Perspectives and Themes (Essex: Pearson Education Ltd) Stokhof, Wim; van der Velde, Paul and Yeo, Lay Hwee, (2004), The Eurasian Space – Far More Than Two Continents (Singapore and Leiden: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and International Institute for Asian Studies) Stokke, Hugo (2000), ‘Modernization without Westernization? Asian Values and Human Rights Discourse in East and West’, Jacobsen, Michael and Bruun, Ole (eds, 2000), Human Rights and Asian Values (Richmond/ Surrey: Curzon): 134158 Subhan, Malcolm (2004), ‘Asia and the EU – Back to the Future’, EurAsia Bulletin,

168

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

September to October 2004: (Brussels: EIAS): 7-8 Sullivan, Michael J. (1999), ‘Developmentalism and China’s Human Rights Policy’, Van Ness, Peter (ed., 1999), Debating Human Rights – Critical Essays from the United States and Asia (London and New York: Routledge): 120-143 Suwanpong, Nopadon (1999), ‘ASEAN and EU as Actors in Conflict Control and crisis Management’, Mahnke, Dieter et al (eds, 1999), ASEAN and the EU in the International Environment (Asia-Europe Studies series, Vol. 4, Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft): 115-122 Svensson, Marina (2000), ‘The Chinese Debate on Asian Values and Human Rights: Some Reflections on Relativism, Nationalism and Orientalism’, Jacobsen, Michael and Bruun, Ole (eds, 2000), Human Rights and Asian Values (Richmond/ Surrey: Curzon): 199-226 Svensson, Thommy (1994), The Impossibility of Liberalism and Democracy in Indonesia, 1840-1940 – Report No. 13 by the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (Copenhagen: NIAS 1994) Swearer, Donald K. (1995), The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia (Albany: State University of New York Press) - (2003), ‘Buddhism and Abortion’, Chappell, David W. (ed., 2003), Socially Engaged Spirituality Essays in Honour of Sulak Sivaraksa on his 70th Birthday (Bangkok: Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation, 2003): 226-240 Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (1999), Our Future with Asia: Proposal for a Swedish Asia Strategy (Stockholm: The Asia Strategy Project, Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Symonides, Janusz (ed.) (1998), Human Rights: New Dimensions and Challenges - UNESCO Manual on Human Rights (Dartmouth: Ashgate/ UNESCO Publishing) Tan, Joseph L.H. and Chia Siow Yue (eds, 1997), ASEAN & EU – Forging New Linkages and Strategic Alliances (Paris/Singapore: OECD Development Centre/ Institute of South East Asian Studies) Tay, Simon and Chien-Yen, Goh (1999), ‘EU-ASEAN Relations: The Question of Myanmar’, Panorama No. 4/1999, December 1999 (Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung): 39-75 Taylor, Paul (1999), ‘The United Nations in the 1990s: proactive cosmopolitanism and the issue of sovereignty’, Political Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3: 538-565 Thanh-Dam Truong (1998), ‘”Asian” Values and the Heart of Understanding: A Buddhist View’, Josiane Cauquelin, Paul Lim and Birgit Mayer-König (eds, 1998), Asian Values, Encounter with Diversity (Richmond/ Surrey: Curzon Press): 43-69 Tingsabadh, Charit (1999), ‘Notes on ASEAN-EU Cooperation on Environmental Issues’, Chirathivat, Suthiphand, Filippini, Carlo and Molteni, Corrado (eds, 1999), ASEAN-EU Economic Relations: The Long-Term Potential Beyond the Recent Turmoil (Conference Proceedings, Milan and Bangkok: Institute of Economic and Social Studies for East Asia, Bocconi University): 181-192 Tong, Jiadong (2000), The Openness of International Economic Integration and

Bibliography

169

Trade between EU and China (unpublished conference paper: 5th ECSA World Conference 2000: ‘Enlarging the EU’; Working Group 4, Brussels, 14-25 December 2000) - (2001), ‘The European Union and China: the benefits of openness in international economic integration’, Preston, Peter W. and Gilson, Julie (eds, 2001), The European Union and East Asia. Interregional Linkages in a Changing Global System (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 189-197 Tonra, Ben (2000), ‘Mapping EU Foreign Policy Studies’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 2000: 163-169 Tonra, Ben and Christiansen, Thomas (eds, 2004), Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press) Transnational Institute and Burma Centrum Nederland (1998), European Investment Supports Military Oppression in Burma (Lobby Briefing: Amsterdam: TIBCN) Tseng, Su-Ling (2001), ‘The European Union’s Commercial Policymaking Towards China’, Preston, Peter W. and Gilson, Julie (eds, 2001), The European Union and East Asia. Interregional Linkages in a Changing Global System (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 170-188 Ul-Haq, Obaid et al (1999), ‘ASEAN – Search for Regional Security in Southeast Asia’, World Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 3, July-September 1999: 24-39 U Maung Maung (1997), ‘Asia and Europe: Conflicting Interests in the WTO and the Global Economy’, Brennan, Brid; Heijmans, Erik and Vervest, Pietje (eds, 1997), ASEM Trading New Silk Routes: Beyond Geo-politics and Geo-Economics: Towards a new Relationship between Asia and Europe (papers delivered at the NGO Conference held in February 1996 in Bangkok; Amsterdam: Trans-National Institute and Focus on the Global South: 121 - 129 - (2003), ‘Confronting Unocal in Burma’, Human Rights Dialogue, Series 2, No. 9, Spring 2003 (New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs) U Win Aung (2001), ‘Myanmar Enters the New Century’, World Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2, April - June 2001: 14-22 Uhlin, Anders (1999), ‘“Asian Values - Democracy”: Neither Asian Nor Democratic - Discourses & Practices in late New Order Indonesia’, Occasional Paper, No. 39, April 1999 (Stockholm: Center for Pacific Asia Studies at Stockholm University) Umbach, Frank (2004), ‘EU-ASEAN Political and Security Dialogue at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Prospects for Interregional Cooperation on International Terrorism’; Panorama 1/2004 (Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Foundation): 9-22 United Nations (UN) (1994), Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar (Document A/49/594, of 28 October 1994; Reference No: 94-42026 (E) 111194, 151194) - (1995), The United Nations and Human Rights, 1945 – 1995 (New York: UN, Department of Public Information) van der Cruysse, Dirk (2002), Siam and the West 1500 – 1700 (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books) - (2003), Le Noble Désir de Courir Le Monde – Voyager en Asie au XVIIe Siècle

170

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

(Paris: Fayard) van der Geest, Willem (2003), ‘How the Proposed ALA Regulation Matters to Asia’, EURAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, Nos. 6 & 7, June-July 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 21-23 - (2004), ‘Sharing Benefits of Globalization through an EU-ASEAN FTA?’ Asia Europe Journal (2004) 2: 201-219 van der Geest, Willem and Tränkmann, Beate (eds, 1998), Democracy, Human Rights and Economic Development (Occasional Paper No. 4, Brussels: EIAS) Vande Walle, Willy (1998), ‘The Encounter Between Europe and Asia in Pre-colonial Times’, Josiane Cauquelin, Paul Lim and Birgit Mayer-König (eds, 1998), Asian Values, Encounter with Diversity (Richmond/ Surrey: Curzon Press): 164-200 Van Ness, Peter (ed., 1999), Debating Human Rights – Critical Essays from the United States and Asia (London and New York: Routledge) Van Reisen, Mirjam (1997), ‘The Two Faces of the European Union towards the East: The Relationship between its Domestic and External Policies’, Brennan, Brid; Heijmans, Erik and Vervest, Pietje (eds), ASEM Trading New Silk Routes: Beyond Geo-politics and Geo-Economics: Towards a new Relationship between Asia and Europe, (Papers delivered at the NGO Conference held in February 1996 in Bangkok, Asterdam: Trans-National Institute and Focus on the Global South) 48-56 Vatikiotis, Michael R.J. (1993), Indonesian Politics Under Suharto - Order, Development and Pressure for Change (London: Routledge) - (2001), ‘Freedom and Truth: Cultivating the Free Press in Emerging Democracies’, Johannen, Uwe and Gomez, James (eds, 2001), Democratic Transitions in Asia (Select Publishing and Friedrich Naumann Foundation: Singapore and Bangkok, 2001): 143-150 Voicu, Ioan (2002), ‘Unity in Diversity – The Educational Component in ASEM is Taking Quiet But Significant Strides to Smooth Relations Between Europe and Asia’, Bangkok Post, Sunday, 6 October 2002 von Bogdandy, Armin (2000), ‘The European Union as a Human Rights Organization? Human Rights and the Core of the European Union’, Common Market Law Review 37: 1307-1338 Vuttipanyalert, Narisa (2002), Mechanisms of Human Rights Protection in ASEAN (Unpublished Thesis: Bangkok: Ramkhamhaeng University, Faculty of Law) Waltz, K.N. (1978), The Theory of International Politics (Reading/MA: AddisonWesley) Wang, Yanlai; Rees, Nicholas and Andreosso-O’Callaghan, Bernadette (2004), ‘Development in China: Findings from a Public Opinion Survey’, Journal of Contemporary China (2004), 13(39), May 2004: 203-222 Ward, Angela (1998), ‘Frameworks for Cooperation between the European Union and Third States: a Viable Matrix for Uniform Human Rights Standards?’ European Foreign Affairs Review, 3: 505-536 Watts, David (2005), ‘Needs to cut it free from its American apron strings’ [sic]; in: Asian Affairs, June 2005: 4-5 Weber, Cynthia (2005), International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction

Bibliography

171

(Abingdon: Routledge) Weber, Maria (1998), ‘China in Transition: The Changing Economic Scene’, World Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 1, January-March 1998: 74-86 Webber, M. and Smith, M. (2002), Foreign Policy in a Transformed World (Harlow: Prentice Hall) Weggel, Oskar (2001), ‘European Individualism versus Confucian Obedience’, The Role of the Individual vis-à-vis The Family, Society and the State in Asia and Europe (Singapore: Asia-Europe Foundation): 65-71 Wei-hsun Fu, Charles and Wawrytko, Sandra A. (eds, 1991), Buddhist Ethics and Modern Society – An International Symposium (Contributions to the Study of Religion, No. 31; London: Greenwood Press) Wendt, A. (1987), ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Theory’, International Organization, 43/3: 335-370 - (1999), Social Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: CUP) White, Brian (2004), ‘Foreign Policy Analysis and the new Europe’, Carlsnaes, Walter; Sjursen, Helene and White, Brian (eds, 2004), Contemporary European Foreign Policy (London: Sage): 11-31 Widjojo, Agus (2001), ‘Repositioning of the Indonesian Military: A Process of Reform Necessity or a Political Issue?’ Johannen, Uwe and Gomez, James (eds, 2001), Democratic Transitions in Asia (Select Publishing and Friedrich Naumann Foundation: Singapore and Bangkok): 161-172 Wiener, A. and Diez, Thomas (2004), European Integration Theory (Oxford: OUP) Wiessala, Georg (1999a), ‘An Emerging Relationship: The European’s Union’s “New Asia Strategy”, World Affairs, 3.1, January-March 1999: 96-112 - (1999b), ‘European Union in a Changing World; trompe l’oeil or Revolution? World Affairs, 3:4, October-December 1999: pp. 36 – 51 - (2000a) ‘Legal Features and Challenges of the European Union’, Anderson, Peter; Wiessala, Georg; Williams, Christopher (eds, 2000), New Europe in Transition (London: Continuum): 26 – 39 - (2000b) ‘The Global Reach of the European Union’, Anderson, Peter; Wiessala, Georg; Williams, Christopher (eds, 2000), New Europe in Transition New Europe in Transition (London: Continuum): 40 – 55 - (2002a), The European Union and Asian Countries (London: Continuum/Sheffield Academic Press/ UACES, 2002) - (2002b), ‘The Morality of the EU-Asia Dialogue and the Discourse about Values’, Interdisciplinary Research on European Studies, (Bangkok: Centre for European Studies Chulalongkorn University): 18-32 - (2002c), ‘”Re - Orienting” the Global Learning Experience’, European Voice, 21 February 2002 (EU Study Programmes Supplement 2002): 28-31 - (2002d), ‘European Union, Human Rights and “Asian Values” ‘, Journal of European Studies Chulalongkorn University, 9.1, January – June 2001 (publication date: March 2002; Bangkok: Centre for European Studies Chulalongkorn University): 15-35 - (2002e), New Dynamism or Institutional Overload? Asia-Europe Relations after

172

Re-Orienting the Fundamentals

Seoul (Centre for European Union Studies, University of Hull, Research Paper 1/2001, April 2002): 1-51 - (2002f), ‘Reading the Software of Asian Society’, European Voice, Vol. 8, No. 22, 6-12 June 2002: 18 (EU-Asia Relations Supplement) - (2002g), ‘The European Union’s New Asia Policy and EU-South Asia Relations - An Undersold Success Story? World Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 4, October – December 2002: 128 – 144 - (2003a) ‘Making Waves or Just Drifting Along? The European Union is Re-thinking its Foreign Policy Priorities in Asia’, EurAsia Bulletin (Brussels: EIAS - EIAS) - Vol. 7, No. 2, February 2003: 7-8 - (2003b) ‘Beyond Distant Neighbours – Keeping Asia-Europe Relations in the Focus of Your Career’, European Voice, March 2003 (EU Study Programmes Supplement) - (2004) ‘The European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and Asian Countries’, Holland, M. (ed., 2004), The Common Foreign and Security Policy – The Record of Reforms: 88-110 Whitman, R.G. (1997), ‘The International Identity of the EU: Instruments as Identity’, Landau, A. and Whitman, R. (eds, 1997), Rethinking the European Union: Institutions, Interests, Identities (Basingstoke: Macmillan) - (1998), From Civilian Power to Superpower? The International Identity of the European Union (London: Macmillan) Wilson, Kevin and van der Dussen, Jan (eds, 1995), The History of the Idea of Europe (London & New York: Routledge) Wills, John E. (2001), 1688 – A Global History (London: Granta Books) World Affairs (1998), ‘Interview with Mary Robinson’ (Vol. 2,No. 2, OctoberDecember 1998): 12-20 - (2001): ‘Interview: U Win Aung’ (Vol. 5, No. 2, April-June 2001): 14-22 Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism (2001), National Human Rights Institutions in the Asia-Pacific: A Source Book (Human Rights Center Makati City/Philippines) Xiang, Yun (2002), ‘Human Rights Ideas and Concepts in Traditional Chinese Culture’, Human Rights, No. 5, November 2002 (Beijing: CSHRS): 7-10 Xu, Gang (1999), ‘The Aesthetic in Confucianism Examined from Three Viewpoints’, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 26.4: 425-444 Yang, Dali L. (2003), ‘China in 2002 – Leadership Transition and the Political Economy of Governance’, Asian Survey, Vol. XLIII, No. 1, January/February 2003 (Berkeley: University of California Press): 25-40 Yawnghwe, Harn (2005), ‘An EU Strategy for Burma/Myanmar?’ EurAsia BulletinVol. 9, Nos. 7 and 8, July-August 2005 (Brussels: EIAS): 8-10 Yeo, Lay Hwee, (1999), ‘ASEM: Beyond Economics’, Panorama 4/1999 (Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Foundation): 5-38 - (2000), ’ASEM: Looking Back, Looking Forward’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 22.1: 113-144 - (2003), ‘Understanding the Asia-Europe Meeting Process’, Mantaha, Zainal and

Bibliography

173

Tingsabadh, Charit (eds, 2003), Asia and Europe – Towards Greater Inter-Cultural Exchanges (Proceedings of the 6th ASEF University, 27 July to 11 August 2002, Bangkok, Thailand (Singapore and Bangkok: Asia-Europe Foundation and Centre for European Studies at Chulalongkorn University Bangkok): 149-165 Yeo, Lay Hwee and Latif, Asad (eds, 2000), Asia and Europe - Essays and Speeches by Tommy Koh (Singapore: Asia-Europe Foundation) Young, O.R. (1972), ‘The Actors in World Politics’, Rosenau, J.N., Davies, V. and East, M.A. (eds, 1972), The Analysis of International Politics (New York: Free Press): 125-144 Youngs, Richard (2001), The European Union and the Promotion of Democracy; Europe’s Mediterranean and Asia Policies (Oxford: Oxford University Press) - (2004), ‘Normative Dynamics and Strategic Interests in the EU’s External Identity’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 42, No. 2: 415-435 Zack-Williams, Alfred B (2004), ‘Africa and the Project of Modernity: Some Reflections’, Zack-Williams, Alfred B. and Uduku, Ola (eds, 2004), Africa Beyond the Post-Colonial (Aldershot: Ashgate) Zemin, Jiang (2001), Speech at the Rally in Celebration of the 80th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China (July 1, 2001) (Beijing: New Star Publishers) Zhang, Wei-Wei (2003), ‘China’s Political Transition: Trends and Prospects’, EurAsia Bulletin, Vol. 7, Nos. 10 & 11, October – November 2003 (Brussels: EIAS): 11-14 Zhao, Chenggen and McGough, Sean (2001), ‘China: The Politics of ‘Rational Authoritarianism’, Preston, Peter W. and Gilson, Julie (eds, 2001), The European Union and East Asia. Interregional Linkages in a Changing Global System (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 154-169 Zhou, Hong (2004), ‘EU Social Policy Studies in China’, Asia Europe Journal, 2 (2004): 415-427

This page intentionally left blank

Index

Note: numbers in brackets preceded by n are footnote numbers. Acharya, Arabinda 133 ACP (African, Carribean & Pacific) group 62, 69, 70-2 actor/‘actorness’ 20-1, 24, 30, 31, 33, 78, 96 added value 121 AECF (Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework) 86 AEVG (Asia-Europe Vision Group) 83, 124 affinity/aloofness patterns 34-7 Afghanistan 36-7, 42, 62, 96, 97 CFSP instruments in 97(n4), 99 Africa 62, 68, 69, 70 African, Carribean & Pacific group see ACP agengy/agencies 22, 35 structures/rôles of 4, 7, 24 Aggestam, Lisbeth 25-6, 33, 34-5 agriculture projects 130 AHRM (ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism) 81 aid 70, 79, 101, 103, 104, 128, 138 AIPO Declaration (1993) 82 Algieri, Franco 106 Alston, P. 56-7 Altes, Korthals 119 Amsterdam Treaty (1999) 58, 106-7 Anderson, Benedict 78 Andreatta, Filippo 15-16 Angle, Stephen C. 43 APFNHRI (Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions) 66-7 Argentina 70 arms proliferation 64, 78, 98, 129, 130 ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) 7, 40, 41, 50 and EU 33, 39, 62, 72, 75-83, 99-100, 105, 113, 138 counterterrorism 131, 133-4 economic relations 100, 130 education projects 123 European Commission 79, 82 human rights dilemna 78-83, 90

Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) 100 Human Rights Declaration (1993) 67 human rights initiatives 67-8, 89 membership 76-7, 77(n1) non-interference principle 80-1 + 3 initiative 77-8, 85 Regional Forum (ARF) 108 and UN 65-6 see also ASEM ASEAN Human Rights Commission 81 ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism (AHRM) 81 ASEF (Asia-Europe Foundation) 124 ASEM (Asia-Europe Meetings) 7, 20-1, 39, 62, 64, 76, 83-90, 91, 99, 117, 128 China and 107, 108 counterterrorism 131-2, 134 educational/cultural projects 123-4 and European Commission 83, 86-8, 89 and European Parliament 69, 87 human rights initiatives 86-8, 88-9 human rights marginalized in 83-90, 104, 138 Informal Seminars on Human Rights 87 informality of 86, 88 Interfaith Dialogue 120 origins of 83-4 theories of 84-6 Asia CFSP in see Asian Chapter under CFSP Commission Delegation in 31 East 76 and EU see under European Union European perceptions of 9-13, 47 classical/Christian 10-11 as ‘other’ 12-13 Financial Crisis in (1997-8) 41, 64, 76, 79, 130 GDP of 11 human rights in 6, 42-3, 65-8

176

Re-orienting the Fundamentals

regional initiatives 66-8 political developments in 95 South-East see South-East Asia see also specific countries Asia Strategies 3, 13, 32, 61-5, 73, 127, 130, 138 ‘actorness’ notion in 20-1 for counterterrorism 132 as declaratory policy 56 New Partnership with SE Asia (2003) 82 ‘roadmap’ (2001) 65 Towards a New Asia Strategy (1994) 63-4, 82, 83 Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF) 89 Asian Development Bank 11 Asian Flu 33, 42, 113 Asian Lexical Matrix 42 ‘Asian values’ debate 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40-51, 67 and education 119 and human rights promotion 60, 61, 66, 72, 73 regional 47-50, 76 religion in 44-7 Aung San Suu Kyi 49, 101, 103 Australasia 31 Austria 59 avian flu 3, 128, 130 Baker, Philip 112 Bali bombing 116, 132 Bali Interfaith Dialogue (2005) 131 Bangkok Declaration (1967) 80 Bangkok Declaration (1993) 66, 67 Bangkok Summit (1996) 76 Barr, Michael D. 43, 44, 46-7, 66 Bartels, Lorand 68, 70, 72 Beng-Lan, Goh 12, 13 BIMST-EC 104 ‘bloc-to-bloc’ dialogue 75 see also ASEAN Boisseau du Rocher, Sophie 78 Bretherton, C. 20-1, 25, 30, 33 Bridges, Brian 98 Britain 12, 121, 125 Human Rights Act (2000) 59 Brotton, Jerry 66 Brown, Chris 38 Bruun, Ole 40-1

Buddhism 6, 30, 38, 42, 44-7, 138 Buddhism & Human Rights, Declaration on (1995) 46 Burma see Myanmar Burundi 70 Cambodia 36-7, 64(n18), 66(n23), 77(n1), 82, 98, 122(n14), 129-30 Cambodian Institute of Human Rights 66 capital punishment 71 Carlsnaes, Walter 17 Carribean region 62, 69 CFSP (Common Foreign & Security Policy) 3, 17, 19, 23, 35, 58, 60 Asian Chapter 7-8, 20, 62, 95, 96-9, 100-3, 116, 117, 129, 139 counterterrorism 132 sanctions policy 102-3 and European Parliament 97, 99 learning in 26 theories of 21 Chamarik, Saneh 46, 47 Checkel, Jeffrey T. 22, 26, 31 Chih-Yu Shih 48 children, rights of 64, 67, 81, 87 China 7, 36, 37, 47-8, 51, 64 and ASEAN 78 and ASEM 84 EU and 105-12, 117-18, 129, 134 education projects 121-2, 122(n14), 125 European Commission strategy 107 Human Rights Dialogue (HRD) 111 human rights strategy 61, 95, 107-8, 109-12, 139 NGO involvement 108-9 trade/commerce 72, 105-6, 106-7, 109 global influence of 106, 109 human rights in 43, 67, 106, 109 and Myanmar 100 political change in 106, 109, 110, 112 Tiananmen Square massacre 82, 97, 110 and US 100, 106, 111 China-Europe Human Rights Dialogue 12 Christianity 10-11, 12, 44 Christiansen, Thomas 21, 23 Christie, Kenneth 115 Chua, Sabrina 133

Index Chulalongkorn, King 125-6 Church, Clive 59 civil society 89-90, 91 COASIE Working Group 96(n2) Cochrane, M. 38-9 Cold War 106 post- 30 colonialism 11, 13, 79, 97, 125 communicative discourse 4, 8, 23, 24, 26, 55-6 communitarian theory 30, 37-9, 138 defined 38 dissemination of 40, 66 conflict prevention 60 Confucianism 38, 43-4, 48 Congo 70 Consortium of European Institutes for Asian Studies 127-8 Constructivism 4, 6, 7, 8, 22-6, 137 and ASEAN/ASEM 85, 91 and IRT/EU foreign policy 15-18 and normative theory 30 ontology of 22-3 Copenhagen Declaration (1973) 57 COREU Network 96(n2) cosmopolitan theory 37-9 defined 37-8 Cotonou Agreement (2003) 69, 70, 71-2 Council of Europe 55, 60 Council of Ministers 19, 62, 90, 103, 108 counterterrorism 131-4, 135 impact on human rights of 8, 133 crime 64, 78, 99, 127, 131, 133-4 ‘cross-cutting’ strategy 127-30 cultural relativism 40, 69, 83 Cultural Studies 13 culture 6, 12, 108, 139-40 in ‘Asian values’ debate 40-1 defined 16 and economic growth 33, 110 and education 119, 121-3, 124 and identity 16, 29, 32-4, 35, 37 and norms 31 Curtin, Philip 12, 48 Dalai Lama 44, 107 Darusman, Marzuki 113 De Bary, W.M. Theodore 43 Dearden, Stephen 72

177

death penalty 71 declaratory diplomacy see under diplomacy decolonisation 11 see also colonialism democracy 5, 20, 35-6, 64, 73, 87, 103, 112, 137 in ‘Asian values’ debate 42, 44 and education 121 and human rights 63, 70, 130 democratisation 21, 24, 65, 66-7, 70-1, 107, 113 Denmark 102 development 20, 31, 41, 47-8, 79 and human rights 50, 63, 68-72, 129, 130 Development Assistance 36 Development Studies 13 Dinan, Desmond 3, 19, 21 diplomacy 11, 51, 104 declaratory 57, 58, 73, 86, 107, 138 discursive practices see communicative discourse Doidge, Mathew 33, 78 Drake, Michael 88 drugs issues 64, 71, 97, 133-4 Duong Phu Hiep 90 EAEC (East Asian Economic Caucus) 83 East Asia 76 East Timor 79, 82, 112, 113, 114-15, 122(n14) EU Election Observation Mission (EOM) in 115 East-West debates 4-5, 62, 97 education in 119 EC-India Cooperation Agreement 64 ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) 56, 58 ECJ (European Court of Justice) 57, 64, 71 Eco, Umberto 29 economic growth, and culture 33, 110 education 50, 67, 103, 115 EU-Asian exchange in 119-27 Country Stategy Papers (CSP) 122, 127 importance of 119-20 strategy/ideology of 121-3, 135 higher 8, 80, 122, 124 and human rights 123, 130

178

Re-orienting the Fundamentals

and identity 119 significance of 8, 23, 40, 119-20 EIDHR (European Initiative for Democracy & Human Rights) 36, 71 Eldridge, Philip J. 40, 48, 65-6, 66-7, 102, 112 elections/referenda 101, 114, 115, 116, 130 elites 24, 31, 124 energy issues 79, 130 environmental issues 64, 71, 80, 83, 98, 99, 115, 130-1 EPA (Economic Partnership Agreements) 70 EPC (European Political Cooperation) 57-8 EU-Asia-Pacific dialogue 36 Eurocentrism 9, 10, 11 Europe industrial revolution in 11, 13 self-identity of 9-11, 12, 29, 38 Europe, Council of 55, 60 EuropeAid Cooperation Office 71 European Commission 19, 61, 68, 69, 70, 103, 115 and ASEAN 79, 82 and ASEM 83, 86-8, 89 Asia Strategies see Asia Strategies coordinated strategy of 96-7, 98 democracy/human rights initiatives 70-1 European Institute for Asian Studies 12-13 European Integration Theory 15, 22, 137 typology of 17-18 European Parliament 19, 61-2, 69, 84, 101, 103, 115-16 and ASEM 69, 87 and CFSP 97, 99 EU in South East Asia report (1999) 98 European Political Cooperation (EPC) 57-8 European Studies 123, 124-6 European Union (EU) and ACP 36 and Asia 5-6, 137-40 ‘actorness’ notion in 20-1 communication aspects 23 counterterrorism 131-4 culture/identity rôles in 29, 32-4, 35-6, 97 educational exchange between see under education four policy approaches 7-8

future/potential of dialogue 127-35, 140 human rights and 4-7, 15, 21, 26 actors/processes 60-2 case studies 95, 99-116 cosmopolitan-communitarian debate 37-9 and development policy 68-72 enabling/inhibitory sides of 3-4, 7, 25, 39, 100, 117, 138 enabling 55-74 inhibitory 62, 75-91 holistic/inclusive policy of 12731, 135, 139 mechanisms/processes 55-6 rôle of normative power 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 50-1, 57, 91 strategies 36-7, 95-118 ‘third-generation’ agreements 64 see also ‘Asian values’ debate national interests in 18-19, 21 neo-functionalist model of 20 re-orienting 26, 129 realist/pluralist approaches 18-19 two-fold learning-dimension 8 see also ASEM; Asia Strategies Constitution 77 constructivist framework for 22-6 Development Policy 58, 61, 62, 68-72, 82 Economic & Social Committee 82 education strategy 119, 120-1, 125 see also EU-Asian exchange under education enlargement 63 as external actor 19-21 foreign policy, general 55-6, 95, 96 Common Foreign & Security Policy see CFSP defined 15-16 and IRT 15-18 four theoretical issues 17 realist/pluralist approaches 18-19 as global force 6, 17, 18-19, 33-4, 35, 59, 97, 106 ambiguity in 21 norms in 24-5, 31 human rights, general, in 15, 17, 33-4 constructivist framework for 22-6

Index Declarations on 57, 62 development of 56-60 ‘double standards’ 80-1 and EC-EU transition 57 identity issues in 32-4, 36, 38 normative rôle/power of 29, 30-1, 34, 35, 50-1 security/defence policies 23, 127, 129 counterterrorism 131-4 see also CFSP Treaty 21 and Turkey 12 and UN 60 and US 131 Falun Gong 111 Fan, Ruiping 43-4 Fine, Lyn 45 food, right to 50 Forster, Anthony 86, 89-90 Fort, Bertrand 78 forum fatigue 127 Foucault, Michel 13 Fouquet, David 89 Framework 6 Programme (FP6) 120 France 21, 121 human rights in 15 Freeman, Duncan 78 Freeman, Michael 16, 40 Friedrichs, Jörg 22, 23 Friend, Theodore 49, 113 Frost, Mervyn 39 Fukuyama, Francis 41 Funabashi, Yoishi 99 GAC (General Affairs Council) 65 Galtung, J. 19 games theory 19 gender-based persecution 97 genocide 102 Germany 18, 21, 111, 121 Ghent European Council (2001) 99 Ghent Summit 65 Gilley, Bruce 106 Gilson, Julie 78, 85, 87, 88, 90 Glarbo, Kenneth 26 globalisation 8, 13, 36, 42, 72, 76, 85, 128 of knowledge 124 normative 30

179

oriental 10 Goh Chok Tong 83, 128 good governance 5, 24, 71, 90, 137 Goody, Jack 13 governance good 5, 24, 71, 90, 137 multi-level 19 Gregory, John S. 105, 112 ‘group-to-group’ dialogue 75 see also ASEAN ‘GSP Plus’ scheme 71 Gujral, I.K. 132 Gunaratna, Rohan 133 Gungwu, Wang 48 Habibie, B.J. 113 Haider, Jörg 59 Haltern, Ulrich 57 Harvey, Peter 46 Haywood, Andrew 38 He, Baogang 47 health issues 50, 80, 98-9, 103, 123, 129, 130-1 Hettne, Björn 85 Higgott, Richard 85 higher education 8, 80 Hikam, Muhammad 113 Hill, Christopher 16-17, 18, 22 HIV-AIDS 67, 81 Hix, Simon 19 Hobson, John M. 10, 12 Holland, Martin 72, 87 Holtz, Uwe 68 Homla, Somchai 50 Hong Kong 64, 107, 111, 112 Honna, Jun 49 HRIC (Human Rights in China) 108 Hu Jintao 109 Huffer, Rudy 99, 101 human rights and ‘Asian values’ debate 40-7 Buddhism, rôle of 6, 30, 44-7, 138 cosmopolitan-communitarian debate 37-9 and counter-terrorism 8, 133 and culture 32, 38-9 defined 16 and democracy/development 63 in East-West relations 4-5, 62

180

Re-orienting the Fundamentals

and education 123, 130 enabling/inhibitory sides of 3-4, 7, 25, 39, 100, 117 enabling 55-74 inhibitory 62, 75-91 erosion of 5 and EU see under European Union identity 29-30, 33-4, 35-6 international treaties on 56, 59, 60, 66 see also specific treaties regionalism in 8, 47-50, 64, 64(n20), 66-8, 75-83 as shared idea 24 violations 50, 97, 101-2 see also under European Union; and see under specific countries Human Rights, Declaration on (Luxembourg Council) 69 Human Rights, Democracy & Development (1991) 69 Human Rights Dialogue (HRD) 111 Human Rights Journal 109 Human Rights, Protection & Defense of (European Parliament, 1977) 69 Human Rights, World Conference on (1993) 41 Hunt-Perry, Patricia 45 Huntington, Samuel P. 42, 82 Hutchings, Graham 47 Hyde-Price, Adrian 33

Aceh province 114 Anwar Imrahim trial 97 as ASEAN member 113 and East Timor see East Timor EU and 112-16, 117, 122(n14) arms embargo 114, 115 European Commission strategy 115 human rights strategy 61, 64, 95, 139 political change in 112, 113-14, 116 regional/global importance of 112 terrorism in 116, 132 informational diffusion model 31, 56 institutions 85 and identity 31 intellectual property 79 International Relations Theory (IRT) 3, 6, 137, 138 and Constructivism 4, 22-7, 129 culture-identity in 32 and EU foreign policy 15-18 and normative theory 30-1, 34-40 triangular model 84 investment 63 Iran 99 Iraq 36, 42, 132 IRT see International Relations Theory Islam 13, 44 Islam, Shada 132 Italy 18

Ibrahim, Anwar 47 ideas, power/rôle of 4, 24 identity 6, 17, 23, 26, 73, 78, 85, 97, 138 conflicts 133 and culture 16, 29, 32-4 defined 16 and education 119 human rights 29-30, 33-4, 35-6 and institutions 31 and normative power 30 and rôle concepts 34-5 ILO (International Labour Organisation) 60 imperialism 11 cultural 40 see also colonialism Imrahim, Anwar 97 India 64, 64(n18), 98, 99, 104, 132-3, 134 Indonesia 7, 35, 36-7, 48-9, 51, 66(n23), 98

Jackson, Robert 24, 30, 37 Jacobsen, Michael 40-1 Jakarta bombing 132 Japan 12, 63, 78, 84, 104, 132, 134 Meiji 40 Jenner, W.J.F. 47 Jiang Zemin 40 Jørgensen, Knud Erik 21, 22 Kadir, Suzaina 133 Kant-Hegel dichotomy 38 Karlsruhe meeting (1994) 82 KEDO (Korean Energy Development Organisation) 131 Kelly, David 42, 47-8 Khin Nyunt, Gen 104 King, Toby 112 Knodt, Michèle 17, 19, 20

Index Korean Peninsula 98 Kosovo 36 Kusumah, Mulyana W. 48-9 Laeken Summit 65 landmines 97, 98, 129 Laos 64(n18), 77(n1), 82, 98, 122(n14), 129-30 Larsen, Henrik 23-4 Latin America 70 Lawson, Stephanie 13, 32 Lay Hwee, Yeo 78, 85 learning notion of 26 power of 4, 8 see also education Least Developed Countries 61 Lee Kuan Yew 40 Liddle, R. William 48 Lim, Paul 82, 89, 96, 100, 109 local government 80 Lomé Conventions 69 Maastricht Treaty 58, 71 Macao 64, 107, 112 McCormick, John 21 McGough, Sean 47 McMahon, Joseph 77, 82 Mahatir, Mohamad 40 Mahbubani, Kishore 40 Maitland, Donald 67 Malaysia 133 Mandelson, Peter 71 Mandeville, Sir John 11 Manners, Ian 19, 31, 33-4, 35 March, J. 25 Marco Polo 11 Marxism 38 Meissner, Werner 111, 121 Middle East 99 migration 80, 127 military 34, 101, 102 Millenium Declaration 60 Milliot, David 85, 89 mind-maps 8 Ministers, Council of 19, 62, 90, 103, 108 Mohamad, Mahatir 83 M¢ller, Per Stig 90, 106 Moravcsik, Andrew 19

181

Mudie, Robyn 86, 90 multi-level governance 19 Muntarbhorn, Vitit 67, 81, 129, 130 Myanmar (Burma) 7, 31, 35, 36, 41, 49, 51, 62, 72 as ASEAN member 77(n1), 79, 81, 83, 89, 99-100, 113 JCC stalemate 100 democracy in 101, 104 EEC Cooperation Agreement 100 EU human rights strategy in 61, 95, 96, 99-105, 117, 139 CFSP instrument in 98 EU sanctions of 102-5 human rights abuse in 97, 101-2 regional relations 100, 104 Nagai-Berthrong, Evelyn 43 Nagai-Berthrong, John H. 43 Nathan, Andrew 106 National Human Rights Institutions in the Asia-Pacific 68 neo-functionalist theory 19-20 networks 19, 84, 123 NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) 65, 67, 68, 81, 83, 91, 108 Nguyen Duy Quy 90 Nguyen Thu My 90 Nice Treaty (2000) 58-9 Niemann, Ulrich 123 Niger 70 Nigeria 70 9/11 attacks 88, 99, 131, 133 Non-Governmental Asian Human Rights Charter (1997) 67 normative power 30-1 norms/normative theory 16-17, 22, 24, 2931, 34-40, 50-1, 55, 90, 97, 137 and education 119 interactive 24-5 and rôle concepts 34-5 North Korea 98, 104, 122(n14) nuclear issues 98 Okabe, Tatsumi 47 Olsen, J.P. 25 Olympic Games 109 one-China principle 107, 114 Orientalism 12, 13, 42, 137

182

Re-orienting the Fundamentals

otherness 32, 33, 34 Ottawa Convention (1997) 130 Pacific region 36, 62, 66-7 Pagden, Anthony 10 Pakistan 98, 99, 122(n14), 132 Paribatra, Sukhumbhand 88 Paris, Treaty of (1951) 56 Park, Sung-Hoon 84, 124 Particularism 38 Patten, Chris 11, 41, 106, 108 Pattugalan, Gina 78 ‘peaceful evolution’ debate 41 Pedersen, Morten 103-4 Pelkmans, Jacques 86 Persian wars 40 Petchsiri, Apirat 12 Petiteville, Franck 19, 35 Philippines 133 Phinnemore, David 59 Phnom Penh Communiqué (2003) 81, 104 Piening, Christopher 96 Pollack, Mark A. 17 pollution 83 Postcolonial Discource 13 poverty 78, 86, 103, 123, 129, 134 ‘presence’ notion 20-1 press freedom 42-3 Prester John 11 Princen, Sebastiaan 17, 19, 20 Quigley, John 111, 123 Ravi, Srilata 12, 13 Realist theory 18, 19, 21, 84 regional integration 87 regionalism 8, 47-50, 64, 64(n20), 66-8, 75-83, 91 Reid, Anthony 48 Reiterer, Michael 85, 89, 120 religion 10-11, 38, 42, 43-7, 108, 140 Risse, Thomas 22-3, 33 Robles, Alfredo 79 rôle concepts 20, 34-5, 51 Roman Law 12 Rome, Treaty of (1957) 56 Rosamond, Ben 17, 20-1, 23, 24 Roy, Denny 115 Rutten, Mario 12, 13

Rwanda 70 SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) 133-4 Said, Edward 13 sanctions 102-5 security 5, 63, 64, 66, 76, 88 CFSP and 98 counterterrorism see counterterrorism ‘cross-cutting’ 127-30 ‘non-traditional’ 67, 81, 98-9 Sedelmeier, Ulrich 33, 34, 55 Sen, Amartya 42, 43 Shanghai Cooperation Association 108 Shinkai, Hiroko 86 Sierra Leone 70 Single European Act (SEA) 57, 69 Sivaraksa, Sulak 50 Sjursen, Helene 16, 17, 23, 26, 31 Smith, Hazel 4, 75 Smith, Karen 16, 30, 58 Smith, Michael 17, 18, 20, 25 social Constructivism see Constructivism social interaction 4 soft power 35, 127-8, 132 Sørensen, Georg 24, 30, 37 South China Sea 98 South-East Asia 8, 64, 65, 76-7, 79, 113, 129, 130-1, 133, 135 EU in, Role of (EP report, 1999) 98 New Partnership with (2003) 82 see also ASEAN; and see specific countries sovereignty 19, 66 Stokke, Hugo 33 students 124 Subhan, Malcolm 121 Sukarnoputri, Megawati 113 Sullivan, Michael J. 48 sustainable development see development Svensson, Marina 48 Svensson, Tommy 48 Sweden 18, 21, 66 Taiwan 107, 111 Taiwan Straits 98 Talib, Shararil 124 Taoism 43 Taylor, Paul 37-8

Index Taylor, Robert 103-4 terrorism 13, 36, 64, 88, 116, 123 counter- 131-4 see also war on terror TEU (Treaty on European Union, 1993) 58, 59, 60, 97 Thai Human Rights Commission (2001) 50 Thailand 12, 30, 49-50, 51, 66(n23), 122(n14) EC-Thailand Cooperation Report (2005) 130-1 European Studies in 125-6 terrorism in 133 Thanh-Dam Truong 41 Three Represents Theory 109 Tiananmen Square massacre 82, 97, 110 Tibet 44, 107, 111 Tong Jia-Dong 109 Tonra, Ben 17, 21, 23 torture 71 Towards a New Asia Strategy (1994) 63-4, 82, 83 trade 11, 20, 31, 41, 63, 80, 87-8 liberalisation 72 Treaty on European Union see TEU tsunami 3, 128, 130 Turkey, and EU 12 Uganda 69 Uhlin, Anders 48 Umbach, Frank 133, 134 UNDHR (United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, 1948) 56, 60 UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights), initiatives in Asia 67-8, 110 United Nations (UN) 37, 41, 55, 56, 65-6 Charter 82 and EU 60 Millenium Development Goals (2000) 71 Security Council 131 United States (US) 41, 42, 63, 76, 78, 84 and China 100, 106, 111

183

security strategy 131, 132 universalism 38, 48, 69, 70 Unocal 104 Utilitarianism 38 values 16, 17, 77, 78, 133, 137 see also Asian ‘values’ debate Van der Geest, Willem 77-8 Vatikiotis, Michael 48, 113 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights (1993) 59, 66, 68 Vietnam 45, 64(n18), 77(n1), 82, 122(n14), 129 Vogler, J. 20-1, 25, 30, 33 Voicu, Ioan 120 von Bogdandy, Armin 55, 59 Vuttipanyalert, Narisa 50 Wahid, Abdurrahman 113 war on terror 3, 12, 98, 99, 133 and human rights 5, 8 Ward, Angela 109, 112 Weiler, J.H.H. 56-7 ‘Western’ values 30, 34, 40 White, Brian 17, 22, 23 Whitman, Richard 19, 33-4, 35, 57 Wiessala, Georg 57, 65 women 50, 67, 87, 97 World Trade Organisation (WTO) 102, 109 Xiang, Yun 47 Yao-Su Hu 67 Yaoundé Conventions 69 Young, O.R. 18 Youngs, Richard 35-6, 58, 106, 112, 113 Yudhoyono, Susilo Bambang 113 Zack-Williams, Alfred 13 Zhang, Wei-Wei 106 Zhao, Chenggen 47