The Rise and Decline of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM): Asymmetric Bilateralism and the Limitations of Interregionalism

David Camroux

No 6, Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po from Centre d'études européennes (CEE) at Sciences Po, Paris

Abstract: East Asia’s economic dynamism attracted the attention of European political leadersin the 1980s leading to the publication of Asian strategy papers by most Europeangovernments. However, it was the 1994 publication by the European Commission of itscommunication Towards a New Asia Strategy and the holding of the first Asia-EuropeMeeting (ASEM) in Bangkok in September 1996 that marked the first pan-Europeanattempt by the European Union to enter into a process of dialogue with a considerably lessinstitutionally structured Pan-Asian region. This article is an attempt to explore how tenyears of the ASEM process have failed to live up to initial expectations of interregionalismas one level in multi-layered global governance. This reflects, on the European side, thecontinuing tensions between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism as the modusoperandi of the European Union. On the Asian side, it demonstrates the lack of a coherentAsian region with which the EU can dialogue. The decision at the Helsinki Summit inSeptember 2006 to expand participation to all members of an enlarged European Union(with the addition of Rumania and Bulgaria) and in Asia, with the membership of India,Pakistan and Mongolia will probably accentuate this problem. Moreover, asymmetriesbetween a highly institutionalised European Union and an Asia devoid of strong institutionsare exacerbated by significant disparities in capacities and levels of political will amongstthe member states of both regions. Thus what is somewhat loosely labelled asinterregionalism can more carefully be defined as asymmetric bilateralism. Trappedbetween the Charybdis of multilateralism and the Scylla of bilateralism, interregionalism asa phenomenon engendered by globalization is at best a second-best option for politicalleaderships in both Europe and Asia. Thus, without a solid basis for development on bothsides the future of Euro-Asian interregionalism seems problematical at best.

Keywords: international; relations (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2004-11-03
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.cee.sciences-po.fr/erpa/docs/wp_2004_6.pdf Full text (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:erp:scpoxx:p0037

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po from Centre d'études européennes (CEE) at Sciences Po, Paris
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Linda AMRANI ().