New Interregionalism? The EU and East Asia

308 Julie Gilson‘region–to–region dialogue’, or the concept of interregionalism, with referenceto this “sprawling variety”? This article examines how the EU utilizesinterregionalism as one mechanism for managing economic and political relationswith a growing yet disparate region and how, in so doing, it may influenceand shape the very concept of an East Asian region. The developmentof the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Plus Three (APT)process and growing intra–regional dynamics have been reinforced by participationin explicitly interregional formats (namely EU–ASEAN dialogue andthe Asia–Europe Meeting, ASEM), with the effect that EU representativesoften single out the East Asian dimension, comprising Southeast and NortheastAsia. 1The fifth Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) took place in Hanoi in September2004 under the umbrella theme of ‘Further Revitalising and Substantiatingthe Asia–Europe Partnership’. The twenty–five original member states hadgrown to thirty–nine, with the inclusion of the newest members of theASEAN and the ten new members of the EU, following their accession inMay 2004. Reflecting upon the eight–year history of the interregionalencounter, leaders noted in particular that economic cooperation, fortifiedby the ‘Hanoi Declaration on Closer Economic Partnership’ should becomplemented by the political initiatives enshrined in their ‘Declaration onMultilateralism’: “ASEM Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralismand to a fair and just rules–based international order, with a strongUnited Nations at its heart, to resolve international disputes, to promotepositive aspects of globalization, and to advance democratization of internationalrelations” (MOFA 2004).Based on the four principles of informality, multi–dimensionality, equalpartnership and a high–level focus, ASEM presents the EU with a usefulmechanism for managing relations with thirteen different economies,promoting democratic values and the pursuit of human rights among stateswhose record has yet to satisfy European demands, and balancing geostrategicinterests in a volatile and rapidly changing region. It serves not only as anoverarching framework in which to express a range of themes that arepursued simultaneously in bilateral agreements, but also as the very locus forsuch bilateral encounters. In these ways, and as this analysis will demonstrate,ASEM delineates a generic context for interaction.For the participating states of East Asia, the ASEM process offers a meansof dealing collectively with twenty–five states, provides a first–hand examinationof the practices of regional integration and establishes a framework inwhich East Asia can present itself as a regional political and economic entityand realize the ‘third side’ in a global triangle of regional economic blocs(Pou Serradell 1996, 191; CAEC 1996; Maull et al. 1998, xiv). In these ways,then, ASEM is one of a number of foreign policy tools available to the EUand serves several important functions. Nevertheless, it is not intended as areplacement for other forms of engagement. Indeed, as will be shown, it mayrepresent an historical moment in the building up of a variety of relations.The first section of this analysis considers the relevance of interregionalismfor this case study. The second section examines the driving forces in the EU