Does the rise of efforts at regional integration contradict or complement process of globalisation?
Soon after the events of the world dividing Cold War, many states came to the decision that cooperation was needed in order to seek out a better future and prevent the past events from reoccurring. This cooperation would come in the form of regional integrations which can be defined as neighbouring nations entering into an agreement with the aim of working together through a set of common institution and rules (Donghyun & Estrada 2010, pp. 108). The contents of these agreements of cooperation may either be by the coordination of customs and economic policies or the implementations of a more convenient capital and labour movements or even cross border connectivity (Das, Vasudev & Madhukar Gupta 2011, pp. 374-387). Since the Cold War ended, many countries have entered into such regional integrations, the most famous of which are the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), European Union’s Single Market as well as the The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which was signed by America, Canada and Mexico. It is important to preface that even though different models of regional integration may have different outcomes, this paper would focus on ASEAN which was formed in 1967 and involves 10 Southeast asian countries including Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, Brunei, Singapore, Myanmar, Vietnam and Thailand. Since then, the nations of ASEAN has been working together in order to grow and develop economically and respond to issues of security as a collective. This shows that ASEAN would be the prime example due to the ways in which they complement the process of globalisation through their ability to promote economic and cultural development in their bloc as there is an understanding that there is a need for mutual cooperation for growth and to settle disputes instead of using force (Severino 2008, pp. 41-51). The successes from the cooperation between these countries shows the positive effects of globalisation, which is the process of integration and exchange between different nations around the world through various means such as culture or technology (BBC n.d.). Even though some may argue that it contradicts globalisation through failure to build an imagined community, this paper would take the stand that regional integration does in fact complement the process of globalisation because it manages to encourage economic growth for all the countries involved and the ways it encouraged cultural globalisation.
One of the reasons regional integrations such as ASEAN complements the process of globalisation as it encourages the economic growth of most if not all the countries involved. Economic growth can be achieved due to the interdependencies the countries have between each other for trade as the high trade barriers would now be lowered due to the economic globalisation brought forth by ASEAN’s trade agreements. The implementation of lower tariffs, which are taxes imposed on goods and services moving in and out of the country, is one of the agreements made by the ASEAN states in order to lower the trade barriers between them (Severino 2008 pp.48-51). As reported by Severino (2008 pp.48-51), the low tariffs that was set between the ASEAN nations that may even be fully removed in the future would in turn increase the number of imports and exports of goods and services between the states exponentially. Thus, the size of each country’s local market would expand, causing economic growth for the ASEAN nations involved (Heiduk & Zhu 2009, pp. 76-77). This growth can already be seen since the early years of cooperation as ASEAN's total intra-regional trade grew from 15% in the early 1970s to almost 25% by the mid 1990s due to the integration of the regions (Heiduk & Zhu 2009, pp. 73-95). Trade carried out by these countries are possible and beneficial to one another as each country trades based on the comparative advantage, which is the ability to produce goods and services at a lower opportunity cost when compared to another country (The Economic Times n.d.). Therefore, countries that have a comparative advantage on a certain good or service would gain higher returns from exporting said good which would increase the country’s income and improving it’s overall economy. The vice versa also happens as importing countries would be able to trade for good that would have less opportunity cost than when it is produced locally, hence allowing the country to focus its resources on other endeavours.
An example of this is the trade relationship between some ASEAN countries with India as India has comparative advantage in the services of Information Technology and biotechnology (Heiduk & Zhu 2009, pp. 76-77). As tariffs are lowered, ASEAN countries would be able to enjoy the knowledge and technology from India at a lower rate. This would in turn help grow India’s economy in various ways including the increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), quicker development and increase in job opportunities as they now have to produce for a larger market (Heiduk & Zhu 2009, pp. 76-77). This growth in India’s economy through regional integration can be seen as the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was 6.5 - 7.5% and a world growth rate of 2.6% in 2005 due to the 60% growth in software exports (Heiduk & Zhu 2009, pp. 76-77). This spike in economy is not only exclusive to India as various other regional trade agreements around ASEAN has enabled local industries to grow and prosper as the agreements also act as a method to promote domestic goods to a larger market (Heiduk & Zhu 2009, pp. 76-77). One of the more notable agreements is the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) that includes ASEAN states such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines, Brunei and Thailand, skyrocketed exports within ASEAN from US $43.26 billion in 1993 to about US $80 billion in 3 years which is an average yearly growth rate of 28.3% (Heiduk & Zhu 2009, pp. 76-77). Therefore, regional integration is argued that it complements the process of globalisation as countries cooperate for economic growth.
In addition, regional integration complements the process of globalisation because of the ways it encourages cultural globalisation. The ways in which ASEAN encourages the process of globalisation culturally is through the accepting foreign cultures and cultural hybridisation. The accepting of cultures from other nations has been made easier by ASEAN due to the already established trade relationships the nations have with one another. An example of this is that the more developed ASEAN states such as Singapore and Indonesia instigated various initiatives such as the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) followed by developing nations such as Malaysia and Vietnam that would turn ASEAN from a single collective into many bilateral ones (Baldwin & Kawai 2013). This shows that the countries work together toward development complements globalisation and bilateral collaborations, as a start, would help acceptance of foreign culture easier as compared to multilateral collaborations with the region. This is because the nations involved in the FTAs above speak a common language would enhance the understanding of each party's culture and legal system, which indirectly promotes trade further (Frankel & Wei 1996). Nevertheless, ASEAN noticed that the catalyst to cultural integration is through language and thus taking active steps to realise it. One of the steps taken to further develop cultural integration in ASEAN was proposed in the 11th National Economic and Social Development Plan (Asia Monitor News 2010). The plan proposed was for the ministry of education to develop a curriculum since the primary level on learning about ASEAN and the languages of its nation states (Asia Monitor News 2010). Furthermore, agencies such as tourism and public relations were to help promote ASEAN while at the same time providing knowledge for greater understanding of Southeast Asia by placing significant value on the various cultures, languages and religions of the ASEAN people (Asia Monitor News 2010). With this, the nations of ASEAN would be able to collaborate better and accept each other's cultures easier while promoting the regional culture to the rest of the world, thus complementing the process of globalisation. ASEAN’s efforts to integrate the cultures while avoiding the clash of civilization of its nations would eventually lead to cultural hybridity that can be defined as the mixing of cultures until it becomes something new (Holton, 2011 pp. 52-58). Cultural hybridisation is a long process as it requires the aspects of racial purity and cultural integration to be achieved (Holton, 2011 pp. 52-58).
One of the key examples to this mixing of culture within a state is one of the more developed nations in ASEAN known as Singapore, which has been dubbed as a cultural desert (Kawasaki 2004, pp. 22-27). Singapore obtained this title due to the nation’s emphasis on skill and business rather than culture differences and by participating in trade and economic globalisation, culture from other parts of the world seeps in anyways through people and technology. This lead to Singapore adapting and “importing” various cultures from other nations such as Japan and Hong Kong which are more industrialized nations within the past few decades (Kawasaki 2004, pp. 22-27). Not only that, within its various mix of cultures are the ones from other ASEAN members such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, but they have also submitted to the cultures of industrialisation and Americanisation (Pieterse 2004, pp. 49-52). Americanisation is a process in which the cultures of the west enter and dominate certain aspects of a nation, for instance, the rise of American fast food chains such as McDonalds and KFC (Pieterse 2004, pp. 49-52). Although this shows that Singapore is an example of successful cultural globalisation as it exhibits cultural hybridization, which is defined as a mixing of cultures, but some counter argues by claiming that the integrated cultures are of a surface level instead of a more deep-seated level (Pieterse 2004, pp. 52-55). The counter arguments believes that speaking another language or eating foreign cuisine in a particular county would not mean total hybridisation, rather it is more of a surface phenomena (Pieterse 2004, pp. 52-55). Despite that, the argument may not be entirely valid due to Singapore lacking in individual culture to begin with and has since adopted and practiced a mix of various cultures, thus having a deep-seated hybrid of cultures. Hence showing that regional integration is not in conflict with the process of cultural globalisation as it successfully encourages the acceptance of foreign cultures and cultural hybridity.
However, some may counter argue that regional integration contradicts the process of globalisation is because it fails to create an imagined community. An imagined community can be defined as a set of nations that is socially constructed instead of through force and violence (Anderson 2006, pp. 6-7). To build an imagined community of nations, political and economical stability has to be achieved while compromising the sovereignty of each individual nation. However, creating an imagined community while having state sovereignty intact is almost impossible as can be seen through efforts of regional integration models such as ASEAN even though it was originally established using concepts related to the formation of states and the building of a nation (Heng 2015, pp. 434). As a result of that, the policies of ASEAN was structured in a way that it would not challenge the sovereignty of its members as it is emphasised that the sovereignty of individual nations would always be a priority over organisational interest (Narine 2006, pp. 215-236). The sovereignty of a state is important as it is not only a freedom that has to be given utmost respects, it also empowers states to provide and tailor essential political goods such as the law and welfare to the local people (Ronzoni 2012, pp. 573-591). This can be reflected in the model of ASEAN as it is essentially a non-aggression agreement between all the nations that were involved and to achieve such cooperation without neglecting sovereignty, the principle of non-intervention was formed and turned into one of the core foundations of this integration model (Heng 2015, pp. 422-423). With that, it can be seen that at the centre of regional integration and the building of an imagined community is the wellbeing of the people and the protection of their future even though they both have opposing views on keeping the sovereignty of the nation's intact.
Nevertheless, the need for self-determination by the states does create a rift between nations despite there being economic ties that still exist, hence falling short as only having economic relations are not sufficient when attempting to establish an imagined and regional community. To ensure the policies and standards set by ASEAN was followed by all its existing members, the organization adopted the system of “ASEAN minus X” (Narine 2006, pp. 215-236). This formula would be the countermeasure ASEAN uses that would allow uncooperating or disagreeing states to remove themselves from ASEAN’s collective decisions in good faith or without penalty (Narnie 2006, pp. 215-236). ASEAN minus X is one of the major examples as to why regional integration contradicts the process of globalisation as the ASEAN collective decided that there is a need to sever ties with unaccommodating nations while being able to avoid pressuring its other members (Narine 2006, pp. 215-236). Despite the fact that globalisation, particularly in the aspect of politics requires countries to cooperate, the formula that is “ASEAN minus X” gives countries an alternative route out in order to maintain more of its sovereignty. In spite of all that, some may argue that ASEAN would violate its principles of upholding state sovereignty if a conflict is at hand such as the conflict between Vietnam and Cambodia in December of 1978, thus showing that it complements globalisation (Sundararaman n.d.). This conflict between the two states caused ASEAN to oppose Vietnam's actions and its sovereignty for well over 10 years and justified it as stress from other member states particularly Thailand (Narine 2006, pp. 226-228). The reason for the interference by ASEAN was due to cosmopolitanism which is the overlapping fates or the sovereign communities that are involved or as ASEAN quotes it, “domestic conflicts not only challenge internal stability but also the regional stability of ASEAN as a whole. Many domestic conflicts spill over national boundaries” (Heng 2015, pp. 435). Thus arguing that ASEAN does take steps in building a safer imagined community even at the cost of violating its policies by intruding into another nation’s sovereignty and using force to resolve a conflict. Even so, this counter may not be valid due to other states, such as the new government of Thailand shortly after the Vietnam Cambodia conflict, using this incident as an example to pursue their national agendas regardless of regional principles provided it is capable of putting pressure on ASEAN and its members to support it (Narine 2006, pp. 226-228). However, it is important to note that ASEAN is taking steps to build an imagined community but is unable to do so without going against its policies.
To conclude, regional integration complements the process of globalisation by succeeding to encouraging economic growth for the nations within its region. This is because of regional integration models such as ASEAN lowering trade barriers such as tariffs between the countries and also implementing systems such as the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). Another reason regional integration complements the process of globalisation is due to ASEAN’s encouraging cultural globalisation as the nations are now intertwined with each other’s cultures and cultural hybridity was even achieved in Singapore. However, some may argue that regional integrations does contradict the process of globalisation because ASEAN tries to protect each of its member states sovereignty but contradicts that when an issue of conflict and security raises. These actions causes the member states to either apply the formula of “ASEAN minus X” by opting out of the organisation or proceeding with their agendas while trying to pressure the other members to back them. Despite that, ASEAN is taking steps to create an imagined community without sacrificing sovereignty, but the process of globalisation takes time and we are already beginning to see it take shape through economic and cultural globalisation. It is clear to note that different regional integration models would have different outcomes such as EU’s single market against ASEAN, but as this paper follows the model of ASEAN, the stand would be that regional integration does complement the process of globalisation. Therefore, the different models should learn from one another in order to better complement the process of globalisation.
(2729 words)
References
Anderson, B 2006, ‘Imagined Communities: Reflections On The Origin And Spread Of Nationalism’, pp. 6-7, viewed on 27 September 2017, https://quod-lib-umich-edu.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;rgn=full%20text;idno=heb01609.0001.001;didno=heb01609.0001.001;view=image;seq=23;node=heb01609.0001.001%3A3;page=root;size=100
Anonymous, 2010,. ASEAN: Establishment of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community to Be Included in the 11th Development Plan. Asia News Monitor.
Anwar, S, Doran, C, & Sam, CY 2009, 'Committing to regional cooperation: ASEAN, globalisation and the Shin Corporation – Temasek Holdings deal', Asia Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 307-321, viewed on 27 September 2017, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2009.01403.x.
Baldwin, R & Kawai, M 2013. ‘Multilateralizing Asian Regionalism’, IDEAS Working Paper Series, viewed on 25 September 2017, http://ideas.repec.org/p/eab/tradew/23553.html
BBC, n.d., ‘What Is Globalisation’, viewed on 24 September 2017, http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/globalisation/globalisation_rev1.shtml
Das, RU, Vasudev, CM & Gupta, M 2011, ‘Regional Integration and Cooperation in Asia—An Indian Perspective’, Sage, pp. 374-387, viewed on 27 September 2017, DOI: 10.1177/097491011100300306
Frankel, J.A. & Wei, S.J 1996, ‘ASEAN In A Regional Perspective’, CIDER, pp. 1-10, viewed on 28 September 2017, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/233438/files/cal-cider-c096-074.pdf
Heiduk, GS & Zhu, Y 2009 ‘The Process of Economic Integration in ASEAN + 3: From Free Trade Area to Monetary Cooperation or Vice Versa?’, EU - Asean, pp. 73-95, https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/10.1007/978-3-540-87389-1_5
Heng, SHM 2015, ‘Advance Community Building For ASEAN’, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, pp. 422-425, viewed on 24 September 2015, DOI : 10.1007/s12140-015-9238-2
Holton, R 2011, ‘Globalization and the Nation State’, 2nd ed, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 7 : Globalisation and Culture?
Kawasaki, K 2004, ‘Cultural Hegemony of Singapore among ASEAN Countries: Globalization and Cultural Policy’, pp. 22-31, viewed on 26 September 2017, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6781.2004.00051.x/epdf
Narine, S 2006, ‘Humanitarian Intervention And The Question Of Sovereignty: The Case Of Asean’, International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology, vol 103, pp. 215-228 viewed 27 September 2017, http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/content/books/10.1163/ej.9789004155817.i-458.73
Ronzoni, M 2012, ‘Two Conceptions Of State Sovereignty And Their Implications For Global Institutional Design’, Global Political Justice, Vol 15, no. 5, pp. 573-591, viewed 26 September 2017, http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/10.1080/13698230.2012.727306
Severino, RC 2008 ‘ASEAN’, EEWOWW, pp. 41-51, viewed on 26 September 2017, http://portal.igpublish.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/iglibrary/search/ISEASB0000007.html?0
Sundararaman, S n.d. ‘ASEAN Diplomacy in Conflict Resolution: The Cambodian Case’, viewed on 25 September 2017, http://www.idsa-india.org/an-oct-7.html
The Economic Times, n.d., ‘Definition Of Comparative Advantage’, viewed on 24 September 2017, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/comparative-advantage
Pieterse, JN 2004, ‘Globalisation and Culture : Global Melange’, Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield. Chapter 3: Globalisation and Culture: Three Paradigms
Comments