50 years of the ‘twin engine’. Franco-German reconciliation, European integration and reflections for Asia. EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 8, March 2013

On 22 January 2013, French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel gathered in Berlin to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Élysée Treaty, the document that ended centuries of rivalry and warfare between their two countries. It is all too easy to forget the importance of Franco-German reconciliation. The 1950 Schuman Declaration, which led to the creation of the European Union’s (EU) predecessor, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), sought to render the prospect of war between France and Germany ‘not only unthinkable but materially impossible’. Over 60 years later, when the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee noted that indeed, ‘war between Germany and France is unthinkable’. Halfway around the world in Asia, the other theatre of World War II, tensions between China and Japan have arisen, with Taiwan and South Korea also in the fray. Nationalist movements in these countries have grown. This background brief lays out the issues for a timely reappraisal of the applicability, or otherwise, of the European integration and reconciliation processes to East Asia. The brief seeks to outline the contours of the historic act of Franco-German reconciliation, and its consequences ever since. Starting from a brief look at the history of rivalry and war between the two countries, the brief examines the events leading to the signing of the Élysée Treaty in 1963, and the development of Franco-German exchanges that have cemented the relationship. Difficulties between the countries are also raised. A timescale analysis of the opinion of the two publics is considered, as a measure of the success of Franco-German reconciliation.

The "European model" of international law and its significance for Asia. Some critical reflections. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 7, June 2012

There is a certain arrogance in the affirmation that a “European model” of regional integration and of compliance with international law should be adopted anywhere in the world, and in Asia in particular. This article argues on the contrary that Asia and Europe are in fundamentally different situations vis-à-vis international law. Based on an analysis of recent events and latest legal developments in Europe, it puts the “European model” of regional integration and the European selective compliance with international law in perspective with regard to the Asian context. Without denying that “civilizations” should learn from one another and that the European experience may be relevant to some extent in Asia, this article concludes that the tools developed in Europe should be used differently in Asia.

Still the “pivot”: Russia’s self-conception and view of the euro crisis as perceived in public opinion and the Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 2011-12. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 8, August 2012

In his influential and disputed 1904 lecture, “The Geographical Pivot of History,” Halford Mackinder argued that the Russian heartland was the fulcrum of many historical and geostrategic currents across Eurasian space. While the thesis has been thought surpassed by recent technological advances in transportation, it serves as a useful heuristic device to open certain thematic lines of analysis apparent in the presentation of the ongoing “EUrocrisis” by the country’s newspaper of record, the Rossiiskaya Gazeta.

Turkey's boycott of the Cyprus EU presidency: context, meaning and its consequences. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 9, September 2012

In 2011 Turkish officials began indicating their intention to suspend all contact with Cyprus’s presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU), slated for the second half of 2012, given the issues surrounding the unresolved Cyprus conflict. This came as the latest development in a long and arduous path of Turkey’s application for EU membership that began in 1987. This paper provides the context – the Cyprus conflict, Turkey’s EU accession negotiations, and the Cyprus reunification talks – in understanding the reasons and consequences of Ankara’s boycott of the Cyprus presidency. The article also considers the evolving nature and the role of the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, especially after the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, and how this may have played into Turkey’s calculations in calling for the boycott.

Why EU promotion is at odds with successful crisis management: public relations, news coverage, and the Aceh Monitoring Mission. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 10, September 2012

The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and its accompanying Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions can be tools used to increase the international profile of the European Union. Nevertheless, CSDP missions garner little news coverage. This article argues that the very nature of the missions themselves makes them poor vehicles for EU promotion for political, institutional, and logistical reasons. By definition, they are conducted in the middle of crises, making news coverage politically sensitive. The very act of reporting could undermine the mission. Institutionally, all CSDP missions are intergovernmental, making press statements slow, overly bureaucratic, and of little interest to journalists. Logistically, the missions are often located in remote, undeveloped parts of the world, making it difficult and expensive for European and international journalists to cover. Moreover, these regions in crisis seldom have a thriving, local free press. Using the Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM) as a case study, the author concludes that although a mission may do good, CSDP missions cannot fulfil the political function of raising the profile of the EU.

Student's cross-perception of the economic crises in the European Union and in Southeast Asia. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 11, December 2012

The financial crisis of 1997-1998 in Southeast Asia and the European Union’s financial crisis of 2008 followed by the sovereign debt crisis represented major policy events in the regions and beyond. The crises triggered policy adjustments with implications on economic and other policies. This paper aims at evaluating the perception of university students in the European Union (EU) and Southeast Asia on the management of these crises. It strives to confirm several ex ante assumptions about the relationship between students’ background, their policy orientation and their knowledge of the European Union and ASEAN policies. It also provides an analysis of the students’ evaluation of the geopolitical importance of the global regions and the EU and ASEAN policies. The paper is based on opinion surveys conducted during the first part of 2012 at four universities, two in the EU and two in ASEAN countries. In the eyes of EU and ASEAN students, the EU crisis is not being managed appropriately. The citizens of the EU surveyed were even significantly more critical of the EU’s anti-crisis measures than any other surveyed group. Their ASEAN counterparts were generally more positive in their evaluations.

Mutual perceptions of Asia and the EU/Europe. Media, elite and public opinion in Singapore and Germany. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 12, December 2012

In an increasingly interlinked and interdependent world, Europe and Asia are key players. Free trade agreements (FTAs), such as the ones the EU concluded with South Korea and Singapore, are indicative of strong mutual economic interests. It is therefore timely to take a closer look at the mutual perceptions of Asians and Europeans – not only at the governmental and policymaking levels, but also in terms of public opinion and the media. Drawing on data from an extensive research project led by the National Centre for Research on Europe (NCRE), New Zealand, the empirical study in this paper assesses the mutual perceptions of the EU/Europe and Asia, and their respective actors, focusing on two countries – Germany and Singapore. It seeks to do so through an analysis of the data collected from print and broadcast media, interviews with media practitioners, and the findings from public opinion surveys.

Regional health governance: a comparative perspective on EU and ASEAN. EU Centre in Singapore Policy Brief No. 4, June 2012

Globalisation has led to new health challenges for the 21st Century. These challenges have transnational implications and involve a large range of actors and stakeholders. National governments no longer hold the sole responsibility for the health of their people. These changes in health trends have led to the rise of Global Health Governance as a theoretical notion for health policy-making. The Southeast Asian region is particularly prone to public health threats and it is for this reason that this brief looks at the potential of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a regional organisation to take a lead in health cooperation. Through a comparative study between the regional mechanisms for health cooperation of the European Union (EU) and ASEAN, we look at how ASEAN could maximise its potential as a global health actor. Regional institutions and a network of civil society organisations are crucial in relaying global initiatives for health, and ensuring their effective implementation at the national level. While the EU benefits from higher degrees of integration and involvement in the sector of health policy making, ASEAN’s role as a regional body for health governance will depend both on greater horizontal and vertical regional integration through enhanced regional mechanisms and a wider matrix of cooperation.

Ageing Modernity: Growing old in the EU in the 21st Century. EU Centre in Singapore Background Brief No. 7, December 2012

How do urban growth and an ageing population affect or inform planning at the national and regional level in the European Union? At a time when economic stagnation, environmental concerns and demographic changes are affecting social and political discourses, they are also influencing urban form and development. Furthermore, as people are living longer, they still have much to contribute in their later years to their communities and to the economy. As a result, the policy and urban design paradigm is shifting as the relative importance of older people grows. By looking at the connections between ageing, design and the environment, and the role of policy and planning strategies, this brief seeks to understand how the EU plans for an ageing population and attempts to reshape communities in an increasingly challenging socioeconomic context. This brief looks at some of the regional initiatives and guidelines and highlights the role the EU is playing in influencing some of the development trends, particularly those in urban centres.

A Roadmap for Strengthening International Collaboration in Research and Innovation under Horizon 2020. EU Center Singapore Background Brief No. 9, May 2013

This  background  brief  looks  into  the  new  research  and  innovation  strategy  introduced  by  the  European  Union  embodied in the Horizon 2020 funding programme. It focuses  on the  prospect  for  international  collaboration  in  Horizon  2020, and presents a roadmap for both European institutions  and  those  from  key  third  countries  to  get  ready  for  the  opportunities provided by this funding instrument to embark  on interesting research and innovation. The brief begins by  outlining the efforts by the EU to address issues of economic  competitiveness with a new growth strategy Europe 2020 in  response to the enormous challenges faced by Europe in the  midst of the debt  crisis. It looks at the introduction of the  Innovation Union  as  a  Europe 2020  initiative,  and  explains  how the  new  financial  instrument,  Horizon  2020,  may  be  used to support the primary goals   of more jobs, improved  lives,  better  society  and  the  global  competitiveness  of  Europe.  The  brief  also  outlines  the  major  differences  of  Horizon 2020 from the previous framework programmes, and  recommends close collaboration between the European and  the key third countries. The brief also proposes general and  priority‐specific  strategies  for  national  research  councils,  universities  and  research  institution  to  get  ready  to  participate in the Horizon 2020 programme.  

Will the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership be a game-changer? EU Centre Singapore Policy Brief No. 5, April 2013

In February 2013, US President Barrack Obama, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso announced the decision to go for an ambitious and comprehensive trade and investment agreement between the US and the EU. To be called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), this agreement would lead to a new stage in the transatlantic relationship and be a much needed boost to the lacklustre economic recovery so far. Some analysts have even argued that TTIP would be a “game changer” – besides the economic gains, it would serve a bigger strategic purpose of promoting EU-US common objective to set higher standards of trade liberalisation, and thereby level the playing field in China and other key emerging markets. This policy brief examines the reasons behind the current push towards TTIP and the possible contents of such an agreement. It also discusses the possible obstacles to the realisation of TTIP, and at the same time, looks into what a successful conclusion of TTIP would mean for Asia and beyond.

EU citizenship: Citizenship and identity beyond national borders. EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 10, October 2013

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of European Union citizenship. All citizens of the 28 EU member states are also EU citizens through the very fact that their countries are members of the EU. Acquired EU citizenship gives them the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the EU, the right to vote in European elections, and also on paper the right to consular protection from other EU states' embassies when abroad. The concept of citizenship in Europe – and indeed anywhere in the world – has been evolving over the years, and continues to evolve. Against this time scale, the concept of modern citizenship as attached to the nation-state would seem ephemeral. The idea of EU citizenship therefore does not need to be regarded as a revolutionary phenomenon that is bound to mitigate against the natural inclination of European citizens towards national identities, especially in times of economic and financial crises. In fact, the idea of EU citizenship has even been criticised by some scholars as being of little substantive value in addition to whatever rights and freedoms European citizens already have. Nonetheless the ‘constitutional moment’ that the Maastricht Treaty achieved for the idea of EU citizenship has served more than just symbolic value – the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding, for instance. The idea of EU citizenship also put pressure on the Union and its leaders to address the perceived democratic deficit that the EU is often accused of. In attempts to cement the political rights of EU citizens, the citizens’ initiative was included in Lisbon Treaty allowing citizens to directly lobby the European Commission for new policy initiatives or changes.

How should ASEAN engage the EU? – Reflections on ASEAN’s external relations. EU Centre Singapore Working Paper No. 13, April 2013

The Association of  Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), founded  in 1967, has from  its onset been an  outward oriented organisation. It has to be outward looking and followed events in the region and  world carefully because domestic dynamics and developments are sensitive to such externalities. The  member states of ASEAN are also firmly aware of the need to be embedded in the broader regional, if  not global context, particularly in the economic arena.   One channel that ASEAN used to achieve this  was through the dialogue partnerships that it established throughout the years with the major powers  and other key countries.      The  EU  is  one  of ASEAN’s  oldest  dialogue  partners.  Trade  and  investments ties  between the two  regions have grown tremendously.  The EU is now ASEAN’s second largest trading partner and biggest  source of FDI in ASEAN, and the partnership now extends also to a whole range of political and security  dialogue. Yet despite all these, ASEAN still perceived the partnership as below potential.  This paper  examines the current EU‐ASEAN relations and reflects on how ASEAN can step up its engagement with  the  EU  at  a time  when the  East  Asian region  has  become the  core region  of  global  politics  and  economics, and ASEAN has to become more united and  cohesive  if  it  is to manage the  increasing  tensions and rising rivalry amongst the big powers in the region, in particular between the US and  China.   

Towards a Dynamic Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)? EU Centre Singapore Working Paper No. 14, May 2013

The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) launched in 1996 is into its 17th year, and has expanded from a membership of  26 to 51. ASEM membership is made up of 10 ASEAN countries, the ASEAN Secretariat, China, Japan, South Korea,  Mongolia,  Bangladesh,  India,  Pakistan, Australia, New  Zealand  and  Russia  on the Asian side,  and the  27  EU  member states,  the  European  Commission,  Norway  and  Switzerland  on  the  European side.  Yet,  with such  impressive and diverse membership accounting for around 60% of the world’s population, 50% of global GDP,  and up to 60% of world trade, it remains relatively unknown in the public domain. There is also a palpable sense  that not all is well as interest in ASEM (particularly among the leaders) may wane without adequate follow‐up  actions, concrete deliverables and improved visibility.    The  challenges faced by ASEM were discussed in a recent Symposium in Yangzhou organised by the Chinese  government and co‐sponsored by Laos, India, Poland and the Asia‐Europe Foundation (ASEF).    Into its 17th year, ASEM remains essentially a forum for dialogue. After an initial euphoria following the launch   of the inaugural summit in Bangkok in 1996, symbolising Asia’s and Europe’s commitment to step up engagement  with each other, ASEM has since been plagued by the perennial questions of its lack of effectiveness, efficacy and  visibility, and doubts about sustained interest by its political leaders in light of the lack of concrete deliverables.   This paper drawn in part from an earlier article on The Asia‐Europe Meeting (ASEM) in the Palgrave Handbook on  EU‐Asia Relations (2013), and from the discussions at the above ASEM Symposium, will begin with an examination  of the on‐going debates with regards to the challenges faced by ASEM and the various suggestions to address  some  of these  challenges.  The  paper will  conclude with some  observations  on the real  issues  behind these  debates and a prognosis on the future development of ASEM.