Page 16 - ASEAN-EU Dialogue 2018: Regional and Inter-Regional Economic Cooperation: Identifying Priorities for ASEAN and the EU

imposed on Europe and Canada, arguing that the allies have been unfair to the US economy
(Baker and Shear, 2018). Several scholars have come to believe that the President’s
protectionist measures are poised to damage the American economy and are detrimental to
negotiations (Levy, 2018). Trump also decided to withdraw from the 12-nation trade
negotiations on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), reducing it to the TPP-11. Withdrawal
from the TPP increases uncertainty among US allies about the reliability of the US across a
range of foreign and economic matters, in addition to marking a rather rare occasion where the
US has withdrawn from an agreement it once championed (Solis, 2017).

In Europe, there is some resentment about the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement. Concerns have also been raised about the EU-ASEAN FTA. According to some
analysts, trade agreements with countries outside the EU such as the Transnational Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the US, and Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement (CETA) with Canada might “hamper the establishment of environmental protection
measures for investors who feel disadvantaged by national legislation and might lodge for
heavy claims for loss profit. The setting of such disputes occurs through private arbitration
outside the reach of democratic control and without the possibility of appeal” (Dijkink,
2019:211).

Trade wars in terms of imposing more and more tariffs have begun - not just between the US
and China but seemingly between US and EU, US and Canada, and India as well. All this might
lead to a situation where the world witnesses receding trends in trade liberalisation in coming
years. Having said that, the situation within ASEAN and its dialogue partners is looking up and
could be much better if the RCEP is finalised and implemented and the ASEAN Economic
Community also takes its desired shape.

The paper does not delve into the debate that the supporters of trade liberalisation have with
the Nay-sayers who highlight that trade should be beneficial to all and its negative effects must
be minimised. However, what is important to highlight is that it is one of the most important
and debated issues in the field of international economic relations today. ASEAN and EU are
acknowledged as two of the most integrated regional groupings in the world. The next section
of the paper draws the comparison of ASEAN and EU’s experiences of trade liberalisation and
its impact on their growth.

Comparative Perspectives on ASEAN and EU
It is interesting to note that while the formation of ASEAN was driven by politico-diplomatic
motivations, in the case of EU, functionalism and economic cooperation played also an
important role. The ASEAN was started-off primarily to keep the communism away from the
region, and the EU to reconstruct the war-ravaged European continent as also to keep the
European identity intact. However, both the groupings have adapted with time and economic
integration has become their primary objectives. Regional integration processes in Europe and
Asia share common historical origins: they have their roots to a large extent in the Cold War,
in the perception among the leaders of the non-communist states (in Europe in 1950s and
Southeast Asia in as the Vietnam War raged from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s) that they
had to cooperate and overcome their internal rivalries in the face of a common external threat
to their economic and political security. However, compared with the ASEAN, the EU was
historically more inclusive in as far as, prior to the end of the Cold War, it organised all the big
non-Communist European Powers (at least once the United Kingdom joined in 1973), while
ASEAN did not integrate the economically most highly developed non-communist Asian
States (Webber, 2012:7).

10