Date: 21 July 2006
Time: 3:30 PM - 5:30 PM
Venue: Global Distance Learning Center, Asian Institute of Management
Making Euro-Asian Soft Power in the 21st Century:
Concepts, Constraints and Consequences
Featured lecturer Dr. Sebastian Bersick, senior research fellow of the European Institute for Asian Studies, presented an analysis of the emerging European and Asian “soft power” and its impact on foreign policy in this installment of the globalization lecture series.
Bersick forwarded that soft power, as opposed to hard power such as military action, is the emerging approach in the global environment. A term first coined by Harvard professor Joseph Nye, soft power in the context of international relations, is the “ability of a political body to indirectly influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies through cultural and ideological merits.” He said that China epitomizes the successful use of soft power as a tool for foreign policy as the county now holds the key for regional cooperation and integration in East Asia. Superpowers revolve their economic policies around China at the moment, but the European Union and the United States have opposing judgments on the Chinese’s use of soft power.
Bersick pointed that the Asia-Europe Meeting or ASEM has adopted the soft power approach to global governance. The ASEM is an informal process of dialogue and cooperation participated in by the European Union member states, the European Commission, and the ASEAN + 3 countries to strengthen the relationship between Asia and Europe and ensure the management of interdependence and the application of principles of multilateralism and regionalism. The ASEM also allows European interest and single interests of European actors to be synchronized with Asian interest and the single interests of Asian actors. It becomes a cooperation among two collective actors and at the same time, a cooperation among 41 actors (27 EU, European Commission, 10 ASEAN + 3).
Bersick also tackled the internal and external dimensions in the strategic implications of soft power. For the internal dimension, the strategic partnership between China and the European Union is an implication of the EU’s soft power strategy vis-à-vis China and the East Asian region. As for the external, institution building on the intraregional and interregional level will facilitate shaping the context for future policy choices. The United States’ approach does not make use of the principles of regionalism and multilateralism in an interregional context. Nevertheless, it has the opportunity to make use of the EU’s approach as a reference for a new policy towards China that encompasses the need to facilitate region building.
Bersick noted that the rise of an exclusive China-led East Asian regionalism is not good for the development of the Euro-Asia soft power. It could only lead to the rise of China as a super power that could challenge the current world order. Right now, the fundamental dynamics and architecture of security in Asia has not changed. There is still no alternative to the US security structure in Asia. The US government still does not have a policy for regional Asia, but pursue bilateral relations with China and members of the East Asian regional block. He argued that US-China relations are driven by a policy of hedged engagement, i.e. characterized by political and military power balancing. This hinders the development of Euro-Asian soft power.
The ideal scenario is one of inclusiveness just like the EU model and the formation of a “fortress Asia,” which the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) facilitated by providing an interregional level playing field that allows the development of the soft-power. The European Union considers this strategy as an added value to its approach to East Asia.
Bersick concluded that the EU and the US need to coordinate their policies towards the East Asian region and its members. The question is will the United States take an active interest in complementing or opposing Euro-Asian soft power? Either way, the ASEM process and the making of Euro-Asian soft power demonstrate the demand for governance on the interregional and intraregional level. Multipolarity is the dominant structural shaping factor for the 21st century international system. Therefore, multipolarity and multilateralism need to enforce each other and become mutually dependent.
Speakers who took part in the programme were Dean Victoria Licuanan of AIM imparted the welcome remarks; for the perspectives, Dr. Wilfrido Villacorta, deputy secretary-general of the ASEAN, who engaged via videoconference from Singapore and Mr. Rene Fortuno, manager of the Product and Development Management Services of the Philippine Business for Social Progress; Dr. Federico Macaranas, executive director of the Policy Center for his customary synthesis and Mr. Klaus Preschle, country representative to the Philippines of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation for the closing remarks.
Making Euro-Asian Soft Power in the 21st Century:
Concepts, Constraints and Consequences (.pdf)
Dr. Sebastian Bersick
Senior Research Fellow, European Institute for Asian Studies