United States and European Union Evolving Approaches in Southeast Asia: Moving Closer to Convergence or Divergence?

With the launch of Barack Obama’s strategic rebalance to Asia-Pacific, there has been a widening of the United States’ military, economic, and diplomatic presence in the Southeast Asian region. Likewise, it is clear that Southeast Asia is currently a region of relevant interest for both the United States and the European Union (EU). Surprisingly, however, up to the present, a systematic comparison of their approaches in the region has been largely lacking. To fill this void, this article compares US and EU interests, strategies, and main instruments of cooperation in Southeast Asia. Special attention is paid to the main developments that occurred in the United States, from Obama’s announcement of a strategic rebalance to Asia-Pacific to Donald Trump's National Security Strategy, and in the EU, with the release there of the 2012 "Updated East Asia Policy Guidelines." Examining whether the EU and the United States are moving towards a greater convergence of intent is of crucial importance for identifying opportunities for the further development of the transatlantic relationship in Southeast Asia. This article argues, though, that despite some apparent common traits in the US’s and the EU’s intentions, their strategies and instruments ultimately differ substantially - reflecting divergent paths. This creates crucial impediments to any further development of transatlantic cooperation in Southeast Asia

Is ASEAN Learning from the Experience of the European Civil Protection Mechanism?

Why, following the EU’s first attempts at advancing community cooperation in civil protection and the creation of the EU civil protection mechanism, has ASEAN undertaken new initiatives, such as the adoption of a legally binding accord, AADMER and a formal institution, the AHA Center, largely comparable to the institutional innovations endorsed by the EU, in the same issue area? Can these developments be interpreted simply as the result of independent decision-making by ASEAN or are they at least a partial outcome of a transfer process? The aim of this study is to contribute to the emerging debate on European influence in Southeast Asia, taking into account how processes of policy and institutional transfer may lead ASEAN’s region builders to learn from the EU’s experience. Specifically, by discussing the case of disaster management, which has remained largely unexplored by comparative IR literature, this study argues that independent problem solving does not offer an adequate explanation of ASEAN’s developments. Conversely, lesson drawing and emulation are suggested as the two most relevant underlying mechanisms which can explain the gradual and selective adoption of an EU-like model of disaster cooperation

Building the ASEAN Center for Humanitarian Assistance and Emergency Response: is ASEAN learning from the experience of the European Civil Protection Mechanism?

Why, following the EU’s first attempts at advancing community cooperation in civil protection and the creation of the EU civil protection mechanism, has ASEAN undertaken new initiatives, such as the adoption of a legally binding accord, AADMER and a formal institution, the AHA Center, largely comparable to the institutional innovations endorsed by the EU, in the same issue area? Can these developments be interpreted simply as the result of independent decision-making by ASEAN or are they at least a partial outcome of a transfer process? The aim of this study is to contribute to the emerging debate on European influence in Southeast Asia, taking into account how processes of policy and institutional transfer may lead ASEAN’s region builders to learn from the EU’s experience. Specifically, by discussing the case of disaster management, which has remained largely unexplored by comparative IR literature, this study argues that independent problem solving does not offer an adequate explanation of ASEAN’s developments. Conversely, lesson drawing and emulation are suggested as the two most relevant underlying mechanisms which can explain the gradual and selective adoption of an EU-like model of disaster cooperation

Building the ASEAN Center for humanitarian assistance and emergency response : is ASEAN learning from the experience of the European civil protection mechanism?

Why, following the EU’s first attempts at advancing community cooperation in civil protection and the creation of the EU civil protection mechanism, has ASEAN undertaken new initiatives, such as the adoption of a legally binding accord, AADMER and a formal institution, the AHA Center, largely comparable to the institutional innovations endorsed by the EU, in the same issue area? Can these developments be interpreted simply as the result of independent decision-making by ASEAN or are they at least a partial outcome of a transfer process? The aim of this study is to contribute to the emerging debate on European influence in Southeast Asia, taking into account how processes of policy and institutional transfer may lead ASEAN’s region builders to learn from the EU’s experience. Specifically, by discussing the case of disaster management, which has remained largely unexplored by comparative IR literature, this study argues that independent problem solving does not offer an adequate explanation of ASEAN’s developments. Conversely, lesson drawing and emulation are suggested as the two most relevant underlying mechanisms which can explain the gradual and selective adoption of an EU-like model of disaster cooperation.peer-reviewe

ASEAN and the Construction of a Regional Security Partnership Achievements and Critical Issues to manage Security Governance in Southeast Asia

The study explores the influence of the ASEAN-centred security system on the attainment of regional security in the Southeast Asian region. ASEAN principles and mechanisms for conflict management are posed under closer scrutiny to analyse the development of regional cooperative relations and practises to face Southeast Asian contemporary security challenges

Strategic narratives of Russia’s war in Ukraine: perspectives from China

Strategic narratives have become an important tool with which states define their geopolitical reality and shape the types of foreign policy decisions that emerge. In order to build a more favourable international environment, China has deployed substantial resources to disseminate its strategic narratives and communicate its role, identity and vision and legitimise Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule. Despite the obvious importance of narratives on conflict and global security, remarkably few studies have examined China’s strategic narratives on security-related issues. This article marks the first systematic effort to map out China’s strategic narratives in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Based on a corpus linguistics approach and qualitative content analysis, the findings reveal that China does not project itself as a neutral player and that its strategic narratives often echo Russia’s portrayal of the Ukrainian war. However, the analysis also highlights China’s efforts to maintain its distance from Russia while presenting itself against the backdrop of the US/West-Russian rivalry as an equidistant player belonging to the wider international community as well as the most suitable actor to manage a peaceful global order