With relations between ASEAN and the EU deepening, New Eastern Outlook analyzes increased European appetites in Southeast Asia.
Goals and objectives
The most pressing issue that has now come to the fore is the European proposal to conclude agreements that impose obligations on the parties on the ‘comprehensive economic partnership’ and ‘free trade’. Negotiations on signing such documents have been initiated by the EU with several ASEAN countries at once: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. In any case, the main goal is to open partner markets. European interests are dictated by economic motivation, i.e. to improve the well-being of its exporting enterprises, to gain control over the Southeast Asian markets, and to hinder the development of cooperation between ASEAN countries and other economies of the world through formal agreements. So far, the European Union has a negative trade balance with these countries, but Brussels is clearly not averse to eliminating this deficit and embellishing its economic statistics at the expense of the partner’s interests. At the same time, the EU would be able to lock in the commodities flows from Southeast Asia, and to fix the work of East Asian producers according to their own ‘rules’.
The idea of concluding agreements is being promoted through politicians, political scientists, economists and journalists loyal to the EU. It is being discussed more and more in connection with Trump’s foreign trade restrictions for various countries. Although the EU, like the United States, is a product of the Western economic model, Southeast Asia may not yet have evaluated the European initiative critically and objectively enough.
A master manipulator
The current situation is a result of the parties’ differing interests. ASEAN has historically perceived the EU as an attractive partner and a pole of power in world politics, and, in accordance with its classical vision of international partnership, continues to make efforts to maintain relations with Europe. For this reason, Southeast Asian politicians even turn a blind eye – to put it mildly – to the bleak past of these relations (a notable chunk of the region’s history is associated with European colonialism).
Europe, in turn, spends a lot of resources (accumulated at others’ expense since colonial times) to create and maintain a deceptively attractive image, but its behavior eloquently demonstrates its interest in exploiting partners from Southeast Asia for its own benefit. This is evidenced by its traditional imposition of political narratives (anti-Russian, anti-Chinese rhetoric, artificial concepts from the field of ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’), information manipulation, and regular demands for ASEAN to comply with the Western ‘rules’ for international relations, and – most importantly – financial and economic demands.
The other side of the partnership coin
The true attitude of Europe towards its partner from Southeast Asia is often manifested in unjustified attacks and interference in internal affairs. In early May, the Europeans erupted in criticism after the Philippine general elections. The elections’ results and organization were discussed with harsh expressions and a condescending tone. Such instances give the impression that the European Union’s political strategists have lost all their senses as the inadequate preachers of ‘democratic values’, since demanding the impossible from a sovereign state and imposing their demands and their vision of the situation far exceeds their powers.
Earlier, Thailand was scrutinized and inappropriately commented on by the EU for normal international communication. Brussels just could not ignore the kingdom’s deportation of 40 Chinese citizens convicted of violating Thai immigration laws to China, and in an official statement it protested against a private matter in other states’ bilateral relations.
It is quite obvious that a sovereign state – Thailand – is not obliged to ask anyone about their imaginary ‘principles’ and to take into account someone’s ‘regret’ about their internal actions. As for “obligations under national and international law”, the substitution of concepts by Europeans is clear. Thailand’s ‘national legislation’ does not concern the EU at all and is its internal affair. In addition, like standard international treaties, it cannot contain obligations not to extradite foreign citizens with a criminal record.
Among the Southeast Asian countries, EU authorities are especially troubled by Myanmar. It would seem that it is high time for the Europeans to recognize that their entire information and sanctions war against this country has failed, but the EU continues to regularly publish unnecessary and almost identical statements. In addition, the extension of sanctions against Naypyidaw has been officially announced.
But the king is naked
If one looks at the situation more broadly, it becomes clear that cooperation with Europe, despite its glossy image, officialdom and pathos, does not bring a main element to Southeast Asia, namely the promotion of social, economic, and technological development. Selective assistance to individual organizations and grants for agents of influence do not count. Despite the typical attributes of a classical partnership, it does not give Southeast Asia any impulses or any real support in reaching new economic and financial highs. Europe is not interested in the development of its partner, but only seeks to use it for its own material and political interests.
In these relations, Southeast Asia is the object of the European economic and neocolonial strategy. In fact, there is no prospects for such a partnership; it exists only to the extent that the European side can use any of its partners’ resources (political pressure, developing relations with the Global South, trade and investment benefits) and as it searches for more suitable options for its interests. Unfortunately, the trust of traditional societies in the shiny but inherently treacherous West never ends well. The history of international relations has proved this many times. The true attitude of the EU towards Southeast Asia lies on the surface – colonial in nature and insultingly arrogant in spirit. No attributes of partnership can replace the main thing in a relationship – mutual respect between the parties, the perception of a partner as equal, sovereign and significant. The sooner ASEAN realizes all the risks of this kind of unequal relationship, the better, because it makes sense to evaluate the behavior of the opposite side objectively, impartially and thinking about their own interests and prospects.
Ksenia Muratshina, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Southeast Asia, Australia and Oceania of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
