Another nation-building bloc? Integrating nationalist ideology into the EU and ASEAN

Abstract

The article examines the compatibility of nationalist ideology and regional integration within the European Union (EU) and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). In exploring nationalist ideology as a third alternative to functional and identity-based approaches to regional integration, it contributes to debates on the necessity and desirability of a common supranational identity. Despite a hitherto largely transaction-based approach to integration, political elites in South-East Asia have expressed support for 'ASEAN awareness' or 'cognitive regionalism' in the hope of increasing the organisation's social cohesion and solidarity. These constructs seek to supplement political and economic co-operation with a sense of imagined (regional) community, despite the lack of strong supranational institutions within ASEAN. Their aim is thus to replicate a quasi-national construct at the regional level, something which has met with relatively little resonance within EU member states. The similarities between government attempts to foster a sense of regional belonging and nation-building principles, let alone their interplay, have yet to be fully explored in the South-East Asian context. The article tackles the question of whether EU and ASEAN member states can learn from each other in developing approaches to regionalisation.

Functions of European Integration from the Perspective of Sub-State Political Elites. At the Root of the Pro-European Consensus in Scotland

“…świeckość, aktywna ochrona praw kobiet i mniejszości seksualnych, otwartość na wielokulturowość, liberalne prawo karne). 34 pejskiej -tożsamości opartej o wartości socjaldemokratyczne, co celowo wyklucza brytyjskość 36 .…”

A postmodern mandala? Moving beyond methodological nationalism

“…Benedict Anderson's Imagined communities is frequently applied to the age of nations, whereas James C. Scott (2009) and the related field of Zomian studies have developed a competing focus on the 'ungoverned' uplands of Southeast Asia. The imposition of Westphalian borders and the attendant concept of sovereign states clearly had a profound impact on Southeast Asian power dynamics, shaping everything from anti-colonial nationalism (Marr 1971;Tai 1992), through geopolitical imaginations (Thongchai 1994) to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' constitution and decision-making conventions (Sutherland 2005a;. However, marking a caesura between the pre-modern and modern histories of Southeast Asia can obscure possible, messy continuities, whilst perpetuating the idea of linear progress through developmental stages that is so central to national imaginaries.…”

Reconciling Nation and Region: Vietnamese Nation Building and Asean Regionalism

“…Vietnam, long considered a destabilising factor in the region, has made conspicuous efforts to demonstrate both its regional commitment and ability to lead, hosting ASEAN summits, initiating the ASEAN culture week and organising other regional events such as the 2003 South-East Asian games, the 2004 Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) and the 2006 APEC summit in Hanoi. This helps to strengthen perceptions of South-East Asia as a region, at least among elites, while establishing Vietnam as an international player (Sutherland, 2005b). Vietnam has carefully constructed its move from describing ASEAN as a hostile, capitalist, ‘NATO-type’ organisation to embracing membership.…”

“…Whether actual transfers of sovereignty take place is thus less important than the symbolic role ASEAN plays as one further instance of the ‘invention of tradition’ (Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1983) so central to nation building. It is submitted that constructs such as ‘the ASEAN way’ and assertions of regional identity (Sutherland, 2005b) serve to underpin Vietnam's external sovereignty and, by extension, its domestic legitimacy.…”

“…Contemporary phenomena such as globalisation, immigration and regionalisation have led to claims of a so-called ‘crisis of the hyphen’ (Anderson, cited in McCrone, 1998, p. 173), where the link between the state and its legitimating national community is weakened by a dilution of community identity and/or state authority. State sovereignty is variously described as being pooled, transferred or lost through international treaties or the intervention of market forces in a ‘zero-sum game’ (Geddes, 2004, p. 40; Sutherland, 2005b). These dynamics are difficult to grasp, let alone measure in the case of abstract, theoretical concepts, the meaning of which may vary according to political culture and expediency.…”