The EU as a benchmark for the process of integration?

The beginning of this is priceless:

And in this post I will be talking about Europe and how the world is still very Eurocentric by tackling this question:

To what extent can we use European integration as a benchmark by which to judge the progress of  other regional integration projects?

This essay will look at the question from three angles. First, one can use the European Union as a benchmark to judge regional integration because it was the first real region. Second, that the EU process should not be seen so much as a benchmark, but more like an inevitable part of regional integration. And lastly, that you can’t compare the regions as they have different motives and a different historical starting point.

The European Integration process was a reaction to the two world wars of the previous century. France tied itself together with Germany in an attempt to create a bond which would make them economically dependent on each other. Together with the Benelux countries they created the European Coal and Steal Community. Since then the now European Union has grown to 27 members with a common market, which allows for a free flow of goods and people, as well as having introduced the Euro in 2000. The EU is becoming increasingly institutionalised and have gotten so far as to created the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and have introduced the role of a High Representative of common affairs and security policy. The position is currently held by Catherine Ashton from the UK and her job is to act as a sort of foreign minister for the EU. Mainly she tries to coordinate the various policies of the 27 countries for a more coherent European policy. From this we can that the Union is becoming increasingly supranational. More and more policies are happening on the EU level and they are taking away some functions that previously was held by the various governments. There is a question of whether Europe should aim towards federalism, which some countries do, or stop the integration process and open up to other countries.

One could say that the EU can act as a benchmark for others as they were the first integrating region as as such has reached further into the integration process. Arguably they are not a benchmark as much as the only thing we have to compare with. It can be useful to watch what the EU does before deciding what the other regions should aim for. With the current economic crisis in the south of Europe it can be argued that regional integration the way the EU has been doing it is not a good idea and that the newer regions should learn from their mistakes. However, if the European Union manages the crisis and achieves a stronger more institutionalised Union they can show the world that their integration process can be a benchmark for the rest of the world. It all depends on what the EU decides to do now in regards to keeping Greece or throwing them out, if the Euro project has failed and whether they wish to continue towards a more integrated union maybe ending in federalism or the other option – toning down the institutionalisation and become more intergovernmental.

The European integration started out as a way to promote peace and economic growth. In many ways this is the same as many of the other regions in the world, such as Mercosur and ASEAN. They are creating a market in-between them to support each other and as a means to create peace and interdependence in the regions. From that perspective the EU can be seen as a benchmark because it had the same starting point as some of the newer regions. However, are they a benchmark or just the project of spillover? The theory of Neofunctionalism believes that the process of spillover happens naturally as the various countries in a union is seeing the benefits of integration – both economically and politically. Creating a free trade are would lead to the need for institutions that can oversee the process. Then, when the economic benefits can be seen the introduction of the Euro to make it easier to trade became relevant, leading to the need for more institutions and so on. The EU is more a result of a natural process of spillover than anything else and started out much like the other regions with a goal of economy and peace. This shows that the EU can’t really be seen as a benchmark because it is still in the process of integration and are more or less the result inevitable integration and the other regions will eventually get there.

One can’t compare regions as the regions have different goals. The EU seems headed for federalism, while as ASEAN (association of SouthEast Asian Nations), Mercosur (in Latin America) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement, between Canada, US and Mexico) are purely economic regions. The different regions have different goals and purposes with their regions so you can’t really compare them. Also, because of their unique history the various regions have different starting points. ASEAN, for example, have a long colonial history of Western influence in form of colonial legacy and wars during the Cold War. The economic crisis of 1997, in which both Europe and America ignored their calls for help being more interested in their interests in the Middle East, the countries of East Asia learned that they only had themselves to rely on. This initiated the creation of a trade agreement between the various countries so they wouldn’t have to depend on the West again.
Because of the Colonial legacy, however, the members of ASEAN have a stronger focus on maintaining state-sovereignty as they have been suppressed for so long. Europe has never been colonised and thus doesn’t have as strong problems with integrating and giving up their sovereignty in the process. We can therefore see that the unique history of ASEAN has given them a different starting point and a different goal and that of the EU making comparisons pointless.

Using the EU as a benchmark might not be the best of ideas seeing as what is currently going on in the EU. The European Integration also closes the region off from others and have an exclusive membership list. However, the newer regions can learn from the mistakes the EU has made in their integration process. It can also be argued that the process of spillover ultimately designed the outcome of the process and that a region will start out with economic integration and end in federalism regardless. Another view suggests that the EU can’t be the benchmark of other regions as they are influenced by unique historical backgrounds and have different aims with their integrational processes. Why compare something that doesn’t aim for the same thing?