Contenu du sommaire

The Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere: Reflection on a Region Building Process in Asia
The expression “Greater Asia Co-prosperity Sphere” is a slogan intended at justifying the systematic exploitation of the Asia-Pacific region by Japan during the Second World War. From December 1941 onwards, Japan tried to build an economic bloc to become self-sufficient in terms of natural resources. The aim was to stop depending on US resources and to become able to resist a counter-attack from America. The stinging military Japanese defeat and the loss of its naval supremacy meant that Japan was unable to protect that economic zone. Moreover, the Co-Prosperity Sphere was a deeply unequal system dominated by Japan. Nevertheless, it was also the first serious attempt at a regional policy in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the starting point of the decolonization process.

From SEATO to the Peace Accord on Cambodia: France, Great Britain and Collective Security in Southeast Asia during the Cold War
France and Great Britain played an important role – although overshadowed by the USA – in collective security in Southeast Asia between 1954 and 1991, at the crossroads of decolonization, Cold War and regional armed conflicts. The former were members of multilateral strategic organizations and involved in sensitive negotiations, contributing, albeit many failures, to several peace processes. Their common or separate attempts to moderate the U.S. in South Vietnam and Laos, especially between 1954 and 1962; their ability to weigh in the resolution of regional armed conflicts – above all the Cambodian conflict in the 1980s – led these two powers to increase both their bilateral political dialogue on the region and also awareness among EEC members about the necessity for a common position on the Cambodian issue and a more active dialogue with ASEAN members.

European Studies as a Tool for Promoting Vietnam-EU Relations
The relationship between Vietnam and Europe can be traced back to four centuries ago when the first European missionaries arrived in the country. However, today's bilateral relationship does not reflect this tradition and is not satisfactory for both sides. Where does the uneasiness in the relationship between the two partners lie? Why is there a misunderstanding in their relationship? This article analyzes the development of European Studies in Vietnam from an historical perspective using firsthand information collected in Vietnam. The main argument of this paper is that, in order to promote the relationship between Vietnam and Europe, European studies in Vietnam must be a priority in the agenda of both sides. Lack of information and inadequate education can greatly influence their cooperation. This paper concludes that the EU-Vietnam relations will certainly be strengthened because of its long standing relationship with Vietnam, and that European studies program will serve as an efficient instrument for better understanding the EU.

French Views on the Genesis of an Interregional Dialog – the ASEM (Asia Europe Meeting)
ABSTRACT. – On March 1th 1996, the Bangkok Summit launched the process of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), which resulted both from the long term rapprochement of the European Community with Southeast Asia in the 1970s and the context of the end of the Cold War. It allowed some Asian leaders to assert an Asian identity based on endogenous political, economic and social norms, and European leaders to respond to accusations of protectionism levelled at the “Europe Fortress”. Neither an international organization nor a negotiating framework structure, the ASEM claims a sui generis character which is reminiscent of the innovative character adopted by the CSCE in its time. The challenge of the ASEM is to combine the “ASEAN Way” approach to negotiation with “European values and customs”.

The ASEM since the 1990s: the Challenge of Relevance without Intelligibility
Since the mid-1990s, ASEM has crystallized its role as a diplomatic forum and as a public diplomacy tool. In the wake of such large-scale developments (China's “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) initiative or Europe's migration crisis), and against the background of multiple contextual changes (economic slowdown in Europe, complex emergences and maritime disputes in Asia), what are the prospects of such a format? Is ASEM an obsolete forum or an under-developed instrument? The present analysis addresses this conundrum by scrutinizing the specific contribution of ASEM to the wider fabric of Asia-Europe relations. It sheds light on the most obvious limitations of the “ASEM institution”, which it finds lie in the security realm. It also critically considers the much-vaunted value of ASEM as a diplomatic instrument in the framework of a commonly envisioned reinforcement of “connectivity”. Set against the security challenges of the times, it uncovers that the future of the ASEM format can only be assembled on clear and definite successes in its “connectivity” project and in a distinct regionalist spirit that remains to be built.

The Role of Cultural and Educational Cooperation within the ASEM
The interregional relations between Asia and Europe established with the institution of the ASEM in 1996 have considered the cultural dimension as a necessary tool to increase mutual understanding and improve the ability of both regions to find a new way of collaboration. The institution of the ASEF demonstrated a tangible commitment to promote a better understanding between Asia and Europe through the promotion of exchanges between intellectuals, artists and individuals. The realization of important projects shows how interregional relations can benefit mutual knowledge through the establishment of new connections of cooperation. However the cultural cooperation still remains below its potential and requires a major commitment and investments of all members of ASEM.

Japan-Europe Relationships in Asia at the Multilateral Level
As regards the Euro-Asia-Japanese relations after WWII, the historical development went through three stages. First, the 1970s were a period of growing commercial activity. Second, the 1980s were a decade during which economic cooperation developed with direct booming foreign investments. Third, the 1990s which constitute the last stage of this historical process will be under scrutiny in this article. In the 1990s, in the context of a necessary reconsideration of the international structures developed in the framework of the West-East confrontations, Europe was further interested in Asia, and particularly in Japan. The Hague Declaration of July 1991, at the time of the First Japan-European Community Summit, represented an important step towards links extending to the political, cultural and security dimensions. During the Tokyo EU-Japan Summit in July 2000, Japan and the EU jointly proclaimed a decade of cooperation starting from 2001, laying the foundations of an intimate and active political dialogue. Today, the Japan-Europe relations are much diversified and have been extended to a variety of different areas.

The ASEM and the Start of a European (Mini) Swivel towards the Asian-Pacific Area
Designed as being “THE” European platform for the Asia-Europe dialogue, ASEM still remains a forum amongst many others. Yet the ASEAN is still one of the key forums, even if, in terms of statistics, Association State members no longer represent only one Asian member in two. The ASEM has expanded beyond the European Union towards the West and beyond the “ASEAN +3” towards the East, but it is still in search of its optimal geographic configuration. Should it be open to new partners in Central Asia, South Asia, among the Pacific island countries, or to the five non-member States of the Western Balkans? By developing a “continental” vision of Euro-Asian relations, the ASEM and EU member States will be better able to define their vis-à-vis expectations of China, the United States and other trans-Asian institutions (APEC, EAS...).

“America's backyard no more”: the Atlantic Alliance and the Latin American Cold War (1959-1973)
The Cold War did not spread evenly across the world. Some countries emerged on the international scene after the Bandung Conference (1955), but the definitive insertion of Latin America in the East-West confrontation became visible only after the Cuban Revolution. NATO reacted to the leftist turn of the Castro regime and created a group of experts on Latin American affairs. The bi-annual reports of this new committee show that the authorities were deeply concerned about the policies of Habana, as well as the growing presence of the Soviet Union and China in the continent. Fears concerning Cuba generated a special interest in other Latin American countries, particularly Chile, where a “Marxist democratic” project came to power in 1970. Far from establishing a consensus, those questions were constantly debated – especially by the United Kingdom and Brussels, which did not share the hard line of the United States –, reflecting strategic divergences within the Western camp.