Asean and India

Since its beginning about a decade ago, the partnership between India and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been developing at quite a fast pace. India became a sectoral dialogue partner of ASEAN in 1992. The sectors were trade, investment, tourism and science and technology. Mutual interest led ASEAN to invite India to become a full dialogue partner of ASEAN during the fifth ASEAN summit in Bangkok in 1995 and a member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1996. India and ASEAN have also been holding summit level meetings on an annual basis since 2002. India is now keen on a pact with ASEAN in the services sector, which accounts for about 55 per cent to the Indian economy.
1

Socio Cultural Aspect

One of the most striking characteristics of ASEAN is its wide diversity in race, language, culture, and religion. Many ethnic groups coexist within ASEAN. Malayo-Polynesians make up the majority in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia (and thus in ASEAN), although Malaysia and Indonesia have significant numbers of other groups. Thailand is 84% Thai. Ethnic Chinese make up 75% of the population of Singapore, and sizable Chinese minorities are found in each of the other ASEAN nations. Derivatives of the Malayo-Polynesian linguistic family, most notably Malay, Indonesian, and Pilipino, are the dominant languages in all but Thailand and Singapore. In Thailand, 85% of the population speak Thai. Various Chinese dialects are spoken throughout the region. English is the region's most widely spoken non-indigenous language.
2

ASEAN and EU
"ASEAN is an association, not an alliance and certainly not a military,
but overall a cultural, social and economic alliances."
Probably the most significant difference between the two organizations is the scope of power the organization has among its member nations. The European Union is more of a supranational organization that stands above all nations. It is like a government consisted of several states that are committed to a bigger entity. On the other hand, ASEAN is not above other nations but is rather in the same level. Nations' leaders convene to come up with a resolution or so, and the resolution serves as more a kind of guideline than an order. Another mark of difference is ASEAN's respect of spontaneity and in contrast, EU's legality. ASEAN's meetings are based on Ad hoc, need basis while EU follows a schedule. EU is more institutionalized while ASEAN is not. The spontaneity that ASEAN emphasizes may appeal to the member nations in that they gather only when there is a need to, but a sense of formalization could be needed as well.

Also, the leading country's degree of involvement stands as another difference between ASEAN and EU. Indonesia, with the largest population and role in building the organization, undoubtedly stands as the leading nation in ASEAN. However, as seen from previous cases, Indonesia's own interests stand much above the interests of ASEAN as a whole and it does not favor too much intervention from ASEAN. EU's case is slightly different. France and Germany, while they may not be the only leading nations, took a large role in integrating the continent. There is also the relative lack of common history that many of the European nations share. Including such, there lie many factors that differentiate the ASEAN with the EU. Perhaps Kao Kim Hourn, the executive director of the Camodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace is right. "Each organization has a uniqueness and should be treated accordingly." He specifically stated that "it would be unfair to compare ASEAN to the EU since its goals and structure differ from the European organization's." And of course, the European Union is not perfect. The European Union has had problems in gaining full approval from the public, having to inform them how the integration process may improve their lives. As a forerunner, the European Union can serve as an example, both as a model to follow and not to follow