Katja Weber

Recent Projects:

“EU-Southeast Asian Relations: What Lies Ahead?”

This chapter examines EU relations vis-à-vis Southeast Asia (SEA) in light of recent changes in the international environment, such as the greater assertiveness of China in SEA and growing uncertainty regarding the US’ future role in the Asia-Pacific region. These changes not only threaten several Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members’ foreign policy autonomy and undermine ASEAN unity and centrality but, in doing so, provide a real opportunity for the EU to play a greater role in the region. At a time when many Southeast Asian countries seek to avoid putting all their eggs in one basket and increasingly try to tackle excessive dependencies on China, the EU, which already has made substantial investments in the region, may be able to build onto existing relationships in the economic, political, and security realms and solidify them. In the following, I first discuss recent changes in the international environment and their consequences for SEA. I then provide concrete examples of several ASEAN members’ responses to the changed international order. Whereas Laos and Cambodia seem to see no real alternatives to strong ties with China, Malaysia, at times, has been much more protective of its autonomy. The Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia, while maintaining ties with the US and China, more recently have sought to cooperate with other regional powers, like Japan, but also European partners, in an effort to avoid getting caught up in the power struggle between the US and China. In a final section I explain how increased uncertainty regarding future developments in Asia-Pacific has created a real opportunity for the EU to strengthen its ties with the region and upgrade existing partnerships, and thereby protect its sizeable investments in the region and benefit countries which, not too long ago, Europe has exploited.

Current Projects:

“Trump’s America in the Indo-Pacific: Southeast Asians Coping with Harsh Realities and Trying to Come Out Ahead”

This chapter examines the challenges and opportunities Southeast Asian countries confront as a result of a transformed international order. More specifically, the chapter investigates how Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members are responding to growing uncertainty regarding the US’ role in the Indo-Pacific under the Trump administration as well as an increasingly assertive China. Although neorealists, by focusing on changes in the distribution of capabilities of various regional actors—a potential erosion of American power vis-à-vis the Indo-Pacific and an increase in China’s military and economic capabilities —can explain why ASEAN countries are reevaluating their foreign policies, neorealists have trouble accounting for the range of strategies chosen. More specifically, while neorealism might be able to shed light on why particularly weak countries, like Laos and Cambodia, in this asymmetric regional power structure bandwagon with China (accept bilateral deals in the hope that China will leave them alone), it encounters problems accounting for why other Southeast Asian countries, like the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia or Indonesia, do not engage in straight balancing behavior (aggregate capabilities with allies to offset an increasingly powerful China). Instead, to guard against the possibility of US abandonment and to tackle excessive dependencies on China, these countries avoid having to choose sides and pursue hybrid strategies which, I argue, are best explained by neoclassical realism. The chapter ends on an optimistic note suggesting that, since the Trump administration’s policies toward the region in the economic (less so the military) realm represent a significant departure from those of his predecessor, there is reason for cautious optimism post-Trump. It is conceivable that a future US president will understand that both the US and the rest of the world will be better off tackling today’s challenges multilaterally and, thus, return to cooperating with America’s allies, although they most likely will be asked to increase their contributions to enhance regional security.

Upcoming:

 Deglobalization: A Setback for Human Security?

Increased nationalism, greater protectionism, and a gradual move away from a rule-based international order by some members of the international community do not appear to bode well for vulnerable populations around the globe. Human security is threatened by a host of non-traditional security challenges these days including food insecurity, environmental problems, infectious diseases, territorial disputes and human trafficking, to name but a few. These challenges, transnational in nature, require multifaceted responses from a variety of actors across borders to aid those who cannot protect themselves. Given that deglobalization is likely to further empower authoritarian leaders and corrupt governments at the expense of their most vulnerable citizens, a decreased willingness on the part of members of the international community (both states and international institutions) to defend human rights and the rule of law will render the weakest segments of society increasingly helpless. Whether one looks at the plight of persecuted citizens during Burma’s military junta, the exploitation of garment workers in Cambodia,  human slaves in the fisheries of the coast of Indonesia, or farmers uprooted from their land to make room for hydroelectric dams or palm oil plantations, without interference by members of the international community (EU sanctions, US arms embargoes, travel restrictions on government officials, etc.), those who need our help the most are likely to be forgotten. Ultimately, I argue, the effects of deglobalization on human security will depend, in large part, on which and how many countries will turn inward, shunning democratic principles and increasingly pursuing isolationist/protectionist policies. It is certainly conceivable that several great powers will make up for the current lack of US leadership and will hold countries like China, Russia, Myanmar or Cambodia, which allow sovereignty-related norms to get in the way of the protection of human lives, accountable.