The EU is widely viewed as a successful example of postwar regional integration. The integration of Europe has experienced numerous changes before becoming the most compelling example of regional integration today. The EU’s success resulted from years of thought and discussions following the region’s destruction from devastating European conflicts. The EU shares a common currency and promotes the free flow of services, capital, commodities, and individuals across borders. It also shares a similar foreign and security policy. The European community did experience numerous hurdles while working towards these significant milestones.
Delving into history, the framework for regional cooperation was signed in 1949, establishing the Council of Europe. In May 1950, French diplomat Jean Monnet and foreign minister Robert Schumann proposed the establishment of a coal and steel community, which was a critical step towards Europe’s integration. The two devastating world wars taught European leaders the significance of unifying their economies and communities and preventing the reoccurrence of similar catastrophes.
It became clear that merging economic resources could yield more significant outcomes than individual operations. As a result, the EU achieved substantial economic progress by adopting shared laws and enhancing cooperation between regional and national powers. The EU also collaborated strongly on domestic affairs and foreign and security policies. Arguably, the fear of communism and American support unified the war-torn economies of Western Europe, resulting in the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1950 and the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957. Therefore, Europe’s distinct history and foreign support play a role in the present regionally integrated Europe.
In the case of South Asia, in 1980, the President of Bangladesh, Ziaur Rahman, advocated for establishing regional cooperation in South Asia. Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan readily supported the idea of regional cooperation, whereas India and Pakistan initially showed reluctance. There were concerns among Indian officials that Ziaur Rahman’s idea for a regional unified body would enable smaller states to regionalize bilateral disputes and unite against India. Similarly, Pakistan viewed it as India’s objective to unite other states against Pakistan and establish a regional market for Indian exports, solidifying Indian supremacy in the region. Nevertheless, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in 1985 to promote cross-border economic cooperation. However, its progress dramatically lags behind the EU.
It is important to note that Europe and South Asia exhibit significant differences in economic progress, levels of wealth, human development, free trade, industrial and urban development, tackling poverty, and level of integration in politics. Barry Eichengreen argues that following the two disastrous world wars, nationalism in mid-century Europe had weakened and European leaders sought political unification to prevent similar catastrophes. However, it led to decolonization in Asia, which promoted, rather than diminished, nationalism. As a result, political integration and establishing global institutions of economic governance in Asia remain restricted due to the continued prevalence of nationalism.
The prosperity of Europe’s democratic nature, free market economic policies, and political issue resolution have fueled its long-term success of integration. On the other hand, South Asian states experience significant geographical, cultural, economic, and military disparities, making cooperation challenging. South Asia has been embroiled in interstate disputes over land and natural resources, security, culture, and religion. As a result, these countries prioritize development in the military field, with less attention on regional trade and economic and regional cooperation. More importantly, regional integration has been impeded by the effects of British colonialism and the internal dynamics in the post-independence era, affecting cross-border interactions. The tensions between Pakistan and India have been ongoing since their partition, undermining prospects for regional cooperation.
Logically, European integration is an exceptional model of regional integration. However, it cannot be fully adopted by South Asian states, keeping their prominent dissimilarities in view. The EU model, however, could provide some lessons the South Asian states could adopt. Firstly, South Asian states must possess a strong political will to integrate. Secondly, like the European nations, South Asian states need to foster peaceful relations, leaving behind hegemonic pursuits and adopting a dispute-resolution framework in order to promote regional integration. Thirdly, there is also a need to develop a strong institutional framework for efficient decision-making and policy implementation. The EU was successful in regional integration as it adopted these factors. Therefore, these factors serve as valuable lessons for South Asia’s regional integration.
While the EU is a prominent regional partnership, South Asia strives to achieve primary economic integration. The EU was successful in integration due to the strong political will of the leadership and the citizen’s realization of the significance of integration. Unfortunately, South Asia experiences the most minor integration and has been embroiled in disputes. The disagreements over geography, resources, culture, religion, and concerns about security impede these states from pursuing regional integration. More importantly, the Indo-Pak rivalry has hampered efforts to promote economic integration and regional stability. Therefore, to enable economic and political integration in South Asia, there is a need to establish consolidated democracies like that of the EU and foster reliable human interactions while embracing free market economic policies.