[MUSIC] With the 70s started probably a new step in the regional history of the world. Let's remember 70s. It was the end of this famous 30 years of economic development and economic progress in Europe. 73, it was the first oil crisis which hit the Western economies. But probably 70s were the decade of a growing, increasing appearing globalization. The world was moving to an interstate world, to a global world. And at this time, during the 70s, European integration was strongly challenged and questioned, while the institutional arrangement didn't work anymore. So, at this time was invented a new kind of regional integration which we would call neoregionalism, neoregional integration. What does it mean, first? It means a new context, as I mentioned, a context of economy crisis, of a growing new global world, and the increasing role of the transnational actors and especially multinational corporations. A world of communication, that's to say, a world which is less and less territorial. This new regionalism is, at this time, a global phenomenon, that's to say not limited to Europe as it was with the traditional regionalism, but which affected all the countries, all the parts of the world. In fact, Europe was first affected by this transformation, but Europe was not invented this new regionalism. This new regionalism came from Asia, came from this Far East which was strongly transformed. It's the starting point of the transformation of China. But it's also the moment when new economic actors appeared in Korea, in Taiwan In Singapore, in Philippines, in Thailand, and so on. This new regionalism had clearly a target, how to save the state in a turbulent global world. How to save the state which was at this time threatened by these new transnational actors. But we are facing another paradox. You remember the paradox I mentioned about traditional regionalism. This paradox is now reversed. The new regionalism was not targeting the end of the state, but saving the state which were strengthened by this new globalization. But at this time states were weakened and were not able to take in charge this new regionalism. This new regionalism was then promoted by the new actors, by the economic actors, social actors, transnational actors more than states, which were more passive and even marginalized, and especially in Asia. This is a new paradox. As this regionalism was targeting, saving the states was promoted by the non-state actors. How can we characterize this new regionalism? First of all, it has never been really theorized. That's to say, we don't find about new regionalism, the equivalent of David Metrany, for instance, that I quoted in my last lecture. This new regionalism is merged more pragmatic, has not been theorized and so is more in the hands of the actors than in the mind of the thinkers. The new actors are economic actors who are playing a very important role, as I mentioned, but also some political actors. Those in Asia we wanted to promote to a new Asian order. I mentioned, for instance, Mohammed Mohathir in Malaysia or Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, who were promoting a vision of an Asia which would be integrated beyond the borderlines of the nation states. Another characteristic, and in my mind, the main one, is that this new regionalism was promoted by societies, by economists, more than by politics. And this is something very interesting, to observe how economic actors in Asia from the 70s promoted pragmatic integration, in spite of the border lines, in a part of the world which was, however, very conflicting and very rich in political competition. But what is interesting to note, to remark, is that it's precisely in the part of the world, the more politically competitive, that to place this new integration which was based on economic actors. And we find, for instance, the works of the Japanese actor, Kenichi Imai, who was speaking of region state, that's to say, the economical and social dynamics of region for overcoming the classical political order, the traditional political order based on territory and borderlines. But I would especially mention Robert Scalapino, who was realizing the transformation of the Asian geography by stressing on the role of what he called natural economic territory, NETS, natural economy territory. And he explained that there is now a dynamic, an economic dynamic, among the economies of the Eastern Asia which is conducting this process of integration by ignoring the political dynamics and the political conflict. It's a time when were built in Asia the famous gross triangles, and the time where investors coming from Taiwan were conquering the Chinese mainland, and settling and developing their activities on this part of China without visa, without political control, without political containment. It's a time when were developed this famous economic special zone along the rim of China. It's a time when even South Korea and North Korea were cooperating for building the famous Kaesong special zone in which North Korean workers were working under the supervision of South Korean corporations. This new kind of integration is then undertaken from below, from the society. Politics was, at this time, limited to its own straight concerns, that's to say political competition. What is probably fascinating is that this conception of regional integration coming from below was extended to all the world. We found it in Latin America, we found it even in North America through the Naftalina, but we found it even in Europe. At this time Europe was facing a very strong institutional crisis, an inability to progress in its institutional infrastructures. And at this time, non-political actors, non-state actors, play a very important role for giving the new dynamic of the European integration through regional cooperation, economic cooperation, social cooperation, exchange of students and so on. We are now in this new world, that's to say this world where institutions cannot really be adapted, are resilient and when progress is coming from social dynamics. If Europe has not totally collapsed, I think it's time to the social actors, not- state actors, Erasmus students, cooperation among the European firms and so on. This new regionalism is probably jeopardizing our vision of politics and probably our vision of democracy because it's no more controlled, contained, by the political dynamics coming from people's sovereignty. That's why Europe, now, is probably threatened of the new crisis even if it was able to survive through these new dynamics. [MUSIC]
