---

Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF)

China Institute for International Studies

European Institute for Asian Studies

This report summarises the key points of the workshop discussion.
Views and opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the organisers nor the institutions represented by the participants.

 I. Introduction

The 7^th Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Summit, scheduled for 24^th-25^th October in Beijing, will take
place amid various challenges for the future of ASEM. Observations ranging from “the beauty of
ASEM is that it exists” to “ASEM is in deep crisis” permeated discussions at the “Future of ASEM”
workshop held at the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in Singapore on 4^th April. The workshop was
organised by the European Institute of Asian Studies (Brussels), the China Institute of
International Studies (Beijing) and ASEF.

The workshop was designed to provide ASEM leaders and the Summit organisers with some
reflections and recommendations regarding the future of ASEM. Workshop participants did not
focus discussions on the agenda of th the 7 e 7^th th ASEM summit but rather on the methodology to
improve the ASEM process process. In pursuit of this aim, the organisers brought together 15
distinguished diplomats, scholars and NGO participants. The group consisted of both seasoned
“ASEM watchers” and practitioners as well as experts in other forms of inter-regional relations.

This meeting was also the occasion for the participants to receive first hand information about
the up-coming ASEM 7 Summit from the representative of the Chinese Foreign Affairs ministry as
well as of the activities prepared by ASEF and the AEPF on the sidelines on the Summit itself.

Three main issues were addressed during this one-day intensive brainstorming meeting:

1. Based on the evaluation of ASEM’s effectiveness in general, what are the prospects for the
future of ASEM? Does ASEM need saving? How can its achievements be effectively
communicated and built upon? What kind of reforms does ASEM need to consider?

2. What has been and what should be the role of Civil Society in the ASEM process?

3. How can ASEM’s visibility be improved? How can we sell ASEM to our public?

Actionable main recommendations include the following:

1. ASEM should remain as an informal dialogue forum and all stakeholders should reaffirm their
commitment to ASEM. To demonstrate ASEM’s relevance at the global level, ASEM
delegations should to meet more regularly on the sidelines of UN General Assembly meetings
(and other relevant occasions) with a view to seeking common positions on global or regional
issues.

2. The strategy of Issue Issue-based Leadership (IBL) holds considerable potential to enhance ASEM’s
effectiveness and efficiency but needs to be fine-tuned; the ASEM Summit is the right venue
to identify and agree priority issues; and clarify the mandate of IBL in general as well as each
IBL initiative separately.

3. The creation of an ASEM Secretariat should be re-considered; at least, the ASEAN Secretariat
should co-ordinate ASEM activities on the Asian side.

4. Civil society needs to be further integrated into the ASEM dialogue and outcomes; the
potential of ASEF, AEBF, AEPF and other initiatives in promoting exchanges between civil
societies of Asia and Europe should be further explored.

5. An ASEM Spokesperson should be appointed and charged with giving ASEM a face and a
voice to improve public communication in co-ordination with national governments.

6. In the lead-up to the ASEM VII Summit, all ASEM leaders should be encouraged to speak
about ASEM in their speeches and in media outreach.

 II. Summary of Discussions

 1. Does ASEM n need to be further institutionalised?

ASEM at inception was designed to be an informal dialogue, multidimensional and
comprehensive, with an outreach to civil society—these features make ASEM unique compared to
any multilateral fora or partnership. Some are satisfied with ASEM’s initial goals and outcomes
i.e. information sharing and mutual understanding, especially after the two successive
enlargements from 26 partners in 2004 to 45 today.

Re-assessing the nature of dialogue

There remain different expectations for ASEM. Frustration and lack of concrete deliverables stem
from a misunderstanding of ASEM’s mandate. High expectations are unrealistic as ASEM is not
equipped to meet expectations of a more institutionalised process. Some key questions are:

— Should ASEM partners decide to move forward from dialogue to concrete cooperation on
ld selected priority areas, what relevant means and institutional structures should be put in
place to fulfil this new objective?

— If ASEM partners agree that the group should still focus on information sharing and mutual
understanding and dialogue, how can this dialogue be more meaningful and achieve greater
impact at the national and multilateral level?

It was argued that the informality of ASEM is an asset that should be better emphasized as it
provides more freedom to exchange views. Moreover, while ASEM’s agenda might duplicate the
EU’s other bilateral relations with Asia, it is not meant to resolve issues but to foster dialogue
(confidence-building, consensus-forming) and then bring the outcomes to the appropriate
negotiating level. The beauty of ASEM is that it exists as a meeting of minds, a laboratory of
ideas.

However, even if the ASEM process should remain informal and relations loose, there is a
potential for ASEM to demonstrate its effectiveness for political problem-solving, otherwise it
would be seen as an empty ‘talk shop’. Whether one agrees or not that serious changes are
needed, there is consensus on the need for increased efficiency. This is a matter of urgency.

General r recommendations:

— ASEM should relate more strongly to EU dialogues with other parts of Asia (i.e. ASEAN,
China, India, Japan, Korea).

— ASEM could follow the model of “open open-ended plurilateralism” looking at examples of
non-discriminatory, broad-based coalitions from GATT/WTO and the EU (in its regionbuilding
process).

— ASEM delegations could meet on the sidelines of UN General Assembly meetings with
a view to seeking common positions on certain issues [1].

Fine Fine-tuning Issue Issue-Based Leadership (IBL)

IBL is certainly an important step towards a better continuity and follow-up for ASEM initiatives,
compared to an ASEM system relying mainly on the four ASEM co-ordinators and with a
proliferation of one-off ASEM initiatives. Guidelines on IBL were agreed at the ASEM VI Summit.

An EU and an Asian country would jointly lead on an agreed priority issue. They would coordinate
all the initiatives relevant to the issue, deal with public communication aspects, and report back
to the Senior Officials and the Summit. The lead countries are not necessarily the experts on a
particular issue but would have a strong interest. Generally, each IBL should last for two to four
years. However, there was consensus that the IBL strategy needs to be clarified and made
central to the ASEM process to enhance its efficiency.

Specific r recommendations:

— Evaluation mechanisms need to be established for issues taken up by IBL e.g. through
setting benchmarks.

— IBL should not bypass the multilateral region region-to to-region process but provide efficient
mechanisms for improving coordination and reporting.

— Leaders should provide the IBL mechanism with a clear mandate mandate. The identification
process for topics/issues is therefore critical: the Summit should be the venue for
agreeing priorities based on inputs and advice from external experts and civil society
consultations. Interested governments could then opt to take the leadership. The
process for identification of issues should also be defined. There could also be criteria
set for selecting issues e.g. that these are global issues that contribute to the
multilateral process.

— Moreover, the Chair’s Statement of the ASEM Summit should prioritise from among the
long list of issues in the ASEM agenda and sharpen the focus of each issue (thus
avoiding the frequent criticism of ASEM priorities being a ‘laundry list’).

— It should be an open and non non-exclusive platform for ASEM countries to participate. The
minimum number of countries to lead an IBL initiative could be increased to four.

Creating an AS ASEM Secretariat

The question of creating an ASEM Secretariat has been raised on a number of occasions. The
arguments for the establishment of a secretariat are that in addition to the normal functions of a
co-ordinating body, an ASEM Secretariat could: (1) address the institutional imbalance between
Asia and Europe; and, (2) effectively monitor and co-ordinate the various IBL initiatives at a
central level, liaising with both the IBL lead countries, on one hand, and the ASEM partners, on
the other. In general, an ASEM Secretariat would replace the current system of having four ASEM
co-ordinators (which itself is a solution for the lack of a secretariat). The Secretariat would
prepare Summits and Ministerials with the host countries. ASEM’s public relations would
naturally be a function of the Secretariat. (See point 3 below)

It was recognized that there is currently an institutional, regional imbalance between Europe and
Asia due to the discrepancy in the degree of integration and intra-regional coordination within the
ASEM process, which has created some frustrations in Asia and a call for a reinforced
harmonisation on the Asian side.

Specific recommendations:

— The function of the Secretariat could be that of a clearing house to plan action and to
integrate all necessary links to civil society information and participation (see below
point 2)

— The ASEAN Secretariat has been the main engine for regional integration in Asia and it
is of the interest of ASEM to reinforce it and possibly host a small small-size sized ASEM
secretariat with adequate funding from all ASEM countries. Alternatively, the ASEAN
Secretariat could host the Asian ASEM Secretariat for better regional coordination.

— The question of whether ASEF might take on the role of Secretariat or some aspects of
it was raised. However, this would undoubtedly necessitate a fundamental change in
ASEF’s mandate and resources. There might also be a risk that if ASEF was to become
the ASEM secretariat, it would jeopardize its unique mission to bridge civil societies
from Asia and Europe. To date ASEF has proven one of the few concrete deliverables of
ASEM thanks to the focussed networks initiated or stimulated by the Foundation in key
areas.

 2. ASEM and Civil Society

In order to avoid the endless debate about the nature of Civil Society, it has been agreed to
consider Civil Society as inclusive of any organisation not directly part of the state; hence,
encompassing the business sector, academic and research institutions, NGOs, media
organisations; parliaments, youth organisations, autonomous cultural organisations, et cetera.

General recommendation:

There was a consensus among participants that there is a need for more civil society
involvement and engagement in ASEM. Such a move would also enhance the legitimacy
of A ASEM in the public’s eye. Only through participatory mechanisms would Civil Society be
better associated with the ASEM dialogue and its outcomes. The strong and growing
appetite for more dialogues and cooperation among civil society representatives
contrasts sharply with a kind of ‘forum fatigue’ felt among ASEM governments.

As for the business sector, a business forum is important to gather information about biregional
trade and its obstacles, monitor progress, advocate solutions and liaise with
ASEM officials. However, it was argued by some that business people do not necessarily
require a Forum to develop their business beyond this role of observatory and advocacy.

Specific recommendations:

— New efforts should be made to facilitate dialogue between governments and civil
societies. Moreover, the AEPF has played important role in promoting dialogue and
cooperation between civil societies of Asia and Europe and it should be further
consolidated/supported. Some participants suggested that leaders should have a
forum with Civil Society.

— There should be an accreditation process for NGO participation in ASEM meetings and
activities with clear criteria of participation.

— Should each ASEM Government think it would be appropriate to its own local context,
a participant suggested that they could identify one Civil Society partner, e.g. a
university body, to channel ASEM activities in the country.

— ASEF should play a more active role other than as civil society arm of the ASEM in the
3^rd pillar and cover all three pillars of ASEM (political, economic, socio-cultural). One
suggestion was that ASEF could be tasked to organise the Civil Society component of
each Issue Based Leadership mechanism. If necessary, ASEF’s mandate could be
revised accordingly.

— An Annual Dialogue with ASEF, the AEBF and AEPF could be organised during the
years between ASEM summits.

 3. ASEM Visibility

Is “visibility” necessary? The emphasis should be put on proper “communication” instead of
“visibility” per se . There is a tendency for discussions to focus on visibility, but it is not necessarily
a pre-condition for efficiency or effectiveness. Society tends to mix images with substance. There
are unknown processes that can be very valuable e.g. Informal ASEM Seminar on Human Rights,
which can be effective precisely because it’s “invisible”. [2]

General Recommendation:

A need for ASEM leadership is a fundamental problem that mirrors a lack of ownership of
the ASEM process by individual governments. ASEM leaders should be the first
champions to emphasise the importance of the Asia-Europe relationship and the
relevance of the ASEM multilateral process. Nobody is better qualified than ASEM leaders
to make ASEM visible (a lesson from APEC for instance) and lead public diplomacy for
ASEM.

The ASEM Infoboard (www.aseminfoboard.org) has made progress in its function as a
repository for ASEM-related documents and basic information about ASEM activities but it
is a passive tool of communication. Some participants argued that ASEM should reach
the grassroots and be known widely. Others viewed this issue differently and argued that
visibility to ASEM’s masses was not a realistic proposition and public communication
should be targeted at influential groups and leaders of opinion opinion, who in turn would have a
broad outreach to the community.

Specific recommendations:

— ASEM leaders should be encouraged to mention ASEM in their speeches and articles in
order to promote an interest in ASEM.

— Creation of an ASEM Spokesperson to provide a face and voice for ASEM, talk to
journalists and follow up on activities. This person should be seconded but selected
through a competitive process. He or she should possess considerable expertise in
public relations.

— A small ASEM Media Center, located at either a possible ASEM Secretariat or at ASEF,
could co-ordinate public outreach for ASEM.

— The ASEM SOM could select 3 3-4 major ASEM events each year and all ASEM partners
should be asked to communicate nationally on these events at the same time, tailored
for national specificities and co-ordinated by a central mechanism (whether the ASEM
Spokesperson or an ASEM Media Center).

---

ANNEX 1

PARTICIPANTS

• Amb Amb. Rosario Manalo

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Philippines

ASEF Governor for The Philippines

ambrgmanalo yahoo.com

• Amb Amb. Holger Standertskjoeld

Head of Delegation of the European Commission to Singapore

holger.standertskjoeld-nordenstam@e...

• Amb Amb. Wiryono Sastrohandoyo

Member Board of Trustees - Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

ASEF Governor for Indonesia

s_wiryono pacific.net.id

• Ambassador Boguslaw Majewski

Ambassador of Poland to Singapore

ASEF Governor for Poland

ambassador pacific.net.sg

• Mr. Yang Jun

Department of Policy Planning – Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China

yang_jun mfa.gov.cn

• Dr. Razeen Sally

Director - European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)

R.Sally lse.ac.uk

• Mr. Charles Santiago

Director - Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation (MSN, Kuala Lumpur)

charlessantiago hotmail.com; charlessantiago gmail.com

• Dr. Yeo Lay Hwee

Senior Research Fellow – Singapore Institute of International Affairs

layhwee.yeo siiaonline.org

• Mr. Pierre Fournier

Special advisor, Asia Directorate, ASEM Affairs – Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France

Pierre.FOURNIER diplomatie.gouv.fr

ORGANISERS:

• Dr. Fraser Cameron

Senior Advisor, European Institute for Asian Studies (EIAS)

Director of EuroFocus-Brussels

Director of the EU-China Network (ECAN)

Senior Advisor at the European Policy Centre (EPC)

fc eu-russiacentre.org ; frasercameron hotmail.com

• Dr. Xing Hua –

Senior research fellow - China Institute International Studies (CIIS)

Director of the centre for EU studies in the CIIS, Beijing China

xinghua ciis.org.cn

• Dr. Hu Dawei

Associate Research Fellow, Department of European Studies – (CIIS)

Project Manager, China Centre for Energy Strategy Studies, CIIS

hudawei ciis.org.cn

• Mr. Bertrand Fort

Deputy Executive Director – ASIA-EUROPE FOUNDATION

bertrand.fort asef.org

• Mr. Peter Ryan

Director Intellectual Exchange Department – ASIA-EUROPE FOUNDATION

peter.ryan asef.org

• Ms. Sol Iglesias

Assistant Director Intellectual Exchange Department – ASIA-EUROPE FOUNDATION

sol.iglesias asef.org
• OBSERVER: Mr. Axel Goethals Goethals,
General Manager, EIAS
axel.goethals skynet.be