Prepared by:the Japan Center for International Exchange and the University of Helsinki Network for European Studies
Introduction and Background to the Report
The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) was launched in March 1996 with an inaugural
summit of leaders from ASEAN, China, Japan and Korea and from the EU member
states and the European Commission. A constellation of factors led to the realization of
this summit-level dialogue forum. The confidence of the Asian countries, the reaction
to APEC in the case of Europe and to NAFTA on the part of the Asians, and fears of a
fortress Europe provided the backdrop to the conception and launch of ASEM.
A decade down the road with five summits held in Bangkok (1996), London (1998),
Seoul (2000), Copenhagen (2002) and Hanoi (2004), ASEM finds itself at a crossroads.
Externally, the global and regional environment in which ASEM operates has changed
significantly compared to ten years ago. The twenty-first century has brought about
greater uncertainty and challenges. The general mood, particularly after the spate of
anti-globalization movements following the failure of the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle
and the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York, differs greatly from the initial sense
of euphoria and optimism following the end of the Cold War and the rise of
globalization which characterized the early to mid-1990s. Furthermore, the rise of
China and an emerging India are viewed both with apprehension and appreciation. The
optimists see the opportunities that these will bring, the pessimists worry about the
challenges that the awakening of these giants will pose. Challenges or opportunities,
the reality is that not only countries in the region, but other players in the global system
will have to adapt and adjust to the changing constellation of power.
Internally, ASEM’s success in initiating dialogue and cooperation between Asia and
Europe in economic, political and socio-cultural fields, reflected in a plethora of
meetings, conferences, seminars and activities, has created its own challenges and
expectations. The enlargement of ASEM from twenty-six to thirty-nine partners also
points to a need to review its working methods and coordination mechanisms in order to ensure that the dialogue remains meaningful and sustainable.
With all these changes and challenges, it was felt that the time is ripe for an objective
evaluation of ASEM in its first decade and review of the future possibilities of the
ASEM process. Therefore the seventh ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting in Kyoto
tasked Japan and Finland to jointly produce an objective think-tank report to assess
ASEM achievements and ascertain the future way forward.
The two research teams set out to conduct research in their own respective regions from August 2005. The Asian team was led by Mr Tadashi Yamamoto, President of the Japan Center for International Exchange and researcher Dr Yeo Lay Hwee, Executive Director of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs. The Finnish team consisted of project leaders Dr Teija Tiilikainen, Director of the University of Helsinki Network for
European Studies and Dr Timo Kivimäki, Senior Researcher at the Nordic Institute of
Asian Studies, and researchers Dr Bart Gaens and M.Soc.Sc. Silja Keva from the
University of Helsinki.
The two research teams took slightly different approaches in their research and
consultations, but after a few months of study and two major consultations, one in
Helsinki (September) and the other in Tokyo (December), it has been decided that a
joint report to synthesize and reflect the main analysis and recommendations of the two
studies should be drafted for submission to the next ASEM Senior Officials Meeting
(SOM) in Vienna.
The present report draws on the main findings of the Asian Overview Report and the
European Background Study. It begins with a short historical overview of the factors
leading to the launch of ASEM, followed by an explanation of the key principles of
ASEM, its structure and mechanisms. It also provides an overview of major regional
and global events that have impacted the operating environment of ASEM and that
necessitate a re-evaluation of its original principles and mechanisms. The second part
of the report analyzes ASEM’s overall workings and assesses progress and challenges
under the three pillars of cooperation. The third part of the report provides key
recommendations in order to revitalize ASEM and move the process forward.
PART I - ASEM’S GOALS AND PRINCIPLES
1.1 Why ASEM? The Historical Background
A number of developments and trends in the early 1990s contributed to Europe’s
rediscovery of Asia and Asia’s proactive approach to engage Europe.
– An economically dynamic East Asia
– Deepening European integration
– The development of APEC
– Economic Competition, the end of the Cold War and the US response
– The growing interdependence between Europe and Asia
– The specter of an increasingly unilateral America
– The aspiration to engage China into the international system
All these factors provided the underlying reasons that led to the birth of ASEM. The
strategic rationale behind ASEM openly presented was the concept of closing the
triangle-balancing the relations between the three engines of the global economy -
America, Europe and East Asia. According to the line of reasoning, strong transatlantic
ties existed between Europe and the US, and transpacific ties were also increasingly
dense because of APEC and other bilateral ties between the US and its various Asian
partners. Asia-Europe relations, however, were much weaker, and revealed the need to
create a forum under which linkages can be built and ties strengthened.
The overall strategic rationale of completing the triangle was the accepted raison d’être of ASEM. But slightly different interest calculations and perceptions lay beneath this broad strategic motivation. Hence, when the inaugural ASEM summit took place in
1996, the objective for ASEM was couched in the broadest terms, reflected in the
Chairman’s statement that the “Meeting recognized the need to strive for a common
goal of maintaining and enhancing peace and stability, as well as creating conditions
conducive for economic and social development.”
1.2 ASEM’s Key Principles
From the historical conditions ASEM developed a certain set of principles and priorities
for its workings. ASEM’s partnership structure is, however, not the only structure of
cooperation uniting Europe and Asia, and its principles are not the only principles
regulating cooperation between them. Asia-Europe dialogue was developed into a very
specific part of cooperation which is characterized by informality and lack of legal
instruments. With the different types of functions and bodies it covers, ASEM has
developed into a political framework for diverse activities rather than into a unitary
structure of cooperation.
The key principles and objectives enunciated in the Asia-Europe Cooperation
Framework (AECF)-the political charter first adopted in ASEM2 and amended by
ASEM3-noted that the ASEM process should:
– be conducted on a basis of equal partnership, mutual respect and mutual benefit;
– be an open and evolutionary process-enlargement should be conducted on the
basis of consensus by the heads of state/government;
– enhance mutual understanding and awareness through a process of dialogue and
lead to cooperation on the identification of priorities for concerted and
supportive action;
– carry forward the three key dimensions of ASEM with the same impetus-to
foster political dialogue, reinforce economic cooperation and promote
cooperation in other areas;
– not be institutionalized; as an informal process, ASEM should stimulate and
facilitate progress in other fora; and
– go beyond governments in order to promote dialogue and cooperation between
the business/private sectors of the two regions and, no less importantly, between
the peoples of the two regions; ASEM should also encourage the cooperative
activities of think-tanks and research groups of both regions.
The biennial summit of the Heads of States and Governments is at the pinnacle of the
ASEM structure. The summit is in itself a culmination of working meetings of ministers
and senior officials. Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Economy and Trade, and Finance
also meet regularly. Foreign ministers assisted by Senior Officials’ Meetings (SOM) are
responsible for the overall coordination of ASEM. They are supported by the regional
coordinators, which in Europe consist of the Commission and the Council Presidency
and in Asia of one member state representing ASEAN and another representing the
three Northeast Asian partners. The strongest institutional embodiment of ASEM is the
Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) which-instead of an intergovernmental body-takes
the form of a non-profit foundation. ASEF’s key purpose is to promote cultural,
intellectual and people-to-people exchanges between Asia and Europe.
1.3 The Changing Environment
Much has changed in the external environment in which ASEM operates. ASEM was
conceived in the mid-1990s when there was much euphoria about the benefits of
globalization and more optimism with regard to international cooperation and
multilateralism as the way forward in creating a new emerging global order that is more
multi-polar in nature. Today, however, we are seemingly confronted with increasing
unilateralism, and a much more contentious and fractious world. Increasing
interdependence and the sense of vulnerability it generates requires more international
cooperation, more rules and procedures. Yet, the international norms and institutions
built in the twentieth century are under stress, and seemingly unable to cope with the
increasing demands and insecurity of the twenty-first century.
The Asian financial crisis, the wave of anti-globalization movements that followed, and
then the September 11 terrorist attacks are some of the key events that have impacted
regional and global developments. ASEM has responded to these events as reflected in
the agenda of the official meetings and the respective declarations issued. For example,
in response to the Asian financial crisis, the London Summit in 1998 issued the ASEM2
Financial Statement and an ASEM Trust Fund was set up to help Asian ASEM countries
affected by the crisis. And the events of September 11 led to a series of initiatives on
counter-terrorism and dialogue to engender understanding between different cultures
and different faiths.
There are also significant developments in the two regions that have direct impact on
how ASEM should evolve. The Asian financial crisis had the salutary effect of
stimulating new thinking on the part of East Asians with regards to regionalism.
Despite its essentially reactive nature, impressive progress has been made in developing East Asian regionalism in recent years. At the political and policy level, the ASEAN + 3 process that began in earnest after the Asian financial crisis has gained a certain momentum. A common feeling is also emerging among many political, business and intellectual leaders in East Asia that they share joint interests and responsibilities for the creation of a more stable and constructive regional order and that they are at the
threshold of building an East Asian community. There is no doubt that an integrated
East Asia with a unified voice can strengthen the ASEM process and have a profound
impact on its functioning.
At the same time the globally unprecedented integration of the European Union has
advanced rapidly. The introduction of the Euro and the enlargement from fifteen to
twenty-five Member States denote a unique form of regionalism and also signify the
EU’s enhanced role as a global actor. This regional integration process has triggered
fears in Asia and elsewhere that self-absorption may shift the EU’s attention away from
ASEM.
With all these tremendous changes, it is therefore timely to review whether the existing
ASEM framework can be sustainable in the long run. Are the original principles and
objectives of ASEM and its management and coordination methods still appropriate,
and if not, what needs to be done to ensure the continued relevance of ASEM in an
increasingly interdependent world?
PART II - ASSESSMENT OF ASEM-CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS
2.1 Overall Assessment
The common assessment as reflected in the research by both teams is that while
progress has been made in improving dialogue between Asia and Europe on a wide
range of issues, the dialogue while broad has not been deep. The dialogue process has
furthermore stayed at information-sharing level and has not moved into substantive
cooperation.
While high hopes and a mood of optimism prevailed during the first two years of
ASEM, the subsequent development of the relationship has been regarded by many as
leaving much to be desired. It is seen that the dialogue forum has not entirely lived up
to the initial expectations and has not been exploited to the full. Most importantly,
ASEM has been lagging behind in concrete achievements. The paucity of tangible
results is apparent in key priority aims such as the intensification of the political
dialogue intended to consolidate political stability and international security, the
reinforcement of economic ties aimed at increasing trade and investments between the
two regions, and the strengthening of cultural, intellectual and people-to-people links to generate greater awareness and understanding.
Also ASEM’s relevance in the broader international context has been questioned.
ASEM has not been able to enhance the balance of power in the triangle remarkably.
Nor has it been successful in coordinating or harmonizing the interests of its partners
efficiently vis-à-vis larger international organizations and bodies.
ASEM should be viewed in a long-term perspective. Dialogue in various areas from the
official summits to all the different conferences and workshops are building blocks
towards greater partnership. At the same time it is also necessary to deliver on tangible
achievements that could be profiled in the media and arouse public interest. Increasing
public awareness of the process and its benefits and value-added-tangible and
intangible-would be necessary for the support for and commitment to the ASEM
process.
The inability to approach political issues and prepare for focused and concrete agendas
has led to perceived “disaffection” and “forum fatigue”. Though most would not want
to refute the value of dialogue in itself, clearly a desire exists to achieve something
more tangible. In order to move the ASEM process forward, much more needs to be
done in setting the right focus on those issues in which ASEM can add value. More can
also be done to raise the profile of ASEM in the public arena.
Much of the criticism regarding the lack of concrete achievements within the ASEM
process is related to the issues of principles and objectives, and constrained by problems relating to its management and coordination.
2.2 Principles and Objectives
There seems to exist no overall consensus on whether ASEM should be developed as a
state-to-state or a region-to-region structure. When ASEM was first conceived, it was
seen as an intergovernmental, state-to-state forum. However, over the years the process has adopted features of a region-to-region dialogue because of its intraregional coordination and deepening integration in both areas. This ambiguity is a problem that reflects itself in many contexts of ASEM.
ASEM’s ambiguous character is also seen in the way it is framed. ASEM dialogue is
supposed to be “informal, loose and non-binding, and not intended to produce new
agreements, treaties or contracts”. Yet, there is also the expressed desire to achieve
“concrete and substantial results”. This lack of clarity in its overall principle, and the
lack of clearly defined objectives gave rise to different expectations and unrealized
potential. Thus far ASEM’s objectives have been couched in the broadest of terms as
reflected in the Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework 2000. Differences in perspectives
and priorities hamper the ability to prioritize and to deepen dialogue to generate
concrete policy cooperation. This in turn contributed to the proliferation of a wide
range of initiatives as reflected in the vast assortment of projects, conferences,
workshops and meetings under the three pillars.
2.3 Assessment of Achievements in the Three Pillars
ASEM’s ambiguous basic principles as well as its lack of clear objectives inevitably
place limitations on the achievement of tangible results. Focusing on informal dialogue
to facilitate greater understanding, promote transparency and enhance knowledge
between the two regions, ASEM’s three pillars have yielded modest concrete outcomes.
Political Pillar
Considering the relatively low initial expectations placed on the political pillar, the
dialogue has broadened to become a central element of the ASEM process. Positive
developments include the opening of an informal, regular dialogue on human rights, and the emerging security dialogue not only on terrorism, but other global threats, and the expanding dialogue on environmental questions.
While espousing the need to strengthen multilateralism, the ASEM partnership has not
yet achieved its potential of acting as a rationalizing, agenda-setting actor vis-à-vis
international institutions. Rather than contributing proactively, ASEM has merely paid
deference to multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the WTO.
Useful exchanges of information and clarifications of positions occurred with regards to
various global and regional issues ranging from peace on the Korean Peninsula to War
in Iraq. However, differences over Burma/Myanmar can turn into a perennial problem
jeopardizing the ASEM process.
Furthermore, in the preparation of the political agenda, the differences in Asian and
European approaches to agenda-building have resulted in numerous lost opportunities.
The European inability to systematically utilize the opportunities in Track-II diplomacy
in Asia and the Asian lack of European-type institutional mechanisms of agenda
preparation have hampered the ability to address sensitive issues.
Economic Pillar
There are some slight differences in perceptions with regards to the progress achieved
under the Economic Pillar. But the prevailing Asian perception is that progress in the
economic pillar leaves much to be desired, in part, perhaps due to too much focus on
political dialogue.
Research on the European side also shared the perception that accomplishments in the
economic pillar have remained below expectations. Significant progress has certainly
been achieved in the identification of priority areas of concerted action in the Trade
Facilitation Action Plan (TFAP), Investment Promotion Action Plan (IPAP), and
customs cooperation areas. Concrete results, however, are generally deemed
insufficient. ASEM has shown limited efficacy as a rationalizing tool to build
consensus for and complement ongoing work in other bilateral and multilateral
frameworks. Moreover, although two-way trade between the EU and Asian ASEM
countries has increased substantially compared to ten years ago, EU’s trade deficit with
Asia has also grown, and outward FDI into Asia as well as the relative share of East
Asia in the total of EU’s exports have actually decreased. The waning interest of the
business community and the insufficient functioning of ASEM-related websites aimed
at enhancing business networking and information-access are also symptomatic of the
less than ideal running of the economic pillar. On the whole, it is agreed that much
more should be done in the economic arena if interest in the ASEM process is to be
sustained.
Socio-cultural Pillar
There is a general perception that progress has been most significant in the areas of
socio-cultural and intellectual exchange. This is reflected in a number of activities
which produced results, including the establishment of the Asia-Europe Foundation
(ASEF), educational exchanges through the ASEM DUO programs and the creation of a
network of educational hubs.
Furthermore, ASEM-initiated endeavors to address cultural issues, such as the
Conference on Cultures and Civilizations and the Interfaith Dialogue, have a crucial
importance in developing “ASEM soft power”. These issues are entrenched in the
sphere of soft security, and with a view to the future, are doubtlessly the pre-eminent
fields that can display “ASEM’s added-value”.
In the socio-cultural pillar, ASEM and also ASEF have been challenged by the civil
society, in particular the NGO-initiated Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF), to make
the ASEM process more participatory and democratic and to include more social issues
in the agenda. Engaging civil society and social issues in a meaningful way will be a
key challenge for the ASEM process. ASEF has taken some steps in this direction with
its informal civil society consultation in Barcelona 2004. However, it is crucial that the
linkages to civil society are further developed and officially acknowledged. In addition
the European study pointed out that ASEM has lacked a clear, accountable relation to
the national parliaments of ASEM partners and to the European Parliament.
In the area of intellectual exchange, an initiative supported by the Japanese Foreign
Ministry was the establishment of the Council for Asia-Europe Cooperation (CAEC)
comprising a network of twelve Asian and European think-tanks. CAEC’s activities
were driven and coordinated largely by the Japan Center for International Exchange
(JCIE). ASEM’s failure to tap the various works and research done by CAEC is a pity,
but the network and linkages among different groups of researchers and intellectuals
created are useful in its own way.
ASEM has also stimulated civil society organizations in Asia and Europe to create their
own networks and linkages as seen in the work of the Asia-Europe People’s Forum
(AEPF). Unfortunately, their work has not been fully appreciated and effectively
harnessed to complement the official ASEM agenda and generate concrete deliverables
that could have mitigated some of the criticisms concerning the official ASEM process.
Cross-pillar Issues
In addition to the issues that fall under the above three pillars, it is felt that some central themes require a cross-pillar approach. Many of the issues and challenges are multi-dimensional and multi-faceted. They do not fall neatly into one category or pillar and require a cross-pillar approach.
The Asian-European effort holds great potential to balance and complement the more
military US-lead approach if the instruments of socio-cultural pillar cooperation could
be more systematically employed for political purposes to develop soft-security
measures against terrorism. The Dialogues between Cultures and Civilizations and the
Inter-faith dialogue hold great potential in this direction.
2.4 Management and Coordination
ASEM’s management and coordination is affected by the differences between the two
regions in their respective degree of integration. For the European partners,
coordination is to a large extent carried out through the EU mechanisms which provide
the basis for the EU’s Asia policies in many other contexts. However, elements of
coordination and integration are much less developed among the Asian partners.
But even on the European side, many of the ASEM challenges seem to be linked with
the ambiguous role it takes in the EU system. As an informal and basically state-tostate
structure, ASEM does not take a role in the Union’s external relations equivalent to
the formal fields of EU-Asia relations. Despite being close to the ordinary policymaking
process, ASEM challenges the division of power among the Union’s institutions
and excludes parliamentary participation. These defects are reflected in the status and
functioning of ASEM as well as its legitimacy and visibility.
2.5 Visibility and Profile of ASEM
Research indicates that the lack of visibility and public profile is a major problem for
ASEM as awareness in the media and among the wider public remains low. Hence,
even after ten years of ASEM, in a survey of tertiary students in Beijing, 68.6% of
respondents “do not know ASEM”. Asian media coverage of events suggested that
ASEM is mostly the concern of officials and leaders, and not so much the concern of
the average citizens.
From the European point of view, these problems stem from unfocused agenda-setting,
the inability to prioritize, the lack of concrete results, as well as the low levels of
commitment and limited engagement of different actors from civil society, the business
sector and the parliaments. The ambiguous position ASEM takes in the EU further
compounds the issue in Europe.
The Asian Overview Report pointed out that ASEM is also lacking an overall
communication strategy. Some Asian reports see the lack of profile and visibility as a
larger problem related to ASEM’s lack of substance or relevance, which can be solved
by developing ASEM into a more substantive forum. But most think a more concerted
and proactive effort to address the issue is required.
PART III - RECOMMENDATIONS
After a decade, ASEM remains essentially a dialogue forum. Political dialogue has
widened as ASEM responded to the different crises and challenges that appeared over
the years - from the Asian financial crisis to international terrorism to the Iraq war. Yet,
the truth is that while dialogue has widened, it has not deepened significantly. Although
the dialogue has served well the building of symbolic and diplomatic ties, this has yet to
translate into a coherent strategy for long term cooperation. The consensus from the
study is that despite the various criticisms and challenges, ASEM as a unique dialogue
forum that links East Asia and Europe is still needed and has its usefulness. Its
principles and modus operandi, however, require re-evaluation for the next decade.
ASEM’s ambiguities must be solved and its identity clarified in order to bring it more in
line with the ideal and objectives of close interregional cooperation.
3.1 Principles and Objectives
Taking into account the challenges posed by the ambiguous character of ASEM, the
partners should develop ASEM in the direction of an effective region-to-region dialogue
and cooperation framework that partakes in norms-setting and regime creation to help
shape the international system. This is because East Asia and Europe are growing in
importance as they each acquire increasingly a sense of regional identity.
ASEM has contributed to the reinforcement of regional identities and processes of
community-building. Developing ASEM further into a region-to-region dialogue
recognizes and supports the processes of community building which are currently going on among the EU partners as well as among the Asian partners. However, the different capacities of Asia and Europe to engage themselves in ASEM as regions must be appreciated.
While this should be the broad overall principle that will guide ASEM’s future
activities, there is also the need to set more specific objectives and concrete deliverables as benchmarks of progress. This should focus on niches for cooperation in which the ASEM framework can add value to the plethora of bilateral and multilateral frameworks already in existence. ASEM should make full use of its multidimensional framework, one of its founding principles, to realize the potential of clustered aims and objectives in order to address global challenges.
One step towards this direction was already taken by the Kyoto FMM7, which outlined
the key areas for substantive cooperation: strengthening multilateralism and addressing
security threats and challenges; human-centered and sustainable development; and
dialogue among cultures and civilizations. These broad themes offer the overarching
framework in which focused clusters of issues fitting the ASEM mould can be framed.
It is in these clusters of issues that the ASEM partnership can make a true difference.
3.2 Improving the ASEM Dialogue
Political Pillar
The effectiveness of the political dialogue in promotion of multilateralism and global
institutions need to be strengthened through closer coordination and more focused
agenda-setting. The partners can develop ASEM’s capacity to become a clearing-house
for global multilateral meetings by jointly agreeing on agendas, objectives and common
positions. ASEM should also utilize the Track-II channel to help in the preparation of
issues particularly in sensitive fields such as human rights and democracy. In addition,
the partners should make further use of their respective competencies in addressing
global threats.
Economic Pillar
The revitalization of the economic pillar is an essential component for reviving interest
in the ASEM process. ASEM partners must build on the groundwork done in the TFAP
and IPAP, and through the recommendations of the AEBF and the Task Force for Closer
Economic Partnership between Asia and Europe.
The partners should encourage the growing economic integration in both regions. At the same time, efforts should be continued to achieve the Closer ASEM Economic
Partnership in line with WTO rules, as specified by the Hanoi summit, and to strengthen
the open and rule-based multilateral trading system.
With the long-term view of a future progressive establishment of an ASEM Free Trade
Area, the means to ensure follow-up of initiatives and create avenues for binding legal
instruments needs to be developed in order to move the process beyond dialogue into an action-oriented, region-to-region economic partnership.
Socio-cultural Pillar
In order to develop ASEM into a democratic, participatory process, its role and function
vis-à-vis civil society needs to be clarified. Bottom-up initiatives such as the Asia-
Europe People’s Forum should be welcomed and harnessed. Spontaneous networks of
scholars, students and alumni of ASEF activities should also be encouraged.
Developing ASEM into a more typical component of EU’s external relations would
directly engage the European Parliament and the national parliaments of the EU
Member States in the official ASEM process. This would enhance ASEM’s legitimacy,
transparency and visibility in Europe.
Cross-pillar Issues and Clusters Approach
To encourage a cross-pillar approach in addressing some of the pressing issues that
require a comprehensive approach, ASEM should seek to address clusters of
issues/projects in which cooperation at the interregional level will lead to significant
benefits for both regions. The cross-dimensional linkages between political, economic
and social/cultural issues need to be developed in the core areas of substantial
cooperation. In particular, advantages can be achieved in non-traditional security issues
and sustainable development.
The clusters of issues identified below are some of the most pressing challenges
confronting the two regions.
– Non-traditional security issues and global threats of common concern
(including terrorism, human pandemics and infectious diseases)
The economic losses sustained by the Asian economies and excessive impact on
regional trade and travel during the SARS outbreak in 2003, and the current spread of
avian flu, highlighted the dangers of human pandemics and infectious diseases. The
dangers have increased with greater interdependence and increasing movement of
people and goods across national borders. It is imperative, therefore, to deal with these
issues through closer regional, interregional and cross-sectoral cooperation.
– Energy cooperation
The competition for energy sources has the potential to generate conflict. At the same
time, there is enough shared interest to engender cooperation. As most East Asian and
EU member states are energy-importing countries, this is an area in which the benefits
for cooperation are tremendous. Much can be achieved in technology transfer, capacity
building and innovation in nuclear energy and better natural resource management.
– Environment and sustainable development
Global warming and environmental degradation are beginning to threaten the
biodiversity of our planet and the quality and sustainability of human development.
ASEM countries can first work towards a common position on the Kyoto Protocol, and
help persuade developing countries to gradually phase themselves into a re-negotiated
protocol. Other areas for cooperation include the development of common initiatives for
the management of common resources such as food and water.
– Globalization, economic competitiveness and education
Globalization, new technologies and the rise of China and India as central players in the
global economy have brought about increasing economic competition on a global scale.
Countries in this new economic landscape have no choice but to adapt and adjust to
these new pressures. Structural adjustments are necessary, and societies need to reexamine the education and training of their citizens to be able to plug into the fastchanging world.
– Dialogue between cultures and civilizations
The partners could take up issue-specific actions, which allow them to react to acute
questions by launching a dialogue process on problems related to peaceful inter-cultural co-existence. In addition, further ways to manage the rise of extremism and prejudice within the different communities in the regions should be found.
For ASEM or any international process or institution to move forward, leadership is
important. Since ASEM is a forum of equal partners and decision-making is by
consensus, leadership must be issue- and interest-based and not power-based. Clusters of countries can take the lead in clusters of issues in which they have particular interest and expertise, and are willing to commit time and resources to drive projects and work in order to produce tangible benefits for all.
The Burma/Myanmar Issue
A pressing issue that requires attention is the participation of Burma/Myanmar in ASEM
summits and meetings, particularly those organized in Europe. The European political
realities make it difficult for the European leaders to participate in meetings involving
the Burma/Myanmar government. At the same time, the Asian ASEM partners cannot
compromise on the principles of equality and non-interference in domestic affairs. Steps toward a constructive solution to this dilemma could be made at the Helsinki Summit in September 2006.
3.3 Management and Coordination
Better Coordinating Mechanisms and Institutional Support
Regional mechanisms of management and coordination must be taken as the starting
point when the functioning of ASEM is enhanced. The efficacy, legitimacy and
visibility of ASEM are essentially dependent on its regional management.
The Asian side with its current rotating coordinating mechanism may not be the most
ideal as reflected in the research and discussions. There is therefore a strong desire
reflected in the Asian papers for a small professional Secretariat to be established. The
debates on having a Secretariat have been ongoing for some time, and the consensus is
so far for a virtual Secretariat. Understanding possible constraints and some reluctance
to create another structure and institution at this point of time, the creation of an Asian
ASEM Secretariat situated within an existing institution is recommended. An Asian
ASEM Secretariat will enhance the coordination process within the Asian partners, and
also foster further regional integration within Asia. This in turn corresponds to the
proposal to move ASEM towards a more effective region-to-region dialogue. To be
cost-effective and efficient, the Asian ASEM Secretariat can be situated within the
ASEAN Secretariat by enhancing the capacity of the ASEAN + 3 desk already in place.
On the European side it was felt that coordination mechanisms must develop in
congruence with the overall direction of the process towards a region-to-region
cooperation framework. The possibilities and implications of the normalization of
ASEM’s role in the EU’s external relations must be considered. The more binding
results are sought after, the more compatible the coordination and representation of
ASEM issues needs to be with the standard external relations mechanisms of the EU.
The EU should examine how the Commission’s involvement in ASEM could be
enhanced, and consider whether a better involvement of the Council and Parliament -
which might add to the legitimacy and visibility of ASEM-can reinforce links between
ASEM and other EU-Asia frameworks. It also needs to address that question whether
the Troika format of representation could make ASEM more efficient and create better
synergies between ASEM and other frameworks of EU-Asia cooperation. From a
European perspective it is evident that ASEM’s management-including its general
functioning as well as its legitimacy and visibility-could best be enhanced through the
existing EU mechanisms.
Structure and Format of Leaders Summit and Ministerial Meetings
The informality, networking and flexibility aspect of ASEM should not be lost as we
move forward. There is a continuous need for leaders from Asia and Europe to meet
and get acquainted not in the least because leaders come and go with political renewal
and changes. In the process, leaders also acquire additional and updated knowledge
about the developments and progress in each other’s regions. But after ten years of
dialogue there is also a strong demand to see that the dialogue is translated into concrete cooperation and specific projects.
ASEM can continue to be an informal dialogue forum to create collegiality amongst
Asian and European leaders, and at the same time move towards more functional
cooperation. First, the Leaders Summit should be kept informal and interactive, without
prepared statements. At the end of each meeting there should be a summary of issues
discussed and positions and decisions taken. The Summit should continue to be held
biennially with ample time for frank exchange of views on regional and global
developments, and with opportunities for bilateral and sub-regional meetings in the
sidelines.
Second, as ASEM moves towards concrete functional cooperation Ministerial meetings
should be organized along the cluster of issues of projects identified above. Depending
on the issues to be discussed, ministers from relevant ministries should meet to set
direction and receive review of ongoing projects and initiatives. If need be, the meeting
can involve representatives from different ministries.
3.4 Visibility and Profile of ASEM
Research indicates that the lack of profile and visibility is a major problem for ASEM.
An overall communication strategy is absent.
According to the Asian view, the problem may be partly mitigated if there is an ASEM
Secretariat that is consciously aware of the need to profile all ASEM activities and
meetings. What should be done in the immediate terms as officials and leaders further
discuss the possible set-up or structure of a Secretariat is to have a small Task Force to
look into drafting a comprehensive communications strategy to profile ASEM. The Task
Force should comprise the ASEF Director of Public Affairs, one or two professionals in
public communications, an expert on ASEM matters, and two government
representatives (one from Asia and one from Europe).
According to the European point of view, however, visibility and awareness of ASEM
are not merely tackled by way of enhanced media strategies, but also through closer
involvement of different civil society actors, business sector and parliaments. The
integration of these actors will greatly contribute to a stronger feeling of ownership. In
addition, the standardization of ASEM within the EU’s external relations will
furthermore significantly enhance visibility and awareness of ASEM among the wider
public.
3.5 Enlargement
Disagreements over ASEM enlargement have recently posed a challenge to the
partnership. The dilemma is centered on the automatic participation of new EU
Member States, required by the European side, and the Asian view, which holds that
symmetry must exist between the regions. While the European side as well is
committed to the idea of symmetry in ASEM, the EU enlargement is an on-going
process and as new states enter the EU they become full-fledged members with equal
rights to participate in the common policy-making, also in the field of Euro-Asian
relations.
In the long term the partners must aim for a solution, which will keep the ASEM
process open for new entries on both sides. Developing ASEM to a region-to-region
process could facilitate the enlargement issue, as partnership in ASEM would be defined
by the regional frameworks and their respective development. The emerging Asian
rapprochement, the recent East Asian Summit (2005) being a visible example, could
provide new possibilities for the Asian ASEM partnership.
In addition ad hoc cooperation with non-member Asian or European countries should be enabled in order to deepen Asia-European cooperation in key issues (for example, broad security questions including the threat of terrorism, energy issues and environment).
Finally, the appropriateness of the ASEM enlargement guidelines, laid out in
AECF2000, should be carefully contemplated as they currently do not necessarily
correspond to the regional political realities.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Tangible results are indispensable if international cooperation is to survive in the long
run. Nation states are not willing to put resources into meetings and fora without at
some stage reaping some of the benefits. This is the key internal challenge and
expectation with regards to ASEM that need to be managed.
At the same time, the research teams understand and recognize the fundamental reality
and the constraints of having to accommodate different perspectives, interests and
expectations among its thirty-nine members. The modest recommendations above
propose piecemeal changes to answer some of the main criticisms and challenges
identified during the research. The overall objective is to retain ASEM’s informality
and its main function as a dialogue forum but at the same time to profile some concrete
functional projects that can lead to tangible results to ensure ASEM’s momentum and
relevance. The idea of issue-based leadership is also to engender a sense of ownership
among the different ASEM partners so that interest in the ASEM process can be
maintained.
The Chairman’s Statement of the seventh Foreign Ministers Meeting in Kyoto noted
that cooperation among the ASEM partners, which now represent about 40% of the
earth’s population, 50% of global GDP and 60% of world trade, is becoming
increasingly important in addressing key global issues the international community is
facing. With such figures, Asia-Europe cooperation is no longer a luxury but a necessity.
Asia and Europe therefore need to use whatever frameworks available to deepen their
cooperation and share the burdens of global responsibility. The ASEM process is one
such framework, and several issues such as those highlighted in the recommendation
need to be addressed with urgency and tenacity.
In the long run, as Asia and Europe become more integrated, ASEM could become an
important and highly effective region-to-region dialogue and cooperation framework to
build sustainable peace, prosperity and stability.