1. Introduction

Since the end of the systemic bipolarity, non-State actors have become objects of interest for
theorists who deal with international affairs. Conceptualising ‘Governance without
Government’ Rosenau and Czempiel were among the first to stress the “growing importance
of societies and the degree of interdependence between them” (Czempiel 1992: 270). Former
United Nations Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, stated that civil society
organisations are “a basic form of popular representation in the present-day world. Their
participation in international relations is, in a way, a guarantee of the political legitimacy of
those international organisations” (cited in Baker 2002: 122). Recently, the Cardoso report,
named after Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Chair of the Panel of Eminent Persons on UN-Civil
Society Relations, analysed the growing capacity and influence of non-State actors in
international relations and the deficits of democracy in global governance (Cardoso 2004).

International dialogue fora are thus increasingly seen as mutating into arcane circles of
experts who are remote from the aspirations and concerns of ordinary people at the grassroots
level. To what extent do Asia-Europe relations fit this state of affairs and what has been done
to give a greater voice to civil society? Who in Asia-Europe relations speaks for civil society?

What can be said about the legitimacy of these representatives of civil society?

Whereas the reading of civil society in democratisation theory concentrates on the national
level (Gill 2000; Croissant 2003), new normative approaches by theorists construct models in
which global civil society represents the outline of a future world political order, in which the
importance of nation states as actors in global politics ceases. Theorists seek to understand
whether global civil society “can serve as a constituent part of, even a means to, a
democratized world order” (Baker 2002: 116). In that context, the role of civil society and
Parliaments in the system of Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) governance will be analysed. Do
non-State actors facilitate the democratization of inter-regionali relations (even if some of the
national political systems involved are not democracies)?

Shaw identifies three types of institutions in which an emergent global civil society is
comprised: 1. formal organisations, 2. link of informal networks and movements and 3. global
organisations “which are established with a specifically global orientation, global membership
and activity of global scope” (Shaw 1994: 650). As will be demonstrated, inter-regional
regimes, such as the ASEM process, are part of global civil society engagement as well. The
scope of civil society in the Asia-Europe dialogue is - though global in focus - an interregional
one.

Civil society is “no homogeneous actor” (Merkel/Lauth 1998: 7) and definitions of the term
vary. Below, civil society actors will be defined as voluntary unions outside the realm of the
state and the economy.ii Parliaments do not belong to civil societyiii but to the realm of the
State. However, since they do take part in the Asia-Europe dialogue, their role for the
democratisation of inter-regional relations will also be discussed.

In this chapter, I will differentiate between the two categories of, firstly, a political and,
secondly, a pre-political civil society. The latter has no specific function for civil society but
exercises different functions in relation to societal sub-systems including the arts, music,
education, sports and religion (Pollack 2003: 54). The political civil society has a mediation
and communication function between citizen and State. This function is formulated by
Habermas. For Habermas, civil society has the function to identify and interpret societal
problems: “Civil society consists of those more or less spontaneously created associations,
organisations and movements which pick up, condense and pass on [in] amplified [form] the
resonance that public problems find in the private sphere to the political public” (Habermas
1994: 443). The mediation and communication function of civil society for democracy can
thus be an indicator to analyse civil societies’ role for the democratisation of the Asia-Europe
dialogue.iv This function of civil society correlates well with the democratisation of the Asia-
Europe dialogue. The democratisation of an inter-regional dialogue will be defined as a
process that allows civil society to participate in the Politics of Inter-regional Relations (see
Bersick 2004a). This participation is a process in itself since, before the beginning of the
inter-regional dialogues between State actors, no civil society community existed between
Asia and Europe, that is, on the inter-regional level of the international system. Thus, through
the fulfilment of civil societies’ functions in an inter-regional context, the dialogue itself
becomes democratised.

 2. The formation of civil society structures in the Asia-Europe dialogue

The ASEM process has been conceptualized by Asian and European governments as a topdown
process. It has been called an “elitist project” (Yeo Lay Hwee 2002: 108). Since its
inauguration, ASEM actors have disagreed on the question whether civil society should be
part of the ASEM process. The participation of civil society actors within the sphere of
ASEM affairs is an issue of concern. The necessity to have a meeting between Asian and
European leaders was an important driving force and stimulus that motivated the governments
of the ASEAN member countries to start a new cooperation dialogue with Europe - outside
the confines of the ASEAN-EU dialogue. According to Ong Keng Yong, the former Press
Secretary of the Singaporean Prime Minister and ASEAN Secretary General since 2003, the
opportunity to discuss common issues at the level of the leaders was seen as the most
important difference between the ASEM and the ASEAN-EU dialogue.v Consequently, civil
society actors were not conceptualized as ASEM actors in the first ASEM summit in Bangkok
in 1996. A parallel (non-official) meeting of Asian and European NGOsvi and trade unions in
Bangkok attempting to mirror the ASEM process was threatened with closure by the Thai
government.

Having been established as the so-called missing link between the regions of Europe and
Asia, the official ASEM process is confronted with civil society forces that demand active
participation. Thereby a seemingly paradoxical development is taking place. While the topdown
ASEM process attempts to bridge the gap between the two regions, civil society is
demanding that a further missing link be rectified that of filling the gap between governments
and civil society at the inter-regional level.

It is only because of the activities of some European governments and civil society forces that
the elite ASEM process has opened up for civil society actors. Even before the first ASEM
Summit in Bangkok in 1996, a conflict of interest existed among its participants concerning
the role of civil society in the ASEM process. According to a Danish diplomat it was the
European side who emphasized the importance of people-to-people relations and of the role of
NGOs - against the forceful resistance of Asian participants.vii As a consequence of this
opposition, the Asian side successfully blocked the use of the term ‘civil society’ in paragraph
19 of the Chairman’s Statement of the second ASEM Summit in London in 1998. Though the
Europeans had used the term in a draft version of the Chairman’s Statement it was finally
changed into the formulation “all sectors of society”viii. In this context, China was a major
agent. While elaborating on the Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework (AECF) in 1998,
Beijing again tried to hinder the use of the term ‘civil society’ in the document, replacing it by
the formulation “relevant sectors of society”. But here the Chinese government failed. The
Asia-Europe Vision Group (AEVG) in 1999 had recommended the engagement of NGOs
especially with regard to the promotion of political and security cooperation between Asia and
Europe, emphasizing the need for “good governance and human rights” (AEVGR 1999: 37).

Finally - and counter to Chinese interestsix - the Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework
(AECF 2000) mentioned civil society, together with the government and the business sectors
as the “prime actors” of the ASEM process (AECF 2000: paragraph 25). Furthermore, ASEM
leaders agreed that the ASEM process “should go beyond governments in order to promote
dialogue and cooperation between the business/private sectors of the two regions and, no less
important, between the peoples of the two regions. ASEM should also encourage the
cooperative activities of think tanks and research groups of both regions” (AECF 2000:
paragraph 8). In July 2003, ASEM Foreign Ministers during their meeting in Bali stated that
“in the margins of ASEM events, host countries may, at their discretion, organise activities
with businessx, think tanks, the academe and other sectors of society” (Chair’s Statement
2003: paragraph 5).

This development triggered a process that has gradually led - as I will describe below - to the
inclusion of civil society actors and of Parliaments into the mainstream of ASEM affairs.

The Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF)

The ASEF was founded in February 1997. ASEM documents call ASEF the only institution
of the ASEM process, since it is “incorporated under Singaporean domestic law as a not for
profit corporation with tax exempt status”xi. ASEF promotes (1) intellectual, (2) cultural and
(3) people-to-people exchanges between the two regions and serves as a coordinator and host
of seminars, conferences and fora in the three issue-areas (Bersick 1998: 83). Since ASEF is
supposed to be responsible for cooperation between the “civil societies of Europe and Asia”
(AEVGR 1999: 34), it is an aim of ASEF that the participation and integration of all civil
society actors that do not belong to the business sector is managed by the Foundation.
Criticism by NGO representatives that ASEF’s approach towards the participation of civil
society actors is not pluralistic enough has been countered by both former and by the current
ASEF Executive Directors who emphasize that NGO participation is at the centre of ASEF’s
work. Nevertheless, those NGOs who organize the Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF) have
heated debates about ASEF’s function and role as a facilitating actor for civil society’s
engagement in the ASEM process. The NGO report of a meeting of civil societies’
representatives in June 2004 in Barcelona states: “Many people expressed their frustration
that ASEF only caters to the elite section of civil society. Some participants complained that
they were not involved in past activities where synergies could have been formed between
their initiatives and ASEF initiatives; for example, post- World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) discussions. Some raised questions about the legitimacy of ASEF as a
facilitating actor if its network is not broad enough to represent the various voices, sectors and
perspectives of civil society. Some asked about the access of marginalised people such as
indigenous peoples, peasants and grass-root people. There is still a general view that, since
1997, the NGO voices have not been heard and their concerns not addressed compared to the
interests of the business sector in the ASEM process.”xii The international trade union
movement has also voiced its criticism about ASEF’s work and demands that the Foundation
establishes a “large-scale policy work programme within ASEF and with the involvement of
trade unions”xiii.

On the basis of this assessment by NGO representatives it can be said that ASEF has not met
the function of establishing a political civil society within the Asia-Europe dialogue, because
the normative integration of civil society into an Asia-Europe dialogue has not taken place.
Nevertheless, ASEF is successfully establishing a pre-political civil society within the Asia-
Europe dialogue. This success stems from its many initiatives and programmesxiv in the fields
of cultural exchange, intellectual exchange, people-to-people and public affairs that ASEF has
successfully initiated including dialogues between European and Asian non-State actors
including, for example, religion, the arts and music.

NGOs

Non-Governmental Organisations had not been conceptualized as ASEM actors by the
diplomats who deliberated on the creation of the Asia-Europe Meeting. NGOs, including
Amnesty International for instance, demand an institutionalised link between the NGOs that
are engaged in the ASEM process and the governments. Arising out of such demands, several
NGOs - Focus on the Global South (Bangkok) and Transnational Institute (Amsterdam) being
two important examples - organized a meeting for those civil society actors who were
interested in Asian-European cooperation but who were not allowed to participate in the first
ASEM Summit. The interest of those actors who are organized in the Asia-Europe People’s
Forum (AEPF) (as the NGO grouping has called itself since its second Forum in London in
1998) is “to work for an accountable, transparent and accessible ASEM process, open to the
participation and inter-action of citizens in both regions.”xv The AEPF defines its role
threefold: a) Strengthen networking building within and across Asia and Europe; b) Analyze
common interests, for example, the neo-liberal globalisation and the consequences for the
peoples in each region, security and militarization threats in Asia and Europe; c) Provide a
channel for critical engagement with the official ASEM process.

These functions were performed during the last AEPF in Hanoi in 2004. The critics of
globalization used the Forum to discuss the so-called “neo-liberal ideology” of ASEM
countries accusing the governments of leaving the people to the “mercy of the market”.xvi

NGOs discussed strategies to counter this, emphasizing instead the needs of developing
countries and promised to strengthen their own capacity to have an impact on global power
relations. In that context, cooperation between the civil societies of Asia and Europe and also
within each region is expected to lead to the implementation of a strategic vision: the building
of “alternative regionalisms”. This new system would challenge the current global economic
system. The objective of this vision is to “create a world of cooperating nations within
regions, negotiating their specific policies as well as cooperating with other regions on
matters of shared global concern” (Brennan 2004: 3).

According to Walden Bello, the Executive Director of the Bangkok-based research, analysis
and advocacy institute - Focus on the Global South - and a leading theorist of the antiglobalization
movement, South-East Asian nations will not “survive as national economies” if
they do not become part of a larger economic bloc. This is because of increasing global
competition from China, the EU and the USA. Bello points out that the process of
regionalization in South-East Asia can only be achieved through a combination of political
will and the democratization of the process of regional integration. In that context, it is argued
that the planned economic integration between ASEAN and China and between ASEAN and
India, through the establishment of FTAs, poses the possibility of an “powerful Asian
’regional’ economic response to the global dominance of the EU” or the potential dominance
of Asia by China and/or India “as the emerging regional super powers” (Keet 2004: 7).
Within this broad conceptional framework, Asian and European NGOs strive for the
“’deglobalization’ of the world” through the building of so-called alternative regionalisms.xvii

NGOs have identified the ASEM process as a mechanism and instrument for the
implementation of this macro-objective. By proposing alternatives in the policy areas of trade,
investment and socio-economic development, security and peace, sustainable environment
and water and energy privatisation, the members of the AEPF aim at influencing regional
governance in Asia and in Europe and impacting upon inter-regional governance between
Asia and Europe.

However, the ASEM process does not deal with social issues. For instance, the social
responsibilities of governance (be it on the domestic, intra- or inter-regional level) or social
security systems are not addressed.xviii Asian countries in particular argue that the discussion
of social issues within ASEM solely serves the interests of industrialized countries who seek
to minimize the comparative advantage of developing countries. The former’s production
costs would rise relatively to the latter’s. This has meant that ASEM member countries have
not allowed the AEPF to become an institutional link between NGOs and the governments.
The State-level actors do not want NGOs to “interfere” in their ability to govern.

As a result of this performance dysfunction apparent in the AEPF, its members have
developed the idea of a ’social pillar’ for the ASEM process. Several different suggestions
have been made theorizing what a social dimension within the ASEM process could look like,
what its content should be and how it could be implemented. The most prominent suggestion
relates to the institutionalization of an ’Asia-Europe Social Forum’ (or ’ASEM Social Forum’).

This initiative would add a social pillar to the existing three pillars in ASEM including the
political, economic and cultural pillars. It would be the function of the new Forum to analyse
the social implications of ASEM initiatives in all ASEM pillars and to amend them if
necessary.

On the sidelines of the ASEM Summit in Seoul in 2000, NGOs and trade unions demanded
that an ‘Asia-Europe Social Forum’ be established. Although the AEPF lobbied hard, ASEM
leaders did not agree on its founding during their Summit in Copenhagen in 2002. Nor did
they agree on it during the following Summit in Hanoi in October 2004. Against this
background, a decisive question for civil society actors dealing with the ASEM process
emerges as follows: ”What is the extent to which civil society groups can influence the
agenda and become co-opted by ASEM?” In the eyes of these civil society actors, their work
has reached a crossroad. To quote an outspoken assessment by one leading NGO activist: ”I
do not think the official ASEM process has opened up for civil society nor that any of our
arguments have come across in a serious way. ASEM 4 in Copenhagen was a shame in that
sense. The Asia-Europe Business Forum was well received by the officials and yet we [the
NGOs] were hardly given any space for dialogue.”xix

Asian NGOs in particular emphasize that it is still difficult for them to raise issues that are
regarded as sensitive by their governments. As they pointed out during the Barcelona meeting,
European and Asian governments do not share the same understanding about the role of
NGOs in society. There is still strong suspicion among Asian governments that NGOs are a
threat and a challenge to their power. This is why Asian NGOs hope to gain influence on the
ASEM process through inter-regional dialogue with their European peers. Nevertheless, there
is a general feeling among NGOs dealing with Asia-Europe relations that NGOs are still not
viewed as equal dialogue partners within the ASEM context “but rather as groups that could
be either co-opted or ignored”.xx This criticism was proven right in the autumn of 2004. The
Vietnamese government, the host of the fifth ASEM Summit, vigorously tried to hinder the
AEPF from taking place. Until then, AEPF meetings were held more or less in parallel to the
ASEM Summits. In the end, the Vietnamese government succumbed to diplomatic pressure
from its peers and allowed the AEPF to take place but only granted permission one month
prior to the ASEM Summit. According to one participant, the thrust of the AEPF had changed
“as the Vietnamese government, rather than the people, influenced proceedings even though
the meeting was [meant to be] a people’s forum”xxi.

As a result of AEPF’s activities, horizontal networking between European and Asian NGOs
increased due to the Forum’s and ASEM’s inter-regional approach. The AEPF enables Asian
and European civil society actors to coordinate and propagate their common objectives. NGO
fora produced, for instance, Peoples’ Visions which were handed over to the official ASEM
process and emphasised the importance of Human Rights issue at a time when it was left out
deliberately by the ASEM leaders (Brennan et al. 1996). Furthermore, in light of NGOs input
in the policy areas of environment and human trafficking some argue that “NGOs have
become an important stake holder in the ASEM process” (Richards 2004: 8).
Not withstanding those developments, the influence of NGOs on the overall ASEM process
has been limited. The AEPF is barred from any meaningful participation in the decisionmaking
processes of ASEM. The actual influence of Asian and European civil society actors
on policy making and governance in ASEM affairs can, at best, be described as limited as
NGOs are excluded from formal agenda setting and decision making processes. At the
moment, there are no regular meetings and consultations between the AEPF with ASEM
senior officials.

 Parliaments

When ASEM was launched, parliamentarians were not thought of as potential ASEM
participants. Nevertheless, and referring to the need to democratize the dialogue between Asia
and Europe, deputies from the European Parliament started to ask for a “wider and creative
role” for the elected representatives of the people (Hindley 1999: 31).

Over time, it has become a characteristic of the ASEM process that Parliaments are
increasingly engaged in the inter-regional dialogue - though their role is low-key. An
interview with a German Parliamentarian for instance, who is a member of the Bundestag
Foreign Affairs Committee and its ASEAN subgroup, revealed the fact that the ASEM
process is not part of German parliamentarians’ agenda. At EU level, the European Parliament
is engaged progressively. Politicians discuss working papers on the ASEM process, which the
European Commission prepares, and scrutinize the results of the various ASEM Summits.

With respect to the ASEM process, the European Parliament’s importance derives from its
holding debates in plenary sessions, passing Resolutions, making recommendations, tendering
questions and writing reports. The Parliament makes particular use of the few instruments
available to it in order to emphasize the need for human rights commitments within Asian-
European relations and the ASEM process specificallyxxii. The Parliament, for instance,
opposed Burma/Union of Myanmar’s application to become an ASEM member,
“deplores”xxiii that it has happened and “condemns the total disregard of the Burma junta for
the welfare of the people in Burma”xxiv. Through Resolutions, the Parliament seeks to
influence the European Commission’s ASEM policy demanding that the EU should consider
that “clear commitments on human rights, democracy, good governance, and the rule of
law”xxvshould be included in ASEM official documents. Yet, the “paucity of a human rights
dimension” within ASEM (Wiessala 2004: 9) indicates the clear limits of the European
Parliament’s ability to influence the process.

Apart from the above mentioned instruments inter-parliamentary meetings are further
instruments of parliaments’ engagement in the ASEM process. National and European
legislators meet in the framework of the Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership (ASEP) and
the Asia-Europe Young Parliamentarians’ Meeting. The first ASEP meeting was held in
Strasbourg in 1996, the second in Manila in 2002 and the third in 2004 in Hue, Vietnam. The
latest meeting dealt with international security and the role of the international law, the need
for fairer and more equal global trade, the importance of cultural identity and diversity and the
role of parliamentarians in Asian-European relations. In contrast to earlier meetings, the
delegates decided to continue the institutionalization of the ASEP, thereby facilitating a
process of horizontal networking between ASEP members and their guestsxxvi. ASEP
meetings will be conducted on a regular bi-annual basis before ASEM Summits, alternately in
Asia and Europe. Furthermore, a study group on the procedural framework for future ASEP
meetings will be set up and the delegates agreed to establish information channels that further
the promotion and sharing of experience in making laws on economic and institutional
reform, economic integration, poverty reduction and environmental protection. It will be an
interesting research question for a future analysis of the role of parliaments on the
democratization of inter-regional relations whether the cooperation of the legislatures will
transcend the traditional decision making processes of ASEM and in how far the
institutionalization of ideational linkages will have in input on the normative concepts of the
participants. So far, it has not. Otherwise, the new ASEP agenda is mainly focussed on
economic issues and does not consider the role of NGOs. Though it hints at the formal
participation of parliamentarians in the Asia-Europe Business Forum, the participation of civil
society actors in the ASEM process is not mentioned.

Whereas ASEP is organized under the auspices of the European Parliament, the Asia-Europe
Young Parliamentarians’ Meeting (AEYPM) is organized by the Asia-Europe Foundation
(ASEF). The AEYPM has been held five times: the first meeting was held in Cebu, the
Philippines, in November 1998, and subsequently in Lisbon in April 2000, in Bali in
November 2001, and in Venice in October 2002. The fifth meeting, in October 2003 in
Guilin, China, was co-organised by ASEF and the National People’s Congress of the People’s
Republic of China. Forty-one parliamentarians from 14 ASEM countries and the European
Parliament exchanged views and perspectives on the theme, “Promoting mutual growth and
development in Asia and Europe through strengthened inter-parliamentary dialogue”.
According to ASEF, the AEYPM provides: (1) a platform for young parliamentarians to
develop a greater awareness and understanding of external issues that affect political, social
and economic development in their countries; (2) legislators with the opportunity to obtain an
in-depth understanding of outlooks and experiences from the perspective of their counterparts
from other countries through inter-cultural exchanges; and (3) a network of friends of the
same professional interest within the ASEM community through dialogue and frequent
contact in all the aspects of the programme xxvii.

Arising out of the AEYPM, the Asia-Europe Foundation developed the Asia-Europe Inter-
Parliamentary Dialogue (AEIPD). The AEIPD is an online internet forum in which only
former participants of the Young Parliamentarians’ Meetings are allowed to take part with the
aim of furthering the dialogue among members of parliaments of the ASEM countries
(www.asef.org/aeipd). In that context, a former head of the ASEM desk of the European
Commission points out that a new “consultative assembly of representatives of national
parliaments and the European Parliament” could be institutionalised. Such an assembly would
increase the democratic legitimisation of the ASEM process by promoting a “socialisation
process between officials and representatives of all sectors of society”. This is why he favours
the setting up of a Social Forum which would help improve “engagement and dialogue”
(Reiterer 2002: 116).

The argument that the legitimacy of a given institution is also a function of the type of actors
(State/non-State) that are members of the institution has been recently put forward by the
Cardoso report. The Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations-Civil Society
Relations argues that the engagement with civil society and parliaments helps the United
Nations in its agenda setting processes by way of identifying global priorities. Furthermore,
the “support base” of the organization is strengthened by becoming more responsive and
accountable. The report concludes that participatory democracy is becoming more important
alongside representative democracy and deduces that the legitimacy in policy shaping “does
not derive solely from the ballot box”. That is why, “inter-governmental organizations should
become more accountable, transparent and responsible to citizens globally” (Cardoso 2004:
28). Though it has been demonstrated in the above analysis of the AEPF that ASEM members
– at least until now - do not intend to provide the ASEM process with a democratic
legitimization that is based on the concept of participatory democracy, recent developments
indicate that participatory democracy is entering the ASEM process. The following two
examples will serve to illustrate that development.

Example I: The Barcelona meeting of civil society

In June 2004, members of civil society met for two days in the city of Barcelona for an
informal consultation on “Connecting Civil Society of Asia and Europe”. The meeting, which
was organized by the Asia-Europe Foundation in conjunction with Casa Asia, the
International Institute of Asian Studies and the Japan Centre for International Exchange
brought together 187 individuals from 27 countries. It was the biggest event - in terms of
finances, logistics and delegates - that the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) has initiated and
managed to date.

According to the organizers, one of the objectives of the meeting in Barcelona was “to
consolidate” the engagement of civil society actors that are interested in Asia-Europe affairs.

A further objective was to provide a platform for a dialogue on “how ASEM can promote
civil societies in both regions” and “how better to integrate civil society actors into ASEF
programmes and on how to facilitate greater participation, closer integration and better access
of civil society and its representatives into the ASEM process”. As the objectives indicate, the
meeting was a reaction of ASEF - and in particular of its Executive Director - to criticism by
civil society that ASEF was being too élite. In order to counter this image and the inherent
dysfunction of ASEF, those civil society representatives were “directly involved who are
most concerned and effected by the outcomes of policy making and decisions on the ASEM
level” (Barcelona Report 2004: 3) and the participation was open to all civil society actors
who are interested in the Asia-Europe dialogue.

The meeting was intended to encourage the formulation of civil societies’ suggestions and
recommendationsxxviii thereby “increasing public access to the policy level”. Six thematic
clusters were discussed in workshops: governance, human rights, gender issues and labour
relations; environment and urbanisation; education, academic co-operation, science and
technology; dialogue of civilisation, inter-faith dialogue and cultures; trade, development cooperation,
social issues and migration; international relations, regionalisation processes and
security issues. In addition, the participants met in six sectorial working groups. According to
their area of expertise, the participants took part in the working groups of: research institutes,
think tanks and academics; NGOs; trade unions; cultural institutions; media; and civil society
resource organisationsxxix. Every workshop and working group produced a report on the
outcome of their discussions. The final ‘Barcelona Report’ was conveyed to the ASEM
leaders, through their Ministers of Foreign Affairs.

In the case of the NGOs’ working group, which was hosted by the Asia-Europe People’s
Forum (AEPF), the quo vadis-status of NGOs’ current engagement in the ASEM process
became evident. The participants reflected, inter alia, on the following issues: “Why do we
establish networks?”, “What are we networking for?” and “Who are we?” and finally on the
general questions: “What do we want from ASEM?”, What can ASEM do for us?, What can
the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) do for us?”. In the end, the participants produced a series
of recommendations and ideas that went into the report. One example is the recommendation
that ASEF should support the participation of NGOs in the AEPF and should “foster Civil
Society Organizations’ capacity building”xxx. The Barcelona Report formulates three key
messages: (1) The creation of a social pillar within the ASEM process is necessary; (2)
ASEM needs to improve its transparency. Civil society can act as an “independent monitor to
enhance ASEM’s accountability; (3) The Burma/Myanmar issue should be resolved by a
common policy approach.

Nevertheless, some of the NGOs left Barcelona with the uneasy feeling that they had been
used by ASEF for legitimising the role of the Foundation as the true representative and
institution of civil societies’ engagement in the Asia-Europe dialogue. Some NGO activists
were particularly concerned about the fact that their projects often suffer from funding
constraints whereas, in contrast, ASEF has “abundant resources” as one activist claimed with
regard to the EUR 22,726,817 that ASEF had received between February 1997 and March
2004 from both the European Commission and national governments xxxi.

Whether this highly critical assessment of ASEF’s work with respect to the activities of
NGOs has to be revised will soon be seen. In order to demonstrate the willingness and interest
of ASEF to cooperate with civil society, ASEF’s then Executive Director Delfin Colomé
promised at the end of the conference that ASEF will contribute 50% to the costs of every
initiative that is taken forward to ASEF by civil society. The outcome of the Barcelona
meeting therefore is a clear demonstration of civil societies’ demand to participate in the
official ASEM process. At the same time, the Barcelona Report signals ASEF’s interests in
the development of structures of participatory democracy within the ASEM process. The
Barcelona Report is thus an example of citizens’ political acting through direct participation in
a civil society mechanism that deals with issues which interests them.

Example II: The roles of the international trade union movement and of political foundations

The quest for a social dimension within the ASEM process is an example of the role of civil
society in the ASEM process. Trade unions have been engaged in the Asia-Europe dialogue
since they presented their first statement at the time of the Bangkok ASEM Summit in 1996.
Since May 1997, when the German Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation (FES) organized a workshop
for Asian and European trade unions, the Asia-Europe Trade Union Forum (AETUF) has met
on a regular basis and has issued statements for the ASEM Summits in London, Seoul,
Copenhagen and the last Summit in Hanoi. The AETUF criticises the official ASEM process,
inter alia, for the promotion of unregulated markets, thereby maximising the “profits for
business and political elites”. In the aftermath of the Hanoi Summit, trade unions demanded
that the ASEM leaders strengthen the social dimension of the ASEM process and the
integration of “a wider range of ASEM’s stakeholders, including workers and their trade
unions into the ASEM process”. xxxii

In that context, the active co-operation of the Chinese and Vietnamese government with the
international trade union movement and the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundationxxxiii (FES) indicates a
change. During the ASEM Summit in Copenhagen in 2002 the leaders agreed on a
‘Workshop on Employment’. Following this agreement, a preparatory meeting took place in
November 2003 in Beijing and another in April 2004 in Hanoi. The ‘Informal ASEM
brainstorming on the Future of Employment and the Quality of Work’ in Beijing was cosponsored
by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour, the FES and the
Chinese Ministry of Labour and Social Security. Apart from State-level actors and the
European Commission, non-State actors, including the Asian Employers Confederation, the
European Trade Union Federation, the Denmark Trade Union Federation, the All-China
Confederation of Trade Unions and the China Employment Confederation, took part in the
meeting. The second informal seminar (the ‘Informal ASEM brainstorming on the Future of
Employment and the Quality of Work: The decent work agenda in a globalised economy’)
was jointly organised by the Vietnamese Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs, the
German Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour and the FES. Representatives of
governments, trade unions and business discussed the issue of inter-regional labour and
employment policies with a view to the fifth ASEM Summit. Both seminars would not have
been possible without the active engagement of the FES. According to one involved actor of
the Foundation, the FES “invested a lot of time” and had to convince the German Ministry as
well as the Chinese and the Vietnamese side to hold the seminars. According to a
representative of the German Federation of Trade Unions “without the input of the FES, the
employment issue would not be an issue in the official ASEM process”xxxiv. On the occasion
of the ‘ASEM Employment Conference’ in Berlin (see Bersick: 2004b) in June 2004, the
Chinese Vice Minister of Labour and Social Security stated:

“The gap between labour demand and labour supply and the structural
unemployment, and the increasing urban unemployment pressure due to labour
migration from rural areas to urban cities, and new labour market entrance and the
need of re-employment of the unemployed are the major issues to be addressed in
China. With China’s entry into the WTO, the mismatch of labour quality and job
demands also becomes more and more outstanding (...) We are pleased to work
with other countries and actively promote Asia-Europe exchange and cooperation
in the field of employment and social security, which is of great significance, as
major activities of ASEM”. xxxv

Participants of the conference in Berlin also included representatives from the social partners,
NGOs, the academe and business representatives. For the first time, governments and civil
society met back-to-back. While the government delegations were meeting on the first day,
civil society actors participated in the conference on the second day. This new ASEM format
demonstrates that the Chinese government - whose delegation substantially outnumbered
even the German delegation - is starting to cooperate with civil society actors in order to fight
some of the problems that threaten the stability of the political system of the People’s
Republic of China. At the same time, the fact that Vice Minister Wang left after the first day
and thus did not participate in the conference with civil society during the second day,
demonstrates the general concern that the Chinese government still has with regard to civil
society. Nevertheless, the gradual inclusion of civil society actors is only possible because the
government in Beijing changed its ASEM policy with regard to civil societies’ role in an
inter-regional dialogue. The government in Beijing has started to tolerate civil societies’
participation in the official ASEM process even though this is only in an “informal” setting.

This policy change - in turn - is the result of the European actors’ ASEM policy of engaging
civil society. A parallel development had taken place in Hanoi. Although Viet Nam has not
been a so-called co-sponsorxxxvi of the ASEM initiative to hold a ‘Workshop on Employment’,
the government of Viet Nam agreed to host the preparatory meeting. Thus, Hanoi started to
cooperate with civil society actors within an inter-regional dialogue. As Henkel et al. point
out, the inclusion of a social dimension in the ASEM process might result in the solution to
the question of how “to engage civil society in the official process” (Henkel et al. 2004: 5).
Whether this marks the start of a new process in which Viet Nam, whose government until
recently did not use the term ‘civil society’ in official statements, accepts civil society as part
of the official ASEM process remains to be seen. The holding of the AEPF in Hanoi and the
way in which the ASEM State actors dealt with the ‘Barcelona Report’ in Hanoi during the
fifth ASEM Summit have been indicators of such a development.

 3. Towards the democratization of inter-regional relations?

As the ASEM initiative of a workshop on ‘The Future of Employment and the Quality of
Labour’ indicates, the ASEM process has opened up to the lobbying of trade unions and the
work of political foundations. The gradual inclusion of national parliamentarians and the
European Parliament takes place although it is clear that elected representatives themselves
need to be engaged more systematically with ASEM issues. At the same time, it is a specific
feature of ASEM that the European Commission functions as an active facilitator of the
democratisation of the ASEM process both through the engagement of civil society activities
and by their funding. First examples of this policy have been the Forum of Venice in 1996,
followed by the Manila Forum in 1997. The European Commission also organised an Asia-
Europe Consultative Seminar with Civil Society in November 2003 in Brussels.xxxvii In the
same year, the Commission contributed funds - for the first time -to an ASEM-related NGO
seminar in Berlin.

The two case studies described above indicate that a socialisation process between State and
non-State actors is developing. At the same time, it is necessary to integrate civil society
further into ASEM affairs in order to counter the danger of losing civil society actors’
engagement in the ASEM process. Otherwise, NGOs might want to de-link their input into
Asia-Europe affairs from that of their respective governments. An opportunity for cooperation
would then be lost. Therefore, in order to capitalize on civil society actors’ engagement in the
ASEM process, governments who do not favour or still oppose the growing capacity and
influence of non-State actors (especially the PR China and Viet Nam) need to be convinced
that it is in their own national interest to form a strategic partnership between governmental
and non-governmental interests in Asia-Europe relations. Time is pressing because the
window of opportunity for integrating non-State actors - and especially NGOs who have so
far contributed peacefully to the Asia-Europe inter-regional dialogue - may soon close. This
is mainly because the interested civil society actors have reached, after nearly 10 years of
lobbying, a point of uncertainty (see also Bersick 2003). They know that they “need to
determine why and how [they] should continue to lobby ASEM itself and what weight [they
should] give to this in comparison to lobbying on issues and campaigns of common
concerns.”xxxviii

As a consequence, the question arises whether non-State actors should be part of the official
ASEM process or “get on with the process of assuring [their] own identity (...)” (Fouquet
2004: 7). This quo vadis-status was apparent in Barcelona, where one NGO activist
questioned “the legitimacy of the ASEM process for speaking for civil society”. For such a
scenario, Asian and European trade unions are writing on ASEM’s wall that the process “can
lose public support and will become the target of growing popular concern at the negative
aspects of globalisation”xxxix. The verdict that the political pluralism of civil society hinders
consensus building and “prevents the AEPF from acting either as a coherent policy
community capable of shaping interests and choices or as a knowledge-based epistemic
community capable of shaping interests and choices” (Richards 2004: 8) was tested and given
explanatory power. But at the same time the Barcelona meeting marks an important change in
the relationship between the official ASEM process - represented by the ASEF - and civil
society: Some NGOs started to cooperate with ASEF for the first time. The Barcelona
meeting of civil society shows that the role of the ASEF is evolving. A process of a gradual
opening up of the Asia-Europe Foundation to the engagement of civil society actors, which
are interested in Asia-Europe dialogue, is taking place. Therefore, a new trend is slowly
becoming apparent: The Asia-Europe civil society that is formed through the official ASEM
process (via ASEF) is changing its character from a pre-political to a political civil society.

During the Barcelona meeting, civil society actors acquired a mediation and communication
function between the citizen and the State.

This trend is an important indicator of the rising legitimacy of civil society in the ASEM
process. This development, in turn, furthers the democratisation of ASEM and its activities.
Thereby, the legitimacy of civil society in the Asia-Europe dialogue increases. This important
process has been recently underlined by the initiative of an Asian NGO. In November 2004,
the Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD), which is based in Manila, in cooperation with the
Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation, organized a Philippine Forum on the ASEM process. The Forum
was a capability-building seminar and workshop for Philippine civil society actors. It was a
response to the feedback of Philippine participants to the AEPF in Hanoi and their perceived
knowledge-gap both on the ASEM system and on Asia-Europe relations. For the first time in
the history of the ASEM process, Asian civil society actors of one Asian ASEM member
country met with the objective to enhance their ASEM-related capacity. The seminar and
workshop enabled the participants to identify their own research and advocacy agenda with
regard to their Asia and Europe related work, to upgrade the quality of their involvement in
the AEPF and to prepare them for lobby to and critical engagement with national, regional
and inter-regional institutions. In this context, the more than 50 civil society actors also met
with government officials. In this way, the current presidential advisor and former Philippine
Foreign Secretary, Delia Albert, and the Executive Director of IPD, Joel Rocamora,
underscored the inter-dependence of State and non-State actors in intra- and inter-regional
relations.xl

Yet, the participation of non-State actors in international organizations or regimes, such as the
ASEM process, raises the question about the legitimacy of non-State actors being able “to
speak for the people”. Whereas this legitimacy problem does not exist with reference to the
participation of parliamentarians within the ASEM process, several Asian and European
officials question, for instance, the legitimacy of the Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF).
Within the theoretical discourse on democracy and the cosmopolitan democracy school of
thought it is argued that non-State actors increasingly influence inter-State decision-making
processes (see Archibugi et al. 1998). Furthermore, the growing transfer of important political
decisions from the national to the regional and global level of governance can lead to a
reduction in citizens’ participation in those processes. Instead of democratically legitimized
governments, new transnational elites may control the agenda-setting and decision making
processes and abuse their new powers.xli In this context, Rittberger points to two alternative
forms of political participation and of public control of governance and government on the
global level; the participation and control through “public science” and the participation and
control through a “government-independent public” (Rittberger 2003: 219). Rittberger argues
that the opening of political decision-making networks (on the global level) to the
„government-independent public“ functions as a power control. Therefore, the government-
independent public should be regarded as a “fundamental public good” (Rittberger 2003:
220).

ASEP and a possible social pillar of the ASEM process are thus examples of citizens’ political
acting through direct participation in a civil society mechanism that deals with issues which
interest them. The quest of NGOs to participate in the agenda setting processes of ASEM
therefore constitutes a form of participatory democracy which receives legitimacy from its
power-controlling function.xlii The question of the legitimacy of civil society fora also
featured in the Barcelona conference. As Rueland notes “many advocates of people’s interests,
such as the ASEM People’s Forum, are self-styled representatives of civil society with no
legitimately established mandate” (Rüland 2001: 68).xliii On this point, the Barcelona
conference made a difference as the recommendations that it produced have a strong basis of
legitimacy. The civil society actors belonged to more sectors of society than in any other
event that ASEF had previously organized. Only 2.7% of the participants belonged to non-
ASEM countries - compared to almost 14% during the second AEPF (see Rüland 2001: 68).

Furthermore, the participants countries-of-origin were quite evenly distributed. No major
power, for instance, was over- or under-represented.

---

Table

Participants from Civil Society at the Informal Consultation “Connecting Civil Society of
Asia & Europe” convened 16^th-18^th June 2004 in Barcelona, Spain*

ASEM Member Countries	No. Of participants	Non-ASEM Countries	No. of participants
Austria	1	Australia	1
Belgium	1	Canada	2
China	10	Ethiopia	[1]
Denmark	3	USA	1
Finland	9+[1]	.	.
France	11+[1]	.	.
Germany	13	.	.
Indonesia	10	.	.
Ireland	1	.	.
Italy	4	.	.
Japan	8+[1]	.	.
Korea	7+[1]	.	.
Lithuania**	1	.	.
Luxembourg	1	.	.
Malaysia	5	.	.
Netherlands	8	.	.
Philippines	16+[1]	.	.
Portugal	11	.	.
Singapore	8	.	.
Spain	14+[1]	.	.
Thailand	10	.	.
United Kingdom	13	.	.
Vietnam	11	.	.
Total:	182	.	5

* The Consultation participants are classified as coming from various sectors of Civil Society defined as Research Institutions, Think Tanks,
University Departments, Non-Governmental Organizations, Trade Unions, Consumer Organisations, Business Associations, Cultural
Houses, the Media, Civil Society Resource Organizations and Foundations. Participants representing Government Ministries and
International Organizations, such as the United Nations, are highlighted in brackets [ ].

**Not classified as an ASEM member at the time of the Consultation. Lithuania was admitted to ASEM, along with the 9 other new EU
members and Cambodia, Laos and Burma/Union of Myanmar, at the 5^th ASEM Summit in Hanoi, 7-9 October, 2004.

Source: Handbbok for Participants, ‚Connecting Civil Society of Asia and Europe. An Informal Consultation’, 16 to 18 June 2004,
Barcelona, Spain.

---

The trend of ASEF functioning as a facilitator for the democratization of the Asian-European
dialogue may well continue. The new Executive Director of ASEF, Ambassador Cho Won-il
has recently pointed out that he regards the participation of civil society actors as a priority
objective for ASEF’s work. xliv

If ASEF continues to enhance civil society capacity and integrate civil society actors into the
Asia-Europe dialogue, as it did in Barcelona, the Foundation may well facilitate further the
democratisation of inter-regional relations between Asia and Europe. For that to happen it will
be necessary that ASEF continues its transformation from a pre-political to a political actor
for civil society. Whether this development will continue and open up new link for NGOs, in
order to influence ASEM policies, needs further careful evaluation. A first opportunity was
the fifth ASEM Summit in Hanoi in October 2004. Leaders were to be presented with the
Report of the Barcelona meeting. If the leaders had agreed to a meeting of the Social and
Labour Ministers within the ASEM context, NGOs and trade unions would have made a real
impact on the ASEM process. If the leaders had made use of ‘The Barcelona Report’ and, for
example, contributed further resources towards enhancing civil society capacity-building, or
agreed to build policy and operational partnerships within the inter-regional context of ASEM
affairs, then civil society actors’ policy recommendations could have had a direct and
peaceful impact on the official ASEM process. Yet, neither the first nor the second happened.

A future meeting of the Social and Labour Ministers was not agreed nor do the three
documents that were adopted by the ASEM leaders in Hanoi enhance the role of civil society
actors in the official ASEM process.xlv

This inhibiting factor of a further democratization of inter-regional relations needs to be
contextualized. Viet Nam certainly was one of the least pro-democratic host countries for an
ASEM Summit out of all ASEM members. The democratic momentum that is building up on
the side of State and non-State actors with regard to ASEM affairs had come a long way from
Bangkok via London, Seoul, and Copenhagen to Hanoi. The next ASEM Summit will take
place in Helsinki in 2006. An overall assessment of this development, therefore, has to figure
in the process character of ASEM affairs and the results that the process has delivered so far.
In that respect, the ASEM process is a case in point that inter-regional regimes have the
potential to develop the structural and normative preconditions to be able to engage civil
society actors of different regions, thereby reinforcing the democratisation of inter-regional
relations. This context may explain why it was only during the recent Foreign Ministers’
Meeting in Kyoto that the Ministers “welcomed a proposal to hold a ministerial meeting on
labour and employment issues (...) as a follow up to the discussion at ASEM 5”xlvi.

Within the ASEAN context, non-State actors are having a decisive impact on the development
of the normative and institutional basis of cooperation (see Caballero-Anthony 2005). Within
the ASEM context the role of civil society, NGOs and Parliaments for the democratization of
the process is indicating a similar trend, as the top-down structure of the process becomes
porous. While the influence of NGOs on the overall ASEM process is small as they have been
excluded from processes of agenda setting and decision making the ASEM regime is in a
transition process that transforms its elite power structure to a more participatory one which
allows for vertical dialogues and agenda setting as the example of the holding of a first
ministerial meeting on labour and employment issues showcases. Yet, this is not to say that
civil society has become one of the three “prime actors” of ASEM, as it is stated by the AECF
2000.

Since the first ASEM summit in 1996, a development has taken place which adds a further
dimension to the empirical study of the role of civil society in international relations. As the
ASEM process shows, the emergent global civil society is also an element in inter-regional
regimes. This development has led to a transformation from a pre-political to a political civil
society in the ASEM process. This development marks a change of civil society actors’ role
and function within the ASEM process. The ongoing transformation of civil societies’
engagement in ASEF from a pre-political to a political adds an important participatory
dimension to the Politics of Inter-regional Relations and thereby to global governance (see
also HDR 2000: 56). Since the 2004 ASEM Summit in Hanoi did not endorse that
development by taking advantage of the Barcelona Report as a term of reference for the
democratization of ASEM affairs, the role of civil society is still in limbo. The quo vadis
identity of NGOs in ASEM affairs has been perpetuated, at least until the next Summit. This
will be the next opportunity for the governments to decide whether they want to facilitate
democracy in global governance by empowering non-State actors within ASEM affairs. Until
then, two different developments can be distinguished. On the one hand, the mediation and
communication function of civil society has increased during the first 10 years of the ASEM
process. Civil society actors have become progressively involved in the Politics of Interregional
Relations. Thus, a democratization of the Asia-Europe dialogue has taken place. On
the other hand, the ASEM Summit in Hanoi has shown that this trend is not self-sustaining.

Much will depend on the ability of ASEF to support the further peaceful transformation of
civil society from a pre- to a political one. This, in turn, highlights the need for a vertical
dialogue between State and non-State actors in Asian-European affairs.

Bibliography

Daniele Archibug, David Held & Martin Koehler (eds.), Re-Imagining Political Community:
Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy, Stanford University Press, 1998.

ASEF News, MITA (P) No 212/03/2004.

Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework (ACEF), 2000.

Asia-Europe Peoples’ Forum, AEPF’s Strategies & Structure & Emerging Questions, Internal
background paper, October 2003.

Asia-Europe Vision Group Report (AEVGR), For A Better Tomorrow. Asia-Europe
Partnership in the 21^st Century, Seoul 1999.

Fifth Asia-Europe Young Parliamentarians’ Meeting, Guilin, China 23-26 October 2003.
Axel Berkofsky, John Quigley & Willem van der Geest, Asia-Europe Consultative Seminar
with Civil Society, Seminar Report, European Institute for Asian Studies, 2003.

Gideon Baker, Civil Society and Democratic Theory. Alternative voices, London: Routledge,
2002.

The Barcelona Report (BR), Recommendations from Civil Society on Asia-Europe Relations
Addressed to ASEM Leaders, 2004.

Kenneth Baynes, Democracy and the Rechtsstaat: Habermas’s Faktizität und Geltung, in
Stephen K. White (ed.), Habermas, New York et al.: Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp.
201-232.

Sebastian Bersick, Auf dem Weg in eine neue Weltordnung? Zur Politik der interregionalen
Beziehungen am Beispiel des ASEM-Prozesses, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2004a.

– Europa, Asien und die Zukunft der Beschäftigung, www.asienhaus.de/angebote/ahrundbrief/
2004/12-2004.htm, 2004b.

– The Role of Civil Society in the Asia-Europe Meeting - The ASEM Process, in Dialogue +
Cooperation, 3/2003, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Singapore, pp. 55-60.

– ASEM: Eine neue Qualität der Kooperation zwischen Europa und Asien, Münster: Lit, 1998.
Brid Brennan (ed.), Linking Alternative Regionalisms For Equitable & Sustainable
Development, Transnational Institute Briefing Series No 2004/11, Amsterdam, 2004.

Brid Brennan / Erik Heijmas / Pietje Vervest (eds.), ASEM Trading New Silk Routes. Beyond
Geo-Politics & Geo-Economics: Towards A New Relationship Between Asia And Europe,
Amsterdam: Transnational Institute and Focus on the Global South, 1996.

Melly Caballero-Anthony, Regional Security in Southeast Asia. Beyond the ASEAN Way,
Singapore: ISEAS Publications, 2005.

Connecting Civil Society of Asia and Europe. An Informal Consultation, 16 to 18 June 2004,
Barcelona, Spain. Handbbok for Participants.

Aurel Croissant, Demokratie und Zivilgesellschaft in Ostasien, Nord-Süd aktuell, 2003, pp.
239-260.

Chairman’s Statement, The 7^th ASEM Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, Kyoto, 6-7 May 2005.
Chair’s Statement, The 5^th ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting, Bali, Indonesia, 22-24 July
2003.

Declaration of the third Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership Meeting, Hue City, Viet
Nam, 25-26 March 2004, www.asem5.gov.vn (downloaded 4^th May 2004).

Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, Consultative Relationship between the
United Nations and non-governmental organizations, ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, see
http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/Resolution_1996_31/index.htm (downloaded 3^rd
October 2003).

European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and
Defence Policy, Report on the Commission Working Document: Perspectives and Priorities
for the ASEM Process (Asia Europe Meeting) into the new decade, (COM (200) 241) - C5-
0505/2000 - 2000/2243 (COS)) Final: A5-0207/2001, 31 May 2001; PE 294.868; Rapporteur:
Elmar Brok.
European Parliament Resolution on Burma, 12 May 2005, paragraph 1, www2.europarl.eu.int
(downloaded 16^th June 2005).

European Parliament Resolution on Burma/ASEM, PE 347.73719, 16 September 2004.

European Parliament Resolution on the third Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM 3) in Seoul, 20-21
October 2000, 4 October 2000, PE 296.99999.

David Fouquet, Developing the ASEM Process to Its Full Potential: Bottom-Up and Parallel
Initiatives, ASEM Research Platform Newsbrief, 2004, p. 7.

Graeme Gill, The Dynamics of Democratisation. Elites, Civil Society and the Transition
Process, Houndmills et al.: MacMillan, 2000.

Guidelines for ASEAN relations with Non-Governmental Organizations., Manila, 16-18 June
1986. http://www.aseansec.org/8138.htm (downloaded 2^nd October 2003).

Jürgen Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des
demokratischen Rechtsstaats, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1994.

Felix Henkel, Mirko Herberg & Felix Schmidt, Für eine soziale Dimension im asiatischeuropäischen
Dialog: Herausforderungen vor dem fünften ASEM-Gipfel in Hanoi, Working
Paper of the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation, Hanoi, May 2004.

Michael Hindley, Involving Politicians in the Political Dialogue: A Parliamentarian
Perspective, in Wim Stockhof & Paul van der Velde (eds.), ASEM: The Asia-Europe
Meeting. A Window Of Opportunity, London and New York: Keagan Paul International,
1999, pp. 27-31.

Human Development Report 2000, Human rights and human development, New York, 2000.

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC), ICFTU Asian and Pacific Regional Organisation (ICFTU-APRO),
Creating a Social Partnership in ASEM: Trade Union Statement on the Agenda for the 5^th
Summit of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), Hanoi 24 April 2004.

Dot Keet, Regional Programs in the South and New Peoples’ Initiatives, in Brid Brennan
(ed.), Linking Alternative Regionalisms For Equitable & Sustainable Development,
Transnational Institute Briefing Series No 2004/11, Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 7-12.

Hans-Joachim Lauth, Ambivalenzen der Zivilgesellschaft in Hinsicht auf Demokratie und
soziale Inklusion, Nord-Süd aktuell, 2003, pp. 223-232.

Wolfgang Merkel & Hans-Joachim Lauth, Systemwechsel und Zivilgesellschaft: Welche
Zivilgesellschaft braucht die Demokratie?, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B 6-7, 1998, pp.
3-12.

Detlef Pollack, Zivilgesellschaft und Staat in der Demokratie, Forschungsjournal Neue
Soziale Bewegungen, 16/2, 2003, pp. 46-58.

The Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations-Civil Society Relations, June
2004.

Michael Reiterer, Asia-Europe. Do They Meet? Reflections on the Asia-Europe Meeting
(ASEM), Asia-Europe Foundation, Singapore, 2002.

Gareth A. Richards, The Promise and Limits of Civil Society Engagement in Asia-Europe
Relations, ASEM Research Platform Newsbrief, 2004, p. 8.

Volker Rittberger, Weltregieren, in Hans Küng & Dieter Senghaas (eds.), Friedenspolitik.
Ethische Grundlagen internationaler Beziehungen, München: Piper, 2003, pp. 177-208.

– Weltregieren: Herausforderungen, Probleme, Tendenzen, in Thomas Bruha & Carsten
Nowak (eds.) Die Europäische Union nach Nizza: Wie Europa regiert werden soll, Baden-
Baden: Nomos, 2003, pp. 211-221.

James N. Rosenau & Ernst-Otto Czempiel (eds.), Governance without Government: order
and change in world politics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1992.

Jürgen Rüland, ASEM - Transregional Forum at the Crossroads, in: Wim Stockhof & Paul
van der Velde (eds.) Asian-European Perspectives. Developing the ASEM process,
Richmond: Curzon Press, 2001, pp. 60-73.

– Keine Chance für Demokratie in Asien? Anmerkungen zur west-östlichen Wertedebatte, in
Welttrends No 12, 1996, p. 53-81.

Martin Shaw, Civil society and global politics: beyond a social movements approach,
Millennium 23, 1994, pp. 647-67.

Bhanravee Tansubhapol, Hanoi hijacks a meeting of the people, http://thailabour.org/news/
04091701.htm (downloaded 6^th December 2004).

Georg Wiessala, The Politics of Re-orientation and Responsibility: European Union Foreign
Policy and Human Rights Promotion in Asian Countries, Briefing Paper 04/04, August 2004
(European Institute for Asian Studies, Brussels).

Yeo Lay Hwee, ASEM: The Asia-Europe Meeting Process: from Sexy Summit to Strong
Partnership?, Danish Institute of International Affairs, Copenhagen, 2002.

Notes

i Inter-regional cooperation is given when two collective actors cooperate even though they belong to
different regions. Inter-regional cooperation is also given, when two collective actors and N more actors
cooperate that belong to two different regions. See Sebastian Bersick 2004a.

ii A functional approach identifies five criteria that need to be fulfilled in order to decide whether a
societal actor belongs to civil society or not: (1). He needs to be independent from the State; (2). His actions
must be related to the community; (3). He must act in public, thereby (4). inducing societal interests into the
political process while (5) not using force (Lauth 2003: 224). With the political and legal community concepts,
civil society is a part of the State. For sociologists and philosophers, focussing on the State as government, civil
society is separate from the State. For the definition used in this text see also Jürgen Habermas 1994: 443.

iii They are part of the ‘strong public’. Habermas distinguishes between “weak publics”, composed of the
“informally organized public sphere ranging from private associations to the mass media located in ‘civil
society’ - and ‘strong publics’ - parliamentary bodies and other formally organized institutions of the political
system” (Baynes 1995: 216-17).

iv Concerning the relationship of democracy and civil society, at least three more functions of civil society
can be distinguished: the societal self defence, the political socialization and the normative integration (Lauth
2003: 225).

v The interview information used in the chapter has been gathered by the author on field studies in Asia
and Europe during the last seven years.

vi Definitions of NGOs vary. See, for instance, the definition offered by ASEAN: An NGO is a “nonprofit
making association of ASEAN persons, natural or juridical, organized to promote, strengthen and help
realize the aims and objectives of ASEAN cooperation in the political, economic, social, cultural, scientific,
medical and technological fields.” Guidelines for ASEAN relations with Non-Governmental Organizations.,
Manila, 16-18 June 1986. http://www.aseansec.org/8138.htm (downloaded 2^nd October 2003). The Economic
and Social Council statute of the UN’s definition of an acceptable NGO embodies six principles. An NGO
should support the aims and the work of the UN, be a representative body, be a non-profit making body. NGOs
can not use or advocate violence, they must respect the norm of ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of a
State‘, and finally: an international NGO is one that is not established by inter-governmental agreement. See
http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/Resolution_1996_31/index.htm (downloaded 3^rd October 2003). With
respect to their function, Jürgen Rüland emphasizes that “though NGOs are often a mirror picture of the political
culture of a society, they make an important contribution for the pluralization of society” (Rüland 1996:63).

vii Interview in April 1998, London.

viii Draft Version of the Chairman‘s Statement of the Second Asia-Europe Meeting, London, 3-4 April
1998.

ix Since then, a change in China’s attitude towards the role of civil society has taken place. One early
indicator of that important development is the ‘Informal ASEM Seminar on Human Rights’, which took place in
Beijing in 1999 with participation of civil society actors from all of the ASEM countries, that is NGOs and -
mostly - the academe. In September 2004, the 6^th ASEM Informal Seminar on Human Rights took place for the
second time in the PR China (in Suzhou).

x The annual meetings of the Asia-Europe Business Forum (AEBF) enable high ranking business
representatives of Asia and Europe to meet regularly and to build close contacts with the political level. The
Forum has developed its own agenda, dealing with a wide range of issues, for example, infrastructure
investment, trade facilitation and Small and Medium Enterprises. In 1998 and 2002, the Fora took place back-to-
back with the ASEM Summits, which promoted the personal networking between private and government
sectors. The European Commission describes the AEBF as follows: ”Working together with the ASEM
Economic Ministers, the private sector has pursued its own ASEM dialogue through the Asia-Europe Business
Forum”. See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asem/min_other_meeting/index_min.htm (downloaded
5^th March 2002).

xi Dublin Agreed Principles of the Asia-Europe Foundation, in Asien, No 64, July 1997, p. 190.

xii Report of Workshop No. 2: NGOs: Networking and Cooperation between Asian and European
Development NGOs and Social Movements, Connecting Civil Society, 18 June 2004, Casa Asia, Barcelona,
Spain.

xiii International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), European Trade Union Confederation
(ETUC), ICFTU Asian and Pacific Regional Organisation (ICFTU-APRO), Creating a Social Partnership in
ASEM: Trade Union Statement on the Agenda for the 5^th Summit of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), Hanoi 24
April 2004.

xiv For an overview of the current programme see ASEF News, No. 212/03/2004 or www. asef.org.
xv Asia-Europe Peoples‘ Forum, AEPF’s Strategies & Structure & Emerging Questions, Internal
background paper, October 2003.

xvi See Charles Santiago, cited in Brid Brennan (ed.), Linking Alternative Regionalisms For Equitable &
Sustainable Development, Transnational Institute Briefing Series No 2004/11, Amsterdam, 2004, p. 19-20. The
AEPF dealt with four thematic clusters, including Peace and Security, Economic and Social Security,
Democratization and People’s Rights and the Peoples’ Responses.

xvii See Dot Keet, Regional Programs in the South and New Peoples’ Initiatives, in Brid Brennan (ed.), Linking
Alternative Regionalisms For Equitable & Sustainable Development, Transnational Institute Briefing Series No
2004/11, Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 7-13.

xviii For the following see Felix Henkel et al., p. 4.

xix Interview in October 2003.

xx Report of Workshop No. 2: NGOs Networking and Cooperation between Asian and European
Development NGOs and Social Movements, Connecting Civil Society, 18 June 2004, Casa Asia, Barcelona,
Spain.

xxi Bhanravee Tansubhapol, “Hanoi hijacks a meeting of the people”, http://thailabour.org/news/
04091701.htm (downloaded 6^th December 2004).

xxii See Bulletin of the European Communities May 1999; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights,
Common Security and Defence Policy, Report on the Commission Working Document: Perspectives and
Priorities for the ASEM Process (Asia Europe Meeting) into the new decade, (COM (200) 241) - C5-0505/2000
– 2000/2243 (COS)) Final: A5-0207/2001, 31 May 2001; PE 294.868; Rapporteur: Elmar Brok.

xxiii European Parliament Resolution on Burma/ASEM, PE 347.73719, 16 September 2004, paragraph 1.

xxiv European Parliament Resolution on Burma, 12 May 2005, paragraph 1, www2.europarl.eu.int,
downloaded 16 June 2005.

xxv European Parliament Resolution on the third Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM 3) in Seoul, 20-21 October
2000, 4 October 2000, PE 296.99999, paragraph 2.

xxvi The Secretary General of the ASEAN Inter-parliamenatry Organization (AIPO) and the Secretary
General of ASEAN took part as well. See for the following: Declaration of the third Asia-Europe Parliamentary
Partnership Meeting, Hue City, Viet Nam, 25-26 March 2004, www.asem5.gov.vn/ downloaded 4^th May 2004.

xxvii Summary, Fifth Asia-Europe Young Parliamentarians’ Meeting, Guilin, China 23-26 October 2003, p.
1.

xxviii For the complete list of the 71 recommendations see BR 2004. The recommendations have been
differentiated into general and specific ones. The former recommend, inter alia, “dialogues between all
stakeholders of Civil Society and the governments”and a “regular and direct dialogue between Civil Society
representatives and the officials of ASEM”. The latter recommendations range from the need to address the
plight of trafficked women as a human rights issue to the establishment of a social dimension in the ASEM
process and to the launch of an ASEM think tank network.
xxix Resource organizations are active in enhancing the role of civil society in both regions in order to foster
greater cooperation.

xxx BR 2004, p. 6.

xxxi See ASEF News, MITA (P) No 212/03/2004, p. 8.

xxxii International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), European Trade Union Confederation
(ETUC), ICFTU Asian and Pacific Regional Organisation (ICFTU-APRO), Creating a Social Partnership in
ASEM: Trade Union Statement on the Agenda for the 5^th Summit of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), Hanoi 24
April 2004, p. 5.

xxxiii In May 2002, the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation organised a Consultative Forum on ASEM IV with the
support of the European Institute for Asian Studies (EIAS) and the European Commission.

xxxiv Interview in August 2004, Berlin.

xxxv Speech at the opening ceremony of the ASEM Employment Conference by Wang Dongjin, Chinese
Vice Minister of Labour and Social Security, 1^st June, 2004 Berlin, Germany.

xxxvi The co-sponsors of the German initiative are China, Spain and Ireland.

xxxvii See Axel Berkofsky, John Quigley & Willem van der Geest, Asia-Europe Consultative Seminar with
Civil Society, Seminar Report, European Institute for Asian Studies, 2003.

xxxviii Asia-Europe Peoples’ Forum, AEPF’s Strategies & Structure & Emerging Questions, Internal
background paper, October 2003.

xxxix International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), European Trade Union Confederation
(ETUC), ICFTU Asian and Pacific Regional Organisation (ICFTU-APRO), Creating a Social Partnership in
ASEM: Trade Union Statement on the Agenda for the 5^th Summit of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), Hanoi
24^th April 2004, p. 5.

xl While Albert states “Government can’t do it alone” Rocamora stressed that “we have no choice but to
relate to governments”. Observation of this author, 26^th November 2004, Manila. The analysis underscores the
findings of those theorists of international relations who do not call into question politics as practised by States.
As the call for a social dimension and a ‘Social Forum’ within the ASEM process and for the integration of the
Asia-Europe Peoples’ Forum in the official ASEM process indicates, civil society actors “seek the entrance to
State power” (Rittberger 2003: 201) in order to become part of the policy making processes. In that context, it
can be said that - within the interregional setting of international relations - civil society actors work with the
statist preconception of the liberal democratic model (see: Baker 2002: 129).

xli See for that line of argument: Volker Rittberger, Weltregieren: Herausforderungen, Probleme,
Tendenzen, in Thomas Bruha & Carsten Nowak (eds.) Die Europäische Union nach Nizza: Wie Europa regiert
werden soll, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2003, pp. 218-219.

xlii On the broadening from representative to participatory democracy and the role of civil society see: The
Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations-Civil Society Relations, p. 8.

xliii Rüland notes that 14% of the signatories of the ASEM People’s Vision of the second AEFP in London
in 1998 did not come from ASEM countries and that several smaller countries were overrepresented while
countries like Germany and China were “represented very weak or not at all” (Rüland 2001: 68).

xliv Observation of this author at the International Convention of Asia Scholars, 24 August 2005, Shanghai.

xlv For these documents see www.asienhaus.org

xlvi Chairman’s Statement of the 7^th ASEM Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, Kyoto, 6-7 May 2005, paragraph
20.