Reflections from the ASEM Bowl in China
An important element of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is involving young people who may occupy future high-level positions from which they can sustain relationships. For this purpose the Asia Europe Foundation (ASEF) from Singapore organizes annual ASEF Summer Schools, alternating between Europe and Asia. Between 22 August and 5 September the 2nd Summer School took place in Beijing. At the illustrious Dayuan Guest House 36 students from 25 member countries followed a course programme on Asian and European affairs under the guidance of Dr Ulrich Niemann, the ASEF's Director of People-to-People Exchanges and Dr Chen Zhenya of the International Co-operation Office of Peking University.
By LEO SCHMIT
The Dayuan Guest-House is part of a garden complex built in 1912 to provide relaxation and accommodation for the members of China's first republican government under President Dr Sun Yat Sen. Though still in use by President Jiang Zemin's government, it is now partly opened for tourist accommodation and for seminars. The guest-house is situated on the outskirts of Beijing, at more or less equal distance from the Imperial Summer Palace and the Internet Cafe near the South Gate of the Peking University campus.When I arrived at Dayuan, the course participants had established an evening routine of walking to the Internet Café and organizing late night get-togethers at the guest-house. I joined that routine to get to know some of the participants and catch some glimpses of the off-campus student scenery. Wandering around on my own I discovered Chyi Chin's cd 'Lang' and saw video images of his China Tour in a nearby bar. Impressed by the popularity of this Taiwanese singer among the Beijing public, and by the yearning images of Chinese landscapes in his video-clips, I returned to my room indulging in a peaceful dream of a long camel ride along the Eurasian trail.
The next morning I delivered my lecture on 'The ASEM Process: New rules of engagement in a global setting' for the students who had been selected from the fields of international relations, economy, history, and European Studies. First I ran through the background information on the origins of ASEM in 1994-5, and made an assessment of the ASEM-process in view of the crisis in parts of Asia. Then I analysed the potential for ASEM co-operation in anticipation of the third Summit in Seoul, referring to the official ASEM Co-operation Framework (AECF) and the ASEM Vision Group for a non-official perspective. I concluded with an assessment of what in my view are the three main outstanding issues for the Seoul meeting.
To stimulate a lively discussion I had woven some arguments into my presentation. These were partly hypothetical in nature because of the ongoing momentum of Asia-Europe relations and partly provocative to solicit the students' perceptions on these issues. And I got what I asked for in the discussions as the following reflections may demonstrate.
ASEM enters stage two
My first line of argument was that, after four years of initiatives aimed at enhancing 'mutual understanding', the ASEM-process has entered its second stage. In this respect I followed the view of the Prime Minister of Singapore, Dr Goh Chok Tong, who has defined 'constructive dialogue' as the second stage in anticipation of a third stage of 'consensus policy making'. My point was that two summits, five ministerial meetings, numerous expert committees, working groups, and civic-cultural encounters have been sufficient for getting to know each other. We must now move on to the next stage and start doing things together. Notwithstanding the good intentions of reaching 'mutual understanding', I argued that these efforts have been overtaken by recent events. The point being that the economic crisis in Asia, the turmoil in Indonesia, the security crisis in Southeast Europe and the institutional crisis in the European Commission and the European Parliament may have had more effect on mutual awareness in both regions than rhetoric.
So, I told the students, it is time to move on and jointly undertake the following activities which apply to the three main pillars of the ASEM-process (i.e. economic co-operation, political dialogue and civic-cultural interaction):
setting new rules of engagement based on 'minimal compatibility' between Asian and European practices and approaches;
building institutions, including joint councils, bodies, and agencies and perhaps a general secretarial facility to monitor the development of new rules of engagement and deal with specific problems; and
implementing collaborative programmes to undertake joint research programmes and problem solving initiatives.
ASEM should play the integration card
My next argument was that we should make more use of the potential for interregional co-operation by deploying the European expertise available in economic, political, and cultural-civic integration, plus that of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in these fields, and finally the expertise of East Asian nations gained from the Asia-Pacific co-operation (APEC). I underpinned this argument with the assumption that the momentum of EU integration is slowing down and that Asian integration is speeding up, with the result that both regions may meet halfway in terms of institutional compatibility.
The students challenged me firmly on this assumption. They asked how I could say that EU integration was slowing down in the face of all the empirical evidence, notably the introduction of the Euro? They also asked me how I could believe that Asian integration was speeding up, when I had just finished saying in my lecture that there still is lack of cohesion among Asian ASEM members, because of historical reasons and the heterogeneity and differences of scale and praxis in the region.
I had to qualify my thesis, but I maintained that, at least during the next stage of the ASEM-process, EU integration will not have the same momentum as before. The next Intergovernmental Conference will be about accommodating eleven new members and this will result in increasing heterogeneity in Europe. There is also the need to develop a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as the experiences in Southeast Europe have demonstrated, but this also applies to EU-Russia relations, EU-Middle East relations, and EU-Africa, Latin America, and Asia relationships.
I further explained to the students that the format or mode of working in the Union is changing because of increasing regulation at UN and WTO level. And, in the wake of the EU Treaties of 1992 (Maastricht) and 1997 (Amsterdam), certain regulatory competencies are being returned to the national level (principle of subsidiarity) or are being replaced by voluntary arrangements (principle of proportionality). Hence my assumption that the future regulatory system of the EU may be more compatible with Asian notions of co-operation.
Of course, I had to admit that Asian integration is not yet on the agenda, not even in ASEAN, and certainly not between the East Asian countries or between East and Southeast Asia. Concern about sovereignty makes Asian governments wary of integration, as does a perception of the EU as a bureaucratic Moloch. However, I maintained my thesis of increasing Asian integration on the grounds that the ASEAN experience of thirty years has shown that the limits of consensus-based policy-making have been reached. I explained to the students that the capacity for intergovernmental and committee deliberation has become obsolescent, unless this region proceeds to adopt institutionalized policy-making. Indeed, Asia as a whole is being forced to acquiesce in further integration measures and to install institutional capacity to cope with global regulatory processes in the context of WTO and the UN. Finally, I pointed out that in spite of the heavy competition among Asian nations to receive foreign direct investment, there is a need for deeper co-operation as international investors will undertake sourcing and marketing activities regionally rather than nation-wide, and make their investment decisions accordingly.
ASEM should be less timid
An equally controversial issue I raised was concerned with the potential impact of ASEM on global power relations by breaking the shackles of timidity towards the US and redress the balance in the global triangular pattern of relationships.
ASEM member countries should assume concerted positions on specific issues regarding the forthcoming negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the ratification of UN Conventions, if only to avoid succumbing to the wishes of the most powerful negotiation party, the US. To stimulate debate (and to test the students' historical awareness), I introduced my 'inverted domino theory' to describe a dire scenario of Asian ASEM members succumbing one-by-one to the dictates of US trade negotiators and accepting their arbitration and litigation on single (sectoral) issues. There was no lack of debate on this point, particularly from the side of the Asian students who offered me a sobering reminder of the reality of US supremacy in the region. And it must be conceded that, in spite of the beginnings of assertiveness in this regard, the Euro has not been able to offer a genuine alternative to the dollar in Asia and will not be able to do so if the US Federal Reserve has its say. The absence of countries like Britain, Denmark, and Sweden in Euroland and the demise of the Commission in April have weakened the Euro's case.
Still, I maintained that through ASEM there could be more balance in the triangle of Asia-EU-US relations, if not in financial terms or in security issues, then at least in terms of global trade relations and perhaps cultural orientations. Concerning security in Asia, the perception of US hegemony was unanimous among the Asian and European students alike. For instance, should the one-or-two countries issue between China and Taiwan take a nasty turn the position of the US is considered decisive. So we agreed that, in the absence of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union, ASEM's potential for resolving security problems is weak (as was evident one week later when the horrors in East Timor took place).
On the level of popular culture US influence is equally overpowering. So what remains is the potential of ASEM to challenge the US in the next Millennium Round of the WTO by engaging jointly in these negotiations on a comprehensive basis which allows for all parties to realise some benefit in the end.
ASEM stages are cumulative
The reader may by now have surmised that I concede as readily as I assert, having made the points anyway. Of course, my plea for moving onto Stage Two in the ASEM-process does not imply that we discontinue our efforts to reach mutual understanding. My lecture was designed partly as analysis and partly as advice with the purpose of sobering people's expectations of achieving intangible notions of convergence, when in real life we are facing a context determined by negotiated rules, assumed positions of power, and stubbornly held convictions.
Later in the evening we visited the Heaven Bridge Theatre to enjoy a selection of dishes accompanied by a string ensemble playing classical songs and folk tunes, including, on my request, the famous song on the beauty of the girls and the strength of the boys from Ali Shan Mountain and, to my dismay, several Bing Crosby tunes. We were treated to a show by a beautiful lady magician pulling goldfish from here and there, and everywhere, placing them in a glass bowl on a table. Noting my fascination the magician called me on stage and pulled a wriggling goldfish from the pocket of my shirt. Back at my table I still was under the magician's charming spells and indulged in a vision of a large ASEM bowl full of goldfish sharing their fortune under the looming shadow of star-striped Felix the Cat.
I thank the ASEF Summer School students for their alertness to my points. I also thank my hosts in Peking and Shanghai for their hospitality and interest in the same. I am pleased to extend the warmest regards from IIAS alumni in China to former and present IIAS staff and fellows. *
Dr Leo Schmit, Leiden University, is EU correspondent for the IIAS Newsletter. He can be reached at e-mail: schmit@let.leidenuniv.nl