3 APRIL 2000
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
The Future of ASEM
Widening, deepening, or focusing?
A seminar held in Brussels on 3 April under the joint auspices of the European Commission, the International Institute for Asian Studies of Leiden, and the European Institute for Asian Studies of Brussels, indicated that the informal Summit planned for Seoul in October should seek to rekindle enthusiasm for a process that otherwise risks losing momentum through limited public visibility and token progress.
By DAVID FOUQUET
The third summit gathering of Asian and European leaders scheduled for Korea in October may have to face the challenge of 'broadening and deepening', similar to the task facing the European Union, or risk being eclipsed by other, more structured bilateral or multilateral dialogues. The forthcoming Asia-Europe Summit Meeting (ASEM) this autumn in Seoul may not only have the usual agenda of high-level political economic issues that characterized the two first gatherings, but may also have to cope with insistent demands from civil society to address problems of the ordinary public, according to opinions expressed by representatives of Asian and European non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at the seminar in Brussels.The Brussels seminar was organized to provide input into documents being prepared for the third summit of heads of state and government from the fifteen EU countries and ten East Asian states. Previous meetings took place in Bangkok in 1996 and in London in 1998.
While some attention was accorded to the results and follow-ups of the previous ASEM meetings, the thrust of the seminar was more specifically devoted to possible themes and issues for the future sessions. It was also emphasized that, although the Summit itself obtained the highest visibility, considerable progress was also registered during follow-up working meetings of Foreign and Finance Ministers and senior officials on specific subjects. Nevertheless, considerable disappointment was expressed that opportunities had been lost for solid European involvement in the Asian economic crisis. One speaker remarked that Europe was, to some degree, distracted by its own preoccupations with the Balkans, and Asia was likewise focused on China. One participant commented that 'the arcane process of officials and bureaucrats must be overcome.' Another possible problem cited was the suggestion that Asians were interested in the ASEM process because it played a role in defining the East Asia regional identity and Asians were anxious to learn from the European experience, whereas Europe felt it had few lessons to learn from Asia.
Melancholy
Despite such warnings of succumbing to possible 'forum fatigue' it was also emphasized that a fourth such session was being planned that could also make a serious effort to gather momentum for public concerns and awareness in Denmark in 2002. Furthermore, one European based in Asia failed to understand what he characterized as the 'melancholy' attitude of other participants, adding that he was not pessimistic but confident about the development of a Euro-Asian pole on the world stage.
It was noted that the first meeting had the advantage of being a novelty, which both compared and contrasted with the more economically-oriented APEC trans-Pacific process with the US and Canada, while the second gathering had an agenda forced on it by the economic and financial crisis that was still gripping Asia at the time. But some speakers, nevertheless, emphasized that even these meetings had neither completely or concretely dealt with many obvious issues nor achieved a strong public visibility. Some underlined that it was necessary to build on the past achievements that led to the creation of an Asia-Europe Business Forum and set in motion a network of universities and a system of academic scholarship exchanges, but needed to realize greater support and accountability. Among the suggestions were involvement of parliamentarians, serious involvement of tourism as a galvanising factor and of other public or consumer organisations. People-to-people events involving Asians in Europe or Europeans in Asia could also be considered.
Other participants also suggested that themes such as reform of the international monetary and financial systems or the experience of the EU in adopting a new single currency could lend themselves to serious consideration for the ASEM leaders.
Cautioning against building up a sense of expectation, one official remarked that the challenge for the Summit participants might not lie in 'broadening and deepening' as much as in 'focusing' its interests and activities. He also indicated that the Seoul session might not be the time to make a decision on enlarging the process to include other participants, including India and Australia, which have expressed interest in participating. It was even suggested that the next enlargement of ASEM might involve new EU entries.
Representatives from non-governmental organizations, however, strongly advocated that ASEM III was an 'opportunity regained' for bold and imaginative initiatives in such areas as security, the arms trade, human rights in Burma and elsewhere, poverty, labour, and spirituality. A Korean NGO leader also said that some 100 organizations, unions and others were intensively preparing in his country, with other Asian and European groups to press for social and integrative measures. He added that the ASEM process was facing a 'critical phase.'
Reality check
Another European NGO leader cautioned that civil society was 'not the magic bullet' that could right all wrongs in the post-crisis era. He noted that it was still ill-defined but, nevertheless, was urging substance against numerous barriers to change. He warned against the partial official acceptance of some humanitarian NGOs as partners that 'provide a patina of legitimization' as long as they didn't threaten the political agenda. Others noted the inevitability of a 'two-track process.'
In the face of such demands, one official appealed for a 'reality check' in view of the fact that at least one Asian partner in ASEM even objected to the term 'civil society' and favoured only 'relevant groups in society.' Another wondered whether self-appointed NGOs could claim to represent the public any more than elected officials and still another warned that ASEM could not be expected to resolve all the world's problems but nevertheless pointed to ASEM-related human rights seminars in China. In the ensuing discussion, one suggested that scheduled 'potential confrontational events every two years might not be the most productive' way of achieving goals. A colleague retorted that there was constant tension but the challenge was to make it a constructive one.
Subsequent speakers suggested ASEM also turn more toward a true security dialogue between Europe and Asia, or toward trade, investment, and financial questions.
An academic expert on the issue said he did not expect ASEM to become involved in hard security issues or co-operation, but rather in dialogue on softer subjects, although already addressed to some degree by Foreign Ministers. A respondent noted that Europe was already involved in Asian security through arms sales and could play a significant role through this and others means. He suggested that a number of Asian governments were still interested in understanding the implications of the Kosovo conflict, but that Europe also had considerable experience to share in the peaceful settlement of crises involving a breakdown of society. Others remarked that an Asian perspective still had to be integrated into predominantly Euro-centred EU common foreign and security policies still dominated by some specific governments, and they further underlined that security issues should not be peripheral but central and developed.
One official noted the keen interest shown at a recent meeting of ASEAN finance ministers in the EU both for its experience in establishing the new single currency and as a possible role model for further Asian integration. Another speaker said that the Asian crisis had sparked discussions on financial architecture which should inspire the ASEM to regard itself as a priviledged 'ginger group' to consider such problems. A diplomat in the audience volunteered that the monitoring of such organisations as powerful hedge funds could be a priority. One speaker observed there were a number of varied examples of reactions to the crisis in Asia that could be instructive.
Asian and European educators then stressed the need for collaborative academic and research links on such issues as economic history and data, and scientific and technical training, and investigation. Both regretted the fact that both Asian and European researchers seemed to favour American collaborators. *
David Fouquet
EurAsia Bulletin
EIAS, Rue des Deux Eglises 35
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
The following people spoke at the Brussels conference
THE FUTURE OF THE ASEM PROCESS.
Welcoming address
Willem van der Geest, Director EIAS
Opening statement
Alistair McDonald, Deputy Head, Unit for ASEM, External Relations, EU, on behalf of Emiliano Fossati, Director, External Relations, Asia (except Japan, Korea), EU
Session 1:
Review of the Public Impact of ASEM Initiatives
Chair
Patrick Van Haute, Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Presentation
Paul Lim, Senior Research Fellow, EIAS
Comments
Shada Islam, Brussels and EU Correspondent, Far Eastern Economic Review
Pierre Barroux, Deputy Executive Director, ASEF, Singapore
Session 2:
Civil Society and the ASEM Process
Chair
David Camroux, Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris
Presentations
Duncan Jackman, Director, Intellectual Exchanges, ASEF, Singapore
Brid Brennan, Trans-National Institute, Amsterdam
Francis Daehoon Lee, University of Bradford
Comment
Gareth Api Richards, Department of Government, University of Manchester
Session 3:
Specific Issues for Future ASEM Co-operation
Chair
Elke Thiel, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Munich
Presentation on Security
Heiner Hänggi, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Comment
Michael Yahuda, London School of Economics, Univeristy of London
Presentation on Trade and Investment Relations
Chong-hwa Lee, Research Fellow, KIEP, Korea
Comment
Gianni Fodella, Università degli Studi di Milano
Presentation on International Financial Architecture
Peter Bekx, Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, EC
Comment
Willem van der Geest, Director EIAS
Presentation on Culture, Education, and Research
Shaharil Talib, Director, Asia-Europe Centre, University of Malaya
Wim Stokhof, Director IIAS
Session 4:
Suggestions for Key Outputs for ASEM III
Chair
Dick Gupwell, Secretary-General, EIAS
Concluding remarks
Percy Westerlund, Director, External Relations, North America, Australasia, Japan, Korea, EC