Asia Europe Forum on Culture, Values & Technology

Towards a stronger mutual understanding

The framework document, which all participants received in preparation for the meeting, consisted of three global megatrends: the establishment of a multilateral trade system; a restructuring of international political relationships; and the emergence of a global cultural framework. The rise of Asia corresponds to this pattern; and in each of these trends Asia's achievements seem to be outstanding. On the economic frontier the rise in Asian economic growth and concomitant consumer purchasing power has been enormous. By the year 2000 Asia will account for one-half of the world economic growth, one-half of world trade, one-third of world output, and one-third of the world investment in infrastructure. In short Asia has become a seed-bed of private entrepreneurship, offering ever-increasing opportunities for economic participation. Setting aside these economic achievements, the time has come to recognize Asia's improved capacity for problem solving and to acknowledge its systems of governance based on pragmatism, consensus, and the notion of the common good. Finally the growing participation of Asia in the global cultural framework is accompanied by a burgeoning pride in values and working ethics. Indeed, exposure to global cultural influences has reinforced the articulation of Asian cultural identity and has led to a re-evaluation of Asia's authentic cultural heritage.
The framework text rightly stated that the present state of EU-Asia relationships does not tally with the opportunities offered by the rise of Asia. Awareness of this deficiency has led the European Commission to take a long, hard look at the EU's relationships with Asia. Hence the new EU-Asia strategy which was adopted by the European Parliament in 1995, aims to build a new partnership which will be mutually beneficial. It has two main orientations: to raise the profile of the EU and to enhance mutual understanding through linkages between civil institutions, and to strengthen the economic presence of the EU in Asia. Apparently the European Commission has realized that time has come to expand this relationship through linkages which extend beyond mere trade and economic cooperation. Accordingly the EU-Asia strategy envisages a partnership with Asia which will evolve step by step: first by establishing personal links between high-level representatives of both regions; second by making the effort to understand the essential principles of partnership; and third by the intensification of EU-Asia relationships on the basis of a broad platform rooted in civil society. The framework text states clearly that the EU will benefit greatly from its new relationship with Asia if it takes the following principles to heart. Gradual convergence of views within the framework of international law and a globalized interdependent economy, in which Europe will pay its Asian partners full attention. Dialogue should be based on mutual respect and common interest, with the principle of comparative advantage in the sense that the EU wants to build up this partnership by providing the best it has to offer in the fields of technological and institutional development, economic integration, regional stabilization, and intercultural communication.
In one way or another these ideas were reflected in the speeches by M. Marin and S. Agnelli. In his opening speech Marin underlined the novelty of the Forum meeting in the sense that it was the first meeting during which so many specialists from Europe and Asia have had discussions on such a wide range of subjects. The reference papers were all written by academics who are authorities on the relevant theme. These were debated in several sessions chaired by five moderators who were also responsible for drawing up the summary. Some of the conclusions of the various working groups are presented below. The Forum Proceedings will be published by the EC and will appear at the end of February.

Europe-Asia Technology Exchanges
The paper for this meeting 'Past, Present and Future of Europe-Asia Technology Exchanges' was written by Alessandro Costa of Mondimpresa, a technology consultancy firm in Rome. Costa is not pessimistic about the possibilities available for improving the matter of technology exchange between Europe and Asia and recommended that spending be increased on research & development; mobility between partners be stimulated; participation by medium-sized enterprises be promoted; the regulatory frameworks be adjusted; and programmes be extended beyond bilateral relationships to the level of regional exchange. Interestingly there was some scepticism among Asian participants with regard to the notion of exchange; from the Asian point of view technology acquisition was considered a more appropriate term, implying the strategy to 'pick and choose' from available technologies according to Asian assessments of need and benefit. Other interesting issues were concerned with differences in perspective between the business sector and science and technology institutions. It was also suggested account be taken of the different technology endowments and the diverse institutional settings for technological development in Asia. The report by the moderator, Mr. J. Richardson, makes clear that a general consensus was reached that European and Asian collaboration in the field of human resource development, particularly education, research, and training, is the key to improving Europe-Asia technology exchange. Ideas about the founding of a global cooperation specialist technology forum, an annual technology stock exchange, and the application of European programmes such as EUREKA and ERASMUS in a wider Europe-Asia perspective were put forward.

Problem solving in Asia
François Godemont, Institut Fran_ais des Relations Internationales (IFRI) in Paris, wrote the paper for working group two: 'Problem solving in Asia: exception or example'. The major theme running through his work was comparison of the Asian notion of 'comprehensive national (and regional) securityþ and the European notion of 'multilaterism'. Comprehensive security and regional resilience are a combination of military and non-military means of engagement, and þtrack twoþ dialogue. Asian dialogue partners in the ASEAN Regional Forum prefer an evolutionary approach to falling into the trap of institutionalization. The working group focused on inter-state conflicts in order to identify some representative elements of problem solving and conflict management. According to the report by the moderator, Jasit Singh, the characteristics of problem solving and conflict management by Asian states were identified as; constructive avoidance; negotiation and settlement of disputes; peaceful co-existence; and conflict limitation. Notwithstanding the fact that these characteristics are not exclusive to Asian countries, it should be recognized that the Asians rely much more on consensus building, accommodation, and cooperation on the basis of mutually accepted principles. Hence the group agreed that the main objective is to find out where these characteristics converge with European approaches to problem solving. The working group also came to the conclusion that Europe should avoid measures and policies that tend to impose a multilateral framework of inter-state relations, in order to avoid hegemonistic tendencies, e.g. in the restrictive transfer of technology or use of issues like human rights as an instrument of foreign policy.

Unity and diversity of Asia
Michel Foucher of the Observatoire Européen de Géopolitique (Lyon) wrote the discussion paper for working group three: 'Unity and Diversity of Asia: a geopolitical approach'. In his paper he outlined that the rise of Asia presents a unique geo-economic and geo-political entity, characterized by the size of its population, the depth and wealth of its cultural roots, the speed of its widespread economic growth, and the scale of current social and political transformations It is essential that Europe realize the scale of such an upheaval and update its world view radically. The first requirement is to think of Asia as a whole and the second requirement is to take a long-term view of the new realities in which major trends can be seen more clearly. In his report the moderator, Dominique Turq, singled out the need to make practical efforts to deal with three fundamental problems: how can Europe enter into the Asian reality and vice versa; what is the best way to work collectively for sustainable growth and social stability for the purpose of achieving world prosperity and peace. In order to deal effectively with these problems the working group recommends: 1) the setting up of a permanent round table composed of Asian and European experts who work together to prepare reference papers on issues selected by the EU and ASEAN; 2) to improve the facilities for networking between civil societies, e.g. links between academics and professional communities in order to create new bases for mutual understanding; 3) that the EU becomes a more active dialogue partner in the ASEAN Regional Forum.

Understanding Asian Values
Jacques Pelkmans of the European Institute for South and Southeast Asian Studies (EISSEAS) in Brussels had the difficult task of finding the ground for discussion in this hotly debated topic. Surveys in Asia show a preference for values related to the common interest, rather than individual rights. However, an anthology of core values in Asia raises the question of what is specifically Asian about them. The report by the moderator, Gillis Merritt, leaves no doubt that the members of the working group would have preferred to see the title of their working group changed to common values because in the past Asian and European values have been influenced by each other to such a degree that it is scarcely valid to speak of 'Asian' or 'European' values. In this respect it is worth noting that not only European but also some Asian participants had some difficulty with an 'Asianization' of values, in the sense it was considered more fruitful to define common values. The working group came up mainly with practical ideas to bridge the communications gap between Europe and Asia that could be used to build educational and business links such as: 'Euro-Asia scholarships'; university programmes after the example of ERASMUS, with sabbatical programmes and alternating professorships which can also act as þtalent spottersþ to help increase the flow of student exchange to Europe, followed up by the establishment of alumni associations; the setting up of a database of European-Asian partnerships to act as a kind of þMarriage Bureauþ; and school-level, pre-university exchange and exposure programmes with facilities for language training.

Religions in relation to progress
The discussion paper was written by Professor K. Schipper (Sorbonne, Paris, and the Sinological Institute, Leiden) with Dr D. Douwes (IIAS) giving an overview of the historical and contemporary conditions shaping religion in Asia in an annex to Schipper's paper. In his paper Schipper focused on the case of Chinese religion and its relationship to progress which served as a basis for comparison and discussion on a wider scale. In the report of the moderator, Professor Jean-Luc Racine, the main conclusions were outlined as follows: religions do not stand in the way of progress, provided that progress does not transgress moral or spiritual values and the history of Asia testifies to the fact that science has flourished in societies imbued with a strong religious commitment; religions in Asia have contributed to the nurturing of tolerance, social cohesion, humanitarian concerns, the creative accommodation of plurality, and family values; while at the same time due note was taken of the fact that in some societies religion has been pressed into service to oppose social reforms and human rights. The working group emphasizes the need for European and Asian initiatives to promote inter-faith understanding and a continuous dialogue.

Message of Venice
The closing speech was delivered by the Italian Foreign Minister, Mrs. S. Agnelli, who stated that Italy strongly supports the view of the Commission and the efforts it has taken to realize them, intending to endorse these by taking concrete initiatives in which it wishes to involve not only the cultural world but all of civil society. She also stressed the diversity of cultures which becomes more vital when each culture cherishes its strong points and does so in analogy with other civilizations. The idea of having an equivalent conference in Asia organized by the Asians put forward by M. Marin has her strong support. The outcome of the work done at the Forum will she believes give the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Bangkok the conceptual and operational inputs to enable the heads of state and government to translate them into political will and into guidelines that will stimulate all to proceed in the most desirable direction. In view of the present Italian presidency of the EU her words carried extra weight.
The final conclusions of the conference were summarized in the þMessage of Veniceþ released by the EC. In general the message boils down to the belief that difference in the perception of values does not stand in the way of the intensification of economic, scientific, and cultural links. Priority should be given to improving mutual understanding not only among elite groups but also within civil society. These efforts should strengthen both the image of Europe in Asia and that of Asia in Europe. All in all a lively and open atmosphere prevailed during which a wide range of topics was discussed. Notwithstanding differences of opinion between the participants it became clear that these will not stand in the way of fruitful and constructive dialogue on the new partnership between Europe and Asia.