By Wim Stokhof
Among the approximately 100 specialists from Asia and Europe who participated at the Europe-Asia Forum on Culture, Values, and Technology in Venice, January 18-19 1996, a questionnaire was distributed in order to solicit their views on the future of the relationship between both the regions. It is very interesting, to my mind, to give you the reactions to the three main questions:
The first question concerned the most important obstacles to the relationship between Europe and Asia:
46% of the participants mentioned Europe's weak media image as the most decisive obstruction; 43% mentioned
the lack of cultural exchange between the two regions; and
11% mentioned economic competition.
Referring to the question of which aspects of the relationship have to be improved:
40% believed in the strengthening of economic ties; 37% mentioned greater understanding of values and
religion; and 23% mentioned knowledge of each other's history and politics.
The third important question concerned a choice of the main instruments by which to strengthen the
relationship:
36% referred to economic relationships, exchange of managers; 34% mentioned relationships between
universities and research institutes; and 30% mentioned the establishment of specialized study and research
centres in both regions, complementing existing structures.
It is a very significant to see the high percentage of answers indicating that steps should be undertaken in the framework of cultural exchange, mutual understanding of values, enhancement of academic expertise links, and the establishment of focused research and information centres. The more so, since the objectives of the forum in Venice were phrased from another point of view, to wit, from a predominantly mercantile perspective (which is far from surprising since the initiative for this forum was taken by the European Commission's DG I/B External Economic Relations, Asia Directorate).
Let me quote from the background and objectives of the forum: 'A strengthening of Europe-Asia relationships is today an urgent priority; it can be initiated by the public system but it needs to be implemented by a dynamic and committed European and Asian civil society'. The objectives specified in the document "Towards a New Asia Strategy" which was approved by the European Council at Essen in December 1994 and by the European Parliament in the summer of 1995, are to raise the EU's profile in Asia and enhance mutual understanding and, more importantly, to strengthen the EU's economic presence in the region.
The EU's communication on its New Asia Strategy and likewise its recent communication on the Asia-Europe meeting in Bangkok, the so called 'ASEM', are stated again almost completely in terms of business interests; all other activities seem to be marginal and hardly considered useful for a greater strengthening of Europe's economic presence in Asia. In the ten lines only devoted to non-mercantile issues in the EU Communication on ASEM, the idea of building bridges between civil societies is described as: 'a major challenge in our drive to overcome existing gaps in communication, understanding and cultural dialogue. A strengthened mutual awareness of European and Asian cultural perspectives will be a key supporting element in strengthening our two-way political and economic linkages'.
A utilitarian point of view concerning the supportive function of culture is not really so strange when we bear in mind the founding history of the European Union which, as all of you know, started as a community of coal and steel producers with a very limited set of practical objectives and no declared interest in culture whatsoever. Indeed, in the course of the history of European unification commercial and political interests have always taken precedence over cultural relationships. This has also been the case in Europe's long history of relationships with Asia, when 'cultural ambassadors' (along with missionaries) followed in the wake of merchants and traders exploring and exploiting Asia's vast riches, or when cultural and religious scholars lent their services to colonial bureaucracies. Slowly, at long last, it seems that the role of culture is becoming recognized, albeit in a very modest way. The recent "Chairman's Statement" on the Asia-Europe meeting in Bangkok pays some specific attention to the cultural line (1 of the 20 paragraphs). Some proposals for concrete steps are listed in the follow- up measures.
Culture's added value
Needless to say, the underlying motivations behind the EU's recently enhanced interest in Asia stem from an
unambiguous combination of anxiety and greed. Anxiety born of the fact that in the next century Asia will
account for more than half of the world population and will be the world's most powerful region in an
economic, and possibly also in a political, respect. Greed because of the new business opportunities offered by
the rise of Asia, and the fear of missing out on them. In fact Europe is assailed by a double anxiety. So what
does the cultural dimension contribute to alleviating this predicament?
Before I answer this, first allow me to dilate upon some aspects of the existing relations between Europe and
Asia.
With regard to the strengthening of mutual understanding between Europe and Asia, one obstacle standing in the way of enhanced understanding is the tendency to deal with Asia as a cultural entity. This has often prevented Europe from understanding the special characteristics of the three major sub-regions (South, East, and Southeast Asia) not to speak of those of individual countries and areas.
Nowadays the tremendous developments in Asian countries demand from Europe a thorough knowledge of the differences and the idiosyncrasies of each country, state, or area. At first glance, this seems to be a trivial remark, but the many failures in development co-operation for instance, or in commercial relations between Europe and the Asian region, speak for themselves.
Simultaneously, Europe should be more aware of the fact that Asian countries in all their diversities have become global partners and thus are not an exotic and isolated part of the world. In fact you could say that Asia developed faster than Europe's perception of the region could cope with. European perceptions of Asia are still associated with exotic notions finding their reference in nineteenth-century concepts and traditional stereotypes stemming from classical 'Orientalism' and 'Indology'.
In the eyes of many Asians, Europe has become self-centred and inward-looking. Time and again they are confronted by the lack of knowledge and disinterest of Europeans in contemporary Asian affairs and a reluctance on the part of Europe to appreciate the achievements made in their area.
The Asia Europe meeting in Bangkok could be considered an endeavour to prevent Asia from looking at Europe
as yet another nicely preserved, at times somewhat bloody (just think if of the Balkans or Northern Ireland),
Disneyland.
It is quite striking, in view of the above, that it was not the European but the Asian countries which, at the
suggestion of Singapore, initiated the Bangkok Conference. Until the very start of the Conference some
European leaders were even hesitant about taking part since no clear agenda had been set up.
It is obvious that trade, investment, and intensified political contacts will induce a deeper relationship between
nations and individuals. I very much underline the intentions of Brussels to strengthen the "mutual awareness
of European and Asian cultural perspectives" as "a key supporting element in strengthening our two-way
political and economic linkages".
However, when this means, as nowadays so often seems the case, that this strengthening of mutual awareness
is restricted to efforts to explain what is strange and deviant in the Other, the strengthening of our two-way
political and economic linkages will be faced with virtually insuperable barriers.
Now far removed from the earlier-mentioned exotic notions of Asia in which Europeans are amazed by and
study the strangeness in the Other, we now have to concentrate more on the similarities between our cultures
and on our common, often global, goals. In this context we should, for instance, try to find tools to study and
understand the mechanisms at work in encounter situations between the two regions.
Having said that, the question remains what contribution the understanding of cultural similarities and insights
in encounter situations mechanisms, in short, the effectualization of the "cultural rapprochement", can make to
the stated objective of strengthening the European Union's economic (and political) presence in the
region.
The way I see it, cultural rapprochement by definition implies the involvement of the civil societies of both
regions and, hence, provides for the fabric into which the economic and political interest in both regions are
interwoven. Indeed, if there is one thing about which there was complete agreement at the Europe-Asia Forum
in Venice, it is that mutual relationships cannot remain confined to economic and security agreements, but will
have to be expanded to different segments of the civil society along the broadest possible range of links. These
include academic, science and technology institutes, media agencies, business, social and cultural foundations,
and public institutions.
Only by weaving Europe's economic and political relationships with Asia into a broader fabric of cultural and
civil relationships will the indispensable essential mutual trust be generated.
Short term fluctuations caused by the ups and downs of potentially sensitive issues which at present determine
the agenda can thus be avoided.
It goes without saying that aspects of this cultural rapprochement (i.e. stressing similarities,
while acknowledging diversity), should be introduced at the lowest possible level in the educational systems.
Focus and relevance of Europe-Asia relationships in the global context
If we accept the idea that cultural rapprochement is a key supporting element for the strengthening of economic
and political contacts, we should now reflect on the instruments through which such cultural rapprochement
could be realized.
Taking into account the dynamics and diversity in Asia, if each of the European countries were to engage in
its own individual relationships with Asian countries and if each academic institute or business company were
to initiate its own individual contacts with counterparts in all Asian countries, it is obvious financially this would
be an impossible exercise.
This holds good, mutatis mutandis, also for the Asian countries engaging in close relationships with
European countries.
Enhancing a new and far-reaching partnership automatically poses a constraint on its realization, since transaction costs (costs for engaging and maintaining relationships) for each individual country will be driven to staggering heights. This is just as true of business transactions and formal political relationships, as it is of cultural partnerships.
If we want to increase business, political, and educational contacts, and if we want to support this process with
the idea of cultural rapprochement and at the same time keep costs down, its seems inevitable to do this in an
integrated, coherent way. This means that the European countries should work together in a joint, long-term
policy. One of the main constituents of this policy should be the setting up in all Asian countries of one or more
fully fledged European centres where, business, academic, and cultural representatives actively promote
European interests. These should be manned by European Asia specialists/researchers in all kinds of fields. They
should act as intermediaries and facilitators for business, arts, and academic contacts. Needless to say, this
should be done on a basis of equality. The Asian countries should be invited to establish similar centres in
Europe (e.g. ASEAN centres). These centres could also provide the venue for joint research programmes (in
cooperation with other European and Asian institutions and individuals) on cultural similarity and diversity
viewed from a global perspective. Imagine such an Asian centre located here in Zurich, with representatives
from different Asian countries attached to it for a longer period of time. A centre equipped with a multitude
of different kinds of up-to-date information on all aspects of Asian life and at the same time concentrating on
the European way of doing business, carrying out research on how to manage across cultures, and similar
undertakings.
Fully fledged integrated centres in Asia should also function as initiators of all types of activities, as
clearinghouses for massive fellowships programmes for Asian students, managers, researchers and artists in
Europe; as consultants for European and Asian companies who could initiate new business contacts and the like.
It goes without saying that these centres should not become or behave as the formalistic, often somewhat
disinterested, diplomatic representations we call embassies: nowadays this type of international representation
is not sufficient, - after all, important decisions are taken and big deals are often made directly through telematic
contacts between national governments. The activities of our national embassies should be supportive and
(complementary) to those of the European centres.
The only way to overcome the comparative disadvantage of Europe-Asia relationships vis-à-vis Asia's other partners Japan and the US is by targeting contacts and activities, by introducing highly qualified partnerships and focusing them on the most relevant areas of mutual interest and benefit.
Let me now be somewhat more specific about themes on cultural similarity and diversity which may be considered of particular relevance in the relationships between Europe and Asia. I will restrict myself to five themes here:
- Mutual adjustment of the implementation of global agreements such as the WTO or of
international environmental agreements and the sharing of experiences with the domestic adjustments to
economic institutions, regulatory frameworks, and working practices in both regions. An example of domestic
adjustments of economic institutions in Asia would be the transition of family enterprises into managerially
organized businesses, whereas in Europe there seems to be a need for companies to concentrate on core
activities in order to compete on a global scale.
- Mutual adjustment of the involvement in the global governance system and the sharing of experiences
with the domestic adjustments in conflict resolution, problem solving, decision making, and state-civil society
relations in both regions. Here I have in mind the challenge of the role of the state, particularly in the area of
welfare provision.
- The new competition and cooperation in the global science and technology infrastructure and the sharing
of experiences with domestic adjustment of industrial organization and technology systems to more sophisticated
levels.
- The exposure to global cultural trends and influences, the need to preserve cultural diversity and the
emerging (or re-emerging) of local cultural identities and practices.
- A fifth theme concerns the educational implications of each of the themes just mentioned, i.e.
improvement and adjustment of national education, research, and information systems. In this respect we have
to keep in mind the high degree of diversity of these systems at the national level as they can be rooted in either
authentic or hybrid philosophical systems or founded on the basis of classical Greek and Confucian principles.
Another matter to keep in mind is the ongoing transition of Asian education systems: (away from nation-building
towards professionalism).
Targeting contacts and the activities of highly qualified partners through the above- mentioned, fully fledged European centres (in academia, media, foundations, non-governmental organizations, local authorities, and so forth) is justified for the spin-off effects this will have into the respective sectors of interest in civil society, and for the spin-off effects through the regional networks of which these partners are part.
Furthermore, very high priority should be given to the youth of both regions. In order to ensure optimal benefit and maximum coherence in the long term, exchanges of large groups of qualified young persons in all fields must be considered to be of crucial importance. For more immediate impact and to assist the adjustment of cultural perceptions and policy approaches to the new global conditions, high level meetings and senior exchange programmes have already been set into motion. Other measures could be: the organization of region-wide, pre- university level exchange programmes; training and mobility programmes, virtual and real-life networking, and alumni associations.
All these activities can be viewed as instruments in an European-Asian and Asian-European cultural rapprochement. Joint efforts by Europeans are necessary to reach a cultural rapprochement with Asian countries. But they do not stop there. In the new global context such joint endeavours are also inevitable in Europe itself. They cannot be borne by individual governments. In the new global context I would like to point out a related problem: certain exercises which were historically part of the responsibility of a national government are becoming financially too heavy a burden and too complex to be borne by the governments of the individual countries, in particular of the smaller countries. I have in mind institutions with a highly emotional and chauvinistic value/charge like national aircraft carriers and national aircraft builders (Fokker is an unhappy case in point), but this is also valid for national education systems. For Europe, a shared supranationally, coordinated educational system will in the long run be the only solution to this problem: the bundling of expertise and finances seems an unavoidable necessity here. This will also mean that the national education systems, instruments par excellence for the forming of a nation's youth will slowly be retransformed into a European system with only local variations in minor parts. In comparison with Japan and also the US, Europe has fallen behind in certain areas of industrial and technological development; e.g. chips, computers, communication, biotechnology, and plastics. Perhaps we are not able to provide the high level technological education geared to the various and complex demands from these new key industries. In most scientific fields international collaboration is unavoidable. This can be envisaged sometimes as pooling resources and create sufficient critical mass to make a meaningful contribution, sometimes as sharing unique historical collections or very special laboratory facilities, and sometimes as developing complementary research and educational capacities or complementary basic and applied science capacities. For each of these purposes, there is huge scope for increased collaboration between European countries and between Europe and Asia. Indeed, as I said before, the feasibility of building up and sustaining comprehensive national educational systems can no longer be taken for granted.
What distinguishes most Asian educational systems from European systems is the important role of these institutions in the process of nation building in recent history. The example of some Asian nations has shown that well-endowed tertiary education systems are paramount for the preparation for research, leadership, and professions. No doubt European and Asian partners can learn much from each other in these matters. Both regions are equally exposed to the globalization of scientific and educational standards and methodologies and both share the experience of rapid massification of education and feel the need to create stronger, more versatile links between education and work.
Allow me to end my reflections here with a few final remarks. What has been said about Asia of course also holds true for Europe: Europe as an economic, cultural, and especially political concept is still a fata morgana. Let me remind you about the inglorious and incompetent way Europe deals in Europe with cases such as Yugoslavia; the Graeco-Turkish skirmishes, and the Irish problem. Outside Europe we are confronted with the complete absence of influence of Europe in the Taiwan - China case; no role whatsoever in the potentially explosive situation in Korea. There seems to be a pertinent lack of scope among European politicians confronted with East Asia, and a permanent underestimation of the complexity of the Central Asian area.
This behaviour shows a Europe without much strength and self-determination. A horrifying example of the lack
of cooperation and self-regulation is provided by the case of air traffic control in Europe: its responsibility is
divided among fifty-three control centres which use twenty different computer systems, and seventy different
computer programmes. If something
should be above chauvinism and misplaced bureaucracy, then it should be air traffic control!
So, pleading for joint efforts, joint measures for a cultural rapprochement is probably quite naive, I am afraid.
However, at the risk of being considered so, I argue strongly for the enhancement of the cultural relations
through the instruments which I have suggested:
1. Establishing large, fully fledged, integrated centres in the most important cities both in Europe
and Asia. The planned ASEM Asia-Europe Foundation to be set up in Singapore with contributions from Asian
and European countries for the promotion of think-tanks, peoples, and cultural groups is a good, although very
modest and belated start.
2. The mounting of a very extensive exchange programme for young specialists in all fields (from
universities as well as from vocational institutions; from companies and non-governmental organizations)
3. The restructuring of the individual, national educational systems into a European system; the introduction
of a curriculum which provides access to non-Western values, concepts, and ideas is a prerequisite here.
I strongly believe that if we want Europe to be an equal partner in global matters in the twenty-first century we
should actualize a strong Asian presence in Europe and secure Europe's presence in Asia.
The Asia Committee of the European Science Foundation (in Strasbourg) is willing and capable to function as
an intermediary and catalyst in these activities.
Professor W.A.L. Stokhof is the director of the IIAS and secretary of the ESF Asia Comittee.