ASEM moves at a snail's pace to achieve concrete progress
ASEM moves at a snail's pace to achieve concrete progress
Bantarto Bandoro, Jakarta
The fifth Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit will be held from
Oct. 8 to Oct. 9 in Hanoi, and almost all member countries have
confirmed their participation. The meeting will also see the
admittance of 13 new members, including 10 new European Union
countries and Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar.
The meeting comes at a time when the international community
is actively promoting democratic and economic development, as
well as fighting global terrorism and other nontraditional
security threats.
The road to ASEM's Hanoi summit was not free of political
obstacles, with its key issue as to whether Myanmar would be
admitted to the Asian delegation. The impasse over Myanmar
prompted the EU to cancel two ministerial meetings, and a row
over Myanmar's participation in the summit reportedly caused a
diplomatic spat within the EU, particularly between Britain and
France.
Britain is a staunch opponent of Myanmar's participation,
maintaining its stance that the summit should not proceed with
Myanmarese representation unless that country released pro-
democracy leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi; France argues that Myanmar is
a relatively minor issue and should not stop the summit from
going ahead. Meanwhile, the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) insisted that Myanmar be included as an Asian
representative.
At a meeting in the Hague early this month, the EU finally
decided that Myanmar would be allowed to join the Hanoi summit,
ending the impasse over its admittance.
However, the EU has set a condition that Myanmar send a low-
level leader to the ASEM summit -- a compromise. Indonesia
rejected the suggestion outright and stressed that the selection
of a representative to the summit was up to the individual
nation.
ASEAN's position is that the Myanmarese must be allowed to
decide whether their state leader would represent them at the
summit. Both Indonesia, as the current ASEAN chairman, and the
Netherlands, which holds the EU presidency, have sent a clear
message that the summit will go forth as planned -- indicating
that Myanmar will no longer be an issue by the time of the
summit.
Critics, however, have argued that ASEAN has once again lost
face in dealing with Myanmar: While the regime in Yangon has
successfully ignored everyone in the region, ASEAN has embraced
its most undisciplined member and demanded full participation for
Myanmar in ASEM -- instead of applying pressure on Yangon.
The admittance of Myanmar at least means that the ball is now
effectively back in the Asian court. It is unlikely that the EU
states will provide an alternative compromise, given that the
summit is only a few weeks away.
Myanmar is not standing alone at the center of the issue: The
EU's decision on its conditional participation is seen as an
arrogant one, and ASEAN has already issued a warning over the
matter.
Myanmar's admittance to the group will be a real step forward
in its development, as ASEM members can observe regularly the
future direction of political development in Myanmar.
In addition, through ASEM, Myanmar can be geared effectively
toward democracy, but this will certainly not happen overnight,
as with the Soviet Union. Blocking membership will not stimulate
Myanmar to change, but cause it to become even more inward
looking. Isolating Myanmar is neither a solution nor an option.
In the spirit of ASEM, European countries should back Asian
countries in their ongoing dialog with the Yangon junta to
resolve existing problems. Ultimately they will succeed, although
this may not occur within the time frame some European countries
have in mind.
Any condition that determines a low- or high-level
representation of a member country contradicts the principle of
equal treatment of sovereign states. It would be unfortunate if
the consequence of these events is a weakening of the ASEM
process as a whole.
Beyond the Myanmar issue, it is in the interest of both Asia
and Europe that each benefits from their interregional link.
According to official reviews of the cooperation, however, a key
ASEM feature is its informality.
On the other hand, this very feature might be viewed as
disadvantageous to both regions. Whereas ASEAN and the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) have set clear regional
policies on economic development, security and others, and have
made efforts to meet them, ASEM does not seem to have gone any
further than drawing up general statements on mutual
understanding and the need to strengthen interregional
cooperation.
Informality, characterized by free discussion, of course has
its weaknesses, and can be regarded as marginal. Unlike APEC and
other institutionalized cooperation, ASEM has yet to create its
own "brand". After eight years of existence, this is becoming a
major problem. No concrete and bold steps to define policy have
been taken by ASEM in branding its identity.
Given that the Hanoi summit will take place while the world is
in a state of highest alert over the threat of terrorism and
poverty, hunger and underdevelopment, as well as the slowness in
global democratic development, it is perhaps time for the group
to design a certain brand and so assert its economic, political
and perhaps security clout to make a difference.
The Hanoi ASEM summit is reportedly themed "Further
Revitalizing and Substantiating the Asia-Europe Partnership". The
theme reflects the degree of awareness on both sides that their
current level of cooperation needs to be elevated to one of
collaboration, given the wide range of issues and their ensuing
impacts faced by the two regions.
Recent developments in ASEM as it gears up for the summit show
that the grouping faces a dilemma, which is essentially caused by
different conceptions or no clear conception at all in the minds
of its leadership as to what ASEM is and should be in future.
Differences over the desirability of a secretariat, membership or
expanding political and security dialog all reflect the essential
differences that exist over the pace and direction of ASEM.
Precisely because of the diverse interests in the ASEM
process, the pace of the grouping will be determined more by
external factors rather than by conscious steering by its
leaders. Developments within Asia, multinational diplomacy within
the European Union, future foreign and trade policies of America
and future globalization trends will all have an impact on how
ASEM evolves.
Thus, the main task of the coming summit should be to
determine how to place ASEM strategically so it would serve as a
major contributor to sustainable world peace.
The writer is the editor of The Indonesian Quarterly of the
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and a
lecturer of the International Relations Post-graduate Studies
Program at the Faculty of Social and Political Science, the
University of Indonesia. He can be contacted at
bandoro@csis.or.id.