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.