Continuity of ASEM assured

Continuity of ASEM assured

By Jusuf Wanandi

JAKARTA (JP): Like the first APEC Leaders' Meeting on Blake
Island, Seattle, the fact that the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) of
25 leaders took place at all is a major achievement.

At the meeting, which was an initiative of Singapore Prime
Minister Goh Chok Tong and supported by other ASEAN leaders, the
EU Council and EU Commission supported closer cooperation between
Asia and Europe. Europe and East Asia have strong trans-Atlantic
and trans-Pacific relations with the U.S., and both regions felt
they should trade more with each other.

Following a decade of looking inward, the two regions are
rediscovering each other, a result of increased economic
interactions and the realization of changing relationships in the
post-Cold War period.

The challenge for Europe is learning how to deal with Asia on
an equal basis. For Asia, it is a first step in its regional
effort to deal with the world.

Although the emphasis for cooperation is mainly economic -- to
strengthen multilateralism through the World Trade Organization,
to increase inter-regional trade and investment, and to forge
private sector cooperation -- political and security issues have
been included on the agenda. The meeting will now discuss
reforming the UN, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, the exchange of ideas about regional security and
the new issue of international crime. Other issues that have been
adopted are cooperation in developing human resources and
infrastructure, and alleviating poverty.

One highly reported contention was the initial dispute over
human rights. Both sides have signed the same UN treaties and
conventions, but the Asian countries argued that cooperation and
mutual support would help promote human rights more than
preaching.

Much has been made of the cultural and value differences
between Asia and Europe. There is no doubt that differences
exist, but at the same time the convergencies that have developed
could bridge the differences.

The continuity of ASEM has been assured, indicating a strong
desire on both sides to promote cooperation. The next of the
biennial meetings will be held in the United Kingdom and then
Korea.

Negotiations by interim ministers and senior officials before
the actual meeting allows the respective leaders to succinctly
debate the proposals. Several meetings are planned: senior
officials and foreign ministers meetings to prepare the next
leaders' meeting, economic ministers meeting, and perhaps a
finance ministers meeting.

In addition a Business Forum Meeting will be held in France
and in Thailand; a committee of officials and business leaders
will investigate investment potential; a "Mini Davos" meeting
will be held for the regions' youth; an Asia-Europe Foundation
will be established to promote the exchange of ideas, peoples and
cultures; an Asia Europe University Program will introduce
European students to Asian culture and Asian development
problems; the feasibility of a railway system linking Asia and
Europe will be evaluated; and how to cooperate in developing the
Mekong Delta will be discussed.

The Bangkok meeting was intended as a "get to know each other"
meeting. As such, it definitely has a strategic significance.
From an ASEAN perspective, ASEM could make European leaders focus
more on East Asia and see this region as a partner in inter-
regional economic, political and security cooperation. The
meeting in Bangkok has achieved what otherwise would have taken
years.

The Asian side felt the European leaders were particularly
gracious and were trying hard to deal with the Asian leaders on
an equal basis. On the European side, they were impressed by the
competence of Asia in staging the relaxed meeting. Thailand
should be praised for ensuring that the chemistry between the
leaders was excellent.

ASEM was launched at an appropriate time; when Europe began
looking to East Asia and its economic dynamism and potentials as
an economic partner. Both sides also share a common view on the
need to strengthen multilateralism in solving global problems in
trade and in political and security matters. Both sides agree on
the importance of the first WTO ministerial meeting next December
in Singapore. Both sides can play an important role in
strengthening the WTO and in resolving issues that have been
carried over from the Uruguay Round. They can begin to consult on
the new issues, like competition policy, in the trade agenda.

There have been suggestions from Asia that the EU should also
begin with market opening measures similar to those undertaken by
APEC, applying them on a non-discriminatory, most-favored-nation
basis. The European side has accepted this suggestion.

Although the U.S. is not a part of ASEM, it is in the back of
the minds on both sides. Europe and Asia have a stake in an
internationally and multilaterally-oriented U.S. It will be
important for both sides to continuously examine what they can do
together to achieve this.

Some Asian officials have remarked that ASEM has been
successful because of the absence of the U.S. and its "big
brother" attitude. This may be true, but is perhaps not totally
fair to the U.S. There is a big difference between ASEM and APEC.
APEC is a process of cooperation that started from below. In a
sense it has been a bottom-up process started by academics and
the business community to develop concepts and ideas of regional
cooperation dating back about 30 years. The Pacific Economic
Cooperation Council (PECC), which is a tripartite non-
governmental organization, prepared the way for the establishment
of APEC 10 years later. Therefore, APEC developed an agenda that
is both broad and deep.

On the other hand, ASEM is new and is a top-down initiative.
Therefore, its agenda is still very basic and general, and does
not involve contentious issues. ASEM's programs are yet to be
worked out. Some of the tensions that are arising in APEC might
also be experienced later in ASEM, although it should be admitted
that Europe has always been more multilateral in its outlook and
approaches than the U.S.

Besides establishing ASEM, the so-called sideshows -- the
bilateral meetings between the leaders -- were very significant.
Indonesia and Portugal met to discuss the East Timor problem,
preventing the issue from becoming a stumbling block for ASEM.
The meeting might also create the impetus to begin talks aimed at
resolving the problem. Another significant meeting was between
British Prime Minister John Major and Chinese Prime Minister Li
Peng. It could help smooth Hong Kong's return to China in 1997.

President Kim Young-sam of Korea and Prime Minister Ryutaro
Hashimoto of Japan met to discuss disputed islands. The Japanese
prime minister also met with Prime Minister Li Peng about China's
nuclear weapons tests; the result remains unclear. Prime Minister
Li Peng and President Fidel Ramos from the Philippines had a
meeting about the Spratly islands, and preventing possible
tensions. This was a useful opportunity for China to reaffirm its
promise to resolve this Spratly islands issue peacefully. This
reaffirmation, and French President Jacques Chirac's support of
nuclear non-proliferation, were welcomed by ASEM.

Hopes have been expressed that other countries could be
included in ASEM, namely Australia, New Zealand, India and
Pakistan. Agreement must be based on a definition of what the
region entails. In the case of Asia, this region is likely to be
defined on the basis of political realities rather than
geography. Inclusiveness must also be considered. Australia and
New Zealand are both trying to become part of East Asia
politically and economically, and could therefore be eligible. In
the case of India and Pakistan, they are obviously among the
iggest Asian nations.

Window: The Asian side felt the European leaders were particularly
gracious and were trying hard to deal with the Asian leaders on
an equal basis.