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.