Eurasia

R. James Ferguson 2004

Lecture 12a: The Wider Eurasian Framework: ASEM and Fragile Trilateralism

1. Emerging Europe-Asia Relations However, from all these viewpoints one major relationship, until recently, has been missing - the relationship between Europe and Asia.1 From the mid-fifties, European nations have engaged in a process of large-scale economic integration (the EC, European Community) and from 1991 the strengthening political agenda of the European Union, which seeks at least some correlation of foreign and security policies. Aside from this, most European states have charted rather strong independent foreign policies, not always coordinated within the framework of the Atlantic Alliance (NATO). Only in recent years has an expanding EU begun to speak with a more unified foreign affairs voice, though through 2002-2003 divergence views on how to deal with international terrorism, and fierce divisions over the intervention in Iraq, have indicated how fragile consensus can be. These trends suggest that in the future the European Union will remain one of the global powers, economically and politically, and with the gradual emergence of the European Defence Initiative and the European Rapid Reaction Force through 1999-2004 may also increase its military power projection as well, with European-alone coordinated peacekeeping taking up the first solo mission from March 31st, 2003, in Macedonia. 2 Relations between Europe and Asia have remained an important 'secondary relationship' since World War II down to 1990. Yet a more important relationship has been emerging in the 1990s through to 2003. In this context, for example, it is no longer accurate to believe that even Chinese and European authorities 'treat each other as of secondary significance',3 since Europe-Asia relations are now entwined with primary relationships with the U.S. and Russia. This trend has emerged in a new trilateral relationship, sometimes called a 'triadic political economy',4 in which the Europe-Asia relationship has been greatly strengthened during the 1995-2002 period, but which has yet to fully recover from the economic crises of 1997-1998. The collective importance of the Europe, East Asia, North America triad is hard to underestimate in global affairs: This is evident in the various global structures of economic exchange, production, finance, advanced technological development and political economy, where the predominant Triad regions . . . continue to dominate. An examination of the data . . . reveals that the Triad accounts for at least 80% of activities within the domains of world trade, foreign direct investment (FDI), new patented technologies and GDP. Triad powers were also the most influential players within global economic regimes (e.g. the WTO) and hence wield considerable structural power over shaping the rules and norms governing the world economy. Furthermore, the Triad maintains a clear triopoly in the realms of global economic competition.5

2. Turning Points: The Asia-Europe Summits (ASEM) One of the dramatic examples of this new relationship was the inter-regional meeting between a number of Asian countries (including core ASEAN members, as well as officials from China, Japan and South Korea) and the fifteen members of the European Union, held in Bangkok and on 1-2 March, 1996. This major Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) was regarding as opening a new and positive relationship between these Asian countries and the EU. The meetings comprise the core of ASEAN (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam), China, South Korea, Japan meeting with the 15 members of the European Union and the European Commission President. The meeting included many heads of state, large economic and diplomatic teams, and was repeated on a two-year cycle. The meeting was held to be turning point, moving this relationship out of its colonial past, and away from the weaker secondary relationship between Europe and Asia during the 70s and 1980s. Emiliano Foassati, EC (European Community) Director of Relations with Southeast Asia, stated that This will be the moment when Europe returns to Asia at the highest level, not as a coloniser but as a partner on an equal level . . . The conference will be the most important event since Alexander the Great's journey to India.6 The meeting was based on cooperation, not confrontation. 7 Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia noted that the meeting had gone some way towards reducing a cultural misunderstanding gap between Europe and some of its former colonies, including Malaysia.8 It must be stressed, however, that this meeting has not come 'out of the blue'. Over a decade of ground-work has prepared the stage. As early as 1989, an eminent-persons conference of politicians, planners, business people and academics began identifying key areas where Asia and Europe could 'constructively engage', e.g. a 60-member conference held in West Berlin in 1989.9 The ASEM meetings can also be seen as an extended parallel-path to the long running ASEAN-EU meetings, which involve economic and political dialogue between the member states of the two organisations. 10 The Asia-Europe summits were first formally broached in the October 1994 World Economic Forums Europe-East Asia Economic Summit, deepened in the ASEANEU Foreigner Ministers meeting of November 1994, and most strongly supported by Singapores Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. 11 Another example of ground-work was a large German economic delegation to Singapore in November 1995, which included a visit by Chancellor Helmut Kohl and 130 officials and corporate leaders. This reflects the strong trading relationship between Singapore and Germany, which was Singapore's largest European trading partner. For 1994, there was growth in German imports from Singapore and Singapore's imports from Germany, both reflecting serious rises, 17and 21 per cent respectively, over 1993.12 Around this time, a German-Singapore Business Forum was launched, as was a German Centre for Industry and Trade in Singapore. German companies have heavily invested in Singapore, with 400 German companies 'with affiliates or offices' operating there.13

In general terms, Japan,14 China, Singapore and Indonesia have developed a conscious policy of multi-sourcing and multi-dependency in energy imports, in loans or fiscal arrangements, and in technology in order to avoid leaving themselves open to pressure or disturbances from one main trading partner. In this context, a stronger European connection allows a greater counter-balance to a strong reliance on U.S. markets and technology, as well as insurance for avoiding a limited Asia-Pacific agenda. Likewise, the EU-Asia nexus could act as a brake on the US propensity to act unilaterally in economic affairs, e.g. the use of the Helms-Burton act to attempt to control companies trading with Cuba or rogue states such as Iran or Libya, or via coalition interventions as in Iraq.15 Key issues are also at stake from the European perspective. These include greater access to dynamic Asian markets, where technologies and services are in high demand. Many Asian nations also provides a skilled but still relatively cheap labour force, which may make it easier for some European companies to expand their production and acquire cheap sourcing for items. 16 The new Asia-EU link could also provide an option to coordinate aid and development policies. Such politically sensitive aid is becoming a major drain on EU nations now that they have become deeply involved in helping most of Eastern Europe, Russia and parts of North Africa to reform their economies. Here cooperation with Japan is particularly significant. In a general sense, Japan has become the second greatest donor of world aid. This includes strong involvement with the World Bank17 and the International Development Association section of the World Bank.18 Japan has also committed herself to aid for the Newly Independent States of Europe, Central Asia and for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and has even given interim aid to Russia, in spite of ongoing diplomatic tensions over the Northern Territories. Deeper coordination with the EU, and particularly with Germany, could benefit all parties concerned in distributing limited aid resources and reducing duplication or unnecessary competition. The proposed development of the Asia-Europe relationship was explicitly predicated on economic as well as security benefits for all the involved parties. The Asia-Europe Meeting recognised the need to strive for a common goal of maintaining and enhancing peace and stability, as well as creating conditions conductive for economic and social development. To this end the Meeting forged a new comprehensive AsiaEurope Partnership for Greater Growth. This partnership aims at strengthening links between Asia and Europe thereby contributing to peace, global stability and prosperity.19 Prospects were discussed for strengthening global efforts in arms control, disarmament, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and progress to reduce nuclear weapons.20 The latter agreement was perhaps smoothed by the signing by France, Britain and the United States in March 1996 of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (originally established in 1985) in which nuclear testing in the South Pacific was banned.21 The Asia-Europe linkage has been part of a new mood of assertiveness in foreign policy of many Asian states during the early and mid-1990s.22 Most significantly, the ASEM Meeting also noted the great potential for synergy between Europe and Asia economically on the basis of a certain diversity between the economies of the two regions: Asia's emergence as an immense market has spawned great demand for consumer goods, capital equipment, financing and infrastructure. Europe, on the other
3

hand, is a major market in the world for goods, investments and services, even more so since the completion of the Single Market. Opportunities thus exist for both regions to expand the market for goods, capital equipment and infrastructure development projects, and to increase the flows of capital, expertise and technology.23 The background to the first meeting had been based on the sustained general growth of the Asian region, along with the fact that the EU represents the world's largest single market with a high level of technology. One European official noted that We stand before a great opportunity which Europe must not miss . . . from the point of view of our own economic interests, Asia is a must for Europe. 24 Furthermore, Asia as a whole is the European Union's largest trading partner. In 1998, Asia accounted for 24.1% of the European Union's total external trade.25 Furthermore, taken as a whole, ASEM members have 40% of the world population and approximately 50% of global GDP.26 Through 2001, the importance of the two regions was stressed the EU External Relations Commissioner Chris Pattern: The EU has played an active part in addressing some of the key developments in Asia in recent years, for example on the Korean Peninsula, in Cambodia, Indonesia and East Timor, and in relation to refugees in Afghanistan. Asia accounts for 56% of the world's population (and 66% of the world's poor), for 25% of world GNP, and for 21% of EU exports. The EU has committed itself to keep markets open and help recovery. This can be seen in the massive growth in Asia's trade surplus with the EU, 27 from Euro 13 billion in 1996 to over Euro 120 billion last year.

Alongside these specific economic issues there was a widespread recognition that economic power will in the future translate into international influence. Areas of fruitful exchange could include transfer of experiences on confidence building measures (CBMs), preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping, and energy security issues. 28 Dong-Ik Shin and Gerald Segal have since argued that it is important for the ASEM to seriously tackle security issues in the broadest sense, thereby entrenching the ASEM process and recognising the links between economic and military interests. 29 Through ASEM could not take a unified approach to the Iraq issue in September 2002 due to the great diversity of interests in the organisation, both France and China agreed that there were dangers in the U.S. taking unilateral action. 30 Likewise, the organisation has some potential in areas such as international terrorism and moderation of the North Korean dispute. This indicates that the ASEM has become a political forum, if not yet a forum for decision making on such wider issues. It must be stressed that the March 1996 Asia-Europe Meeting was much more than a 'talk feste'. A number of concrete proposals were made, suggesting a serious effort to move beyond rhetoric. The following measures were agreed31: * A Foreign Ministers' meeting held in February 1997 in Singapore. * An Economic Ministers' meeting to be held in Japan in 1997. * An informal Senior Officials' meeting to be held in Brussels on ways to promote economic cooperation. * A meeting of a Government and Private Sector Working Group, convened in Thailand, to draw up within six months an Asia-Europe Investment Promotion Action Plan.

* An Asia-Europe Business Forum to aid business communication. * An Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) will be established in Singapore to allow exchanges between think-tanks and cultural groups. Singapore was prepared to make an initial donation of US$1 million to start up the foundation, with other nations providing funding on a voluntary basis. Great Britain in February 2001 committed a further 200,000 pounds in support of this foundation.32 * An Asia-Europe University Program will be established in order to increase greater mutual understanding. There were several interesting aspects to this meeting which suggest a certain reshuffling of priorities in the Asia-Europe relationship. The first of these was the way that human rights issues were not strongly aired in the first main meetings. Traditionally, many European countries, including Germany and Sweden, have been very critical of the human rights record of many Asian countries. Yet even Portugal avoided speaking out officially in the main meetings on human rights issues in East Timor.33 The issue of East Timor and human rights was raised by Portugal's Foreign Minister in interviews with the press, and by Prime Minister Antonio Guterres in informal talks with Indonesian officials. Yet the issue was not pushed to the point of raising a major rift at the ASEM. At the same time, this priority of economic growth over human rights issues is not the view of all Asian citizens. Countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines have moved to stronger democratic processes through 1998-2004, though these trends are more problematic for China and Vietnam. Generally, there has been a high environmental and social (human) cost in producing the high growth rates of China and Southeast Asia. Another issue to note about this conference was the limited scope of participants. Australia was not included, in spite of the efforts made by the then Keating government in 1995 for Australia to sit on the Asian table. At that time, statements were made that Australia might expect to be involved in the second meeting, but no formal confirmation of expanded membership has been made during 1996-2002, though there may be some moves to expand Southeast Asian members through 2004. The absence of South Asia, especially India and Pakistan, has also been noted by some European delegates. In the long term, it might be helpful if all of South Asia, including Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, could be involved through some mechanisms. 34 Turkey had also hoped that it might be allowed to sit on the European side of the table, but this has not eventuated. It must also be noted that the prospective inclusion of newer ASEAN members in the ASEM remains problematic, especially in the case of Myanmar (Burma), due to strong human rights abuses. Taiwan has also expressed interest in being an observer to ASEM, a move so far blocked by the PRC. 35 However, wider European relations with East and Southeast Asia will remain problematic in some areas. In spite of the actions of governments, most European states have a vigorous democratic tradition whose constituencies will continue to speak out against human rights abuses. This will often be reflected in the actions of national Parliaments and Parliamentary committees, as well as by the European
5

Parliament itself. This can be seen, for example, in repeated draft resolutions which the EU has put to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) criticising China's record on Tibet and other human rights areas. Through the late 1990s, such resolutions have narrowly failed to be passed, in part because of the new dialogue opened by the 1996 ASEM meeting.36 Likewise, human rights issues complicated German-China relations in June 1996 over a major conference held in Bonn concerning Tibet, resulting in cancellation of a visit by a high-powered German delegation to China at that time. In April 1999, China once again avoided condemnation by the UNCHR (the resolution was co-sponsored by the US and Poland) by proposing a "no-action motion" - of the 53 member Commission 22 supported China's blocking move, 17 were opposed, and there were fourteen abstentions.37 In 2000, in spite of a motion proposed by the U.S., China once again was not officially condemned in the UNCHR.38 Through 2001-2004, the changing global climate, and the fact the PRC had entered into direct dialogue on human rights with both the UN and individual nations, had shifted the focus away from the PRC on these issues.39 In Europe and Western nations, these values are not superficially held: on the contrary, a range of conceptions of how the world should develop, including issues of a market economy, modern-state organisation, penetration of new technologies into everyday life, democratisation, pluralism, and a relatively open society are all linked into a virtual Europa Paradigm.40 This shared viewpoint will tend to bind together American, European and Australasian views of a preferred 'world order' at variance with Asian realities for some time to come. Likewise, a number of European nations, including Germany, are concerned that the so-called war on terror will be an excuse for human rights infringements in the name of security, e.g. an issue for China, Afghanistan, and Russia within the Eurasian context. What is beginning to emerge is the creation of an interesting 'sandwich' in the superregions: Europe - Eurasia - East Asia. This process begins to link the economic and security issues of Europe and Asia into one complex or system. This will only deepen as NATO moves eastward, and as ASEAN nations, China, and Japan become better and more modernly armed. An empowered Asia, and a more unified Europe, cannot ignore each other on a world stage which both want to see as multipolar, not unipolar. Furthermore, uneven reforms in the Russia, the Black Sea region, and Central Asia (collectively termed Eurasia) also bring European and Asian nations together in shared concerns over future economic stability, security along open borders, the future of nuclear arsenals and weapons technology, and the avoidance of a new assertive nationalism in any part of the former Soviet Union. Although the threat perception of Russian intentions and capabilities should not be exaggerated, the linkage between Western Europe and Asia via this Eurasian zone has all the aspects of a shared security complex.41 This security complex means that events anywhere in the region, e.g. in Afghanistan, or spill-overs from conflict in Iraq, influence the greater region. Through 2002-2004, it is not clear whether Eurasian nations have enough leadership and leverage to deal with crises within their own area, or those adjacent to them With these motivations in mind, it is not surprising there has been widespread agreement among the ASEM nations that there is a need to deepen the third side of an existing global strategic triangle: i.e. since US-East Asian relations are strong and US6

Europe relations are historically entrenched, now is the time to expand on the weaker Europe-Asia link, sometimes called a Eurasian 'Cinderella complex' (the poor third relation.42 This is an extension of the old trilateral cooperation concept of the West as based on North America + Western Europe + Japan. 43 Thus Yusuf Wanandi, executive director of Indonesia's Center for Strategic and International Studies, could note that during the Asia-Europe conference The United States is very much in the back of the minds of both sides at this summit. 44 In this context, a careful balancing act is required. Although the EU might seek a greater 'market share' in Asia, and Asia greater diversification away from reliance on the US, both groups know that they remain strongly reliant on existing trade patterns with North America, and are deeply involved in alliance systems, either bilateral in several Asian cases (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Thailand), or via NATO, though these have come under strong pressures through 2003 over the Iraq issue, with Germany, France and Russia highly critical of the early military intervention launched by the U.S. and Britain against Iraq. However, a stable and successful extended trilateralism may have distinct advantages for the U.S. in the long run, since it extends burden-sharing in a more systematic way for development across the Eurasian region. Through 1998-2002, the ASEM process continued to gain momentum, but still required careful fostering if any sense of global community was to be practically implemented (see below). It has partly slowed through 2003-2004, in part due to new global imperative since September 2001. 3. Problematic Progress 1998-2004 The ASEM2 meeting, held in London in April 1998, continued with all the courtesy and fireworks of the first meeting, with most agendas proposed in 1996 being followed through. Efforts were made to deepen the engagement of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) between the two regions, efforts to boost infrastructure investment in Asia, the setting up of a Asia-Europe Vision Group to guide ASEM into the next century, and deepening cooperation on drug control, environmental problems, and technological cooperation.45 However, one of the disappointments for some of the Asian delegates was the inability, or unwillingness, of the European delegates to provide for extra direct aid for economies which had been severely battered in the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis, particularly Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and South Korea. Most EU delegations referred these efforts to existing organisations including the IMF and World Bank. This problem would only begin to be seriously addressed in meetings of ASEM finance ministers in January 1999, though efforts to support some sort of financial control mechanism have not yet been successful.46 China, in particular, still hoped that the dialogue with Europe could help transfer technology and develop cooperation to form a more stable world economy. In general, the Asia-Europe relationship is a pivotal inter-regional relationship. As noted by Christopher Dent: If one particular point has been stressed . . . it is that the EU-East Asia economic relationship has become one of the most important structural features of the world 7

economy. While this relationship remains the weakest Triadic link, . . . the continued expansion of the EU-East Asia economic ties is to be anticipated. Powers from both regions should also be expected to undertake more definitive responsibilities in shaping the new economic order of the twenty-first century. Thus, the future evolution of the EU-East Asian economic relations has important regional and global significance.47

If anything, Europe will be more important to the Asian economies with the development of the unified European currency, the Euro, which the EU hopes will become a major investment currency for the region. Through early 2001, Europe promoted the Euro as a worthwhile investment currency, as well as suggesting ways that Asian nations could benefit from European experience in 'currency pegs' and exchange rate systems to strengthen their own currencies. 48 These issues indicate that the ASEM process, though having useful initiatives, is far from routine or effortless.49 The 2000 ASEM meeting focused on a number of issues designed to revitalise the ASEM process in practical undertakings:
The 26 leaders attending the two-day Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Seoul were poised on 21 October to agree no fewer than 16 joint co- operation projects to bond the two regions together. Officials said the plans - which were expected to be rubber stamped at the end of the two-day Summit - were designed to give ASEM a 'human face' by raising the level of educational, cultural and intellectual exchanges. They were contained in the Asia-Europe Co-operation Framework (AECF) 2000, or the ASEM charter, . . . a key document outlining the course of ASEM for the coming ten years, which includes various co-operative projects and guidelines for new admissions. Officials also said that the first day of talks produced none of the anticipated rows between Asian and European leaders - even when they debated sensitive issues like trade policy and human rights . . . 50

ASEM III, as the 2000 meeting is known, focused on the theme of 'Partnership for Prosperity and Stability', and contained several key initiatives:51 It worked on a draft Asia-Europe Co-operation Framework (AECF) 2000, updating the earlier ASEM frameworks. Placed a new emphasis on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Asia-Europe Co-operation Framework guidelines will become the basis for accepting new members into ASEM, including the need of backing from regional neighbours for new members (with up to 20 countries, including Turkey and Australia, having shown interest in joining). Continued dialogue on 'transnational crime like smuggling, 'human trafficking', and the illegal arms and drugs trades' and ' high-tech sectors like agro-technology, e-commerce, transport, energy and environmental engineering.'52 The Seoul Declaration for Peace on the Korean Peninsula which outlines four initiatives: '1) the importance of peace and stability in North East Asia, 2) support towards North-South relations, 3) pro-active support by ASEM and 4) support for Korea Energy Development Organization.' 53

Through 2000-2002, ASEM has remained active in a number of agenda and regime areas: * Malaysia in May 2001 raised the issue of future membership of Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, depending on the European agreement.54 * The third ASEM Economic Ministers' meeting (Hanoi, September 2001) once again emphasised programs to support small and medium sized business, efforts to bridge the digital divide with South Korea and France seeking to link their national networks (as the beginning of a wider Asia-Europe linkage via the Trans-Eurasia Information Network), and efforts to counter slowdowns in the global economy.55 * In January 2002, ASEM environmental ministers met in Beijing to improve transfer of 'environmental technologies, management and industry', and agreed to deepen support for key regimes such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kyoto Protocol. This new initiative was launched by PRC and German officials.56 * The ASEM Vision Group has suggested that ASEM should aim for the creation of a Eurasian free trade zone by 2025, as well as engage civil society and developing countries in international trade dialogues, 57 giving the organisation the potential for future innovation. In general, the emerging Europe-Asia dialogue revived through 2000-2002. The fourth ASEM was held in September 2002 in Copenhagen, Denmark, and with some return to intense debate over progress in human rights, 58 as well as in monitoring the major projects launched in 2000. However, ASEM IV in 2002 had a large number of new issues to deal with, including pragmatic ways to moderate the destructive influence of international terrorism. Separate short, medium, and long term initiatives were suggested: - In the short-term, the leaders called for the setting up of an ad hoc informal consultative committee for officials to confer quickly on significant international events. There will be an ASEM Seminar on Anti-terrorism in 2003 in China. And ASEM will do all it can to bolster the UN efforts to establish multilateral anti-terror and arms-proliferation mechanisms. - in the medium-term, they called for stronger customs communication networks to fight financial crime and money laundering, and to improve air and maritime security, while assuring the smooth flow of goods, capital and people. An ASEM symposium on combating underground banking and the need of supervising alternate remittance services has been scheduled in Germany in 2003. - in the long-term, the measures are designed to improve cultural understanding "to promote greater intellectual, cultural and people-to-people exchanges". What leaders called the "root causes of terrorism" - poverty and marginalisation - will be addressed in various different forums to help create "prerequisites for sustainable economic development through a closer economic partnership building."59

Progress has begun on the short and medium term goals. The long term goals, if taken seriously, could act as a core agenda for the Eurasian region. Slow progress in the reconstruction of Tajikistan and Afghanistan, slow moves towards democracy in Greater Central Asia, and money and interest diversion into the Iraq crisis, suggest this will not be easy to achieve. This program also supported by several prior ASEM processes against transnational organized crime: ASEM Anti-money Laundering initiative ASEM initiative on Trafficking in Women and Children ASEM Ministerial Conference on Cooperation for the Management of Migratory Flows ASEM Symposium on Law Enforcement Organs Cooperation in Combating Transnational Crime ASEM Anti-corruption initiative ASEM Cooperation in Promoting Awareness in the Young Generation on the Drug Problem60

The last ASEM also emphasised the need for progress on a peaceful settlement of tensions, whether in the Middle East, Kashmir, or the Korean Peninsula tension. It produced the 'Copenhagen Declaration for Peace on the Korean Peninsula', which stressed the importance of bringing North Korea "into the international community through constructive dialogue".61 Since the EU countries are the biggest aid providers to North Korea, having provided Euro 220 million in humanitarian assistance, 62 this was an issue that could be run with some import through the ASEM meeting. Unfortunately, soon after the meeting, tensions increased between Japan and North Korea, while through 2003-2004 North Korean seemed on track towards becoming a declared nuclear power (subject to ongoing negotiations for reducing its threshold capabilities). Likewise, through 2003-early 2004 ASEM members sought to push ahead the WTO agenda, plus speed up Vietnam's effort to the join the WTO. 63 Meetings hosted in China for minister of culture also sought to establish acceptance of wide political diversity, supporting civilisational dialogue and complex patterns of globalisations. 64 In the same period, ASEM leaders also push for the release of Aung Sun Suu Kyi, 65 but was unable to apply pressure for strong improvements within Myanmar. In this context, the formal request by Myanmar to be accepted into ASEM, made through March 2004, is unlikely to be accepted by the EU as a whole, with particular resistance by the UK. In turn, the ASEAN states in the ASEM have suggested that there should be no political restriction in ASEM membership.66 Whether the ASEM process, however, can be part of balanced trilateral system of global burden-sharing that can positively engage Russia and Greater Central Asia remains to be seen. Through 2002-2003, China at least remained highly positive about the ASEM process, perhaps seeing it as a non-threatening forum in which it was

10

an influential player. In part, ASEMs success will depend on whether new members can be effectively drawn into the ASEM process (countries such as India, Pakistan, Australia, Russia, Norway, Ukraine and Poland have recently expressed interest), 67 and whether it can successfully choose a suitable international agenda. The meetings have received some constructive criticism over recent years, e.g. Human Rights Watch has said the ASEM summit should focus on safeguarding human rights in counterterrorism measures, respecting the rights of asylum seekers and migrants, and building support for the International Criminal Court (ICC)68. Some of these issues, e.g. asylum seekers and migrants, could still be sensitive for both European and Southeast States, while the recent problems of the Korean peace process have shown ASEMs limited influence on regional states. Likewise, the absence of Russian influence on the organisation, and new initiatives in U.S. foreign policy could leave ASEM relatively flatfooted. ASEM has much to do if it is to work on the "three pillars" (political, economic and social) it has developed for its main paths of development. 69 The next ASEM meeting is scheduled for October 2004, to be hosted by Vietnam. At that meeting Thailand will push for all members from ASEAN to be allowed to join, that is, the new ASEAN members Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia, but this will require a softening of the EU view of the human rights record of Myanmar (Burma). 70 The future ASEMs will no doubt strive to tackle many of these issues, but may still tend to be reactive rather than proactive on broader strategic issues, as distinct from ongoing successes in economic diversification, promoting interregional trade, and civilisational dialogue.

6. Bibliography and Resources Resources: Outlines of the ASEM II Agenda (the 1998 Asia-Europe Meeting) will be found at
http://asem2.fco.gov.uk/

Documents from the ASEM III Meeting, including key declarations, will be found at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asem/asem_summits/asem3.htm The ASEM IV Meeting and key documents will be found at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asem/asem_summits/asem4/index.htm

European and EU reports on the ASEM process will be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asem/intro/index.htm

Data on human rights issues, including regular updates on the UNCHR debates, will be found in the Human Rights Watch webpages at http://www.hrw.org/ A structural outline of ASEM through 2001, will be found on the International Relations Portal at http://www.international-relations.com/ASEMUpdate.htm

11

Further Reading: DENT, Christopher M. "ASEM and the 'Cinderella Complex' of EU-East Asia Economic Relations", Pacific Affairs, 74 no. 1, Spring 2001, pp25-52 [Bond University Library] European Commission Unity and Strength in Diversity, Commission Staff Working Paper, Fourth Asia Europe Meeting Summit in Copenhagen, September 22-24, 2002 [Internet Access http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asem/asem_summits/as em4/sec02_en.pdf] HWEE, Yeo Lay " ASEM: Looking Back, Looking Forward", Contemporary Southeast Asia, 22 no. 1, April 2000, pp113-144 [Access via BU Databases] HSIUNG, James C. Pacific Asia in the Twenty-First Century World Order:, Asian Affairs, 29 no. 2, Summer 2002, pp99-117 [Access via Infotrac Database] SHIN, Dong-Ik & SEGAL, Gerald Getting Serious About Asia-Europe Security Cooperation, Survival, 39 no. 1, Spring 1977, pp138-155 [Access via BU Library Catalogue] SHAMBAUGH, David China and Europe 1949-1995, London, Contemporary China Institute, 1996 Footnotes and References:
1. GODEMENT, Francois "Europe and Asia: the Missing Link", in Asia's International Role in the Post-Cold War Era, Part II, Adelphi Paper 276, (1993), pp94-103. 2. European Report, ESDP/FYROM: EU Gives Formal Go-Ahead for First Military Operation, (March 22, 2003) [Access via Infotrac Database]; European Report, ESDP/Balkans: EU Eyes Potential Bosnian Operation in 2004, (26 February 2003) [Access via Infotrac Database]. 3. Contra YAHUDA, Michael B. "China and Europe: The Significance of a Secondary Relationship", in ROBINSON, Thomas W. & SHAMBAUGH, David (ed.) Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, pp266-282), p282. 4. DENT, Christopher M. "ASEM and the 'Cinderella Complex' of EU-East Asia Economic Relations", Pacific Affairs, 74 no. 1, Spring 2001, pp25-52 [Access via Proquest Database]. 5. Ibid. 6. In PINA, Jorge, "Europe-Asia: Economic Summit of Historic Importance", Inter Press Service English News Wire, (February 24, 1996). [Internet Access] 7. KAKUCHI, Suvendrini "Asia-Europe: Summit Marks Turning Point in Post-Colonial Ties", Inter Press Service English News Wire, (March 2 1996). [Internet Access] 8. TARRANT, Bill "Asia-Europe Summit Reduces Cultural Gap - Mahathir", Reuters, (March 2, 1996c). [Internet Access] 9. See KULESSA, Manfred The Newly Industrializing Economies of Asia: Prospects of Cooperation, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1990). 10. The last meeting in mid-February 1997 vowed to deepen economic, political and security ties, LEE KIM CHEW ASEAN-EU Meeting Sets Right Tone for Partnership, Straits Times Interactive, (February 15, 1997b). [Internet Access] 11. SHIN, Dong-Ik & SEGAL, Gerald Getting Serious About Asia-Europe Security Cooperation, Survival, 39 no. 1, (Spring 1977, pp138-155), p139; DENT, Christopher M. "ASEM and the 'Cinderella Complex' of EU-East Asia Economic Relations", Pacific Affairs, 74 no. 1, (Spring 2001), pp25-52. 12. "Closer Asia-Europe Ties for Big Benefits", Singapore Bulletin, (January 1996), p1. 13. Ibid.

12

14. With the exception of its military purchases, which are either U.S. or Japanese developed, see CHINWORTH, Michael Inside Japan's Defense: Technology, Economics and Strategy, (Washington: Brassey's (US) Inc., 1992). 15. Shin & Segal op. cit., pp151-52. 16. DENT, Christopher M. "ASEM and the 'Cinderella Complex' of EU-East Asia Economic Relations", Pacific Affairs, 74 no. 1, Spring 2001, pp25-52. 17. Already 6.69 per cent capital share, second to the U.S. in 1987, INOGUCHI, Takashi "Japan's Role in International Affairs", Survival, 34 no. 2, (Summer 1992, pp71-87), p74. 18. Japan's replenishment share in this association role rose to 20.98 per cent in 1990, once again second to the U.S., Inoguchi ibid. 19. TARRANT, Bill, "Asia-Europe Summit Sets Out On Road to New Ties", Reuters, (March 2, 1996a). [Internet Access] 20. Ibid. 21. O'CALLAGHAN, Mary "Pacific Powers Sign Nuclear-Free Pact", The Australian, (March 26, 1996), p2. 22. SOPIEE, Noordin "The Development of an East Asian Consciousness", in SHERIDAN, Greg (ed.) Living With Dragons: Australia Confronts its Asian Destiny, (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1995, pp180-193), pp190-191. 23. Tarrant 1996a. op. cit. 24. In Pina op. cit. 25. "European Report: EU/Asia: ASEM Leaders Launch 16 Joint Projects", European Report, 21 October, 2000 [Internet Access via Proquest]. 26. SHAO, Zongwei "Europe, Asia to Establish Closer Ties", China Daily, (24 May 2001) [Access via Proquest Database] 27. European Report, EU/Asia: Commission Updates EU-Asia Strategy, (Sept 5, 2001) [Access via Infotrac Database]. 28. Ibid., pp147-150. 29. Ibid., pp138-139. 30. European Report, EU/ASEM: Leader Launch New Euro Task Force, (Sept 28, 2002), [Access via Infotrac Database]. 31. Updated from Tarrant 1996a op. cit.; Corben 1996a op. cit.; "Singapore Proposes Foundation for Asia and Europe", Singapore Bulletin, (March 1996), p4. 32. "UK Government: Asia-Europe Foundation -- FCO donates GBP200,000", M2 Presswire, Feb 7, 2001 [Internet Access via Proquest]. 33. Perhaps on the basis of a possible building up of indirect consular representations with Indonesia in return for greater human rights on East Timor and the possible freeing of rebel leader, Xanana Gusmao, a plan not taken up by the Indonesians, Kakuchi op. cit.; CORBEN, Ron "Portugal Seeks Renewed Ties with Jakarta", Weekend Australian, (March 2-3, 1996b), p17. 34. LEONARD, Dick Eye on the EU, Europe, no. 355, April 1996. 35 . DENT, Christopher M. "ASEM and the 'Cinderella Complex' of EU-East Asia Economic Relations", Pacific Affairs, 74 no. 1, (Spring 2001), pp25-52. 36. "China Set to Rebuff Criticism of Its Human-Rights Record", The Straits Times Interactive, (April 24, 1996). [Internet Access] 37. "U.S. Disappointed by UNCHR Failure to Review Human Rights", United States Information Service Washington File, 23 April 1999 [Internet Access]. 38 For an update on recent human rights claims in relation to China and Tibet, see HUMAN RIGHT WATCH "China Human Rights Update", Human Rights Watch Press Backgrounder, February 15, 2002 [Internet Access at http://hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/china_update.htm]. 39. Xinhua News Agency, Jiang Zemin Meets UN Human Rights Chief, (Nov 8, 2001) [Access via Infotrac Database]. 40. See VITANYI, Ivan "The 'Europa Paradigm': European Culture - World Culture", in LAZLO, Ervin (ed.) Europe in the Contemporary World, (N.Y.: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, 1986, pp205-236), pp234-5. 41. FITZPATRICK, John "Power Structures in the Asia Pacific Region", in MALIK, J. Mohan et al. Asian Defence Policies: Great Powers and Regional Powers, Book I, (Geelong: Deakin 13

University Press, 1992), pp1-32, using the conceptions developed in BUZAN, B. People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations, (Brighton: Wheatsheaf 1983). 42. Godement op. cit.; Tarrant 1996b op. cit.; DENT, Christopher M. "ASEM and the 'Cinderella Complex' of EU-East Asia Economic Relations", Pacific Affairs, 74 no. 1, Spring 2001, pp25-52. 43. That is, the Trilateral Commission, NISHIHARA, Masashi "European Security in a Wider World", in Conference Papers: European Security After the Cold War, Part II, Adelphi Paper 285, (1994, pp60-71), p69. 44. In Tarrant 1996b op. cit. 45. For details see the ASEM2 Agenda (the 1998 Asia-Europe Meeting) will be found at http://asem2.fco.gov.uk/ 46. "EU/Asia: ASEM Ministers Tackle Currency Fluctuations", European Report, Jan 16, (1999) [Internet Access via Infotrac SearchBank]. 47. DENT, Christopher The European Union and East Asia: An Economic Relationship, London, Routledge, (1999), pp257-258. 48. "European Report: EU/Asia: Euro is Hot Topic at ASEM Finance Ministers Meeting", European Report, Brussels, (13 January, 2001) [Internet Access via Proquest]. 49. See DENT, Christopher M. "The ASEM: Managing the New Framework of the EU's Economic Relations with East Asia", Pacific Affairs, 70 no. 4, (Winter 1997), pp495-416 [Internet Access via Infotrac SearchBank] and HWEE, Yeo Lay " ASEM: Looking Back, Looking Forward", Contemporary Southeast Asia, 22 no. 1, (April 2000), pp113-144 [Internet Access via Proquest (in Library). 50. "European Report: EU/Asia: ASEM Leaders Launch 16 Joint Projects", European Report, 21 (October, 2000) [Internet Access via Proquest]. 51 . Ibid. 52. Ibid. 53 . YOO, S.J. "ASEM III Emerges as Global Group", Business Korea, 17 no. 11, (November 2000), pp32-33. 54. "ASEM - Malaysia to Dwell on Globalisation, WTO Issues", Bernama, (22 May 2001) [Access via Proquest Database] 55 . "Third ASEM Economic Mnisters' Meeting, Hanoi, 10-11 September, 2001", The AsiaEurope Meeting (ASEM), Europa net, (2001) [Internet Access at http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asem/min_other_meeting/eco_min3.htm] 56. ZHANG, Yong "ASEM Vows to Strengthen Co-ops on Environment", China Daily, (18 January 2002) [Access via Proquest Database]. 57. DENT, Christopher M. "ASEM and the 'Cinderella Complex' of EU-East Asia Economic Relations", Pacific Affairs, 74 no. 1, (Spring 2001), pp25-52. 58. YOO, S.J. "ASEM III Emerges as Global Group", Business Korea, 17 no. 11, (November 2000), pp32-33. 59. European Report, EU/ASEM: Leaders Back Anti-Terror Moves and Korean Peace Process, (Sept 25, 2002) [Access via Infotrac Database]. 60. Cooperation Programme on Fighting International Terrorism, ASEM IV - Fourth Asia Europe Meeting Summit, Copenhagen, (September 22-24, 2002) [Internet Access at http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asem/asem_summits/asem4/2.htm]. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 European Report "EU/ASEM Bid to Join Forces for WTO Success" (26 July 2003) [Access via Infotrac Database] 64 Xinhua ASEM Conference on Cultures, Civilizations Concludes in Beijing (4 December 2003) [Access via Infotrac Database] 65 European Report "EU/ASEM: Foreign Ministers Urge Release of Suu Kyi" (26 July 2003) {Access via Infotrac Database] 66 European Report Eu Ministers Consider Burmese Presence at ASEMs Hanoi Summit (24 March 2004) 67 Xinhua Leaders Discuss Future ASEM Process, (20/10/2000) [Access via Ebsco Database].

14

68 Ibid. 69 See Unity and Strength in Diversity, Fourth Asia Europe Meeting Summit in Copenhagen, (September 22-24, 2002), Brussels, 23.7.2002 - SEC(2002) 874 - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER [Internet Access at http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asem/asem_summits/asem4/sec02.htm]. Xinhua "Thailand Hopes to Pull More ASEAN Members into ASEM", (8 January 2004 [Access via Infotrac Database]
70

15