ASIA-EUROPE MEETING (ASEM): fostering a multipolar world order through inter-regional cooperation

Since its inception in 1996 ASEM has provided an opportunity for focussing relations between the EU and East Asia as a forum for informal multilayered dialogue and building a framework for enhanced cooperation in the political, economic and social/cultural fields. Inter-regionalism, of which ASEM is the incarnation in the EU-Asia relationship, developed into an important policy tool of the EU in an effort to maintain a multipolar setting. Regional identities in Asia are at a different level when comparing South East Asia, North East Asia, East Asia and South and Central Asia. ASEM contributed to a certain extent to the region building in East Asia. Although the economic pillar of ASEM turned out to be the more important one when compared to the political and the people-to-people pillars, it will not become the basis for a (deep) inter-regional free trade agreement because of the diversity of the Asian members, reinforced by the last ASEM enlargement. However, turning weakness into strength, ASEM could become the EU’s vehicle for a more holistic approach to Asia thereby fostering a more economic and political multipolar world order. The financial melt down of the international financial order lead to the rediscovery of the need for international cooperation not only on the level of business but also among states. Making use of ASEM, developed over the last 12 years, could provide the much needed platform in the EU-Asia relationship. The author, Adjunct Professor for International Politics at the University of Innsbruck, formerly served as ASEM Counsellor of the European Commission as well as Minister and Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Japan and is presently EC Ambassador to Switzerland. He contributes this paper solely in his academic capacity and the views expressed should not be attributed to the European Commission; the thoughtful comments by Brigid Gavin on the draft are appreciated and the research assistance of Tilo Wagner is recognised.

---

The effect of ASEM on European foreign policies

This paper argues the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) interregional process has had a great influence on the European partners, in fact, much greater than so far acknowledged. It gives an overview of the adaptation of European partners foreign policies towards East Asia as seen in the creation or modification of their overall strategies. It then presents in more detail the selected case studies of Spain and Sweden. The findings show that most EU partners have indeed have considered the ASEM process a useful route to advance their interests towards East Asia, and that six have created or upgraded comprehensive strategies. The two in-depth country analyses (Sweden and Spain) further substantiate the claim that the ASEM process has had an important effect on European partners. It is expected that this trend will continue.Paper presented at the 5th Pan-European Conference of the European Consortium for Political Researchs Standing group on International Relations, Den Hague, Netherlands, 9–11 September 2004.     

EU in ASEM: its role in framing inter-regional cooperation with East Asian countries

This study is an institutional analysis that aims at answering the questions: What are the underlying rules or principles of the existing structure within ASEM? What will be the results of functioning of this mechanism? What do these results imply on the future relations of the two regions? The institutional structure of ASEM is based on four main principles: promoting regional integration, enhancing multilateralism inside and outside ASEM, decentralizing transnational cooperation and promoting issue-specific dialogue, and basing all activities, dialogues and discussions on willingness of members. As a consequence, the functioning of this mechanism leads to consolidation of multilateral structure in East Asia as well as to a promotion of knowledge-based policy discussion. The ASEM process have not realized a partnership among equals; rather it put the European members in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the Asian partners because Europeans are well-coordinated, able to mobilize more resource and equipped with various expertise.     

Asian perceptions about the EU in the Asia�CEurope Meeting (ASEM)

The inauguration of the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Bangkok in March 1996 has created enthusiasm and hopes for closer inter-regional relations between Asia and Europe. This article observes how behaviors of European countries representatives in the ASEM process have significantly shaped the perceptions of Asian officials and people about the EU and European intentions to develop mutually beneficial relations with Asia. It employs a constructivist framework in which the ASEM process is treated as a dynamic social setting for not only Asia–Europe inter-regional interactions but also intra-Asia socialization. Methodologically, it is a qualitative research with an inductive process and interpretive method. The research uses qualitative data, gathered from various sources and 82 in-depth interviews with diplomats, scholars, journalists, business peoples and civil society representatives in five Asian countries. This study finds that some behaviors of EU participants at ASEM or ASEF interregional forums are counterproductive for EU efforts to develop robust relations with Asian countries. The polarization between Asian and European groups in the ASEM or ASEF meetings, caused by political issues and colonial memory, contributed to the difficulties in trust-building between Asian and European participants. In addition, by their frequent absence from ASEM Summits, EU leaders squandered rare opportunities for a ‘meeting of minds and hearts’ with their Asian counterparts. This process seems to be a precondition for Asians to develop tangible cooperation.     

Trade relations between Europe and East Asia

The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) framework was created in 1996, with the primary purpose of strengthening economic, political and cultural relations among the 15 countries of the European Union and ten East Asian states. This paper examines the origins of these recent economic linkages, in a global and inter-regional context.¶The paper charts the principal elements of ASEMs economic pillar to date, assesses the influence of multilateral trading environments (notably the WTO) on the region-to-region dialogue and examines ASEMs impact on intra-regional economic developments, especially in the case of East Asia.¶The paper will focus in particular on the flagship projects of trade and investment facilitation, to discuss whether and to what extent ASEM itself can be seen to further cooperation and coordination in specific fields of activity.¶The final part of the paper aims to analyse the prospects for future economic relations between East Asia and Europe, in the wake of a devastating financial crisis in Asia, in the context of a continued war on terror which, since the Bali bombing has had an even more immediate impact on Asia, and in the changing global economic environment as regulated by the tenets of the WTO.     

Regionalisation of higher education services in Europe and East Asia and potential for global change

International provision of higher education services in both European and East Asian countries increasingly have a regional dimension. The European Union has since 1987 promoted the mobility of students, faculty, and content through its Erasmus Programmes. The ‘Bologna’ process that began in 1998/1999 now brings over 40 European countries together to create a European Higher Education Area by the end of the current decade. Meanwhile, East Asian countries (10 in ASEAN, plus P.R. China, Japan and South Korea) are also in a process of internationalising their higher education sector with an increasing regional component. Led by Japan, the “ASEAN+3 study group on facilitation and promotion of exchange of people and human resource development” advanced a comprehensive report, welcomed by the East Asian leaders meeting in October 2003, that strives for regional promotion of lifelong learning programs; credit transfer systems; scholarships and exchange programs for students, faculty, staff; research and development cooperation; ‘centres of excellence’ including e-learning; and curricular development as bases for common regional qualification standards among interested institutions. Both regional processes could reinforce each other in various ways, but possibly chiefly through the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) process, unique among various recent inter-regional dialogue and cooperation processes around the world. Moreover, European and East Asian converging higher education processes could help the rest of the world through world inter-regionalism, and through an overhaul of international organisations dealing with higher education. This research was mainly funded by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Secretary of State for Universities and Research, cofinanced by the European Social Fund. A research fellowship from the Japan Foundation’s Japanese Studies and Intellectual Exchange Department is also kindly acknowledged.

---

Bilateral diplomatic and economic relations between East Asia and the new EU members: The case of Latvia

As the result of historical, political and geographical reasons, Latvias relations with the East Asia are a new field of study. Even though the diplomatic and economic relations between Latvia and the East Asian countries have not been significant, the volume of trade and cooperation in other fields has been increasing particularly with China, Japan and Singapore. Latvias joining the EU will impact this cooperation in different ways. Mostly it will give more opportunities for Latvia to build fruitful diplomatic and economic relations with the East Asian countries. This explorative research will examine the current state of the bilateral diplomatic and economic relations between Latvia and the East Asian countries (ASEAN, Japan, China, and South Korea) as well as clarify future trends, particularly related to the effects of the accession of Latvia to the EU. This is one of the first researches in this field and is intended for those interested in bilateral relations between the new EUs members and the East Asian countries, as well as for those analyzing the consequences of the EUs enlargement on these relations.     

Trilateral relations in a globalizing world. ASEM and the United States

Europe, the United States and East Asia are linked together through bilateral relations as well as a kind of trilateral relationship. There are three legs: Looking from a European perspective, the strongest relationship is the transatlantic relationship; secondly, there is a growing relationship between the United States and East Asia; and thirdly, the weakest link is the European-East Asian relationship.In this article I will focus, first, on this global triangle between East Asia, Europe and the United States. Secondly, I will discuss the question whether ASEM, APEC and ASEAN are competing or cooperating. Thirdly, I will analyze the question how the US looks at ASEM. Concluding I will argue that the US should take ASEM more seriously – not least because of US interests.This paper was written as part of a project on Backlash against Globalization that is supported by the Otto Wolff Foundation, Cologne, and The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Washington, DC.     

竞争性地区主义与亚洲合作的现状及未来

2008年世界金融危机之后,竞争性地区主义的兴起成为亚洲合作中的一个非常值得注意的现象。不过,竞争性地区主义对于亚洲来说并非一个新事物,而是长期孕育在本地区合作的历史进程中。伴随着特朗普的上台和中美竞争的加剧,亚洲竞争性地区主义出现了新的变化趋向:以经济为出发点的合作导向逐渐让位于安全,国际制度日益成为大国权力博弈的工具,制度竞争的内容也从表面的规范之争迈向背后的理念价值之争。这种变化对中美关系发展、地区中小国家的战略选择、东盟在地区合作中的主导地位以及亚洲合作的前景都造成了不小的冲击。为了防止亚洲竞争性地区主义的发展滑向恶性竞争,包括中美在内的泛亚各国,应努力促使"印太战略"和"一带一路"倡议两大机制之间形成某种程度的兼容共存,避免两者成为完全对抗的国际机制,并在部分特定领域共同为亚洲各国提供必要的公共产品。     

Strategic considerations in the US–China relationship and the role of European soft power

This paper analyses strategic considerations within the conceptual, the policy and the systemic dimension of US–Sino relations. Furthermore, the role of the EU’s soft power in the context of US–China relations will be assessed. It will be argued that current US–China relations are mainly a function of the current US foreign policy towards China, which doesn’t take into account that an engagement policy towards China needs to be paralleled by an engagement policy towards the East Asian region. A functional equivalent of the EU’s soft power and its approach of bilateral and multilateral engagement of East Asian actors is a missing element in US–China relations. The thinking on China affairs in the USA can be broadly structured into two different schools of thought. On the one side there are those who favour an engagement policy vis-à-vis China. The engagement school argues that bilateral and multilateral cooperation with China needs to be intensified. Traditionally members of this school are found in the Department of State and the Bureau of the US Trade Representative. On the other side there are those who think of China as a threat that needs to be contained. The politicians and experts that belong to the threat school (e.g. in the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute) emphasize their fears of China’s future role on the regional and global level. Though China has supported the US’s “war on terrorism” after the attacks of 9/11, Beijing’s increasing military budget, its neglect of non-proliferation agreements (e.g. in its relations with Pakistan) and its behaviour within the Six-Party Talks are taken as examples of the China threat. Security policies do not solely determine the relationship between the USA and China. The US China policy is a function of both the US’s economic and security interests. This explains why Washington follows a dual policy of simultaneous engagement and containment, i.e. a policy of hedged engagement. But the current state of affair of the Sino–US relationship does not reflect the rise of China as a de facto hegemon of an East Asian community. It is the inherent danger of the current US China policy that the missing regional component in US–China relations could facilitate the formation of a fortress Asia. Since Beijing holds the key to Asian regionalism, China should be the main target of European soft power in Asia by exporting the principles of regionalism and multilateralism to Asia. To what extent the EU and its model of intraregional cooperation and integration can influence the objective and trajectory of Asian regionalism will demonstrate partly the extent of Europe’s soft power in the international system.

---

东亚金融区域主义的兴起及其地缘安全影响

2008年全球金融危机以后,国际货币金融体系持续动荡,以地区金融安全合作为导向的金融区域主义逐步兴起,且成为一种显著的地缘政治经济现象。金融区域主义对地缘安全的影响主要有两个方面:一是地区金融安全,地区金融主义有助于构筑地区金融安全网络,推动地缘经济整合;二是地缘政治安全,地区金融主义会扩大地区大国的地缘政治影响力以及增加地区排斥外围国家干涉本地事务的能力。金融区域主义产生的这些地缘安全影响对不同的行为主体而言,具有不同的意义。首先,东盟作为地区性的经济共同体,会极力反对东亚大国利用金融区域主义将东盟纳入其势力范围之下,威胁东盟的地缘政治安全环境。其次,作为最大出资方,中日对地区货币金融领导权的争夺变得日趋激烈,且形成了持续的冲突性关系,从而削弱了东亚金融安全合作的政治前景。最后,东亚作为美元回流机制中的关键一环,如果将美国排斥在外,无疑会增加东亚地区与美国的地缘政治矛盾。因而,东亚金融区域主义在兴起的过程中,不仅要看到其稳定地区货币金融秩序的一面,同时也要看到其有可能制造地缘政治安全问题的一面。     

The security policy of the greens in Italy

This article provides an overview of the current state of financial regionalism in East Asia and discusses why and how the East Asian countries should go forward in terms of financial and monetary regionalism. It highlights intra-regional exchange rate stability as an important regional public good and makes the case for greater exchange rate cooperation. To this end, East Asian countries should gradually reduce their exposure to the US dollar and move towards currency basket regimes which would sustain relative intra-regional exchange rate stability while allowing for sufficient flexibility to accommodate idiosyncratic shocks. Against the backdrop of the global and European financial crisis, the article also urges a reconsideration of the costs and benefits of international – and regional – financial integration and calls for a further strengthening of East Asia's regional financial architecture.     

From inter-regionalism to trans-regionalism? Future challenges for ASEM

  At the fundamental level, the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) framework represents an endeavour by the European Union and a group of East Asian states to forge closer inter-regional relations between them. This paper examines the global and tripolar contexts in which ASEM emerged, and its position in the new post-Cold War architecture of international relations. It more specifically considers the prime motivating factors of both the EU and East Asia for initially promoting the ASEM idea. The main purposes, structures, processes and achievements of ASEM inter-regional diplomacy are then studied. Regarding the latter, it is argued that ASEM's achievements can be broadly judged by the extent it has fostered micro-networking and macro-networking linkages between both regions. Micro-networking primarily relates to ASEM's various socialisation processes and functions on which wider macro-networking ties between the peoples of Europe and East Asia can be further built. However, Eurasian links are still relatively under-developed in comparison to their transpacific and transatlantic counterparts. As such, ASEM faces many challenges ahead along the long path to establishing East Asia – EU trans-regionalism.     

地区主义与东亚秩序的转型趋向

冷战结束后,东亚地区主义的兴起已成为推动该地区秩序重构和转型的重要推动力。在地区主义的影响下,东亚的内聚力和地区性不断增强、共同理念和地区规范逐渐形成,新的权力结构开始确立,这些因素不断解构着美国主导的"轴心—轮辐式"东亚霸权秩序,并使之呈现出向地区整合背景下"多元共同合作"秩序转变的发展态势。     

新现实主义视野下的东亚地区主义发展路径

作为主流的国际关系理论,新现实主义也被运用于地区层面,成为很多国内外学者阐释东亚地区主义的主要理论范式之一。在新现实主义者看来,东亚国家对于均势体系或结构的追逐由来已久,无论是东盟的成立,大国平衡战略的实践,还是由于中国崛起而引发的"中国威胁论"以及中日之间的矛盾和竞争等都彰显了东亚地区结构的不断变动,显示出东亚地区国家间追逐权力平衡的过程。     

从亚欧会议看区域合作与中欧关系

作为全球化浪潮与区域化进程合力之下产生的一项区域间合作机制，亚欧会议在推动亚欧国家间交流与合作方面具有重要价值。本文从国际制度的理论与实践出发，考察亚欧会议的制度化特征，并分析这些特征对于区域合作和中欧关系的意义。     

Japan, China and East Asian regionalism: implications for the European Union

East Asia is becoming an increasingly coherent regional entity in political economic terms, and remains a region of enormous geo-strategic significance for the European Union. Europe’s links with China and Japan are especially important, and moreover these two countries are looking in various ways to exercise various forms of regional leadership in East Asia. This has critical implications for the EU’s relations with the East Asia region generally, and also for the wider international system. Similar and related impacts maybe construed from deepening East Asian regionalism, involving processes where both Japan and China play vitally important roles. The analysis presented here examines the both micro and macro level developments in East Asian regionalism, and issues relating to Japan, China and regional leadership. It concludes by discusses the implications of these matters for the European Union, and recommends that the EU should pay particularly close attention to emergent exercises of regional leadership in East Asia, most likely to be performed by Japan and/or China.

---

Japan’s reluctance in East Asian economic integration

Until 1997, the only preferential trading arrangement, which existed in East Asia, was the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). Former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir had realized earlier the deficiency of AFTA in terms of stimulating economic development. In 1990, he proposed to ASEAN members to form the East Asian Economic Group. Due to regional political factors, his proposal was turned down and replaced with the East Asian Economic Caucus in 1992. In 1997, again, he proposed that ASEAN needed to establish large economic cooperation with other countries in East Asia. His suggestion had been warmly responded by the members of East Asian countries. At the ASEAN summit in Manila 1999, ASEAN Plus 3 (APT) was created. ASEAN, China, Japan, and South Korea had agreed and reached a joint statement to form a free-trade area by the year 2020. The establishment of APT was timely since most countries in the world are moving toward establishing wider or larger economic blocs due to the failure of multilateralism of the WTO in creating a new trade agreement. However, there is a shortcoming in the process of building APT, in the minimal and uncertain role of Japan in integrating economies in East Asia. This behavior has disappointed members of the group. The intention of this paper is to discuss the behavior of Japan in the economic integration process in East Asia.

---

Regionalism's multiple negotiations: ASEAN in East Asia

This article explains East Asian regionalism as the product of two sets of negotiations. The first negotiation is between East Asia on the one hand and global forces and structures on the other. The second negotiation is intra-regional and includes a critical negotiation between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-Southeast Asia and East/Northeast Asia, which also provides the primary focus of this article. This article details ASEAN's extensions into East Asian regionalism as part of interdependent efforts to adapt transitioning global and regional systems. Conceiving these regional negotiations to be not just economic and utilitarian but first and foremost normative, this article details the opportunities and dilemmas represented by ‘East Asia’ for ASEAN, ASEAN-Southeast Asia and Southeast Asia as a meaningful organizing principle. Dilemmas associated with the ASEAN Plus Three process, an East Asia free-trade area and the ASEAN Charter provide illustrations of East Asia's understood challenges for Southeast Asia in addition to the ways that Southeast Asian agencies have been shaping the form and content of recent East Asian efforts and also how regional-global and intra-ASEAN negotiations continue to provide key constraints.     

论东亚社会发展合作

在东亚地区,社会发展合作对于推进东亚一体化具有重大意义,它能够消除东亚一体化进程中所面临的社会障碍,为东亚共同体的建设打下坚实的社会基础。目前东亚社会发展合作已有一定基础,但仍存在一些问题,东亚国家还须为深化社会发展合作做进一步努力。