Australia and ASEM: the First
Two Years
Presented by
Melissa H. Conley Tyler, National Executive Director
Australian Institute of International Affairs
ceo@aiia.asn.au
Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
ASEM: Aims and Structure
Australia and ASEM
Judging ASEM’s Success
Future of ASEM
I.
ASEM: Aims and Structure
What is ASEM?
“An interregional association with no formal binding powers, which provides a
framework for political, economic and cultural cooperation and exchange over the
cross-cutting issues between these two regions”
Radhia Oudjanai, “EU-Asia Relations” in
European Foreign Policy, from rhetoric to reality
Objectives
Objectives:
 Strengthening the relationship between the two regions, in a spirit of
mutual respect and equal partnership
 Focusing on three pillars:
1. political dialogue
2. economic cooperation
3. social, cultural and educational issues
 Organised as an informal process of dialogue and cooperation:
 No founding treaty or charter
 No secretariat: the only ASEM institution is the non-profit Asia-Europe
Foundation (ASEF) based in Singapore
Activities
Main Feature:
 Leaders’ Summits every two years, alternating between European and Asian
locations
 During the Summits leaders give overall direction and set agenda
Between Summits:
 Ministerial meetings and meetings of senior officials are organised on
political, economical, social and cultural issues of mutual interest
 For example, the 10th ASEM Finance Ministers' Meeting will be held in
Bangkok on 15 October 2012
Theme of Discussions:
 From the initial emphasis on economic cooperation to human rights, rule of
law, global health threats, sustainable development and
intercultural/interfaith dialogue
Leaders’ Summits
Eight Summits to date alternating between Europe and Asia
Ministers’ and Officials’ Meetings
Membership
When Australia joined 48
Membership
When Australia joined 48: 27 EU Member States and the European
Commission, with 19 Asian countries and the ASEAN Secretariat
Membership
When Australia joined 48: 27 EU Member States and the European
Commission, with 19 Asian countries and the ASEAN Secretariat
Enlargement of ASEM
1996: Creation of ASEM
• Launched in Bangkok in 1996, following a Franco-Singaporean initiative, to
•
strengthen dialogue between Asia and Europe
Initial partnership between 15 EU member states and 7 ASEAN member
states, plus China, Japan, Korea and the European Commission.
2004 - 5th ASEM Summit in Hanoi: first enlargement
• 10 new EU Member States plus 3 new ASEAN countries (Cambodia, Laos
and Myanmar)
2007: Second enlargement
• Bulgaria, India, Mongolia, Pakistan, Romania and the ASEAN Secretariat
2010 - 8th ASEM Summit: three new member states
• Australia, New-Zealand and Russia initially in a temporary third grouping
2012: Three further member states
• Norway, Switzerland, Bangladesh
Comparing Membership
Key Features of ASEM
Informality
 An open forum for policy makers and officials to discuss any political,
economy and social issues of common interest
Multi-dimensionality
 Covers the full spectrum of relations between members and devotes equal
weight to political, economic and social/cultural dimensions
Emphasis on equal partnership
 Process of dialogue based on mutual respect and mutual benefit
Dual focus on high-level and people-to-people
 A platform for meeting of heads of states or governments, ministers and
senior officials
 An increasing focus on promoting people-to-people contact between
societies
Key Features of ASEM
Asia Europe Foundation
Goals:
•Strengthen Asia-Europe ties
•Create shared experiences for learning and dialogue
•Enhance mutual understanding
•Explore opportunities for cooperation
Tangible Results:
In the last 14 years, the ASEF has brought together more than 15,000 people from
Asia and Europe and implemented over 500 projects covering the areas of
Economy & Society, Environment & Sustainable Development, Public Health, Arts
& Culture, Education & Academic Cooperation, Human Rights & Governance, and
Intercommunal Dialogue.
II. Australia and ASEM
ASEM 8
Content and results
 Brussels (Belgium), October 2010
 49 Heads of State & Government (HoSGs) attended: well-balanced between
Asia and Europe
 Most substantial discussion: Global Economic Governance
• Joint Declaration on Improving Global Economic Governance
 Other discussions:
• Sustainable Economic Development Policies
• Global Issues (political, security > terrorism, piracy, etc.)
• Regional Issues
• Asia-Europe People-to-People Issues and Relations (transport modes,
networks, tourism, business & academic links)
 Asia-Europe Business Forum and Asia-Europe Parliamentary Forum
 Result: ASEM 8 Chair Statement
ASEM 9
When and Where?
 Vientiane, Laos, 5-6 November 2012
Theme
 “Friends for Peace, Partners for Prosperity”
Main Challenges
 Context of financial crisis: macro-economic policy making (reform of the
international financial and regulatory architecture) as a key subject of
discussion
 TEIN: Trans Eurasia Information Network as a project to provide
administrative (internet connection) and technical support for academics
 Expanding membership of ASEM:
• Logistical challenges for working methods
• Problems of coordination, transparency and flexibility
• Need to reinforce ASEM’s administrative support
Australia’s View
Benefits of ASEM:
 Opportunity to meet at leaders’ level with key European and Asian leaders
 Platform to promote relations with Europe, including European countries with
which Australia shares no other memberships
 Opportunity for bilateral side meetings with leaders
 Ministerial and officials’ meetings
 Working with Asia group members on coordination
 Promoting G20 agenda and enabling G20 outreach
 A seat at the table
According to Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith, joining ASEM:
“will advance Australia’s national interests. It will strengthen Australia’s ties with
two regions of great importance to Australia’s prosperity and security. It will allow
Australia to make a contribution to efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation
between Europe and Asia.” (2009)
Australia’s View
Areas for Improvement:
 Moving from temporary third category to Asia group – achieved
 Improvements to Summit process to promote genuine dialogue
 Avoiding polarisation – one of the drawbacks of interregional dialogue
Opportunity:
Australia can effectuate compromises and key decisions as mediator (Murray,
2010a)
III. Judging ASEM’s Success
Measuring Results to Date
 “If, and it is a very big if... if a regime or institution is measured by the amount
of academic attention it receives - in terms of peer reviewed academic
journal articles and the number of PhD candidates wishing to work on the
subject - then ASEM is up there with the United Nations as a serious element
in global governance”
In David Camroux (2006), “The Rise and Decline of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM):
Asymmetric Bilateralism and the Limitations of Interregionalism”,
Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po
 Scholars are divided into two camps, the realistic and the pessimistic
The Realistic Camp
For scholars such as Paul Lim and Michael Reiterer:
 Flexibility: many different joint ventures and initiatives can emerge
 Wide membership: ASEM is the largest institutional framework regarding
Europe-Asia relations
 Common positions: The institution allows heads of states to meet and set
common grounds before global-multilateral meetings such as the World
Trade Organization or the United Nations General Assembly
The Pessimistic Camp
For scholars such as Christopher Dent or Lay Hwee Yeo:
 Under-institutionalization: the absence of secretariat makes it harder for the
agenda-setting
 Lack of integration between Asian countries
 Lack of biding decisions over members
“ASEM in on the way to turning into a ‘pleasant’ platform for inter-organizational exchange, but
nothing more (Jappe Eckhardt, 2005)”
 Wide membership
•Some Asian countries belong to sub-regional organisations (i.e. ASEAN,
SAARC)
•Some others have no membership in any regional organisation in Asia (i.e.
Mongolia)
Members’ Perspectives
ASEM members have a more positive view:
 Enthusiasm is renewed after each summit
Example: Norway
 Joining ASEM had been a priority: shared interests between the country and
Asia at the economic, environmental and energetic level (Stoltenberg, 2012)
 Norwegian sovereign wealth fund invested ~USD 80 billion in Asian equities
 Asia had a growing interest in Norway’s policies on the High North including the
Arctic
 Summit = a great opportunity to exchange ideas and build new partnerships
Members’ Perspectives
Laos’ President Mr Choummaly Sayasone:
 Over the last 16 years, ASEM has become an important forum for discussion on
strategic issues
 Emphasis on the importance of enhancing cooperation, integration and mutual
support between Asia and Europe for attaining sustainable development
Members use the meetings as an opportunity to hold bilateral discussions
and promote their foreign policy agendas
Expanding Objectives
A Dialogue Facilitator
 A dialogue platform to address international matters, a dialogue process as
well as a delivery instrument
A Policy-Making Laboratory
 Creating a permanent process of consultation
 Promoting an open and inclusive dialogue: to develop and test new ideas for
future policy-making
 Fostering an informal discussion: an opportunity to work towards negotiated
solutions, especially in areas of disagreement
Managing Growing Europe-Asia Relations
 A new layer of cooperation, enhancing synergies in Europe-Asia relations
 A catalyst for overall Asia-Europe relations and a complement to other levels
of relations between the two regions
IV. The Future of ASEM
Future Outlook
ASEM does not – and is not expected to – make major changes to
international relations, but it is seen as useful by its members.
 Many policy-makers would be in favour of a permanent secretariat
However:
 ASEM was set up as a dialogue organisation and such deep change is unlikely to
get political support
Future Outlook
Two Major Threats:
1. Greater competition with other leader level summits
2. Great difference between the two regions that ASEM was established to
bridge (European Regionalism vs Asian Nationalism)
Asian Regionalism
Regional Architecture rather than Integrated Regionalism:
 A framework of architecture based on open regionalism:
• ASEAN
• Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
• ASEAN Regional Forum
• ASEAN Plus Three (APT)
• Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)
• ASEM
• East Asia Summit (EAS)
• ASEAN way of consultation, consensus and adherence to state sovereignty
EU Regionalism
An ‘institutions plus embedded norms’ framework
 Supranational institutions alongside intergovernnmentalism
 Treaty basis
 Body of norms, decisions and practices developed over time
A highly integrated regionalism
 Regulatory-based
 Shared sovereignty
 Supranational institutions
 Partly-achieved security community
An organisation in the process of further integration
 Monetary integration
 Sovereign debt crisis could lead to further fiscal integration
Normative Foundations
European Union Normative Foundation
 Democracy, human rights and individual liberty
 Reduction of national sovereignty through creation of organisations able to
override national governments
Asian Normative Foundation
 Nationalism and statist power
 “Asian values”
The “ASEAN Way”
 Norms of behaviour and interaction
 Principles of non-interference and respect for the core issue of sovereignty
 Peaceful resolution of conflicts
 Practice of consensus and consultation and avoidance of confrontation
Prospects for ASEM
 potential: European and Asian concepts of regionalism could
enrich each other (Murray, 2010b)
 danger: inter-regional conversation could become one of
competing blocs; Asia vs Europe debate
Hopefully, ASEM’s openness, flexibility and evolutionary nature will keep the
dialogue positive
Australia could play an active role promoting positive dialogue
Prospects for ASEM
 The “Swiss Army Knife” of International Organisations?
 Likely Reforms
Australia and ASEM: the First
Two Years
Presented by
Melissa H. Conley Tyler, National Executive Director
Australian Institute of International Affairs
ceo@aiia.asn.au