Presented byMelissa H. Conley Tyler, National Executive Director Australian Institute of International Affairsceo@aiia.asn.au

Australia and ASEM: the First Two Years

I. ASEM: Aims and StructureII. Australia and ASEMIII.Judging ASEM’s SuccessIV. Future of ASEM

Outline

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” inEuropean 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 dialogue2. 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

ActivitiesMain 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

Eight Summits to date alternating between Europe and Asia

Leaders’ Summits

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 ASEM1996: 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

grouping2012: Three further member states

• Norway, Switzerland, Bangladesh

Comparing Membership

Key Features of ASEMInformality

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

“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 europeens de Sciences Po

Scholars are divided into two camps, the realistic and the pessimistic

Measuring Results to Date

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

Presented byMelissa H. Conley Tyler, National Executive Director Australian Institute of International Affairsceo@aiia.asn.au

Australia and ASEM: the First Two Years