Mr President, I believe that the question is now no longer whether this century or this millennium will be a European one or an Asian one – no, what matters is for both regions to join together in a new partnership. So it is right that the European and Asian Heads of Government should continue to meet through their informal multiple-theme dialogue, and it is particularly important for them to do that in Seoul this year against the historical new background of the possibility of reunification. There is still insufficient interest in mutual understanding between these two regions of the world, although economic and trade policy, and a shared interest in a security partnership, do exist. But these two major regions need to understand each other better and coordinate their affairs so that they can successfully focus on their shared priorities and make some real progress with regard to the reform of the United Nations and the WTO in relation to monetary and financial stability, and also concerning other important issues on the agenda of the International Labour Organisation. The successes of the last two summits in Bangkok and London cannot disguise the fact that the ASEM process is not sufficiently dynamic. Bangkok was all innovation and smiling faces, whereas London provided an initial response to the Asian crisis. Normality in EU-Asian relations is now needed, so that we can finally see some concrete cooperation meaningful to the public. Cooperation should range from the fight against money laundering to environmental commitment and confidence-building measures in security policy and to commitment to food and water supply safety. It should also embrace our successes in the fight against organised crime, and – you are quite right about this, Commissioner – in combating trafficking in human beings, sexual exploitation of women and abuse of children. The exchanges between schools, universities and business people are most promising, and the Asia-Europe Foundation is doing sterling work. However, what is at stake now, in 2000, is what ASEM can really achieve and should be able to achieve, and what is best organised at ASEM level. The Vision Group has produced an excellent model here, and one that should be put into more concrete terms. ASEM has certainly done the right thing in focusing on the three pillars of political, economic and cultural cooperation. But we need more than that if we are to make progress in security policy under the OSCE process in Europe and also as regards territorial issues in Asia or human rights and democratic issues in Burma and elsewhere, with a view to stabilising the region. It is also vital for the increasingly important issues of company delocalisations, employment standards and other social issues to be discussed in a social forum which meets at a level comparable with the Business Forum and which facilitates the dialogue between politicians and the social partners on industrial relations and social standards. We really must create a forum of this kind. But we as Members of the European Parliament are also interested in reviving the Europe-Asia parliamentary dialogue. We have organised the first meeting between European and Asian Members of Parliament here in Strasbourg. Now that Europe has taken the first initiative, the ball is in our Asian colleagues' court. Why should Japan or China not run with this ball? It is a pity that in Europe interest in developing closer links with Asia is not as strong as interest in cooperation with other regions of the world. So a parliamentary dialogue also means the public at large becoming involved in cooperation in civil society. We all need to see this as a task for the future, because both these regions of the world have a great deal to say and do.

Political group: PSE