Commission working document - Perspectives and Priorities for the ASEM Process (Asia Europe Meeting) into the new decade
Date: 2000-04-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Asia, Europe, action programme, cooperation policy

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 18.4.2000
COM(2000) 241 final

COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT

Perspectives and Priorities for the ASEM Process (Asia Europe Meeting) into the new
decade

COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT

Perspectives and Priorities for the ASEM Process (Asia Europe Meeting) into the new
decade

SUMMARY

Developments since the first Asia-Europe Meeting in Bangkok in 1996 have emphasised the
mutual inter-dependence of our two regions, and the value of the ASEM process in enhancing
Asia-Europe dialogue and co-operation. The third ASEM Summit in Seoul in October 2000
will have a critical role to play in moving this process forward, ensuring that it remains
relevant to the interest of our citizens, and setting its broad direction for the coming decade.
The present document is intended to offer suggestions for the key perspectives and priorities
which the ASEM process might address at Seoul and beyond.

Building on the decisions taken at the Bangkok and London Summits, the ASEM process has
already achieved considerable success, with an active and constructive dialogue in the three
pillars of political, economic and financial, and cultural and intellectual issues. Partners
should continue to build on its informality, multi-dimensionality and high level participation.
Important challenges remain – to ensure that the process continues to make progress in each
of its three pillars, while strengthening public engagement in Asia-Europe relations, and to
address the expectations of partners who do not yet take part in this process. Looking forward,
the key perspectives of the ASEM process should fundamentally remain as established at the
first two Summits.

In identifying future priorities, a distinction is made between general priorities and specific
priorities for action in the short-term. General priorities are set out in each of the three pillars.
These are largely based on on-going work in the ASEM process. They seek to build on
achievements to date and propose a deepening of relations between our two regions.
Emphasis will continue to be given to ASEM’s potential as a forum for an informal exchange
of views, helping strengthen the mutual awareness and co-operation between our two regions
in relation to political and security issues, to economic, financial and social issues, and in a
broader intellectual and cultural context. These priorities should be incorporated into the
updated Asia-Europe Co-operation Framework which will be adopted in Seoul, and which
will set the general parameters of the ASEM process into the next decade.

In addition, five specific priorities are suggested for adoption at ASEM III. These are: an
enhanced exchange of views on regional and global security issues; an enhanced result-
oriented co-operation on trade and economic issues, including dialogue on social policy
issues; intensified educational exchanges between our two regions; networking and co-
operation in the field of consumer protection, and a possible enlargement of participation in
the ASEM process

1.

INTRODUCTION

The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) began with the Bangkok Summit in March 1996. Asian
and European heads of state and government and the president of the European Commission
engaged in a new process of dialogue and co-operation to establish a new relationship
between the two regions. The objective of the ASEM process is to build a comprehensive

2

partnership among equal partners, based on the promotion of the three pillars of political
dialogue, the deepening of economic relations and the reinforcement of cultural links between
peoples. Ten Asian Countries1, the fifteen EU Member States and the European Commission
participate in the process.

While overshadowed by the economic and financial crisis in Asia, the second ASEM Summit
in London in April 1998 confirmed Europe’s commitment to Asia and its recovery. The
Summit recognised the importance of co-operation between our two regions in addressing
these challenges, and pledged to maintain trade and investment flows in response to the crisis.
Heads of Government also looked forward to the further deepening of our partnership, and
expressed their faith in the recovery which is now so clearly visible.

The third Summit in Seoul will have the task of confirming and enhancing the importance of
this partnership between our two regions, and indeed of maintaining its momentum and
relevance, to counter any sentiments of “fatigue” in the ASEM process. ASEM III will set out
the key perspectives and priorities which Asia and Europe, acting together as equal partners,
might address in the first decade of the new century. The present juncture thus offers a
suitable opportunity to take stock of past achievements and consider future issues.

Developments since the Bangkok Summit have emphasised the mutual interdependence of
our two regions. Politically, Asia and Europe can find common cause in promoting peace and
stability in those parts of our respective regions where conflicts remain a serious concern.
Economically the resumption of sustained growth in Asia, which is now well underway, will
have a very positive impact on the growth of the world economy in general and Europe in
particular. Asian ASEM partners represent 31.5% of the world population, produce 18.9% of
world GDP, account for 24.7% of world-wide exports of goods (15.9% of services) and for
17.5% of world imports of goods (22.5% of services), and generate 7.5% of FDI outflows
while absorbing 14.5% of inflows.2 Culturally, an enhanced mutual awareness and direct
contact between our two regions will contribute greatly to our mutual understanding while
facilitating our political and economic exchanges.

In June 1997, looking towards preparation of the second ASEM Summit in London, the
European Commission presented a working document on the ASEM process, with the
Union’s specific perspectives and priorities3. The present paper is intended to review and
update that analysis, and to offer suggestions for the key perspectives and priorities which the
ASEM process might address at Seoul and beyond. The Summit offers an excellent possibility
to re-position and reinforce the Asia-Europe relationship in the post-crisis situation and the
age of globalisation of international relations.

2.

ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES

When compared with the objectives set out at the Summits, the ASEM process has already
proved useful. An active and constructive high-level dialogue between our two regions has
been established, centred on the biennial meetings of Heads of State and Government, and

1

2

3

Brunei, China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam
Figures for 1998 (Source DG Trade, Dec. 1999).
SEC (97) 1239, 26 June 1997. One might also refer to the Commission Communication “Towards a
New Asia Strategy” (COM (94) 314, 13 July 1994), which, while pre-dating the ASEM initiative,
nevertheless foreshadowed a number of its important elements.

3

supported by meetings of Foreign, Finance and Economic Ministers4 in intervening years.
Senior Officials of Foreign, Finance and Economic Ministries meet regularly, while the
business sector has met each year in the Asia-Europe Business Forum.

The dialogue on political matters of common concern has been carried forward at Summit,
informal seminars, workshops and
Ministerial and Senior Officials’ levels. In addition,
symposia, organised by individual ASEM partners or by the Asia-Europe Foundation, have
touched on matters such as human rights, globalisation, and other aspects of international
relations.

In the economic and financial spheres, there has been an active dialogue among Ministers and
Senior Officials on such topics as trade, investment and the WTO, and on issues relating to
macro-economic policy and financial sector supervision. This has been complemented by the
active implementation of two major Action Plans (on Trade Facilitation and on Investment
Promotion), by meetings and symposia on such topics as infrastructure and SMEs, by the
establishment of publicly accessible websites5, and by intensified co-operation among
customs officials.

Responding to the economic and financial crisis in Asia,
the London Summit held a
substantive and frank discussion on the crisis and its implications for Asia-Europe relations.
Heads of Government pledged to keep markets open in the face of any protectionist pressures
which might arise from the crisis (the ASEM Trade and Investment Pledge), and agreed to
launch an ASEM Trust Fund to provide technical expertise to assist
in addressing the
financial and social issues arising from the crisis. They also agreed to establish a European
Financial Expertise Network (EFEX) which can help identify high-level expertise in both the
public and private sectors for use by Asian partners.

In the field of science and technology, an ASEM Ministerial Conference on Science and
Technology held in Beijing laid the groundwork for the launch of a range of new cooperative
activities to enhance scientific contact between the two regions, to increase information
exchange, to foster the free flow of ideas between scientific communities and networking
among researchers, ant to promote university / industry partnerships 6.

In the environmental sector, an Asia-Europe Environmental Technology Centre (AEETC) has
been established in Bangkok to promote co-operation in environmental R&D activities.

In the cultural and intellectual field, the Asia-Europe Foundation in Singapore has supported
an expanding programme of conferences and networking activities aimed at enhancing mutual
understanding and people-to-people contact between the two regions. In addition, a series of
networking initiatives and dialogues have been launched by individual ASEM partners in
fields as diverse as child welfare, cultural heritage, and socio-economic policy.

4

5

6

ASEM Foreign Ministers met in February 1997 in Singapore and March 1999 in Berlin, Finance
Ministers in September 1997 in Bangkok and January 1999 in Frankfurt, and Economic Ministers in
October 1997 in Japan and October 1999 in Berlin. In addition, a Ministerial Conference on Science
and Technology was held in Beijing in October 1999. Annex 1 gives a more detailed summary of the
process, as it has developed to date, while Annex 2 illustrates how the ASEM process relates to other
ongoing dialogues.
For information on investment regulations, the Virtual Information Exchange website can be consulted
at http://www.asem.vie.net while information on investment opportunities can be found at
http://www.asemconnect.sg .
A website relating to ASEM science and technology cooperation has been established at
http://www.cordis.lu/asem/home.html

4

In seeking to establish the overall parameters of the ASEM process, the London Summit
adopted an Asia-Europe Co-operation Framework setting out key objectives and priorities for
the ASEM process, as well as launching an Asia-Europe Vision Group intended to address the
medium to long-term perspectives for Asia-Europe relations over the next decade. The report
of the Vision Group7 was presented to Foreign Ministers in March 1999, and will be
discussed at the Summit in Seoul.

In addition, it seems that the ASEM process has coincided with and contributed to an
increasing sense of regional dialogue and co-operation within Asia. The third “ASEAN plus
Three” informal summit
in Manila in November 1999 established a stronger basis for
dialogue between ASEAN and its North-East Asian partners (China, Japan and Korea), while
providing also an occasion for the first ever Summit-level meeting between China, Japan and
Korea.

Outside the official ASEM process, civil society groups have also organised a series of events
and networks drawing inspiration from the spirit of the new partnership established by our
Heads of Government. This has for example led to contacts between NGOs from Europe and
Asia, on the margins of both the Bangkok and London Summits. It will be important that the
output from these encounters can be heard in the “official” ASEM process, and indeed that
the scope and intensity of civil society dialogue between our two regions can be strengthened
in a wide range of areas.

Overall, therefore, the ASEM process has been able to address effectively the high level of
expectations set by Heads of State and Government. But many challenges remain. In
particular, there is already a risk that the process may lose momentum, if it can not confirm
and maintain its clear relevance to public and business interests. The ASEM Summit in Seoul
will therefore be particularly important to ensure that the ASEM process can continue to make
healthy progress in each of the three pillars foreseen in 1996. Our political dialogue, building
on its informal character, should continue to contribute to building understanding among
partners, in a broad range of political, security and policy themes, and even in areas where our
views might differ. Economic dialogue and co-operation should be able to make a genuine
impact on the trade and investment conditions facing our economic operators. Cultural and
intellectual networking should help to build up a broader and deeper awareness of the
importance of Asia-Europe relations among a wide public. Meeting these challenges will be
essential in order to secure public interest in and support for the ASEM process, in particular
from the business community which expects concrete results from the reinforced action plans
on trade and investment.

These initiatives have led to an impressive number of activities, organised jointly by ASEM
partners at their initiative and cost8. Therefore, the management of the ASEM process
becomes more and more important, not least to avoid “forum fatigue” (a problem which is not
unique to ASEM). We must emphasise added value and minimise overlap with respect to our
bilateral and multilateral dialogues, and ensure that the interest and commitment of all
participants is fully sustained by the focus, relevance and concrete output of our activities.
And we must, in particular, work to ensure that public opinion in a broad sense is fully
engaged by our work.

7

8

The full text of the report is available on http://www.mofat.go.kr/aevg
The “Matrix of ASEM activities”, an informal paper regularly updated by the Commission, describes
over 39 pages the many ASEM activities being carried out.

5

3.

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND PRIORITIES

The Commission Working Document of July 1997 had already identified a number of key
perspectives for the ASEM process. It was suggested that ASEM’s true advantage lies in its
informality (dialogue rather than negotiation), in its multi-dimensionality (touching equally
on political, economic and cultural aspects), and in its high level (the only heads of
government forum linking our two regions).

This led to the suggestion that ASEM’s key comparative advantage would lie in its ability to
stimulate and facilitate work in bilateral and multilateral fora, to promote dialogue and
understanding in areas where our views might differ, and to foresee more active co-operation
in areas where a commonality of views can be identified. It was emphasised also that ASEM,
as a partnership among equals, should avoid any major emphasis on aid-related activities.

These perspectives remain no less valid today. But the new challenges facing Asia-Europe
relations (for example in the context of globalisation), suggest that a particular emphasis
should be placed on ASEM’s potential to offer a forum for informal dialogue, and to use this
forum for enhancing awareness and understanding between the two regions. Now more than
ever it will be important to strengthen this mutual awareness in relation to political and
security issues, to economic, financial and social issues, and in a broader cultural and
intellectual context involving directly the citizens of our two regions.

It will also be important to consider how and when participation in the ASEM process might
be enlarged. A dialogue with Asia in which a major constituent of that region is not
represented cannot live up to its full potential, and it is timely for our Asian partners to
consider the possibilities for broadening the Asian presence in ASEM, and to address the
expectations of South Asia and Australasia. On the European side, we must confirm that the
European Union, as a Union, remains at the core of the process, given that the underlying
objectives of the ASEM process are and will remain fundamental concerns of the Union. As
the EU expands in future years, the incoming Member States will of course play a full role as
ASEM partners, as in other aspects of the Union’s external relations.

In addition, the importance of engaging public opinion in support of an enhanced relationship
between our two regions suggests that particular attention should be given to activities of
direct relevance to a broader public (including for example activities in the field of education,
culture, and the public awareness and understanding of science). Dialogue between our
parliaments should likewise be enhanced (including the European Parliament as well as
national parliaments9). And the active involvement of civil society in the dialogue between
our two regions should be further encouraged.

These general perspectives, emphasising in particular the comparative advantage of the
ASEM process based on its informality, multi-dimensionality and high-level leadership role,
should guide our consideration of the specific priorities which ASEM should address into the
next decade.

In many respects, the major priority issues which the ASEM process should address have
already been spelt out by the decisions taken at the Bangkok and London Summits. The Asia-
Europe Co-operation Framework adopted at the London Summit went into more detail on

9

A promising initiative in this respect is the Young Parliamentarians’ meeting organised by ASEF,
including a first meeting in Cebu/Philippines in November 1998, and a second meeting to be held in
Lisbon in April 2000

6

certain specific priorities, and the report of the Asia-Europe Vision Group also gives a
number of interesting suggestions for longer-term perspectives. It was already noted in
London that the Co-operation Framework should indeed be updated at the Seoul Summit in
order to take account of Ministers’ views on the recommendations of the Vision Group.

Taking account both of the priorities already established and of the main themes arising from
the work of the Vision Group and our initial discussions of this, one can already suggest a
range of general priorities which the ASEM process might address in the coming years. In
addition, it will be important from the point of view of the Seoul Summit to highlight a small
number of specific priority themes which might be given a special focus at the Summit and
which could have a particular weight in engaging our broader public.

3.1.

General priorities

In the political field, ASEM efforts should focus on issues of common interest, proceeding
step-by-step in a process of consensus-building, with no issue excluded a priori, and with a
view to enhancing mutual awareness and understanding between partners, particularly in
areas where our views may differ. In this context, general priorities should include:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

intensifying our high-level dialogue on regional and international issues of common
interest, and on thematic policy issues affecting our common future, at Ministerial and
Senior-Official level;

providing for an exchange of views among ASEM partners in the context of
appropriate international institutions;

enhancing our informal political dialogue, drawing together academics and officials
through ASEM seminars and workshops in fields such as
from both regions,
international relations, politics and economics;

strengthening networking and dialogue between the two regions, for example by
enhancing academic networks & exchanges, promoting bilateral exchanges of junior
officials, and encouraging public dialogue on themes relevant to our common future;

supporting human rights, democracy and the rule of law;

addressing global issues where Asia and Europe can contribute together within the
relevant international fora, and where appropriate may consider possible joint efforts
in addressing key issues. Emphasis should be placed on areas where the ASEM
process will be able to contribute a genuine added-value,
including for example
dialogue and co-operation in such fields as the environment (including for example
elements such as the sustainable use of forests and water use), combating international
crime, money-laundering, crime against women and children, and racism and
xenophobia, exchanging experience in fields relating to conflict-prevention and peace-
keeping as well as strengthening efforts to control the arms trade.

It might be noted that the Vision Group had also suggested that the Seoul Summit might
“affirm the principles of good governance”. The Summit might indeed be an appropriate
occasion for a political statement affirming the commitment of all partners to the principles of
good governance and the rule of law, on condition, of course, that such a statement in no way
detracts from existing international obligations.

7

In the economic field, ASEM efforts should focus on strengthening the economic partnership
between the two regions, with a view to enhancing our economic and business relations,
promoting sustainable and equitable development, and contributing together to the global
economic dialogue. In this context, key priorities should include:

• intensifying dialogue among Economic Ministers and their Senior Officials, with particular

regard to:

– complementing and reinforcing efforts to strengthen together the open and rules-based
multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO, especially in the wake of Seattle, to
pursue the launching of comprehensive WTO trade negotiations, and to use the informal
character of ASEM to facilitate this.;

– strengthening two-way trade and investment flows between Asia and Europe, notably
through the active implementation of the Trade Facilitation and Investment Promotion
Action Plans (TFAP and IPAP) to reduce or eliminate obstacles in these fields; a special
attention will be paid to key technical barriers to trade (in fields such as customs,
standards, and SPS), to obstacles identified under both action plans (such as IPR and public
procurement), and to an active dialogue on the most onerous barriers to trade and the most
effective investment promotion and policy measures;

– establishing an enhanced climate for business-to-business co-operation between the two
regions, responding to the concrete issues facing our business community, and paying
particular attention to the problems faced by SMEs;

– enhancing dialogue and co-operation in key sectors which will shape our economies in the
coming decade, including for example core sectors such as services, infrastructure and
and
transport
telecommunications (including e-commerce), aviation and aerospace, energy and the
environment;

high-technology

information

systems,

sectors

such

and

as

• consolidating business-to-business dialogue between our two regions, emphasising the
central role of the Asia Europe Business Forum (AEBF), encouraging continuity therein,
and facilitating two-way dialogue between government and the business community;

• enhancing dialogue and cooperation among relevant public and private actors in science
and technology, to increase the efficient use of existing and new science & technology
coordination instruments, and to promote scientific cooperation and knowledge generation
targeted at solutions to common economic and social problems;

• engaging in a dialogue on the broader socio-economic issues which will determine our
common future. Topics for such an informal dialogue, which should also include academic
and civil-society participation, include sustainable development and the protection and
preservation of the environment, employment and social security10, public and corporate
governance, consumer protection and competition policy, issues relating to the information
society and the networked economy, and issues relating to urban growth and management;

• and intensifying dialogue among Finance Ministers and their Deputies, with particular
regard to enhancing our dialogue on global financial issues, enhancing macro-economic

10

Europe’s own experience in establishing and modernising social security systems could, for example,
be of particular interest to Asian partners in the wake of the Asian crisis.

8

policy consultation, strengthening co-operation in financial supervision and regulation,
combating money-laundering, and strengthening customs co-operation. Given the over-
lapping nature of financial and economic affairs, occasional
joint meetings of these
ministers could be worthwhile.

In the cultural and intellectual field, ASEM efforts should focus on promoting enhanced
contact and strengthened mutual awareness between the people of our two regions, with a
view to helping civil society in Europe and Asia better appreciate and discuss the issues
affecting our common future, and thus to help generate the desired shift in perceptions which
underlay the establishment of this process. In this context, key priorities should include:

• enhancing dialogue and co-operation in the fields of science and technology,

the
the social sciences, arts and
environment (taking account of the work of AEETC),
humanities, promoting networking and exchanges among researchers and policy makers,
and fostering the protection of cultural heritage;

• encouraging enhanced dialogue and networking among our parliamentary representatives
and among civil society groups generally (including local government, social partners and
NGOs).

• continuing our support and encouragement for ASEF as a catalyst for cultural and
intellectual dialogue between our two regions, while encouraging also a broad range of
civil society dialogue in the cultural and intellectual fields.

including student and academic exchanges,

Finally, as regards education, the key priority should be to enhance our contacts and
exchanges in the field of education,
inter-
university co-operation, and the facilitation of electronic networking between schools in our
two regions11. This will be additional and complementary to our ongoing efforts, emphasising
structural education cooperation, in bilateral and horizontal cooperation programmes with
Asian countries. An ambitious target for multiplying student exchanges between our two
regions should be set, reflecting the efforts which individual partners will take in intensifying
their activities in this field. The Vision Group has already suggested that attention be given to
a high-profile scholarship programme. Attention should also be given to exchanges of young
professionals and internship programmes for students, to strengthening structural co-operation
among educational institutions, and to promoting electronic networking. Furthermore, issues
relevant to vocational training and life-long learning should not be overlooked.

3.2.

Specific priorities for ASEM III

While the general priorities suggested above can provide the main elements for a substantive
and active work-programme for the ASEM process into the coming decade,
it will be
important also to select a small number of specific priorities which could be given particular
emphasis at the upcoming Seoul Summit. Highlighting these particular issues could serve
both to focus the possible concrete output from the Summit itself, and to strengthen the
impact of the Summit on public opinion.

11

Drawing for example on the models provided by the Europe-Asia Business Internship Programme, by
the new Asia Link programme, or by the Netd@ys programme promoting electronic networking among
schools.

9

Within the broad range of priorities suggested above, and taking account of the work of the
Vision Group, as well as of the underlying interests of the EU, the Commission would suggest
that five key priorities might be identified for special focus at the Seoul Summit.

First, one might single out within the political pillar the special potential of the ASEM process
for promoting and facilitating an exchange of views and enhanced mutual understanding on
matters relating to regional and global security. The increasing importance of the security
dimension, its relevance for ordinary citizens and the recognition of this fact at Summit level,
by Foreign Ministers and by the Vision Group justifies such an initiative.

In pursuing the goal of global security the European Union is interested in engaging with
Asian ASEM partners in a security dialogue, which should complement this ongoing work by
drawing in particular on the informality of the ASEM process, and in sharing our respective
regional experiences in fields such as analysis, planning and training in relation to conflict
prevention and peace-keeping, reconciliation process, humanitarian assistance and other
aspects of “soft” security co-operation. Exchanges on “new security issues” including
international crime and terrorism, information and other piracy and cyber warfare will also be
important. Fostering support, in relevant fora, for determined action to stem proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, encouraging universal compliance
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical
Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention could supplement the agenda.

Such discussions, to be most effective, should be started in the most informal manner, for
example through seminars for officials back to back with Senior Officials’ meetings, and
including perhaps special “retreat” sessions at Foreign Minister level. Staff exchanges of
analysts and planners as well as informal discussions bringing together academics and
officials could be helpful tools. The European experience in crisis management and the
building of (soft) institutions could be shared and discussed with Asian partners. Such
exchanges should not of course seek to duplicate work being done in other multilateral or
regional fora, such as the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) or the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).

Second, in relation to the economic and financial pillar, it will be useful to give a special
emphasis to dialogue on trade and investment issues, socio-economic policy issues and
regional macro-economic co-operation.

• In relation to trade and investment, it will be important to pursue by all means at our
disposal the launching of comprehensive WTO trade negotiations aiming at both further
trade liberalisation and the strengthening of the WTO’s rules-based system, and to use the
informal character of ASEM to facilitate this. The recent WTO Ministerial Conference in
Seattle has clearly demonstrated the need for deepening our mutual understanding and
building alliances in the light of this aim. Based on the recent encouragement of ASEM
Economic Ministers who upgraded TFAP and endorsed benchmarks under IPAP, we must
also pursue and dynamise our work on facilitating and promoting trade and investment
flows between our two regions and overcoming obstacles through the TFAP and IPAP
recent experience with the
initiatives.
economic and financial crisis in Asia has demonstrated the commonality of socio-
economic issues facing both industrialised and industrialising countries. The public debate
surrounding the WTO Ministerial Conference has also underlined the importance of
promoting a wide-ranging public debate on the implications of globalisation. Whether at
the official level or through civil-society dialogue, ASEM offers an excellent forum to

In relation to socio-economic policy issues,

10

exchange experience on the relevant socio-economic issues, including for example policy
issues relating to social imbalances and exclusion, poverty and equitable development.

• Concerning regional macro-economic co-operation, it will be of particular importance in
the wake of the Asian crisis to pursue and intensify the dialogue already underway among
Finance Ministers, and to promote an active exchange of views and sharing of experience
in relation to our efforts at regional co-operation in information-exchange, surveillance and
monitoring, and financial supervision.

Third, in a world where consumers’ concerns are becoming increasingly global, a consumers’
dialogue between the two regions could be initiated. Food safety, for example, is a pressing
public concern in both Europe and Asia, and there are other issues relating to the quality and
safety of consumer goods and services which are of direct interest to the citizens of both
regions (and including for example such issues as labeling of consumer products, including
eco-labeling). Dialogue and networking among consumer groups, supervisory bodies and
legislators in the two regions, while not requiring significant official resources, could
nevertheless be of considerable interest in sharing our experience and promoting cross-border
co-operation, in an area which is also of considerable importance for international trade. Such
a dialogue might also contribute to the formation of relevant associations in those Asian
countries where a tradition of consumer organisations does not yet exist.

Fourth, we should give a particular emphasis to educational exchanges. The Vision Group
has already singled out this field as deserving special attention, and there are already a
number of initiatives under preparation, as well as a wide range of co-operation programmes
under implementation at the bilateral or sub-regional level. To permit a proper focus on this
theme at
initiative for
consideration by the Summit:

the Seoul Summit, the Commission would propose a three-part

• a political commitment by all ASEM partners to augment educational exchanges between
Asia and Europe, drawing on both bilateral and inter-regional programmes as well as on
ASEM’s own activities, and with the target for additional scholarships of producing a five-
fold increase in student exchanges between our two regions within ten years;

• the launching of a high-level ASEM Scholarship programme. One might draw here on
examples such as the Jean Monnet fellowship, and the Rhodes and Fulbright programmes,
and aim at building a reservoir of awareness, among those who will lead our societies in
future years, of the cultural, social and scientific traditions of our two regions.

• the encouragement of exchanges among young professionals, drawing on and enhancing

existing models.

In this connection, partners should be encouraged to announce at the Summit concrete targets
review of
(subject of course to the availability of
achievements. Business involvement
in the funding of such programmes should also be
encouraged (and possibly linked with internships).

resources) permitting an annual

Fifth, in relation to ASEM enlargement, the Seoul Summit offers the opportunity to take up
the challenge expressed in Bangkok and London, and to provide for a comprehensive Asia-
Europe partnership bringing together the European Union with representatives of Asia as a
this matter is under
whole. In line with the decisions taken at
consideration by Foreign Ministers, and certain basic parameters for enlargement are already
under discussion. It will be important however, both for the long-term relevance of the ASEM

the London Summit,

11

process, and for its significance in the public eye, to reach practical conclusions on this issue
at Seoul. While the current “numerical imbalance” suggests that the priority for ASEM
enlargement should rest with major candidates on the Asian side, the role of the European
Union as Union must of course continue to be emphasised.

4.

CO-ORDINATING THE ASEM PROCESS

The Vision Group Report touched briefly on the means of enhancing co-ordination within the
including the possibility of establishing a “lean but effective” ASEM
ASEM process,
secretariat. Bearing in mind however the informal character of the ASEM process, as
established in Bangkok and confirmed in London, and the key value of this informal approach
in fostering dialogue between our two regions, such an institutional approach would seem to
be both inappropriate and indeed counter-productive. In addition, it will be important to
ensure that ASEM partners retain a full sense of ownership of and responsibility for initiatives
which they might propose.

The very success of the ASEM process, and the expanding range of themes and activities
currently addressed, certainly makes it necessary to consider how best
to provide for
enhanced co-ordination, focusing and management of ASEM activities. Every effort should
be made to draw on existing channels (strengthening the role of Co-ordinators and of contact
officers and drawing to the full on the possibilities offered by electronic communications) and
to avoid any proliferation of meetings. The key role of Foreign Ministers in the overall co-
ordination and management of the ASEM process should be confirmed. These institutional
matters will necessarily be elaborated further within the updated Asia-Europe Co-operation
Framework to be adopted at the Seoul Summit, and need not be further elaborated here.

5.

CONCLUSIONS

The essential importance of Asia for Europe, and of Europe for Asia, is incontrovertible.
Asian countries or groupings such as China, India, Japan, Korea and ASEAN are major
players on the global and regional stage, while the region also includes some of the world’s
important potential flashpoints including the situation on the divided Korean Peninsula,
Kashmir and the Spratlys. The recurring tensions between China and Taiwan warrant
international attention. Indonesia, an important factor for regional stability had democratic
elections but is still facing the challenge of transition and structural change. The European
Union is a global power, certainly economically, and with increasing political will
to
participate actively in world politics. Following the Amsterdam Treaty and the Cologne
European Council Declaration European leaders have decided at the recent Helsinki Summit
to meet the challenge of reflecting economic accomplishments and the success of stable
democracies in the foreign policy of the European Union. At the same time the EU recognises
that the margins of the European continent have their own potential flashpoints which are of
interest to Asia.

Accordingly ASEM partners have to follow closely what happens in each other’s region.
Politically, and from the security standpoint, the world is becoming a smaller place - crises in
one region have potential repercussions far afield. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to
further develop political dialogue and co-operation on issues of mutual interest. The argument
for such co-operation and dialogue is reinforced when global threats are considered (for
example,
terrorism, organised crime and proliferation). These concerns can be more
effectively addressed by acting in concert. To this end a comprehensive approach, mobilising
political, economic, social and humanitarian co-operation at various levels is required to

12

ensure conflict prevention and peace. The exchange, at ASEM level, of regional experiences
in dealing with security issues could contribute to stability in the respective regions.

The importance of Europe and Asia in the world economy, and the ongoing process of
globalisation, means that the prosperity of our two regions is inseparably linked. Asia’s long
record of dynamic growth, and rapid recovery from the recent crisis (not ignoring the ongoing
challenges of reform), makes it an essential partner for Europe. Europe’s own weight in the
international economy, as the largest single market, the largest source of FDI, and the largest
global donor, in addition to its experiences in regional economic and monetary co-operation,
makes it an essential partner for Asia.

The economic prosperity of Europe and of Asia may be jeopardised not only by financial
crises, but also by political instability in a distant region. Europe’s political commitment to
Asia reflects not merely economic interests, but also in a shared interest in stability and many
shared values. This has been illustrated by the concerted international response to the
humanitarian needs in political crises such as East Timor and North Korea. The attention
which Europe is paying to problems in Asia has been mirrored by Japan’s considerable
financial support for international relief, reconstruction and peace in the Balkans which has
been complemented by contributions by other Asian countries like South Korea and Malaysia.

Any co-operation between the two regions to promote peace and prosperity would not be
complete without the involvement of civil society. Therefore, ASEM needs to continue
promoting engagement between Asian and European civil societies and forging mutual
understanding through greater intellectual, cultural and people-to-people exchanges, for
increased scholarships and student exchanges. The valuable work already
example,
undertaken in the fields of environment and education are but
two examples of the
contribution of
In addition, developing contacts between non-
governmental organisations as well as the deepening of cultural exchanges will contribute to
the mutual understanding between the two regions. In order to make the ASEM process more
relevant and communicate this to the public, a jointly developed communication strategy to
raise public awareness would be helpful. An important step would be an increased public
awareness of ASEM III and the constructive role that it will play in deepening relations
between our two regions.

the ASEM process.

Although the European Union has to face challenges such as Economic and Monetary Union,
enlargement, the Mediterranean Basin and the Balkans, the EU will continue to engage with
the dynamic and complex region which comprises half of the world’s population. and much
of which, despite the ferocity of the financial crisis, has impressive prospects for the future,
both economically and politically. Both regions perspectives of growing integration could
increasingly be a focus of the dialogue between Asian and European ASEM partners,
especially if Asia is contemplating a greater emphasis on regional integration as hinted at by
the recent “ASEAN plus Three” meeting in Manila.

The third Summit in Seoul will set out the key directions for the Asia-Europe partnership for
the coming decade. This paper suggests five specific priorities for adoption at the Summit –
enhanced exchange of views on security issues; enhanced dialogue and co-operation on trade,
social policy and economic issues; intensified educational exchanges; co-operation in the field
of consumer protection and possible enlargement of participation of the ASEM process. It is
important that the Summit confirm and deepen the relationship between Asia and Europe and
that we provide future direction to the process. In achieving this, a continuing emphasis
should be placed on the informality of the ASEM process from which its comparative
advantage is derived.

13

The Commission, together with the Member States and our Asian partners, will continue to
play its full part in the process.

14

The ASEM process

ANNEX 1

The meeting of Heads of State and Government and the President of the European
Commission provides the overall impetus and guidance to the process. At the London
summit, the Asia Europe Co-operation Framework was agreed, which set outs the main
parameters of the ASEM process.

A process has been established to ensure continuous dialogue and progress between
summits. The general co-ordinating role, as well as responsibility for political dialogue,
has been assigned to Foreign Ministers, who meet
in the intervening year between
summits and on the eve of summits. Ministers met in February 1997 (Singapore) and
March 1999 (Berlin) and also at both summits. They will meet again on the eve of the
Seoul summit.

Economic Ministers met in September 1997 (Makuhari) and October 1999 (Berlin). They
will meet again in 2001 (in Asia - venue to be confirmed). They discussed inter alia
economic relationships, effects of the crisis, trade, investment, WTO issues and economic
growth. At their Berlin meeting they extended the mandate for the Investment Experts
Group for a further two years and adopted a paper setting out future action on the Trade
Facilitation Action Plan. The annual Asia-Europe Business Forum (AEBF) provides a
platform for the exchange of views of private and public sector
representatives,
particularly concerning investment and trade matters; the fifth meeting will be in Vienna
in September 2000.

Finance Ministers met in September 1997 (Bangkok) and January 1999 (Frankfurt) and
will meet again in 2001 (Japan). Items discussed include the macroeconomic outlook,
exchange rate developments, EMU, and the financial sector. They agreed to launch
initiatives in customs co-operation, money laundering and financial supervision. Customs
Director Generals meet every other year to discuss in particular issues relating to custom
procedures and enforcement.

A Ministerial conference on Science and Technology which took place in October 1999
(Beijing) laid the groundwork for improved communication and networking among the
scientific communities of the two regions.

The cultural/people to people dimension of ASEM attempts to promote enhanced
contacts and strengthened mutual awareness between the people through a wide range of
activities including targeting education exchanges, networking among civil society
representatives and parliamentarians, preserving the cultural heritage and improving child
welfare. The Singapore based Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) has as its objective to
promote Asia-Europe exchanges in the intellectual, social and cultural fields. The Asia
Europe Technology Centre (AEETC) in Bangkok aims at promoting co-operation on key
environmental themes.

15

At the level below ministerial meetings, senior foreign affairs officials have met on five
separate occasions to consider political issues. In addition, senior officials on trade and
investment have also met five times. Finance Deputies have met on three occasions to
discuss macro-economic issues and prepare meetings of Finance Ministers. Below the
level of senior officials there are in excess of 10 working groups. While these groups
cover a wide range of topics, they are mainly concerned with the implementation of the
Trade Facilitation Action Plan. A particular strength of the ASEM process is the meeting
of co-ordinators to prepare events. The two EU Co-ordinators are the Presidency and the
Commission. The Asian co-ordinators rotate and at present, they are Korea and Thailand.

The key characteristics of the process include:

(1)

(2)

(3)

its informality (complementing work in bilateral and multilateral fora);

its multidimensionality (political, economic and cultural dimensions)

its emphasis on equal partnership, eschewing any “aid-based” relationship (taken
forward under our bilateral relations) in favour of a more general process of
dialogue and co-operation

(4)

and its high-level focus, stemming from the Summits themselves.

16

The ASEM Structure

Coordinators:
Europe:
Commission
Presidency

Asia:
SOM Coord.: Thailand, Korea
Econ. Coord.: Thailand, Korea
TFAP: Philippines, Korea
IEG shepherds: Thailand, Japan

SUMMIT

Heads of State and Government, President of the European
Commission

Vision Group

Political
Dialogue

Foreign

SOM

Overall process
management

Coordinators

Economic Pillar

Political Pillar

Pillar Cultural, Intellectual

Economic Min.

Finance Min.

S&T Min. Conf.

AEBF

Steering
Committee

Working
Groups

SOMTI

Deputies

Economic
Coordinators

Core Group

IPAP

IEG
shepherds

TFAP

TFAP shepherds.
Facilitators: Standards., IPR,
Govt. procurements, SPS and
Distribution.

Custom Directors-
General and the
European
Commission

Task Force: IPAP

ASEM Trust
Fund

EFEX

Procedures
17

Enforcement

Other Activities:
e.g.: Cultural Heritage,
Asia-Europe Young Leaders’
Symposium and
Child Welfare

ASEF

AEETC

Acronyms:
AEBF: Asia-Europe Business Forum
AEETC: Asia-Europe Environmental Technology Centre
ASEF: Asia-Europe Foundation
EFEX: European Financial Expertise Network
IPAP: Investment Promotion Action Plan
IPR: Intellectual Property Rights.
S&T: Science and Technology
SOM: Senior Officials Meeting
SOMTI: Senior Officials’ Meeting on Trade and Investment
SPS: Sanitary-Phytosanitary Standards
TFAP: Trade Promotion Action Plan

Annex II: ASEM in the regional context

APEC

Hong Kong SAR
Taiwan

Mongolia

Papua New Guinea

AMM-PMC*

ASEM

15 EU member
states and the
European
Commission

ASEAN

Thailand
Singapore
Malaysia
Brunei
Indonesia
Philippines
Vietnam

Cambodia
Laos
Myanmar

China
S. Korea
Japan

Australia
New Zealand

Chile
Mexico
Peru

EALAF

Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Colombia
Ecuador
Panama
Paraguay
Uruguay
Venezuela

Bangladesh
The Maldives Nepal
Pakistan

Bhutan

Sri-Lanka

India

Asean Regional Forum

SAARC

18

Acronyms:
AMM-PMC: Asean Ministerial Meeting - Post
Ministerial Conference
ASEM: Asia-Europe Meeting
ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations
APEC: Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation
EALAF: East Asia-Latin America Forum
SAARC: South Asian Association for Regional
Co-operation
* In AMM-PMC, EU is represented by EU Troika.