ASEM: from Sexy Summit to Strong Partnership? by Yeo Lay Hwee(Copenhagen: Danish Institute of International Affairs, 2002,ISBN 87-90681-54-1, 150 pp) andAsia-Europe: Do they meet? Reflections on the Asia-Europe Meetingby Michael Reiterer(Singapore: Asia Europe Foundation, 2002, ISBN 981-02-6657-9, 271 pp)

Abstract

As a leading civil servant behind the ASEM process, one would expect that Dr.Reiterer would reveal more of what was and is actually happening in the ASEMprocess among participants and hence in the position of making insightfulanalysis. He is making an analysis from close quarters which is different fromthat of Ms. Yeo who is analyzing ASEM as an outsider. It is however alsoevident that Ms. Yeo had much access to the actors of ASEM and its documentsand to a certain extent is close to the ASEM process. An insider’s position andthat of an outsider can result in different assessments but this is not the casewith these two volumes. Rather both books complement each other well.

ASEM: from Sexy Summit to Strong Partnership?

by Yeo Lay Hwee

The reviewer had the opportunity to read Ms. Yeo’s doctoral thesis on ASEMwhich is due to be published soon by Routledge after the conclusion of ASEMIV in Copenhagen. He recognizes that this present published book is basedupon her doctoral thesis. For the general reader, this book is accessible,informative and instructive. It is well organized and well laid out. It reflects thedepth of understanding of the ASEM process by the author. The author lays

Asia Europe Journal (2003) 1: 121–141

1 Associate Professor at the School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, and SeniorResearch Associate of the European Institute for Asian Studies (EIASOA) in Brussels. He isalso Overseas Research Fellow of Sungkonghoe University in Seoul.

Analyzing the ASEM process

Paul Lim1

School of Social Sciences, University Sains Malaysia

ASIAEUROPE

JOURNAL� Springer-Verlag 2003

out arguments of all sides without taking any stand. The result hence is notoffensive to anybody.

For the academic researching ASEM, he will probably wait for theRoutledge book as well to see how Ms. Yeo theorises ASEM or how thetheories (or strands as she calls them) apply to ASEM. She speaks of the realist,liberal-institutionalist and social constructivist strands in Chapter 1 and laterin the book refers to these ‘‘strands’’ without elaboration. The general readermay not connect with these strands but nevertheless the book is comprehen-sible. One would expect much more of this theorising in her Routledge book.Having read her doctoral thesis, I would have wished that Dr. Yeo attemptedother ‘‘strands’’ like that of the Weberian historical sociology or the WorldSystem Theory and others to apply to ASEM. This present edition does nothave theory as a primary focus which is acceptable. For the academic this bookremains useful. It summarises ASEM well and even the informed reader learnsnew facts of ASEM.

Chapter 1: The Genesis of ASEM: A Historical OverviewThe reviewer largely agrees with how she describes multilateralism andunilateralism in relation to the US as well as the notions of multipolarity,bipolarity and tripolarity. I would add the nuance that it is all about power andits legitimisation. The US can on its own attack Iraq but its action will be betterlegitimised if it has the support of other countries and that of the UN but it hasalso indicated that it is willing to go on its own. Its willingness to act on its ownshows up unilateralism and reinforces the idea that we are actually in aunipolar world. As to the idea of a tripolar world, it is a construction. Does theUS perceive it this way? Does the European Union (EU) see it this way,considering that the EU has its other relations with other countries, regionsand continents outside of Asia? In ASEM II apparently there were views amongsome European leaders who spoke rather of a multipolar world. Further, evenif we accept a tripolar world, the transatlantic partnership is basic, even ifunder strain at least publicly with the danger of the USA going alone. The EUand the USA share much in common in terms of the philosophy, beliefs, valuesof liberal democracy and a common ‘‘Judeo-Christian’’ heritage. The otherbond is NATO in which most EU Member States are members.

In the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) a strictdichotomy between external economic relations and external political policystill exists. The CFSP is second pillar while external economic relations is inthe first pillar. The Treaty does speak of the European Commission beingassociated with the work of the CFSP, but what does it mean? This has leftthe Commission whose role is very much in the first pillar trying to shapeout a role for itself in the CFSP without the legal authority to act. The CFSPremains the domain of the EU Member States. The CFSP developedgradually from the European Political Co-operation (EPC) (cf. p. 16–17). It isof course true that the bridge is being attempted between external economicand external political relations. But when new conditions were put todevelopment aid or linking trade and labour standards, trade and theenvironment, linkages, some Asian countries rejected them. The recognitionthat we cannot compartmentalize the economic from the political neitherfrom the environmental and so on, is holistic. In reality the different spheresare inter-linked. Asian philosophies have this holistic approach to reality,

122 Paul Lim

but Asians have adopted a compartmentalized view of reality throughWestern education. Self-interests also came in the way.

The reviewer agrees entirely with the author’s description of APEC and theEU. The EU was unhappy when it was excluded from APEC and when the ideaof ASEM came along it jumped on it. ASEM was a consolation to the EU. Therewas always a looking over to APEC. There was this wish that ASEM cannot beanother APEC while Asians had that bias towards APEC until things did not gowell with APEC which Ms. Yeo describes in Chapter 4.

While it is true that the ‘‘economy’’ motivated ASEM for both the Europeanand Asian countries, it must be said that when it came to agenda-setting, it wasthe EU which insisted on a political dialogue. When the preparations werebeing made for ASEM I in Bangkok, the Asians saw ASEM with the eyes ofAPEC. The author covers this in Chapter 2 (p. 39). This has not changed verymuch and explains why the economic pillar has been successful since bothsides reached agreement on the Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAP) and theInvestment Promotion Action Plan (IPAP). In the EU there has been aevolution in line with the development of the EU itself which spilled over intoexternal relations: relations with third countries are not just about trade andeconomic and development cooperation but include political dialogue. Thisreflected in the development of its agreements with third countries: trade totrade and cooperation agreements and what is now called third generationagreements where adherence to human rights, democracy, rule of law, goodgovernance are the basis of the EU’s relations with third countries.

On the role of Singapore and ASEAN, the reviewer was struck by theparagraph on Singapore (p. 25): Singapore hoped it could impress upon the worldthat there is a certain value attached to working with Singapore. That is,Singapore wanted to show that it is not just a trading post, but a diplomatic andpolitical player in the international playing field that can be counted upon todeliver – to bring about the implementation of an idea it has proposed. Singapore’sinitiative was also deeply connected to its belief that although Singapore is notwell-liked by its neighbours, its prosperity is tied to the region, and hence it isimportant to promote the region’s trade and investment opportunities. Alongthese lines, extending its diplomatic reach through such multilateral fora wasalso seen as essential to strengthening Singapore’s chances of survival.

The quote is attributed to the Press Secretary of the Prime Minister. Thesmall city-state lives in a dilemma which is its constant. When it firstseparated from Malaysia the survival ideology was that the world was itsmarket and its hinterland. But the vagaries of the international economy, orrather the US economy made it return back to the reality that its futureprosperity lay in S.E. Asia, but with a S.E. Asia with which it competes andwith which it has to maintain a comparative advantage for its economic bieneetre. This had led to some unhappiness to put it mildly by its closestneighbours. The ASEAN framework has contributed to a certain modusvivendi. The recognition of its future in S.E. Asia explains its lead to re-launchASEAN as the place to invest in after the economic crisis but its going alonewith bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) raised eye brows in the rest ofASEAN. Here Singapore is again back to the track with the world as itsmarket. It has proposed a bilateral FTA with the EU. This is Singapore’sdilemma, its survival not just as an economic entity, but also as a politicalentity. If the extension of Singapore’s diplomatic reach through, for example,

Analyzing the ASEM process 123

ASEM, is essential to strengthening Singapore’s chances of survival, then itexplains the active lobbying of Singapore towards the EU institutions overASEM Copenhagen during the summer of 2002 to make it a success.Singapore wants to be a key interlocutor of the EU among Asian ASEMmembers. How do other Asian ASEM members feel, especially the S.E. Asianones? China could steal the lead from Singapore in ASEM as it grows instature in the international community.

The last paragraph in Chapter 1 states that ‘‘The ASEAN states’ record ofeconomic success and growing self-confidence, sold the EU to the idea of ASEANas the bridge or gateway to wider Asia–Europe relations’’ and quotes theEuropean Commission’s Communication on ‘‘Towards a New Asia Strategy’’which ‘‘pinpointed ASEAN-EU relations as the cornerstone of the widerrelationship that the EU sought to develop with other Asian countries’’. Is thisthe reality today? Hasn’t ASEM given the EU the access to all Asians countries?Is not China rather the cornerstone? Does one still see ASEAN as gateway? TheEU has its summits with the North East Asian countries individually, but nonewith any of the S.E. Asian countries.

Chapter 2: The Inner Workings of ASEM: Summits, Ministerials and MeetingsThe author describes the London Summit of 1998 and doubts the Europeans’commitment to Asia against the background of the Asian economic crisis interms of aiding the Asians. ASEM was seen as a meeting of equals based onpartnership. Equal partnership could be touted in ASEM I in 1996 when the Asianeconomies were on the rise. ASEM II portrayed the stronger economies ofEurope, a plea for help and brought in an element of development cooperationwith its donor-recipient connotation demonstrated by the ASEM Trust Fundwhich was extended by ASEM Seoul. Equal partnership was dented slightly. TheEU did not want to bring in the development cooperation dimension into ASEM.

Chapter 3: Facing Reality. An Empirical Assessment of ASEMMs. Yeo i.e. states (p. 98) that ASEM gave the EU the opportunity to furtherfine-tune its CFSP concept and practice and goes on to quote Chris Patten, theCommissioner for External Relations to support her statement on trade beingthe cement of ASEM …, ‘‘but with the EU striving to forge its own foreign policyand a defence identity, Europe wants to play its part in securing developmentand stability in Asia’’. ASEM may have provided an occasion rather than theopportunity. The CFSP rather has been fine-tuned by the events in the Balkansor other events closer to home.

Chapter 4: Into the Future. Challenges and ProspectsIn this chapter she speaks of forum fatigue, declining interest and wasteful useof resources through duplication. Forum fatigue was already raised in theCommission when ASEM first started in 1996. A European official of aEuropean ASEM Member State stated that they were willing to allow theCommission to do the coordination of ASEM work as the foreign ministrieshave enough to do. Forum fatigue is just human.

The fear of disinterest exists especially in the higher echelons of Europeandiplomacy occupied with Iraq, the Balkans, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, refugees,the pressing issues at hand. The same could be asked of the higher echelons ofAsian governments. Hence, the lobbying of the Singaporeans towards the EU

124 Paul Lim

institutions for the Copenhagen summit. The Commission’s ASEM team whichDr. Michael Reiterer headed has done a splendid job to keep the EU interested.Sadly Dr. Reiterer, the pillar of ASEM has left the ASEM team. This brings inthe question of the institutional memory of ASEM. Without an ASEMsecretariat, without an Asian ASEM secretariat and rather changing coordi-nators on the Asian side, the Commission’s team had also served as asecretariat to Asian ASEM members. A new Commission team comes with newvigor which is necessary because of the danger of ASEM becoming regular andmonotonous. Meeting often at different levels may keep the process going, butit also tires people especially if the outputs are meagre. The human conditionhas to be taken into consideration.

In the section entitled, ‘‘An Elitist Project?’’, taking on the top-downapproach of ASEM, Dr. Yeo speaks of government changes affecting policycontinuity. She seems to point at Europe. Changes in government is the natureof democratic states. Continuity of parties in power over long periods of time isthe case in Asia, but is that healthy for democracy? No doubt the long-termcontinuity of ASEM is best ensured by the existence of linkages at all levels ofsociety. Asia-Europe should not just be a project for governments. WhetherASEM subsists is less important than the bonds which will bind Asia andEurope. If ASEM sparks of closer Europe-Asia relations, it has done its job.Ms. Yeo speaks of linkages between business, academia, youth etc. as hedgingagainst fatigue and considers the long-term commitment and conviction ofpoliticians as debatable who often have short-sighted views and act on thebasis of political expediency.

But while making the case that ASEM should not be top-down or an elitistproject, she still makes the point of ‘‘a stronger partnership and increasedcooperation between the two regions… and to achieve such lofty goals, wisestatecraft, a committed leadership and strong political will would be required’’.It is not just an issue of committed leadership and political will, but a ‘state ofmind’ as an Asian Ambassador said in which on any foreign policy matter anAsian minister or a European civil servant would immediately ask hiscounterpart how to react jointly. What the US will say or do is more often onthe minds of European and Asian leaders. Perhaps with the US’s tendency to beunilateralist, Europe and Asia will get closer together.

On the enlargement of ASEM, Ms. Yeo suggests that one of the ways to helpnegate the effect of numerical disparities and diversities was to move away from apurely inter-governmental forum to carry out more and more inter-regionaldialogue. But this would hinge on progress in the further integration of the Asianmembers. Does this mean that numbers do not count anymore? Will it not lead tothe situation in which too many participants on one side lead to unwieldydiscussions (the EU is now attempting to streamline how decision-making for itsown enlargement)? Or could it lead to the opposite situation in which certaincountries could consider it unimportant to be represented at the highest levels orsimply not participate. This could lead to a lesser importance of ASEM.

In the sub-section on ‘‘Developments within the EU’’, she speaks of theexpanding role of European Parliament. If it is granted more say in externalrelations, it might affect ASEM. As a former Policy Adviser to the Parliament Ido not think that the Parliament will be much of a problem. It generallysupports greater interaction between Europe and Asia while remaining strongagainst human rights violations in Asian countries. However, in its everyday

Analyzing the ASEM process 125

work the Parliament is more pre-occupied by pressing issues just like thepolitical leaders. If ASEM is going to be in the radar of the Parliament, it willneed some parliamentarians to give attention. But ASEM does not come on theagenda of the Parliament every day. It is on the agenda only when the summitis close. In fact, lobbying the Parliament is necessary to get it to give attentionto ASEM. There is reason to lobby the Parliament if one feels that the EU islosing interest in ASEM. Parliamentarians are more drawn into dealing withindividual countries in Asia or are pre-occupied by the rest of the world. Morepressing is to gain the support of the national parliaments. Nationalparliaments have more of a say on foreign policy than the EuropeanParliament as it stands. It is unusual that national parliaments and theEuropean Parliament are not asked to input more into the EU’s and MemberStates’s positions on ASEM as their democratic traditions demand. ASEMmaybe an inter-governmental process between Asia and Europe but in theEuropean domestic context there should be more parliamentary debate andco-decision-making on ASEM with the democratic accountability of Europeangovernments and the EU.

On bilateral FTAs Singapore is mentioned. Mexico’s FTA with the EU formspart of a wider agreement called ‘‘Economic Partnership, Political Coordinationand Cooperation Agreement’’. This is in the genre of what is called the third-generation agreements, referred to previously, where respect for human rights,democratic principles is the basis of the relationship. The FTA which Ms. Yeois referring to is part of this agreement. In third generation agreements, if there isevidence that human rights and democratic principles are not respectedthe agreement can be suspended and that should have consequences for the FTA.This global agreement institutionalizes political dialogue with Mexico and thecooperation aspect of this agreement covers tropical forests, NGOs, economiccooperation, demographic policies, refugees etc. With the EU any FTA is part of awider agreement which covers other spheres. The FTA to which Ms. Yeo refersgiving Singapore as an example is simply in the trade area.

Epilogue: ASEM and Asia-Europe Relations after September 11thMs. Yeo repeats the theme of engaging the US and about greater economiccooperation to keep the global economy afloat. Two new points are on aid andthe aid fatigue and on inter-civilisation dialogue. She speaks of aid fatigue asaid experts are beginning to doubt the effectiveness of foreign aid. She asks aid-contributing countries to work together and exchange experiences on whatworks and what does not in their foreign aid policy. Setbacks should not justifywithdrawing or cutting down of aid. She speaks of working harder and smarterto make sure the aid effort is going into areas that really matter, about acomprehensive review of overseas development aid, on fresh innovations onhow aid can be dispensed efficiently to where it matters most.

Contrast this to a BBC report on the 25th September 2002 entitled‘‘Developing countries hooked on aid’’. It referred to a report from theIndependent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the IMF. The report, according to theBBC, concluded that many countries had become stubbornly reliant on aidfrom international lending bodies. It found that the prolonged use of IMFinitiatives has expanded considerably over the past two decades. It quoted theIEO’s Deputy Director stating that prolonged use was a large, growing andpersisting issue and raised the questions about the effectiveness of programs.

126 Paul Lim

While most prolonged users were low-income countries, protracted use wasalso a feature of so-called middle-income nations, like the Philippines. ThePhilippines are an ASEM member. Several causes were mentioned, amongthem factors specific to each nation. Others included international pressure onthe IMF to involve itself to greater degree in assisting low-income countries,which meant many more states had become dependent on aid. Poorly designedprograms that failed to take into account a country’s need for self-determination contributed to prolonged need for aid. Political reasons werebased on IMF management decisions. Among the recommendations were stepsto reduce staff turnover, inputs from countries benefiting from aid anddemand for greater institutional reforms.

Policies of certain Asian countries prefer market access to aid. The ability totrade and earn one’s living is a better alternative to rather be caught in a cycleof continuous aid. Of course the ability of a country to earn its living does notimply that there is a fairer distribution of wealth within a country. One has alsothe impression that in some countries, the unwillingness to a fairer distributionof wealth has led to welcoming aid to take care of the sections of society whichare at a disadvantage.

Inter-civilization dialogue was on the agenda of ASEM IV in Copenhagen.Probably, Ms. Yeo knew of this at the time of writing the book. She is right inpointing out that it should not be carried out in an East versus West, or Asianversus European format and that within Asia there is that diversity of religions,cultures and civilizations. She is right too in saying that this dialogue shouldnot be confined to scholars and academics but out in the media, high schoolsand colleges, an on-going process penetrating into the psyche of the people.The question is how to do this beyond the elite group of people and what is thecontent of this dialogue? It should not only be about religion but the ways ofthinking and doing things. Misunderstandings between European and Asianshave less to do with values and more with ways of doing things and thinking.But this dialogue is obviously more urgent in the wake of September 11. I amafraid that in the general population in Europe there is this unease with theArab Muslims, associating them with what is happening in the Middle East.What is more dangerous is for Muslims in Europe and the Middle Eastbelieving that they are perceived as the enemy by the West.

Ms. Yeo ends her book with, ‘‘What to expect of ASEM 4?’’ ASEM 4 has justended and she has been actively involved in ASEM in Copenhagen. We willknow what she thinks of ASEM 4 only when her Routledge book appears. Sherepeats some of her key ideas from previous pages. She should be happy thatASEM 4 did capitalize upon the shock of September 11. The section is writtenin a way to stress the importance of ASEM, the role it can play and its future isin the hands of its leaders.

Asia-Europe: Do they meet?Reflections on the Asia-Europe Meeting

by Michael Reiterer

Michael Reiterer’s book is not about the application of the theories ofinternational relations to ASEM as Ms. Yeo’s doctoral thesis and forthcoming

Analyzing the ASEM process 127

Routledge book. This is in the domain of policy-making and the privilege of abook to receive recognition from the Danish Presidency and ASEF. Thereviewer also largely agrees with his work.

Chapter 1: Challenges and Issues for the 4th ASEM Summit in CopenhagenComparing this chapter and the output of Copenhagen, the impression ariseswhatever was written in this chapter played itself out in Copenhagen. Perhapsthis is because of the language which after all comes from the same hand andpen of an author who is one of the key civil servants in the scene.

Dr. Reiterer’s uses the words ‘‘Islamic camouflage’’ (p. 6) describing thejustification of the terrorist attacks which led to tensions and even outbreaks ofviolence between Muslims and non-Muslims, aggravating the existing lack ofunderstanding between followers of this world religion and others. Later (p. 11),he speaks of misusing religious camouflage for justifying terrorist attacksleading very quickly to mistrust and even hatred among religious communities.May I suggest that a better word to use is legitimisation. It must be clear thatSeptember 11 has to be placed in the context of Arab, if not the Muslim or ArabMuslim world’s unhappiness, discontent and frustration over America’s policyover Palestine. Consider what Prime Minister Mahathir said in a BBC newsreport entitled, ‘‘US ‘regrets’ Malaysian checks’’ dated 2 October 2002. He wasquoted as accusing the US of ‘‘anti-Muslim’’ hysteria. Incidents like this makeinter-civilisational dialogue all the more important and we have to be careful ofhow we say things.

Dr. Reiterer comes out with new ideas for ASEM particularly on itsenlargement using the post-ministerial meeting formula. ASEAN’s Post-Ministerial Conference must have inspired him. This post-ministerial formulawill enable a dialogue with other countries, some of which expressed interest inbecoming part of ASEM but could not due to internal disagreements on howenlargement should proceed. The post-ministerial formula overcomes thisproblem. He goes on to refer to a ‘‘members only scenario’’ consisting of the EUMember States and the European Commission and an ASEAN + 3 in a kind ofquasi block-to block relationship. Then he speaks of the ‘‘open scenario’’ whereone sees the participation of non-EU Member States and non-ASEAN + 3 AsianStates. In this scenario, he speaks of the necessity of an ASEM Secretariat andin a footnote refers to the floating of the idea of a small secretariat set up inKuala Lumpur. He even speaks of the need of supportive structures in the‘‘members only’’ scenario depending on the numbers and the state ofdevelopment of the respective integrative structures. This is new. He proposesthese ideas being aware that the next Hanoi ASEM has to settle the ASEMenlargement issue. The stand of the European Commission had always beenthe non-necessity of a secretariat. Institutionalization of ASEM had alwaysbeen a ‘‘no’’ and the present way of organizing ASEM has been described assoft institutionalization. The other new idea proposed is a common AsiaEurope Charter of Mutual Understanding. This following the Asian partnershaving worked on a ‘‘Europe Strategy’’ but recognizing the difficulty due to thelack of integration. This idea of a ‘‘Europe Strategy’’ is a counterpart of theCommission’s own work on its Asia Strategy and country strategy papers.

Sometimes however the author’s statements are not clear. Like this one: ‘‘acommon intellectual framework, which gives credence to pretext and judgmentof facts on their own merit, is missing’’ (p. 12). What is he trying to say?

128 Paul Lim

He speaks also of involving civil societies which play an important role butare still too much at the sidelines of the process. The author as a civil servant ofthe European Commission has been stressing the EU’s position on the roleof civil society and pointing to the unease of Asian partners to the participationof civil society in ASEM to the point of avoiding the words ‘‘civil society’’.

Dr. Reiterer should be happy that much of what he wrote in his first chapterwas fulfilled in Copenhagen. This is like his legacy including the book onleaving the ASEM responsibility in the Commission. He speaks also of plannersbeing spared the need to frantically search for a theme to ‘‘save’’ a summit.ASEM summits have been saved by some important event but it also points tothe danger that it rolls along and interest in it can only be maintained by someevent or a pretext to meet.

Chapter 2: The Third ASEM Summit in SeoulDr. Reiterer writes of the Commission stressing the political dialogue and theAsians preferring the economic and the cultural pillars in ASEM. He makes thepoint that progress in the political field has been less striking. Asian partnershave been hesitant and reluctant to discuss political issues in general andhuman rights, good governance and the rule of law in particular. Dr. Reiterergives importance to human rights and democracy: speaking of his conviction;relating human rights, democracy and freedom to the CFSP and to ESDP;stating that an open, rules-based multilateral trading system… also helps topromote open societies and liberal ideas; that through commitment to humanrights, Europe can explode the notion that there is a tension betweencommercial interests and active support for freedom; conflict preventionincludes promoting democracy, good governance and human rights; the SeoulChairman’s Statement speaks of human rights, democracy, rule of law equality,justice; human rights, democracy and rule of law in the AECF 2000 signify abreakthrough etc. What strikes is that human rights, democracy, these mattersdo not appear at all in chapter 1 aimed at ASEM Copenhagen and in fact theydon’t seem to be anywhere in the Chair’s Statement of the CopenhagenSummit. In both chapter 1 and the Copenhagen Summit, it is terrorism andsecurity. In chapter 1, ‘‘the new security agenda after 11 September could be theoverarching general theme for the political dialogue’’. Rightly security andfighting terrorism should be the focus now but one asks what happened tohuman rights, democracy in chapter 1 when the author seems so emphatic onthem in chapter 2. In this chapter 2, human rights, democracy and securitywere balanced out. In chapter 1, there is nothing on human rights anddemocracy. What happened entre-temps between the writing of chapter 2 and1? For one thing, the writing of the chapter has been event-driven.

In chapter 2, as stated previously by the author, the Asians were hesitantand reluctant to discuss political issues in general and human rights, goodgovernance and the rule of law in particular. In chapter 1, p. 7, states that onterrorism ‘‘Some Asian as well as European ASEM partners are confrontedwith national terrorist activities which proves the common interest partnershave in solving the problem’’. He continues, ‘‘Therefore, one of the problemswhich often arises in the ASEM context when political issues are on theagenda, the fear of neo-colonial lecturing on human rights, non-respect forwhat some regard as purely domestic issues would not come to the fore butrather the common will and effort to contribute to a solution to a common

Analyzing the ASEM process 129

problem’’. Obviously in front of a common enemy, it is easier to act together.Is the author in chapter 1 saying that human rights, democracy would not bediscussed in Copenhagen? In ‘‘The ASEM Copenhagen Declaration onCooperation against International Terrorism’’, one sentence stands out: thatthe fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach ‘‘in accordancewith our respective domestic laws’’ …. In that time prior to September 11when human rights was on the agenda of the EU, domestic security lawswhich clearly violated human rights were the subject of concern to put itmildly. Now, apparently in Copenhagen, Asian ASEM countries which hadsecurity laws violating human rights seemed to have managed to put in suchwords into the Declaration. The Declaration does not make any caution onhuman rights violations. The only reference to human rights is the referenceto transnational organized crime an example with which nobody will havedifficulties. Clearly in chapter 1 and in Copenhagen, security and the fightagainst terrorism overtook human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

The author explains the ‘‘informality’’ of ASEM (p. 20). ‘‘In the politicalcontext ‘‘informality’’ means… at least senior officials do not negotiate achairman’s statement, a communique or a press release for their meetings’’. Buthow to explain the drafting of the Chair’s Statement before the summit? How toexplain the decision that in Copenhagen and in the future, while there is somekind of draft, it is up to the Chair of the summit to finally come out with aStatement? This was to stop all the hours of negotiating a text by senior officialsof both continents prior to the summit. We all know how importantpreparations are for the success of any meeting we attend. Surely seniorofficials will have to put on paper ideas even if the final draft is finalized at theevent of the summit.

It is stated that ASEM is not ‘‘anti-APEC’’ (p.34). Why this sentence? Is thestatement made to illustrate that ASEM is in better health than APEC, runningahead of APEC and going somewhere while APEC is in bad health? APECseems to be a haunting ghost. This page also clearly states that the ASEM TrustFund is the exception from one of the basic principles of ASEM, namely equalpartnership.

Dr. Reiterer (p. 38) writes that, unlike APEC, from the very beginningsASEM participants had strong, if admittedly primarily European interest in thepolitical pillar. He makes the point that it is no longer correct to say that ASEMis directed primarily at the enhancement of economic cooperation and as asubsidiary area, cooperation in social areas.

He speaks of the AEBF (p. 42) as being in the state of a ‘‘mild crisis’’ and ofwhat role it could play. We have not heard about the AEBF’s mild crisispublicly. I hope that the AEBF has been revived in Copenhagen with the inputfrom the Copenhagen Business School which was contracted to prepare aBriefing Paper.

Then he refers to the Social Forum as proposed by the Asia-Europe Peoples’Forum and the ICFTU. But apparently this has not even been discussed in theofficial ASEM.

On the role of parliamentarians which he envisions as a parliamentaryassembly, I think that the European Parliament will not be happy if it is formedon the basis of the meetings of Young Parliamentarians. The EuropeanParliament would think that any Assembly will have to be officially agreed byASEM parliaments including itself. On the other hand ASEP which just met for

130 Paul Lim

the second time is not also running viably. The European Parliament is morepre-occupied through its inter-parliamentary delegations to meet with Asiancountries bilaterally and with the delegation from ASEAN in AIPO. TheParliament’s present participation in ASEP draws from its Inter-parliamentarydelegations to Asia. Perhaps there should be a separate inter-parliamentarydelegation for ASEP to give attention to ASEM but there is a cut-back termsof funding delegations. Any parliamentary Assembly makes sense only ifparticipating parliamentarians see that they are heard by ASEM leaders andtheir suggestions adopted, not to speak of being accountable to it otherwise itwill be another wastage of funds. ASEP at the moment is like a side-show withthe intention to meet in the year of the ASEM Summit. It is organized becausewe need a parliamentary track to an inter-governmental track.

Subsequently he touches on the enlargement of ASEM. He states that rightlyASEM should rather be called East Asia-EU Meeting and quotes CommissionerPatten in saying that ASEM is not the sum total of Europe’s relationship withAsia. He quotes Nutall about ‘‘out of area’’ interventions by Europeans infuture East Timors, and by Asians in future Bosnias and Kosovos as a ‘‘sign ofsolidarity’’. I wonder whether certain Asian countries are comfortable aboutEuropean interventions in Asia while Asian intervention in the Europeantheatre would be limited.

Chapter 3: Reforming ASEMAsians see the dialogue as an achievement in itself and prefer talking aboutnon-contentious issues, while Europeans press for tangible results and takingup contentious issues to arrive at conclusions. The author sees a cultural gapcausing misunderstandings. In fact, putting problems under the carpet and nottalking about them and allowing them to lurk in the background is no solution.It is preferable to face up to them and try to understand each other and findcompromises if possible.

The reviewer could not also comprehend the following statement on p. 61:‘‘On the contrary, spending a lot of time and effort on negotiating suchdocuments does not have the function of formalizing the result of negotiations,and is detrimental to the informal nature of the process.’’ What is meant by thissentence? Is he saying that negotiating documents are detrimental to theinformal nature of the process? It continues by ‘‘Therefore, factual reports, andif of use, interest political declarations should replace negotiated chairstatements.’’ What is meant by interest political declarations? Closer proof-reading would have corrected such mistakes. Copenhagen has both declara-tions and a Chair’s Statement. If one goes to the last page of the chapter, it saysthat consensus on the Chair’s Statement should be reached through closecoordination among partners. However, consensus does not mean that textswould be negotiated word for word. One can understand the tiredness whichcame with the long drawn out negotiations over words, sentences. This seemsto contradict an earlier statement about senior officials not negotiating achairman’s statement, a communique or press statement in Chapter 2.

Chapter 4: Strategic Framework for Enhanced PartnershipsOn the fourth chapter, ‘‘Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships’’, theCommunication of September 2001 just before September 11, the reviewerhighlights Dr. Reiterer’s point of the EU Member States contributing in

Analyzing the ASEM process 131

adapting their national strategies or concepts to the community framework toassure that a real ‘‘common’’ foreign policy towards Asia develops. Theimpression that foreigners have of the EU’s CFSP is that it does not work and itis a long way off.

The author also brought up another important point. ‘‘Without the politicaldimension, luckily inherent in ASEM since its inception, the ASEM processmight have experienced serious difficulties, as the purely economic justificationor interests would not have sufficed to sustain the (short-term) interest of Asianand European leaders during the financial crisis. The political pillar of ASEMdoes give it that ‘‘extra’’ for a raison d’eetre.

On p. 72, he seems to correlate democracy, good governance, human rights,the rule of law, civil society and urging Asian partners to ratify the mostrelevant UN documents to ‘‘the realization of these objectives will help todevelop a two-way trade and investment relationship, which in turn willcontribute to economic development, which is necessary but not sufficientcondition to fight poverty’’. Reading these lines on first sight, one asks how theyare linked? Going on to p. 74 and 75, the author states that human rights are atouchy issue for Asian partners but there is no contradiction between tradingwith a country and criticizing its government for breaching the internationallyagreed human rights standards it has committed itself to follow. These are nicewords but one wonders whether this has actually happened. It is so easy tocriticize Burma or Myanmar but has this happened to China, to more friendlycountries in S.E. Asia? In the chapter, he brings out the example of Myanmarand DPRK. One last point to note is in the section on ‘‘Future Challenges’’where he speaks of the understanding of the relationship of the main regionalpowers, Japan, China, India with each other in the region and vis-a-vis externalactors to develop an overall strategy and the key to future development in theregion. Where does ASEAN figure?

Chapter 5: Depending and Broadening the Political DialogueTurning now to the section on Pillar 1: Political Dialogue with the chapter on‘‘Deepening and Broadening the Political Dialogue". It is in this chapter that thereviewer first discovers the repetition of sentences, paragraphs, ideas butnevertheless as somebody who learns from Dr. Reiterer’s writings he is glad tohear about the successful informal Human Rights Seminar process but has neverseen its outputs if there is a need to inform the public, if civil society’sparticipation is encouraged and if one speaks of democratic accountability. Apartfrom this point, the reviewer is familiar with the points raised in the chapter.

Chapter 6: Globalization and the ASEM ProcessThe chapter which the reviewer became more interested after reading the firstpages was the next, ‘‘Globalization and the ASEM process’’. The reviewer wasglad to read that the state had still a role or function in the context ofglobalization in p. 98 and 99. He points to globalization as the reason for athorough political and security dialogue. He points to the growing inequalitieswithin the countries of Europe to the point of social exclusion while the EU isthe largest provider of development aid. Asians think of Europe as heaven. Heputs stress on Europe making an important contribution to the creation of asystem of functioning international governance that is in the position to steerthe world’s global trade and financial flows.

132 Paul Lim

Again here he made the point even more clearly that liberal trade alsoserves to promote open societies and liberal ideas. Through internationaltrade, globalization can contribute to transforming autocratic regimes andfostering the development of the rule of law. This is an assumption whichneeds to be proven by empirical research and even if it is valid can it be appliedacross-the-board?

He speaks of the ‘‘democratic’’ deficit in the face of globalization but if thestate has still a role, how is it mitigating this deficit? Is it listening to thedemands of the frustrated citizens?

On p. 106, at the bottom, it speaks of the EU contributing to shaping a newsystem of global governance and then speaks of the creation of theInternational Court of Justice. Is this not rather the International CriminalCourt? The Court of Justice exists in the Hague.

He speaks of the different meets under the ASEM umbrella aroundglobalization on p. 107. What’s the follow-up after all these talking which willattenuate the frustrations and fears of the citizens over globalisation?

On p. 113, he states that it should not be interpreted that CFSP neglects orthere is a lack of interest in Asia. He states on the next page that it might getadditional stimulus by the new evolving context of US policy towards Asia. Itmight challenge the EU to become a more active partner economically but alsopolitically. Asia might become a sort of ‘‘out-of-area’’ test case for a wider roleof the EU in international politics. Does not this last sentence indicate that Asiais not in the purview of CFSP in the first place? It is also apparent that there isno coherent CFSP towards Asia inspite of the Asia Communications andcountry strategy papers when attention to Asia depends upon an externalstimulus as the US. Coherence on paper is not matched in the day-to-day.Policy-making always tend to be the immediate responding to the currentsituation and short-term in practice.

Jumping to p. 116, Dr. Reiterer has applauded the Asia-Europe Peoples’Forum and given support to the Social Forum linking it to good governance. Inthe Conclusions of the chapter, he states that the call to add a ‘‘Social Forum’’to the ASEM process, voiced by parts of civil society including the trade unionmovement testifies that there is a lacuna. Unfortunately the idea of a SocialForum did not seem to have been picked up in the official pronouncements ofASEM Copenhagen. He states that while increasing involvement of ‘‘all sectorsof society’’ means more acceptance also by official Asian ASEM partners, AsianNGOs will in turn have to better establish their democratic credentials andtheir readiness to accept (at least most) Asian governments as viableinterlocutors to have a common basis for dialogue. Are there doubts of thedemocratic credentials of Asian NGOs? For some Asian NGOs, it is rather thedemocratic credentials of some Asian governments which are in doubt. MostAsian NGOs are ready to dialogue with Asian governments and it is ratherAsian governments who feel they know best for their peoples, NGOs simplyinterfere in their plans or are a threat to them. European governments practiceinclusive politics while Asian ones practice exclusive politics.

In the Conclusions, he made the point that while globalization stimulatedEuropean integration, European integration allowed Europe to defend itsinterests in globalization. ASEM as a child of globalization could notconcentrate only on one pillar like the important economic one. It wouldnot be enough. Interest in the process would have fade quickly. He speaks of

Analyzing the ASEM process 133

ASEM developing an identity of its own and also becoming an active andglobally oriented player and went on about ‘‘harnessing’’ globalization via asystem of global governance. The rest of the Conclusion deals with the differentsectors of global governance.

Chapter 7: The ASEM Security ‘‘Acquis’’Coming now to the chapter on ‘‘The ASEM Security ‘‘Acquis’’’’, this acquiswas seen in the chapter entitled, ‘‘Deepening and Broadening the PoliticalDialogue’’. Here in the first five pages or so what had been said on securitysince ASEM I is laid out. The reviewer cannot help but think that the authorhimself contributed to the texts coming out of these ASEM meetings. What isnew is to read about preparing for ASEM IV. He makes it clear that from theperspective of the EU, engaging Asian ASEM partners in a security dialogueis a necessity dictated by the role that the EU wants to play in internationalrelations and by globalization. He speaks of the third ASEM ForeignMinisters’ Meeting institutionalizing an ASEM meeting to discuss the agendaof the UNGA – the political international institution. He comes back to whathas been said before in the chapter 1 on new threats faced by both Europeanand Asian partners requiring common action. He spoke of the EU’s ESDP asno threat to Asian partners and could even lead to cooperation with Asianpartners in times of crisis. He spoke of a more genuine political and securitydialogue with more tangible results proper to the ASEM process. He referredto the past where in political declarations words used were ‘‘reaffirming’’,‘‘welcoming’’, ‘‘underlining’’, or ‘‘taking note of’’ which is hardly anachievement for a process aiming at real cooperation. In the past, thereviewer says saying such words in their proper context was regarded asprogress. Much of the paragraphs which follow speaks of human securitywhich the reviewer is not going to go into.

Chapter 8: The Challenges of Regional Economic Cooperation in Asia for EuropeGoing now into the section on Pillar 2: Economic Dialogue with Chapter 8.Having read the whole chapter, it must be said the interesting part of thischapter is in its Conclusions. There is a kind of review of the state of play if onelikes to call it but nevertheless the reviewer notes certain statements. Dr.Reiterer gives importance to the development of the middle class in p. 139 incontributing to domestic growth. He spoke of the middle class in chapter 4having to be rebuilt as it was hit by the crisis. Obviously it is the middle classwhich can spent. We are speaking of a consumer society. Spending out of thecrisis had been advocated. For him, apparently the middle class is the motor ofdevelopment. He spoke of the EU and the RTAs, which the EU has but not withAsian countries, as a distraction from the new negotiations to launch a newWTO round. These RTAs could also send a politically wrong signal that theremight be an impasse in the WTO system. The reviewer is wondering what is theEuropean Commission’s response to Singapore’s proposal for a FTA with theEU. He also acknowledged that the EU had to reassure ASEAN that it remainedinterested despite the shift of focus to North East Asia. It is clear that since theeconomic crisis attention has been fixed more on East Asia particularly China.The impression given is that EU policy towards Asia is actually China. ASEANfelt left out. One remembers the conference held by the ASEAN BrusselsCommittee to draw attention to ASEAN as an area for trade and investments in

134 Paul Lim

2001. The idea of ASEAN as the cornerstone of the Asia Strategy hasevaporated.

On pp. 149–150, the reviewer was struck by the ‘‘ideas battle’’ i.e. the Anglo-American neo-liberal approach and the tempered European approach which itis claimed is closer to the thinking of most Asian partners. Europe, it is saidshould be able to gain political advantage from this difference. Further, it isstated that Europe is not as closely linked to the resented recipes of the IMFthan the US. There is no doubt that the Anglo-American approach is differentfrom the tempered European approach. We see this played out in the UK-EUrelationship but most Asian countries have long been tied to the Americanapproach with the ascendance of the US in Asia. Many Asian economists arealso the product of Anglo-American universities. The reviewer does think acontinental European education can open up the minds of Asian students to alarger world other than the Anglo American one. It stated that as an effect ofthe crisis, Asia should not move closer to the US which could otherwise be theeffect of the IMF adjustment packages which were more comprehensive andinstrusive in Asia than in former times, as they were not limited torestructuring the banking and financial sectors but also addressing thepolitical process in Asian countries. This seems to be some kind of lobbying ofAsian countries to go with the Europeans. Is he saying that Europe can acceptnon-democratic regimes? The IMF made a mess of Indonesia but the EUwelcomed the fall of the Suharto regime. Dr. Reiterer went on to quote Gilpinin stating that West Europeans would very much like to diminish theAmerican role in international monetary and financial matters in order tominimize the potential negative impact of American policies in Europe. Onecan just think of the contentions between the two Atlantic partners like steel,GMOs and what else. Somehow pointing to the World Bank under Americaninfluence, the author explained the failure of the European Financial ExpertsNetwork to the resistance of the World Bank in using European experts whilepraising the World Bank for the successful administration of the ASEM TrustFund. This is an example of a person inside in the ASEM process who knowswhat is going on which an outsider even if he knows may not be able to saypublicly.

In the last paragraphs, he spoke of sharing the European experienceof integration but made clear that it could not be imitated. He spoke ofmultilateral solutions as a necessary element to prevent the resurgence ofnationalism with protectionist tendencies and he referred to some Asianleaders who do not resist the temptations of resorting to the language ofpopular nationalism. This is not all that he said in the Conclusions for sure butpoints which attract the reviewer for comment.

Chapter 9: The Importance of the Enhanced Implementationof the ASEM Trade Facilitation Action Plan to the Growth in Tradebetween the EU and Asian ASEM PartnersChapter 9 on TFAP, pp. 153–190, is more of a description of the progress of thisplan. It brings together all that has happened and going on in this plan, its set-up, its implementation. It brings together documentation on the plan. Anyonewriting on TFAP can quote this chapter. It is very much a technical report so tospeak. The reviewer has learnt a lot of it but notes a few points. Publicprocurement and IPRs are sensitive issues but they are confronted with slow

Analyzing the ASEM process 135

progress if such words can be used. TFAP has been relatively successful inreducing non-tariff barriers notably through seeking common interpretationsand promoting transparency. The most important, for the reviewer, the lowestdenominator, is that it brings together the officials who are implementing thesenon-tariff barriers. He speaks of the annual reporting of the removal of generictrade barriers. The nature of ASEM as not an organ of negotiations requirespeer pressure to get anything done. The question the reviewer has is how is itimplemented on the ground when an exporter or importer has to do deal withthe nitty-gritty of importing and exporting or when he has to obtain his goodsfrom the warehouse. Do the people on the ground understand the changeswhich comes with the implementation of TFAP? Attachment 4 in the chapter 4lists out the obstacles which business faced, the inputs from the AEBF. Thechapter speaks of a closer involvement with the private sector and the AEBFwithin TFAP but recall what he said of the AEBF being in the state of a mildcrisis.

Chapter 10: The Investment Promotion Action Plan (IPAP):A Bureaucratic Exercise or the Way Ahead?Turning now to the next chapter on the IPAP. In the Introduction while allthree pillars should carry the same weight, the economic activities of ASEMfocus on TFAP and IPAP are still the heart of the ASEM process. This simplyconfirms the claims by its critiques that ASEM is about business. Seen in thissense Asian ASEM partners are straight on line as to what they are interestedin. The Europeans, he stated, accepted the importance of improving theeconomic climate between the two regions, underline, however, that theeconomic dimension needs to be supported by sound political and culturalrelations.

On pp. 192 and 193, Dr. Reiterer pressed the point that the EU kept itsmarkets open during the economic crisis and thereby accumulated a largedeficit allowing its Asian partners to recover. They were given the chance totrade out of the crisis. The EU should get more credit for sustaining and evenpromoting such a development – the US Congress certainly would not accept atripling of the commercial deficit without any comments. The EU actuallyimplemented the ‘‘ASEM Trade and Investment Pledge’’. Asian ASEM partnershad complained that its European partners had not done enough for themduring the economic crisis but the ASEM Trust Fund, and we saw the decisionto extend it in Seoul, benefits them.

The reviewer notes also what Dr. Reiterer said of the difficulty to negotiatethe list of ‘‘Obstacles to Investment’’ and the ‘‘Most Effective Measures (MEMs)to Attract Direct Foreign Investment’’. Asian ASEM partners only accepted thisprocedure once it was clarified that only the business sector would contributeto the collection of obstacles. He spoke of the resistance being overcome. Noreasons were given just this fact. He listed issues that were discussed which aretransparency, non-discrimination, predictability, market access, IPRs, invest-ment incentives and basic utilities and infrastructure. The reviewer is not goingto go through issues but just highlight some matters covered of concern toforeign investors: national provisions affecting rights of entry; sectorsrestricted to domestic investors; no discrimination between domestic andforeign-owned companies; industries depend upon IPRs for their living, forreturn on investment and re-investment, implementation of TRIPS; incentives,

136 Paul Lim

harmful competition and market distortion etc. These lines are found in pages200–203. Investment blooms not only if the overall economic situation is good,but also if the regulatory framework is conducive. Non-discrimination,transparency and predictability should apply in the domestic environmentand this insight could be used as a confidence building measure for includinginvestment in the new WTO round. It could be for this reason that as hementions in p. 203 that Asian ASEM partners have always been rather reluctantto engage in a discussion of purely WTO related issues. There is no attempt toexplain why and perhaps this explains why in the Chair’s Statement, statementson WTO are rather general.

IPAP like TFAP depend upon peer pressure to be implemented. He speaksof the voluntary approach but he does envisage a legal framework in the longterm and it appears to the reviewer that he refers to a basic agreement in theWTO which he considers will soon be nearly universal and would be the firstbest solution. He speaks also of an ‘‘ASEM Investment Principles’’ which couldbe legally binding or non-binding. The author does think ahead from hisvantage point of being a principal participant in the ASEM process. The limitedsuccess of the APEC guidelines point to a more legalistic approach.

It is clear to him that, for European companies, Asia in the long terminterest remains undisputed in the context of a globalized economy and hespeaks of overcoming cultural obstacles by a revival of the business-to-business exchange programs in the promotional pillar of IPAP. Has thisnot taken place? Why was it stopped? The Asia Pacific region presents certainfundamental differences for Western managers he quotes. He speaks of acertain neglect of European corporate decision makers for Asia. He quotesanother author in saying that EU companies prefer trade over investment toAsia as neighboring European countries for cost-reducing productionre-allocations, not least in view of accession of many of these countries.Unlike the transatlantic partnership which has the push and support ofbusiness on both sides of the ocean in the view of the reviewer, ASEM has beeninitiated by political leaders in a top-down fashion. If European-Asianbusinesses had pushed ASEM it would be different. Business came into playonly after ASEM was launched. If European business considered Asia moreimportant than the transatlantic partnership it would have pushed Europe-Asian relations. He speaks also of Asian ASEM partners establishing a presencein the candidate countries but one can count on one’s fingers the few countrieswho can and probably are already established there but these are more theAsian transnationals and not the SMEs. The SMEs seems to be the target ofthe ASEM process. In as far as one cannot expect much Asian investments inEurope on the same scale as the other way around, IPAP is very much for theadvantage of European investors, only for both sides in the long term.

In the Conclusion of the chapter on IPAP, he made the point that if thereporting system, the peer review are handled as a purely bureaucratic exercise,IPAP will not create the momentum necessary to create the political will tomove the action plan as it is into step 4. For the reviewer this applies also toTFAP. The question in the mind of the reviewer is whether the economic pillaris only about implementing the two action plans. If the two plans becomebureaucratic exercises then it will lose motivation and momentum after awhile. It will be like ticking off a ‘‘To-do-list’’ of things to be done. Thequestion remains what else should happen in the economic pillar? Should there

Analyzing the ASEM process 137

be discussions on more in-depth collaboration on the WTO scene? Mentionhas been made on some reluctance of Asian ASEM partners in this arena.Copenhagen has come out with this action-oriented taskforce to look intotrade, investment and finance to look into the Eurobond market and the Euro.Clearly the economic pillar centers on the practical and on matters economicbut in a holistic way it should link in with the German idea of bringing labourinto the scene, the proposed Workshop on the Future of Employment and theQuality of Labour in the third pillar. An example of this linkage is inAttachment II in the chapter, p. 217, where under point 9 on the domesticeconomic environment and infrastructure mention is made of the absence ofstrikes. How does a preference or a demand of economic operators andgovernments especially in Asia sit with the right to strike enshrined indomestic legislations even if lip-service is paid in some Asian countries and isan ILO Convention. Civil servants in the European institutions do go on strikeagainst their political masters. Probably civil servants in Asian countriescannot do this. Perhaps this Workshop on Employment and Quality of Labourcan come out with a Action Plan which accompanies TFAP and IPAP whichhave consequences on labour, on employees, on citizens, on human beings.

The reviewer has to say that he has learned a lot from these last twochapters dealing with the economic pillar. Thank you Dr. Reiterer for thecomprehensive presentation of both the TFAP and IPAP.

Chapter 11: Bringing Peoples Together. A Key Function of the Asia-EuropeMeeting (ASEM)Coming now to the last two chapters of the book on Pillar 3: People-to-People/Cultural Dialogue. There is first a short chapter, chapter 11, when countedoverall. The author stresses the difference between ASEM and APEC in termsof the 3 pillars of ASEM while APEC is dominated by the US. The author isdefending ASEM saying it is better than APEC and is conscious of the Asianwish not to be dominated by the US. It has not been clear too where Asiancountries stand with regard to APEC and ASEM. There has been expression ofpreference for APEC over ASEM in the past but with a less rigorous APEC inrecent years perhaps opinions are shifting. In this short paper, he made it clearalso that investment and competition rules should be within the ambit of theWTO. There is repetition of ideas, of words, of sentences from the previouschapters. Here he speaks of reaching out to people and devoted a fewparagraphs to this. He repeats about the People’s Forum, the Social Forum andthe parliamentary meets especially ASEP which could contribute to democraticlegitimation of ASEM. One thing new he proposed was about what he calls the‘‘grey panthers’’, in French, the troisieme age or the elderly to be involved inASEM. He wrote a short paragraph on this. He proposes that ASEF includes theelderly in its program and of appropriate funding for it. He concludes bytouching on soft security i.e. transnational crimes as something close to thepeople’s hearts.

Chapter 12: The Growing Importance of Knowledge and Culture in the NewInternational RelationsThe last chapter is a promotion of ASEF and so appropriately ASEF is thepublisher of the book. It is entitled, ‘‘The Growing Importance of Knowledgeand Culture in the New International Relations’’. The sub-title is, ‘‘Why the

138 Paul Lim

Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) matters? The first few pages describes ASEF. Itspeaks of ASEF giving life to the third pillar and again contrasts with APEC.

It then jumps into the importance of knowledge, a knowledge based societyquoting authors that a purely market-oriented, economic view which regardseducation and training only as ‘‘a tool in promoting material welfare andcompetitiveness’’ causes a loss for society in reducing the importance ofeducation to economic ‘‘short-terms’’ instead of taking the long-term view toprepare ‘‘for the long-term adaptiveness of society and individuals, not solelyfrom an economic point of view, but also, social, moral and political’’.Unfortunately in Asia as the reviewer has observed over the years, the strivingto develop has resulted in governments orienting the educational system toserve the needs of the economy and students just thinking of a universitydegree for the sake of finding a job. Education for education’s sake isconsidered unprofitable without any immediate tangible contribution. He goeson to speak of the EU and Knowledge and about the widening knowledge gapin developing countries as reconfirmed by the World Education Forum inDakar in April 2000. Education is a tool which could be instrumental in endingthe vicious circle of education. He develops this and ends in saying that ASEMin general and ASEF in particular, should participate in keeping the Dakarpromise. He then goes on to quote Henry Kissinger about knowledge,technology and education as main reasons for the fundamental change ininternational relations. He goes on to develop this going to other authors andthen turn to language.

Here he speaks of English as the lingua franca invading other languageswith words and concepts transferring a competitive edge on those who conducttheir work in English. He speaks of Anglo Saxon domination of the media andAsia. He gave the example of how the enlargement of the EU was vieweddifferently. The German, Finnish and Spanish view differed from the Britishone and it is not adequately reflected in the Anglo Saxon media. He speaks ofan essential foreign policy tool in the competition for the Asian mind ismissing – a linguistic problem turns into a political one. The reviewer is notvery clear of what he means but the reviewer realizes that the Asian audience’ssource of viewpoint on the EU, on the enlargement, for example is purelythrough the eyes of the Anglo Saxon media. He goes on to speak about Asiansstudying in the US rather than in Europe which the reviewer is not elaboratingnor commenting. The only thing to say is that Europeans still regard educationnot as an economic factor for which marketing is as important as for sellingdetergents. He refers here to continental Europeans obviously while we seesome UK universities selling their education and even setting up off-shorefacilities or joint-ventures. He goes on to speak of Europe as a whole is missingout and Continental Europe in particular. The reviewer is not very clear ofwhat he means but guesses that Continental Europe is not selling its educationas the Americans and the British do. He spoke of education as an importantbusiness sector. The reviewer hopes that European universities do not go downthe road of conceiving education as a commodity for education is education ofthe whole person, the whole human being while he agrees that more Asiansshould study in continental Europe to open up their horizons.

Under the sub-section of culture, he describes the role of ASEF. He speaksof Asian and European partners confronted with the same threats ofMacWorld. Arriving in Asia, one has the impression rather that Asia embraces

Analyzing the ASEM process 139

the MacWorld. He speaks of bringing Asian and European cultures andpeoples together as one of the noble goals of ASEM. He states that ASEF is anexpression of that will. Asian and European partners share a common interestthat their distinct cultures resist the pressures of uniformization, thatconscious choices on culture are respected. What we see in Asia is theacceptance of things western: fashion, food, etc., the consumer society.Europeans and Americans feel quite at home in Asia. The reviewer hearscomments of Europeans that it is like back home. Whatever is available backhome is available here. We see much imitation of the West and this can beattributed to globalization. Clearly there is no ‘‘clash of civilization’’. He speaksof ASEF’s task to contribute to strengthening dialogue through the sharing ofperceptions on a wide range of issues enhancing mutual understandingbenefiting both regions. Such a dialogue will, in view of the global implicationsof major regional integrations, help ensure that such integrations benefit theinternational community as a whole.

He sees ASEF as contributing to a political and an intellectual climate inwhich educational exchanges can prosper ….. He sees ASEM as linkingeducation and politics because it rests on the 3 pillars. In the aftermath of 11September 2001, he sees the danger of demonizing ethnic or religious groups ofpeople, facilitated by the religious camouflage (reviewer has expressed hisviews earlier) has come to the fore. He speaks of ASEM in general and ASEF inparticular as being well equipped to contribute to fighting this danger. Hespeaks of ASEF being challenged to make use of the comprehensive richness ofASEM to contribute to an understanding of multiculturalism in the bi-regionalcontext.

In the final section of the chapter before the Conclusion entitled, ‘‘MissionImpossible – Can ASEF Succeed Nevertheless?’’, Dr. Reiterer so to speak lists outwhat he thinks ASEF should do and the reviewer would think that ASEF willconsider his ideas. In fact, at least one has been implemented i.e. calling forproposals for an ASEM logo. The reviewer is not going to elaborate on everyidea, suggestion of the author but simply draws attention to a few. He repeatshis earlier proposal about the troisieme age. He wishes that ASEF cooperateswith state and para-state actors like the Goethe Institute, British Council etc.and also with foundations like the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Friedrich NaumannStiftung and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. He suggests also exchangesbetween ASEF and senior officials and foreign ministers without turning ASEFinto an executing agency of ASEM activities. He speaks of the independence ofASEF. He speaks of ASEF going after sponsorship and partnership agreementswith companies and institutions. He considers it necessary for ASEF to have anEndowment Fund suggesting the sum of 50 million euro for the long term andfor its independence. He has a message for the ASEF’s governors. Their role isnot just honorific but they are key players in determining the foundation’spolicies, programs and priorities and goes on to speak of what they can do. Healso speaks of ASEF assisting NGOs associated with the Peoples’ Forum toestablish the ‘‘Social Forum’’ and elaborates further. The reviewer just statethat in the past the cooperation between the Peoples’ Forum and ASEF wasminimal. Another idea worth to bring up is his idea of ASEF, with the blessingof SOM, organizes an event specifically for think tanks from all the Asian andEuropean candidate countries of ASEM with the attendance of ASEM officialsas observers. He talks about a consultative meeting of parliamentarians of

140 Paul Lim

ASEM countries suggesting the Young Parliamentarians Meeting as thenucleus. The reviewer has given his views on this. He brings in what thetourism industry could do which is not elaborated here and finally aboutbranding of ASEM and ASEF where the logo came in. One wonders why noneof these suggestions were implemented or suggested before he left the ASEMteam in Brussels?

The book ends with an Annex which is the Asia-Europe Co-operationFramework 2000 (AECF 2000) which the reviewer is not going to comment on.

Conclusion to Dr. Reiterer’s bookTo conclude on Dr. Reiterer’s book having gone through it meticulously, thereviewer has this to say. The book is also accessible to the general reader. It is acollection of papers he wrote which are improved probably but they are ‘‘self-contained’ so to speak. Hence, there is no flow from one to the other. They arenot connected one to the other. There is an attempt to arrange the chapters.After reading the first chapters, the reviewer thought to himself that probablythe sequence should have been chapter 1, ‘‘Strategic Framework for EnhancedPartnerships’’ followed by ‘‘The Third ASEM Summit in Seoul’’ then ‘‘Reform-ing ASEM’’ and lastly ‘‘Challenges and Issues for the 4th ASEM Summit’’. Sincethe first 3 of 4 chapters were past papers of him, he probably had difficulty inarranging their sequencing. It is not the same as writing a book from scratch soto speak. Further, he purposely chose his first chapter to be on ASEM 4followed by the second chapter on ASEM 3. His intention may be to emphasizethe coming ASEM 4 in Copenhagen. This book could actually be shorter if theauthor was willing to write a completely new book drawing out ideas from hispapers rather than this collection of papers in a book. As a collection of pastpapers, the result is a repetition of ideas, of sentences, paragraphs as the authordefinitely goes back to his previous writings to take sentences, paragraphs forhis new piece. It is in the domain of policy-making as noted and it is about the‘‘practical’’ in the immediate. It is not about the long term in this book. Thebook is readable with these repetitions. Dr. Reiterer as someone from insidethe ASEM process is in a position to suggest new ideas for ASEM. He is clearlywriting from a European perspective.

General conclusionThe reviewer has managed to keep his friendship to the two authors at bay andwhile picking up points in the two books is also actually amplifying their ideas.Ms. Yeo’s book is more coherent than Dr. Reiterer as he is putting together hispast papers. Dr. Reiterer as somebody from inside the process had theadvantage of seeing more clearly where ASEM can go in very concrete termswhen you see the suggestions he has for ASEM and ASEF. Ms. Yeo raised theideas, questions and point to conditions for ASEM’s future. Does both bookscomplement one another? They are both about ASEM but they differ. Ms. Yeo’sbook comes out of a doctoral thesis and has its analytical bend while Dr.Reiterer’s is really in the domain of policy-making tending more to thepractical with its kind of analysis. I do recommend readers to read these booksand form their own judgements. The reviewer’s has his own experience withbooks. If he reads the books a few more times he probably comes out with adifferent feeling of both books.

Analyzing the ASEM process 141