Foreign ministers from Asia and Europe met late last month at the ninth Asia-Europe Meeting - Foreign Ministers' Meeting (ASEM-FMM) in Hanoi. The meeting was held amid a difficult global economic climate. The financial crisis does not appear to be over yet, in spite of the fact some Asian countries are showing positive signs in their economies.
The international community was also recently startled and concerned by developments in Myanmar, particularly with regard to the arbitrary detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the underground nuclear test by North Korea.
The ministers discussed a number of important issues, from the financial crisis and the situation in regions such as Middle East and Afghanistan, to interfaith dialogue.
After its inception in 1996, one might ask what more is needed for the future of the Asia-Europe Meeting? And how can the ASEM address new challenges?
The ASEM was established in 1996 with the idea of creating an informal process to strengthen links between Asia and Europe, to strive for a common goal of maintaining and enhancing peace and stability as well as promote conditions conducive to sustainable economic and social development. The synergy between the two continents would be of tremendous value, not only for both regions, but also for the global community as a whole.
Since its inception, ASEM has been continuously developed. From the partnership (membership) point of view, the number of ASEM partners is improving significantly. Now, ASEM is comprised of 45 partner countries and more in waiting; ASEM has grown into a sort of mini-UN meeting.
In theory, such an enormous number of partners could and should be managed in a way to bring more benefit to the ASEM process as a whole, but at the same time it presents challenges, including how to avoid a lengthy discussion on differences and how to find convergence among members.
But everybody knows this is not an easy job. Therefore, the issue of enlargement for ASEM becomes an important issue. First, enlargement will affect the way the dialogue is conducted in the future.
Second, there are also some different opinions on how to approach the new application of countries to join ASEM. The recent applications of Russia and Australia showed different positions of partners in approaching new applications.
Whatever the decision on the enlargement, it should be "once and for all". Question like whether ASEM is an inter-regional or "a bloc-to-bloc" cooperation have to be clearly considered. Other questions on merit of its application and the definition Asia and Europe are also important to decide.
As a consequence of the big number of partners/members, another question emerges, among others, on how to create and maintain the effectiveness of the ASEM dialogue, and whether the ASEM needs to establish a secretariat to synchronize ASEM activities.
On the effectiveness of dialogues, with 45 members, one can imagine the difficulties of having a thorough and in-depth discussion on an issue. If every member wishes to take to the floor and speak on the same issue, regardless of the time limitation given by the chair, how long would discussions on a particular issue take? It usually ends up with a three- or five-minute statement that makes it difficult for partners to clearly share their positions and recommend a way out.
The next challenge is the question on what sort of issues should be discussed. There is no other way that partners should limit issues to discuss to enable the deliberation to stay focused only on the most challenging issues and it is done in a thorough manner.
It is for sure a balanced approach among the political, economic and socio-cultural pillar should always be borne in mind.
The issue of whether the ASEM needs a secretariat also poses another challenge that should be addressed by ASEM partners. Up until the ninth ASEM-FMM, most partners expressed their view of maintaining the ASEM's informal character, thus negating the need for a fully running secretariat.
The other critical point for the ASEM in the future is how partners can produce concrete cooperation regardless of the informal character of the process. Initiatives (cooperation) within the ASEM framework are flourishing right now and they are very beneficial. However, they need to be better coordinated to avoid overlapping.
The next challenge facing the ASEM is how partners can build real and as many bridges as possible to make their differences less. Building real and many bridges is very important and it is a must for the ASEM. The geographical distance between Asia and Europe has resulted in different cultures and interests. Efforts should be made to find a convergent point rather than to entertain the differences.
The writer is a senior diplomat at the Indonesian Foreign Ministry.
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|