TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Does ASEM matter?
The eighth Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) will bring together 48 Asian and European leaders in Brussels, Belgium, on Oct
T
he eighth Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) will bring together 48 Asian and European leaders in Brussels, Belgium, on Oct. 4-5. While the world is still facing global challenges such as the economic downturn and security threats, the summit is pivotal for finding an exit from the crises.
As an informal forum, the existence of ASEM has been questioned. How could such a forum build a strategic alliance between Asia and Europe? How significant is ASEM for Indonesia?
Established in 1996, ASEM has expanded to include 48 members, including most recently Australia, New Zealand and Russia. It covers the Asian and European regions.
ASEM is an informal and non-binding dialogue and a multidimensional partnership based on equality and consensus. ASEM fosters people-to-people contacts while allowing participation from civil society in several sectors.
Built on three pillars — political, economic and social-cultural-intellectual — ASEM has been recognized as a forum for close cooperation among members to discuss a wide range of issues under the aforementioned pillars. However, issues tackled by ASEM platform remain on the periphery.
In terms of economic cooperation, both Asian and European ASEM partners have emphasised economic development through issues such as trade liberalization.
On the European side, the volume of trade with ASEM’s Asian members in 2008 accounted for one-fourth of the EU’s total trade with the world.
In 2009, China, Japan, South Korea and India were ASEM’s major Asian trading partners, accounting for 12.9 percent, 4.0 percent, 2.3 percent and 2.3 percent of the EU’s trade respectively.
In the same period, Indonesia was ranked the EU’s 30th largest trade partner, accounting for 0.7 percent of its trade.
As Jürgen Ruland wrote, interregional cooperation is a novel area of focus in search of a new international architecture of governance to manage uncertain global challenges. It is reasonable that for many decades states have been the core focus of international relations.
Today, when world-actors are locked-into interdependence and when the image of bipolarity is no longer useful for describing international politics, there has been a shift to take into account interregional relations as a source of options and mechanisms to open various channels of cooperation and development.
Seen in this light, ASEM is somewhat puzzling. Skpetics might say that its informal platform limits how far its Asian and European partners can go from words and ceremonial events to concrete action.
The idea is to move forward beyond rhetoric and avoid being trapped by the symbolic togetherness and solidarity of two regions: Asia and Europe.
The dynamic rise of Asia and the decline of Europe have had a huge impact on the mutual interests of both regions. It goes without saying that Asia and Europe have their own domestic challenges.
On the European side, it struggles to tackle crucial issues such as unemployment and economic growth, immigration, an increasingly graying population and developing a green economy.
On the Asian side, besides economic and environmental topics, political issues such as human rights and democracy remain stumbling blocks in individual Asian country relations with Europe.
Looking closely at the regions, two distinct characteristics between the “Asian” and the “European” way have come under the spotlight when it comes to international relations.
Critics have asked to what extent the differences between Europe and Asia shape the agenda and shape relations with respect to ASEM. The Asian way would prefer an informal and non-legal binding platform.
When it comes to the question of the significance of ASEM, much depends on where one stands. It is common to suggest that not all ASEM partners have a similar degree of commitment, engagement and participation with regard to ASEM. Some have been actively involved, some have not. It may lead to assumptions as to who will win or lose amid an uncertain interregional architecture.
China, Japan, South Korea and India have a greater chance to maneuver, diversify goods and manufacturing and to export to markets in Europe. Does the same apply to Indonesia? What comparative advantages should be pursued by Indonesia?
The logic of Robert Putnam’s “two-level games” may be useful to describe how states behave at international level with regard to domestic arena.
As the fourth largest population in the world and a country rich in natural resources, Indonesia is still shackled by “Dutch disease”. In addition, corruption and decentralization are still main challenges faced by the country on the road to political reform. As a result, it affects the ability to effectively govern.
Nonetheless, the achievement of Indonesia to be one of the G20 countries and the most democratic country in ASEAN could be seen as good capital for raising Indonesian visibility at the interregional, or even international, stage.
Besides reinforcing Indonesian embassies abroad, including the diplomatic corps and interministerial coordination, there is the need for maximizing multitrack diplomacy which includes wide layers of participation by society to strengthen collective actions.
If domestic challenges still hinder Indonesia when competing abroad, how can the country be positioned at the interregional level to secure a greater advantage?
The writer is a lecturer in International Relations at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University in Jakarta and is currently a visiting fellow at the Indonesian Young Leaders Program, Leiden University.
