One serious participant and analyst of the ASEM process remarked shortly before the Hanoi Summit meeting in October that it needed "to reinvent itself." Whether that dire observation was true, it does not appear to have been accepted, considered or acted upon at the recent ASEM Summit in Hanoi, which was supposedly dedicated to revitalising and substantiating ASEM.

When one sees the leaders hugging each other in the comradery of the elites and the pinnacle of power, one wonders if they do not enjoy that moment of glory and its momentary vestiges so much that it blinds them from actually using that power effectively to deal with issues before them.

A favourite technique is to avoid direct reference to continuing problems and issues, but rather to point to past conferences and seminars and then to ask Ministers to pursue, identify new intiatives or enhance collaboration and synergies. While this sometimes has a progressive and positive ring to it which may reflect an impression of movement and satisfy some, it does not amount to achievements or progress.

Unfortunately, Ministers may do the same and tell their senior officials to do the same in similarly resolute and resounding terms that imply a firm position.

They must avoid continuing the pass the buck between the themselves and get down to the business not only of leading but actually studying problems and reaching a decision.

Was John Prescott's empassioned support of sustainable development and the Kyoto Protocol picked up? Even if it was to present a sqeaky green image that the Blair Government seeks to project domestically with ambitious agendas for the future which are not always implemented in current reality or realistically charted for the future. The message may have been received by the ASEM Summit only in the most general way.

Was the theme of UN reform so determinedly espoused by two of the four candidates for UN Security Council Permanent seats, even if their own interest in the broader issue is at least in part, if not entirely driven by the quest for the prestige of such a permanent presence, heard and really absorbed into policy and action by ASEM?.

What about the Asia-Europe Business Forum requests of the past and at the meeting?

What about the calls of civil society for recognition, involvement and for a social pillar, so stalwartly defended at previous times by some delegations but apparently discarded at the actual sessions?

What about their own previous pledges at the Copenhagen Summit in 2002 to "concretely" deal with issues, such as terrorism?

There is considerable substance in the ASEM that is noble and positive and worthy of praise, but much of it is preparatory work that can only performed by experts and the public at large and needs to be acted upon by those who can act.

The image of ASEM Summits may be glitz and state political spectacle, but the actual results only a few crumbs. If that's to continue to be the case, the community of interest and support for the process may lose patience and conclude that they in fact should instead take charge and lead the process. This could be a good thing, which the business community, after years of only spiritual or emblematic existence, gave signs of doing in Hanoi.

The ASEM leaders at least seemed ready to take note, if not wholeheartedly concentrate on some of the recommendations of the business community this time. But follow-up will be required to assure the short collective attention span of the leaders and even their officials can focus over a longer period of time than drafting an agenda synopsis and final Summit communique.

Civil society, the academic community, the cultural world have also shown signs in parallel of defining their own identities and roles in this ASEM process. They also have embarked on a number of major initiatives that have in fact been delayed, stymied or blocked, because unlike the business community, they may not have the resources to develop appropriate and independent activities distinct from the official process.

But they also should strive to develop new shoots of the ASEM process that could eventually become co-equal with the official summit and provide their own internal and even external dynamic to prove that there really is an Asia-Europe process capable to standing on its own.

Either in parallel or at a later, perhaps utopian, stage since there unfortunately still so much suspicion, rivalry and territory involved, they could consider developing and nurturing links and synergies between one another to get past the phase of division into one of consultation, reflection, cooperation, collaboration and genuine attempts at joint resolution of objectives and problems. This may not be as far-fetched as it may seem because they may ultimately share roughly similar or at least comparable or compatible objectives. For example, the business community at the Hanoi summit asked the leaders, for its own objectives, to consider encouragement of private pension plans to supplement public schemes for the elderly and to assist to formalise the billions in remittances from expatriate workers--social objectives certainly within the perview of concerns for various elements of civil society and NGOs.This would of course require dialogue to work out the difference and synergies between a business and its market-oriented role and the objectives of the public at large as perhaps represented by the other intermediaries.But there should or must be communications between these separate and sometimes even antagonistic communities to breach the barrier of distrust and enter into dialogue and cooperation.

Sometimes, it is true there will be contradictions in the desires of Asia and Europe or the different sectoral communities, but that is inevitable and it may be the time to test whether there exists enough community of interest in a community to create true tolerance for diversity and to make the slogan that there is strength in diversity a reality rather than merely a slogan.