Living up to previous encounters and expectations for their latest deliberations, leaders from the two regions used their Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit in Hanoi October 8-9 in Hanoi as a informal forum of discussion for a broad agenda of global and internal issues that need concrete following up for future Top-echelon and Ministerial negotiations and implementation.

The gathering discussed a continuing range of over-arching global concerns, regional flashpoints, internal procedures and the future of their relationship. These also spanned an array of political, economic and even social and cultural topics. Punctuating their comments on terrorism, news erupted of violent attacks against targets in France and Egypt, prompting French President Jacques Chirac to comment that "it affects all of us." Also in the background were such developments as the debate and forthcoming presidential elections in the US, the surge in world oil and commodity prices, threats from communicable diseases and pressing chronic political, economic and social preoccupations in many of their countries.

With the pledge for this fifth such ASEM summit to "revitalise and substantiate" their past and future partnership, they committed themselves to a number of steps toward closer trans-regional economic and cultural cooperation and charged their Ministers to also grapple with these problems and improve their previously-skeleton ASEM mechanism for coping jointly with such concerns.

Speaking to journalists after the conclusion of the two days of talks, European Commission President Romano Prodi underlined the process should be considered as a forum on the road to more concrete joint policies or actions and not a decision-making organism. The dilemma of dialogue rather than measurable results also occured in the past and again in Hanoi in the face of specific proposals for cooperation or even action by the business community, civil society or even member states. Prodi and others from both regions also seemed frequently impatient and frustrated at this ongoing situation, as some had in the past, and promised "concrete" action and "result-oriented" talks in the future instead.

In fact, the list of bilateral or larger initiatives undertaken by the ASEM members and the work programme of meeting between the summits is substantial and covers a large range of issues, but are largely overshadowed by attention and publicity generated for the summits themselves. These include not only the Ministerial and officials' meetings, but seminars, workshops and other cooperation between the partners or organised by the Asia-Europe Foundation in Singapore. They agreed that there should be more information and attention devoted to these activities on the ASEM-related Internet sites. There also exist differing perceptions among the leaders themselves of the discussions they conduct, with some saying a subject was only touched on or peripherally referred to while others explain in considerable detail the deliberation on an issue, such as the surge in oil prices preceding the Hanoi summit.

The summit discussions which took place in a large, elegantly furnished hall in the Hanoi Conference Centre and the concluding statement for the public were issued at mid-day October 9 and commented on by the five designated leaders of the process, Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker who was replacing his neighbour the convalescing Prime Minister of the Netherlands, co-chair Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan, Commission President Romano Prodi and Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot.

They issued the traditional, broad chairman's statement and two separate declarations looking forward to closer economic cooperation and a dialogue on cultures and civilisation.

Also announced at the meeting following a discussion on the future of their conversations and their contacts were decisions to appoint their Foreign Ministers to examine ways of improving the system and rendering it more substantive and result-oriented, including the possibility suggested by Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to establish a small permanent ASEM secretariat she offered in Manila. Tentatively over-riding the reluctance of some governments and the EU Commission against the creation of any new structures to manage or organise ASEM, the leaders instead established a "core group" perhaps composed of UN Ambassadors to coordinate ASEM positions on global issues and consider, along with the Foreign Ministers, the constitution of a small secretariat. According to some leaders at the summit there apparently was an agreement to conduct expanded and structured consultations within the UN context which was only generally referred to in the documents issued. The summit also endorsed staff officials' recommendations on working methods, that would reduce the number of scheduled Foreign Ministers' meetings, grant broader authority to the group of senior officials and regional coordinators.

In another discussion and statement, they also agreed to study and consider the possible addition of other countries such as India, Pakistan and even Russia, as future ASEM members in parallel to the possible addition of Romania, Bulgaria and others as EU members by 2007.

The chair declaration by Phan Van Khai broadly addressed general pledges to consultation and cooperation on a number of global issues, such as UN reforms including the enlargement of the UN Security Council, terrorism, transnational crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, communicable diseases, climate change, and migration.

From both Asian and European sides, there seemed to be exceptional interest generated by the recent joint bids announced by Germany, Japan, India and Brazil to become permanent members of the UN Security Council and other reform to replace the UN at the heart of multilateral attempts to deal with major global issues rather than unilateral actions.

There was also broad discussion of the crises in Iraq, the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula as well as the enlargement and integration of the EU and a comparable process in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and East Asia.

An issue which had dominated, at least in European eyes, the buildup to the meeting was also repeatedly discussed at various times in Hanoi.

The Myanmar debate flared into a fiery one during the first evening, according to various sources in private and in public. Jean-Claude Juncker told the press that in discussions on the first evening, six or seven participants intervened with one European said to have commented that the situation in the country remained unchanged and there was "no concrete proof" of the government's roadmap to democracy being applied. When a European participant said the EU was not satisfied with the political and human right situation in Myanmar and hoped improvement could prevent tightening of EU sanctions scheduled to be deciced the following week, an Asian neighbour said the EU declaration was unacceptable in a forum devoted to cooperation and when the government had issued a roadmap for democratisation. Other Asians submitted that the enlargement of ASEM illustrated that dialogue was preferred way to deal with the issue. The Burmese Foreign Minister was reported by one Asian source to have thanked ASEM for its interest in the country. The Japanese Prime Minister was said to have told Chirac that Myanmar's entry into ASEM was an important step in convincing the country to democratise. He added that sanctions might not necessarily bring favourable results and that Japan preferred persuasive discussions. When asked by a journalist what might happen to the operations of the French oil company Total in the country if EU sanctions were tightened to include bans on investments, Chirac said he hoped it would not come to that because the consequences always fell on the poor. He added that in such situations, some favoured immediate guarantees of reform by the target country as a pre-condition for relations, whereas others preferred to use collective persuation, which was the method selected by ASEM, even if there was some criticism of that approach. He said there was strong ASEM pressure for national reconciliation in Burma.

It surfaced again at the concluding press conference, when the leaders were asked to pronounce themselves on the issue. Even the Vietnamese Prime Minister was drawn out to comment. Although he stressed the ASEM approach of non-interference and direct talks, he hoped it would improve the situation, including the carrying out of the Myanmar government's road-map.

In contrast with that confrontation with Myanmar on human rights, the Europeans took a more delicate approach on charges of human and religious rights abuses concerning the host country. In this case, Chirac and others noted that this issue had been presented constructively and quietly with a list of possible political prisoners turned over to the Foreign Ministry.

In typical fashion, the summit leaders who had at their previous meeting two years earlier in Copenhagen decided to ask an outside task force to make recommendations to for closer economic cooperation, heard a verbal briefing from the group and ordered their Economics Ministers meeting planned for early 2005 in China to evaluate it and make recommendations. In fact the Economics Ministers should already have met to consider the conclusions at a meeting that was cancelled by the EU over the Myanmar issue.

The separate declaration on economic cooperation referred to a number of key topics, such as trade and investment promotion which has previously been conducted by ASEM officials, cooperation in new sectors and multilateral and other trade accords and negotiatio. In general, it charged the ASEM Economics and Finance Ministers to follow-up the subject and supported "practical and project-oriented objectives." It also referred to the work of the previously mandated and organised Task Force on these issues, as well. But it did not seem to specifically endorse or its proposals. There were also indications that some officials and even participants in the Task Force found its recommendations too ambitious, unrealistic or even unnecessary in some cases.

The summit declaration on economic cooperation gave strong support to closer involvement of the business community in the ASEM process and asked Finance and Economic Ministers to consider its recommendations and integrate it more fully into the official ASEM process.

But there was no similar acknowledgment or support displayed for the role of civil society organisations, which held a large Peoples Forum several weeks before the ASEM summit at the insistance of the Vietnamese Government. There seemed to be no follow-up to the persistent request of these groups for an ASEM social pillar and a meeting of Social Affairs Ministers, previously requested by Germany and other member states.

The summit declaration on the dialogue of cultures and civilisations among ASEM members visualised the expansion of a stream of activity launched previously which proved popular with some members. The list of activities supported is extensive and in large already in progress under the auspices of the Asia-Europe Foundation and other institutions. The declaration stressed that such activities and contacts were essential to promote understanding and tolerance. It did not, however, point to any specific project or the resources possibly required to expand such activities.

Bilateral or even extraneous issues sometimes encroached, such as the controversy over the lifting of the EU arms embargo on China and its request for official market-economy status from the EU, or the negotiations between the EU and Vietnamese over the latter's desire to enter the World Trade Organisation, which was agreed later in the day in bilateral talks.