Although dominated by their long-standing stalemate over the need to maintain pressure in the Government in Burma/Myanmar to speed up the pace of democratic and human rights reforms, the meeting of Asian and European Foreign Minister in Ireland April 17-18 also touched on the broad range of issues on the ASEM agenda.

After the meeting, Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen, who hosted the session as the current head of the EU Council of Ministers, called it “very productive” and laid stress on both the spread of global issues and ASEM topics, including some new project initiatives. He said these demonstrated “how connected Asia and Europe are.” But he also underlined the individual statement worked out in discussions at the Ministerial dinner on an international order based on “effective multilateralism.” In “a very real way,” he said that the Sixth Meeting of ASEM Foreign Ministers had proven “that by working together we can bring real meaning to multilateral cooperation.” He also noted that the two regions shared “many of the same goals and aspirations as to how we can work to combine our mutual strengths to confront the dangers facing us, as well as to identify the opportunities.”

The gathering took place against a background of heightened tension in and conflict in Iraq and the Middle East in which many governments and publics in both Asia and Europe expressed growing concern about the individual direction and policies of the parties in these zones that risked to enflame the situation. They specifically urged moderation, a halt to killings and violence as contradictory to international law.

Issue divides ASEM

The meeting at a golf resort at Tullamore, Kildare, near Dublin again faced the prospects of an Asian rejection of European demands for Burma to release opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers and assure their participation in the resumption of the internal Burmese dialogue on a new constitution scheduled for May, until it was decided to put off a decision until a report by ASEM Senior Officials to an ASEM gathering in May in Tokyo. The statement said that the participants viewed the scheduled constitutional national convention in May as a “positive development for the national reconciliation process.” And they pledged to support and assist, including through humanitarian assistance, the Government in its advance through the road map to democracy.

Presumably during that period of consideration by the senior officials, it would be known whether the National League for Democracy leader has been released as long rumoured following the indications made by Rangoon Government leaders to Asian and other contacts.

See Related Articles:

• Euro-Asian Tension on Burma Eased
• Tiny Bhutan Gets Unusual Attention

But the issue again faced the prospects of a continuing deadlock over the insistence by Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden that pressure should continued to be applied and that the country should not be allowed to join the ASEM process at the same time as new European Union members. This division has been a constant irritant between 10 Asian and 15 European members for several years which has a negative effect on the whole spectrum of relations ranging from commercial to political and cultural issues.

Preparations for Hanoi Summit

The regular meetings of the Foreign, Finance and other ASEM Ministers are a prelude to the biannual ASEM Summits, which in 2004 will be held in Hanoi in October.

The meeting in Ireland appropriately agreed that the theme of the Hanoi ASEM V meeting would be devoted to “further reinvigorating and substantiating” the Asia-Europe relationship. But even that Summit risks becoming a hostage to the democratisation process in Burma if that fails to make significant concrete progress after some 16 years of military rule.

This meeting was also used as a convenient occasion to schedule a number of other regular bilateral meetings between the EU and China, India and Japan. (See Related Articles)

In other major issues, the meeting declaration underlined the continuing desire to cooperate and to increase results of this collaboration. This was manifested in general but insistent language in the form of a specific declaration on the important of multilateral cooperation. Although there was direct mention of the US and some of controversial acts of unilateralism, supported by some ASEM members, the statement could be regarded as cautiously stressed to joint Asian and European concern and efforts to steer Washington and other major actors toward joint actions and cooperation rather than unilateral action. Again, although there was no direct reference to the EU policy document, the term “effective multilateralism” used in the ASEM Ministers statement was also stressed in the recently-adopted EU Joint Strategy Document in a way that also contrasts to the Washington initiatives.

This theme also ran through the portions of the text dealing with policies on countering terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other issues. The content on WMD seemed to pick up where previous ASEM discussions and programmes had left off and indicated an emphasis and awareness by all participants of the importance of export controls in the prevention of proliferation. But it also suggested that export control should not hamper cooperation and assistance for peaceful purposes. This interest could be related to the wider cooperation foreseen by the EU with China, India and perhaps others in aerospace activities and the recent discussions on the prospects of lifting the EU embargo on deliveries of defence-related equipment to China. There was also a connection to another portion of the statement on the situation and negotiations on the Korean Peninsula, which has been an ongoing part of ASEM declarations and support. Nevertheless the portion on Korea was cautious in not presenting any specifics regarding aid or mediation.

The portion on terrorism and counter-terrorism was considerably longer than that most of the other chapters and undoubtedly related not only to the global concern about terrorism, but the specific consequences for Asia and Europe as manifested in the Bali and Madrid bombings.

The terrorism language was in part devoted to recounting the previous ASEM discussions and meetings related to the subject and those planned for the future, as well as emphasising the need for intensifying cooperation on four key areas such as the financing of terrorism, security of international transport and borders, addressing the factors contributing to support and recruiting of terrorism and strengthening the capacity of law enforcement agencies. While the first two points are vast, they are also specific and part of an ongoing international process of cooperation while the latter, if implemented fully, could open up considerable programmes and assistance. The statement also pointed to previous ASEM meetings on counter-terrorism in China and one planned in Germany in October. This portion closed by stressing the need to conduct counter-terrorism activities in the framework of the UN Charter on human rights and international law.

The Ministers in Irelands also devoted brief passages in their statement to the Doha development agenda negotiations and on sustainable development, especially the Millenium Development Goals.

Internal ASEM Issues

On the internal ASEM process, which is regarded by many as seriously requiring attention and stimulation, the Ministerial meeting touched on both management of the process and its operations. Some of these issues, such as enlargement of ASEM membership, closer economic partnership, culture and civilisation and public health, could be major elements of the Hanoi Summit.

In a direct reference to ASEM and its future, the Ministers referred to the process as a “unique vehicle for dialogue and cooperation…” and they remarked pointedly to the “high level of participation” as being a “key characteristic” of the process. In the past, Asian members have complained about the low level of turnout by European Ministers for ASEM gatherings as undermining the work. They also seemed to suggest that the meetings might be focused on a few international issues to ensure better coordination.

They referred to, but gave no details except to discuss use of the new ASEM logo and improved information flows, of officials’ brainstorming sessions on improved working methods for the ASEM process.

It was also indicated that the forthcoming meetings of the ASEM Economics and Finance Ministers in Brussels and Rotterdam should receive the proposals of a Task Force on Closer Economic Partnership appointed at the ASEM Copenhagen Summit in 2002 so that some might be examined at the Hanoi Summit.

In the realm of activities the statement dwelt at some length on the importance to international peace and stability of a dialogue on cultures and civilisation. They noted the Beijing conference on the subject in 2003, one planned in Malaysia in 2004 and another in 2005 in France. They also pointed to specific ASEM-related programmes and exchange projects as well as work within UNESCO on cultural diversity.

Among other newer initiatives, the statement referred to cooperation in public health emergencies such as SARS, bird flu and AIDS. And they also agreed to proposals to conduct seminars or conferences on the “Iron Silk Road” in Seoul, Urban Forestry in China and clean technologies in Hanoi as well the Philippines Ocean Initiative. Migration and an evaluation of the Asia-Europe Foundation in Singapore and its long-term financing were other issues covered in the statement.