Time-frame Intra-regional (ASEAN) Inter-regional (ASEAN-EU) 1990-1996 Development of ASEAN 10 New phase of EU-ASEAN relations
3.4.2.3. The Social/Cultural Pillar
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 123 of 334
(1) trade flows between Asia and Europe have increased largely, as numbers indicate, the exports from EU to Asian partners of ASEM increased by 56% between 1995-2004, and from Asian ASEM countries to EU by 137%.191
(2) Yet, the FDI showed decreasing tendency, both from EU to Asian ASEM countries, as of vice versa.
(3) Despite the multilateral arrangements of ASEM, the bilateral ties kept strong independently from the ASEM framework, this is particularly true in cases of EU-China, EU-S.
Korea.
(4) ASEAN although having its firm position in the trade relations with EU, was significantly weakened by the Asian financial crisis.
(5) Gradual emergence of the Asian regionalism trend or even “Asian community” was encouraged by EU who welcomes a more consolidated region-to-region cooperation and further economic integration between the two regions.
In overall, the economic pillar might have been the most anticipated cooperation field, at least in the first stage of ASEM. Later, the expectations have been lowered, as ASEM proved not to be able to increase trade flows directly. Instead it functions as a forum promoting transparency and increasing knowledge and interaction between the two regions. It is an informal dialogue based on a voluntary process, depending on the goodwill and peer pressure, rather than coordination mechanisms.
3.4.2.3. The Social/Cultural Pillar
The so-called “third pillar”, being at the main focus of this study, is further analysed in the following chapter. This part gives an overview on how it is organized completing the three-pillar structure of ASEM.
Originally, the third pillar was designed to fit all of “cooperation in other areas”. It later evolved into the socio-cultural pillar, still encompassing everything that left out from the political and economic pillars, and it was attached primary attention to. At the forming phase, it
191 "ASEM in its Tenth Year: Looking Back, Looking Forwards. An evaluation of ASEM in its first decade and an exploration of its future possibilites." P. 108
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 124 of 334
was assumed that enhanced economic relations would condition intercultural dialogue between the regions, not vice versa.
Moreover, the “fuzziness” of the pillar’s content, covering from culture, technology, human resources, education, development, health, environmental issues, drugs, anti-terrorism and anti-international crime activities, made it “one size fits all”- kind of dust bin.
However, over the time, the socio-cultural cooperation has gradually evolved into attaining most substantial results of all three pillars.192
It is essential to mention the role of the Madrid European Council meeting on 15-16 December 1995 which clarified the EU’s position on the Europe-Asia Meeting. During this meeting, it was stressed that more attention should be paid to the cultural, and information exchange, as well as wider socio-cultural cooperation. The exchange between intellectuals, businessmen, and people who affect public opinion has been identified to be an important part of political collaboration.
The first time EU referred to the term “social and cultural field” was in “Perspectives and Priorities for the ASEM Process” from 1997. The document suggested that the key objectives of the field were to build of key networks, disseminate of information to the public, and support for ASEF. The following document “Perspectives and Priorities for ASEM Process into the Next Decade” from 2000 indicated the relevance of informal dialogue and networking in the settings of globalization, where enhanced awareness and understanding between the two regions should be balanced in all three dimensions. It also highlighted the protection and promotion of cultural heritage as the priority area.193 This is to say that in terms conceptualization of the socio-cultural pillar, the EU stand had its contribution.
Over the years, the agenda initially regarded as “cooperation in various fields” have gradually balanced and gained clearer focus. Some of the fields have been moved over to the political dialogue, including issues related to combating drugs and illegal activities. With multiple projects on overarching fields, it has successfully exercised the Asia-Europe global governance in “soft issues”, and has gained growing attention.
192 Ibid. P. 111-112.
193 Ibid. P. 112
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 125 of 334 3.3.3. Institutional management of ASEM
“The intentional informal, open character of the dialogue has allowed ASEM to be both
positively multi-dimentional and negatively miscellaneous in its approach”.
194If to summarize ASEM institutional organization in one word, I would suggest the word
“hybridization” would fit the best. Integrating many organising cultures into one table, the nature of ASEM can be a cause of frustration to some, while the flexibly offering advantage at the procedural level appears attractive to others. An adequate naming of ASEM as: “’an expandable
box of opportunities’, limited in legalistic terms, but highly adaptable, multidimentional and all-encompassing”.
195The overall composition of ASEM consists of three dimensions: a vertical pillar structure, a matrix of interconnected initiatives, and a horizontal actor dimension. The pillar-type of formation resembles the arrangements in the EU’s Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The pillars are coordinated at the top by the Summit, consisting of heads of states, foreign ministers, and senior officials.
The plethora of ASEM initiatives are the second dimension. The so-called “laundry list”
or “the Christmas tree” phenomena describes the tendency of multiple and dispersed initiatives.
Paul Lim went a step further detecting “initiatives as institutions take a life of their own” and
resist reform or termination although found inadequate”.
196 The “net” structure of performed events and activities was invented to prevent the proliferation of initiatives to lose the focus or direction. Moreover, it is to create synergy and connectivity among the three pillars, rather than allowing the initiatives to work isolated from one another. The Asian financial crisis contributed to the realization among ASEM partners that there is an intrinsic link between economic and social issues, and the importance of the cross-pillar cooperation.The third dimension is the horizontal process with trans-regional tier (The EU as European representative, APT as the “Asian part of ASEM”), an intergovernmental layer and a non-state level, which includes parliaments, NGOs, civil society, and private sector. Variety of
194 Ibid. P.70
195 Ibid. P. 157
196 Ibid. P. 176
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 126 of 334
actors involves variety of interests and position attached to the ASEM process. The EU position, although as the most coherent actor, is not homogenic either due to the different members’ view on the role of ASEM. Inclusion of track-two actors into dialogue among governments amplifies the diversity of interests and objectives towards ASEM, and therefore, the focus of the process.
ASEM’s ramification leads to the numerous challenges to the process itself. The characteristics of ASEM process are as following:
- high-level,
- multi-dimentional,
- evolutionary dialogue process of - open,
- transparent, - informal and
- un-institutionalized nature.
In the intention of members, it is a partnership between equals, aiming at enhancing mutual understanding and cooperation between Asia and Europe. It is also precedence both in the EU’s external relations, as well as occupying atypical place in ASEAN external relations.
In terms of contradictory character of the process, ASEM is not institutionalized yet at the same time formalised and even bureaucratic. Dialogue are intentionally informal and do not aim to produce new agreements, treaties or contracts. It is increasingly hoping to produce concrete and substantial results, but underlines its non-binding character. It is “torn” between two-directional process of top-down high-level meetings, and bottom-up participation of civil societies, NGOs, and private sector. Apparently the informality and non-binding manner come from so called “ASEAN-Way”, but it is EU that has been the strongest advocate of this approach in ASEM, strongly resisting institutionalization.197
Informality has been recognized as the main contribution from the Asian side to the organization, and the “Asia-style” approach, a transmission of ASEAN Way, to the ASEM partnership is acknowledged by the EU. At the same time, this informality has been criticized as
197 Ibid. P. 154
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 127 of 334
“’culturalism’ and the dichotomization of Asia and Europe”198, arguing on the over-emphasis on distinct Asian and Western approaches.
The EU plays an important role in providing institutional scheme of institutional arrangements for ASEM. A general characteristic of the conduct of all relations with Asia is that the political and institutional practices follow the logic of the EU’s pillar system and the division of external relations into the ’first pillar’ relations covering above all economic and development policies (and in general, all other EU competences within external relations with the exception of the CFSP) and into the ‘second pillar’ issues covering the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). This division is reflected in the conduct of EU-Asia relations in the sense that the Commission is – in general – the key actor as far as the economic and development policy issues in these relations are concerned”.199 As the process of operation went on, the first pillar was dedicated to political-security, second pillar turned to be economic cooperation, and the third was later developed into socio-cultural.