EU PROPOSALS FOR THE POLITICAL DIALOGUE IN THE ASEM PROCESS
|
EU PROPOSALS FOR THE POLITICAL DIALOGUE IN THE ASEM PROCESS This EU paper elaborates the topics of political dialogue between the Asia and European partners in ASEM.
I. Introduction 1. The Bangkok Meeting served to strengthen the ties between Asia and Europe thus completing the strategic triangle, Europe-Asia-North America. Form the perspective of future globalisation the ASEM-process not only represents a forum for an intensified region-to-region dialogue but also contributes to peace, global stability and prosperity. 2. The further development of relations between Europe and Asia will require, of course, a strengthening of the political dialogue. The Chairman's statement of the Bangkok Meeting emphasises the global dimension of the ASEM: the 'new partnership' between Asia and Europe is not confined to one particular field of cooperation. The promotion of economic exchanges (second section) and of the development of cooperation in certain fields (third section) form part of a more general objective of stability, which is the specific purpose of the political dialogue (first section). This global dimension accounts for the part played by the foreign affairs ministries, which are responsible for the whole follow-up to the ASEM. 3. The Bangkok Chairman's Statement identifies the main topics of political cooperation between Europe and Asia. It is in the interests of the countries of Europe and Asia to give the political dialogue a more practical content. 4. The aim of this document is to put forward a number of cooperation topics of common interest in the specific inter-regional context of the ASEM. Any decision on the content of the political dialogue in the ASEM context will have to take into account the very specific nature of that forum as compared with the other types of dialogue that exist between Europe and Asia (EU-ASEAN dialogue, ARF, ASEAN Post Ministerial Conferences, bilateral political dialogues between the European Union and Asia). The particular nature of the ASEAN has to do with its level (heads of state or government), which distinguishes it form the existing fora (ministerial level), and its format. Despite these differences, there is undeniably a risk of overlap between topis. The ASEM should not be made to compete with the other Asian fora. The follow-up to it cannot ignore, for example, the work of the ARF on confidence- and security-building measures. 5. Use of Research Institutes. Consideration should be given to the possibility of a contribution by certain research and forecasting institutes concerned with international politics (the networking of which is envisaged in the Bangkok Chairman's Statement). In fact, mention is made in the statement (end of paragraph 5) of the bridge that would be established in this way between the ASEM political dialogue and the initiatives taken in the context of intellectual exchanges. II. Proposals for the content of the political dialogue Six major subjects, arising from the paragraphs devoted to the political dialogue in the Chairman's statement of the Bangkok meeting, could be the subject of an ASEM dialogue. It should be borne in mind that any doubling of activities which are dealt with in other frameworks e.g. ARF should be avoided. 1. Mutual provision of information on existing forms of regional cooperation This arises from paragraph 5 of the Bangkok Chairman's Statement. It refers to exchanges of view between each of the two sub-groups, European and Asian, with a view to the mutual provision of information on the required integration and cooperation processes under way in Asia and Europe. The following topics (which would not be the subject of a dialogue in the strict sense) could be suggested for the European side:
The aim would not be to give a detailed account of each of these topics but to elucidate current developments and highlight the main issues involved. 2. Confidence- and security-building measures A decision could be taken to begin the study of (voluntary) confidence- and security-building measures of common interest to the countries of Asia and Europe, although it would of course be necessary to take into account the work being done in the ARF context. Such measures could include:
The safety of shipping could be the subject of a specific dialogue. Maritime problems are a matter of interest and concern for the international community as a whole. These concerns will obviously be shared by the European and Asian countries involved, given the importance of sea trade to their economies. Certain matters specific to the area, such as cooperation in the fight against piracy, could be addressed. Several European countries have acquired a certain expertise in the sphere of state action at sea (salvage, fight against maritime pollution e.g. Malacca Straits, etc.). Exchanges of views could be held on this topic. 3. Common operating rules for the international society Dialogue in this area would not be confined to the institutional aspects, which are contained in the Bangkok Chairman's Statement (reform of the UN - paragraph 7). - Operating rules of the international organisations Reform of the UN and common operating rules for the international society - dialogue in this area would have to start with the issues agreed upon in Bangkok and contained in the Chairman's Statement, in particular with the institutional aspects addressed under paragraph 7. Building on a successful dialogue on the issues contained in the Bangkok Chairman's Statement, the dialogue could be widened to include further subjects like operating rules of international organisations and common rules of conduct. Developing countries are calling for far-reaching adjustment of the forms of multilateral aid in the UN framework. The current effectiveness of such aid is being seriously called into question. It is important to make best use of the aid by reforming the operational arrangements and the structures involved. - Common rules of conduct In line with the consensual approach that marked the Bangkok meeting, the Euro-Asian dialogue could set itself the aim of jointly establishing the rules that will ensure the proper functioning of international society, which should go beyond cultural differences and the various models of social and political organisation. Encouragement needs to be given to the broadest possible acceptance of the main international instruments for the protection of human rights including economic, social and cultural rights. In order to discuss the relationship between human rights, democratisation and sustainable development, and seeking to establish a number of common principles in this area. A policy of cooperation in the field of human rights - as laid down in article 56 of the UN charter - is the basis for preventive diplomacy. The rationale of the dialogue follows from the consensus of Vienna which stipulates that all countries are obliged to promote and protect human rights, taking into account the historical, cultural and religious differences. The dialogue should particularly contribute to strengthening the role of the High Commissioner for Human rights. 4. Arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation The importance of this topic is emphasized in paragraph 8 of the Chairman's statement. Europe and Asia clearly have common interests in this area. Emphasis and detailed consideration could be given to the contribution which the 'new global partnership between Asia and Europe' can make to creating a climate of confidence that facilitates major world initiatives concerning arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation including, inter alia, international efforts to control and promote responsibility in transfers of sensitive dual use goods and technologies. Without interfering in the current negotiations, the regional environment of these major world initiatives could be the subject of a joint study embracing, for example, regional security imperatives or the concept of a sufficiency threshold. 5. Extending political dialogue to certain trans-national problems ('world challenges') The Bangkok Chairman's Statement (paragraph 16) emphasises the desire of the ASEM participants to cooperate on certain trans-national problems, such as drug trafficking, terrorism, organised crime, migration and refugees, the sexual exploitation of children, and also the environment. Priority could be given to the following areas of cooperation: terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking, humanitarian issues. With regard to the fight against terrorism, attention may be drawn to the principles adopted at the international meeting of experts on terrorism held in Baguio in February 1996, which was attended by, among others, ten member of the ASEM (five European Union and five Asian countries). Reference is made in the final communique to strengthening multilateral cooperation against terrorism and the enhancement of international judicial and police cooperation. These topics could provide a basis for discussion in the ASEM. With regard to organised crime and the illicit drugs problem including cultivation, production, trafficking, and consumption of illicit drugs, control of precursor chemicals, in accordance with the recommendations of the ex-chemical action task-force, as well as action to deal with money laundering (a commitment by all ASEM members to ratify and fully implement the three UN drugs conventions), a dialogue could be initiated with the emphasis on the need for legislation to deal with money laundering. This could be done in accordance with the recommendations drawn up by the financial action task force on money laundering (FATF), and for active participation in the work done with the UNDCP, WHO, PSA and the other agencies combatting illicit drugs, and with the UN Crime Division, or the specialised organisations (Interpol). The Shenzhen conference (21 and 22 June 1996) on customs cooperation in the ASEM context as a positive first step in the implementation of the Bangkok Chairman's Statement. In the humanitarian field, instruments already exist e.g. European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), national agencies for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and the question of the rationale of humanitarian assistance as well as cooperation in the event of natural disasters could be useful topics for discussion. 6. The future course of ASEM and its relationship to existing forms of European-Asian cooperation The first ASEM in Bangkok undoubtedly added a new momentum to the Euro-Asian dialogue. However, the future course of the process beyond ASEM III needs to be outlined. ASEM may strengthen its role beyond the interregional level and gain a global importance. The most appropriate sharing of tasks between ASEM, the EU-ASEAN dialogue, and ARF should be considered. The question of enlargement of ASEM may also be considered. |