The 18th Asia-Europe Think Tank Dialogue THE AGE OF CONNECTIVITY: ASEM AND BEYOND ULAANBAATAR, MONGOLIA, 11-12 MAY 2016 Event Report by Dr Yeo Lay Hwee Director, EU Centre in Singapore The 18th Asia-Europe Think Tank Dialogue was held in Ulaanbaatar on 11-12 May, back to back with the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Senior Officials Meeting (SOM). The ASEM Senior Officials were meeting to prepare for the 11th ASEM Summit which would be hosted by Mongolia on 15-16 July. The 18th Asia-Europe Think Tank Dialogue, which began in 1999, was conceived initially to strengthen the ties between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its longstanding dialogue partner, the European Union (EU). With the rise of China and the Asian Financial Crisis which negatively impacted a number of ASEAN countries, there was concern that ASEAN would be side-lined and overshadowed by China, and hence the importance of keeping ASEAN on the radar-screen of the EU. However as the EU stepped up its engagement with Asia and ASEAN Centrality emerged in several regional architectures in the Asia-Pacific, the ASEAN-EU Think Tanks Dialogue also 1
evolved and has since 2005 widened to become the Asia-Europe Think Tanks Dialogue including think tanks from other parts of the Asia Pacific. This year s Asia-Europe Think Tank Dialogue was organised by Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) and its long-term partners, the Institute for Strategic and Development Studies (ISDS), the Philippines and the EU Centre in Singapore. Hosted by the Mongolian Institute for Strategic Studies (ISS), the dialogue centred on the broad theme of The Age of Connectivity: ASEM and Beyond designed to bring about more discussion on the ASEM process which is celebrating 20 years of its existence. Policy makers in ASEM have agreed to focus on Connectivity connecting Asians and Europeans in all sense of the word as the central theme of this unique institution. Keeping ASEM Relevant The Think Tank Dialogue began with a session on how to keep ASEM relevant in times of rapid change. The presenters in this session began with a stock-taking on where ASEM is now, and how the process can be moved forward. Over the 20 years of ASEM s development, many ideas and initiatives have been floated but the implementation of, or follow up on, many of these have been uneven. Visibility and awareness of ASEM remain low, and a perennial question that has been asked with the proliferation of Summits and forums is where can ASEM add value. Issue about the multilateral utility of ASEM was also raised. The value of ASEM remains contested, and therefore in thinking about ASEM s future, there are three imperatives to consider. First, an optimal mix of re-invention and preservation is to be found ASEM needs to evolve and innovate to maintain relevance, but must also strive to preserve those elements that make it special. The second imperative is to balance the desire to keep ASEM informal and inclusive against the expectation of delivering on tangible cooperation. Finally, ASEM has to be mindful of both the contents and the process. It needs to be reaffirmed that ASEM is an important platform for keeping the EU engaged in Asia on a multilateral basis. Some ideas that emerged from the presentations and discussions during the first session are: ASEM s value lies in its elasticity, as a unique platform where the partners interact on the basis of an equal partnership; Within the very broad and diverse membership of ASEM, more attempts should be made to focus on building up sub-regional cooperation, and then connecting and integrating the various sub-regional entities; In thinking of connectivity, ASEM should be built as a sort of multi-dimensional honeycomb network. More specific recommendations with regards to what ASEM can do in the years ahead are: Boost up online presence, and actively use social media to raise visibility of ASEM; Create an ASEM network of think tanks; Create a platform for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from Asia and Europe to mix and match. 2
The session ended with the clear message that while focusing on connectivity, more importantly, ASEM needs commitment and momentum from its partners if it is to continue to survive and thrive. Facilitating Connectivity in Global Governance In the session exploring how to facilitate connectivity in global governance, two broad policy areas were discussed. The first is on how Asia and Europe can make use of ASEM to enhance mutual learning and cooperation in the area of quiet diplomacy and conflict mediation; and the second is on strengthening cooperation in disaster management. In the discussion on conflict management, it was highlighted that the EU s comprehensive strategy in engaging Asia should encompass the three Ds Diplomacy, Development and Defence. The EU is often seen primarily as an economic and development actor. However, it has been involved in conflict mediation in Asia, one good example being the Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM), and is in fact a key player in helping to stabilize Afghanistan. The European experience with the Conference on Security Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) which has since developed to the Organisation on Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) could also be relevant for Asia as Asians looked at the European experience and considered the whole toolbox of confidence building measures (CBMs) that could be helpful in mitigating tensions and maritime disputes. During the discussions, it was clear that cultural differences can be a stumbling block when Europe gets involved in conflict mediation in Asia. Cultural sensitivity and getting the buy-in from different partners and players is crucial for any successful conflict mediation and resolution. The EU participation in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and in the Track II Council on Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific (CSCAP) is an important avenue for the EU to pursue the preventive diplomacy agenda. Building on the different experiences of the European and the Asian partners, ASEM can also be a platform for pursuing pro-active and preventive mediation of potential conflicts, drawing on the skills and expertise of the diverse Asian and European players. In the area of disaster management, there is urgency in strengthening cooperation between Asia and Europe as climate change is likely to increase the frequency and severity of natural disasters in several regions. Many parts of Asia are already disaster prone, and how to engender community efforts in building resilience to recover from disasters should be an area of focus. Much more attention should also be paid to early warning, and again in this area there is much scope for Asia to learn from Europe. Good disaster management also requires good crisis communications, which are often political rather than technical in nature. There is also much scope for further discussion on building 3
crisis communication skills and systems. Digital and Economic Connectivity The session on Digital and Economic Connectivity saw two very different presentations, one focusing on the hard infrastructure developments such as roads and railways, and the spill-over effects, and the other discussing the need to connect SMEs from Asia and Europe. The role of Asian Development Bank (ADB) in infrastructure developments was discussed, and naturally the question on how ADB would work with the newly established Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) was raised. Rather than competition, there is scope for cooperation between the two banks, and the participation of the EU, alongside individual EU member states, should also be welcomed. The infrastructural needs of Asia are well documented, and building up the physical connectivity between Asia and Europe requires enormous commitment and resources. While the importance of the SMEs is acknowledged, it was also noted that the distinctive definitions of SMEs in the Asian and European contexts, their diversities and very different needs make it difficult to provide a single platform to bring them together. That said, there is no doubt that there is need to look into how to leverage on the internet and digital connectivity to help the SMEs access new markets and new sources of financing. Trade and economic connectivity has taken on certain urgency with increasing anti-trade and anti-globalisation sentiments. Within ASEM, there is therefore a call by some members to revive the ASEM Economic Ministers Meeting (EMM). Not all members however share the same enthusiasm. Questions were also raised if there is room for Asia and Europe to look at more sustainable and emerging economic models such as the sharing economy and the circular economy. This leads to the discussion on Asia-Europe cooperation on the green economy, and how ASEM could become a platform where concrete cooperation on environment and the green economy could really take off. The momentum required in pushing this agenda through the ASEM platform could be injected by two key partners in the ASEM process the EU and China which are particularly serious when it comes to the climate change agenda. The EU has always been in the forefront of driving the climate change agenda, seeing this agenda not as anti-growth or anti-development but as an opportunity to find new sources of growth and opportunities arising from the shift to the green economy. China, suffering from severe pollution and environmental degradation, is under increasing pressure from its own citizens to take environmental protection and sustainability seriously. It is trying to move away from a dirty, energy intensive, manufacturing model, to one that is cleaner, greener and more sustainable. Hence, there is plenty of room for cooperation in these areas. 4
Connectivity of Ideas The final session of the 18th Asia-Europe Think Tank Dialogue explored the importance of different stakeholders from civil societies to think tanks and parliaments in strengthening the connectivity of ideas and facilitating intellectual exchange The ASEM process has thus far been very much Summit-driven. In between the Summits, though there are various meetings and initiatives that may take place, they are often not very visible and often not connected. Arguably it is easy to organize a dialogue or workshop to exchange ideas and experiences, but how to foster continuous exchange, an uninterrupted, progressive and constant flow of ideas is the hard part. Often to have continuous exchange, some structure and institutions are needed to support it. But how can ASEM which prize itself for its informality and flexibility, and has no Secretariat, be a platform for continuous exchange? This is where the role of civil society and the support by the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) kick in. The ASEF can act as an enabling organization to support civil society groups to connect with each other and help sustain a certain momentum. A successful example has been the ASEM Lifelong Learning Hub, which was evolved from one of the ASEF initiatives on education, and has since continued to run on its own momentum. ASEM, thanks to its scale and diversity, opens up an opportunity for civil society groups to get connected and create networks to exchange ideas on many issues related to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG). As for the role of think tanks in ASEM, they are important as knowledge brokers and for connecting the Track I policy makers to the world of research and evidence-based policy making. Think tanks could also serve as public intellectuals in educating and influencing public discourse. The idea of parliamentarians as one of the stakeholders in the ASEM process is contested. Parliamentarians see themselves as representatives of the people and hence reject the idea that they be treated simply as one stakeholder among a multitude of stakeholders. Inter-regional dialogue between parliamentarians is seen as an important avenue for mitigating the democratic deficit often associated with talk shops such as ASEM. Unfortunately, the Asia-Europe parliamentary dialogue suffers from serious asymmetry because of the considerable differences on the quality and roles of parliaments in Asia in contrast to those in Europe. In the discussions that follow on the role of think tanks and the need for continuous exchanges, there was enthusiasm that the Asia-Europe Think Tank Dialogue should become a Track II network to the official ASEM process. 5