Summary report of the conference on The EU and ASEAN: Prospects for Future Cooperation organised by the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the EU-Asia Centre at the Val Duchesse on 14-15 October 2013. The objective of the conference was to discuss and assess progress towards regional integration in South East Asia and Europe, to analyse the joint challenges facing the EU and ASEAN and to consider the prospects for future cooperation. A copy of the main speeches, programme and list of participants is available in the annexes. Participants all agreed that the conference was very timely and useful; and that it should become an annual event alternating between South East Asia and Europe. Opening Plenary Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders stressed that the EU and ASEAN were natural partners that share the same DNA. The EU supported ASEAN s integration and recognised its centrality in an evolving Asian regional architecture. The EU wanted to see a strong, united and self-confident ASEAN which we can address in a block-to-block dialogue. ASEAN was a strong and valuable trade partner for the EU. Trade in goods increased by 39.5% and trade in services by 27% over the last two years. The EU was the second main trading partner of ASEAN and the largest investor in the region. There were, however, still some high tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. 1
Although the EU had created supra-national institutions, this was not the only way forward. There were other important principles of integration such as internal cohesion, solidarity and tolerance. ASEAN could expect the EU to help in various ways such as state-building, governance, development, energy supply, trade and transport security, environmental protection and climate change. The EU and ASEAN should work together to address non-traditional security threats. The EU was keen to engage with ASEAN in multilateral fora including the Defence Ministers Meeting Plus process and the East Asia Summit. UNCLOS should serve as a guide for the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes. The EU favoured the peaceful, legal, fair and sustainable use of the oceans riches. Reynders concluded by stating that regional integration could help overcome heavy historical burdens, lack of trust and different political systems. Le Luong Minh, ASEAN Secretary General, said that with little more than two years to go before the December 2015 deadline, ASEAN s community building and integration efforts had picked up speed, vigour and intensity. He was confident that the vast majority of commitments would be met on time. Looking to the future he said that the main objective post 2015 would remain to ensure a peaceful, prosperous region. The Vision should build on existing progress and complete unfinished business. It should continue to promote development and tackle poverty. Sustainable development was an important goal. Additionally, South-South cooperation should be supported. ASEAN should strengthen its role in the region - and globally. The EU was a long-standing and valued partner. It was important to align the future ASEAN-EU plan of action with the new developments, requirements and needs of the post 2015ASEAN Community. There was much the two bodies could do together to deepen their relations, from trade and investment to closer cooperation in the multilateral institutions. 2
ASEAN members should also act to strengthen the Secretariat and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of ASEAN organs and institutions. David O Sullivan, the Chief Operating Officer at the EEAS, said that the increased number of official visits between the EU and ASEAN were proof of the growing importance we all attach to the EU-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership. The HR/VP has already been twice to the ASEAN region and will next month visit Jakarta, including the ASEAN Secretariat, plus Thailand and Myanmar, making it her third trip to the region in less than 12 months. Both sides had agreed in Brunei on an Action Plan with more than 90 actions under the three pillars. There was positive momentum with plenty of practical work taking place and with more in the pipeline, especially on Connectivity, nontraditional security and human rights. The EU could play a special role as 'partner in integration'; as someone with whom ASEAN could share the trials and tribulations of Continent-wide integration. It was no accident that the EU has long been the biggest supporter of the ASEAN Secretariat. Both sides should try and improve their public diplomacy telling the story of what the EU and ASEAN are doing together and why. They also needed to start thinking about what their ambitions for the future of the relationship. Discussion In the discussion participants considered there should be an increased role for parliaments in the relationship. There was also a debate on the merits of strong institutions with Minister Reynders referring to possible changes in the EU institutions as a result of enlargement. On priorities for the future of the EU- ASEAN relationship, there was broad agreement on three core areas: economic (trade/investment/connectivity); non-traditional security threats; and values (promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law). 3
Panel Discussion - Visions for ASEAN The first panel session heard statements from senior officials from ASEAN countries on their vision for the organisation. Pham Quang Vinh, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vietnam, said that ASEAN integration was an incremental process. The economic actors needed to be more involved and institution-building enhanced. Perhaps Coreper could be given increased powers? He agreed there was great potential to further develop EU-ASEAN relations. Dato Erywan Pehin Yusof, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Brunei, said that ASEAN s vision was to be politically cohesive, economically integrated, and socially responsible. Prosperity and harmony were the main objectives for the region. At the same time ASEAN needed to balance between the region and international powers. ASEAN could learn much from the EU experience. I Gede Ngurah Swajaya, the Indonesian Permanent Representative to ASEAN, emphasised that ASEAN was not just about trade, but about promoting equity, social justice, prosperity, peace, and stability. ASEAN was enhancing its integration efforts in response to fast-changing regional and global dynamics. Most major actors were seeking to enhance their dialogue with ASEAN. ASEAN should retain its centrality but it might be timely to consider a new Asia-Pacific treaty of cooperation. Arthayudh Srisamoot, Director General of the ASEAN Department of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs, agreed on the goals of peace, prosperity and stability. There needed to be more focus on human development and good governance. Governments needed to improve their domestic situation and bring 4
ASEAN closer to the people. It was gradually making a bigger global footprint on energy, food security and development issues but was still largely unknown to the people. Connectivity was a key aspect for further regional development including with China s southern provinces. ASEAN should forge constructive partnerships with the major powers. Discussion In the discussion, participants were asked about potential forces of disintegration. Panel members saw a lack of dispute settlement mechanisms in connection with a highly diverse region as an issue. Disputes over environmental issues such as water security were also mentioned. Speakers agreed on the need to strengthen the ASEAN Secretariat and mentioned that a high-level task force was looking into the issue. Funding and staffing were problem areas. The Secretariat had to deal with over 1200 meetings each year. It was suggested the EU could do even more to help with capacity building. Some participants questioned whether the annual meeting with CEOs was sufficient to engage the business community. Speakers agreed on the added value of bringing officials and experts together to discuss the future of EU-ASEAN relations. The EU is the crisis over? There followed a presentation by Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Executive, European Policy Centre, on The EU is the crisis over? He argued that while the immediate danger of an implosion of the Eurozone was over, the social crisis would still take years to be resolved. There was progress towards establishing a banking union but the financial sector still had to be reformed. Unemployment would remain high for some time. If the crisis was to be overcome on a permanent basis there would have to be a political union. The lessons from the crisis were clear: we were living in a world of economic interdependence and needed to manage risk more effectively; and economic integration without 5
political integration was dangerous. The most important lesson was that because of political will the European Union had survived the crisis. This showed the strength of the European integration process and the EU s overall resilience. Working group on political and security cooperation The opening speakers raised the following issues: - There was a need to deepen confidence building measures to deal with the regional security challenges of the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula. - The EU needed to be realistic about its role. It was an important but not a crucial partner for ASEAN. The EU s added value was its own creative thinking about traditional security (e.g. non-proliferation) and non-traditional security issues. - The ARF had been useful and so had other initiatives concerning crisis response and security cooperation. How relevant were security institutions? Could there be an Asian OSCE? - There were cooperation opportunities for the EU and ASEAN within the multilateral system even though, unlike the EU, ASEAN always operated with a UNSC mandate. There could be more cooperation on the Human Rights Council, on climate change, on peacekeeping, migration, refugees, human security, Africa, Islam, inter-cultural dialogue. - The EU-ASEAN Action Plan needed to be more specific. The role of EU arms sales to South East Asia needed to be considered when speaking about security cooperation. - The completion of the ASEAN Community would be a security enhancing measure itself - The EU should be an independent actor in South East Asia and not follow others, i.e. the US. It needed to improve its visibility in the region. - The EU could help with resolution of minority and ethnic issues as well as share experience in management of cross-border projects and resources. 6
- The EU should cooperate with other active supporters of ASEAN integration including the US, Australia, and the Asian Development Bank. Working group on economic cooperation The opening speakers raised the following issues: - Connectivity projects and economic integration were progressing well within ASEAN. The EU had useful experience to share on green infrastructure in transport and energy. - Regulatory convergence was too slow. Non-tariff barriers were slow to be removed and ASEAN did not have supranational institutions that could enforce agreements. - Wider use of equivalence/mutual recognition would help with the tariff reduction process. - Too many bilateral agreements had made it difficult to choose priorities. Issues like fundamental differences over competition policy had not been addressed. - ASEAN s institutions needed to be strengthened especially the Secretariat. - Attention needed to be paid to sustainability. New ideas about financing of pilot projects in sustainability and health could be useful. - An infrastructure centre could act as stimulus and inform about connectivity. The EU could give advice on pilot/demonstration projects (i.e. de-pollution, clean cities, recycling of rare resources). - Business-to-business contacts should be made easier by loosening visa restrictions on the EU side. Closing Panel on Prospects for EU-ASEAN relations During the closing panel speakers made the following proposals: - There should be an annual EU-ASEAN conference for officials and experts. Dialogue and exchanges between think tanks should be encouraged. 7
- The EU s added value in South East Asia was not that of a military power the EU should capitalize on its own strengths, above all its experience of regional integration. - The good start in trade and investment relations should be maintained. More effort should be made to ensure business understood the opportunities on both sides. The bilateral FTAs should eventually lead to a region to region FTA. - Parliamentary relations between ASEAN and the EU should be enhanced. The EP was about to issue its first report on EU-ASEAN relations which was a strong signal. An EU-ASEAN parliamentary assembly could be established. - The EU should appoint a Head of Delegation to ASEAN. - A cultural year introducing an ASEAN member s culture in the EU and vice versa could enhance understanding and exchange. - The EU and ASEAN should increase the visibility of their relationship. They should set up more study centres in each other s region. Academic and scientific changes would bring both regions closer together. The concept of twin cities within the EU could be expanded to ASEAN. - More substance needed to be added to the partnership. Consideration should be given to moving towards a strategic partnership with annual summits. - Commonalities in non-traditional security issues needed to be explored more. Increased cooperation regarding global governance was desirable. - Expat communities within the EU and ASEAN could be involved. - ASEAN needed to be made more of a focus in EU foreign policy and the growing inter-dependence between the two regions emphasised. 8