Provisional Summary of the
Brainstorming Session on Politics
March 11, 1997
The chairperson announced he would open the meeting with certain provocative statements. ASEM started last year primarily because of the fear that Europe would be left out of the emerging markets in Asia. The dialogue therefore started with a very pragmatic purpose. An initial agreement was made to avoid sensitive topics that might derail the process. Politics is about citizens' role in the government, the role of the state as initiator and guarantor of the social contract and maintaining laws. He stressed that ASEM was a dialogue among equals but there is still a strong tendency among Europeans to think of themselves as more advanced countries. He also added that Europeans should not forget that most Asian countries today are not at the same developmental stage as Europeans. Most Asians are still in the process of building their nation-states. At that stage in European development, countries were undemocratic. He emphasized that there is no direct relationship between development, free market and democracy. Human rights are still important, still the goal of development, but the dialogue should focus on how to achieve this goal, he said. Lastly, he cautioned the session participants against prejudice and misconceptions. He reminded Europeans in general not to approach Asia with the attitude of what Europeans can teach Asia, but also open their minds to what they can learn from Asia.
A European participant asked whether there was a contradiction between warning Europeans against assuming they were more advanced and instructing them that Asians were simply in a different stage of development.
An Asian participant noted that western hubris can be broken down if Asians demonstrate their economic prowess. On the other hand, Japan for example does look towards the West to learn technologies, he said. He said that economic development is the key to the relationship between the two.
An Asian participant said that Asian identities are not clear either. However, she said there is a recognition that the West is more advanced politically, and that Asian countries in the process of nation-building look to the West for models. She stressed that Asian nations maintain a strong sense of nationalism and find it difficult to accept highly politicized messages from the West.
A European participant said many factors played a role in expanding the EU beyond economic issues. One was to present a cultural and political image to counter global Americanization, she said. It is not sensible to mix human rights, trade and development issues in the same discussion, she said, explaining that they should be handled separately. Human rights especially has to be treated with the ideologies of both sides in mind.
An Asian participant said he could not accept the idea that Asians do not know what is best for their own societies. He said he did not want Western countries to instruct Asian nations. It would be better to lead by example, he said. One issue that is not self-evident to Asians is the organization of social and political systems. In time, Asian countries will see the value of these systems and adopt some of their methods.
A European participant disagreed, saying that Western countries were responding to different needs in Asia. Some governments may not want Western intervention, but opposition groups have solicited it, he said.
An Asian participant said Westerners often stereotype Asian governments without examining the specific changes these governments have enacted.
A European participant focused first on values. The EU was created for the disappearance of war, respect of free market, democracy and individual rights, not simply for economic reasons. She said her question was how this can be translated inside. She also disagreed with the participant advocating separation of economic and political discussion. There is a blurring of intellectual borders and those topics are intertwined, she said. She also wondered what can be done about non-governmental pressure groups that are gaining power. In addition, she disagreed that there was no link between economic development and free market. She suggested a differentiation between short- and long-term goals.
A European participant agreed that trade and human rights cannot always be separated and the world must occasionally take steps to address human rights issues through economic measures. South Africa, he said, is an example of correct use of economic pressure.
A European participant noted that when the EU seeks to form a relationship with another entity, a clause must be inserted regarding respect of human rights.
An Asian participant said that in the long-run, leaders will be open to changes and criticism. It is the short-term situation that must be handled, she said. No one should shy away from discussing human rights issues, but confidence-building measures and discussion venues are important at this stage, she said. Asians see human rights criticisms as trade directives because the criticisms are couched in economic terms, she explained. Human rights and democracy are issues in their own right, she said.
A European participant asked what would happen if Indonesia and Portugal clashed on an issue soon. He wondered whether the nations would use the ASEM mechanism. The East Timor problem is not simply an Indonesian and Portuguese problem, but an international one, he said.
An Asian participant said the negotiations are currently between the two countries but a tripartite negotiation is not out of the question. Still, she said, ASEM is very new and not yet established. In addition, the Asian process needs to be valued as an important one, she said.
An Asian participant said China has its own concept of social and political systems. He explained that China is seeking its own route to a socialist free market. He hoped that Western countries will not force their political ideas on and interfere with Asian countries. Political stability is more important than political systems, he added.
An Asian participant said capitalist economies and authoritarian regimes can coexist to a certain extent but wondered whether China will be able to do it. However, it is not only Western countries seeking to impose their values on Asian nations, but also Japan, he said. Another matter worthy of discussion is weapons trade, he added. Most Asian countries are importing a lot of weapons from European countries.
The chairperson emphasized that Myanmar is not simply an Asian issue, but an international problem because Myanmar has become a world-wide drug supplier.
A European participant said if China enters the World Trade Organization, it will be an incentive to make changes in the rule of law. If China signs the convention on human rights, it will prove to be the same incentive, she said.
A European participant criticized the notion that whatever government happens to be in power is the government Western countries must deal with. There are issues that transcend national borders, such as racism and drug trafficking, he said.
A European participant said it is hard to imagine that European nations will accept a government in Myanmar that does not respond to the needs of its people. He said it must be discussed, even though it is a sensitive topic. Economic issues can and should be handled separately, he added.
An Asian participant said international pressure can add leverage to ASEAN regarding the Myanmar situation.
An Asian participant said there can be constructive engagement by bringing Myanmar into ASEAN.
The chairperson returned to the subject of values and the current media debate on Asian values. He said there is no such thing as Asian values because Asia is so diverse politically and religiously. What is presented to the world as Asian values are in fact universal conservative values, he said. Advocates of Asian values place great emphasis on agrarian cultures, he added. The real struggle is not Asian values against Western values, but conservative values against liberal values.
When an Asian participant said there is are fundamental paradoxes between politics and human rights, a European participant said rule of law means that violations of rights are prohibited.
An Asian participant replied that prohibiting voluntary renunciation of rights violates an individual's rights. Sometimes, also, a decision cannot be reached through a vote. He said good fences make good neighbors, and clearly defined political rights are those fences separating nations. He continued that the logic of human rights is not consistent with the policy of free markets. Free markets require free movement of resources, he said.
An Asian participant explained that China first and foremost has to feed its massive population, and that can be legitimized. As an economy develops and poverty declines, human rights issues can gradually be addressed. However, he reminded participants that the session topic was not the internal politics of China. He tried to steer the discussion towards topics such as the inclusion of Asian partners in G-7 talks and work bank organizations.
An Asian participant wondered what would happen if he came to the ASEM table with preconditions and cautioned Europeans against negotiating with preconditions. Asia has developed its own values and continues to do so, he said, and they should be honored. He added that Europe is an economic fortress.
The chairperson stressed that democracy cannot be imposed on a country. Rather, it must be a developing process. He said participants must focus on non-state actors and their role in democratization in Asia.
An Asian participant noted that working solely through non-state actors is not sufficient. International pressure is very important, she said. Non-governmental organizations are effective because they have international links, she said. The question is defining the limit to international intervention and packaging it so there will not be a backlash, she added.
An Asian participant said non-state actors are most effective when they are focused on one issue, but that weakens these organizations because they begin to have tunnel vision. He said that non-state institutions are crucial but they must be careful about narrowing their perspectives.
A European participant said that many European governments are relatively weak and unstable and have little to gain from meetings in Asia. In fact, he said, they have much to lose if the meetings backfire. Asian countries should be considerate of European countries just as European countries have been asked to be considerate of Asian nations.
A European participant said Myanmar is an easy case because there are clear violations. But other cases are not so straightforward, he said. Human rights violations are not always political issues, but human rights issues, he said. He acknowledged that the inclusion of non-governmental organizations in the symposium could help build a bridge between Asia and Europe. Moderation will help the two parties build that common foundation, he said. He added that modernization is a crucial aspect of the debate on values and politics. Progress and modernization might be the ultimate Western conspiracy because of the demands it entails, he explained.
The chairperson summarized the session by saying that while participants agreed human rights are important, they also decided it should not be at the forefront of any agenda.
Back to Index