This year is a very symbolic historical turning point between Europe and Asia. Maybe I will start with the contemporary scenery of the relationship between the European Union and Asia. This year we had a meeting called ASEM [Asia-Europe Meeting] in Bangkok. This conference was held on the first and second of March this year in Bangkok, Thailand, and was really historic in a way, because European political leaders had a chance to visit Asia. It was the first time for Asian people to experience a group of European leaders visiting Asia together.

Historically, there are maybe three stages of development between Europe and Asia. The first stage may go back to the thirteenth century, the period of Marco Polo, who wrote a book called "The Description of the World," which is about the history of East Asia and China. This was the first stage for Europe to find and discover Asia. The second stage includes the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was the period of colonisation. The European powers came to Asia to colonise. Great Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal, all the major European powers, came to Asia to colonise. This was the period of the industrial revolution and also the period of colonisation. So Britain occupied Hong Kong, which it will return to China next year. This was the second stage of European-Asian relations, the colonisation one.

The third stage started just this year, and its starting point was the ASEM meeting in Bangkok. The Asia-Europe Meeting was held in Bangkok this year, and we had fifteen representatives from the European Union, including Greece--I think that Greece sent its foreign minister to ASEM. As for ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations], a group of Southeast Asian countries, it was also represented. ASEAN represents seven countries, and in addition to ASEAN, Japan, Korea, and China were also represented. So to get twenty-five countries and their prime ministers, presidents, and foreign ministers at the meeting of ASEM, it was really historic from the perspective of Asian countries. The European leaders visited Asia, at the same time, in the same place, so we tried to make the best of this opportunity in view of the further development of Europe-Asia relations.

There are several points of historic significance, and I would like to mention some points one by one. This is true either from Asia's perspective, or the EU strategies, or the countries' perspectives--you can see how Japan, China, and Southeast Asia see Europe and the ASEM meeting. Asia is very big and diversified; it's not as simple as the European Union. For Japan, the United States or the European Union are always united to make one pole. However, in their internal politics things are different. Each time I visit London and Paris, I always find a different Europe, a different policy. So you will find the same equivalence in Asia. National interests and strategies are always different, but sometimes we try to have a common background and interest.

A small country with big ideas

First, I would like to speak about the diplomatic initiative by ASEAN to formulate the agenda of the ASEM meeting. This was a diplomatic initiative by one of the ASEAN countries, Singapore, to formulate the ASEM framework in 1994. Singapore is a very tiny country, but they have really great diplomatic initiatives. Since Singapore is a very small island country, they always have to create some new ideas and new frameworks. Thus, in bringing all the international conferences to Singapore, they attract many people from abroad. This is one of Singapore's strategies. Hence the creation of the idea, the creation of a framework for holding a conference.

At this point, Singapore took a diplomatic initiative and had a talk with the prime minister in 1994, and they agreed to have a new framework of Europe and Asia. This was a Singapore initiative, but Singapore is very wise, they are very smart, intelligent, very sophisticated. Even though this was a Singapore initiative, the Singapore government made this an ASEAN initiative. It was made by Singapore, but officially it was made by ASEAN. So this is the wisdom to make everyone happy in the region. This was the initiative of Singapore, but Singapore asked Thailand to host the ASEM meeting in Bangkok. Therefore, although it would have been a privilege for Singapore to hold this first meeting in Singapore, it was not a Singapore decision. It is trying to have a different place in ASEAN. So the scenario produced by Singapore and Thailand was like having an actor and actress. The theatre is in Bangkok, but the producers and scenario writer are Singapore. In this way you will find that a lot of Singapore intellectuals, figures, and also diplomatic officials visited Bangkok quite often to organise this ASEM meeting.

Thailand is not very experienced in organising this kind of big international conference initiated by the government. The private sector is different, but the government is not very experienced in organising international conferences. So, it was the first time for Thailand to host the last ASEAN meeting in December, the second ASEAN meeting in March this year. So since last year it's a really big event for Thailand to experience a big international conference. The ASEAN summit meeting last year and the ASEM meeting were both held here. This is an example of the diplomatic framework initiatives taken by Singapore. But you have to remember that officially this was an ASEAN initiative.

The second thing may be the historical significance of this conference--to make it simple first and then to go into details. It was the first time to have an equal partnership between Europe and Asia--from Asia's perspectives--and it was kind of a new stage to escape from the colonial heritage of the past and the egocentric partnership. Of course, there is not really an equal partnership, but the beginning of an equal partnership. The beginning of having a perception of an equal partnership is very important.

Maybe the third thing was the agenda. There were maybe two major components of the agenda. One of them was the general principle of human rights, and the second one was trade promotion. The European Union wanted to discuss human rights and democracy issues. The European Union has always wanted to discuss human rights in Asia, and they want to give some lessons to Myanmar or Burma. If you have to always try to teach Myanmar or Burmese military government, you have to be very soft. So actually they did not discuss human rights at this ASEM conference, but they did talk over this issue before the conference. This is another token of Asian wisdom, whether it is good or not. If the agenda is not really good, they do not discuss it. This is the Asian way. So if there is a big issue, a democracy-related question as in Indonesia and Myanmar, normally they do not discuss it officially. But around the breakfast table and during working lunch they would have informal meetings quite often.

Therefore, you will have noticed that in formal diplomacy most of the important issues would be discussed informally, at breakfast, lunch, or dinner. This is why they spend a lot of money on conferences, eating and drinking. Some antigovernment groups in Asian countries think that governments should not spend so much money on conferences. But this is a wise practice, which seems to be a successful one.

ASEAN makes its voice heard

ASEAN was set up in 1967, nearly thirty years ago, by five original member states, I think--the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. They were all poor at the time and received foreign aid. In the 1960s you could not find any university lectures or courses on Asia in Japanese universities. Major studies would focus on European affairs, Western philosophies, and American issues. So ASEAN was created in the 1960s, but nobody paid attention to it. If you look at newspapers of that time, you will find no optimism about ASEAN. It was seen as a group of poor countries, with no religious integrity, no ethnic cohesion, and no common values. Thirty years ago, these countries were very poor indeed, but now they enjoy a growth rate of 6%-7%, and many people are now paying attention to ASEAN.

ASEAN countries have had very good political figures--strong military governments--whether it is good or not. Anyway, they have had them, and they have succeeded. Indonesia has had President Suharto ever since 1965, so he has been in power for thirty-one years now. Dr. Mahathir Mohamad became prime minister of Malaysia in 1981--he has, therefore, been in power for fifteen years. Singapore's prime minister is the founding father of the country and, even if he is not a prime minister, he will be in the cabinet. So you find great political figures in the ASEAN countries.

The ASEM summit is very important for ASEAN. Thirty years ago nobody would pay attention to ASEAN, but things are different nowadays. This is in itself a great historic, political, and economic change. The heads of 15 European countries came to Bangkok not as colonial powers but as equal partners.

On the other hand, human rights, democracy, and other related issues are things that ASEAN countries do not want to talk about. Yet these are big issues, and the EU wanted to discuss them, even if informally. So the official chairman's statement after the ASEM meeting included a recognition that we should respect human rights as a general principle and guidelines, but no specific issues. And this is always the compromise with Asian countries, especially with those ASEAN countries. They can be very tough and very experienced in diplomacy.

In the ASEAN framework they have no money, and there are 250 Asian meetings every year, almost every day except Sundays and Saturdays, in different sectors, on a different level. Almost every week, every day! So they are very well experienced, and if you force them to talk about human rights, they will not be happy. They are not in a position to accept force to have a meeting. In that way they act very carefully about it, but you can have a free discussion informally, not officially. Why? Because you don't want to "lose your face." It is very important. You are not in a position to force Asian people to lose their face. So behind the curtain, under the table, you can talk.

I think that European and Asian countries, especially ASEAN, have agreed to have a very positive attitude towards economic development and trade--free trade between Europe and Asia--as a general principle. That would involve the promotion of WTO [World Trade Organization] principles, too. However, it is very difficult for Asian countries to accept free trade, so a compromise has to be found. On the other hand, agreement can be achieved on some concrete proposals, such as the Mekong joint project. The Mekong river is a very important one for Asian countries. It is a very long river shared by China, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, and Vietnam. You see that some very important countries share the Mekong river and its area, which is very rich in natural resources and rice. In December 1995 Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad proposed a development project in the Mekong river area, even though Malaysia does not share the Mekong river, and this is really significant. This is a way to join common development projects, despite the fact that Malaysia is a non-Mekong country. It is also a good example of Malaysia's diplomatic initiatives. Even if you do not belong to the Mekong river area and you want to participate in projects over there, you have to say something. And if you say something, many Asian countries will not make you lose your face--on the contrary, they have to invite Malaysia for joint development. This is another example of diplomatic tactics.

Malaysian wisdom is in the fact that this is a middle-sized country, with a population of about 19 million people. However, some 3 million in Malaysia would be illegal immigrants from Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. As you know, Malaysia is a Muslim country, and that is why most illegal immigrants would come from other Muslim countries. So, during this year's ASEAN meeting many countries pondered on how to make use of the Mekong river development project.

Asia as Europe's main trade partner

The ASEM framework was initially suggested by Singapore's prime minister, with the assistance of the French prime minister. Why France's prime minister? Because in 1994 France had the chair of the European Union, and that is why Singapore's government approached France. The chairman's position is very important, because the chairman sets the agenda and proposes it to other countries. Therefore, Singapore asked the French government to suggest an agenda and to announce it informally through its channels to the other EU member states.

The second very important thing regards the relations between Asia and the European Union. The ASEM meeting is a turning point, as for the first time in its history, the EU has big trade with Asia. Normally, before 1994 Europe's trade with the United States had been much bigger than its total trade with Asia. But in 1994 things were different--the European Union had bigger trade with Asia than with the United States. In that year, EU trade with East Asia amounted to $312 billion, compared to $235 billion with the United States. Since then the EU has enjoyed a larger trade exchange with East Asia than with the United States. In a way, 1994 was a turning point indeed in the relations between Europe and Asia.

The European Union, or the European Commission, produced a little report recently on Asian trade and Asia itself. Asia is a magnet of investment for European countries, Asia provides business opportunities for Europe, and also Europe is Asia's partner. Such reports are produced by the European Commission, and also they produce the European strategy report on Asia. Here we have some comprehensive reports produced by the European Commission, and this stage is for the 1990s, for the past five years or so. We can find frequent visitors from European countries to Asia, especially Germany and France, and last week Chancellor Kohl was in Japan and Indonesia for trade promotion. When Chancellor Kohl comes to Asia, he always brings along big delegations. Chancellor Kohl visited Asia last year in November and this year in October. It's a good time to visit Southeast Asia at this time of the year. Also, the French prime minister and president visited Japan these days, and also their foreign ministers.

As for France, they want to go into Indochina very much, especially Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar [Burma]. The CLV [Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam] area is a former French colony. So the senior established people in the CLV speak French, and the French government wants to promote some free relations with the CLV. But the United States has some positive attitude in trade relations and so on. As for the European countries, we notice that the European Union, the European Commission, has a very positive commitment to the Asian countries.

After reviewing the European strategies to Asia, I want to explain something about the country perspectives from Asian countries on the ASEM framework. I mentioned that ASEAN's diplomatic initiative created the ASEM meeting, but you will find different perspectives from the Asian countries. Each country has different interests and perceptions and strategy and tactics. For example, Singapore is the scenario writer of island countries diplomacy, always producing something and writing some scenarios for drama, for theatre. Also, Singapore's strategy always is to get a lot of information. And when you have information, you can tell somebody what to do. For Singapore, information gathering is very important, so that it can always be the information messenger. It is a kind of newspaper. If it tells something will happen, it happens. A kind of messenger boy for Asian countries. Singapore is so well experienced in diplomatic exercise. It is a regular strategy for Singapore, especially for Lee Kwan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, to balance the United States and Chinain the region.

Long tradition of warfare

As for the ASEAN area, this region has always been a region of conflicts and wars, for centuries on end. In 1992 the Cambodian conflict came to an end. Ever since 1945, when World War Two ended, ASEAN nations have had civil wars until 1992. Therefore, there has always been fist-fighting in this area, and, at the same time, this is why these nations are so cautious about the big powers' involvement. After World War Two, the region experienced the Indochina War, the French fighting in Vietnam--Ho Chi Minh against the French, who were eventually defeated. The conflict ended at the Geneva conference.

After the first Indochina War, there was a second conflict, the Vietnam War, this time against the United States, especially between 1965 and 1975. Heavy U.S. involvement in Vietnam started in 1967. Of course, it started before that, but heavy involvement only in 1967, in the form of bombing. China supported North Vietnam to fight against the United States and supplied arms to that end. At a certain point, Vietnam had some problems with China and started using weapons from Russia, at that time called the USSR. So, North Vietnam had the advantage of using two sources of weapons--from China and the Soviet Union.

Vietnam, in turn, invaded Cambodia in 1979. Cambodia had had a civil war before the Chinese invasion, under the Pol Pot regime. Three million people were killed at the time. Cambodia had civil wars, with factions fighting each other, with support from Vietnam, Russia, and China. Facing Cambodia, Thailand received hundreds of thousands of refugees from Cambodia and Vietnam. Thailand, as you know, borders on Cambodia. Indonesia, too, received a lot of refugees from Vietnam.

Therefore, these countries have always been fighting each other, and this is precisely why they have always been very cautious. For the first time in their history, they are having peace. Between 1991 and 1992, Cambodia had peace at last, except for some guerrilla wars. In the western part of Cambodia, some Pol Pot troops are still alive and there is still some fighting. However, civil wars have basically finished in Southeast Asia.

For the first time time in their history, they are now thinking about the Mekong development project. These countries have not had any joint development efforts for several decades. After all those civil wars and fighting, now they can afford it at last. This year is a starting point in a way. And you have to remember that this Mekong development project was proposed by Malaysia, a non-Mekong river country. Just think about it. How can you hear one's voice in a position in such areas?

Singapore, which is a very tiny country, has always collected information. It has no diplomatic influence in big issues, but what it can do is shout. One can shout aloud "we need peace" and "behave yourself." For instance, shout to the United States, "You have to open your trade market." Shout to Japan, "You have to deregulate your market." However, shout to China? No. Singapore is a Chinese country in a way and has to be careful about China's position in these areas. ASEAN countries are very cautious about China. If they say something, maybe they know what will happen in the future.

Reducing the superpower presence

The ASEM meeting is seen as a way to soften, to reduce the impact of the big powers, the United States and China. For long periods the United States and China played major roles in the fighting--they have played indirect roles in those areas. For Singapore, it is a good opportunity to make some balance with China and the United States. Next, Malaysia. What is good for Malaysia is to check the American influence on the ASEM. For Malaysia, the United States is very important. Every Asian country wants American presence. They always need some American presence, but they don't want a big American presence. So Malaysia wants some American presence, not too much, so that they can use the ASEM. In the ASEM meeting the United States is not invited. It's very important for ASEAN, but it's verybad for the United States. But for this meeting the United States was very silent, very strict, and very cruel. For Malaysia it's very important because it's the realisation of a framework called the EAEC [East Asian Economic Conference], which was proposed by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 1990 first as the EAEG, then the EAEC.

It's a kind of East Asian bloc. For American people it's a racial bloc with East Asian countries. Malaysia invited Japan, Korea, China, Asian countries to unite as one voice of the EAEC. I think it's very natural for Malaysia to raise the question, because Europe has the European Union and we are not invited, of course; the United States has NAFTA [North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement], with Canada and Mexico; and Australia and New Zealand have the CER [Closer Economic Relationship] agreement. So all the advanced countries have some framework. It's quite natural for Asian countries, especially for Malaysia, to raise this question, the EAEC. So it's the first time to achieve the EAEC in a framework of the ASEM meeting, and Malaysia has proposed the Mekong development project in ASEM. This is another diplomatic victory for Malaysia. For Thailand it is a good experience to have the ASEM meeting. Now Thailand is full of confidence in organising international conferences by ASEM. Thailand is the less experienced country in having big conferences.

For Indonesia it's important to have talks with Portugal. Indonesia cut its official relations with Portugal in 1976, after Indonesia's takeover of East Timor in 1975. East Timor is a former colony of Portugal, so they have had cool diplomatic relations. So for Indonesia it's another diplomatic initiative.

New experiences for Japan

Japan is a member of ASEM, and for Japan there are a few significant points. It's the first time for Japan to have an international meeting without the presence of the United States. Of course, we have a Japan-European Union meeting without the United States, because this is a Japan-EU meeting. The ASEM meeting is a Europe-Asia meeting, and Japan, China, and Korea are invited. Normally in such a big conference we have always the United States and also Australia. But this time Australia, New Zealand, and the United States were not invited. So for Australia it's a diplomatic disgrace and they are not happy, but for the United States it's okay.

The second point: Japan's involvement indicates a way of quiet diplomacy in the ASEM meeting. Prime Minister Hashimoto represented the country, but our position in the ASEM meeting is very quiet, because this whole initiative was taken by the Asian countries. So Japan, Korea, and China are rather guests, but we promoted substantially the idea of a trade framework. Japan's position in this area is very complicated in a way. If we say that we are the big boys, someone will say that Japan is again remilitarising or Japan wants to enjoy some big game again. If we stay silent and quiet, they will say that Japan should play more major roles. We always receive some criticism and some comments, and Japan should speak in a stronger voice. We are always in a different position. So what we can do is to have a positive substantial diplomacy in this region, and I like this kind of Japanese diplomatic initiative. We cannot use any military force, it's impossible. We have to focus on a series of different forces, maybe you call it army or navy, but we are not supposed to have an army or navy, but a series of different forces, which are the same in a way. It's impossible under the Constitution to get involved in any fighting. That's why we have the security treaty with the United States. So the only thing that we can do is diplomacy, negotiation, dialogue.

One of the successful cases of diplomacy is Myanmar's case last year. When you talk to Burma's government, the Myanmar government, they talk about Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, and they don't know who she is. They don't know about public relations, and they don't know how to talk about it. They have to accept Suu Kyi, they have to know. Some Asian friends want to teach the Myanmar government, they help us to communicate, and this is the first step for the military government. More communication. In a way we are very successful, because last year, on the tenth of July, the Myanmar SLORC [State Law and Order Restoration Council] government announced it was letting Suu Kyi free. She had been under house arrest for six years, during which she became Burmese--before that she was British.

She speaks perfect English, and I met her this year. She is like a newspaper magazine figure. She is so beautiful and charming, she is so persuasive, very clear, writing articles every week. She is at the age of fifty, but she looks so young. Aung San Suu Kyi's house is situated in the central part of the city, in a good residential area, with the Japanese ambassador's official residence just opposite. So you can imagine just across the road we have some informal diplomacy talks, maybe a dialogue, with Aung San Suu Kyi. So the embassy's staff, they speak the Burmese language, and they have had access to Suu Kyi.

Eventually the Burmese government was happy to release Aung San Suu Kyi. Our government had advanced a notice to the Burmese government. Why? There are several reasons. Burma is a recipient of Japanese foreign aid, the number-one country. Japan is the top donor in the Burmese foreign aid scheme of the official development assistance for Asians. Without Japanese foreign aid the Burmese government cannot enjoy economic development, and they cannot have any infrastructure. For Japan, Burma should be democratised, it should be a peaceful country, and we encourage them to have a democracy and to solve the human rights question. This is one of the examples of quiet diplomacy--we need a lot of time for negotiation. This is the second point of diplomacy and quiet diplomacy.

Another point is the significance of Japan in the ASEM meeting. Japan had had a long diplomatic negotiation, a talk, with the European countries within the framework of the G-7 summit meeting. It's a route starting in the 1970s, just after the oil crisis of 1973. The European countries proposed to have a summit meeting among advanced countries, so they started to have a meeting in Paris, a kind of economic crisis management meeting. Japan was invited, and since then Japan has had an annual dialogue with the European Union, the European countries. So it is a history of about twenty years. But within the framework of the G-7 meeting, Japan has always represented Asian concerns, Asian interests. Japan is the only Asian country in the G-7, and sometimes we discuss with Asian countries,"Why is Italy a member, why is Canada a member?" Australia has always wanted to join the G-7 meetings, but it is so difficult. So the countries of the G-7 have always had some common interest with the European countries. This is the first time for Japan to line with the Asian side within the framework of ASEM. Europe is there, Asia is here. We used to find our prayers there, in the European side, but this was the first time for Japan to have a position on the Asian side. So it was a new significant experience for Japan to have the ASEM meeting here and the ASEM framework.

I am supposed to talk about the relationship between Asia and the European Union, but I thought that I should start my discussion from the historic meeting called ASEM, the third historic stage. The first historic stage in the thirteenth century was the Marco Polo period. In 1371 he visited East Asia and produced a book--that was the first stage of discovery. The second stage was the colonisation by Europe. Asian countries were colonised by European powers. This year is the beginning of the third stage of equal partnership. It's a kind of opportunity for Asian countries to have a new spirit, a new perception in their relations with Europe. So it is getting into a new stage. I would like to finish my presentation on the topic of ASEM, within the framework of relations between the EU and Asia, and I would like to invite your criticisms, your questions, and open comments.

(The above article is offered for reference purposes and does not necessarily represent the policy or views of the Japanese Government)

---

Isami Takeda

Born in 1952. Received his M.A. in international relations from Sophia University and his Ph.D. in international political history from Sydney University. Has been a lecturer at Sophia University and Seikei University. Is now a professor at Dokkyo University. Author of Imin nanmin enjo no seijigaku (The Politics of Migration, Refugees, and Foreign Aid).

---

Back to Index