Opening Ceremony and Keynote Addresses
March 10, 1997
(Provisional Summary)
Mr. Karube, Director of the Second Cultural Affairs Division, serving as Master of Ceremonies, greeted participants, then explained the background of the Symposium, noting that the proposal was originally put forth by Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto of Japan on the occasion of the first Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in March last year. The proposal was for youth exchange programs in order to strengthen cultural ties and deepen mutual understanding between Asia and Europe, using as a model the Davos Meeting, where leaders active on the international scene from a variety of fields gather. With the support of the leaders of all participating countries, Japan and Austria decided to hold this symposium as a joint initiative upon the proposal of Chancellor Franz Vranitzky of the Republic of Austria. Noting that about 110 leaders from 25 countries would be participating in the Symposium, Mr. Karube then introduced Mr. Shunji Yanai, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, to offer a welcome address.
Mr. Yanai welcomed participants, giving special recognition to the keynote speakers -- Mr. Ingvar Carlsson, the former Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Sweden, and Dr. Han Sung-Joo, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea -- as well as Professor Tommy Koh, Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Foundation, symposium co-organizer. After reiterating the background of the symposium, he emphasized that it was aimed at strengthening Asia-Europe relations, which had been the least developed in the trilateral relationship among the three regions of Asia, Europe and North America. He noted that the importance of strengthening this relationship comes against a backdrop of Europe consolidating a leading position within the international community through the integration and expansion of the European Union and of Asia coming to occupy an important position in the international community as the world center of economic growth. He stressed that the symposium would cooperate for the successful attainment of the objective of strengthening Asia-Europe relations, and that the achievements of the symposium would inspire similar accomplishments in the second symposium, to be held next year in Austria. In closing, he thanked the Governor of Miyazaki Prefecture, Mr. Suketaka Matsukata, and all those from Miyazaki Prefecture, the site of the Symposium, for all their assistance.
Mr. Karube thanked Mr. Yanai, then explained that the symposium was jointly organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and the Asia-Europe Foundation. The Foundation was established on the occasion of the ASEM Foreign Ministers' Meeting on 15 February, based on a proposal made by Singapore at the First Asia-Europe Meeting in March last year, to promote mutual understanding between Asia and Europe through an expansion of intellectual, cultural and personal exchanges. He then introduced Professor Tommy Koh, Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Foundation.
Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Foundation (co-sponsor of this symposium) Tommy Koh expressed his pleasure in greeting the participants, in his new capacity as Executive Director and went on to give a short history of the Foundation and reiterate its mandate. This, he said, is to foster a better, mutual understanding between Asia and Europe through intellectual, cultural and individual exchanges. He outlined the history of Asia-Europe relations, identifying three chapters. The first chapter, beginning 700 years ago when Marco Polo of Venice visited China, where he found a civilization which was superior to that in Europe. During the second era, he continued, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution powered Europe ahead of Asia. In the second period, much of Asia came under Europe's domination. Now for the first time, he said, we stand as equals and have an opportunity to build a new relationship based upon mutual benefit. He then identified the three leading economic powers as being the USA, Western Europe and Asia. World stability and prosperity would be enhanced if relations between the three centers were good. He also referred to the liberalization which the US and East Asia were undertaking in APEC, and wondered whether Asia and Europe could do something similar. He compared ASEM's endeavors with the building of a new Euro-Asia House, with four pillars. The four pillars would represent, receptively, the forging of political ties, business contacts, official networks and relations between young leaders and other civic leaders. He stressed the importance of an attitude of mutual respect for one another, and the need to discard old prejudices and preconceptions. He described the prospect of a marriage between Asia and Europe, two world economies, from two ancient continents with rich cultures, as likely to produce greater prosperity and a new cultural blossoming. To do this he said, we must have three things: open markets, open minds and open hearts. The less rosy scenario, he pointed out, was the closing of markets, the emphasis of cultural differences, hostility and prejudice. This, he said, would lead to a clash of civilizations. He finally pointed out that Asia and Europe stand at a crossroads and the future is in our hands.
Mr. Karube thanked Professor Koh, then called on Mr. Yasukuni Enoki, Director-General of the Cultural Affairs Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to read messages from Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, the proponent of the Asia-Europe Young Leaders Symposium, and another from Chancellor Viktor Klima of the Republic of Austria, which will organize the second Symposium next year.
Mr. Enoki read Mr. Hashimoto's address, in which Mr. Hashimoto greeted and thanked participants and explained why he proposed this symposium. In reiterating early explanations, he emphasized that there was a growing global role for Asia and Europe to play together in today's international political and economic arenas and that strengthening the links between Asia and Europe would thus be beneficial not only for the two regions, but also for the international community as a whole. He then expressed his confidence that the symposium would win a good reputation in all the countries of ASEM and continue as a new framework for exchanges of young leaders, and his desire that, as a result, it would develop a people-to-people network based on relations of trust, and serve as a basis for strengthening links between Asia and Europe.
Mr. Enoki then read Chancellor Klima's message, in which Mr. Klima greeted participants and thanked the Japanese government and all those who helped in hosting the event. He emphasized the role of the young leaders in bilateral relations. This event is important in terms of political and cultural dialogue on a person-to-person basis. Recognizing Japan's role as an economic power and security leader, he emphasized that Japan and Asia's cooperation and leadership is also important in other areas. The economic progress in Asia must strengthen the political and other dialogues. Peace and security are more than the mere absence of war. Globalization with a human face is essential. In closing, Mr. Klima noted that Austria would hold the next meeting and encouraged participants to play a leadership role in making the forum a success.
Mr. Karube thanked Mr. Enoki, then introduced Mr. Ingvar Carlsson, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, citing his background and dedication to strengthening the international community through the Commission on Global Governance, which was pivotal in recommending concrete changes in the reform of the United Nations and promoting world peace, etc.
Mr. Carlsson thanked Prime Minister Hashimoto and the Japanese Government for holding the conference with young intellectuals, scholars, politicians, businessmen and diplomats from Asia and Europe. He noted that the conference was special in that: 1) it represented the young generation, largely those in their 30s and 40s; 2) it offered an opportunity for more open-minded, perhaps less predictable, exchange of views; and 3) it would not be an isolated event because a second, follow-up meeting was scheduled to be held in Austria in 1998. He then pointed out that this meeting between Europe and Asia was happening in a global context and that when Asia-Europe relations are discussed, it should be done in the knowledge that all the world is affected by the rapidly changing economic, political and social landscape of the last years of the 20th century. He then explained that he had been involved, together with Sir Shridath Ramphal, as co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, and that they were convinced that it was time for a new order in world affairs; a new style of managing relations on this planet; and a new way of relating to the planet itself. They include respect for life, justice and liberty, integrity and caring. The concept of a global neighborhood is used as the title for the Commission's report. He explained that the concept of global security must be broadened from its traditional focus on the security of states to include the security of people and the planet itself. The problem is never the people, but political error. In today's global neighborhood, survival of the international community must involve cooperation on many fronts: to maintain peace and order; to expand economic activity and ward off recession; to share scarce resources; to tackle pollution on land, at sea and in the atmosphere; to combat terrorism and the drug trade; and to curb the spread of weapons and to fight global epidemics. No country, and no regional groupings of countries, can delude themselves into thinking that its country, or its group of countries, is standing apart from the others. Asia and Europe can never succeed to reach their goals if other regions in the world run into catastrophes. This is easy to see when it comes to airborne pollution, for example, or drug trade, or security policy. But it is equally true in the economic field. In addressing relations between the European Union and Asia, he acknowledged that European countries had been concentrating more than usual on intra-European affairs, but that the picture of a "Fortress Europe" must be altered and corrected, because to Europeans, a strong, prosperous, stable and secure Europe is by definition an open Europe - and free trade continues to be a cornerstone in Europe's foreign policy. The European Union is eager to expand its cooperation with Asia, which has been the driving force of the 1990s. In many ways, the strong demand of the Asian markets has helped to pull the industrial countries of Western Europe and North America out of their long recession. Trade flows between Europe and Asia are larger than those across the Atlantic. The ASEM meeting, held upon the initiative of Singapore, started a process which -- without doubt -- will lead to closer political and economic contacts between the countries that participated in the meeting. The ASEM cooperation should serve to: raise our awareness of the potential for cooperation, particularly in the area of trade and investment; and support an open world trade system and initiate a process of further multilateral trade liberalization, as well as unilateral measures to facilitate trade and investments. He emphasized that the European Union was basically a peace project and the strategy was very simple: to make people good neighbors. He said that he would like to see these basic elements in the future cooperation between Asia and Europe through an expansion of relations in daily lives by widening relations in culture, sports, tourism, and universities. He concluded that stronger relations between the two continents would be a true win-win situation for Asia, for Europe, and for the global neighborhood.
Mr. Karube thanked Mr. Carlsson, then introduced former Minister of Foreign Affairs Han Sung-Joo of the Republic of Korea.
Dr. Han opened by commenting that the holding of the ASEM meeting was a remarkable development in light of historical relations just half a century ago. To many Asian countries and people, Europe meant gun boats, power politics and imperialism. To most Europeans, Asia was an object of colonial designs at worst and a burden of enlightenment at best. That Asia and Europe recognize each other as partners and have begun serious discussions about cooperation means they are preparing for the 21st century. He then speculated on how the world might evolve in the 21st century in light of the past. Regional or world order has been more or less maintained through one or some combination of several systems: 1) hegemony by empire (e.g. Roman and Chinese empires); 2) balance of power through alliance systems; 3) concert of powers; and 4) supra-national government, be it global or regional, providing collective welfare and security. The European arena appears to enjoy both 3) and 4), while East Asian order contains elements of 1), 2) and 3). At the global level, some envisage a triangular relationship of competition and cooperation among Asia, Europe and America. There are others who believe that in the long run a more likely outcome will be a multipolar world consisting of more than just those three poles. For the moment, however, the overall trend in the world seems to be toward a more pluralistic and democratic order. The following four predictions regarding the future world order warrant attention: 1) nation-states will remain the prime actors, and competition among them will continue to be the prime feature of international relations; 2) competition among nation-states will lose much of its importance; 3) dissemination of the market economy and democratization accompanied by free trade and investment will alter the nature of the nation-state; 4) universal triumph of the market economy and liberalism will result in ideological uniformity. The current world order can best be explained as a mosaic of several competing mechanisms: hegemony, balance, concert, and supra-national community. Out of this fascinating mixture, we will get a clearer picture of the struggle between unifying and dividing forces. Neo-nationalism, neo-isolationism, racism, ethnocentrism, chauvinism, fundamentalism, and cultural xenophobia are the dividing forces. Open trade and investment, revolution in communications and transportation, development of science and technology, as well as the emergence of transnational issues such as the environment and disarmament make up the unifying forces. The world has indeed become multipolar, but pluralistic is a more precise term for describing today's world order. Today's pluralistic world, in spite of all the defects it reveals, is the most democratic and civilized one in history. A pluralistic and interdependent world begets regionalism and globalism. Issues have become increasingly regionalized and globalized. These new circumstances have compelled countries to review their respective foreign policy positions from an angle of globalism. Keeping in mind the following questions: Is globalism compatible with national interests? How can globalism be harmonized with regionalism? Can globalism be applied when dealing with issues specific to Asia, where regional integration lags far behind that of Europe. The dilemma between regionalism and globalism is much more acute in Asia, where regional integration lags far behind that of Europe. For this reason, it is important for Asia both to accelerate its regional integrative process and to build bridges with other regions, namely America and Europe. For Asia, these are not mutually exclusive processes. On the contrary, they are mutually reinforcing, complementary, processes. In addressing the rationale for Asia-Europe cooperation, he said that it was probably fair to say that while APEC was, at least in an important sense, the Asian and American response to the success of European regional integration, ASEM in turn has been the European and Asian answer to the rapid progress of APEC. In addition to this economic rationale, there is also security rationale. Bilateral arrangements are still the most important mechanisms in the security of the Asia-Pacific region. Although such arrangements will continue to be essential for a considerable period of time, the changing security environment raises the need for multilateral dialogue and cooperation to complement the existing bilateral arrangements. Asia and America are linked by continued security ties, expanding economic relations, and APEC, Europe and America are bound by NATO as well as historical and cultural linkages. Only the Asia-Europe relationship has been lacking in the kind of extensive and intensive ties that have characterized the other two relationships. The evolving ASEM offers the possibility and promise of correcting this imbalance. In looking at the challenges to Asia-Europe cooperation, he noted that the greatest challenge comes from the asymmetry between Asia and Europe -- asymmetry in values, institutions, country make-up, and the degree and nature of regional integration. Another challenge to Asia-Europe cooperation is how to harmonize the bilateral relationship between Asia and Europe with the trilateral one among Asia, Europe and America. Both Asia and Europe have much more extensive economic and security ties with North America than between themselves. Making ASEM into a trilateral exercise would not be realistic, but it would not be desirable to take an exclusionary stance vis-a-vis America. A related challenge is how to harmonize the Asia-Europe relationship with the imperatives of globalism. Here again, the key would be open regionalism and an open relationship. This approach is also the way to make their emerging cooperative relationship consistent with the interests of those countries and regions outside the trilateral relationship--namely Russia, Africa, the Middle East and South America. In closing, he expressed his confidence that ASEM would evolve and mature into one of the major global institutions that will shape the economies, societies and politics of Asia and Europe, particularly the former.
Mr. Karube thanked Dr. Han, then offered participants to ask some questions of the keynote speakers.
A question was asked on the advice of Mr. Carlsson and Mr. Han, on how to overcome problems between Indonesia and Portugal.
Mr. Carlsson responded that this conflict should be resolved politically between the two parties involved.
A question was asked to both speakers on what Asia and Europe could do to shape the United Nations, when it was formed by the victors of WWII and is largely dominated by the victors.
Mr. Carlsson agreed that the end of the post-WWII period should be recognized and said that the Security Council should be expanded to include Japan, Germany, as well as permanent members from other regions and more rotating members. The veto issue must be addressed, but the veto itself should not be eliminated yet. However, permanent members with that power should be discouraged from using the veto as much as possible. More should be done in the sector of international law. It is the basis of democracy, but not enough countries have accepted the international court system. There is also a need for a standing criminal court. If such reforms do not start today, the UN will lose its strength. A strong UN is important, but decentralization to some extent must take place to strengthen regions.
Mr. Han agreed with Mr. Carlsson and, reflecting on his own experience at the UN, stated that problems must be addressed with the cooperation and support of national governments. National governments, however, often act on their own interests. The UN legacies of the post-WWII period (e.g. veto of security council members), must be gradually phased out. What can Asia do? There could be anxiety in the West about Asian participation in affairs outside of Asia, but greater participation will help both sides. Greater involvement is the key. If Indonesia, for example, would become more involved the influence of the international community would play a greater role.
A question was asked to Dr. Han about the slowdown of economic growth in Asia, asking for further elaboration, including what is going on in Korea and how those international frameworks (i.e. OECD) affect this.
Dr. Han stated that he indeed did think the slowdown of economic growth in Asia was only temporary. He said he subscribed to most of the comments made in the recent Economist article. On the question of Korean membership in OECD, local issues must be brought into the global context. In proposing Korean membership in OECD, Dr. Han said that his hidden agenda was to bring international institutions to bear on Korea, particularly the press and other domestic aspects, thereby bringing momentum within Korea toward necessary changes toward globalization.
A question was then asked on Indonesia and Portugal, specifically on what ASEM's role was in light of its approach of building on areas of agreement, rather than difference.
Mr. Carlsson said not to expect too much immediately. ASEM could in the future address such issues once cooperation on the economic arena is established.
Dr. Han reiterated that institution building is the first order of business and that that will lay the groundwork for future expansion of the cooperation between the two regions.
Dr. Han was asked to define more about what Asia is all about.
Dr. Han responded that he did not mean defining Asia in any definite sense; rather, that Asia feels a need to define itself in light of the stronger integral sense in Europe.
A question was asked on what kind of democracy to build in light of regional arrangements.
Mr. Carlsson said that democracy through referendums is an ideal democracy, but most countries do not find this practical. There must be some kind of representative democracy. There will be change in the situation where the nation-state is the key actor. Unemployment and other issues must be addressed over national borders. Regional cooperation has the danger of a democratic deficit. It is important that the people have influence over the regional decisions. The difficult question is how to build regional cooperation, while maintaining democracy, i.e. the influence of a nation's people over the decisions of its nations.
Dr. Han commented that nation-states will have more influence in some areas and less in other areas. This provides fertile ground for cooperation and productive competition.
Dr. Han was asked to comment on Mr. Carlsson's comments about developing an organization to overcome internal conflicts.
Dr. Han responded that the conflicts in Europe are becoming more intrastate, while those in Asia are becoming more interstate. Institutions must be ready to deal with the conflicts both inside and outside of Asia. This is an area where Asia can take advantage of the experiences of European institutions.
Dr. Han was asked to comment on his optimism about relations.
Dr. Han explained that he did not subscribe, necessarily, to any one of the four theories he introduced. It is hard to imagine interstate conflicts within the EU or within ASEAN. Strong regional relations could make the security issues less relevant to the ASEM framework.
Dr. Han and Mr. Carlsson were asked, building on the statement by Dr. Han that there is asymmetry between Europe and Asia, if the fact that we are dealing on a block to block basis by its nature present potential constraints to greater cooperation between and among individual countries from each region.
Dr. Han said that that was a very thoughtful question and that this issue needed to be addressed. The question should probably be answered by the EU representative as it is more established as a block than Asia at present.
Mr. Carlsson answered that there will not be a problem because in reality the problem is that there is not enough relations between Asia and Europe. This framework encourages more relations. After such relations are more developed, however, this issue may have to be addressed.
Mr. Yanai referred to the ASEAN-EU Foreign Ministers Meeting and the ASEM Foreign Ministers meeting, both held in Singapore in February 1997, and commented that while the ASEAN-EU Meeting was a bloc-to-bloc meeting, the ASEM Meeting was a dialogue among individual ASEM members. Mr. Koh added that even in the case of the ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting the European senior officials tried to coordinate the EU position excessively, but the lack of coordination on the Asian side and the fact that the European Foreign Ministers were not found to have a common EU position both contributed to the spontaneous dialogue among individual ASEM members.
A question was asked whether or not cultural differences would be an inhibiting factor.
Mr. Carlsson commented that national cultural should be respected and that the differences provide more opportunity for cooperation. These difference will not inhibit cooperation. They will only contribute to strengthening the relations in the economic and industrial areas.
Mr. Karube closed the question and answer period and thanked the keynote speakers for their thought-provoking keynote addresses on Asia-Europe relations for the 21st century.
Back to Index