Workshop IV
Interregional cooperation
"Identifying Modalities for Cooperation among Sovereign States on an Intra- and Interregional Basis"

Final Report

The first session focused on the issue of the nature and institutionalization of cooperation and integration. Asian and European participants had a direct exchange on views about developments in their respective regions. They addressed the various kinds of regional organizations, starting from the present state of affairs. According to the different approaches of each region, they discussed the choice of whether to have supra-national or intergovernmental organizations which would serve the interests of the region or the national interests of each state respectively. The definition of regional integration was addressed extensively. The EU model was taken as an example of regional integration, while ASEAN was taken as an example of regional cooperation. It was noted that perceptions of accommodating needs through international institutions vary in the different regions. As one difference, the security arrangements in Asia remain, in general, in the sphere of bilateral agreements. At the same time, the Asian countries attempt to build confidence building measures and preventive diplomacy through multilateral fora such as ARF. Security in Europe, on the other hand,is largely a matter of integration.

In the second session, the European Union model was addressed through a comparison with organizational systems in Asia. The absence of a cohesive arrangement for the whole of Asia was noted. The first question brought up was how to identify common interests, both on a regional and global level. Having identified some of the organizational problems, enlargement was considered with a strong feeling that it is important to consolidate the ASEM process before expanding membership. In terms of strengthening interregional cooperation, it was pointed out that there was a need for efficient and transparent mechanisms, but that institutionalization would take away from the informal nature of ASEM. A three-tier structure was suggested, including an engine for decision making, ministerial meetings for dialogue, and concrete projects. Under this structural scheme, there would be centralization at the upper level and decentralization at the lower level. This suggestion envisages the need for flexibility. The EU model cannot serve as an example, since decisions are made in a formal setting based on rules set forth in a number of treaties, while in Asia, regional arrangements develop progressively through consensus. In fact, it was noted that there was a need to reconcile different approaches. Participants stressed the difference in integration processes.

- Conclusions

In the third session, participants summarized their discussions and reached the following conclusions:

1. On the evolution of ASEM: At present, ASEM is a consultative forum where there may or may not be consensus or action, while there are many projects that offer opportunities for action and decisions. In the future, ASEM could move from a consultative forum to a coordination forum to coordinate some positions on certain issues that could contribute to the work of other fora. It was noted that the present structure of ASEM should be redefined.
2. On the comprehensive nature of the ASEM process: There are many categories of activity in ASEM, e.g. political, economic, cultural. There is a need for cooperation in all areas. Encouragement should be given to matters other than those referring to political and economic cooperation. At the same time, however, it should be realized that cooperation in some areas proceeds at a faster rate than in other areas. These differences in pace should not be a problem. Progress in one area should not be affected by slower progress in another area. There is a strong feeling that human resources should be developed through knowledge and exchange and education programs.
3. On the issue of third parties: Asia and Europe should first try to strengthen their bilateral links, i.e. working on the third leg of the Asia-Europe-North America triangle. At the same time, the experiences from the trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific relationships, for example, should be referred to whenever it is possible to find useful examples that are worth considering. If there is a desire to form linkages with third parties, this can be done, but perhaps as independent efforts outside the ASEM framework, e.g. through seminars, academic institutions, or the private sector. The benefits from these linkages could then possibly filter through into the ASEM process.
4. On the coordination of activities: There is a need for some kind of organizational structure to coordinate cooperation among the members. It must be stressed that there is a need for information/communication and coordination, which should play an important role in the form of a clearinghouse. At present, each member country comes up with its own initiatives and the process is too diffused if 26 different groups are set up to accommodate these initiatives. Therefore, it might be useful to draw from the APEC model and set up working groups to handle initiatives in certain areas. If not, there will be too much diffusion among various ministerial and other meetings. Existing institutions and mechanisms can be used. However, a permanent Secretariat could eventually be set up. Initiatives from non-governmental organizations and the private sector should be encouraged.
5. On region-to-region forum vs. intergovernmental forum: In theory, ASEM is an intergovernmental forum. In practice, it is a region-to-region meeting as ASEM has tried to build upon existing frameworks/mechanisms. This does not have to remain the case. Membership is one issue impacting on this, as well as evolving mechanisms for intraregional and interregional coordination.