ASIAN AFFAIRS ON ASEM

Hisashi Owada - President of the Japan Institute of Int'l Affairs

In the context of history, Europe and Asia have shared a tumultuous past. Already in the 4th century, the Huns who originated from the Western borders of China (the Han Dynasty) conquered much of Europe, threatening the Roman Empire. Marco Polo, and presumably a number of his contemporaries, travelled east from Europe to Asia, reaching China to take back to Europe many items of new technology from a different civilization. Later in the 13th century, the Mongolian Empire expanded its reign to place much of the Central and Eastern Europe under its domination.

However, the greatest historical evolution which changed the fate of a large part of East Asia and which has had a lasting imprint upon the relationship between Europe and East Asia came about in the form of a colonial domination, to which many of the East Asian nations fell victim starting in the 16th century. Thus the Philippines became a colony of the Spaniards, Indonesia a colony of the Dutch, Malaya and Burma under the British rule and Indochina under the French domination. China also became the target of colonial appetites. Japan was not immune from this aggressive advance of Western European Powers either. When Commodore Perry reached the shores of Japan and twisted the arms of Japan to open the country, many of the European Powers which had already secured a foothold in the region followed suit, some even with sinister motives.

The Evolution of Relations Between Modern Japan and Europe.

The case of Japan, nonetheless, was very different from those of many fellow Asian nations. It is true that the encounter of Japan with Europe started already in the 16th century, when in 1543 a group of Jesuit Portuguese arrived in the southern part of Japan. However, the policy of the closure of the country as enforced by the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1639 effectively cut off Japan from Europe, thus isolating Japan from interaction with the civilization of Europe which had just entered into a period of ascendancy through the consolidation of political power as nation States, as well as through the accumulation of economic power as a result of the Industrial Revolution.

As Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda of Japan put it in his historic address to the European Community in 1978, when he tried to open a new chapter in the Japan-European relationship of the post war period:

The first encounter between Japan and Europe can be traced back to the 16th century, but it did not develop into the kind of relationship fruitful to both sides, as Japan soon entered into a period of self-imposed isolation in the 17th century. During this period, direct contacts between Europe, which in the meantime had become the forerunner of civilization and the progress in the wake of the Industrial Revolution and Japan were virtually lost.

The real impetus for closer Japanese-European relations came with the re-opening of Japan to the rest of the world in the latter half of the 19th century, which brought about a tide of modernization. This was a period when highly ambitious and systematic efforts were exerted for learning and digesting things European, in such wide-ranging fields as the system of government, economy, law, military affairs, science and technology, and extending to arts and literature, food, clothing and housing. At that time in Japan, the term “modernization” was synonymous with “Westernization.” The footprints left by Europe in our country in this period are indeed immeasurable.

The most significant and at the same time the most regrettable chapter in history then intervened in the form of the Second World War. Fought against many of the European nations which had had the closest link with Japan, as well as the United States, the War effectively destroyed this harbinger of a comprehensive interaction between Japan and Europe.

Instead, what emerged in the wake of the defeat of Japan in that War was the dominant influence of the United States. Not only was the United States in effect the sole occupying power of Japan, thus introducing radical reforms on all fronts in the political, economic and social systems of Japan in the image of the United States. The United States replaced Europe as the representative of the “West.” Thus Europe came to be eclipsed by the United States in the mind of the Japanese. As a result, Japan and Europe in the postwar world became unhappily distant to each other. The fault may not entirely be on either Japan or Europe alone. A major cause can also be found in the changes in the postwar international conditions. It may also be true that Japan and Europe were both so preoccupied with putting their own houses in order after the war, that they could not afford to pay their attention to each other. Be that as it may, it must be frankly admitted that no serious attempt was made on either side in the postwar years to deal squarely with Japanese-European relations.

Compared with our European relations, Japanese - American relations have a very much shorter history. Moreover, Japan and the United States fought a particularly bitter war some thirty years ago. Nevertheless, thanks to the assiduous efforts undertaken by both sides over the years, a very deep and broad relationship of mutual understanding and cooperation has now developed between Japan and the United States.

Postwar contacts of Japan with Europe have by contrast often been made through the intermediary of the United States The relationship with the United States claimed our primary consideration, while only secondary attention was given to the relationship with Europe. Europe, for its part, did not for many years look to Japan as a true friend or a real partner, but rather as something irrelevant to them.

A New Renaissance of Asia-European Relationship

Such state of relations between Japan and Europe, and more particularly between East Asia and Europe is undergoing a major transformation at present. There are in my view three major factors which contribute to the evolution of this new process of transformation.

The first to be considered as the immediate cause for this new development is the demise of the Cold War. With the exception of Japan and the Republic of Korea, most of the nations of East Asia were born into an environment of East-West confrontation of the Cold War as a direct off-spring of the end of colonialism in the aftermath of the Second World War. Under these circumstances, many of them chose to pursue the policy of non-alignment in this East-West confrontation, partly as a reaction to the historical legacy that they were burdened with, and partly due to their priorities as developing countries in the context of North-South confrontation juxtaposed to East-West confrontation. On the other hand, the position of China was sui generis, since she as a socialist country sided with the countries of the East against the West which basically consisted of Western Europe, together with the United States.

Thus, demise of the Cold War, and with it the disappearance of East-West confrontation meant that this whole framework of reference in the relationship between East Asia and Europe was destined to be destroyed. An opportunity for a new framework of reference is born.

The second factor which has contributed much, and in many cases in a decisive way, to forging this new framework of relationship is the attainment of affluence in East Asia and, together with it, the realization of a new code of governance representing new society born out of this new affluence. Of particular importance is the birth of the middle class in these countries. Economic dynamism which has come to take root in the region of East Asia in the 1980s and 90s, despite some major setbacks which the region as a whole suffered in the Asian financial crisis of the late 90s, is there to stay and to grow further. Economic interaction with the outer world in terms of trade, investment and financial transactions has been fast growing. Furthermore with the arrival of the IT revolution, what is called “new economies” is also becoming a new field where an active interaction is already in sight.

What is even more important than these tangible factors of interaction is the impact of the attainment of affluence by East Asia upon the social system of the countries in the East Asian region. Confucius is quoted in his Analects as opining that “with abundance in what one eats and in what one wears comes the consciousness of value and virtue.” The degree of affluence that has come to many of the East Asian societies has brought about a critical mass of people who care about people, who regard human dignity as the central core of their very existence and who insist on human values. What is taking place now in East Asia is the reaffirmation of human values as the core element of the social fabric in society. A confluence of different value systems, rather that the domination of a particular value system over another, will result.

The third factor, which serves the purpose of filling this new framework with substance, is the tremendous growth in globalization. Progress in globalization, resulting from the fast growing reality of interdependence among nations and from the IT revolution, is rapidly changing the way we deal with the world and do business in the world, not only in the economic area but also in political and social areas. In this age of globalization, the more active we are in our activities in the political, economic and social fields, the greater the need for us to intensify our interaction with other parts of the world, with other economic activities, with other political institutions and with other societies holding their distinctive values.

In this situation, it is imperative that East Asia and Europe come together to create a new framework for partnership to cope with this process of globalization and to fill this framework with concrete contents. We in East Asia and Europe are in a position to engage in a new partnership as two centers that represent power capable of influencing issues of international peace and security wherever they may take place, as two entities that can determine the course of events in economic areas on a global level, and as two regions that represent one third of the population of the globe whose social behavior can affect in a decisive way the fate of the world in relation to many social issues that the world is coping with, such as the issues of global environment, of human conditions including human rights, health and education, and of social development in general.

Cooperation of Asia and Europe through ASEM

It was against these factors as a background that the ASEM process started in March 1996 with the first meeting among the leaders of Asia (ASEAN 7 members plus China, Japan and the Republic of Korea) and Europe (European Union 15 members plus the European Commission) in Bangkok. This meeting became the start of a historical process of ASEM by establishing a new forum for countries in the two regions of Asia and Europe to step up cooperation in the economic, political and cultural fields.

The forum grew out of an idea which Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore floated, based on a recommendation of the third East Asia-Europe economic summit, that an “Asia-Europe Summit” be established for the purpose of engaging the leaders of East Asia and Europe in direct dialogue. This forum is meant to serve the purpose of strengthening the link between Asia and Europe in the triangular relationship of Asia, Europe and North America. This link, which used to be called “the missing link in the triangle” has to be fortified in order to create a more balanced triangle for cooperation, keeping it in balance with the already strong two other links of the triangle, i.e. the one across the Atlantic and the other across the Pacific.

In the eyes of Japan, the historical significance of the ASEM 1 in Bangkok lies in the fact that for the first time in history the leaders of the countries of East Asia and Europe, including those from countries which had had complex relations in the past as colonial powers and their colonies, met on an equal footing as partners and discussed issues of common concern and interest in an atmosphere of total freedom, with a view to creating a framework of cooperation.

Thus, the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Ryutaro Hashimoto, representing Japan in ASEM 1, stated as follows on that occasion: "I believe the most important point for the meeting this time is that the leaders of Asia and Europe got together for the first time, and discussed matters for the future from an equal footing. Speaking on my own role, as a leader for Asia, it was to contribute to the facilitation of the meeting, and in this regard, I believe, we have been able to conduct constructive dialogue, and it was indeed a meeting of historic significance. The first objective of ASEM was to enhance a mutual understanding between, and mutual benefits for Asia and Europe and the second objective was to contribute to building a post-Cold War international order through dialogue and cooperation. In that respect, it was appropriate that ASEM adopt a comprehensive approach, encompassing broad areas such as politics and security, economics, global issues and culture, amongst others.— I tried to be very attentive to see to it that ASEM, launched by ASEAN and associates, would develop as a continuous process into the future".

The chairman’s statement issued at the close of ASEM 1 identified three areas where dialogue could be useful for working “towards a common vision for Asia and Europe.” These were (a) fostering political dialogue (b) reinforcing economic cooperation and (c) promoting cooperation in other areas, such as science and technology, environment and cultural links. These are, however, nothing but items on the shopping list which would need concrete frameworks for their implementation. This task was left for further development in ASEM 2 two years later.

ASEM 2 which took place in London in 1998, however, turned into an occasion to discuss the urgent issues of the drastically changed economic environment in East Asia that had been triggered by the Asian financial crisis of the previous year.

According to the Prime Minister of Japan, it was his impression that “this meeting [was] taking place at a different historical moment than ASEM 1 held in Bangkok two years ago, which was significant in the mere fact of Asian and European leaders gathering around a table for a first time.”

Under these circumstances, it was natural that ASEM 2 did not make a remarkable progress in substance, apart from the usual exchange of views among the leaders on political and security situations in areas of common concern both to East Asia and Europe, such as the situations on the Korean Peninsula, in Bosnia and Kosovo and in Cambodia. The ASEM 2 participants focused their attention on the economic and financial situation emanating from the recent Asian economic crisis and issued a “Special Statement on the Asian Financial and Economic Situation.”

In light of what has taken place in ASEM 1 and ASEM 2 as described above, one can safely say that the ASEM process probably is still at its infant stage that requires a careful nurturing on the part of those who are involved. ASEM 1 and ASEM 2 for their respective reasons cannot be said to have succeeded in building a robust structure of concrete cooperation in wide-ranging areas in its ambit for cooperation. In my view, this is the problem that ASEM 3 to be held in October in Seoul is expected to tackle. It is important to reinforce and reinvigorate the momentum towards an intensified effort for promoting dialogue and cooperation between Asia and Europe as launched in ASEM 1 in Bangkok and to try to make the undertaking more concrete and specific, with a view to its implementation. The stage for rhetoric is over now. The Seoul session of ASEM is going to be the occasion to test the viability and utility of the ASEM process as a tool for promoting the kind of philosophy that I tried to describe earlier.

In a nutshell, it is my humble submission that what is required for the ASEM process is to go beyond the stage of rhetoric and to try to devise concrete frameworks for cooperation in a number of priority areas, with a view to making the East Asia-European relationship much more a total relationship of cooperation of the kind that exists in the trans-Atlantic relationship between Europe and the United States or in the trans-Pacific relationship between East Asia and the United States.

As for the concrete contents of cooperation to be filled into this new ASEM framework, I wish to draw the attention of those involved in the ASEM process to the framework of cooperation established between Japan and the European Community in 1990 in the form of a “Joint Declaration between Japan and the European Community.” The Joint Declaration was conceived, albeit on a bilateral basis between Japan and the European Community, with exactly the same kind of ideas and conceptions in mind as promoted Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong to float his idea.

The Joint Declaration between Japan and the European Community was conceived at a time when many of the East Asian Partners of Japan were still struggling with their respective nation-building and when therefore the idea of cooperation between East Asia as a whole and Europe was not yet on the politico-economic agenda of the two regions. Nonetheless, the philosophical basis on which the Joint Declaration was designed is something which should be applicable to the relationship between East Asia and Europe of today, and should be extended from the bilateral basis between Japan and the European community to the interregional basis between East Asia and Europe.

Japan’s Role in the ASEM Process

It should be clear from what I have stated above that on a conceptual level, the ASEM process is a historic new undertaking which we in the East Asian region should promote to our mutual advantage. However, the process has a number of hurdles to clear before it can become a truly viable institution to contribute to the system of global governance that we so badly need in this age of “globalization without the global government.”

First, we have to construct a genuine triangle in the relationship between the three major regions of the world, i.e. Asia, Europe and North America, through a new framework of East Asia-European relations. What has been missing for a long time in this context is the sense of community in purpose and in values that we should be promoting in common between East Asia and Europe. With the demise of the Cold War, the attainment of affluence in East Asia and the impact of globalization, I believe that the time has come for us to overcome our historical legacy and get down to work for cooperation in a concrete manner. The ASEM process can be a constructive force as a framework for such cooperation, provided that we succeed in overcoming this historical legacy.

Second, for the ASEM process to succeed and to be truly useful, we should try to create it as a forum for open cooperation. East Asia is a diverse region, as is Europe. The region consists of many different ethnicities, with many different historical legacies, different colonial past, different cultural, heritage and different religious backgrounds. With this diversity in different dimensions, it is important for us to be open to different political and cultural orientations, different aspirations and different value preferences. We have to be inclusive in our undertaking. To try to be exclusive on ethnic, cultural, or other grounds would run the risk of being accused of discrimination. In fact, the very richness coming from that diversity can be the source of our strength. As long as we are at one with each other in our sense of purpose and accordingly maintain constant and close consultations, each one of us in East-Asia-Europe framework of cooperation can be free to choose the concrete manner in which we wish to pursue and realize this purpose. Harmony in policy based on common perspectives and close consultation, but not necessarily unity in style of policy implementation, would seem to be the constructive way to proceed.

On the basis of this reasoning, I wish to submit, as one personal perspective from Japan for the construction of a more healthy and robust relationship between East Asia and Europe, that the role of Japan in this ASEM process would lie mainly in two distinct directions. Writing 20 years ago, this writer had the following to say about the need for a greater cooperation among the trilateral partners of East Asia, Europe and North America:

On the one hand, it seems essential that Japan place greater emphasis, not only in rhetoric but in action, on the cultivation of concrete opportunities for cooperation with other regions of the trilateral group in those fields where such cooperation will be productive and beneficial to all parties involved. Cooperation in joint undertakings in the economic and industrial fields will be the first to come to mind, but there are many other possibilities in the fields of science, technology and culture.

On the other hand, Japan, with all her historical legacies and geographical ties, is uniquely placed among the trilateral countries to play a more useful and distinct role in broadening the vista of trilateralism beyond the narrow confines of its membership. How to build a constructive relationship with new countries of the third world is one of the most important tasks that the trilateral countries will face in the long term. And here is an area in which Japan, as an important member of the trilateral group, should and indeed can make a truly constructive contribution. The doctrine enunciated by the Prime Minister of Japan in the Manila Doctrine of August 1977 points to one possible direction of effort in this regard. Although directed specifically at Japan’s relationships with the ASEAN countries, the doctrine is not oriented toward a regional economic bloc in the area. The declaration is a serious attempt to define the future role of Japan with respect to this part of the world, and by extension, to a wider world, not in terms of abstract philosophy, but in terms of specific policy direction for Japan to follow.

Its implementation will require far more effort on Japan’s part than it has made heretofore, and performance has not yet matched will in the construction of a better international environment. If trilateralism can offer an institutional framework in which Japan, in the presence of parallel efforts by other members of the group, can help to ensure a more stable international environment, the cause of trilateralism can make a most effective contribution in this confused world.

It would seem to me that after the elapse of 20 years, this statement applies, almost word for word, to the present state of the ASEM process and the role of Japan in it.