The challenge of expansion

USSH— Given the fact that ASEM does not have a clear geographical criterion for newly admitted members, the author of the article raises questions about the development trend of ASEM and seeks answers through analyzing the challenges facing the expansion process of this organization.

1. Problem statement

On October 4 and 5, 2010, at the 8th Summit of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Brussels (Belgium), three countries, Australia, New Zealand and Russia, will be officially admitted, bringing the number of ASEM members to 48. The problem is that all three countries have applied to join ASEM as Asian members. The application of three non-Asian countries to join ASEM as Asian countries has caused a heated discussion about the membership status, nature and future of the Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM expanded its scale for the first time in 2004 at the 5th Summit in Hanoi. At that time, on the Asian side, three new members of ASEAN, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, were admitted, in return for 10 new members of the European Union (EU) joining the forum on the European side. The second expansion of ASEM took place in 2008 at the 7th ASEM Summit in Beijing, with the admission of three Asian countries, India, Pakistan and Mongolia, and two new EU members, Bulgaria and Romania. To some extent, the expansion of ASEM as mentioned above reflects the fact that this Forum does not have a clear geographical criterion for new members. While 100% of ASEM members on the European side are members of the EU, a regional organization, on the Asian side, the countries are not only members of ASEAN. Therefore, the admission of Australia, New Zealand and Russia this time has raised the question of whether ASEM will develop from aregional dialogue(region-to-region dialogue) with coordination mechanisms based on regional criteria to a processnational dialogue(state-to-state dialogue) with the diversity of member states and the lack of coordination between two regional organizations, ASEAN and the EU? This article will attempt to answer this question by analyzing the challenges facing ASEM's expansion. The article consists of three parts, in which part one provides an overview of ASEM's expansion, part two analyzes the challenges of admitting three new members, and part three presents some prospects for this forum.

2. Overview of ASEM's expansion process

On March 1, 1996, 25 heads of state and government and the President of the European Commission met in Bangkok to officially announce the establishment of a dialogue forum between the two continents of Asia and Europe (ASEM). Participating on the Asian side at that time were only 7 member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and 3 ASEAN partner countries: China, Japan and South Korea. On the European side, the unified criteria were the EU member countries and the President of the European Commission. The first summit was considered a historic event of turning point in the relationship between the two regions. If the 1st ASEM Summit was the founding conference, the 2nd Summit held in the UK in 1998 had to face the topic of the Asian financial crisis that had just occurred in 1997. It was not until the 3rd ASEM Summit held in South Korea in 2000 that the leaders of the two continents adopted the official Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework, setting out a number of principles and directions for the Asia-Europe cooperation process. But immediately after that, the 4th Summit held in Copenhagen (Denmark) in 2002 had to face the topic of international terrorism. Membership expansion was the most controversial topic at the 5th Summit held in Hanoi in 2004, when on the European side, 10 new EU countries were "naturally" admitted in exchange for the accession of 3 ASEAN member countries: Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, of which Myanmar's admission was the most opposed. In 2006, the 6th Summit in Helsinki (Finland) to celebrate the 10th anniversary of ASEM discussed mainly security threats and support for the multilateral international system. In 2008, in Beijing, the 7th Summit marked the second expansion of ASEM when on the EU side, two new members, Romania and Bulgaria, “naturally” became members of ASEM, bringing the total number of European members to 28. On the Asian side, India, Mongolia and Pakistan were added, of which India is both a member of the East Asia Summit (EAS) and a member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) like Mongolia and Pakistan. The ASEAN Secretariat was also admitted as a member, bringing the number of Asian member countries to 17. Before the 8th Summit in Brussels (Belgium), the total number of ASEM members was 45, of which 28 were European and 17 were Asian. The biggest difference between the two continents is that while in Europe, ASEM members must be EU countries, in Asia, countries are not required and cannot only be ASEAN members. The institutional relationship, although still loose, of the Asia-Europe Forum reflects the reality of a global process towards building a new world order with diverse arrangements forming a new global governance system. In that system, there are 5 different levels of policy making: global, inter-regional, regional, sub-regional and bilateral levels, in which ASEM is considered to be at the inter-regional level.⁽¹⁾ Table 1: Global governance system

TT	Level	Organization name
1	Global, multilateral	United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), G-8…
2	Interregional	EU-ASEAN, EU-MERCOSUR, ASEAN-MERCOSUR, APEC, ASEM…
3	Regional	EU, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, NAFTA…
4	Subregional	Euroregions, Mekong subregion
5	Bilateral between countries

ASEM is considered an informal inter-regional dialogue forum on economic, political and cultural issues related to both Asia and Europe. A relationship is considered inter-regional when it has the following characteristics: 1) it is a relationship between two regional organizations; 2) it is a relationship between a regional organization and a group of regional countries; 3) it is a relationship between two groups of regional countries.⁽²⁾. In this view, ASEM clearly belongs to the second category because on the European side, the EU or the European Commission and its rotating presidency act as coordinators of the interests of the member states, while on the Asian side, regional institutions do not explicitly perform this function. The Asian side is a relatively loose collection of states, whereby a coordinating state is identified to address common issues before the ASEM Summit is convened.

3. Expanding challenges for ASEM

However, with the expansion in 2010 of ASEM to include Australia, New Zealand and Russia, the inter-regional nature of the Asia-Europe forum has become an issue and its membership criteria have become more complex. With its diversity of member states, Asian countries have overcome the usual geographical criteria and the limitations of existing regional architectures. Now with the participation of Australia, New Zealand and Russia, ASEM has become a dialogue process with members who are not necessarily affiliated with a regional organization and may include countries from more than two regions. The formal decision on the membership of Australia, New Zealand and Russia will be decided at the 8th Summit on 4-5 October 2010 in Brussels. In preparation for this expansion, the 9th ASEM Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Hanoi on May 25-26, 2009 gave the following guidance for the admission of new members: “The Foreign Ministers welcomed the applications of Australia and Russia to join ASEM and authorized senior officials to prepare the modalities for these two countries to officially join ASEM at the Brussels Summit in 2010. In view of the increasing demand from other countries to join ASEM, the Foreign Ministers also assigned senior officials to discuss and propose criteria, principles and procedures on the basis of the 2000 Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework regarding the future expansion of ASEM.”⁽³⁾ Table 2: Comparison of ASEM expansion process

	1996	Expansion 1 (2004)	Expansion 2 (2006)	Expansion 3 (2010)
Asian side	7 ASEAN countries and 3 countries China, Japan and South Korea	Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar	India, Mongolia, Pakistan and the ASEAN Secretariat	Australia, New Zealand, Russia
Driving factor	-	ASEAN Expansion	Individual countries	Individual countries
Quantity	10	13	17	20
European side	EU-15 and the European Commission	10 new EU member states(4)	The two new member countries are Bulgaria and Romania.	-
Driving factor	-	EU Enlargement	EU Enlargement
Quantity	16	26	28	28

Looking back at the history of ASEM's expansion, we see that to date there has not been a unified set of principles on the forum's membership status. While new EU member states "naturally" become members of ASEM, the admission of Myanmar - a member of ASEAN - was strongly opposed by the EU, and at that time the EU countries even "threatened to boycott" the 5th ASEM Summit in Hanoi in 2004.⁽⁵⁾. This third enlargement once again demonstrated the differences in views not only between Europe and Asia but also within each bloc. After many discussions and exchanges, the “Temporary Third Category Arrangement” was finally introduced to accommodate all three new members.⁽⁶⁾. Australia and New Zealand have expressed their desire to join ASEAN on the Asian side. It is difficult to imagine Australia and New Zealand joining as Asian countries. From an institutional perspective, if anything links these two countries to Asia, it is probably only because they have both been members of the East Asia Summit (EAS) since 2005. Russia's entry into ASEAM as an Asian country is even more difficult to explain. After signing the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) on 29 November 2004, which recognized the basic principles of ASEAN, the Russian Federation also wished to join ASEM as an Asian member. The reasons for Australia, New Zealand and Russia's participation in ASEM can be explained from the EU's perspective. It is likely that the EU’s “rigid” stance on membership “forced” Australia, New Zealand and Russia to join ASEM as Asian countries. In fact, the EU did not object to, but welcomed, the admission of these three new members. There are three reasons to explain the EU’s stance.The firstThe EU wants to admit all major actors to this forum to increase ASEM's common voice in the international arena, regardless of whether the country is in Asia or Europe.MondayThrough its unified stance on ASEM expansion, the EU also wants to demonstrate that it is moving towards formulating a common foreign policy.Tuesday, the expansion of members towards Asia also reduces the numerical difference between the two sides. The current “ratio”, if including Australia, New Zealand and Russia for Asia, is still in favor of Europe with a significant difference of 28-20. On the Asian side, some countries believe that these three new members are essentially European countries, but their Asian character is very vague. The admission of these three countries to Asia shows that Asian countries are much more flexible than European countries in the ASEM process. Asia's most dynamic regional security architectures such as ARF, ASEAN+3 and EAS are playing an increasingly important role and are seen as an extension of ASEAN's regionalism.

4. ASEM's Prospects

The future of ASEM depends largely on the EU's mutual understanding and cooperation with Asia. Since the EU only allows its members to participate in ASEM, in the future non-EU countries will join ASEM as Asian countries or third countries. However, this will also face certain obstacles. First, it is possible that the "new Asian" member countries will agree with the "old Asian" member countries. At that time, the Asian side will be much stronger than the EU countries. The dialogue between the two groups of countries will continue and new groups of countries such as "Central Asia" or "South Asia" may appear. Another possibility is that the "new Asian" members will not agree with the "old Asian" countries. At that time, the dialogue between the two regions of Asia and Europe - the basic foundation of ASEM - will be threatened, and diplomacy between countries will replace the dialogue between the two groups of countries. If ASEM continues to develop in its current direction, with dynamism taking place only on the Asian side, the dialogue mechanism between a regional organization (the EU) on the one hand and a group of countries, perhaps from a few regions with ASEAN at its core, on the other, will still be effective. In any case, ASEM is flexible enough to meet the basic needs of European and Asian leaders: to enhance understanding and dialogue between the EU and non-EU countries. In fact, expanding ASEM's membership would not be very costly and would not affect that basic goal. ___________

Note

⁽¹⁾Juergen Rueland, The future of ASEM process, in: Wim Stokhof and Van der Velde (eds.), ASEM- A Window of Opportunity, London 1999.⁽²⁾Heiner Haenggi, Interregionalism as multifaceted phenomenon, in: Heiner Haenggi, Ralf Roloff and Juergen Rueland (eds.), Interregionalism and International Relations, London and New York: Routledge 2006, pp.31-62.⁽³⁾ASEM, 9th ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting, Hanoi, 25-26, May (www.aseminfoboard.org/content/documents/FMM9Chairs-Statement.pdf)⁽⁴⁾Ten new member states joined the EU in 2004: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia.⁽⁵⁾Pham Quang Minh, ASEM5 – Challenges in Asia-Europe relations, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, ASEM Special Issue, No. 5 (68)-2004, pp.28-34.⁽⁶⁾Jakarta Post 11 June 2009.