Challenges of the scaling process

USSH— Given the fact that ASEM lacks clear geographical criteria for new members, the author of this article questions the development trends of ASEM and seeks answers by analyzing the challenges to the organization's expansion.

1. Problem Statement

On October 4th and 5th, 2010, at the 8th Asia-Europe Forum (ASEM) Summit in Brussels, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia will be officially admitted, bringing the total number of ASEM members to 48. The issue is that all three countries applied to join ASEM as Asian members. The fact that three non-Asian countries applied to join ASEM as Asian nations has sparked a lively discussion about membership status, the nature, and the future of the Asia-Europe Forum. ASEM first expanded its scope in 2004 at the 5th Summit in Hanoi. At that time, three new ASEAN members – Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar – were admitted from Asia, in exchange for the 10 new members of the European Union (EU) joining the forum. 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, along with two new EU members: Bulgaria and Romania. To some extent, this expansion of ASEM reflects the reality that the Forum lacks a clear geographical criterion for its new members. While the European countries participating in ASEM are 100% EU members, the Asian countries are not solely members of ASEAN. Therefore, the admission of Australia, New Zealand, and Russia raises the question of whether ASEM will evolve from a single entity.regional dialogue(region-to-region dialogue) with a coordination mechanism based on regional criteria into a processnational dialogue(State-to-state dialogue) with diverse member states and without coordination from the two regional organizations, ASEAN and the EU? This article will attempt to answer this question by analyzing the challenges to ASEM's expansion process. The article is divided into three parts: Part one provides an overview of ASEM's expansion process, Part two analyzes the challenges of admitting three new members, and Part three offers some prospects for this forum.

2. Overview of ASEM 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). At that time, only seven member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and three ASEAN partners – China, Japan, and South Korea – participated from the Asian side. On the European side, the unifying criteria included EU member states and the President of the European Commission. The first summit is considered a historic and pivotal event in relations between the two regions. While the first ASEM summit was the founding meeting, the second summit, held in the UK in 1998, had to address the recent Asian financial crisis of 1997. It wasn't until the third ASEM summit in South Korea in 2000 that leaders from both continents officially adopted the Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework, setting out principles and directions for Asia-Europe cooperation. However, the fourth summit, held in Copenhagen (Denmark) in 2002, immediately faced the issue of international terrorism. Membership expansion was the most controversial topic at the 5th ASEAN Summit in Hanoi in 2004, when 10 new EU countries were "automatically" admitted in exchange for the accession of three ASEAN member states: Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar, with Myanmar's admission facing the most opposition. In 2006, the 6th ASEAN Summit in Helsinki (Finland), commemorating the 10th anniversary of ASEM, mainly discussed security threats and supported the multilateral international system. In 2008, the 7th ASEAN Summit in Beijing marked the second expansion of ASEM. On the EU side, two new members, Romania and Bulgaria, automatically became ASEM members, bringing the total number of European members to 28. On the Asian side, India, Mongolia, and Pakistan were added, with India becoming a member of both the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), similar to Mongolia and Pakistan. The ASEAN Secretariat was also admitted as a member, bringing the number of Asian member countries to 17. Prior to the 8th ASEAN Summit in Brussels, Belgium, the total number of ASEM members was 45, with 28 from Europe and 17 from Asia. The biggest difference between the two continents is that while in Europe, ASEM members must be EU countries, in Asia, membership is not mandatory and cannot be solely ASEAN. The institutional, albeit loose, relationship 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. Within that system are five different levels of policymaking: global, inter-regional, regional, sub-regional, and bilateral, with ASEM considered to belong to 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	European regions (Euroregions), Mekong subregion
5	Bilateral relations between countries

ASEM is considered an informal interregional dialogue forum on economic, political, and cultural issues relevant to both Asia and Europe. A relationship is considered interregional when it exhibits 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⁾From this perspective, ASEM clearly falls into the second category because, on the European side, the EU or the European Commission and the rotating chair act as coordinators of the interests of member states, while on the Asian side, regional institutions do not explicitly perform this function. The Asian side is a relatively loose group of countries, where a coordinating country is identified to raise common issues before the ASEM summit is convened.

3. Expanding Challenges for ASEM

However, with the 2010 expansion of ASEM, which included Australia, New Zealand, and Russia, the interregional nature of the Asia-Europe forum is becoming a concern, and membership criteria are becoming increasingly complex. With the diversity of its members, Asian countries have transcended conventional 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 not necessarily tied to a regional organization and can include countries from more than two regions. The formal decision on membership status for Australia, New Zealand, and Russia will be made at the 8th ASEM Summit, held on October 4-5, 2010, in Brussels. To prepare for this expansion, the 9th ASEM Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Hanoi on May 25-26, 2009, issued the following guidance on the admission of new members: “The Foreign Ministers welcomed the applications for ASEM membership from Australia and Russia and authorized senior officials to prepare the procedures for their formal accession to ASEM at the Brussels Summit in 2010. Given the increasing demand for ASEM membership from other countries, the Foreign Ministers also tasked senior officials with discussing and proposing criteria, principles, and procedures based on the 2000 Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework relating to the future expansion of ASEM.”⁽³⁾ Table 2: Comparison of ASEM expansion processes

	1996	Expansion 1 (2004)	Expansion 2 (2006)	Third Expansion (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 factors	But	Expanding ASEAN	Individuals in different countries	Individuals in different 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.	But
Driving factors	But	Expanding the EU	Expanding the EU
Quantity	16	26	28	28

Looking back at the history of ASEM's expansion, we see that to date there is still no unified set of principles regarding the forum's membership status. While new EU member states "automatically" become ASEM members, the admission of Myanmar—an ASEAN member—was strongly opposed by the EU, with EU countries even threatening to boycott the 5th ASEM Summit in Hanoi in 2004.⁽⁵⁾This third expansion once again highlighted differences in viewpoints not only between Europe and Asia but even within each bloc. After much discussion and exchange, 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's difficult to imagine Australia and New Zealand joining as Asian countries. From an institutional perspective, if anything connects these two countries to Asia, it's probably only because both have been members of the East Asia Summit (EAS) since 2005. Russia's participation in ASEM as an Asian country is even harder to explain. After signing the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation (TAC) on November 29, 2004, acknowledging the fundamental 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 quite possible 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 but welcomed the admission of these three new members. There are three reasons to explain the EU's position.The firstThe EU wants to include all major players in this forum to increase ASEM's collective voice on the international stage, regardless of whether they are 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.TuesdayThe expansion of membership towards Asia has also narrowed the numerical disparity between the two sides. The current "ratio," even including Australia, New Zealand, and Russia for Asia, still favors Europe with a significant difference of 28-20. From the Asian perspective, some countries argue that these three new members are essentially European countries, but their Asian characteristics are very weak. The inclusion of these three countries towards Asia demonstrates that Asian countries are far more flexible than European countries in the ASEM process. Asia's most dynamic regional security architectures, such as the ARF, ASEAN+3, and EAS, are increasingly playing an important role and are seen as an extension of ASEAN's regionalism.

4. Prospects of ASEM

The future of ASEM largely depends on mutual understanding and cooperation between the EU and Asia. Since the EU only allows its own members to participate in ASEM, non-EU countries will likely join in the future as Asian or third-party countries. However, this will also present certain obstacles. Firstly, it is possible that the "new Asian" members will agree with the "old Asian" members. In that case, the Asian side would be much stronger than the EU countries. Dialogue between the two groups of countries would continue, and new groups such as "Central Asia" or "South Asia" might emerge. Another possibility is that the "new Asian" members will not agree with the "old Asian" countries. In that case, the dialogue between the two regions of Asia and Europe—the fundamental basis of ASEM—would be threatened, and diplomacy between nations would replace the dialogue between the two groups of countries. If ASEM continues to develop in its current direction, with dynamism concentrated in the Asian side, then the dialogue mechanism between a regional organization (EU) on one side and a group of countries, possibly from several regions with ASEAN as the core, on the other will remain effective. Regardless, ASEM remains 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 membership is not very costly and does not affect that fundamental 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⁾The ten new member states that joined the EU in 2004 were: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia.⁽⁵⁾Pham Quang Minh, ASEM5 – Challenges in Asia-Europe relations, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Special issue on ASEM, No. 5 (68)-2004, pp.28-34.⁽⁶⁾Jakarta Post, June 11, 2009.