Who make a profit on ASEM?/ Marites N. Sison

> > The last time 25 heads of state and governments from Asia and Europe met for the 2nd Asia-Europe Meeting (AEM) was at London in 1998, at the height of the Asian financial crisis. Amid much gloom and pessimism, frantic resolutions were made for the booming economies of Europe to help bail out sinking Asian economies.
> > This year, the AEM meets for the third time in a more auspicious time and place in Seoul, where the national mood is high following the recently-concluded historic summit between the two Koreas held in Pyongyang. On the economic front, countries hit hard by the Asian conflagration are showing signs of recovery although economic growth remains at best, minimal. A few, like the Philippines, have become borderline cases, largely through an unstable political environment.
> > Trouble continues to brew on the security level with ethnic unrest and socio-economic-political instability both in Indonesia and the Philippines looming large in the region. China's human rights record, its commitment to an open society and fragile relations with Taiwan has also remained in sharp focus. Thailand's border problems with Myanmar - with regards to the influx of refugees and drugs - persists.
> > Against this backdrop what significance does the AEM have for the 10 member states of Asia who will meet for a third round of dialogue with their 15 European counterparts?
> > Before it atrophies into just another international organization that plods along summit after summit, it is crucial for the AEM to assess this early just whether the areas of cooperation pledged in 1996 has indeed borne fruit. AEM member nations, more importantly the poorer ones, need to determine now if this relationship is something that's worth keeping and developing.
> > How, for instance, did Europe respond exactly to its Asian partners' calls for support at the height of the Asian crisis and was any intervention, if you will, timely and crucial to its recovery? Or was there only benign neglect?
> > It is likewise important to determine just how this relationship is evolving.
> > South and East Asia constitute the two most populous regions in the world a haven for trade and foreign investments. The question to ask is who has benefitted from increased trade liberalization through the years? Has this been a relationship of equals? And what of the issue of human rights? Has it now taken a backseat in the name of bigger trade volumes and economic prosperity for democracies?
> > The reality also remains that within AEM are countries with huge economic disparities. For example, on one end are powerhouse Germany and the United Kingdom and on the other, the struggling economies of Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. One question that begs to be asked, therefore, is whether AEM can be a venue for developing growth with equity among its members or will it once again be the case of a richer nation imposing its market economy ideologies and policies on poorer relations. Already, globalization has had adverse effects on small and medium scale industries in developing countries, for example.
> > During its first summit AEM talked about forging a common vision for the future. Is this possible with such a large and therefore potentially unwieldy organization having their own agenda?
> > For the Philippines and other developing countries, the greatest challenge is whether AEM can do what its other partners, namely in the Asia Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum (Asean RF) haven't been able to do: Help them achieve sustainable growth that will help reduce nagging poverty among their populations. The issue not only involves non-discriminatory trade but social justice issues like the outright condonation or even just concessional restructuring of foreign debts and the granting of genuine, no-strings attached official development assistance.
> > There are, of course, many other important issues within the AEM ambit such as terrorism, the environment, immigration, overseas employment and even cultural issues all byproducts of a borderless world.
> > Whether these two regions, representing age-old civilizations be able to take their relationship to a more productive and closer level remains to be seen. A lot will depend on the receptiveness of members to new, dynamic ideas of doing things and their willingness to sacrifice their own bits and pieces of agenda for the common good.