Between Europe and Asia
10/03/15 15:07 Filed in: South-East Asia
Day after day, divided between Asia and Europe for reasons beyond my will but not my choice, I take notes, write, make plans. I try to grasp signs of connection between the two worlds, if only to give some meaning to this state of limbo.
Sometimes stories find their own way, sometimes they don't. I often forget them anyway. But they keep on living, more or less latent in my archive. Sometimes they pop up serendipitously while I'm looking for something else.
That's what happened with an article about the Asia-Europe Meeting, held last October in Milan. I attended the meeting and wrote the article to try to give a professional meaning to my stay in Italy and because I thought it would be interesting to observe a spectacle I normally follow in Asia from another perspective. But the article turned out to be too abstract, too obscure, perhaps precisely because I was outside my comfort zone.
Reading it again in Bangkok, though, I found its shadows came into sharper focus. So much clearer than what is actually happening on a global scale. It's a spectacle of lights and shadows that I want to expose here on Bassifondi.
“Overshadow”. This is the oft-repeated mantra and the formula for understanding the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). In a certain sense, it was like attending a production of what in Southeast Asia is known as the “theatre of shadows”, the Cambodian “Sbaek Thom”: every shadow can tell a story and the puppeteers themselves question the meaning of the shadows they create.
The tenth edition of ASEM, the two-yearly forum launched in 1996 to reinforce cooperation and dialogue between Europe and Asia, was held in Milan, Italy, in October. It was attended by Heads of State, ministers and civil servants from 53 countries: 29 from the European Union plus Norway and Switzerland, and 22 Asian countries. Together, ASEM members account for 62.5 percent of the world’s population, 57 percent of global GDP and 60 percent of global trade. “Responsible partnership for sustainable growth and security” was the theme of this “informal platform for dialogue”: such a vast topic can lend itself to all manner of discussions on economic, political, cultural, climate and energy issues.
There were so many people and so many discussions, of which only fleeting visions and vague information were glimpsed, created a shadowy effect. In Cambodia, at the 2012 ASEAN Summit, in Bangkok where I live, at other international meetings, I saw how hard it is to decode the webs of power. But in Milan, in my home country, it was even harder. Probably because here it was more complex to establish a boundary between East and West: “What is Asia? Where does Europe end? Where do they meet or collide?”, were not rhetorical questions: at ASEM Russia came under the Asian countries while the president of Mongolia called his remote country – which will host ASEM in 2016 - a “bridge between Europe and Asia”.
In a certain sense, Russian President Vladimir Putin's geopolitical strategy, Eurasia, seemed to hold sway. Located between Western and Eastern Europe (i.e. Central Asia) and bordered to the east by Mongolia, this is the theatre in which Russia can play a proactive role in the new round of “The Great Game” (as defined in 1898 by Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, in reference to the murky conflict between Great Britain and Russia for control of Asia). China reacts to Russia's moves with plans for a “New Silk Road”, which connects the Middle Kingdom to Germany over land via Kazakhstan, Belarus, Poland and connects with the Maritime Silk Road via Italy or Spain.
As was revealed at ASEM, all this does not help bring Europe and Asia closer together. “We talk about global interdependence, and it is real. But while, whatever the economic dynamics, each region is intellectually aware of what is going on at the other end of Eurasia, each sees the other as distant and ultimately unconnected from its concerns,” wrote George Friedman, CEO of the private intelligence corporation Stratfor.
The contemporary Great Game, then, would be more appropriately named “Tournament of Shadows”. At ASEM, the biggest shadow was cast by the crisis in Ukraine, which overshadowed any other issues. Vladimir Putin and Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko met to discuss a possible solution. To no avail. To justify “Much Ado About Nothing”, José Manuel Barroso, current President of the European Commission (until November 2014), pointed out that "it was right to discuss Ukraine here", as though the discussion could raise the meeting's profile. The real justification is that the crisis in Ukraine may increase the risk of volatility of financial markets that could impact Asia and Europe. "Stability and peace are fundamental for the economy," declared Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council (until December 2014).
In the Theatre of Shadows the most brightly lit scene was the economy. Despite the followers of conspiracy theory, the hundreds of Asian and European entrepreneurs attending the Asia-Europe Business Forum (AEBF), which coincided with ASEM, all agreed on the liberalisation of economies. "Europe needs Asia. A strong Asian economy is a driver for global growth. At the same time, Asia needs Europe, its technologies and its markets," declared Van Rompuy. "From an economic point of view, Asia has become the largest trading partner of the European Union, which remains the world's largest single economy. Future growth in Asia, therefore, depends on access to European markets." For Asia's part, Benjamin Philip Romualdez, President of Chamber of Mines of the Philippines, pointed out "Our growth is your opportunity". Indeed, in this second phase of globalisation (in which consumption, more than output, is shifting Eastwards), managing to compete successfully will be decisive for Europe.
In fact, Europe must attract China’s Super-consumers more than Asia in general. Due to its enormous economic surplus, China's strategies are changing: it is giving up on short-term profit and investing huge amounts of capital. The activism of premier Li Keqiang at ASEM and on the other stops on his European tour demonstrated this. China is making the most of what Li calls a “global economic recession” to acquire business bases in the Old Continent, where the price of companies has dropped and more than one government has requested help from Beijing. The Chinese premier demonstrated yet more Soft Power in his meetings with Vietnamese premier Nguyen Tan Dung, shoring up bilateral relations and strengthening trade links. Thailand has also been offered collaboration: taking advantage of the European halt on commercial negotiations following last May's coup d'état, Li pledged to cooperate with Thailand in developing roads and basic infrastructure.
In short, bilateral agreements were one of the most evident features of ASEM. Which also represents its dark side. Not so much because of the secrecy involved, but mainly because they overshadow ASEAN. The Association cannot propose itself as a sole interlocutor. In 2009 the European Commission decided to redirect its goal, placing greater emphasis on bilateral agreements with individual members of the Association, and at ASEM the European Union remained sceptical. The 2015 ASEAN Business Outlook Survey highlighted the widespread concern that the much-anticipated ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) would not be launched by the end-2015 deadline. Too many of the specified deadlines of AEC implementation have been missed and some major initiatives have not taken off. According to some observers, this is partly down to ASEAN's inability to act as a supranational organisation. For others, especially the Germans (who perhaps fear an Asian repeat of European discord), one of the biggest obstacles to the ASEAN economic community is the presence of CLMV, i.e. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam - countries that will need more time to adapt to this new economic space.
Offsetting this, the European Union has pressed the accelerator on the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between ASEAN and EU - a move aimed at countering two other hyper-agreements: the American Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Chinese Comprehensive Economic Cooperation in East Asia. In ASEAN the biggest supporter of the FTA with Europe is Malaysia, which will have the presidency of ASEAN in 2015. "Malaysia will take the lead to encourage the FTA process, which was discontinued a few years ago. We hope there will be an ASEAN-EU FTA that will complete the regional integration," declared Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Ahead of these macro-agreements, ASEM has forged relations that may appear marginal in the global scenario, but are fundamental for regional integration. For example, between Cambodia and Thailand. The two premiers, Hun Sen and Prayut Chan-o-cha, held their first bilateral talks, demonstrating “the right chemistry” in pushing their cooperative friendship to a new level. According to well-informed sources, the two premiers discussed the development of special economic zones (SEZ), roads, customs facilities and crossings along the border. General Prayut proposed the setting up of an initial SEZ near Cambodia’s Poipet, while Cambodian authorities will consider setting up a similar estate in their territory to boost trade. And the shared desire to set up a joint development area (JDA) in the Gulf of Thailand was an open secret.
Shadows are often misleading. What might seem overshadowed may eclipse the global threat of “Super Chaos”.
Sometimes stories find their own way, sometimes they don't. I often forget them anyway. But they keep on living, more or less latent in my archive. Sometimes they pop up serendipitously while I'm looking for something else.
That's what happened with an article about the Asia-Europe Meeting, held last October in Milan. I attended the meeting and wrote the article to try to give a professional meaning to my stay in Italy and because I thought it would be interesting to observe a spectacle I normally follow in Asia from another perspective. But the article turned out to be too abstract, too obscure, perhaps precisely because I was outside my comfort zone.
Reading it again in Bangkok, though, I found its shadows came into sharper focus. So much clearer than what is actually happening on a global scale. It's a spectacle of lights and shadows that I want to expose here on Bassifondi.
“Overshadow”. This is the oft-repeated mantra and the formula for understanding the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). In a certain sense, it was like attending a production of what in Southeast Asia is known as the “theatre of shadows”, the Cambodian “Sbaek Thom”: every shadow can tell a story and the puppeteers themselves question the meaning of the shadows they create.
The tenth edition of ASEM, the two-yearly forum launched in 1996 to reinforce cooperation and dialogue between Europe and Asia, was held in Milan, Italy, in October. It was attended by Heads of State, ministers and civil servants from 53 countries: 29 from the European Union plus Norway and Switzerland, and 22 Asian countries. Together, ASEM members account for 62.5 percent of the world’s population, 57 percent of global GDP and 60 percent of global trade. “Responsible partnership for sustainable growth and security” was the theme of this “informal platform for dialogue”: such a vast topic can lend itself to all manner of discussions on economic, political, cultural, climate and energy issues.
There were so many people and so many discussions, of which only fleeting visions and vague information were glimpsed, created a shadowy effect. In Cambodia, at the 2012 ASEAN Summit, in Bangkok where I live, at other international meetings, I saw how hard it is to decode the webs of power. But in Milan, in my home country, it was even harder. Probably because here it was more complex to establish a boundary between East and West: “What is Asia? Where does Europe end? Where do they meet or collide?”, were not rhetorical questions: at ASEM Russia came under the Asian countries while the president of Mongolia called his remote country – which will host ASEM in 2016 - a “bridge between Europe and Asia”.
In a certain sense, Russian President Vladimir Putin's geopolitical strategy, Eurasia, seemed to hold sway. Located between Western and Eastern Europe (i.e. Central Asia) and bordered to the east by Mongolia, this is the theatre in which Russia can play a proactive role in the new round of “The Great Game” (as defined in 1898 by Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, in reference to the murky conflict between Great Britain and Russia for control of Asia). China reacts to Russia's moves with plans for a “New Silk Road”, which connects the Middle Kingdom to Germany over land via Kazakhstan, Belarus, Poland and connects with the Maritime Silk Road via Italy or Spain.
As was revealed at ASEM, all this does not help bring Europe and Asia closer together. “We talk about global interdependence, and it is real. But while, whatever the economic dynamics, each region is intellectually aware of what is going on at the other end of Eurasia, each sees the other as distant and ultimately unconnected from its concerns,” wrote George Friedman, CEO of the private intelligence corporation Stratfor.
The contemporary Great Game, then, would be more appropriately named “Tournament of Shadows”. At ASEM, the biggest shadow was cast by the crisis in Ukraine, which overshadowed any other issues. Vladimir Putin and Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko met to discuss a possible solution. To no avail. To justify “Much Ado About Nothing”, José Manuel Barroso, current President of the European Commission (until November 2014), pointed out that "it was right to discuss Ukraine here", as though the discussion could raise the meeting's profile. The real justification is that the crisis in Ukraine may increase the risk of volatility of financial markets that could impact Asia and Europe. "Stability and peace are fundamental for the economy," declared Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council (until December 2014).
In the Theatre of Shadows the most brightly lit scene was the economy. Despite the followers of conspiracy theory, the hundreds of Asian and European entrepreneurs attending the Asia-Europe Business Forum (AEBF), which coincided with ASEM, all agreed on the liberalisation of economies. "Europe needs Asia. A strong Asian economy is a driver for global growth. At the same time, Asia needs Europe, its technologies and its markets," declared Van Rompuy. "From an economic point of view, Asia has become the largest trading partner of the European Union, which remains the world's largest single economy. Future growth in Asia, therefore, depends on access to European markets." For Asia's part, Benjamin Philip Romualdez, President of Chamber of Mines of the Philippines, pointed out "Our growth is your opportunity". Indeed, in this second phase of globalisation (in which consumption, more than output, is shifting Eastwards), managing to compete successfully will be decisive for Europe.
In fact, Europe must attract China’s Super-consumers more than Asia in general. Due to its enormous economic surplus, China's strategies are changing: it is giving up on short-term profit and investing huge amounts of capital. The activism of premier Li Keqiang at ASEM and on the other stops on his European tour demonstrated this. China is making the most of what Li calls a “global economic recession” to acquire business bases in the Old Continent, where the price of companies has dropped and more than one government has requested help from Beijing. The Chinese premier demonstrated yet more Soft Power in his meetings with Vietnamese premier Nguyen Tan Dung, shoring up bilateral relations and strengthening trade links. Thailand has also been offered collaboration: taking advantage of the European halt on commercial negotiations following last May's coup d'état, Li pledged to cooperate with Thailand in developing roads and basic infrastructure.
In short, bilateral agreements were one of the most evident features of ASEM. Which also represents its dark side. Not so much because of the secrecy involved, but mainly because they overshadow ASEAN. The Association cannot propose itself as a sole interlocutor. In 2009 the European Commission decided to redirect its goal, placing greater emphasis on bilateral agreements with individual members of the Association, and at ASEM the European Union remained sceptical. The 2015 ASEAN Business Outlook Survey highlighted the widespread concern that the much-anticipated ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) would not be launched by the end-2015 deadline. Too many of the specified deadlines of AEC implementation have been missed and some major initiatives have not taken off. According to some observers, this is partly down to ASEAN's inability to act as a supranational organisation. For others, especially the Germans (who perhaps fear an Asian repeat of European discord), one of the biggest obstacles to the ASEAN economic community is the presence of CLMV, i.e. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam - countries that will need more time to adapt to this new economic space.
Offsetting this, the European Union has pressed the accelerator on the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between ASEAN and EU - a move aimed at countering two other hyper-agreements: the American Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Chinese Comprehensive Economic Cooperation in East Asia. In ASEAN the biggest supporter of the FTA with Europe is Malaysia, which will have the presidency of ASEAN in 2015. "Malaysia will take the lead to encourage the FTA process, which was discontinued a few years ago. We hope there will be an ASEAN-EU FTA that will complete the regional integration," declared Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Ahead of these macro-agreements, ASEM has forged relations that may appear marginal in the global scenario, but are fundamental for regional integration. For example, between Cambodia and Thailand. The two premiers, Hun Sen and Prayut Chan-o-cha, held their first bilateral talks, demonstrating “the right chemistry” in pushing their cooperative friendship to a new level. According to well-informed sources, the two premiers discussed the development of special economic zones (SEZ), roads, customs facilities and crossings along the border. General Prayut proposed the setting up of an initial SEZ near Cambodia’s Poipet, while Cambodian authorities will consider setting up a similar estate in their territory to boost trade. And the shared desire to set up a joint development area (JDA) in the Gulf of Thailand was an open secret.
Shadows are often misleading. What might seem overshadowed may eclipse the global threat of “Super Chaos”.
0 Comments