The first key question on EU-Asia relations is where does today’s EU definition of Asia begin and end? Arguably Asia’s countries are all so different that there can be no common EU strategy. Asia Minor in eastern Turkey is the traditional European border with Asia and the current role of Turkey is important, with its strong links with the Turkic countries of Central Asia ranging from strategically important Kazakhstan with vast energy resources to impoverished Kyrgyzstan bordering China. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are treated by the EU as semi-pariahs because of their human rights problems but the latter cannot be ignored because of its huge gas reserves. Russia has a vast far-eastern presence posing long-term problems in terms of depopulation but the EU has no dedicated Siberian policy, focusing instead on Russia’s European dimension through the four ‘common spaces’.
Recently I argued for Kazakhstan, to be included in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) rather than just the standard partnership and co-operation agreement for the CIS countries. Its ethnic cousin Azerbaijan is already part of the ENP along with Georgia and Armenia. To its south and south-east the USA and the EU have now redefined this region of the world, which includes the Mashraq countries, the Saudi peninsula, Iran and traditionally Asiatic Afghanistan, as the ‘wider Middle East’. When coupled to the North African Barcelona EuroMed Arab bloc it makes strategic sense for the EU to have a common approach. This policy was adopted at the European Council in Thessalonica in June 2003.
Further east is the first clearly recognisable Asian bloc, coming together under the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC), and consisting of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and two key observers – China and Japan. SAARC seeks to encourage mutual assistance in various fields and would be the ideal body for the EU to interact with at a multilateral level but so far EU relations with the regional superpower India are primarily enshrined in a bilateral strategic partnership, as SAARC is still poorly developed. Many observers would see India with its English common law traditions, democracy and high standards of human rights as the ideal Asian partner for the EU, as opposed to China which although ranking as the EU’s second trading partner remains a one-party dictatorship with poor human rights. Nevertheless China’s phenomenal economic growth and market size cannot be ignored both as a competitive challenge but also a huge trading opportunity for the EU.
Further south-east is the oldest regional bloc founded in 1967, ASEAN, whose aim is to foster co-operation and mutual assistance among its ten diverse member countries. It is a strong organisation and operates in different ad hoc bolt-on formats eg, its India-ASEAN summits and ASEAN plus three (China, Japan and South Korea) and over the years has attracted partner countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, North Korea, the US, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, as well as the EU, all committed to supporting or being part of a massive 2 billion people-strong free-trade area by 2010 based on an EU-type model by promoting an ‘Asian arc of prosperity’. This is also a key way to bind Sino-Indian relations, traditional rivals as the economic giants of Asia.
Partly to match ASEAN integration, the EU set up in 1996 its own annual Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) summits. Curiously the regional ‘anglosphere’ countries, India, Australia and New Zealand are excluded. The ASEM summits have the stated objective of improving ties between the EU and Asia. Unlike EU multilateral relations with Latin America, or North America, regions which share common European cultural values and language, relations with far more diverse Asia are inevitably more fragmented and bilateral, but this vast region is showing increasing signs of regional integration which the EU must accompany.
In each country I visit as part of the delegation for relations with the countries of South East Asia the message I hear is a similar one. From Bangkok to Manila, from Vientiane to Jakarta, there is a feeling that here in Europe we are heavily focused on the bigger countries of the region: China, Japan or India.
Although the fixation with these emerging giants of world trade may be understandable, south east Asia cannot be neglected. Together the ten countries that make up the Association of South East Asian Nations (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) have a population totalling 457 million people. For the last two decades they have posted impressive growth rates of 6-8%.
This economic dynamism alone makes it vital that the European Union develop further its trade and economic relations with the region. But the world is not standing still, waiting for the EU to deepen ties. The US is busy reinforcing its policy in south east Asia, improving ties with Cambodia and others.
The EU needs to take similar steps, and not only along traditional lines that emphasise colonial ties.
The UK may have historical links with Malaysia, for example, but it is important that the whole of the EU builds links as well. National chambers of commerce and other groups also need to be involved.
Here it is important to realise the value of people-to-people contacts. There needs to be a greater exchange of students. Currently the majority of south east Asian students travelling abroad go to the United States. It needs to be easier to go to the EU and for EU students to study in Asia.
In developing closer ties it is also important to acknowledge the role that the European Commission plays through its delegations, which are important in explaining the work of the EU and in smoothing the difficulties associated with the region’s increased manufacturing clout.
Where problems occur, such as those with Vietnam, or even China over the trade in textiles or shoes, it is important that the EU explains its position clearly and promptly.
In other areas, too, there are challenges that need to be dealt with as a matter of urgency and which develop closer co-operation. Discussions on security and anti-terrorism are a case in point. These issues are raised often by our south east Asian counterparts. It is an important dialogue. Indonesia, and other countries, know perfectly what it means to face a terrorist threat.
Elsewhere the EU has an important political role to play.
It is crucial that the EU continues to press for better human rights and democracy standards in the region.
The situation in Myanmar (Burma) is one case in point. It is important that we continue to discuss these difficult issues and it is also important that we urge neighbouring countries to press for further democratic efforts in the region.
Already this pressure is showing some results. Burma’s position in the region is not the same as it was. Although the march of change is slow, the situation is evolving. All of the countries of the region acknowledge the need to address the issue of democratisation and are acting accordingly.
It is also for the EU to provide an example for the countries of south east Asia in terms of regional integration.
Many in the region are envious of Europe’s experience and would like to see similar levels of peace, stability and integration replicated at home and among their neighbours.
It is important that the EU encourage this trend. ASEAN policymakers are currently considering the creation of an economic community, similar to that developed in the EU, by 2015.
But it is also important to emphasise that the EU’s achievements have only accrued over the course of 50 years. It is a long, difficult process.