ASEM and the "Cinderella Complex" of EU-East Asia Economic Relations

Abstract

or some time now, both the European Union and East Asia have sought to redress the comparative weakness of the Eurasian economic axis in relation to its transpacific and transatlantic counterparts (Hanggi 1999). Together, these axes form the basis of the Triadic political economy in which the world's three most prosperous regions (Europe, East Asia, North America) dominate the contemporary global economic system. The main task confronting the EU and East Asia concerns the structural nature of their weak mutual linkages and, moreover, the way in which this has created a Eurasian Cinderella complex (i.e., the poor third relation) within the Triad. Notwithstanding this predicament, both regional sides have sought closer ties through reinvigorated bilateral efforts and use of the Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM) inter-regional framework since its inauguration in March 1996. As ASEM approached its third summit, to be convened at Seoul in October 2000, it could claim some success at fortifying the Eurasian axis. Yet the ASEM process has missed various geo-economic opportunities presented to it. Explanatory factors here relate to the hesitancy of the Eurasian partnership to co-manage the post-hegemonic world order, as well as to persisting structural constraints in the Triadic political economy that were most clearly revealed by the events surrounding the 1997-98 East Asian financial crisis. Other questions relating to ASEM and the Cinderella complex of EUEast Asia economic relations are also pertinent. For example, is ASEMjust a service provider to EU-East Asia bilateral economic relations or is it an increasingly significant inter-regional framework through which new commercial and diplomatic objectives are achievable? Moreover, as with other forms of intra-Triad regime diplomacy, is ASEM being lost against the background of both firmer multilateralism and a deepening globalism within international society, or can it make important contributions to these twin processes? Certainly, ASEM and its regionalist counterparts are expected to defer to the interests of multilateral regimes and, in particular, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), but to what extent can ASEM perform a useful