Asia-Europe Meeting Research Articles

A Brief Analysis of the Influence of Foreign Culture on the Development of Thai Culture

Thailand is a member and founding member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, as well as a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Asia-Europe Meeting and the World Trade Organization. As one of the ancient countries in Southeast Asia with a history of more than 700 years, the development of its culture runs through the development of Thailand from ancient times to the present, and has a far-reaching impact on the development of Thai society that cannot be ignored. As for the development process of Thai culture, especially the formation and roots of culture, it is inevitable to involve the penetration and influence of foreign culture, and the so-called foreign culture can be divided into Eastern culture and Western culture. Western culture is generally synonymous with European and American culture; Oriental culture is more representative of traditional Chinese culture and ancient Indian culture. Geographically, Thailand is located in Southeast Asia, that is, in the middle of China and India. At the same time, from the perspective of cultural regional distribution, Thai culture is also located between the two eastern cultural regions of Chinese culture and Indian culture. To sum up, the influence of foreign cultures on the development of Thai culture cannot be underestimated or ignored. That's what we're talking about today: the influence of foreign cultures on the development of Thai culture.

AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NİN ASYA’YLA İLİŞKİLERİNDE BÖLGELER ARASI BİR ETKİLEŞİM BİÇİMİ OLARAK ASYA-AVRUPA DİYALOĞU

Bölgesel bir örgütlenme olarak Avrupa Birliği (AB), dış ilişkilerini yürütürken uluslararası ilişkilerdeki aktörlerle çeşitli biçimlerde etkileşime girmektedir. Bölgeler arası etkileşim, AB’nin dış ilişkilerini yürütürken uyguladığı yöntemlerden biridir. AB, diğer bölgelerdeki bölgesel örgütler, devletler ve devlet gruplarıyla bölgeler arası ilişkiler kurmakta ve bölgeler arası nitelikteki etkileşim mekanizmalarına katılmaktadır. Asya-Avrupa Diyaloğu (Asia-Europe Meeting-ASEM), AB’nin Asya’yla olan ilişkilerindeki etkileşim kanallarından biridir. İlki 1996 yılında gerçekleştirilen ASEM, Asya ile Avrupa kıtası arasındaki siyasal, ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel ilişkileri geliştirmek ve iki bölgenin halkları arasında yakınlık oluşturmak amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiş bir girişimdir. Belirtilen çerçeve içerisinde bu çalışma, bölgeler arasıcılık kavramı kapsamında, AB’nin Asya’yla ilişkilerinde bölgeler arası bir etkileşim biçimi olan ASEM’in temel rasyonalitesini ve işleyişini ele almakta ve diyalog sürecinin etkilerine ilişkin değerlendirmelerde bulunmaktadır.

АЗІАТСЬКИЙ ТА АФРИКАНСЬКИЙ НАПРЯМИ ЕКОЛОГІЧНОЇ ДИПЛОМАТІЇ ЄС

The article is devoted to the analysis of environmental diplomacy of the European Union in Asia and Africa. The EU is the leader in the development of international environmental activities. The uniqueness of the EU, compared to other countries in the world, is that its environmental diplomacy is implemented in most regions of the world, including Asia and Africa. All this determines the relevance of the study of Asian and African areas of EU environmental diplomacy. The Asian vector of EU environmental diplomacy is implemented through various programs, projects, through the Asia-Europe Meeting platform (informal process of dialogue and cooperation between Asia and Europe, launched in 1996) and the EU-CA platform on environment and water cooperation (High-level conferences in Rome in 2009 as a basis for EU-CA cooperation in the field of water and environment based on the EU Strategy for Central Asia agreed with the CA countries). The African continent is particularly vulnerable to climate change and environmental degradation. Food security, sustainable water supply and extreme weather events (floods, arid deserts) are key issues that require joint efforts by Africa and the EU. The article reveals the EU-funded Regeneration of Africa program, which began in 2017. The program aims to improve livelihoods, strengthen food security and strengthen resilience to climate change, while restoring degraded ecosystem services in eight countries. The EU pursues its external environmental goals in Africa, namely, high-level political dialogue in the form of a Joint Africa-EU Strategy, capacity building through development projects and programs, and manipulating utility calculations in the Economic Partnership Agreement. The environment and climate change have become more important in EU-Africa relations over the last decade. However, the EU’s attempts to pursue its foreign policy through high-level political dialogue are hampered by many of the same weaknesses that undermine its broader relations with Africa.

Strengthening North-South Relations: The Case of EU and ECOWAS Cooperation

Regional integration is discussing cooperation among states in a region and the influence of external states or organizations. The cooperation among regions is known as inter-regionalism. As a leader in regional integration, European Union (EU) has been cooperating with the other regions since their name was European Economic Community. Firstly, Europe established relations in the form of political dialogue and cooperation with ASEAN and Asian countries. For this occasion, the EU established Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM). Subsequently, the EU created external relations with African, Caribbean, & Pacific (ACP), South American, etc. This research elaborates on the relation of the EU with the West African region. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is the regional institution chosen by the EU to engage in the relationship. Some scholars acknowledged that ECOWAS is one of the most organized institutions in the African Region. Asymmetric relation between EU and ECOWAS denotes the relation of The North and The South countries. By analyzing the inter-regionalism framework, this paper exercises a liberal institutional perspective as the main paradigm. The results found that inter-regionalism could reinforce strong institutions in both regions.

Covid-19 as a catalyst of asymmetric bilateralism: ASEM’s vulnerable position and economic salience as a saviour of the EU-Asia multilateral relations

The unprecedented global health crisis caused by COVID-19 has unleashed individual, self-centredresponses in most states, including Asian and European countries. Multilateralism may be moreimperative than ever, but the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) does not seem to epitomise a feasibleinternational platform to guide cooperation. This article attempts to assess whether the ASEM stillconstitutes a relevant instrument of intercontinentalism, as there seem to be indications suggestingthat EU-Asia relations will not abandon their apparent multilateral stalemate. In fact, ASEM couldrather deepen asymmetries between a highly institutionalised EU and an institutionally devoid Asia.Notwithstanding, the current pandemic offers ASEM an unprecedented opportunity to recover somesalience as a relevant multilateral EU-Asia platform, namely, the centrality of economics. Given theirremediable necessity to strengthen economic cooperation to alleviate the impact of COVID-19, this isa unique opportunity to strengthen connectivity as well as a multilateral cooperation and governancethat would otherwise blur.

EU-India relations in the multi-vector matrix of science diplomacy and Asia-Europe Meeting

Online training events deserve more attention as a form of people-to-people connectivity. The purpose of the article is to elaborate on how online training events gain prominence in the context of the COVID-19 imposed restrictions on geographical mobility. The autoethnographic account provides new ideas on what higher education extra-curricular and capacity building activities should be taken into consideration when taking a comprehensive look at people-to-people sustainable connectivity. As the analysed three online training events that took place over the summer 2020 show, these virtual occasions of people-to-people connectivity are promising building blocks for the future exploration of the EU structural diplomacy towards India both in a bilateral setting and multilateral context of Asia-Europe Meeting.

An analysis of the ASEM Education Process and its role in higher education

AbstractWorldwide, there is a pressing need for nations to seriously enhance the international dimension in higher education through international cooperation to stay competitive in a globalised higher education system. The Asia‐Europe Meeting (ASEM) is an inter‐governmental organisation formed in 1996. Since then, it has been actively involved in higher education programmes around the globe. The sixth ASEM Summit (2006) underlined the importance of multidimensional dialogue and cooperation in education. This led to the official formation of the ASEM Education Process (AEP) in 2008 and the inauguration of a recurring meeting of ministers with a focus on higher education. Also, more than 120 ASEM education meetings at political and stakeholder levels have been conducted. This article analyses the processes involved in embedding higher education in the AEP and assesses the prospects of intensifying the role of the AEP in ASEM higher education. The data were collected from participant observations, semi‐structured interviews and an analysis of ASEM education policy documents and reports. Our findings highlight the AEP's role in setting the agenda for making higher education a fundamental priority of Asia‐Europe cooperation. AEP offers numerous opportunities for ASEM partners to enhance the visibility of their higher education system. The creation of the right platform for all relevant parties to be involved in the development of ASEM education cooperation is vital. Thus, commitment from ASEM education partners and stakeholders is imperative in enriching the AEP and enabling continuous progress in higher education between Asia and Europe.

Exploring the link between Asia and Europe connectivity and sustainable development

Asia and Europe have made connectivity between people, businesses and institutions a top political priority in the frame of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) intergovernmental cooperation forum. In the ASEM context, policy leaders agreed that improving connectivity between countries should contribute to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Connectivity is a complex concept involving multiple dimensions. Yet in order to provide clear data-driven evidence to support policymaking on Asia-Europe sustainable connectivity, this concept calls for a measurement framework. The mismatch between the politically adopted definition of sustainable connectivity and existing metrics, led to the development of the two indexes described in this paper. Taken together, they help to explore and understand the relationship between connectivity and sustainability. The results suggest that connectivity and sustainability policy agendas have the potential to mutually reinforce one another. Higher values in connectivity are strongly associated with higher values in the social dimension of sustainability. There are evident gaps between European and Asian nations in terms of connectivity and sustainability. However, both continents are underpinned by the common challenge of reducing the environmental impacts of connectivity without neglecting economic/financial sustainability aspects, while at the same time ensuring that benefits will accrue to society at large.

The ASEM Education Process: Implications for higher education internationalization in Malaysia

The education process of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) has played an important role in higher education internationalisation since the establishment of ASEM in Bangkok, Thailand in 1996. The ASEM Education Process (AEP) consists of 53 ASEM partners and more than 15 ASEM education stakeholders who meet regularly for discussions on policies and reform measures. There are four priority areas and two transversal themes introduced in the AEP for policy direction and strategy implementation in the field of higher education. Malaysia has participated in the AEP since 2008 and has led and organised various initiatives and meetings on the internationalisation of higher education and global recognition. This study aims to explore the implications of the AEP for the process of internationalisation of higher education in Malaysia. A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews was conducted with fifteen senior officers of the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia and five Malaysian research universities. The data were analysed by employing the Qualitative Data Analysis software, the Nvivo version 11, to identify themes and categories. The findings reveal that the AEP can play a major role in internationalising Malaysian higher education through effective networking and strategic alliances. The four priority areas of the AEP has provided opportunities for Malaysia to work closely with European and Asian counterparts in the field of higher education. The findings can assist the Malaysian higher education stakeholder to participate actively in the inter-regional organisation to learn and share best practices and to formulate and revise policies on higher education internationalisation.

Enhancing Financial Connectivity between Asia and Europe: Implications for Infrastructure Convergence between the Two Regions

While discussing the enhancement of the connectivity between Europe and Asia, we explore a new area of cooperation, which is the use of European long-term investment funds in Asia’s infrastructure. We argue that, if Asian countries agree to offer 50% of their spillover revenue to infrastructure investors from Europe, it will increase the rate of return of long-term investment funds, such as pension and insurance funds. This will create a win–win situation for both Asia and Europe, because investment in infrastructure will enhance various spillover benefits and increase the savings in these countries, which will ultimately enhance the economic growth in the Asian countries. On the other hand, idle European funds will generate higher returns from infrastructure investments in Asia, which will also be beneficial for European countries. This approach will reduce the divergence in infrastructure between the two regions and encourage regional connectivity, such as the People’s Republic of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. With some empirical evidence, we also highlight the methods of spillover revenue collection and approaches to share the revenues. It is important for Asian countries to review the approaches and develop some institutional mechanisms to allow private investors in infrastructure. Moreover, Asian and European leaders, for example in the Asia–Europe Meeting, might devise appropriate methods that would allow European long-term investors to invest in Asian infrastructure needs.

ASEM’s First Two Decades: A Role Discovered

AbstractThis article examines the first two decades of the transregional Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) from its inception with the Bangkok Summit of 1996. Examining instances of region building and the socialisation of states, it identifies the gradual emergence of a role for the forum, one that stands in some contrast to initial participant expectations. In this respect, rather than a structure for delivering substantive negotiated outcomes around issues such as trade liberalisation, the value of ASEM across its first 20 years came increasingly to be seen in its ideational aspects: identity building, norm diffusion, and dialogue without preconceptions.

Chronology of Events: October 2018 to December 2018

Chronology of Events:October 2018 to December 2018 CHEN Juan (bio) As a research institute based in Singapore, the EAI monitors developments in relations and interactions between China and the individual countries of Southeast Asia as well as the ASEAN grouping as a whole. This material is presented in the form of (i) a chronology of events and (ii) important documents. —the Editors CHINA–ASEAN RELATIONS OCTOBER 2018 TO DECEMBER 2018: CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS Compiled by CHEN Juan OCTOBER 2018 12th The 18th Meeting of the ASEAN Plus Three Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry is held in Hanoi, Vietnam. The meeting reaffirms support for the ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR) Agreement through the signing of a protocol to amend "Attachment 2" of the agreement. The amendment extends financial contribution to the operational cost account of the APTERR Fund by five years (2018 to 2022). The Sixth ASEAN–China Ministerial Meeting on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Cooperation, also held in Hanoi, adopts the Plan of Action for 2019–2020 that covers food safety, plant and animal inspection and quarantine. This plan also maintains the previous scopes of cooperation on the establishment of a communication system, personnel exchanges, organising trainings and seminars, collaborative research and the setting up of consultation mechanism. 13th The Sixth Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Intersessional Ministerial Meeting is held in Singapore. The ministers from the 16 RCEP participating countries highlight the need to further narrow the gaps in market access and note the progress made in the negotiations of other chapters on rules. All RCEP participating countries are also urged to fulfil the targets set out in the Package of Year-End Deliverables, which the ministers have reiterated to be important particularly at the time of uncertainties in global trade. 18th At the Third Meeting of the China–Philippines Bilateral Consultation Mechanism on the South China Sea held in Beijing, China, both sides exchange views on issues of concern and mutually beneficial approaches to address the issues. There are also discussions about the methods to enhance maritime cooperation, and possible cooperation in joint exploration and development of maritime oil and gas. 18th–19th Leaders of 51 European and Asian countries, European Union representatives and the ASEAN Secretariat convene at the 12th Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM), held in Brussels, Belgium under the theme "Global Partners for Global Challenges". They agree to renew support for the rules-based international order during their discussions that focus on sustainable and rules-based connectivity. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang delivers a speech at the meeting, urging participating countries to strengthen "soft connectivity" in areas such as institutions, policies, rules and standards in order to invigorate factors of production. On the sidelines of the ASEM, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang meets with Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc, who welcomes Chinese enterprises to build industrial parks in Vietnam. The latter also affirms willingness to jointly work with China to maintain maritime peace and stability. Cambodian Prime Minister Samdech Techo Hun Sen also meets with Chinese Premier Li on the sidelines of the ASEM. Li says that China will continue to import Cambodia's competitive agricultural products, and calls upon the two countries to enhance synergy of their development strategies and expand bilateral trade. Li also expresses China's support for Cambodia to host the next ASEM summit. Hun Sen hopes to expand practical cooperation with China in trade and agriculture, and welcomes investments from Chinese companies. Hun Sen adds that Li's visit to Cambodia and co-chairing of the Lancang–Mekong Cooperation (LMC) leaders' meeting in 2018 had injected new impetus into Cambodia–China relations and the LMC. 20th The Fifth ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus) on Preventing and Countering the Threat of Terrorism, held in Singapore, discusses specific initiatives to deal with terrorism and prevent mishaps in the air for military aircraft. The ADMM-Plus convenes defence ministers from the 10 ASEAN countries and also defence ministers from Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Russia and the United States. Consensus achieved at the meeting results in the issuance of two joint statements, one on Preventing and Countering the Threat of Terrorism, and the other on Practical Confidence...

EC–ASEAN Relations in the 1970s as an Origin of the European Union–Asia Relationship

Today, the relationship between EU and Asian countries is at a turning point. During the Cold War, there was quite a large gap in status between the EC and ASEAN. The EC was highly institutionalised and the most advanced regional organisation, while ASEAN was simply an association of developing countries. However, in the post-Cold War era, Asia has gained a more important status compared to Europe. A striking example is the establishment of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in 1996, where heads of states were treated as ‘equal partners’. This article addresses the following question as the main point of its research: Why and how did the EC establish institutional bonds with ASEAN countries? Despite this corpus of research, studies of the factors behind the EC’s shift towards institutionalised relationships with ASEAN have not examined the geopolitical interests at stake. This paper, thus, aims to give an overall picture of EC-ASEAN institutional relations in the 1970s, with particular attention to the global strategies of EC member states, based on a multi-archival approach. Thus, this paper analyses a neglected origin of the EU-Asia relationship.

Regionalising higher education for repositioning Southeast Asia

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has led the way in constructing the East Asian region with China, Japan, and South Korea, and an inter-regional entity with the European Union (EU)—known as the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM). The initial aims were security and trade. Recently, however, higher education has been brought into these regionalising processes, largely as a response to the globalising of neoliberalism. The paper argues that regions are social, economic, and political constructions shaped by both material forces and cultural factors. It emphasises the importance of the latter and explains three mechanisms at work: harmonisation to build intra-ASEAN higher education cooperation; socialisation to create the ASEAN+3 region; and mutual learning to engage with the EU in shaping an ‘ASEM Education Area’. These mechanisms influence the ways in which regional actors form new conceptions of self and other, negotiate norms, and (re)construct their identities and interests, thus creating new forms of cooperation and community. Particularly, mutual learning generates the outcome of a deeper negotiation for an equal partnership between the ‘Asia’ and the ‘Europe’ in ASEM. Hence, higher education regionalism emerges as a way to reposition Southeast Asia.

A European lens upon adult and lifelong learning in Asia

In this article, we seek to assess the extent to which adult and lifelong learning policies and practices in Asia have distinctiveness by comparison to those found in western societies, through an analysis of inter-governmental, national and regional policies in the field. We also inform our study through the analysis of the work of organisations with an international remit with a specific focus on Asia and Europe. In one case, the Asia–Europe Meeting Lifelong Learning (ASEM LLL) Hub has a specific function of bringing together researchers in Asia and Europe. In another, the PASCAL Observatory has had a particular focus on one aspect of lifelong learning, that of learning cities, with a concentration in its work on Asia and Europe. We focus on learning city development as a particular case of distinction in the field. We seek to identify the extent to which developments in the field in Asia have influenced and have been influenced by practices elsewhere in world, especially in Europe, and undertake our analysis using theories of societal learning/the learning society, learning communities and life-deep learning. We complement our analysis through assessment of material contained in three dominant journals in the field, the International Journal of Lifelong Education, the International Review of Education and Adult Education Quarterly, each edited in the west.

Institutionalisation of the Relations between the EC and the ASEAN: Analysing an Origin of the EU-Asia Relationship, 1967–1975

AbstractIt seems that the current relationship between the European Union (EU) and Asia is at a turning point. During the Cold War era, the status gap between the European Community [(EC), formerly European Economic Community (EEC)] and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was quite large. In fact, the EC was considered a highly institutionalised and developed region, while ASEAN was considered an association of developing countries; however, in the post-Cold War era, the status of Asia compared to that of Europe has significantly risen. The establishment of the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) in 1996 among heads of states as “equal partners” is a striking example. In addition, ASEAN will have a community in place by the end of 2015, while Europe has struggled from its sovereign debt crisis to such an extent that it has shown its eagerness to learn even from Asian countries. Finally, the EU is now expected to play a role as a “soft power” ally with ASEAN. Based on multiple archives (French, German, and EC archives), this article retraces the course of EC/EU-ASEAN relations from the origins of ASEAN until the establishment of the Joint Study Group (JSG) of 1975, considered as a formal institutionalisation of EC–ASEAN relations, although informal dialogue between the EC and ASEAN began in 1972. This article aims to clarify why and how this formal institutionalisation occurred. In June 1975, the regional organisations established the JSG between the European Commission and the ASEAN member states. The JSG can be interpreted as a precursor to the EEC-ASEAN co-operation agreement signed in 1980, in that this event is in certain times considered as a “turning point.” EC/EU-ASEAN relations have been widely discussed. The existing research derives mainly from political scientists. Most early research has stressed ASEAN as a “stepping stone” to the “Asia-Pacific” region; in other words, an economic valuation of ASEAN is offered as the reason why the EC deepened its relationship with ASEAN. Later studies have underlined ASEAN’s value as a reliable partner to break an impasse in the North-South negotiations; however, existing literature ignores a strategic aspect. This article establishes the decisive strategic reason for the EC to have chosen a formal relation with ASEAN: to establish a substantial presence in a region where US presence declined after the Vietnam War. This viewpoint is especially supported by Sir Christopher Soames, British Vice-President of the European Commission and commissioner for external relations. Focusing on this strategic aspect and based on the method of diplomatic history, this article also tries to analyse the impact of international contexts such as the Asian Cold War and North-South affairs on the EC’s decision-making process.

The Value and the Limitations of Comprehensive Multilateralism: An EU Perspective on the Asia-Europe Meeting

This article examines the attitudes of the European Union on the development of Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). It looks first at the trajectory of EU positions on ASEM, before specific sections explore the EU perspective on the style and format of ASEM, on the substantive issues under discussion, and on the wider geo-political relevance of the institution. In order to provide a critical assessment of the EU’s position, the article also discusses some of the key alternative relationships the EU has with the Asia-Pacific region, be it multilaterally or bilaterally. By way of conclusion, the article argues that despite the limitations of ASEM, the process still retains an added value in the context of the wider diplomacy between the EU and its Asian partners.

Japan in the Asia-Europe parliamentary dialogue: domestic actors on the international stage

This article explores the Asia–Europe Parliamentary Partnership (ASEP), which is the parliamentary dimension of the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM), from the perspective of the National Diet of Japan. ASEP brings together Japan’s key neighbours and trade partners, including the European Union, its so-called natural partner with whom it shares common values. This article argues that the Japanese Diet members perform a three-level norm promotion process at ASEP. First, they promote the norms and agenda of the Japanese government and thus their activity mirrors Japan’s policies on EU, ASEM and global issues. Even the same challenges, for example the untapped partnership with Europe, are visible. Second, they drive their own personal or party agendas, demonstrating that parliamentarians are not merely mouthpieces of the government but bring plurality and even dissonance to Japan’s message. Third, they promote parliamentary empowerment and participation in international affairs, norms that facilitate the Diet Members’ ability to oversee the Asia–Europe agenda as well as empower other participating parliaments. By taking the perspective of one country, this article provides insights to the little known workings of the Asia–Europe Parliamentary Partnership.

Форум «Азия – Европа»: анализ образовательного трека сотрудничества

Форум «Азия – Европа»: анализ образовательного трека сотрудничества

Interregionalism in Transnational Interest Networks: Euro-Asian Civil Society and the EU–ASEAN Free Trade Agreement

The study of interest groups is still a relatively small field of political science. The process of globalization has brought about the evolution of interest networks from national organizations to regional and transnational networks. This article uses the modes of political participation framework created by Jayasuriya and Rodan, in order to study the created spaces used by public interest networks at an interregional level. The empirical case study relates to Asia-Europe Meeting: the Europe-Asian interregional institution, and the work of public interest networks stemming from the civil society organizations that shadow it in opposing the EU–Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) free trade agreement (FTA). We find that the ‘modes of political participation’ model explains quite accurately the political spaces created by civil society in the EU–ASEAN FTA. We extend the framework by adding a fifth space, lobbying, which appears out of isomorphism. This concept represents the adoption by organizations of practices carried by other institutions they interact with. In this case, public interest networks have adopted the practice of directly influencing policy-makers that was the prerogative of private interest groups.