Europe Meeting Research Articles

Grains for Health: A Look to the Past and Insights into the Future

Cereal ChemistryVolume 87, Issue 2 p. 155-158 Special Section: Proceedings of the 2009 Cereals & Europe Meeting: Whole Grain Global Summit Grains for Health: A Look to the Past and Insights into the Future Denise Hauge, Corresponding Author Denise Hauge [email protected] University of Minnesota, Food Science, St. Paul, MN. Corresponding author. Phone: 763-360-6859. Fax: 612-625-5272. E-mail address: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSteve McCurry, Steve McCurry Grains for Health Foundation, St. Paul, MN.Search for more papers by this authorJodi Engleson, Jodi Engleson Grains for Health Foundation, St. Paul, MN.Search for more papers by this authorGary Fulcher, Gary Fulcher University of Manitoba, Department of Food Science, Winnipeg, MB.Search for more papers by this authorDavid Hesse, David Hesse Grains for Health Foundation, St. Paul, MN.Search for more papers by this authorLen Marquart, Len Marquart University of Minnesota, Food Science, St. Paul, MN.Search for more papers by this author Denise Hauge, Corresponding Author Denise Hauge [email protected] University of Minnesota, Food Science, St. Paul, MN. Corresponding author. Phone: 763-360-6859. Fax: 612-625-5272. E-mail address: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSteve McCurry, Steve McCurry Grains for Health Foundation, St. Paul, MN.Search for more papers by this authorJodi Engleson, Jodi Engleson Grains for Health Foundation, St. Paul, MN.Search for more papers by this authorGary Fulcher, Gary Fulcher University of Manitoba, Department of Food Science, Winnipeg, MB.Search for more papers by this authorDavid Hesse, David Hesse Grains for Health Foundation, St. Paul, MN.Search for more papers by this authorLen Marquart, Len Marquart University of Minnesota, Food Science, St. Paul, MN.Search for more papers by this author First published: 15 March 2010 https://doi.org/10.1094/CCHEM-87-2-0155Citations: 4AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume87, Issue2March/April 2010Pages 155-158 RelatedInformation

From the (French) Mediterranean Union to the (European) Barcelona Process: The ‘Union for the Mediterranean’ as Part of the European Neighbourhood Policy

Abstract. The Mediterranean remains a crucial area for the EU. Among other things, it is the Union’s gateway to the crucial oil of the Gulf states, therefore political stability in the region is vital. This paper looks at EU attempts to forge a relationship with the Mediterranean through particularly the ENP. It concludes with the realisation that it reamins a ‘region under construction’, and offers some insights gained from an analysis of successful interregionalism offered by the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) process, and highlights some common as well as diverging features between these two forms of cooperation.

The ‘Union for the Mediterranean’, the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Barcelona Process: Old wine in new bottles?

Ever since ancient Roman times the Mediterranean is an important area for Europe and consequently nowadays also for the European Union. However, consecutive enlargements of the Union focussed the attention more eastward. The successive rotating presidencies of the Union always refocus and enlarge the ambit of European attention: While Finland was looking north, Germany traditionally east, the French Presidency of the Council made a conscious effort to redirect attention towards the Mediterranean, a project which had already been pushed earlier by the presidential candidate Sarkozy. The project underwent a considerable metamorphosis during its development: The original idea of a stand-alone Union of the littoral states only under French leadership was changed to an upgrading and reinforcement of the Barcelona Process initiated by the EU already in 1995. The paper traces the development of the project in its various stages, argues that the institutions of the Union played a crucial role in the Europeanization process of the project and puts it into the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy. The process is analysed from the point of view of international relations theory in general and interregionalism in particular. Finally a brief comparison of lessons learnt with another interregional process, the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) is made.

Human rights and the interregional dialogue between Asia and Europe: ASEAN–EU relations and ASEM

Since the early 1990s, human rights have been a contentious issue for relations between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU), especially in the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM). It is an issue that has constantly led to tensions in interregional cooperation. However, the ASEAN–EU dialogue on human rights has, in fact, had a significant impact on regional dynamics by stimulating the process of regional identity formation, especially in Southeast Asia. The core mechanism through which this development takes place is that of interaction, the process in which the two regional groupings engage while negotiating human rights policy. It can be argued, therefore, that interregional and intraregional human rights interactions are mutually dependent. ASEAN's rather confrontational mode of interaction with the European Union in relation to human rights has served as a catalyst for the dynamic growth of a collective definition of self in ASEAN. It has led to an ‘essentialization’ of ASEAN's idea of self as opposed to a common other, something which has undermined the possibility of maintaining an interregional dialogue that is not confrontational. However, it has also contributed to the development of a regional space for communicating about human rights and has thus played a central role in the gradual transformation of ASEAN's collective identity formation.

Utility function applied to interregional cooperation: case of the ASEM

This article presents one possible point of view on the interregional cooperation through the optic of neorealist and neoliberal international relation theories. Applying the constructivist approach to utility function and creating utility function of regions, the author aims to explain the reasons of difficulties of interregional cooperation from the two above mentioned rational points of view. The conclusions are drawn on the case of the Asia Europe Meeting cooperation showing that a low integration of a participating region may hamper an interregional cooperation, and that the current economic policy of the EU towards the Asian region is on the right track.

‘Europe/Asia’ Regionalism, Higher Education and the Production of World Order

From the early 1990s onwards, various European Union (EU) reports have commented on the low level of European exports and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Asian region, and the invisibility of Europe in the Asian imagination in comparison with the United States. To overcome this problem, a series of policy and programme initiatives have been launched that include higher education as a platform, that are funded by the EU's development agency EuropeAid, and that use the inter-regional institutional structures of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM). Initially, the focus for higher education was on generating European visibility and Asian capacity through the creation of networks and curricular initiatives. However, since 2000 the higher education initiatives in the successive Asia–Europe inter-regional policies have been reoriented towards realising the Lisbon 2000 Agenda of developing a globally competitive European knowledge-based economy. Asia–Europe inter-regionalism is now being used to facilitate an explicit competitiveness agenda for Europe through (i) prioritising the development of a European market in higher education that is attractive to Asian students; (ii) synchronising Asian higher education structures with those that have developed in Europe as a result of the Bologna Process; (iii) recruiting ‘talent’ from within the Asian region; and (iv) the development of research collaborations, such as funded research institutes. Whilst funded by the EU's development agency EuropeAid, these initiatives have as their target not the very low-income countries in ASEAN and ASEM, but China and India. This generates tensions in the foreign-policy mix of education, trade and development, making the EU vulnerable to charges of imperialism and neo-colonialism, whilst the inter-regional structures themselves carry their own politics which in turn shape the terrain of higher education.

India and China: Rivals or Partners in Southeast Asia?

In the 1950s and 1960s, India was enthusiastic promoter of Asian regionalism. As the second largest country in Asia, in 1967 India even suggested the formation of Asian Council, believing such broad based economic organization of all countries in should be formed so that no single country or group of countries from or outside can dominate any country in Asia (Sridharan 1996, p. 46). However, India's decision to retain the membership of the Commonwealth after its political independence indicated that India mainly conceived its development in collaboration with the Western world (Dixit 1998, p. 75). Moreover, India's incapacity and economic weakness resulted from its wrong economic policies, such as an inward-oriented strategy of economic self-reliance through import-substitution and building heavy industries (Nayar and Paul 2003, p. 99). Moreover, the influence of geopolitics in the Cold War era made it impossible for New Delhi to reach out beyond the Indian subcontinent and develop all-round relations with ASEAN. (1) As the Cold War ended in the early 1990s and the general trend regionalism emerged globally and China's influence increased in Southeast Asia, India again realized ASEAN's importance in terms of politics, economy, and diplomacy, and consequently launched its policy, the focus of which was how to become actively engaged in Southeast Asian affairs in the changing post-Cold War era. India's involvement and growing role have brought forth different conceptions of East Asian regionalism, the impact of the India factor on future Sino-ASEAN relations, as well as the significance of China's changing perceptions of India's rise and its role in Southeast Asia, and what approaches China is and will be taking. India's New Policies ASEAN India's Look East policy was initiated in 1991 after the Cold War when India faced a number of successive strategic and economic challenges which threatened its political survival (Rao 1996, p. 763). The breakup of the Soviet Union deprived India of its main trading partner and source of cheap imported oil. India was forced to purchase oil at market prices which were inflated because of the First Gulf War in 1990. India, therefore, had to realign its foreign policies and implement, what it refers to as a move towards big power strategy, with the characteristics of a multi-directional foreign policy. Its Look East policy is important component of this development strategy. In attempt to soothe the strategic antagonism between India and ASEAN and enhance ties with the Southeast Asian region, India signalled its intention to join the Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) grouping and the Europe Meeting (ASEM) in order to prepare for its eventual leap into the global market as a dominant economic player. During this first phase, India's Look East policy was implemented with the purpose of rebuilding its economic relations with Southeast so as to diversify trade away from its main trading partners in North America and Europe. The early 1990s also saw the acceleration of economic reforms in India, and a closer economic relationship between ASEAN and India started to look promising to both. ASEAN countries realized that with the rise of India, they can reduce their dependence on Japan, the Western countries, and China in trade and economic relations. They responded positively to India's initiatives and advances, and accepted India as a sectoral dialogue partner of ASEAN in the fields of trade, investment, and tourism in 1992. In the 1995 ASEAN Summit, Singapore's Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong proposed to elevate India to full dialogue partnership, and this proposal received the consent of all the ASEAN leaders. In 1996, India began participating in the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conferences and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). This was the first time in 50 years for India to attend a multilateral dialogue on politics and security in the Asia-Pacific region, indicating India's Look East policy had reached important milestone. …

East Asia and Europe—partners in global politics?

Practitioners and researchers have repeatedly portrayed the Asia–Europe Meeting as an institution that is not fully able to realize its agenda-setting potential in global negotiations or discourses. This paper argues that this assessment basically holds true even after 10 years of cooperation: Although ASEM tries to improve on this meagre balance by establishing a virtual secretariat and advancing common positions on trade, finance and environmental issues, cooperation between Asian and European states is frequently marred by the pitfalls of informality and the antagonisms of different cooperation cultures. Yet, successful moulding of common positions on climate change resulting in the adoption of a respective declaration may indicate an improved multilateral effectiveness of ASEM.

Regionalisation, inter-regional cooperation and global governance

The contradiction between trans-boundary issues largely driven by globalisation and conventional authority based on sovereign state leads to the problem of global governance. Regionalisation emerges as a process in which nation states within geographic proximity take collective measures to cope with problems of global governance. With the increasing tendencies of regional cooperation, a new issue thus arises as to the interaction among regions. In fact, the more regionalized the world, the more necessary, enabled and willing for regions to construct connections with each other. Inter-regionalism and trans-regionalism therefore become a further step which regional blocks take to build one layer in the hierarchy of global governance. The paper takes the Asia–Europe Meeting as the case to analyze the above thesis. In the first section, it presents the observation that the global system is characterized with regionalisation, then analyzes the coordination problems facing regions interdependent upon one another and then formulates a modified framework for analysis of the Asia–Europe Meeting. In the second section of rational design, it analyzes the process in which Europe and Asia rationally establish the cooperation structure of ASEM as a means to tackle the coordination issues between the two regions. In the third section of governing globalisation, it discusses the effects and implications of ASEM’s contribution towards global governance mainly in ways of rationalizing international relations and strengthening regional identity in the era of globalisation.

The Helsinki Summit and the future course of Asia–Europe Meeting

The Helsinki Summit and the future course of Asia–Europe Meeting

Regionalisation of higher education services in Europe and East Asia and potential for global change

International provision of higher education services in both European and East Asian countries increasingly have a regional dimension. The European Union has since 1987 promoted the mobility of students, faculty, and content through its Erasmus Programmes. The ‘Bologna’ process that began in 1998/1999 now brings over 40 European countries together to create a European Higher Education Area by the end of the current decade. Meanwhile, East Asian countries (10 in ASEAN, plus P.R. China, Japan and South Korea) are also in a process of internationalising their higher education sector with an increasing regional component. Led by Japan, the “ASEAN+3 study group on facilitation and promotion of exchange of people and human resource development” advanced a comprehensive report, welcomed by the East Asian leaders meeting in October 2003, that strives for regional promotion of lifelong learning programs; credit transfer systems; scholarships and exchange programs for students, faculty, staff; research and development cooperation; ‘centres of excellence’ including e-learning; and curricular development as bases for common regional qualification standards among interested institutions. Both regional processes could reinforce each other in various ways, but possibly chiefly through the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) process, unique among various recent inter-regional dialogue and cooperation processes around the world. Moreover, European and East Asian converging higher education processes could help the rest of the world through world inter-regionalism, and through an overhaul of international organisations dealing with higher education.

VIETNAM IN 2004 A Country Hanging in the Balance

In 2004 Vietnam continued on the path of political, social, and economic adjustment that has given direction to its affairs since the mid-1980s. The regional and global environments and a number of domestic realities defined the challenges and opportunities before the country. While indicators of progress proved impossible to overlook, close observation of events in Vietnam during the year also offered cause for concern. The period between the end of 2004 and the opening of the Tenth Party Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) during the first half of 2006 may well come to be seen as one in which the sustainability of Vietnam's remarkable economic and social progress of the recent past hung in the balance. Endemic corruption and newly vigorous efforts to confront it, an increasingly active National Assembly, and serious disturbances among ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands counted among the highlights of Vietnam's politics during 2004. In the economic sphere, continued steady growth accompanied worries over the country's public investment strategy, its timetable for accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the pace of its equitization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and its long-term international competitiveness. The state of Vietnam's education and public health systems only added to these concerns. The year's developments in the area of international relations included Hanoi's success in hosting the Asia Europe Meeting, continued albeit low-level tensions over the South China Sea and human rights, deepening of the Vietnam-United States military-to-military relationship, and the well publicized, somewhat embarrassing use of Ho Chi Minh City as a channel of escape for a large group of North Korean asylum-seekers on their way to South Korea.

The role of education and culture in contemporary international relations. A challenge for the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM)

The role of education and culture in contemporary international relations. A challenge for the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM)

The Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM): The Importance of the Fourth ASEM Summit in the Light of 11 September

The Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM): The Importance of the Fourth ASEM Summit in the Light of 11 September

ASEM Convention Centre, Seoul

The 5-storey ASEM convention centre in Seoul was completed in May 2000. It was built for ASEM 2000 (Asia Europe Meeting), covers 225,000 m² of land and comprises the convention centre holding 6,000 people, the exhibition and the support facilities. A large roof of 117 m x 171 m is supported by 117 m lenticular Pratt trusses and 27 m long cantilever trusses. A large convention hall of 7,300 m² and heavily loaded exhibition hall are supported by composite beams and truss girders. The tension cable truss facade at the main entrance is 29 m high and 81 m wide, bolts being used as connections in situ without expansion joints at 234 m x 295 m of the basement.

The Asia Europe Meeting and the Investment Promotion Action Plan

The Asia Europe Meeting and the Investment Promotion Action Plan

The Bangkok ASEM and the Future of Asia‑Europe Relations

The idea of an Asia-Europe Summit Meeting originated at the 1994 Europe East Asia Economic Forum organized by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum. This was picked up by Singapore's Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, who discussed the idea with the then French Prime Minister, Mr Edouard Balladur. Supportive of this initiative, France worked to secure the in-principle support of the other European Union (EU) member states. Under the French Presidency of the EU, the EU General Affairs Council met on 6 March 1995 and endorsed the idea. Meanwhile, Singapore was able to get the commitment of its fellow members of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) plus Japan, China and South Korea for such a summit meeting. Hence, the first Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) comprising the fifteen EU member states, the seven ASEAN countries (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam), Japan, China and South Korea, was held in Bangkok in March 1996. All the twenty-five countries except for Denmark, Greece, Spain and Sweden were represented by their Heads of Governments/States in this historical meeting. When ASEM was initially conceived, there were two very basic and modest objectives. The first was to promote economic relations between Asia and Europe, and second, to develop direct and personal contacts between Asian and European leaders. It was meant to be an exploratory meeting with no fixed agenda. Although some differences over the agenda of the meeting, for example on human rights issues, did appear during the preparatory stage, these were finally played down, and both sides agreed to focus on the big picture. As momentum gathered, more and more initiatives and ideas surfaced, culminating in a successful meeting where a comprehensive range of activities were suggested for follow-up. The significance of ASEM (which is sketched below) should not be underestimated. The very fact that it was held in the first place was of critical value. It was a high-profile kick-start to Asia's and Europe's rediscovery of each other. However, keeping up the momentum, translating the general goodwill and interest into concrete plans and activities that would result in mutual

Conference Report Fourth SETAC Europe Meeting Brussels, April 11–14, 1994

Conference Report Fourth SETAC Europe Meeting Brussels, April 11–14, 1994

Health Hazards of Organized Violence in Children: A View from Europe Meeting of the Advisory Group on the Health Situation of Refugees and Victims of Organized Violence; In collaboration with World Health Organization, London, England, 10–12 February 1993

Journal Article Health Hazards of Organized Violence in Children: A View from Europe Meeting of the Advisory Group on the Health Situation of Refugees and Victims of Organized Violence; In collaboration with World Health Organization, London, England, 10–12 February 1993: Conclusions and Recommendations Get access Loes Van Willigen Loes Van Willigen Pharos Foundation for Refugee Health, Utrecht Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Refugee Studies, Volume 6, Issue 2, 1993, Pages 176–182, https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/6.2.176 Published: 01 January 1993

First MRS - Europe Meeting

First MRS - Europe Meeting