Background
document
The agenda for ASEM3
53. The discussion below of possible agenda items for ASEM3 is based upon three main sources: the Statement of the Economic Ministers' Meeting in Berlin in October 1999, the report of The Asia Europe Vision Group, and a European Commission document, included as an annex, that outlines priorities for ASEM. The Vision Group was commissioned in London in 1998 to reflect on the medium and long term future of the ASEM process, and their report is also included as an annex.
Key economic issues
54. First, the following general concerns likely to be on the agenda at ASEM3 were emphasised in the Statement of the Economic Ministers' Meeting in Berlin in October 1999. This was the last meeting of economics ministers before ASEM3, and it outlined several key issues to be presented in Seoul.
Trade and investment - the review and continuation of both TFAP and IPAP will be priorities in Seoul. The October 1999 Berlin EMM extended the mandate of the Independent Experts Group(IEG) for a further two years, to continue it's work identifying both investment promotion strategies and impediments to investment. Also, the EMM instructed SOMTI to study ways of integrating TFAP and IPAP
Closer integration of the AEBF - As the five-year history of the AEBF has been one of ever-closer integration with the Leaders' Summit, the further integration, and the possible formalising this relationship, are likely to be another priority.
The Asia Europe Vision Group - The AEVG presented its report to the Foreign Ministers' Meeting (FMM) in Berlin in March 1999, and the FMM will review it and present several key issues to ASEM3. The October 1999 EMM itself highlighted four economic topics to be raised at ASEM3; the above two points, plus dialogue on priority industrial sectors and dialogue on socio-economic issues.
55. The Investment Promotion Action Plan (IPAP - see para. 32 above) was adopted in July 1997 to increase inter-regional investment in two ways; promoting investment opportunities, and improving investment regulations and policies. The Independent Experts Group (IEG) has performed a survey of ASEM members, in order to produce a list of best practices in attracting foreign direct investment. This list is included as an annex. Among its examples of successful measures and important criteria are:
Removal of foreign exchange controls, and guarantees to permit the transfer, in the original currency, of company profits, share sale proceeds, and repatriation of remaining capital in case of liquidation.
Removal of barriers to foreign land ownership, foreign majority share ownership, and lifting compulsory performance requirements, including local content.
The quality of the domestic economic environment, including: stable currency and banking system, well educated labour force with access to continued training, the absence of strikes, low corporate taxes, and physical infrastructure improvements.
Incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies and R&D grants, all to be done without distorting market conditions in a discriminatory manner.
56. The Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAP) has operated with seven specific goals for the period from ASEM2 to ASEM3. The Senior Officials' Meeting will present a recommendation to ASEM3 on which of these priority areas are to be continued. The Berlin EMM in October 1999 identified potential savings on transaction costs as a topic for particular attention.
57. The Business Forum has been integrating more with the official process every year, and the Leaders' meeting has expressed satisfaction with the results, in terms of smoother implementation of TFAP and IPAP. Official AEBF representatives participate in IEG meetings and in the TFAP process. The Berlin EMM encouraged the AEBF to continue its work on issues of infrastructure, and to report its findings to SOMTI. It also recommended that: ASEM partners report to SOMTI annually on the work done to remove priority trade barriers, and that these reports be made available to AEBF; and that partners provide discussion between senior officials and AEBF representatives, as well as discussion by senior officials of AEBF reports.
The Asia Europe Vision Group report
58. The Asia Europe Vision Group (AEVG) was commissioned at ASEM2 to reflect on the future of ASEM. It was originally proposed by the Korean President Mr. Kim Young Sam in Bangkok in 1996. Each ASEM country appointed a member, who participated in an individual capacity, rather than as a national or regional representative. The membership consisted of former ministers and diplomats, high profile academics and business people. The AEVG presented its report to the Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Berlin in March 1999, and the ministers reviewed it for presentation to the Leaders at ASEM3. Among the Group's recommendations relevant to trade unions are the following:
Business Advisory Councils should be established with a membership including government leaders and CEO's,
ASEM3 should affirm the principles of good governance,
ASEM should attend to issues of international concern, including workers' rights,
social cohesion and managing social imbalances should be addressed, including again worker's issues,
ASEM should move beyond government circles.
59. As concerns the Business Advisory Councils, this is a recommendation certain to be adopted, at least in principle, if not necessarily in the details envisaged by the Vision Group. The Group suggests that an initial council be set up in each of the two regions, with its membership consisting of national leaders and the CEO's of companies, domestic and foreign, active in that region. The intention would be to have one such council in each ASEM country. The council could serve as a forum for foreign investors' perspectives on the investment climate, and the council could provide advice to regulators and legislators on critical trade and investment issues. (see para.57 above for more discussion of the integration of the AEBF with ASEM)
60. The principles of good governance articulated by the Vision Group report are based on two United Nations Treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Vision Group suggests that good governance can be achieved by, as a minimum, being in concordance with these Covenants, and building institutions and practices that guarantee the above rights. In connection with this, the report advocates increased ASEM dialogue on human rights and the principles of good governance.
61. The report also suggests that ASEM devote attention to issues of international concern which call for solidarity in acting upon them. Listed are "famine relief, refugee movements, human rights, workers' rights, the exploitation of women and minors, and international crime."4
62. The report's concern with managing social imbalances is focused mainly on how globalisation could effect a growth in inequality as a result of sharp divisions between skilled and unskilled labour. It addresses the prospect of workers being rendered obsolete by technological change, if they are not provided with training and education. It also claims that with more effort and resources, a better functioning labour market can be achieved, where well- trained workers can be treated flexibly and respectfully. It emphasises the problem of gender discrimination and child labour as particular evils to be overcome.
European Commission preparations for ASEM3
63. The European Commission produced a working document in April 2000 on priorities for the short-term future of the ASEM process; thus we can be reasonably sure that the priorities outlined therein will be discussed at ASEM3. Among these priorities are: more dialogue on regional and global security issues, more result-oriented dialogue on trade and economic issues (including social policy issues), more educational exchanges, co-operation on consumer protection, and possible enlargement of ASEM.
64. In terms of political dialogue, in addition to reiteration of the Bangkok and London priorities, the Commission proposes support for human rights, democracy and the rule of law as a priority. And, while there are ministerial-level discussions already taking place on the issue of enlargement, the Commission sees it as important to the public image of ASEM that practical decisions be made and steps taken at ASEM3. There are currently15+1 European and 10 Asian members, while South Asia and Australasia are not represented.
65. The Commission advocates the active involvement of civil society in Asia-Europe dialogue and suggests that ASEM might lose momentum if it fails to maintain its clear relevance to public and business interests, citing this as a major task for ASEM3. It identifies these public interests as being served by cultural and intellectual networking, but does not mention civil society dialogue explicitly in this context.
66. In some other passages, the document includes social issues as a field where mutual awareness must be strengthened, but then omits it again on other occasions. This very important topic, which concerns the living and working conditions of the people of both regions, has over the short history of ASEM found itself in a sort of limbo. It clearly demands more than cultural significance, but there has been a hesitation on the part of ASEM to include it in earnest in economic dialogue. ASEM3 is another opportunity for strong lobbying by the trade unions and by the broader NGO coalition to put socio-economic dialogue in the centre of the official meeting. The Commission working document, while it displays this legacy of the strict division ASEM has made between economics and public/cultural concerns, does recognise that the economic agenda must now be discussed as a social issue.
67. In this light, recommended as a priority is "dialogue on the broader socio-economic issues which will determine our common future. Topics for such an informal dialogue, which should also include academic and civil society participation, include sustainable development and the protection and preservation of the environment, employment and social security, [and] public and corporate governance".5
68. The next major economic topic identified by the Commission is the WTO, and this is very important to the Commission's recommendation that socio-economic issues be given some attention. In a sense, it is as though the recent failure in Seattle, and the crisis in public confidence in the management of globalisation, is a public disavowal of the sort of narrow economic focus and exclusive process that has exemplified ASEM thus far. "The public debate surrounding the WTO Ministerial Conference has also underlined the importance of promoting a wide-ranging public debate on the implications of globalisation. Whether at the official level or through civil-society dialogue, ASEM offers an excellent forum to exchange experience on the relevant socio-economic issues, including for example policy issues relating to social imbalances and exclusion, poverty and equitable development."6
69. The Commission document continues by stressing the importance of launching a new trade round. The Commission hopes that ASEM, building on the agreement and progress shown so far with the trade liberalisation agenda of TFAP, will be able to extend this co-operation to finding a way to get a new round launched.
70. The Commission also recommends that a consumer dialogue be initiated, to address issues such as food safety and labelling of consumer products, especially eco-labelling.
3.
Annex http://www.tni.org/asia/asem/asemdoc/ieg3.htm
4.
Asia Europe Vision Group report
5.
COM 2000 (241), 18 April 2000. Page 8
6. COM 2000 (241), 18 April 2000. Page 11
© Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung I October 2000
Draft
statement
to
ASEM 3