ORIGINAL PAPER

Evaluating the cultural cooperation:the role of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF)in the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) process

Huong Le Thu

# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) held its 9th Summit in November 2012,marking 16 years of existence. Because of its biennial character, around the time ofSummits, ASEM usually gains increased attention. And it is around each Summit thatquestions about ASEM’s relevance and contribution to global politics re-surface. Whilepolitical and economic cooperation have attracted much anticipation and analyses, thisessay draws attention to the under-researched socio-cultural pillar. It re-assesses the roleof socio-cultural cooperation in the relations between Asia-Europe and its relevance tothe Asia-Europe Meeting process overall. The study analyses the stream of activitiesand the design of programmes coordinated by the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), theonly permanent institution of the ASEM process, responsible for the “third-pillar”implementations. ASEF in this analysis serves as a reflection of ASEM, and by lookinginto working mechanisms and evaluating ASEF’s effectiveness, the author evaluatesASEM. The purpose of this study is to offer the first comprehensive analysis of Asia-Europe Foundation, which recently celebrated its 15th anniversary, by examining itsrelationship with the ASEM process. The study evaluates ASEF’s contribution to Asia-Europe inter-regional cooperation and outlines the limitations that the Foundationfaces. A multi-method research approach is adopted including data from the ASEFarchives and reports of its activities, and analysis based on the existing literature andofficial documents of ASEM and ASEF, as well as in-depth interviews conducted bythe author.

Introduction

The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) came to life in 1996 with a three-pillared structure:(i) political, (ii) economic and (iii) socio-cultural. Since its inception, the economic andpolitical pillars have been much anticipated by the global community, particularlybecause it was the first time that such a framework of multilateral cooperation hadbeen launched. However, the three-pillar structure of ASEM seemed to be unbalanced.

Asia Eur JDOI 10.1007/s10308-014-0390-x

H. Le Thu (*)Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, Singaporee-mail: le2huong@gmail.com

The third pillar, which at the beginning was to encompass “cooperation in other areas”(ASEM 1996) along with the political and economic pillars, was later transformed intothe area of socio-cultural exchange. Because of the wide range of agendas involved,this third pillar has been perceived as not having a clear direction of development andhence a lower profile. In contrast, because of the higher expectations put on economicand political issues, ASEM has faced scrutiny in these fields and has been facing muchcriticism about its effectiveness. Its relevance has been questioned due to its lacklustreperformance in these fields. This study re-assesses the role of third-pillar cooperation inthe Asia-Europe relationship and its relevance to the ASEM process overall.

The difficulty with analysing socio-cultural cooperation lies in the breadth of itsagenda and the intangibility of the outcomes. Nevertheless, this research embarkson an attempt to examine from different angles of its contribution by looking atthe successes and challenges of such programmes. This essay argues that despitethe intangibility of its nature, for the observer, scholar and/or representative of civilsociety, it is the third pillar that paradoxically is the most tangible because of itsaccessibility. Unlike the elite representation in the two other pillars, culturalcooperation is the only sphere within ASEM that is open to citizens of memberstates to participate in this inter-regional cooperation. As this article shall prove,Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), the facilitator of those activities, is, hence, themanifestation of “ASEM’s added value”.

This analysis examines the Foundation’s mandate, evolution, achievements andlimitations. The methodology of this study is a combined analysis of existing data aswell as empirical evidence generated by the author. Materials include ASEM officialstatements, existing reports, summaries, publications and internet sources of ASEF. Theauthor conducted a series of interviews with ASEF leadership and staff over the periodof 3 years, consecutively following up and visiting the Foundation in Singapore onseveral occasions. Observation and active participation were also included, as sheattended a number of ASEF activities. Interviews with ASEF staff as well as withparticipants of ASEF projects were conducted in English, Chinese Mandarin, Vietnam-ese and Polish. In order to elicit frank opinions and thoughts, interviews have beencoded in order not to reveal the identity of the interviewees.

Origins, background and evolution of ASEF

The Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) was established in 1997, a year after ASEM’sinception, and to this date, it is the only permanent brick and mortar institution ofASEM. Its task is to engage civil societies of the member states into the inter-regionalprocess. The Asia-Europe Foundation’s official mission states:

Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) seeks to promote better mutual understandingand closer cooperation between the people of Asia and Europe through greaterintellectual, cultural, and people-to-people exchanges. These exchanges includeconferences, lecture tours, workshops, seminars and the use of web-based plat-forms. The major achievement of ASEF is the establishment of permanent bi-regional networks focused on areas and issues that help to strengthen Asia-Europe relations (www.asef.org.

H. Le Thu

The Asia-Europe Foundation is perceived as the most visible and concrete manifes-tation of ASEM and a reflection of the commitment by the ASEM partners to promoteAsia-Europe relations (Yeo 2004: 54).

ASEF is funded by voluntary contributions from its partner governments and sharesthe financing of its projects with partners from the civil society and other non-governmental institutions. The organization is governed by a Board of Governors,appointed by the respective ASEM partners, who are nominated for a period of 3 years;the Board meets three times in 2 years to set out policy direction for ASEF. Theorganization frames its works under three thematic groups: cultural exchange, intellec-tual exchange and people-to-people exchange and three administrative departments: theExecutive Office, Public Affairs and Finance and Administration.

The Asia-Europe Foundation has gone through different phases of evolution sinceits inception. A closer inspection of ASEF archives and interviews with long-timeASEF staff shows some apparent traits that can be grouped into the following phases:

Phase one “Event-organizer”—In the first few years, ASEF was event-oriented,organizing “one-off” type of events rather than sustainable long-termprojects. The programmes launched during this phase were more for thesake of creating meeting and network opportunities for the participants,rather than bringing significant outcomes. It was an important contribu-tion, given the fact that before ASEF, there was no habit of regularmeetings and collaboration in such a diverse group.

Phase two “Experimental entrepreneur”—After a couple of years, ASEF’sprogrammes were streamed into four thematic areas: (i) education, sci-ence and technology, (ii) governance and human rights, (iii) culture andcivilization and (iv) international relations. During this period, ASEFmanaged to invent a safe space for candid and honest dialogue onsensitive topics, adopting the Chatham House rule, where participants,often officials, intellectuals and policymakers had the “off-record” op-portunity to express their views. This phase reflects the success ofcreating a habit of dialogue, to the degree that the interlocutors gainedconfidence in broaching sensitive issues.

Phase three “Lifting up to the brand”—“ASEF has become conscious of its ownbrand”.1 After a series of experiments, it has started to work towardscontinuity and a higher impact of its work by limiting the scope of topicsand aims at “going deeper rather than broader”.2 The “brand” refers tothe successful and sustainable activities that ASEF had organized andwhich have been acknowledged as original contributions. They have alsobecome a trademark of ASEF’s quality. These activities are thefollowing:

& Human Rights Seminar—Established in 1998, the Informal ASEM Seminar onHuman Rights is organized and managed by the ASEF Intellectual ExchangeDepartment. These seminars bring together government officials, academics

1 Interviewee 3, June 2012.2 Interviewee 13, June 2012.

The role of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in the ASEM

and civil society representatives from ASEM member countries for dialogueson ASEM priorities. The rule of the meetings is to have equal representationfrom governments and NGOs at the table, while the European Commission andASEAN Secretariat are also involved.

& Asia-Europe Environment Forum—Active since 2003, ASEF and the Envi-ronmental Forum was recognized by the ASEM Environment Ministers in2007. ASEF has initiated several programmes to provide a forum for discus-sion of the global challenges of sustainable development and otherenvironment-related issues under its Sustainable Development and Environ-ment theme. The Forum works in partnership with national agencies for theenvironment and development, as well as with UNEP.

& ASEF University—is a 2-week programme that aims to promote cross-culturalexchanges among youth. Organised annually at locations alternating betweenAsia and Europe, AU generally aims to have at least one representative fromeach ASEM country. To date, ASEF has organized 18 AUs and has met withinterest and support, as seen in the active network of AU alumni, Asia-EuropeFoundation University Alumni Network (ASEFUAN).

& Culture 360—an online platform informing the people of Asia and Europeabout each other through arts and culture. It is designed to create networkingopportunities for cultural professionals who are looking to share ideas byproviding relevant information through weekly updates on news, events, op-portunities and resources. It also features a cultural magazine with in-deptharticles, interviews and profiles and social media tools to enable online net-working between individuals and organisations across the ASEM regions.

& Perception studies—this series of studies explored perceptions, images and alsostereotypes of Asians towards Europeans and Europeans towards Asiansthrough media analysis, public opinion surveys and elite interviews. Thisproject is pioneering in terms of the scope of Asian and European countriescovered. It has an essential role to play in contributing to mutual understanding.3

Phase four “Long-lasting value-added activities”—In recent years, there has been atendency to reduce the number of programmes in favour of more long-term, sustainable programmes with concrete outcomes. There is a longer-term planning approach of 3–4 years ahead, focusing on established andfunctional partnerships. In the past, ASEF turned to member states forassistance in hosting events, whereas now, it has started to look forbroader range of partners to co-organize the events with. There is atendency to tap into larger international events and existing networksrather than creating something from scratch. An example of such a

3 Details of each of these projects can be found on the ASEF website: http://www.asef.org/index.php/projects/programmes, accessed on 28 March 2013.

The Mutual Perception of Asia and Europe Studies project was launched in partnership with EuropeanStudies in Asia, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, National Center for Research on Europe, Canterbury Universityand Fudan University. Two significant publications have, thus, far been completed, “The EU through the eyesof Asia” and “Asia in the Eyes of Europe”. http://asef.org/index.php/projects/themes/education/1148-asia-in-the-eyes-of-europe, accessed on 30 November 2012].

The above information was confirmed with Interviewee 3, June 2012.

H. Le Thu

direction is the ASEF programme “Asia-Europe Environmental Forum”.By participating in the Rio+20 Summit in June 2012, ASEF transcendedthe Asia-Europe context and engaged with the discussion on the globalstage.4

At this stage, the organization sets its goals not on hosting multiple and diverseevents, but rather to tap into existing fora and share its inter-regional, Asia-Europeresources. Unlike in the past, when it used to constantly raise “new” issues, ASEF isnow focused on exchanging information and best practices among the member statesover existing debates. The goal of the events and activities it organizes is to produce“Best Practices” publications that document exemplary practices of certain issue areasin each of the member countries serving recommendation purposes. The remainingchallenge, however, is to identify common areas of cooperation that Asian andEuropean members can equally commit to.5

Although in existence for 15 years, the Asia-Europe Foundation still faces theproblem with its identity. This identity problem translates to a low level of visibilityexternally (Lai and Chaban 2009). However, as the empirical research of the organi-zation reveals, internally, identity is even more problematic as different levels of staffand management see the organization differently. A series of interviews were conduct-ed over a 3-year period with ASEF appointed and seconded staff. The author asked thepeople involved in the process to self-define the organization. Their responses aresummarized in Table 1.

As seen from this list, there are different understandings about ASEF and its rolesamong the staff. This confusion in identifying what ASEF actually is and what it is not,as shall be elaborated upon later, is reflected in the organization’s effectiveness andvision of development.

ASEF’s contribution to the ASEM process

Among ASEF’s contributions and achievements, one of the most relevant is theinclusiveness of a variety of actors in the process. By engaging civil society into thedialogue with governmental representatives, ASEF has added to the pluralization of theAsia-Europe inter-regionalism. This inclusiveness has been praised by a number ofscholars who acknowledge its contribution to the democratization and pluralization ofAsia-Europe inter-regionalism (Bersick 2008; Gaens 2008; Keva 2008).

Based on the archives, reports and publications of ASEF, the author grouped theprofiles of over 17,000 participants and over 500 partner institutions6 that have beeninvolved in ASEF activities. Table 2 summarizes the interest groups taking part in awide range of ASEF’s programmes and projects.

As the nature of ASEF activities evolves, some of the actions also result in policyrecommendation to the official meetings of senior officials and ministers. Hence, many

4 Details of the program: http://asef.org/index.php/projects/themes/environment/2647-asia-europe-environment-forum-in-rio-plus-20, accessed on 30 November 2012.5 Interviewee 4, June 2012.6 Data provided by ASEF statistics: http://www.asef.org/index.php/about/what-we-do and http://asef.org/index.php/about/partners, accessed on 28 March 2013.

The role of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in the ASEM

of those actors participate indirectly in formulating policies, presenting best practicesand contributing to the general dialogue between civil societies and the governmentrepresentatives of ASEM members.

However, since ASEF is closely connected to the ASEM process and isgoverned by a Board comprising representatives from ASEM member states,ASEF cannot avoid at times the political conditionality of its activities. Createdto facilitate cooperation between the civil societies of Europe and Asia, itstruggles with the obstruction from the non-democratic member governments

Table 1 Staff answers to the question to define ASEF

What ASEF is? What ASEF is not?

A child of ASEM The Secretariat for ASEM [despite itfunctioning as the virtual secretariat]

The only existing institution of ASEM AUN-recognized international organization

The physical representation of ASEM Grant-giver kind of foundation

The implementation of the third pillar of ASEM

An inter-governmental institution

A non-profit company

“A foundation [that] people channel money through” a

With “special treatment” of embassy in Singapore [withdiplomatic rights]

A bridge between Asia and Europe

A bridge-builder

A facilitator for dialogue

A platform for dialogue between governments and civil society

De facto international organization [but not de jure]

A vehicle to disseminate values

A political organization, with “apolitical stand”

A successful child of a political process

An inter-governmental organization that happens to be non-profit

A beautiful learning process

A platform for mutual interest issues

A confusing image

A house of interaction

A successful child of a political process. Successful in terms ofbringing people together.

“A-political”, it aligns to the political process, taking up politicalissues. But is not supposed to have a political stand. It isinter-governmental among 48 states. It is supposed to facili-tate people to have their opinions.

Source: author’s compilation based on interviews (the definitions are quotes collected from all interviewees,June 2012)a Interviewee 12, June 2012. This opinion is singled-out because it is contrary to the other staff’s responses. Itis particularly interesting that it came out from an official of ASEF

H. Le Thu

Table 2 Profile of participants in ASEF activities

Participants/interest groups ASEF Programmes

Artists, art practitioners, art professionals,art organizations

Artists’ Network, ASEF Cultural Grants, Asia-Europe ArtCamp, Asia-Europe Film Meeting, Asia-Europe CulturalPartnership Initiatives: Film, Asia-Europe Forum ForYoung Photographers, Asia-Europe Comics Project, Cine-ma, Creative Encounters: Cultural Partnerships betweenAsia and Europe, CulturE-ASEF, Pointe To Point, Asia-Europe Dance Forum, I’mPULSE, Asia-Europe MusicCamp, Visual Arts, Asia-Europe Compendium of CulturalPolicies, SEA-Images (Synergy Europe-Asia In The FieldOf Cinema), Connect2Culture

Cultural practitioners, cultural organizations,cultural leaders

Cultural Dialogue, Cultural Heritage, Culture 360, Asia-Europe Compendium of Cultural Policies, Connect2Culture

Media professionals, media organizations,journalists

ASEF Journalists’ Colloquium, Asia-Europe Cultural Part-nership Initiatives: New Media, Asia-Europe Editors’Roundtable, EU-Japan-Asia Journalists’ Conference, TV/Media Programme, Europe Asia Forum, EMU Roadshow,Asia-Europe TV Documentary Programme, Asia-EuropeJournalists’ Seminar, ASEF Lecture, Asia-Europe PressForum

Young professionals, young leaders, youngpoliticians, young parliamentarians

Asia-Europe Young Political Leaders Symposia, ASEM YouthDialogues, Asia-Europe Youth Cooperation, Asia-EuropeScientists of Tomorrow Programme, Asia-Europe YoungLeaders Symposia, Asia-Europe Young ParliamentariansMeeting

Youths, youth organizations ASEF Lecture Tours, ASEF Youth Partnerships, Asia-EuropePartnership In The Field Of Training, Asia-Europe YouthCooperation, Asia-Europe Youth Camp, Asia-EuropeYoung Volunteers Exchange

Students: high school, college, graduate ASEF Lecture Tours, ASEF University, ASEM EducationHub, Database on Education Exchange Programmes

Academia, scholars, researchers, think tanks Asia-Europe Compendium of Cultural Policies, EMURoadshow, Talks on the Hill, ASEF Lecture, Asia-EuropeEnvironment Forum, ASEM Education And Research HubFor Lifelong Learning, ASEM Education Hub, RegionalIntegration Series, Asia-Europe Roundtable on ConflictManagement, Informal ASEM Seminar On Human Rights,Democratization And Justice Series, Conference Series

Rectors ASEM Rectors’ Conference

Education institutions Asia-Europe Education Workshops, ASEM Education AndResearch Hub For Lifelong, Learning, ASEF YouthPartnerships, Conference Series

Publishers Publishing Programme

Scientist (environment, health) Asia-Europe Environment Forum, Asia-Europe Forestry Ex-perts Exchange Programme

Activist Informal ASEM Seminar On Human Rights

Interfaith leaders Interfaith dialogue, Talks on the Hill

International organizations Regional Integration Series, Conference Series

Business and financial communities Europe Asia Forum, EMU Roadshow, Democratization AndJustice Series

Policy makers, ambassadors

The role of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in the ASEM

regarding some sensitive issues (Bersick 2008). For example, bringing up thevery issue of “civil society” was problematic from the beginning of Asia-Europe inter-regionalism. The presence of civil society in the meetings ignitedsome disagreement from China and Vietnam in the early years of the ASEMprocess. Nevertheless, ASEF eventually managed to organize cooperativeprogrammes involving non-state actors from both continents in a wide spectrumof fields. The idea of “civil society” earned tolerance from the Beijing andHanoi governments after negotiations, and ASEF managed to organize a seriesof conference “Connecting Civil Society of Asia and Europe” close to thesummit meetings. This case serves well as an illustration of ASEF’s contribu-tion and shows a slow buy-in to some democratic concepts through cultural andeducational cooperation. From this perspective, ASEF has a potential role as afacilitator for the democratization of the Asia-European dialogue.

Having organized over 600 activities in the past 15 years in a vast variety of fields,7

ASEF may not claim expertise in any of those fields. However, what it aspires to is tobe an expert of Asia-Europe relations. Managing such a number of encounters amongdifferent interest groups from Asia and Europe and operating on a daily basis betweenAsia and Europe, ASEF undoubtedly has gained some experience in inter-regionalcommunication.

Among the unique achievements that ASEF has initiated, the following gainedrecognition:

& Asia-Europe Classroom Network (AECN)—the only existing forum between Asiaand Europe that engages educators with students together. Other platforms eitherconnect educators or exchange students exclusively. AECN brings not only

Table 2 (continued)

Participants/interest groups ASEF Programmes

Asia-Europe Compendium of Cultural Policies, Europe AsiaForum, EMU Roadshow, Talks on the Hill, Asia-EuropeEnvironment Forum, Regional Integration Series, Asia-Europe Forestry Experts Exchange Programme, Asia-Europe Roundtable on Conflict Management, Democrati-zation And Justice Series, Corporate and Official Events

Ministers Democratization And Justice Series

Civil society Asia-Europe Roundtable on Conflict Management, InformalASEM Seminar On Human Rights

Community organizations, foundations Talks on the Hill, Interfaith dialogue, Asia-Europe Environ-ment Forum, Asia-Europe Forestry Experts Exchange Pro-gramme

Source: Author’s compilation based on ASEF materials and archives

7 List of themes and topics of ASEF’s work is available on the official website: http://asef.org/index.php/projects, accessed on 30 November 2012.

H. Le Thu

educators and students from the 49 member countries together, they also createopportunities for educators and students to talk to each other.

& Asia-Europe Journal—one of the most robust examples of intellectual inputfrom ASEF is the inception of an academic journal in 2003. The Asia-Europe Journal publishes interdisciplinary and intercultural studies and re-search on Asia and Europe in the social sciences and humanities and is thefirst publication to be fully dedicated to matters directly involving Asia andEurope from both academic and policymakers’ perspectives. Although thejournal has now been transferred solely to Springer and ASEF is no longerinvolved in its editorial, it has to be credited for establishing it.

& Dialogue of Cultures and Civilization (DCC)—has been recognized both bypractitioners and academic analysts (Gaens 2008). The DCC is an importantcontribution not only to Asia-Europe inter-regional relations, but also to theglobal sensitivity of cultural diversity. In 2003, ASEF launched the firstDialogue of Cultures and Civilizations Programme in response to the 4thASEM Declaration promoting “unity in diversity”. The overall evaluation ofthe ASEM process in the 10th anniversary of its existence stated: “TheDialogue on Cultures and Civilizations not only shows importance in theconsensus-building process ahead of the UNESCO declaration on culturaldiversity, but is also a key cross-dimensional topic instrumental in thedevelopment of measures to address global security threats” (Japan Centerfor International Exchange (JCIE) and University of Helsinki Network forEuropean Studies (UHNES) 2006: 195). An internal ASEF evaluation on theprogramme was conducted between September 2008 and January 2009 andrevealed high approval of the programme. For instance, “more than 70 % ofrespondents agree or strongly agree that their participation in the programmeinfluenced the way they think, as well as their work” (ASEF 2009: 4). Oneof the respondents of the evaluation, Ambassador Ong Keng Yong, theformer ASEAN Secretary General said: “The most useful thing about themeeting was seeing how others think about the subject and whether there isroom for middle ground and balance” (ASEF 2009: 2).

& Asia-Europe Foundation University Alumni Network (ASEFUAN)—is apost-event result of one of ASEF’s flagship programmes, the ASEF Univer-sity Programme. It facilitates intercultural exchange between students fromAsia and Europe and has been running since 1998. The ASEF UniversityAlumni Network was established in 2002, collecting alumni from the ASEFUniversity Programme. ASEFUAN has become an independent non-profitorganization continuing the spirit of intercultural dialogue among the younggeneration of Asia and Europe. ASEFUAN is an example of continuousimpact of ASEF work beyond ASEF activities.

ASEF is seen by many of those involved in the process as an actor in its own right.Although created by ASEM governments and supported by funding from ASEMmember states, it has taken a life of its own and is capable of creating outcomes, andcontributions, particularly in terms of intellectual input. Conscious of the cultural,social, economic and political differences among the members, ASEF is a goodexemplar of multicultural cooperation that carefully balances the diverse backgrounds

The role of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in the ASEM

with equal representation of its members. It has created a habit of mutual learning bybuilding a safe space of open, honest and candid discussion without any “blame game”8;hence, it has contributed to mutual understanding on sensitive issues that would not beexpressed if not for such a safe environment. One of the latest ASEF contributions tobettering Asia-Europe relations is the collaboration with the United Nations UniversityInstitute for Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS) to publish “ASEMOutlook Report 2012”. It is a two-volume report, which maps out the megatrends in currentissues affecting both Asia and Europe and draws on ASEF scenario building for policyrecommendation.9

In this light, the Asia-Europe Foundation has tried to play the following roles: (i) expert inAsia-Europe relations; (ii) contributor to Asia and Europe mutual understanding, throughsuch projects as perception studies; (iii) scenario builder for certain issues commonlyaffecting Asia and Europe: economic integration, public health, environment, conflictmanagement; (iv) policy advisor; (vi) expert in comparative regionalism inAsia and Europe;(vii) publisher and information disseminator and (vii) dialogue facilitator on different levels.

Problems and limitations

Like any organization, ASEF faces limitations. As indicated earlier, there exist manycontradictory self-definitions of ASEF within the organization that reflect this identitycrisis. Additional uncertainty about the organization’s vision causes a certain deadlockin terms of future direction. A thorough observation of ASEF reveals the followingproblems: (i) interest and funding, (ii) communication and (iii) identity and image.

Interest and funding

While all member states of ASEM by default become members of ASEF, and there is aprinciple to involve each member equally, the participation and contribution of themember states vary significantly. There is an “inequality among the member states andunequal commitment, unequal interest.”10 Long-term observations show that there areobvious post-colonial linkages making previous colonial states more interested incooperation and exchange.11 Attention deficit is echoed in the funding pattern. Mem-bers’ financial contribution to ASEF is based on moral obligation rather than legalobligation. This “voluntary contribution” causes certain difficulties in predicting theavailability of resources and, thus, affects operational planning; it is one of the mainchallenges that the Foundation needs to deal with. However, making contributionsobligatory would change the legal status of the organization itself. While it continues togrow, with new members coming on board, the funding for activities has becometighter. Growing to three “other participants” in 2010, only Australia and New Zealandcontributed, whereas Russia has not made any financial commitments. There is no

8 Interviewee 3, April 2010. The “blame game” refers to the European tendency of criticizing some Asiancountries’ human rights records.9 Further details: http://www.asef.org/index.php/projects/themes/human-rights/2766-asem-outlook-2012#2823-asem-outlook-report-published, accessed on 6 December 2012.10 Interviewee 10, June 2012.11 Interviewee 14, June 2012.

H. Le Thu

information about the financial commitment of the newest members who joined in late2012: Bangladesh, Switzerland and Norway (ASEF 2011).

At the foundation of ASEM, there was a will to advance Asia-Europe inter-regionalism on every level. Given the current global circumstances, the problemthat ASEF now faces is how to sustain that mutual interest, especially at a timewhen each region is overwhelmed by its own internal issues. Europe’s preoc-cupation with the financial crisis and Asia’s focus on it own regional processmay explain why inter-regionalism has been receiving less attention. TheBritish withdrawal of funds, and Greece’s, Italy’s and Portugal’s absence fromthe list of financial contributors for 2011 (ASEF 2011), can be seen as a signof decreasing interest. This is particularly true of countries that already haveestablished forms and channels to exercise cultural projects, such as the BritishCouncil of Great Britain. These countries prefer to pay more on unilateralpromotion, rather than to be a part of multilateral cooperation. 12 AlthoughASEF has been allocated with trust funds from certain members to run specificthematic programmes (ASEF 2011), the predictability of allocations remainsproblematic. This fact draws attention back to the issue of interest, or moreprecisely, its imbalance among the member states.

As the ASEF leadership has expressed, there is value in dialogue and interactionbetween the regions, and ASEF might serve as a reminder of that. Looking back at thetime when ASEF was established, it was Asia that struggled with the Asian financialcrisis. At that time, ASEM and ASEF’s meetings were dominated by Europeansuggestions and recommendations for Asia. As the former Deputy Director of ASEF,Ambassador Nguyen Duc Khanh from Vietnam put it: “We hope now to do the same.Now Asia can advise Europe on overcoming the crisis. This is the value of mutualsharing and learning from experiences”.13

ASEF presents different degrees of incentive, depending on the international posi-tion of each member. The cultural agenda serves well the purpose of public diplomacyfor each of the members, but is prioritized variously. One explanation is that certaincountries already have strong cultural diplomacy tools or have other mechanisms ofself-promoting outside of ASEF framework, such as the British Council, AllianceFrancaise, Instituto Cervantes or Goethe Institute. By contrast, members that do nothave such mechanisms are keen to utilize the publicity and outreach that ASEFprovides.

For smaller countries, such as Vietnam, ASEF has proven to be an importantinstitution. This is demonstrated in active Vietnamese participation in dialogues, theinitiation of new programmes and hosting of various ASEF meetings. ASEF provides aconvenient channel for communication and for reaching multiple actors. Participationin ASEF networks serves well the purpose of self-promotion and benefiting from thepractices of internationalization at a low cost through multilateral summitry. For acountry like Vietnam, with limited means for public diplomacy, ASEF provides aperfect venue for low-cost multilateral diplomacy, information exchange, as well aslearning and socializing with other international actors.

12 Interviewee 2, June 2012.13 Interviewee 2, June 2012. The interviewee refers to the Asian financial crisis in 1997 that’ happened soonafter the establishment of ASEF and the current financial crisis in Europe.

The role of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in the ASEM

China represents another interesting case, because of its “reputation” and growingsignificance in the world. As it is expansively pursuing its “benevolent power” image,ASEF and its cultural cooperation programme serves a good platform for Beijing toreach out to a wider public than just its direct neighbours. While it has its ConfuciusInstitute as a means for cultural diplomacy, the ASEF settings allows it to reconfirm its“soft power” influence by initiating, funding and taking leadership in mutually bene-ficial projects like cultural and intellectual cooperation. China has consistently been oneof the biggest donors since ASEF’s inception (about US$240,000 per year 14). Aconfirmation of ASEF’s value in the eyes of China was expressed by a Chinese-seconded staff: “The PRC values the friendliness that ASEF nurtures; and recognizesthat mutual understanding is important.”15 Unlike the Confucius Institute, ASEF ismore neutral because of its multilateral settings. Being active in ASEF activities canserve well the mission of building China’s image as a significant contributor to themultilateral “cause”. It also gives Beijing a venue to socialize with others on “safeground” on non-conflicting issues like education and culture.

Communication: connecting but disconnected

The Asia-Europe Foundation works on several levels. Apart from being a bridge betweenAsia and Europe, it positions itself as an interlocutor between the governments and civilsocieties. The internal structure of the organization and the levels it works on, as well as theactors that it engages with, sets an interesting map that can be summed up in Fig. 1.

ASEF is governed by the Board of Governors, who is responsible for determining theFoundation’s policies, programmes and priorities, as well as ensuring the efficient use ofthe Foundation’s resources, and approving annual reports, budgets and work plans. TheBoard’s decision is to reflect the ASEM’s interest as a whole. Apart from the Board ofGovernors, who are officials designated by their governments, the Executive Officecomprises of the Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director who are secondedby member governments and appointed by the Board for the term of 4 years. Thedirectors of each department are also seconded from the member governments. Profes-sional staff are recruited among citizens of ASEM members based on their professionalprofile. Despite the diversity, cross-cultural communication does not appear to be aconcern, rather communication on the vertical levels (i.e. diplomats to staff) is morechallenging. Despite the fact that the organization is not a big one (at the peak, it reached57 employees including seconded staff16), there is a strong sense of bureaucracy (Fig. 2).

Difficulties of communication appear also, to the lesser extent, at the horizontallevel, where there are limits in internal coordination among the departments. Partially, itis due to the original structure of thematically divided departments. For more integratedcoordination, ASEF needs to reform towards cooperation based on more cross-cuttingissues, rather than department-based work.

Given the high staff turnover,17 including at the top management level (the appointedterm is 3 to 5 years), the vision of ASEF changes with every new leadership. The

14 Interviewee 11, June 2012.15 Interviewee 11, June 2012.16 Information obtained from internal documentation of ASEF, June 2012.17 Only five people stayed longer than 5 years within the organization. Information obtained from ASEFinternal documentation, June 2012

H. Le Thu

personality of leadership affects heavily the overall performance, image and capacity ofthe organization. Lack of fixed and lasting regulations or vision statements makesASEF more flexible, dynamic and open to new input. On the other hand, there is achallenge to continuity and long-term vision that forces ASEF to constantly re-defineitself.

Identity and image

Unlike the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), ASEM does not have astrong media profile. An interviewee said that it is due to a lack of an “Obamafactor” 18 whereby attendance to a meeting could raise the profile and gainmedia attention for the organization. While there is no need to explain whatAPEC or ASEAN is, awareness about ASEM and ASEF has yet to be devel-oped. Consequently, ASEF often remains unknown outside of the range of itsparticipants. After 15 years of existence, it still faces the problem of definingitself. ASEF, with the un-measurable impact of “enhancing understanding”,suffers inadequate recognition. And, paradoxically, while the Foundation is abridge connecting Asia and Europe, the fact that it is based in Singaporecreates the impression that it is losing ground with what is happening inEurope. As expressed by a number of ASEF staff, it is “working on oneleg”. 19 This metaphor describes the imbalanced structure of ASEF, workingprimarily in Singapore and hence being closer to Asia. It’s missing “other leg”limits its accessibility and visibility in Europe. Some staff believed that thedistance limits visibility and connections and, thus, this explained the recentbudget cut from some European members. 20 Regardless of how active theorganization is, ASEF’s identity and visibility is tightly connected to thevisibility and performance of ASEM.

18 Interviewee 15, June 2012. “Obama factor” is a comparison of a strong and attracting public attentionpersonality, in this case the U.S. President Barrack Obama. ASEM, unlike APEC, does not have a leader thatwould be able to raise the media profile of the Summits.19 Interviewee 6 and 14, June 2012.20 Interviewee 6, June 2012.

• Asia-Europe

• Asia-Asia

• Europe-Europe

Among the regions, cultures and civilizations

• Government to Government (G2G)

• Government to People (G2P)

• People to People (P2P)

Among the "tracks"/ different actors

Fig. 1 ASEF’s Axis of communication. Source: author’s research

The role of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in the ASEM

The nebulous relationship between ASEM and ASEF

Following all the official statements from the ASEM Summits, ASEF appears to be asuccessful creation of the ASEM process. From the first Summit that supported the ideaof creating the Foundation, to the second Summit that welcomed ASEF, it has become aregular habit that ASEF is mentioned as a recognized vehicle in increasing mutualunderstanding between the two regions and promoting people-to-people contacts.(ASEM 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, ASEM 2012a, b). Nevertheless, it wasnot until the ASEM 4th Summit in 2002 that the cultural agenda gained attention. TheASEM4 reflected the general stress present after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as it broughtissues of culture, religion and mutual understanding into political consideration. Sincethen, the third pillar has been regarded as a way to address the adverse consequences ofglobalization and as a way to fight the root causes of terrorism and international crime.“Cultural and social issues have finally claimed their rightful place in the ASEMdiscussion forum” (JCIE and UHNES: 114). 2001 was also proclaimed by the UN asthe “United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations” and gave higher priority tothe issues of inter-civilizational dialogue in ASEM during 2002. ASEM4 also endorsedthe Conference on Cultures and Civilization (COCC), one of the ASEF flagshipprogrammes, which was followed by the first conference in Beijing in December2003 at the initiative of China, Denmark, France, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.Issues such as enhanced efforts in educational and cultural exchanges to preventprejudice and stereotypes were identified.

The decennial report on ASEM recognized the multilateral efforts at improving theinsufficient understanding between Asia and Europe: “ASEM aims to counter theHuntington’s clash of civilisations scenario and promote ‘unity in diversity’, drawingon the dialogue and confidence-building character, specifically addressing the role ofeducation, access to information and the involvement of civil society” (JCIE andUHNES: 130).

The following Summit ASEM5, held in 2004 in Hanoi, adopted the “ASEMDeclaration on Dialogue among Cultures and Civilizations”, which added to theagenda: creativity and the exchange of ideas, the promotion of sustainable and respon-sible cultural tourism, the protection and promotion of cultural resources, and strength-ening the capacity of ASEF. Coordinated by ASEF, the “Talks on the Hill” Programme,an exclusive dialogue platform engaging leaders and opinion creators to discusssensitive issues such as religion and human rights, was initiated that year. With that

Fig. 2 Levels of staff; source: author’s research

H. Le Thu

trend, ASEM started to pay more attention to a people-oriented agenda focusing onmatters such as health and education. The Bali Inter-Faith Dialogue Meeting that washeld on 21–22 July 2005 resulted in the “Declaration on Building Interfaith Harmonywithin the International Community” that emphasized the shared values of peace,compassion and tolerance through practical actions in the fields of education, culture,media, and religion and society (ASEM 2005).

With such settings, the third pillar began to gain more weight; it also started toreceive attention from scholars:

As to the socio-cultural pillar, it is perceived by many observers as presenting themost significant results. The Conferences on Cultures and Civilizations and theInterfaith Dialogue are good examples of an emerging ‘ASEM soft power’ topromote mutual understanding, which should continue to be developed in thefuture (Pereira 2007: 21).

In-depth exchanges are also treated over international and regional situation. Thepeoples of Asia and Europe are dedicated to dialogue and cooperation so as toenhance strategic mutual trust, create enabling regional security environment andcommonly address conventional and non-conventional security threats (Kim2010: 6).

Clearly, Asia-Europe relations cannot be further strengthened without buildingunderstanding and trust among the peoples, which is done through dialogue, interactionand mutual learning at the people-to-people level. ASEF is a child of ASEM and wouldnot have come to life, nor can it sustain itself if not for the Asia-Europe Meeting.Nevertheless, it has become, to a certain degree, an independent organ that is alsoessential for ASEM’s functionality because of its role as the virtual secretariat ofASEM.21

ASEM InfoBoard—a virtual “secretariat” of ASEM—was established in 2004 andis maintained by the ASEF Public Affairs Department. It performs the followingfunctions: (i) archive function—to make public information on ASEM activities andinitiatives, (ii) recipient function—to establish an “information reception desk” for thetransfer of information on initiatives from and to host countries and (iii) disseminationfunction—to disseminate updated information through the website and/or periodicallysend information in the format of an electronic magazine (JCIE and UHNES: 166).

ASEF staff was asked to express their opinion on the working relationship betweenASEF and ASEM, and there appeared to be a certain degree of frustration among ASEFstaff with regard to how the relationship between ASEF and ASEM is built. Whenasked to describe the relationship between ASEF and ASEM, the interviewees gave thefollowing statements: (i) It’s irregular; (ii) It’s frustrating; (iii) It could be better; (iv) Itcould be closer; (v) There could be better communication; (vi) ASEM often “forgets”about ASEF; (vii) ASEF relies to political commitment of ASEM. It needs recognition;and (viii) ASEF needs stronger political commitment, particularly because of uncer-tainty and stress over the financial support. However, if funding contributions became

21 The official website of ASEM (www.aseminfoboard.org) is managed by ASEF’s Public AffairsDepartment.

The role of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in the ASEM

compulsory, it would lose its informal nature. Question marks would also be put to itsissue-based interest and capacity. 22

These descriptions show that people directly involved in the operation processexperience certain limitations that threaten the effective coordination and communica-tion between the official ASEM track and that of ASEF.

In contrast, ASEM officials seemed to be rather satisfied with ASEF’s contribution.The Asia-Europe Meeting officially declares that its three major achievements are (i)being a dialogue facilitator, (ii) a policy-making laboratory and (iii) managing growingEurope-Asia relations (www.aseminfoboard.org). From what has been describedearlier, it can be seen that all three are directly connected to ASEF contributions.ASEF cannot take credit for the achievements of ASEM on its own, because its work ismandated by ASEM. However, ASEM would not have reached such an outcome if notfor the work of ASEF. In other words, being a political forum and a summit ofgovernment leaders, ASEM alone cannot fulfil its mission of connecting the regionsand engaging the peoples. Such recognition indicates that the role of ASEF is essentialfor the legitimacy, relevance and comprehensiveness of the ASEM process.

In recent years, ASEM has recognized that there is a need for a stronger commitmentto ASEF’s activities among the member states. It also realized that ASEF’s position indecision-making processes should be strengthened. In the Chair’s Statement of themost recent 9th ASEM Summit in Lao PDR in November 2012, one can read:

Leaders commended the achievement of Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) inpromoting mutual understanding between Asia and Europe through intellectual,cultural and people-to-people exchanges during the past fifteen years. Theyrecognized ASEF’s active role in promoting Asia-Europe dialogue and cooper-ation and enhancing visibility of ASEM through effective implementation of itspriorities. They also commended ASEF’s participation in ASEM ChairmanSupport Group (ACSG) and its role in the ASEM cooperation. They called onASEM partners to enhance, through the regularity of their contribution, thefinancial sustainability of ASEF and encouraged active participation of the newASEM partners in it. (ASEM 2012b)

The recognition of the need to elevate ASEF’s position to a higher level ofrepresentation in the ASEM Summits can be interpreted in two ways: (i) recognitionof ASEF’s contribution to the overall inter-regional process or (ii) the fact that thatASEF still has little “voice” at the top level of ASEM decision-making.

Conclusion

This article has argued that ASEF mirrors the ASEM process with its weaknesses, andASEM mirrors ASEF in its strengths. Among the positive contributions, there is theexercise of multilateralism. For diplomats seconded to the organization, it is also atraining ground that allows them to adjust from unilateral (representing their owncountry) to a multilateral approach. Multilateralism, as much as it is a strong asset of

22 Quotes collected through series of interviews with ASEF staff.

H. Le Thu

ASEF, can also pose difficulties in terms of the organization’s leadership and vision.Multilateral cooperation in such a setting for Asian and European nations is relativelynew, and ASEF represents a learning process. It brings about the exchange of ideasamong Asian and European governments and peoples. The communication bridge isanother contribution of ASEF that has been able to exceed the ASEM process. ASEF’sactivities have become a neutral venue effectively connecting not only region-to-regionbut also government-to-people and sector-to-sector communication. ASEF helpedinternational society to realize the importance of communication and of understandingdifferences. Communication was elevated to prime importance. However, at the sametime, the organization still suffers coordination challenges among the levels of repre-sentation within ASEF.

Many criticisms that ASEM faces also concern ASEF. Among the most commondisapprovals are the following characteristics: elitisms, being broad but shallow andhaving limited impact. Noting the shortcomings of ASEF, these are often related to thepolitical conditionality of the Asia-Europe Meeting process itself. The high position ofgovernment and the diplomatic weight of ASEF shows that the third pillar of socio-cultural cooperation has not been separated from the political process. Although ASEFis designated to work on cultural cooperation, it has also to be mindful of the politicalagenda and sensitivities of member states. Political personalities and member statefunding contributions can pose limitations. Despite disproportionate funding contribu-tions from different member states, it struggles to maintain the equal commitment in themultilateral as well as regional contexts.

ASEM’s strengths are drawn from ASEF’s successes. Cultural cooperation isa “signature” of ASEM that differentiates it from other regional and trans-regional institutions, and ASEF is at the same time the best product of theASEM endeavour. Despite certain limitations, ASEF is well placed to being adialogue facilitator. As an interlocutor between governments and civil society ofmember states, it creates a safe space for communication that does not alienateany of its partners. ASEF “only” serves as a house of interaction, and it wouldbe unreasonable to expect that the understanding between such diverse civili-zations would rely upon such an organization as ASEF.23 Having this in mind,the criticisms about limited relevance and lack of “binding” results from themeetings might no longer be adequate. The results of ASEF’s work can only beas effective as the participants want them to be. It is important that Asian andEuropean states and peoples have a venue for discussion, for building networks,exhibiting values and expertise, searching for issues of common interest andcoming up with policy recommendations. ASEF itself may not change thenature of cooperation between Asia and Europe, but it can promote the needfor closer and more tangible collaboration. Having provided a communicationavenue for 15 years, ASEF has a high potential to become a recognized expertin Asia-Europe relations and comparative regionalism studies. Whatever thepraise or criticism of the contribution of ASEM, it is likely to continue itsexistence and stake a position on the global map of international and inter-regional cooperation. While not free from shortcomings, it is unlikely thatASEF’s role in sustaining ASEM’s relevance will decrease.

23 Interviewee 19, June 2012

The role of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in the ASEM

References

ASEF (2009) Dialogue of cultures and civilisations: programme evaluation. Executive summary. ASEF,Singapore

ASEF (2011) Financial Report. http://www.asef.org/ebooks/annualreport/2011/Financial-Information/.Accessed 30 November 2012

ASEM (1996) Chairman’s statement of the Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM, BangkokASEM (2000) Chairman’s statement of the third Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM, SeoulASEM (2002) Chairman’s statement of the fourth Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM, CopenhagenASEM (2004) Chairman’s statement of the fifth Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM, HanoiASEM (2005) Bali Declaration on Building Interfaith Harmony within the International Community. http://

www.asef.org/images/docs/868-Bali_Declaration.pdf. Accessed 30 November 2012ASEM (2006) Chairman’s statement of the sixth Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM, HelsinkiASEM (2008) Chairman’s statement of the seventh Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM, BeijingASEM (2010) Chairman’s statement of the eighth Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM, BrusselsASEM (2012a) Chairman’s statement of the nineth Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM, VientianeASEM (2012b) Asia-Europe Meeting Achievements. http://www.aseminfoboard.org/component/k2/item/10.

html?Itemid=245nu-achievements.html. Accessed 30 November 2012Bersick S (2008) The democratization of inter- and transregional dialogues: the role of civil society, NGOs and

parliaments. In: Ruland J, Schubert G, Schucher G, Storz C (eds) Asian-Europe relations. Building blocksfor global governance? Routledge, New York, pp 244–270

Gaens B (2008) ASEM as a tool to “bridge the cultural divide”. In: Gaens B (ed) Europe-Asia interregionalrelations: a decade of ASEM. Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire, pp 85–100

Japan Center for International Exchange and University of Helsinki Network for European Studies(2006) ASEM in its tenth year: looking back, looking forwards. An evaluation of ASEM in itsfirst decade and an exploration of its future possibilities. Japan Center for InternationalExchange, Tokyo

Keva S (2008) ASEM and civil society. In: Gaens B (ed) Europe-Asia interregional relations: a decade ofASEM. Ashgate, Hampshire, pp 101–114

Kim SH (2010) ASEM 7 and developments of its socio-cultural dimension. http://kimbriss.cafe24.com/upload/01Si_Hong_Kim.pdf. Accessed 2 October 2013

Lai SY, Chaban N (2009) ASEM under the radar: media portrayals of Asia-Europe Meeting in Asia. In:Holland M, Chaban N, Ryan R (eds) The EU through the eyes of Asia (volume 2) new cases newfindings. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 217–245

Pereira R (2007) The Helsinki summit and the future course of Asia-Europe Meeting. Asia Europe Journal5(1):17–21

Yeo LH (2004) Asia and Europe: the development and different dimensions of ASEM. Routledge Advances inInternational Relations and Global Politics, Routledge

H. Le Thu