CONVENTIONAL wisdom in Brussels has it that comparisons between American and European policies on Asia are unfair: US ‘hard’ military clout gives Washington unparalleled influence in the region while the EU with its ‘soft power’ credentials often fails to impress.
True, most Asian countries, with their rising defence budgets, still-unresolved territorial claims and tensions with neighbours, respect America’s military might. Pax Americana reigns supreme in Asia. As China rises and flexes its muscles, more and more Asians are even more convinced of the need for America’s military umbrella.
Europe’s burgeoning common defence and security policy did provoke some interest in Asia some years ago. But recent EU military missions have focused on Africa, not Asia. And EU policymakers are careful to stay out of Asia’s many trouble spots.
Still American influence in Asia is not just the result of hard power. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s headline-making visit to India illustrates, the US is determined to maintain and expand its political and business presence in Asia. America wants visibility in the region. Washington’s Asia policy is not just about engaging with China. Clinton is constantly on tour in all parts of Asia, meeting the region’s leaders, business representatives and civil society. The hard work appears to be paying off: the US has secured entry into the East Asia Summit along with Russia.
The US secretary of state was the undoubted star at the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) held in Bali, Indonesia on July 22-23. The EU, on the other hand, failed to send a high-level representative to the meeting, causing political embarrassment in many European capitals and among Asian diplomats seeking to foster stronger Asia-Europe engagement.
Catherine Ashton, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, who should have been in Bali, decided not to attend the meeting for a second year running. Her absence from Asia’s top security forum, strikes a serious blow to ongoing efforts to overhaul EU-Asia relations. As such, it is a serious diplomatic faux pas. Asians see it as a snub and yet another signal that, apart from a focus on China, Europe is not really interested in the region. Britain and Germany are understandably not too pleased with Ashton’s decision either.
The fact that Ashton’s acting ‘deputy’, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is also not going to the ARF makes things worse. The task of representing the EU at the ARF top table fell to Elzbieta Bienkowska, Poland’s minister for regional development. Protocol-conscious Asians are not amused. If the baroness is too busy, say Asian diplomats, she could have asked the much-respected Kristalina Georgieva, EU commissioner for international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response, to attend the Asean Forum.
True, the EU held its own Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) with Asian foreign ministers in Hungary in June. But by shying away from travel to Asia, Ashton and others are reinforcing the impression of EU neglect and indifference. Correcting this perception will not be easy. As a result, Europe may have to wait a long time for a much-coveted seat at the East Asia Summit which, in addition to key regional players such as Japan and Australia, now also includes both the US and Russia.
Meanwhile, the European External Action Service is falling behind in hammering out a revamped, up-to-date agenda for EU-Asia cooperation which goes beyond trade and business. EU negotiations on free-trade agreements with Asian countries are a positive step forward in helping to enhance economic ties. But trade policy, however active, is no substitute for foreign policy
EU policymakers need to engage in some serious reflection, based on input from independent researchers, think tanks, academics, business leaders and other non-state actors, from both Europe and Asia, on how to get Europe-Asia ties on a more dynamic track. European institutions still tend to be wary of advice from ‘outsiders’. As a result, EU policy on Asia has failed to adapt to Asia’s changing political, economic and social landscape. Like the Americans, Europeans must engage more actively with independent think tanks working on Asia.
Put simply, Europeans should take a leaf out of the US book on how to deal with Asia. US officials, for instance, make clear that Clinton makes a point of ‘showing up’ at Asian gatherings to prove America’s ‘sustained commitment’ to the region and to enhance its strategic engagement with Asian countries.
Missing meetings may appear trivial to a harried and rushed EU foreign policy chief who has to deal with myriad pressing issues, including some in Europe’s immediate neighbourhood. But diplomacy is about travel, networking and trying to influence and shape policies and perceptions. For too many years — with the exception of Javier Solana, the former EU high representative for foreign and security policy — EU commissioners and ministers have either stayed away from meetings with their Asian counterparts or put in a brief, formal appearance. Opportunities for dialogue and networking were missed.
Personal relationships have not been nurtured.
Dealing with a changing and rising Asia will require that the EU engages in new courtships and new alliances. If the EU wants a seat at the East Asia Summit, senior European diplomats will have to learn to engage more actively and more constructively with rising Asia. For starters, EU officials can stop playing hard to get and start attending the ARF and other key Asian meetings taking place in the region.
