ABSTRACT
It is now more than a decade since awareness in Europe grew that ‘the rise of Asia is dramatically changing the world balance of economic power’, as the EU’s New Asia Strategy (1994) phrased it. The first Asia-Europe Meeting, held in Bangkok in March 1996, was born out of Goh Chok Tong’s suggestion to bridge the gap between Asia and Europe by establishing an institutional framework for the two regions to systematically engage with each other. Many perceived ASEM 1 as a first step towards filling in the ‘missing link’ in the triadic international economic structure. Ten years later, however, ASEM is criticised for failing to live up to expectations, for falling short of making an impact in the international arena, for its ambiguity and insufficient visibility. More importantly, ASEM’s actors and participants often seem to disagree on the principles and norms that serves as its normative framework. The divergence of opinions on the potential and desired outcomes of ASEM as a meta-regime 1 is one of the most significant challenges this dialogue and cooperation framework presently faces.
