[
Approach ][
Capabilities ][
Staff ][
Clients ]![[ Clients ]](../../../clients/aha.gif){kind=link}
[
Press ][
Library ][
Contact ]
|
What’s in a Name? The Shifting Role of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation By Jonathan Hopfner  BANGKOK
(KWR) -- Given the diversity that exists under the umbrella of
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) – its 21 member
countries range from prosperous nations with free-market economies
to socialist states in the first throes of development – it
was perhaps inevitable that the grouping would suffer an identity
crisis. At no time was this more obvious than this year’s
summit of APEC leaders, which wrapped up in Bangkok Oct. 21.
For despite the convivial back-slapping that accompanied the
joint communiqué released by the heads of state after
their talks, APEC as a whole rarely seemed as far from the goals
that founded it. Established in 1989 to promote an aggressive agenda of trade liberalization, APEC agreed at a 1995 summit in Bogor, Indonesia to set target dates for free trade in the Asia-Pacific Region. It called on its developed economies to eliminate trade barriers by 2010 and its poorer members to do the same a decade later. With the collapse of September’s World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial talks in Cancun, Mexico, in September, there was much optimism that the forum would take the lead in salvaging international trade negotiations. The summit in Bangkok was the first high-level meeting devoted to commerce after the Cancun fiasco, and it was greeted with high expectations that the leaders would chart the future of the global trade process. The heads of state tried hard not to disappoint, devoting much of their communiqué to endorsements of the WTO’s Doha agenda. The “Bangkok Declaration on Partnership for the Future,” asserted "strong support" for efforts to push forward the Doha Round as early as possible. It also committed APEC members to work toward “the abolition of all forms of agricultural export subsidies, unjustifiable export prohibition and restrictions,” while advancing free trade “in a coordinated manner.” Noble sentiments, to be sure, but the declaration fell short on specifics – concrete measures to advance the Doha round and liberalization targets are conspicuous by their absence. This is even more evident when compared with the provisions of the agreement dealing with security, which – despite the “economic” part of APEC’s moniker – clearly dominated the Bangkok talks. Leaders pledged to secure weapons stockpiles and to take immediate action to "regulate the production, transfer and brokering" of portable missiles, as well as to “dismantle, fully and without delay, transnational terrorist groups that threaten the APEC economies by establishing “a regional trade and financial security initiative with the Asian Development Bank, to support projects that enhance port security, combat terrorist finance and achieve other counter-terrorism objectives.” US President George Bush thus left Bangkok with further promises of international solidarity for the US-led war on terrorism – though many observers argued that he and his counterparts chose the wrong forum in which to cement these pledges. Representatives of the global business community meeting at the related APEC CEO Summit criticized the leaders for failing to adequately address pertinent economic issues, including the reduction of tariffs and China’s continued reluctance to devalue the yuan. Michael Drucker, executive vice president of FedEx International, told reporters the grouping needed to “rethink and restate its objectives,” keeping the economic principles on which it was founded in mind. The chairman of Chile’s Association of Banks and Financial Institutions, Hernan Somerville, meanwhile expressed disappointment that despite the sentiments expressed in the communiqué, APEC leaders had so far failed to “work out a common position” in global trade talks. There was also widespread speculation that WTO head Supachai Panitchpakdi, in Bangkok to address the CEO summit, had requested and was denied the opportunity to address APEC leaders, raising further questions about the group’s commitment to involvement in trade issues. It is perhaps just as well that the meeting never took place, for the leaders may not have liked what Panitchpakdi had to say. His continued warnings that the relatively recent profusion of bilateral and regional trade agreements may divert much-needed attention from multilateral negotiations may not have gone down well in a forum where discussions on bilateral and regional pacts -- between Thailand and the US, the US and Australia, and Thailand and China, among others -- have received so much attention. It could be argued that in Bangkok, APEC not only failed to rally behind its cause celebre of global economic integration, but also failed to showcase the integration of APEC itself. With smaller-scale political issues -- Bush’s discussions with new Chinese president Hu Jintao on North Korea, the stance of members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on moves, or the lack thereof, toward democracy in Myanmar, and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s exit from the world stage as he prepared to transfer power to his deputy – dominating headlines, the group’s progress toward the goals set out in Bogor barely merited a mention. None of this is to say that the Bangkok meet was entirely unproductive – delegates struck a blow for intellectual property rights by endorsing an anti-piracy plan under which the regulation of disc production facilities will be tightened and it will be illegal to export disc production parts or raw machinery without government approval. Previous meetings throughout Thailand resulted in agreements to establish an international network to deal with Internet crime and wide support to a Thai-backed effort to launch an Asian bond fund. It is clear then that APEC still has an important role to play in the global economy, but after the Bangkok meet many, particularly from the business community, may be wondering what that role is. APEC leaders would do well at their next session to reclaim the organization’s heritage as a body devoted to championing trade dialogue and economic liberalization at a time when one is so clearly needed.
|