APEC institutionalization moving rapidly<\/p>\n
By Faisal Harahap<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): APEC will not be formally structured in the near
\nfuture, but the process of institutionalization within the
\ngrouping is moving relatively fast.<\/p>\n
The head of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) Fred Bergsten did
\nnot touch on the nature of APEC's organizational structure after
\nhe submitted a report to President Soeharto last month.<\/p>\n
He would only say that APEC should be an open, outward-looking
\nforum and not a closed, inward-looking one.<\/p>\n
The report was prepared during the group's meeting last July
\nin Tokyo, in anticipation of the second APEC summit in Bogor in
\nNovember.<\/p>\n
It was not clear whether the pace of APEC's
\ninstitutionalization was in the agenda of the group's meeting but
\nthe group could not come out with a recommendation on that issue.
\nEither that was the case or the group perceived that, being a
\nforum, it would be irrelevant to look into the issue unless a
\ndifferent sort of grouping for APEC had been decided upon.<\/p>\n
To be sure, the organizational structure of APEC had been of
\ngreat concern to quite a number of countries and gained vast
\ncoverage by the press in these countries.<\/p>\n
When it was set up in 1989 in Canberra, it was agreed that
\nAPEC should be a loose consultation forum. However, it became
\nmore and more institutionalized as meeting at various levels
\nbecame regular and working groups, committees, as well as the
\nSingapore-based secretariat were established.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the EPG recommended the formation of a dispute
\nsettlement mechanism, to be named Dispute Mediation Service,
\nsimilar to what is being established by the would-be World Trade
\nOrganization.<\/p>\n
The recent Senior Officials Meeting in Yogyakarta agreed to
\nenhance the ad-hoc status of the Group on Economic Trends and
\nIssues to a permanent committee.<\/p>\n
A third APEC summit has been planned for Tokyo next year, and
\nshould be preceded by several EPG meetings, a number of Senior
\nOfficial Meetings and at least one Ministerial Meeting. A
\nMinisterial Meeting will be held in Jakarta on Nov.11-12 to wrap
\nup issues and recommendations for the Bogor summit, which might
\nbe succeeded by a Finance Ministers Meeting sometime next year.<\/p>\n
Aside from the EPG, there already exists the Working Group on
\nTrade Promotion and the Working Group on Small Scale Enterprises.
\nA Special Committee on Trade and Investment as well as a Budget
\nand Administrative Committee had been formed.<\/p>\n
Business groups and organizations of the region set up the
\nAsia Pacific Business Network, called the APB-Net.<\/p>\n
Heads of governments agreed in their first summit in Seattle
\nlast November that the trade and investment potential in the
\nregion could best be exploited through harmonizing customs
\npractices, investment procedures as well as product tests and
\nstandards among APEC members.<\/p>\n
While the developed member nations of APEC seemed impatient in
\nturning the Asia Pacific rim into their export and investment
\noutlet, the less developed countries wanted assurances that the
\nvarious propositions put forward by the other side would not
\nadversely affect the growth of their economies.<\/p>\n
A hasty inception of a trade and investment liberalizing
\nghost, and one applying to promotions as well, would necessarily
\ninclude a predetermined organizational structure separate from
\nthe pace of the development of activities in the field. This lead
\nto reservations on the part of the less developed countries in
\naccepting anything related to the organizational structure of
\nAPEC.<\/p>\n
Australian Foreign Minister Garth Evans expressed his
\ncountry's wish when he was in Bangkok last July to upgrade APEC
\nfrom its current loose economic grouping to a regional vehicle to
\nfree trade. No mention, however, was made as to how it should or
\ncould be done and as to what sort of organizational structure of
\nAPEC would be most conducive in achieving such a goal. Nor was it
\nmentioned whether APEC should be pre or post-Uruguay.<\/p>\n
Australian newspapers were somewhat critical when they found
\nout last August that the EPG was not without proponents of a
\ntrade bloc similar to the North America Free Trade Agreement and
\nthe European Community. One important thing contained in the
\ngroup's report, which Bergsten might have forgotten to reveal in
\nhis meeting with the press here, was a recommendation to allow
\nmember countries to individually decide offering free trade
\nconcessions to a non-participant country on a reciprocal basis.<\/p>\n
Malaysia was worried on APEC becoming a ploy by the larger
\nwestern countries to control the economies of the smaller Asian
\ncountries. Malaysian ministers voiced opposition to APEC because
\nno one could guarantee that APEC would not be structured in a
\nformal way. This, they said, could lead to a formally structured
\nAPEC issuing guidelines and procedures which would dilute, or at
\nleast weaken, ASEAN and its closely related AFTA, to the
\ndetriment of ASEAN economies.<\/p>\n
While continuing to voice critical words about APEC, they
\nseized every opportunity available to promote East Asia Economic
\nCaucus.<\/p>\n
Philippines seemed to be the most aggressive and took a bold
\nthrust by proposing to establish an Asia-Pacific grouping called
\nthe Community of Asia-Pacific Nations. Formation of the community
\nwas put forward to President Soeharto by President Fidel Ramos
\nwhen the latter visited Jakarta in September last year. No
\npolitical ingredients of the idea were mentioned but the
\ncommunity, as the proposal stood, would be set up in a so-called
\nNew Bandung Conference sometime next year.<\/p>\n
President Ramos had also raised this issue on the occasion of
\nthe Pacific Basin Economic Council Meeting in Seoul last May.
\nIndonesia showed no interest in the creation of the political
\nmonster, and no follow-up gathering to discuss the proposal had
\nbeen organized so far.<\/p>\n
Thailand and Indonesia decided to ride the waves with extreme
\ncaution, believing that member countries could still benefit from
\nAPEC if the forum was not to be exploited beyond the necessary
\nneeds and not structured beyond the necessary format.<\/p>\n
Nothing very special had been heard from Thailand yet, but
\nPresident Soeharto seized the opportunity when he opened the so-
\ncalled Indonesia, Asia Pacific and the New World Order Meeting in
\nAugust last year in Bali. This meeting was to stress that APEC
\nshould in no way become a trade bloc because the agreed
\nprinciples for developing cooperation among members were based on
\nthe mutual benefit of each individual country.<\/p>\n
At the time when his colleague, Finance Minister Mar'ie
\nMuhammad, was attending the first APEC Finance Ministers Meeting
\nin Honolulu, Foreign Minister Ali Alatas made it clear in Jakarta
\nlast March that ASEAN was not opposed to formalizing APEC.
\nHowever, he added that institutionalizing the forum should not be
\ndone hastily. APEC, Alatas contended, should become an
\norganization equipped with a secretariat and a codified set of
\nrules and procedures in a gradual way like ASEAN. He was careful
\nto add that it should only be a forum for consultations for the
\ntime being.<\/p>\n
The United States government seemed to have fully understood
\nthe aspirations of some of the ASEAN countries and could accept
\ntheir positions. The U.S. Ambassador Robert Barry revealed his
\ngovernment's stance on the issue late last month in Jakarta,
\nsaying his country preferred maintaining APEC as a loose non-
\nformal organization in view of the diverse economies and cultures
\nof its member countries.<\/p>\n
In a nutshell, one should not expect the upcoming Bogor summit
\nto endorse initiatives for the establishment up of a formal
\norganizational structure of APEC. On the other hand, no one could
\nstop the ongoing institutionalization process within APEC through
\nthe scheduling of more regular meetings, formation of additional
\nworking groups and committees, as well as setting up of
\nprinciples, guidelines, rules, and procedures, etc.<\/p>\n
By the way, APEC already has its executive director and
\nsecretariat.<\/p>\n
The writer is a civil servant.<\/p>\n
Window: One should not expect the upcoming Bogor summit to endorse
\ninitiatives for the establishment up of a formal organizational
\nstructure of APEC.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/apec-institutionalization-moving-rapidly-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}