APEC meeting in Osaka a success<\/p>\n
By Jusuf Wanandi<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): At the beginning of the year there was much
\napprehension about Japan's leadership in moving forward the APEC
\nprocess of economic cooperation in the region. The meeting in
\nBogor in November 1994 was a great success, especially the
\nsetting of the trade liberalization target dates of 2010 and
\n2020. Blake Island, U.S., where the leaders had their first
\nmeeting and adopted the APEC vision, was an important beginning
\nfor the regional liberalization process.<\/p>\n
APEC is at a crucial moment in laying down a road map on how
\nto implement the Bogor targets of trade liberalization. It is not
\ngoing to be an easy task. In addition, the Japanese government is
\nweak because the coalition consists of parties that have always
\nbeen opposed to each other. The media and many APEC governments
\nwere uncertain if the Japanese government could pull things
\ntogether in Osaka.<\/p>\n
Not only did the Japanese government produce an action agenda
\nto be implemented at the 1997 APEC meeting in Manila, but it also
\nstrengthened the basic underpinnings of regionalism in the Asia-
\nPacific, including open regionalism, the equality of all members,
\nand a step by step approach towards cooperation. Open regionalism
\nrefers to nondiscrimination among all APEC members and also
\ntowards non-members. The members see APEC as a part of world
\ntrade and do not want the Asia-Pacific to become a preferential
\ntrade area. APEC is therefore committed to world liberalization
\nand supports the World Trade Organization.<\/p>\n
That is why the APEC meeting in Manila, to be held next year
\njust a few weeks before the first WTO Ministerial Meeting, will
\nbe important. APEC should push the WTO with an example of deeper
\nand accelerated liberalization and by cooperating at the WTO
\nSingapore meeting. Because APEC encompasses almost 50 percent of
\nworld trade, it can make a difference.<\/p>\n
It was agreed at the Osaka meeting that the basis for regional
\ntrade liberalization is concerted and comparable unilateral
\nefforts. This is the only feasible model for a region as
\nheterogeneous as the Asia-Pacific. This has been the way the
\nregion's trade has been liberalized.<\/p>\n
The U.S. has insisted on some criteria, including
\ncomparability and a review mechanism, but Osaka was successful
\nbecause it was able to incorporate the interests and concerns of
\nall APEC members.<\/p>\n
The principle of equality refers to the benefit that
\ncooperation should bring to all the members, as well as their
\nrole in the process of cooperation.<\/p>\n
Besides non-discrimination in trade, the recognition that
\ndevelopment and technical cooperation is an important pillar of
\nAPEC is vital for the developing members of APEC. Only through
\nthis pillar will developing economies be able to catch up with
\nthe developed nations and cooperate more fully in other efforts,
\nincluding trade liberalization.<\/p>\n
This area of cooperation must still be more fully worked out.
\nHere, the idea of small and specific advisory teams might be
\nnecessary. Some proposals, based on developing common policy
\nconcepts, implementing joint activities and engaging in policy
\ndialogue, have been agreed on.<\/p>\n
A special effort from the Japanese is the proposal called
\n\"Partners for Progress\". The proposal focuses on economic and
\ntechnical cooperation programs that directly support the
\nliberalization and facilitation of trade and investment.<\/p>\n
The principle of evolution is the step by step approach based
\non consensus which is vital for a huge and diverse region like
\nthe Asia-Pacific. The results of Osaka showed the merit of this
\nprinciple. It was an achievement due to the leadership of Japan
\nand the goodwill and support of all members, especially the U.S..
\nWithout the compromise and support of the U.S., that had insisted
\non reciprocity and a discriminatory approach as well as trade
\nliberalization through negotiations, consensus would not have
\nbeen possible. The result would have been the failure of the
\nOsaka meeting. Indonesia's strong support was also important in
\nachieving the action agenda at Osaka, especially its earlier
\nachievements in Bogor.<\/p>\n
The Osaka meeting achieved two other important matters. The
\nfirst was the role of the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC),
\nwhich is a follow-up of the Pacific Business Forum and will
\nconsist of at least two businesspeople from each APEC member to
\nrepresent big and small business. As a government's appointed
\nbody, and given that there are active regional business
\norganizations who have been around for much longer, namely the
\nPacific Basin Economic Council (1967) and the Pacific Economic
\nCooperative Council (PECC, 1980), it would be wise if the ABAC
\nfunctioned as a clearing house for what the region's business
\ncouncils and chambers have to contribute to regional economic
\ncooperation. Otherwise ABAC will only function as an arm of
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
The idea that APEC should take up security issues is very
\ndangerous because it could quickly kill APEC. In view of China-
\nTaiwan relations, APEC taking up security issues is just not
\nrealistic. APEC has just begun to become a viable organization
\nand already has a full plate to take care of.<\/p>\n
Security issues, which are very sensitive and complex, cannot
\nbe brought into APEC's agenda. The ASEAN Regional Forum, a dialog
\ninstitution on political security matters for the Asia-Pacific,
\nwas established by ASEAN two years ago to address these
\nrealities. The forum is intended to deal with these important
\nissues because it is recognized that economic dynamism and
\ncooperation will not adequately guarantee peace, stability and
\nwelfare in the region.<\/p>\n
Matters concerning the environment, migration, labor
\nrelations, which have economic and security aspects, may be
\nconsidered by APEC in the future. A preliminary PECC study would
\nbe wise because of the sensitivity and complexity of the issues.
\nCooperation between business, government officials and academics
\nin PECC has allowed the formulation of successful policies on the
\nmost sensitive issues in the Asia-Pacific.<\/p>\n
The writer is chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Centre
\nfor Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/apec-meeting-in-osaka-a-success-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}