Clinton's Asian trip

President Bill Clinton's theme of putting the economy first takes him to Indonesia this week for the second annual Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting. APEC is an 18-member group of Pacific Rim countries that includes China and Japan. On the agenda is a proposal to create by 2020 the world's largest free-trade and investment zone -- a dramatic symbol of America's tilt toward soaring opportunities in Asia and away from the enervated economies of Western Europe.

Clinton pushed NAFTA, the accord with Mexico and Canada, through Congress over the opposition of important Democratic constituencies. He also signed, along with more than 100 trading partners, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade -- which Congress will vote on after the elections.

An APEC accord is an enticing next step. APEC members account for about half of the world's economic output; yet the U.S. share of trade and investment in the group is falling. A trade agreement would guarantee fair access, a key to U.S. growth.

An APEC trade accord could boost the economies everywhere along the Pacific Rim. It could also nudge countries outside the region toward more open trade and investment agreements: after the United States embraced NAFTA, Western Europe got serious about negotiating GATT. And by tying Asia and the United States closer together, an APEC trade agreement would help to defuse political tensions.

Yet for all its promise, an APEC accord, like other regional trade pacts, could be worrisome. By granting preferential market access to members it would discriminate against exports from non- members. The proponents of an APEC accord propose to mitigate the threat in two ways: by knocking down trade and investment barriers left standing by GATT and by offering APEC trade benefits to non-members willing to live by the same rules.

An unresolved issue is how to proceed. Paula Stern and Robert Manning, two former U.S. trade officials affiliated with a Democratic think tank, call for an incremental approach.

Free trade among countries at different states of economic development would be difficult to define, let alone achieve. Ms. Stern and Manning want to select a few modest goals over the next couple of years. For example, APEC could start immediately to formulate protection for foreign investors, adopt common customs procedures and open access to telecommunications markets.

A few quick victories could undermine protectionist opposition in Congress. That is important because Congress has so far blocked Clinton's request for "fast track" status for future trade negotiations -- the procedure by which Congress agrees to vote on a trade proposal quickly and without amendment. Clinton needs "fast track" if he is to secure the trade agreements called for in his economic strategy.

Not everyone in APEC is thrilled by the prospect of free trade. Some, like Malaysia, are afraid of close involvement with the United States, partly because they fear the squabbles over human rights and other issues that have marked U.S. relations with Japan and China.

China has threatened to fight the proposal, perhaps as a way to bargain for early admission to the new World Trade Organization that will oversee international trade rules.

The United States and other supporters of free trade will have to fight hard to get APEC to move toward free trade. But the United States imports more from Asia than the rest of the world combined. It sells more than 30 percent of its exports to Asia. Clinton is headed in the right direction.

-- The New York Times