Author: Peter Drysdale

Next week end Asia-Pacific leaders gather in Singapore for their annual Summit, on the 20th anniversary of the establishment of APEC. The extraordinary dynamism and diversity of the region has shaped the way in which Asia-Pacific cooperation has developed in its own unique form. There is no supra-national authority that directs regional affairs in our part of the world. Nor is there likely to be for many years to come. This is sometimes explained in terms of how jealous the emerging nations of Asia are of their relatively new-found sovereignty — a throwback to the emergent nation state in eighteenth century Europe. But that is only half the explanation. The United States is also part of our region and more than most modern states is equally jealous of its sovereign powers and cautious of international arrangements that might bind them. Here in its ’soft’ institutional structure, some critics argue, lies APEC’s weakness. But from another perspective APEC’s ’soft’ institutional structure is its vital strength. It makes engagement and cooperation possible and productive where on other terms there would be none. In 20 years it must be said that APEC has come a long way — without coercion; forging a sense of common regional interests and priorities; accommodating first Japan’s rise and now the rise of China and fostering the habit of cooperation at the highest levels of government around some awkward times; providing a greater measure of political confidence within the region. What is the pay-off from all the huff and puff that surrounds its myriad meetings through the year and at its annual Summit? There is no hard alliance-guaranteed mutual security, but there is a measure of economic and political security beyond what most of us dared hope when the idea of APEC was conceived in the 1970s and early 1980s. There is some prospect of strengthening political security in Rudd’s Asia Pacific Community idea. And in the APEC heartland of trade and economic gain? There, too, we argue in this week’s lead, the sceptics have it wrong. There is a measurable, positive and significant APEC effect not only on members’ trade and investment but also on their trade with the rest of the world. Unlike NAFTA and many other ‘harder’ regional arrangements APEC has created trade and lifted global economic welfare, not diverted trade from others. That too is an important achievement.

Related articles:

1. Weekly editorial – APEC
2. Does APEC matter?
3. APEC turns 20: new opportunities
4. Weekly editorial – APC and Caijing

1. Deciding who decides at the G20 summit
2. Sex, race and religion still political weapons in Malaysian politics
3. Minimising uncertainty for Indian investment

This entry was posted on Monday, November 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm and is filed under Regional Architecture, Trade. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.