APEC-ticism
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: October 08, 2013
Oct 6th 2013, 0:21 by Banyan | NUSA DUA
THE ECONOMIST has long been rather sceptical about the utility of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum. We have trotted out the old jokes: "A Perfect Excuse for a Chat"; or the jibe from a former Australian foreign minister, Gareth Evans, that it was "four adjectives in search of a noun" (with the gloss that what it really needed was a verb, a doing word).
In 2007 we even suggested it does more harm than good: "Its very existence creates the illusion that something is being done and so weakens other efforts to reach meaningful agreements on, for example, climate change and trade."
Ours, however, seems a minority view. The group goes from strength to strength, with an ever-expanding agenda, and an impressive share of the world economy accounted for by its 21 members: this year, according to APEC's literature, 55% of global GDP, 44% of trade and 40% of the people.
So when one of the 21's leaders, Barack Obama, fails to show up for their annual summit, held this year in Bali on October 7th and 8th, it is taken as an important symbol of his administration's failure to live up to the promise implied in its much-touted "pivot" or "rebalancing" to Asia. It certainly is such a symbol; and the damage it has done to America's standing and credibility in the region may last rather longer than the memory of any concrete agreement that comes out of the summit itself.
The incident, however, highlights the main importance of APEC and, especially, of its leaders' meeting: as a symbol of possible co-operation, rather than an example of it in action.
APEC's supporters argue with some justification that this is desperately unfair. APEC was never meant to be a negotiating forum. Its guiding principle is "concerted unilateralism"—ie, it has no power to force its members to do anything; it merely hopes to inspire good policy by example and co-ordination. And APEC has spawned an industry of technical committees doing useful work in areas such as trade facilitation. It helps foster habits of consultation and co-operation. And, at the very least, its leaders' meetings provide an opportunity for useful and sometimes informal bilateral talks.
However, even some of those supporters concede that APEC now faces existential questions. It is under pressure on at least three fronts. One is to broaden its agenda. In the early years after its founding in 1989, APEC concentrated very much on trade liberalisation. This was the centrepiece of its main aims, the "Bogor goals", adopted the previous time its leaders met in Indonesia, in 1994.
In this area, APEC can claim some progress. Average tariffs in the APEC economies have come down from about 15% in 1994 to about 5% now. But much of that has to do with the WTO and bilateral or regional free-trade agreements. APEC helped facilitate all this. But there is no counterfactual: had there been no APEC, would there have been no liberalisation?
So, with the Doha round of world-trade talks seemingly bogged down forever, APEC's ambitions spread into other areas. This year its motto is "resilient Asia-Pacific: Engine of Global Growth", and its three main themesare the Bogor goals; improving "connectivity" (infrastructure, harmonising procedures and making it easier for people to travel); and "sustainable growth with equity". All are areas where it is easier to state vague destinations than to plot precise routes.
Secondly, on its core interest—trade liberalisation—APEC faces internal pressures. Twelve of its members (including two of the three biggest economies, America and Japan, but not the other, China) are pursuing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an ambitious "21st-century" free-trade pact, covering areas such as labour, government procurement, state-owned enterprises, intellectual property and e-commerce, as well as traditional merchandise trade.
Meanwhile, six TPP members (but not America), along with another nine APEC members (including China) as well as India (not in APEC) are talking about yet another regional trade group, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
APEC can try to co-ordinate these confusing and in some ways competitive processes, in the hope of bringing it all together in a grand Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific. And it can encourage members to renew efforts to complete a global round—which economists concur is much the best option. But APEC itself is not where the action is.
If the TPP succeeds, for example, it will need its own secretariat. Some of those working in APEC's secretariat in Singapore wonder if this means that, in a few years time, they will be out of a job.
Thirdly, the world has changed since 1989. There is now no shortage of forums for leaders to meet. In Asia there is the East Asia Summit in Brunei on October 10th, at which Mr Obama is also to be a no-show this year, and the Asia-Europe Meeting. Globally there is the G20 as well of course as the longer-standing United Nations General Assembly. As for trade, that is what the WTO is for, and it is holding its own ministerial conference in Bali in December.
The bureaucratic and academic industry APEC spawned has built a cadre of strong supporters of the process. That includes some of the press, who, this occasional visitor feels, are treated better and better as leaders' meetings go by. The goody-bags in the press kits were always generous (I still wear my APEC 1996 T-shirt from Subic Bay in the Philippines) but getting more so. This year, in addition, free foot-massages and day-long sightseeing tours were on offer. The media centre is magnificent. Just one thing is missing. What the press really needs, just like APEC, is a story
亞太經合會面臨存在危機？
2013-10-08 Web only 作者：經濟學人
《經濟學人》一向質疑亞太經濟合作會的效用，甚至在2007年時認為它所帶來的傷害大於益處：「其存在本身創造了已經完成某些事務的錯覺，讓各國不願意再進行其他更有意義的協商嘗試，例如氣候變遷和貿易。」
不過，《經濟學人》的看法似乎屬於少數。亞太經濟合作會議的力量越來越強，議題越來越廣，21個會員國在全球經濟亦佔有極高比重。根據亞太經合會的資料，21個會員國經濟體佔全球55％的GDP、44％的貿易，以及40％的人口。
因此，當21位領袖之一的歐巴馬未出席今年峰會，代表了歐巴馬政府無法信守其更重視亞洲的承諾。這對美國的立場和信用，可能會帶來相當長遠的傷害。不過，此事件亦突顯了亞太經合會的重要性，其實只在於探求合作可能性，而非採取實際行動。
亞太經合會的支持者認為這麼說非常不公平，他們的說法亦不無道理。亞太經合會並非協商論壇，它無法強制會員國做任何事，只是希望藉由範例和合作激發良好政策。亞太經合會創造了各個技術委員會，在促進貿易等領域都有所成就；它協助培育了諮詢和合作的習慣，其高峰會至少也提供了雙邊會談的機會。
然而，就連部分支持者都承認，亞太經合會面臨存在危機，在至少三方面遭遇了了壓力。其一為擴增議題。亞太經合會成立初期，大多致力於貿易自由化，那正是其主要焦點「茂物目標」的核心。這方面確實有所進展，1994年平均關稅約為15％，目前已降至5％。但那大多與世界貿易組織或是雙邊及區域性自由貿易協定有關，是否是由亞太經合會促成這一切，此事無法提出反證：要是沒有亞太經合會，難道就不會有貿易自由？
因此，在杜哈世界貿易會談彷若永遠無法擺脫泥淖之時，亞太經合會的野心亦分散至其他領域。今年的口號是「活力亞洲，全球引擎」，三大主題為茂物目標、改善「連結」，以及「公平的永續成長」；這些口號都可用來描繪終點模糊、且不易訂出明確道路的領域。
其二，亞太經合會的核心利益，亦即自由貿易，正面臨來自內部的壓力。12個會員國（包括三大經濟體中的美日，但不含中國）正在追尋與泛太平洋合作夥伴達成協議；在此同時，6個泛太平洋合作夥伴會員國（不含美國），加上另外9個亞太經合會會員國（含中國）及印度（不屬亞太經合會），正在討論區域全面經濟夥伴關係。
亞太經合會可以試圖協調這些混淆又相互競爭的進程，以期將它們整合為亞太自由貿易區，它也可以鼓勵會員國再次進行全球性會談。不過，亞太經合會並非付諸行動之地；例如，要是泛太平洋合作夥伴協議成功，它需要自己獨立的祕書處；另一方面，在亞太經合會祕書處工作的人也會想，是否幾年後他們就會失業。
其三，1989年至今，世界已經改變了。各國領袖現在已不乏會面機會，亞洲有東亞高峰會和亞歐會議，全球則有G20和聯合國大會。而在貿易方面，那正是世界貿易組織的目標，世貿組織也將於12月舉行部長會議。
亞太經合會所創造的官僚和學術產業，已建立了強力的支持者骨幹。部分媒體亦包含在內；媒體獲得的禮品一向大方，今年甚至還有免費腳底按摩和一日旅遊行程。媒體中心華麗無比，但就是缺了一樣東西；媒體真正需要的是值得報導的新聞，就和亞太經合會一樣。（黃維德譯）
留言列表
高普考補充資料 (3)
