Posted on: Sunday, October 28, 2001

Editorial
Can anyone recall what APEC is for?

The recent APEC session in Shanghai served admirably as a bully pulpit for President Bush's campaign against terrorism, totally overshadowing whatever business the forum had originally planned.

And what sort of business was that? That's not altogether clear, since Chinese President Jiang Zemin had himself been planning, before the horrific events of Sept. 11, to upstage the gathering to showcase his nation's imminent accession to the World Trade Organization, with all that long-sought step implies about China's abilities and acceptability as a major player in the global economy.

APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) began as a gathering of trade experts from a handful of Pacific Rim economies seeking to lower impediments to freer exchange of goods and services. It grew to include members as disparate as Papua New Guinea and Chile, Japan and Singapore. Its meetings ended with trade ministers signing off on new agreements on tariffs and import restrictions.

President Clinton changed all that at the first APEC meeting in his first term, in Seattle. He invited the leaders of each member nation, gave them each a matching informal windbreaker — a tradition that has endured — and had them meet informally at a rural retreat.

It was a great breakthrough in the tradition of international summitry. Instead of tediously formal meetings between two leaders foreshadowed by months or years of lower-level negotiations, now leaders could pal around with 20 of their counterparts, splitting off for one-on-one meetings with whomever they chose.

It's not clear that anyone has a complete accounting of which heads of state met with which other heads of state in these circumstances, but no doubt a lot of valuable business is accomplished with a minimum of hassle.

But what about the original trade agenda that brought APEC into being? No doubt there was much discussion among trade ministers in Shanghai of continuing initiatives to lower trade barriers, to prevent such disasters as the 1997 Asian currency crisis, and the drag on the region of Japan's inability to shake off its economic doldrums.

Overshadowed as it was by the showier gathering of heads of state, however, that business is still awaiting complete reporting and careful analysis. Though it sounds dull by comparison, it will eventually make a pronounced difference in standards of living globally.