APEC came into being in late 1980 when Japan proposed the formation of a regionwide consultative group that would provide technical cooperation on trade and investment matters, along the line of OECD. Early in the 1990s, Australia, long a European outpost in Asia, joined APEC, prompted by fear of economic isolation and dissatisfaction with trade and economic treatment from her home country. The United State, following Australia's heel, change Japan's idea of a loose consultative body towards a formal free trade area, a vision enshrined in the 1994 APEC declaration in Bogor, Indonesia. In the subsequent 1995 summit in Osaka, Japan used the tradition of host country influence to redeclare that any trade liberalization would be voluntary. flexible and non-binding. The 1996 summit in Subic Bay, the Philippines, was a non-event that officially anointed thehost country as the latest "tiger". By then, Asia was a shrinking economic forest, where there are more tigers than food supply. The 1997 Vancouver summit produced an agreement on "early voluntary sector liberalization" (EVSL) in 15 "priority" sectors that no one really intended to follow through. The 15 have since been narrowed to 9: chemicals, energy, environment, fish, forestry, gem and jewelry, medical equipment, telecom MRA (mutual recognition agreement), toys, of which fish and forestry are political suicide issues in Japanese domestic politics. Vancouver was mainly an one act play where the US/IMF lectured Asian economies on the deterministic results of Asian values.
APEC is an interesting window on the politics of international trade. ASEAN see it an a rival to the Asean Free Trade Area. Japan wants APEC to provide respectability to voluntarism. The US wants a collective vehicle where her threats of unilateral trade action, coupled with trade /investment preconditions demanded by IMF program on battered individual Asian countries, can have a regional impact. The main American message, as stated by US Ambassador to Apec, John Wolf on October 19 to PBEC Conference in LA: "the whole system is threatened when individual countries try the path of financial autarchy". Translation, capital flow control is a no-no. The second American point: "Before financial reform ..... further (Asian) market opening and liberalization are important". Back to the WTO where the US holds a veto vote.
The real target is Japan: clean up bank mess, deregulate economy and open markets. Above all, pay for US proposals for solving the Asian crises with Japanese money. To which the Japanese, who culturally have more difficulty expressing disagreement than maintaining disagreement, answer: "Yes, we will do what we will do." What is America will to do for Asia? The answer as provided by Wolf: "We are continuing to grow and take monetary and fiscal steps the ensure that growth path is sustained". In other word, no new deal, the same trickling down policy on an international scale. We all remember what John Galbreath said about trickling down: When you feed the horse enough oats, the sparrows will eventually benefit.
As for Gore, it was not even his speech. He was reading the speech written for Clinton. But it became Gore kick-off speech for the next election, like Nixon's kitchen debate in Moscow. The speech got uniformly bad reception all over Asia, even among America's traditional allies, like Australia, who while not openly critical, embarrassingly looked down at her shoes. I think Rob Schaap is right on point.
To pms:
I am now living in NY although I keep contact with China. The NYTimes report on Western drugs (Nov. 19) by Rosenthal that you referred to is reasonably accurate. There is a related report the very next day on smoking in China by the Rosenthal and Altman that is even more disturbing. As frequently s the case, the NYTimes has an agenda of its own on China. The aggressive liberal politics of the NYTimes aims to curb extreme abuse as a trade-off for open markets. It is a reformist strategy for China to further open its drug market and tobacco market. The high price of drugs is an American phenomenon. Anyone who has bought medicine in Europe knows that European drugs are much cheaper. Aslo, the over medication, particularly with anti-biotics, of the third world has been well documented, with bio-feedback adversities on the whole globe. By the way, thanks for the kind words.
Henry C.K. Liu
Rob Schaap wrote:
> G'day Paula,
>
> >Does anyone know if any of Gore's remarks were about the people in the
> >streets railing against the "bosses"? Or was it a complete sham, focusing
> >only on the one guy, who is probably not the hero of those people, since,
> >from what iI understand, he was a real cheerleader for neo-liberalism.
> >Anybody got a clue on the real nitty-gritty.
>
> Put me down as one who reckons he was merely bemoaning Mahathir's currency
> controls - if it transpires (over the rather scary months that confront the
> world) that Malaysia is now better protected against some new hot-money
> exodus than are those countries who have not moved to protect themselves -
> well, it might start something not at all in keeping with our betters'
> globalism prescriptions, eh?
>
> And Anwar is a much more reliable neo-liberal globalist than that suddenly
> nasty ol' tyrant Mahathir ...
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.