• 
• 

Published on September 10, 2007

When 21 leaders from the world's most dynamic economies met in Sydney, one could easily spot who the real mover and shaker among them was. Currently, it is the presence of China in any forum that commands news media headlines and numerous reports. What China thinks and says are just as important as what comes from the United States these days, if not more so. This has been the case in Sydney over the past few days. It used to be that what the leader of the US said was what would count the most. That is no longer. Now, the Chinese are countering with their own opinions and quite frequently China's words can stand on their own.

Let us take the debate over climate change as an example. China was not afraid to go against proposals that the country be tied to reducing its "energy intensity" - the amount of energy required to create a unit of economic growth - while other countries were too timid to take any such stance. Like Australia, the US is not willing to comply with international demands that it reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and both have failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on curbing emissions. Yet despite this they are asking other countries to cut emissions, which is bound to be a hard sell.

China has dominated the Apec forum because of its growing influence all over the world since joining the World Trade Organisation. Bilateral meetings among the world's most powerful leaders are now a common feature of Apec. Indeed, this is the real incentive that encourages international leaders to come and attend this function.

One need only look this time round at what the Apec leaders have agreed to or achieved in trade liberalisation, which was the original objective of the grouping. With countries from four continents, Apec must continue to support trade liberalisation and ongoing open negotiations on a more open trading system. But since September 11, 2001, the agenda of Apec has been changed to also focus on common security threats, especially those emanating from terrorism. This new orientation is increasingly determining the direction of the grouping.

The meeting between US President George W Bush and seven leaders of Asean nations also made headlines. While Bush was more positive on North Korea's de-nuclearisation programme, he was very tough on the political crisis currently taking place in Burma. He was able to be critical because the leaders of the Burmese junta were not in attendance at the Apec meeting. Burma, Laos and Cambodia are non-Apec members of Asean.

After decades of recalcitrance, Asean is now getting its act together and speaking as one voice. In the past, Asean has failed to form any consensus for fear of jeopardising the grouping's position. However, as time has elapsed, Asean has changed. It feels more comfortable because it has Asian economic powerhouses engaging with it in the Asean plus three grouping, and the East Asian Summit. Asean used to be unhappy with Apec because it feared that Apec's liberalisation moves would impact on them and render Asean irrelevant. That has not been the case. Now, as Asean moves towards greater all round integration in the coming years ahead of Apec's overall plans, the grouping has become more confident. As long as Asean moves faster in unison than Apec, it will remain robust.

As in the past, the Apec forum has set the themes for discussion at the forthcoming Asean summit in November in Singapore. The environment will be high on the agenda and an agreement on climate change would resonate well at the Asean meeting this time. The host country, Singapore, has already said that Asean should do more on the environment. Asean has agreed on several agreements on cooperation on environmental issues but when it comes to implementing these plans, the spirit of the grouping has fallen short. In addition, Asean must also take a common position at the upcoming meeting in Bali, Indonesia under the auspices of the UN. Asean can contribute to the effort to curb gas emissions at this point in time.