"The success of APEC highlights what benefits free trade can bring to developing economies in particular and we again urge the APEC leadership to ensure outcomes are achieved from these WTO negotiations," said Mark Johnson, Chair of the ABAC 2007. ABAC had canvassed APEC member economies on how to improve the flow of trade and investment in the region, including the harmonization of standards so that businesses can export more efficiently, he added during his comments at a press conference.

APEC member economies have long discussed the establishment of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). But economists don't see eye to eye on this issue. Most of them say the FTAAP will benefit the whole region, but some of them insist that now is not the time to do it and that APEC should push forward the Doha Round instead.

C. Fred Bergsten, Director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in the United States, presented an article on this issue, highlighting the benefits of the FTAAP. First, the FTAAP will create much more economic interests in the region than other multilateral agreement or the WTO agreement. Second, it would stimulate the Doha Round and make it successful. Third, if the Doha Round failed, the FTAAP would be considered a "plan B" that would continue free trade in the area. Fourth, the FTAAP would end bilateral free trade agreements that create trade discrimination, trade protectionism and conflicts. Fifth, it would decrease the risk of widening gaps between East Asia and the western hemisphere. And last, it would revive the APEC.

The United States has been very active recently in pushing for the establishment of the FTAAP. Beijing-based Workers' Daily reported that since the United States already has set up the North American Free Trade Agreement, it must turn to the FTAAP to guarantee its leadership in the economic integrity of Asia-Pacific region. If another free trade area were set up in East Asia before the FTAAP was established, and the United States was not a member, the country would lose $25 billion in exports, the report said.

The newspaper report also said that there are difficulties with building the FTAAP. APEC members prefer to establish a free trade area in Asia first, whereas they would all have to agree to establish the FTAAP, which is not possible at this time. Because APEC members are at varying levels of economic development, they have different opinions about the FTAAP, which would affect their economic development on some level. Furthermore, there are more than 20 bilateral trade agreements among APEC member economies, each with different product quality standards. Establishing a common standard for all would be a difficult undertaking.

The report also argued that negotiations on the FTAAP would hinder the continuation of Doha Round, which APEC considers to be its main goal.

The FTAAP could not replace APEC, the Workers' Daily report said. APEC is not only an economic cooperation forum, but also serves as a political and diplomatic platform for its member economies. Since 2001, APEC members also have discussed political security topics, such as antiterrorism, anticorruption and pandemic disease control.

Eighteen Years of APEC APEC was set up in 1989 to further enhance economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and to strengthen its community. The organization's 21 members are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the United States and Viet Nam. Together the member economies comprise about 41 percent of the world's population, 56 percent of world GDP and about 49 percent of world trade. As a group, APEC's GDP in purchasing power parity (PPP) increased three-fold to $37.3 trillion in 2006 from $11.8 trillion in 1989. And its trade with the rest of the world grew to $13.2 trillion in 2006, more than four times what it was in 1989. APEC's Senior Officials Meetings (SOM), chaired by the host economy, are held three or four times a year as run-ups to the APEC ministerial meeting and economic leaders' meeting. At the meetings, designated senior officials from the 21 member economies prepare reports to submit to foreign and trade ministers so that their findings may be implemented. They also oversee and coordinate the budgets and working agendas of each APEC forum. The SOM has four committees on trade and investment (CTI), economic issues (EC), budget and management (BMC) and economic technology sub-committee (ESC). The CTI, started in 1993, focuses primarily on tariffs, non-tariff measures, services, deregulation, dispute mediation, Uruguay Round implementation, investment, customs procedures, standards and conformance, mobility of business people, intellectual property rights, competition policy, government procurement and rules of origin. The EC, set up by APEC ministers in November 1994, examines how to enhance APEC's economic analysis. The BMC, set up in 1993, advises APEC senior officials on budgetary, administrative and managerial issues. It makes recommendations on the budget structure, studies budget requests, drafts the annual APEC budget and examines matters related to APEC's budget. The ESC was established in 1998 to assist the SOM in coordinating and managing APEC's economic technology agenda and to identify useful cooperative initiatives. (Source: Xinhua News Agency)