THE PACIFIC SUMMIT : Interview : APEC Chief Sees ‘Central Role’ for U.S.

William Bodde Jr., executive director of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization’s secretariat and a former U.S. ambassador, reflected on APEC’s role last week in Singapore. He was interviewed by Charles P. Wallace, Times Southeast Asia correspondent.

Question: Explain to a layman in Orange County why APEC is important to the United States.

Answer: I think APEC is important because the Asia-Pacific area is important to the economic future of the United States. You have in APEC and in this region two or three of the largest economies; you have combined GNP of $14 trillion. It’s going to determine our economic future. We’re important to the area as a market; they’re important to us as a market. They are important to us for investment; we’re a major investor in Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong.

*

Q: Where does the APEC organization play a role in all this?

A: The organization plays a role because it contains 15 member economies. It anchors the U.S. in the area. . . . I think it is very important that the U.S. play a central role.

Four years ago, the first post-Cold War economic institution was born--APEC. I think it has taken a while for it to make itself clear, but I think you are seeing the change in focus and emphasis in U.S. foreign policy, from the centrality of European security concerns to Asian economic concerns.

How we can compete in the world, how we deal in the 21st Century--the Pacific Century--will be very crucial.

*

Q: Is there an ideal number of APEC members or should every Asia-Pacific country be a potential member?

A: I don’t know that there is an ideal number. I think everyone agrees, whatever happens in Seattle, we may very well take in Mexico. I don’t know about Chile--I’m not sure there’s a consensus for Chile.

But everybody, I think, feels that then there ought to be a pause for consolidation. If you keep adding new economies, it makes it very hard to get yourself straightened out.

On the other hand, if you look toward the future, you have to figure Russia, Vietnam and economies like that will be important players in the Asia-Pacific region so therefore are natural candidates in the future to be part of APEC.

*

Q: Do you think it is true, as the United States suggested recently, that APEC will move quickly to a free trade area?

A: Obviously, how fast and how far APEC moves, at least to some large degree, depends on what is happening to the global trading system. . . .

Should the Uruguay Round (of talks on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) fail, I think there would be great interest in finding some way to salvage the global trading system, or what they could of it, and using APEC as the vehicle.

Everybody in APEC . . . (has) benefited from the global trading system. So I don’t think anybody is looking for a trade bloc. Whether it evolves into a free trade area or not, I think everyone agrees that will take some considerable amount of time. . . .

But I think what evolves out here is liable to be more informal, looser, less rule-driven, less regulation-driven than certainly the European Community or probably even NAFTA.

I think because this region and these economies are trade-driven, and entrepreneurial-driven, what evolves will be a looser kind of grouping. . . . I know it isn’t going to look like the European Community, where you set rules and regulations for everything.

*

Q: What happens to APEC if NAFTA fails?

A: I think the biggest danger should NAFTA fail is that it will really encourage protectionism in the United States.

When NAFTA first came up on the screen, there was a lot of concern out here. When it looked like NAFTA might be in trouble, some of the people didn’t feel a great sympathy.

But I think they have come to the realization that NAFTA failing will really, really push protectionism. They don’t want that, and they would suffer from it.

I think certainly everybody I’ve talked to in APEC wants to see NAFTA pass in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The worse scenario is that NAFTA goes down the tubes and the Uruguay Round goes down the tubes.

*

Q: What are you looking at as the high points in Seattle?

A: The biggest plus I see is to raise the consciousness of Americans about this part of the world. Washington and New York are still heavily Eurocentric, and the media reflect that.

Having 2,000 media (representatives) in Seattle plus the symbolism of the President hosting the meeting will be a real plus.