The test of any institution is its response to crisis. By that benchmark the annual meeting of leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum is found wanting. This year the 21 assembled grandees, whose countries represent more than 50 percent of global wealth, vowed to "act quickly and decisively" to battle the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Substance, however, was lacking. For the most part, they merely backed the decisions of the Group of 20, a similar group of nations — whose membership overlaps substantially with that of APEC — that met recently in Washington and outlined a real response to the crisis. That raises a fundamental question: Should we spend our time and money on an APEC cheerleader?
Spanning both sides of the Pacific Ocean with members that include some of the world's richest nations and some of the poorest, as well as some of the largest and smallest economies on the globe, finding APEC's lowest common denominator has always risked settling for too little. Members are torn between competing missions: pushing aggressive plans for the region (such as an Asia-Pacific Free Trade Agreement) or promoting low-level capacity building programs. More recently, a new divide has emerged between governments that promote a more security-focused agenda (chief proponent of this view has been U.S. President George W. Bush) and those that want to get back to basics such as trade and economic policy.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.