Worthy noises conceal delays

Is Apec back on track, or is the trade talkfest merely hot air? Political editor JOHN ARMSTRONG looks at this week's Trade Ministers' meeting in Auckland.

"A wonderful mood." "You could not get a more cohesive, friendly bunch of ministers." "Apec's now back on track with a full head of steam ..."

Beneath the relentless spin from the loquacious Lockwood Smith lurks one question - has New Zealand's trade minister really restored momentum to Apec after last year's dummy-spitting in Kuala Lumpur?

The American delegation at this week's trade ministers meeting complimented the chairman on having a grin "that can light up the darkest of rooms".

But Dr Smith can sometimes let his enthusiasm get the better of him, leading him into the trap of claiming victory in defeat.

He did that at the last Apec summit in Malaysia, where everyone could see the Japanese had put the kybosh on faster tariff cuts on fish and forest products - two of New Zealand's main exports.

That disagreement was shunted off to the Geneva-based World Trade Organisation, which will start the so-called "millennium round" of trade talks in Seattle this year.

The dispute placed a big query over Apec's relevance, particularly as the 21-member Pacific Rim bloc appeared to fragment in the face of its first real crisis, the Asian financial turmoil.

When the going got tough, the problem was packed off to Geneva. Cynics say the same thing happened in Auckland this week.

Getting momentum on a list of products known as the "back six" - oilseeds, food, rubber, fertiliser, civil aircraft and automobiles -was always going to be tricky after Kuala Lumpur, and plenty of pre-meeting mumblings were heard from countries reluctant to accelerate tariff cuts.

Once again, the problem was dispatched to the WTO.

Apec trade ministers agreed - and this is being hyped as the week's coup - to embrace all such "industrials" in the WTO round rather than stick to the existing agriculture and services agenda.

The ministers also imposed a three-year deadline on a completing the new round. Some deadline. The last negotiating round began in the mid-1980s and took seven years. The new one will require more haggling and more trade-offs.

In short, the trade ministers made worthy noises; the nitty-gritty has been postponed to another day.

Free trade optimists would argue "so what." Long term, New Zealand stands to gain the most from lowering protectionist barriers because it faces higher average tariffs on its main exports. Even better, the definition of "industrials" includes fish and forest products.

Getting half the world's economy -- Apec's membership - to agree on the broad scope of the talks should provide the weight to push things through the WTO labyrinth. And what happens at the WTO is binding on its 130-plus members, while Apec's goals are voluntary.

The cynics say all this pre-Seattle positioning would have happened without Apec, because the WTO is now where the action will be.

And the wording of last night's communique was weak compared to the pro-liberalisation language New Zealand uses when it speaks for itself.

Long-time Apec watcher Philip Burdon, who gave ministers a hurry up during a session with business leaders, summed it up: "The jury's out."

But officials will leave Auckland happy their careful pre-meeting diplomacy produced a more co-operative mood, clearing the air after Kuala Lumpur and getting the mood right for the far more important leaders' summit, now only 11 weeks away.

Kuala Lumpur did another thing - it shook Apec's complacency. Ministers realise they must do a much better job of selling the benefits of trade liberalisation, particularly when recession hits.

Politicians find the mantra of "trade means jobs and trade liberalisation means extra jobs" doesn't resonate when existing jobs are under threat.

"Perceptions about liberalisation are often distorted because the substantial benefits of liberalisation are widely dispersed whereas the adjustment costs are localised and more visible," ministers admitted in their communique.

The communique amazingly then pleads for the elimination of jargon - the curse of all complicated trade negotiations - and suggests Apec's communication efforts should "focus on things directly relevant to people's experience".

Such language has not been heard before. The need for plain talking was stressed by Australia's irrepressible Tim Fischer, who cited the mouth-watering example of the "Filipino coconut pie."

Delegates licked their lips at his description of this taste sensation, imports of which posed a threat to Australian confectioners.

The point of his story was that the pies were pumped full of export sugar from Queensland's cane farms. It was win-win for Australia's consumers and producers.

But he warned that free-trade advocates struggled to win the trade liberalisation war when "every radio talk-back jockey from Dallas to Darwin" is beating a protectionist drum.

Neither does it help when the United States, a supposedly-ardent free trade advocate, imposes tariffs on other free-traders, to the point of snubbing an Australian and New Zealand financial offer to expand the tiny north American lamb market to everyone's advantage.

But are openness and "transparency" really possible in Apec deliberations? As one observer noted, the conundrum is that national interest during high-stakes negotiations dictates that countries keep their cards close to their chest for as long as possible.

Last night's end-of meeting press conference was evidence of that. The effusive Dr Smith, his country having already cut tariffs to the bone, said a lot.

His Apec colleagues, notably the Japanese and Chinese ministers, said very little.