>
The APEC and TPPA
 summits in Bali recently showed the winds of change are blowing in the 
region, symbolised by the US President’s absence but also reflecting the
 aptness or otherwise of policies.
THE winds of change are blowing, bringing shifts in perceived wisdom and the old order, especially in the Asian region.
The recent APEC summit and associated meetings in Bali were marked not so much by results but by perceptions.
In fact, the lack of results, rather than results, was the main 
story. This lack was not so much in the APEC itself, but in the Trans 
Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).
The leaders of TPPA countries met in a separate venue away from the 
APEC summit. The Indonesians were the host of APEC and not the TPPA, 
which they are not involved in, and were unhappy that the TPPA 
threatened to take away the limelight from the main event.
But that was the secondary story. The main news was that United 
States President Barrack Obama had to give a miss not only to his 
scheduled visits to Malaysia and Indonesia, but to the APEC summit 
itself.
This was damaging to the United States, symbolically and in practical
 terms. Obama could not be blamed personally, as everyone knows the 
problems he faces at home with the onset of the “government shutdown” 
and the looming debt-ceiling crisis.
The problem was deeper. Obama’s absence confirmed the already growing
 perception in the region and the world that there is a dysfunctional 
governance system in the United States, at least for the moment, and it 
is becoming a long moment.
Sympathy outside the United States lies with the President, a 
sympathy tinged with pity for a legitimate leader confronted with the 
fringe (but a powerful fringe) of the opposition party that refuses to 
accept his healthcare reform bill that has come into law, and which is 
willing to damage the operations of the administration and apparently 
even the country’s financial creditworthiness to achieve its ideological
 objective.
Every democratic country has its moments of clashes between governing
 and opposition parties, and sometimes it can paralyse the country until
 the crisis is resolved, one way or other.
But here we are talking about the United States, the world’s most 
powerful country, and the greatest advocate of democracy. What happens 
in the United States has ramifications for the rest of the world.
Suddenly the unthinkable becomes a reality – the partial government 
shutdown – and a possibility: a default on loans, with disastrous 
effects on the world economy.
The crisis emerging from the present configuration of the division of
 powers between executive and legislative wings of government – a major 
pillar of Western democracy – calls into question how stable that system
 really is and what can be done if the paralysis lasts more than just a 
passing moment.
The lack of clear results in the TPPA leaders’ meeting in Bali is 
partly attributed to the absence of Obama, since the President had been 
assigned the role of galvanising the other leaders to meet the aim of 
concluding the talks by year-end.
In the end the leaders’ statement merely said the negotiations are on
 track, but did not mention they would finish by December. The growing 
perceptions is that the TPPA talks are facing turbulence.
Obama’s absence cannot really be blamed for that. Instead, the TPPA 
meetings of ministers and then political leaders only confirmed what has
 been known in recent months, that the TPPA agenda has been overloaded 
with too many issues and by too many demands, especially by the United 
States, that are too extreme for other countries to simply accept.
According to reports, most of the TPPA countries cannot agree to the 
US demands on intellectual property that go far beyond the WTO rules.
Several countries have problems with various other issues, including environment, investment and competition.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak was the most outspoken. At 
an APEC side event, he said the TPPA’s year-end timeline is not cast in 
stone and asked that more flexibilities be given to countries.
“We do have a few areas of great concern,” he said, adding: “As you 
go into areas of intellectual property , investor-state dispute 
settlement, government procurement, state-owned enterprises, environment
 and labour, you impinge on fundamentally the sovereign right of the 
country to make regulation and policy. That is a tricky part and that is
 why we ask for flexibility.”
These comments by the Prime Minister summarise succinctly the “agenda overload” problem in the TPPA negotiations.
The areas that are trumpeted by the United States as a set of 21st 
century issues that make the TPPA a trail-blazer may turn out not to be 
so first-class after all.
Instead, they make some politicians, officials and parliamentarians 
uncomfortable, and many public-interest NGOs and business 
representatives, very unhappy.
The APEC summit and the TPPA meetings in the sidelines gave the big 
perception that US leadership is in question if not in decline in the 
region and the big talk was the corresponding rise of China, whose 
President’s presence and performance was the reverse mirror image of 
Obama’s absence.
But it is not only the contrasts in relative presence and economic 
and political power that counts. In the end it is also the content of 
policies advocated and the willingness to be genuine partners, and not 
to make use of new pacts and treaties to benefit one’s own country or 
interests, at the expense of others.

Contributed by Global Trends Martin Khor 
> The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.
Related posts:
1. A PEC should lead a more open world economy &  play a bigger role: Reform and Innovation are new drivers, Prisident Xi Said