& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

_Steep Road to Osaka
Issues that the Bogor APEC summit brushed over may come back to haunt Asia-Pacific leaders when they meet in Japan later this year. Martin Khor reports for Inter Press Service from Penang, Malaysia 'THE next summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum is still a seven months away, but member-countries are already scrambling to prepare for it.
This is because the specifics of a free trade plan struck in Bogor, Indonesia last November are expected to be hammered out at this year's summit in Osaka, and analysts predict clashes between one side led by .the United States and the other headed by Malaysia.
Part of the problem is that most APEC economies have hardly had the time to do the sophisticated task of calculating the pluses and minuses of trade liberalisation — especially since the 'region' within which this process will take place includes developed economies such as that of Japan and the United States. . A
And now there axSrising fears among analystirand activists in APEC developing economies that there woiild be moves in Osaka to extend 'free trade' to 'free trade area’; and 'non-binding' commitment to 'legally binding' agreement.
APEC groups together Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore, the -Philippines, Thailand, Mexico, Chile,
Paupa New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada.
Last November, the leaders of the 18 APEC member economies meeting in Bogor adopted a declaration calling for the establishment of free trade among themselves by the year 2010 for developed nations and 2020 for developing countries.
At the meeting, the United States played the most active role in pushing for a free trade area to be set up. and for liberalisation of trade,, services and investments.
But some of the developing countries led by Malaysia were alarmed by the rapid rate at which APEC was being institutionalised and being moved along the road toward a free trade area.
■ At Malaysia's insistence, the Bogor Declaration included an annex that said the target dates for liberalisation were not legally binding. Kuala Lumpur has argued that trade liberalisation should be done unilaterally, commensurate with each country's development level and capacity.
In the last few months, however, the United States has proved to be as tenacious
as Malaysia regarding its slance on where APEC should be headed.
At a World Net dialogue session in February in Kuala Lumpur, the US coordinator for APEC, Sandra Kristoff, made it clear her country will push hard for the acceptance of the liberalisation datelines.
She said Washington's understanding of the Bogor Declaration was that the forthcoming Osaka meeting should haVe an ambitious and bold action agenda to speedily launch the free trade plan.
"We have to be bold," Kristoff said. "While we agree that the agenda for trade liberalisation must be balanced, we cannot mistake balance with timidness. (The year) 2010 is our goal. Some nations may need longer and can take until 2020."
She added that this 15-25 year period allowed plenty of
room for pragmatism".
But to many analysts, the pace of APEC’s progression itself has been astonishing. Initiated by Australia, the grouping started in the late 1980s supposedly as ah informal and unstructured gathering of economies.
By 1993, leaders of the member-economies gathered in Seattle for the forum's first summit. Months after, a report by APEC's Eminent Persons Group had a proposal for a free trade area in the Asia-Pacific.
The Bogor Declaration deliberately left out details due to the reservations of countries like Malaysia and China.
The implications for the developing economies within APEC are enormous, especially since the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) expanded the concept of free trade to in-
JIude not only trade in manu-actures. but also in agriculture and services.
It now also covers the granting of intellectual property pratection to transnational companies, a measure that many activists say is protectionist and goes counter to the principle of liberalisation. —
Analysts point out that countries like the United States already have instruments that they use to attain extra trade concessions.
One example of these measures is the so-called Super 301 that the United States has either applied or threatened to use on countries such as China, Thailand, India, Brazil and even Japan, all of which Washington deemed to have inadequately complied with the requirements of US firms.
Indeed, there lurks a suspicion that APEC may be used to get Asian countries to make concessions in trade, services, investments ana intellectual property, beyond those made through the Uruguay Round.
Some Asian governments are also wary that Washington as keen to get
APEC off the ground as a regional free trade arrangement and be a counterweight to the European Union, which is currently the largest and most powerful regional economic bloc
Some analysts say the APEC process can be seen as Saraliel to how Washington rought the Americas into its orbit.
First, there was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) This led to a larger liberalisation process involving almost all South American countries, whose leaders attended a summit with US President Bill Clinton at Miami last December.
APEC, experts argue, would bring the Asia-pacific countries concerned closer to the US circuit, thus giving US firms a headstart over
the United States scoffs at such charges, and Kristoff during the World Net dialogue denied that the United States was trying to push APEC to move faster than any of its members could handle. • .
She told a panel that included representatives from Malaysia, Japan and South Korea: "Nothing in the US posture suggests we are trying to take NAFTA and ex tending it westward across the Pacific.