If ever there was to be a lesson learned from the 2007 APEC Forum it should be that a political leader should never host a conference of this type immediately before an election is due. No doubt Mr. Howard agreed to host the conference at a time when his stocks were much higher and local circumstances were vastly different than is presently the case. Given the change in both favour and circumstances it has turned out to be a total disaster for him and his party.
The Conference itself will be a success in that all the leaders will get to meet each other personally and to confirm positions previously agreed by their bureaucrats. This much is progress.
However, the benefit of holding a Conference such as this in the centre of one of the more dynamic cities in the world has to be questioned. The public disruption to provide the secured area of Sydney must have been costly for tourism and for those people who normally trade or otherwise enjoy the area. In addition, the whole operation came at an obscene cost to the whole of the Australian community.
With the cost exceeding $320 million taxpayer-dollars for the week, much of which was spent on “security”, it was simply a very expensive public relations exercise and one we could well have done without. The $160 million taxpayer-dollars spent directly on security is in itself questionable given the laughable, and embarrassing, result.
There is no doubt that the World’s leaders should get together on a regular basis but to do so in major cities is simply nonsensical. It invites both the opportunity for trouble and, in turn, the enormous costs. Admittedly these conferences need sophisticated communications, meeting facilities, good food and any other number of life’s comforts.
But why not set it up on some remote Island, possibly in the Pacific or Indian Ocean where the essentials could be setup and enhanced from time to time, where there is no traffic and no one on the island to protest. And, whatever small security contingent required could march around the island on a continuous basis, out of the way, and sight of everyone. It could be taken for granted that both the participants and the media would enjoy the swimming, fishing, and the change in climate, for most of them, in a truly relaxed atmosphere.
The Sydney APEC Forum however, for all its cost and inconvenience, made manifestly clear the change that is coming all over the world, and not only in the Pacific Region. It revealed the differences in styles, attitudes and approach to the people of the world by the various World leaders and there were some really outstanding differences.
Of the three major powers involved, the United States, Russia and China there were many differences, some more noticeable than others. The leaders of the other countries who came to notice generally did so through their relationship with the major powers or their host.
George W Bush, the United States President, turned up with an enormous entourage of some 600 minders that must have cost someone a fortune. It would be fair to say that his political emphasis was on the war against terrorism, alliances and to a lesser extent climate change. Iraq was also high on his agenda. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, arrived via Indonesia where he completed a large weapons deal with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, which included fighter jets and submarines. Mr. Putin gives the appearance of being a “no-nonsense” leader and, like the Chinese President spoke as from a position of strength. His significant Australian trade deal was in relation to uranium where he has secured an agreement from the Australian Government to purchase our uranium for peaceful purposes, assuming of course that such is a possibility.
Hu Jintao, the President of China, came to the conference via Western Australia where he talked with both Industry and Government leaders. His emphasis was on trade and particularly resource trade, and he took the time to visit a sheep property in the ACT, as China is the major buyer of Australia’s wool, with a keen interest also taken in Australia’s natural gas. In Sydney he was the quiet “elephant” in the room but there is little doubt that he is a skilful operator and clearly hit it off with Australia’s leader of the Opposition.
The Forum will come and go with its major public achievement being described as “aspirational” recognition of climate change. It will probably be described as the “Sydney Declaration”. The serious and important “one on one” decisions in back rooms, or the private group meetings, will be the unrecognised achievements and of these only one presently causes major concern.
That is the security meeting involving the United States, Japan and Australia. This will need delicate handling as the relationship between Japan and China is outwardly tenuous, and China could easily get the impression that something was going on behind its back, causing some suspicion.
So ultimately we really have to look back and see just what it was that we, or for that matter anyone else, gained from this forum. What we do know is that the final cost will be something in the order of $400 million taxpayer-dollars, and there are in Australia a number of places where that amount of taxpayer dollars could go to greater benefit than a questionable “Sydney Declaration”.
The most immediate use for that amount of money would be for State Governments to spend it on infrastructure such as for quality aged care facilities, hospitals, and University places to train Australian doctors, dentists and nurses, and so prevent the further selling off of the assets of the Australian people such as Queensland’s water and power, New South Wales ferries and railways, just to name a few services Governments are elected to provide!
So when we read about the aspirational “Sydney Declaration” in days to come just think about the obscene costs of the Australian APEC Forum and the concept of intergenerational responsibility.
…………………………………………………………………..
To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…