APEC 2007 in Australia’s largest city of Sydney has been a major spectacle. The 21 leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) were entertained, amused, schmoozed and protected during what Prime Minster John Howard described as the most important international meeting to be held in Australia.

Parts of central Sydney became an exclusion zone with the highest levels of security Australia has seen. Many locals took advantage of a local public holiday to leave the city for the final days of the summit, while protesters held a largely peaceful rally and march on Saturday.

The annual unveiling of the APEC outfit is always a talking point. This year, an Australian Drizabone coat was presented to each of the leaders with their choice of trim in colours described as red ochre, mustard yellow and eucalyptus green, shades not often seen on outback cattlemen.

At the business end of the summit, outcomes included the Sydney Declaration on climate change, a new security alliance between Australia and the US and a range of major trade agreements for Australia with China and Russia.

However, analysts and newspaper columnists are divided on whether APEC has been a success. Helen Vatsikopoulos sought the opinions of Nick Rowley, a former senior adviser to the Blair Government on climate change, Allan Gyngell, executive director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, and Mike Moore, a former New Zealand Prime Minister.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Mike Moore in Auckland, and in Sydney, Nick Rowley and Allan Gyngell, welcome.

Allan Gyngell, let me begin with you. Now you were involved with APEC at the very, very beginning, and a couple of years ago you wrote that it was in danger of being on the brink of a terminal irrelevance. Now has it redeemed itself and more since?

Allan Gyngell, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: Now I'm not sure I would say and more, but I do think it's taken a couple of steps back from the edge and regained some of its balance. And that's been good. A number of the things, which I pointed to a couple of years ago, have been rectified. There's been some efforts at internal reform, the decision I think has been taken not to expand the organisation more than it can accommodate. So some good things have happened, but there's still a long way to go.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Now, Mike Moore, we're probably a little bit too close here in Sydney. But with the benefit of distance, can you tell us what is the view from Auckland? I mean, how is this APEC summit being covered? Has it rated a significant mention?

”…the comedians who broke the security, that's the big story!" – Mike Moore

Mike Moore, Former New Zealand Prime Minister: Oh, yes, good coverage, particularly the comedians who broke the security, that's the big story! At any of these things, it's the work in the corridors that matters to try and move things along. And you get the communiqués following the appalling European concept of constructive ambiguity. That is, they mean they're so broad that everybody can go home and say they won. That in itself is not entirely bad. You don't want a meeting to break up and for people to walk out and entrench their positions. You gradually edge them through. So I think it's entirely appropriate what they're doing.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Well, Nick Rowley, you've worked with Tony Blair, you've advised him on his climate change initiatives. Now you've lived here long enough to know John Howard's history on climate change. Tell me, what's your assessment of his wholehearted embrace of this initiative at this forum, here, putting it at the top of the agenda?

”…any meeting of major global powers has to be focused on the global climate problem.” – Nick Rowley

Nick Rowley, Climate Change Consultant: Well, Helen, I would firstly say that I think it's a really good thing. I think any meeting of major global powers has to be focused on the global climate problem. To me, it is the most challenging and most important international issue that they should be focusing on. So that's a good thing.

The challenge, though, for John Howard is that he spent the last 10 years really saying and acting small in relation to this problem. About two years ago a day didn't go by where you didn't hear a member of the cabinet saying China is growing like topsy, we're under two per cent of global emissions and then, therefore, nothing. Now, coming into the meeting, he suddenly wants to actually be big. He wants to say, "Well, we can be part of framing a post Kyoto arrangement".

And I think looking at the draft, as I just have, of the Sydney Declaration, we haven't come close to that. And I think it just shows that you can't, in international geopolitics, be small and then suddenly decide that you want to be big.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Well, Allan Gyngell, a triumph or a failure for John Howard?

”…the climate change declaration was oversold in the beginning.” – Allan Gyngell

Allan Gyngell: Look, if I was the APEC supremo, I would do two things. I would declare a ban on statements named after the city in which the meeting was being held and I'd also ban colourful costumes, because I think both those things deflect from the broad process which APEC is and which Mike Moore alluded to before.

So having said that, I thought that the climate change declaration was oversold in the beginning and, therefore, hasn't lived up to the expectations that people began to develop for it. But, nevertheless, I think that it does help incrementally move the process along by getting the same sort of focus on climate change that we've had on the value of free trade.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: But how much does it move it forward, Nick Rowley? Because we're talking about aspirational goals without targets, taking into account national circumstances. Now, this is a one size fits all, isn't it?

”…we've got to ask some really quite serious questions as to how serious this statement really is.” – Nick Rowley

Nick Rowley: Well, you know, whenever you aim to do something and then you clothe that in various conditional words, you've got to ask some questions as to how serious the intent really is. There are plenty of people who have aspirational goals or targets to give up smoking. And the moment they say that you ask them some questions as to how they're going to go about doing it. If you ask really serious questions about how it is that the APEC countries are going to actually go about hitting some of these aspirational targets, really, the page is blank.

So I think we've got to ask some really quite serious questions as to how serious this statement really is. But the fact that it is on the agenda is not a bad thing. It does help build the momentum to other meetings, the most important meetings of course being under the auspices of the United Nations.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Mike Moore, is it worthwhile? Because, of course, Kyoto was always going to expire and something was going to have to replace it. Is this a good starting point for the other meetings that will follow?

”I'm quite bullish about the whole thing because conservation is another word for efficiency.” – Mike Moore

Mike Moore: They're all good starting points, but you cannot expect, with the best will in the world, even if Paul Keating and I were leading it, that you'd lock this up and determine what a domestic economy will do. You can only edge the process through. And I'm quite bullish about the whole thing because conservation is another word for efficiency.

If you have a look at the Chinese economy, for each unit they're pulling out a GDP they consume nine times more energy than Japan, and many times more than the United States. When we start seeing true costs of energy being put in, I think you will see a remarkable response. All this is good.

I mean, and it builds up and people get to know each other. And in the end, countries will have to find their own mechanisms, but Kyoto does not have a binding dispute settlement. Any agreement you have is the best you can do at the time. Any agreement is yesterday's compromise. So I think it's a good step, but anyone who thought there'd be a flash of lightning and somehow Moses would come down with 12 concrete points that would automatically bind some of the biggest economies in the world, was smoking strange tobacco.

Nick Rowley: Well, one of those people smoking strange tobacco was Alexander Downer, of course, who said earlier this year that this was going to be the most important international meeting on this problem since the Rio Earth summit. So, I take...

IMike Moore: I don't want to get political (laughs). They’re all important meetings, otherwise leaders wouldn't go to them.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Well, exactly. But what do you think would have happened behind the scenes? Because developing countries like China and Indonesia definitely opposed any binding targets. So was there ever going to be any progress, I mean, the sort of agreement that perhaps, Nick, you would've been happy with?

Nick Rowley: Well, look, I think one of the very positive things in the statement is it does mention an area of activity that does need to occur if we're going to tackle the problem, which has received scant attention until now. And it was one of the things revealed in the Stern review into economics and climate change - the critical importance of deforestation.

A lot of the deforestation going on does go on in the areas where, or does go on in APEC nations. So the fact that there is quite a clear statement about the importance of deforestation and what the APEC countries are going to do in relation to that is a really positive thing. And I think if that helps build momentum around that particular element of what could be included in a global treaty, which is what we need to tackle the global problem, then that, I agree with Mike, is evidence of a positive step forward.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Well, Mike Moore, there is a reference there somewhere to nuclear power being a necessary part of the fight against climate change for those who choose that direction. Now, I wonder what Helen Clark would have made of that, and also coming after Australia signing this huge deal with Russia?

”New Zealand will become nuclear when the Vatican accepts abortion, probably later.” – Mike Moore

Mike Moore: I think it says what it says. I think it's good language for everybody - nuclear energy for those countries, which choose to do so. I mean, you can hardly force countries to become nuclear. As I said, New Zealand will become nuclear when the Vatican accepts abortion, probably later. But that's for us to move. 80 per cent of electricity generated in France, 40 per cent in Finland. 40 per cent in Switzerland is nuclear. They can make those decisions. That's up to them.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Mike Moore, I want to move on to trade while we've got you there as the former head of the WTO. Is it too soon to coin the phrase "dead as Doha"?

Mike Moore: No. Yes, it is. Of course it is. No trade round has ever failed and none have ever failed not to disappoint. The process is going on and they will come out with best endeavours, calling on everyone else to be flexible, and that's appropriate ambiguous language. And that's what you'd expect.

But, meanwhile, hopefully the negotiators are getting different and more firm signals sent to capitals. I was at an APEC meeting as Director General and we came out with these broad statements and then I got to Geneva, I found many of the ambassadors arguing about what was in the statement saying that was APEC, not the WTO, which the words did not say.

But again, I won't burst into tears because it isn't that specific. It's pushing the process forward, which is important. I'm disappointed we haven't locked the round up, but it's work in progress. And now we come into politics and our political seasons in the United States, political seasons in India etc. But do not expect APEC to be able to specifically change anything just yet. They will have to give separate instructions, and that will come in a different way, but it's good they're talking about it and it's good they're pushing it.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Allan Gyngell, we have been reminded here that the E in APEC stands for Economic and not environment, but it seems like it's the environment that's going to come out trumps during this APEC?

”Some of the work that APEC does, which will never hit the headlines, ….has made a real contribution.” – Allan Gyngell

Allan Gyngell: Well, I think... Look, I agree fully with Mike. I think one of the things that APEC has done over the years has simply been to keep the countries of this region focused on the values of free and open trade and the way in which that's helped reduce poverty. So the individual communiqués may not mean very much, but every time you get the leaders sitting around a table and signing these documents and talking to each other about what's happened in their own economies, and some of the work that APEC does which will never hit the headlines in technology, transfer of intellectual property, ways of doing things, I think it has made a real contribution.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Allan Gyngell, I want to move on to security. Now we have seen in the last few days, China decide to hold annual security talks with Australia. And of course there's the trilateral meeting between Australia, Japan and the US. No doubt they talked about the rise of China's military. How is John Howard, how is Australia going to be able to balance this in the future and be true to both parties?

Allan Gyngell: Well, it's going to be the most difficult problem for us, I think. Just this month a very important thing happened in Australian history. For the first time our major trading partner was a country, China, which was not either our major strategic partner or an ally of our major strategic partner as Britain and then Japan had been. This is going to pose new problems for us and we've got to work it very skilfully. And that's been one of the things that's been apparent in the way in which both John Howard and Kevin Rudd have tried to handle the week.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: But do you think there should have been more of a focus on security and perhaps attempts to defuse the tensions in north Asia? This is what former Prime Minister Paul Keating said was the problem with APEC, that it didn't embrace security issues much more?

”China is reluctant to embrace the old fashioned security debates, which we very much need to have.” – Allan Gyngell

Allan Gyngell: It is a huge problem and something needs to be done to address it. I, myself, don't think that APEC is the best forum for doing that because of the presence, as Mike was saying, of Taiwan and Hong Kong, which are very useful in a trade sense, but mean that China is reluctant to embrace the old fashioned security debates, which we very much need to have.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Let's look at APEC so far. Would you say, on the whole it has been a success and then how do you gauge that? Mike Moore?

Mike Moore: Well, just getting the leaders together is a successful effort. It is rather important that President Putin manages in the corridors and other places to talk to various people. Obviously issues such as North Korea will come up at certain times out of Canberra, and these sorts of things happen.

”It's disrespectful and condescending ever to think we'll have one way of doing this.” – Mike Moore

So all these meetings are important. There's a terrible cost of not having them. So, you know, I think it's moved on. For me, I'd love them to say, "Let's implement the Doha round and back date it five years because of lost time." For me, I'd like to see a carbon tax, an energy tax across the board, implementable, blah, blah. That is not how the world works. There is not one political community. It's disrespectful and condescending ever to think we'll have one way of doing this.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: Allan Gyngell, has it been a success, you've been following it from the very beginning?

Allan Gyngell: It's important to remember what things were like before. Before APEC, the countries of this region, this critically important region as a global economy, didn't have a forum within which they could talk to each other. The leaders of China and Japan could not meet as they have met this week.

”APEC provides a speed dating facility for heads of Government.” – Allan Gyngell

APEC provides a speed dating facility for heads of Government. It's really, you know, terribly important to allow them in an easy, informal way, once a year, to discuss things with each other. So it's been very good at that. I think it is also, as I said before, kept the region committed to the values of a free and open economy. Now I think that's going to be more important as we see signs of protectionism emerging in developed countries. I also think it's been remarkably good at transferring information between the developed and the developing economies.

Nick Rowley: I would pick you up in terms of maybe the way in which one looks at judging success or otherwise of the meeting is to think there is a clear distinction between the environmental, the economic and the security concerns. I wish in climate change you were just dealing with a classic environmental problem. Sadly, I don't think that's true. I think if you look at the Stern review, you realise if the economies don't successfully tackle climate change, there are going to be severe economic consequences, and indeed some of the very good work that Alan has initiated at Lowy Institute also tells us if you fail to tackle the climate problems, there are some very, very serious security implications for the region as well.

Helen Vatsikopoulos: I'm afraid we have to leave it there. Thank you very much, Mike Moore in Auckland, thank you in Sydney, Nick Rowley, and Allan Gyngell, thank you.