Now our first big summit is over, what do we do next?

By Terence O'Brien

Throughout the week, the captains and the kings are departing. What are the early lessons of Auckland for Apec and for New Zealand?

A triple coincidence served to create a crisis-ridden Apec session at which East Timor dominated proceedings, as the situation in Indonesia deteriorated, as the United Nations Security Council involved itself and as regional leaders collected in Auckland uncertain - at first - whether they could or should address the issue.

As chairman, New Zealand was confronted by two related objectives: to ensure that Apec sent a strong message about the issue and kept in step with the Security Council; and, at the same time, to ensure that the cohesion of Apec itself was maintained.

There was some uncertainty in New Zealand's touch at the outset, both in substance and procedure. The initial Canadian idea to convene a separate foreign ministers' meeting on East Timor was well-intentioned but misguided. If New Zealand's objectives were to be met, then New Zealand itself had to assume that responsibility.

Likewise, to include a non-Apec player - the British Foreign Secretary - in Apec's first serious incursion into political-security matters was a borderline move. Mr Cook's presence served the British interests but not necessarily Apec's or New Zealand's. For a short period the media was, moreover, dominated by the views of a non-Apec member. That was not lost on Asean states.

As the dynamics of the meeting took hold, New Zealand was able to adjust its initial diffidence about the place of East Timor in Apec deliberations. The accomplishments at Auckland were real in relation to East Timor. But the story is not over: indeed, it is only beginning.

All participants will need to ponder the implications of Auckland for Apec on return to their capitals. Final judgment about Apec's first excursion into political and internal issues must also await the crucial next phase, the restoration of genuine order in East Timor and its conduct towards viable independence in as constructive a relationship with its large neighbour as is attainable.

It is a big ask. It will take time. New Zealand must remain committed to that strategic cause, if for no other reason than because we owe it to the East Timorese who have suffered grievously.

It is hard to imagine that an equivalent outcome could have been secured in another Apec capital or city, even if final judgment on what it all means needs still to be deferred. A capacity for detachment and problem-solving, plus a traditionally non-assertive disposition, equipped New Zealand for the role of chairman on this political issue at this particular time.

The organisation and ongoing management in very difficult circumstances of the right sort of peace support operation in East Timor, under UN authorisation, will require great care and prudence.

The right rules of engagement for the troops, effective command and control, correct reporting procedures to the Security Council, even an exit strategy and a road-map for the further commitment to East Timor, will all require imagination and great perseverance.

Three immediate lessons might be drawn by New Zealand. First, the role it sought to play as Apec chairman on the crucially difficult issue of East Timor should be a signpost for how New Zealand positions itself, and the sort of role it seeks, in the world in the new century.

In other words, this should not have been simply a one-off experience soon to be consigned to the trash can of history. It was a defining moment in identity creation, an ongoing business.

Secondly, Apec Auckland dramatically demonstrated the fallacy of the commonplace that "all New Zealand foreign policy is trade," which has continued to determine the allocation of resources and the direction of officials' career paths for so long.

With a new World Trade Organisation round imminent, resources must clearly remain concentrated on rules-making in trade. But a commitment by the Government to greater resources for foreign and security policy thinking and implementation is indispensable if the experiences at Apec Auckland (the largest such event ever in this country) are to help to shape the country to better defend and advance its interests.

Thirdly, Apec Auckland demonstrated that our media need to cultivate expertise in international relations to improve powers of analysis and understanding. Career paths in journalism for those who are trained properly in our journalism schools, and employment of foreign news editors to discern and distill the essential complexities of external issues, would help.

No matter how accomplished journalists may be as observers and commentators on national politics, it is too much to expect that they should be capable equally of interpreting for the public issues of the kind that drove Apec, Auckland. There is a message for media in this.

Apec's economic liberalisation agenda was always going to be eclipsed somewhat by the imminent WTO negotiation launch. The Auckland statement is a serious and comprehensive compilation of collective economic policy tasks.

In a region with little tradition of institutional regional cooperation, it is important that Apec sustains the effort, even if businessmen express disappointment and sceptics warn of the downside of liberalisation.

Other summits in other places - G7, European Union and the like - are liable to exactly the same criticisms.

* Terence O'Brien, a former diplomat, is a commentator on international affairs.