BANGKOK -- The recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Bang kok could, in an oversimplified manner, be summarized as an event in which economic issues were overshadowed by a strong security agenda. Moreover, the whole exercise was partly sidelined by the spectacular arrangements on the Thai side. But is there no more to be said about the meeting?

First of all, the Thais deserve the high praise they received from all quarters for their meticulous protocol and security arrangements, their efficiency and their proverbial politeness and kindness.

Some observers were critical, of course, of the the capital's atmosphere, which was altered for the duration of the event, but in the end almost everyone agreed that some sacrifices were justified by the importance of the gathering.

The magnificent show on the Chao Paya river, with dozens of royal boats manned by a spectacularly attired crew of more than 2,000 sailors was indeed an exotic and most colorful event that brought another aspect of Thailand to the four corners of the world.

Thais were proud of hosting so many top world dignitaries and projecting such a superb image of their rich culture. Tourism, after all, is included in APEC's basket. Here in Bangkok, after the meeting, I heard of cases of prominent Thai citizens, not in politics and not necessarily close to the ruling political party, addressing spontaneous handwritten congratulatory messages to the prime minister for so successfully putting Thailand on such a high pedestal of world attention.

On substance, many analysts are wondering why the United States "hijacked" a meeting on trade to insist that security issues be discussed. Most participants had to join the chorus, although some did so rather reluctantly. It also seems that some members tried to draw a line between "military security issues" and "trade security issues."

Although it is undeniable that the whole APEC exercise had been originally conceived as a forum for discussions on trade, it is equally true that institutions and groups of nations cannot help but follow evolutionary trends, just like all human beings.

A rigid compartmentalization is only a theoretical concept that must be adjusted to fit the continuously changing needs of the times. Even before the current psychosis with terrorism, APEC had to absorb financial issues. Later, the human-security factor crept in, along with concerns relating to the environment, epidemics and other issues.

A neutral observer does not have to be uncritically attracted to the security emphasis of the present U.S. administration, but he must accept it as an unavoidable new dimension of the whole APEC "package." Trade cannot be perceived in a vacuum independent of all other present-day issues.

The new global religion's main deity may well be "profit," but even such a powerful god is vulnerable to transnational terrorism, environmental issues, devastating epidemics such as SARS and AIDS, and a host of other problems.

This applies not only to APEC, but to any similar regional collective, and participants should be conscious of new realities and alert to new dangers. It would therefore be erroneous to conceive of APEC as an exclusive platform for trade, as some people insist.

Some observers have voiced skepticism, saying the American call for security may be hiding Washington's protectionist intentions. It is true to some extent that trade coupled with security implies higher costs, especially for smaller foreign entrepreneurs, but concerns about terrorist threats are genuine. The nightmare of a container laden with explosives reaching a U.S. port can be imagined.

Another aspect that should not be overlooked is that much of APEC's real work is done by countless anonymous officials throughout the year as the rotating presidency evolves. Political leaders are supposed to crown these efforts at their annual meeting.

This arrangement is positive in the sense that the frequent top-level meetings provide avenues for useful bilateral discussions and for projecting a public image of solidarity and commonality of purpose, so that the "organization" keeps moving.

But it can also prove negative, if meetings of prominent leaders yield little or nothing in terms of substance. Citizens of APEC member-countries expect more results than rhetoric, parades and embraces at such illustrious gatherings. It may therefore be worth giving some thought to the frequency of such occasions, lest the APEC process be negatively affected by "summit fatigue."

We should remember that APEC is not a fully structured "organization." As former former Thai Commerce Minister Narongchai Akrasanee aptly put it in a recent article, APEC "remains a process, not an organization for cooperation and not community."