The annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit is roundly dismissed — like so many other top-level multilateral meetings — as a glorified photo-op. But there was more hope than usual that this year's meeting would break the pattern and even produce concrete results. The positive role played by Asian nations in helping recovery from the global economic crisis created optimism about APEC's potential. The fact that Singapore was hosting this year's meeting added to expectations: While small, the city-state has excelled at driving unwieldy institutions, producing results out of sheer determination. Finally, the presence of U.S. President Barack Obama was also thought to add new luster to this year's meeting.

Alas, tradition proved hard to overcome. This year's APEC meeting was no more notable than its predecessors, yielding a final declaration that recapitulates the usual rhetoric — a commitment to free trade, a rejection of protectionism, a recognition of the need for a long-term growth strategy that respects the diversity of APEC's members. Echoing recent G20 statements,the group pledged to continue economic stimulus packages until there is a durable and sustainable recovery. And, like the G20, the assembled leaders acknowledged that "growth as usual" is no longer an answer. "We need a fresh growth paradigm. We need a fresh model of economic integration."

And then their courage failed them. Turning to the biggest and perhaps most critical issue on the agenda, climate change, the leaders conceded the inevitable and called for "an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen," while simultaneously dropping a proposal from previous drafts that embraced sharp cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions to half their 1990 levels by 2050. Instead, they embraced the two-step solution proposed by Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, by which the upcoming Copenhagen Summit would produce a political commitment to tackle climate change and legally binding details would be worked out later in 2010.

That is a bow to reality. There was little hope that the details of an international agreement of this scope and significance could be worked out in less than a month. Nonetheless, that is a very different issue from whether APEC can or should go beyond the Copenhagen discussions. Indeed,that would be expected from a region and group that sees itself as taking a new role in the world. Sadly, instead of pacing international efforts — "leading" some would call it — the group retreated to the same positions that to date have marked debate and blocked progress in the larger multilateral discussions.

The leaders were equally timid when discussion turned to trade issues. There was the rejection of "all forms of protectionism" and reaffirmation of the "commitment to keep markets open and refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade." They pledged to work toward the successful conclusion of the Doha Round of trade talks by the end of 2010. But a group that accounts for more than half — 54 percent — of global economic output must offer more than the usual rhetorical flourishes when the world economy grapples with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and global trade talks remain stalled, if not deadlocked.

Instead the group will continue to explore the prospects and problems of an Asia Pacific free trade area. In theory, that remains the APEC goal. In reality, the differences among the 21 APEC member economies make progress toward the objective a fitful and sometimes painful process.

This list of complaints should look familiar: It appears after every summit. They are countered by the fact that the APEC meeting also provides an opportunity for regional leaders to meet with trans-Pacific counterparts: A substantial number of bilateral meetings occurs on the sidelines of the forum. This familiarization process cannot be quantified, but it does pay dividends.

Similarly, little noticed among many observers has been progress on technical issues that have been pressed or even championed by APEC. Reducing trade transaction costs is not a sexy, headline-grabbing initiative,but it matters greatly to business and to the region's economic prospects. This is just one example of the "micro-level" action that APEC is taking that has real consequences for the region. The challenge for the future is building upon these smaller initiatives and integrating them into the group's broader vision.

Success in that effort rests on the shoulders of Japan and the United States. That is only fitting since, as the two leading economies of the world, those two countries have a special responsibility to use their power, influence and experience to lead the region forward. But it is especially true since Tokyo hosts the APEC summit in 2010 and the U.S. will host the following year. If those two countries truly believe in APEC and its potential, they will seize this opportunity to move the forum forward in the next two years, to overcome the persistent criticisms and realize its potential.