Leaders fail to agree on final communique
An acrimonious meeting of world leaders in Papua New Guinea failed to agree Sunday on a final communique, highlighting widening divisions between global powers the US and China.
The 21 nations at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) Summit in Port Moresby struggled to bridge differences on the role of the World Trade Organization, which governs international trade. A statement was to be issued instead by the meeting’s chairman, Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.
“The entire world is worried” about tensions between China and the US, O’Neill told a mob of reporters that descended on him after he confirmed there was no communique from leaders.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said there were differences between several nations, including China and the US. Draft versions of the communique seen by The Associated Press showed the US wanted strong language against unfair trade practices that it accuses of China. China, meanwhile, wanted a reaffirmation of opposition to protectionism and unilateralism it says the US is engaging in.
“I don’t think it will come as a huge surprise that there are differing visions on particular elements in regard to trade and those prevented there from being a full consensus on the communique,” Trudeau said.
The meeting of world leaders in Papua New Guinea has highlighted divisions between global powers the US and China, and a growing competition for influence in the usually neglected South Pacific.
The 21 nations at the Apec Summit in Port Moresby struggled to bridge differences on issues such as trade protectionism.
US Vice President Mike Pence and China’s President Xi Jinping traded barbs in speeches on Saturday. Pence accused China of intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers and unfair trading practices.
In Port Moresby, the impact of China’s aid and loans is highly visible, but the US and its allies are countering with efforts to finance infrastructure in Papua New Guinea and other island states.
Pence said there would be no letup in President Donald Trump’s policy of combating China’s mercantilist trade policy and intellectual property theft.
The US has imposed additional tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods and China has retaliated. Pence reiterated Trump administration threats to more than double the penalties.
“The United States, though, will not change course until China changes its ways,” Pence said, accusing Beijing of intellectual property theft, unprecedented subsidies for state businesses and “tremendous” barriers to foreign companies entering its giant market.
Pence announced the US would be involved in ally Australia’s plan to develop a naval base in Papua New Guinea, where the summit is being held. China has been intensely wooing Papua New Guinea and other Pacific island nations with aid and loans for infrastructure.
“Our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific will prevail,” Pence said.
The vice president harshly criticized China’s global infrastructure drive, known as the “Belt and Road Initiative,” calling many of the projects low quality that also saddle developing countries with loans they can’t afford.
The US, a democracy, is a better partner than authoritarian China, he said.
“Know that the United States offers a better option. We don’t drown our partners in a sea of debt, we don’t coerce, compromise your independence,” Pence said. “We do not offer constricting belt or a one-way road. When you partner with us, we partner with you and we all prosper.”
Xi, who spoke before Pence, anticipated many of the US criticisms in his speech. He said countries are facing a choice of cooperation or confrontation as protectionism and unilateralism spreads.
Xi expressed support for the global free trading system that has underpinned his country’s rise over the past quarter century to the world’s second-biggest economy after the US.
“The rules made should not be followed or bent as one sees fit and they should not be applied with double standards for selfish agendas,” Xi said. “Mankind has once again reached a crossroads,” he said. “Which direction should we choose? Cooperation or confrontation? Openness or closing doors. Win-win progress or a zero sum game?” /