Has Apec failed to live up to its name?

TAND he C in Apec stands for Cooperation. But when the two biggest members are fighting a trade war and using the forum to attack each other’s policies, it was always going to be hard work delivering on that.

The last week’s Asia-pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Port Moresby was one of open disagreement, led by disputes between the United States and China over trade, security and which would be the better investment partner for the region.

As Apec approaches its 30th anniversary, the failure to agree on a communique for the first time calls into question its relevance in a crowded summit calendar and as the Trump administration makes clear its aversion to multilateralism.

“It does mark the death of Apec’s founding trade vision,” Euan Graham, executive director of La Trobe Asia at Australia’s La Trobe University, said on Twitter, adding Apec was the “most disposable of the regional summits.”

Rather than cooperation, the theme seemed to be conflict and containment as Beijing and Washington directly criticised each other’s policies and staked their claims as to why they were the security and investment partner the Pacific should choose.

“It’s not even supposed to be binding, it’s Apec,” said one diplomat involved in negotiations for the communique, surprised that the members could not agree on what is usually a humdrum summary of issues discussed.

“China and the US hijacked the Apec spirit, I suppose.” The United States even preferred its own terminology of Indopacific, which it defines as running from “the western shores of Latin America to the furthest reaches of the Indian Ocean”, with US Vice President Mike Pence mentioning Apec five times and Indo-pacific 41 times in his Apec speech on Saturday. Without mentioning China by name, the US State Department sought to cast the blame for the lack of a communique elsewhere, lamenting what it characterised as the unwillingness of some to sign on to a statement agreeing to promote free and fair trade.

“It is unfortunate that not all economies — despite their rhetoric — could support these positions,” it said in a statement.

Speaking in Beijing on Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said the United States attended Apec in a “blaze of anger,” causing disputes and disagreements and damaging the “harmonious atmosphere” of the meeting.

“Apec is a platform to deepen cooperation, not a place to criticise each other. China attended to promote cooperation and seek consensus, not to get into a boxing ring,” Geng told reporters.

Founded in 1989 with a view to fostering trade and economic ties around the Pacific Ocean, it operated at a ministerial level until 1993 when US president Bill Clinton established the annual leaders meeting. Each meeting had produced a joint statement at its conclusion, until Sunday.

“This is very concerning from a systemic perspective. The WTO faces similar challenges,” said Charles Finny, a Wellington-based trade consultant and a former New Zealand government trade negotiator.

In an editorial, Chinese state-run tabloid the Global Times said the absence of a communique was “not a big deal”, and placed more significance on an upcoming meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The two leaders are expected to meet at the G20 summit, which starts in Argentina next week.

“It is hoped Washington makes serious preparations for the summit and not pin its hopes on exerting pressure,” said the tabloid, which is known for its nationalistic stance.

Rather than cooperation, the theme seemed to be conflict and containment as Beijing and Washington directly criticised each other’s policies and staked their claims