As global institutions falter and domestic populism surges, even the act of agreeing on principles—no matter how bland—becomes an act of defiance against fragmentation.
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit has long been a stage for economic diplomacy and subtle signaling among the world’s most dynamic economies. This year’s gathering, however, carried a deeper resonance.
Against the backdrop of a fracturing global order, the event in South Korea became less about crafting ambitious new trade pacts and more about holding together the fragile consensus that underpins open trade itself. The leaders’ declaration, pledging to support trade and investment that “benefits all,” sounded more like an appeal to preserve unity than a celebration of progress.
At the center of the summit was the long-awaited thaw between the United States and China. The meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping—their first face-to-face encounter since 2019—signaled a temporary truce in a trade rivalry that has reshaped global commerce.
The two leaders’ decision to “lower the temperature” was not merely symbolic; it was an acknowledgment that escalating confrontation has harmed not only their own economies but also the broader Asia-Pacific region that depends on stability and predictable trade flows. For many APEC members, the détente offered a momentary reprieve from the uncertainty that has haunted supply chains and investment strategies for years.
President Xi’s tone during the summit reflected an effort to reclaim moral leadership in global economic governance. He cast China as a defender of multilateralism and free trade, arguing that countries must work together to navigate an “increasingly complex and volatile” world. This framing was strategic: as the United States turns inward and populist movements question globalization, Xi’s rhetoric positions China as the stable anchor of continuity.
Yet the reality is more complicated. While China preaches openness, it maintains significant state control over its economy and uses trade as a geopolitical lever. Still, in a moment when faith in global cooperation is waning, Xi’s language resonated with those desperate to preserve a sense of common purpose.
The APEC declaration itself, emphasizing “robust” trade, investment and economic integration that is “market-driven,” was cautious and carefully worded. It acknowledged the need for experience sharing, capacity building and collaboration on emerging challenges like artificial intelligence and demographic decline. The very fact that 21 diverse economies—from the United States to Papua New Guinea—could agree on a statement at all was viewed by experts as remarkable. Deborah Elms of the Hinrich Foundation described the outcome as “a miracle,” given how contentious the negotiations were.
Elms observation that officials were swapping out wording until the last minute captures how fraught multilateral diplomacy has become. The omission of any direct reference to the World Trade Organization or even the word “multilateralism” is telling. It reflects an era in which global institutions no longer command universal confidence and where the idea of free trade itself is viewed with suspicion by domestic audiences across the political spectrum.
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, hosting the summit, gave voice to this unease. He warned that the world economy was entering a period of “strong turbulence,” with trade momentum weakening and uncertainty deepening. Lee’s remarks underscored a truth that every leader in the room likely recognized: globalization, once seen as a source of boundless opportunity, now feels fragile and unpredictable. His country epitomizes this tension. South Korea’s prosperity depends heavily on global trade—it sent nearly one-fifth of its exports to China in 2024, while the United States remains its second-largest market—yet it must navigate the strategic rivalry between its top security ally and its largest economic partner.
Lee’s bilateral meeting with Xi Jinping highlighted this balancing act. The two leaders pledged to strengthen “strategic communication” and manage differences through “friendly consultations,” signaling a desire to stabilize relations that have been strained by disputes over missile defense systems and regional security. Xi’s description of the two countries as “inseparable cooperation partners” was rich with diplomatic symbolism, while Lee’s call for a “horizontal and mutually beneficial” economic relationship hinted at his intent to move beyond dependence and toward a more equal footing.
Lee’s political stance also reflects the shifting currents of regional diplomacy. After his predecessor was impeached amid political turmoil, Lee has sought to steer a more pragmatic course—less confrontational than past conservative administrations but cautious enough to maintain strong ties with Washington.
As Rob York of the Pacific Forum noted, Lee’s strategy is to keep relations with all major powers stable: reduce tensions with China, preserve cooperation with the United States and build on his predecessor’s outreach to Japan. Beneath this balancing act lies a more subtle agenda. South Korea aims to lessen its security dependency on the United States while quietly countering Chinese hybrid operations in areas like technology and maritime influence. Lee’s discretion, York observed, is deliberate—there is little to be gained from making such moves public in an already tense environment.
The 2025 APEC summit therefore captured a paradox of our time. Leaders gathered to promote “shared prosperity,” yet they did so in an atmosphere of guarded optimism and mutual suspicion. Their joint statement was less a roadmap for growth than a symbolic reaffirmation that cooperation still matters. The US-China truce, though temporary, offered relief but not resolution; the structural rivalry between the two giants remains unresolved. Meanwhile, smaller and middle powers like South Korea find themselves performing diplomatic acrobatics, seeking to preserve autonomy while avoiding the crossfire of great-power competition.
In this context, the modest tone of the APEC declaration may actually be its greatest strength. It acknowledges the limits of what multilateralism can achieve in an age of division but refuses to abandon the effort altogether. As global institutions falter and domestic populism surges, even the act of agreeing on principles—no matter how bland—becomes an act of defiance against fragmentation.
The 2025 summit, though unremarkable in deliverables, reminded the world that dialogue itself is a victory worth keeping.
It is, however, apparent that although the Asia-Pacific remains the engine of global growth, its future will depend less on grand proclamations and more on the quiet, patient work of maintaining balance amid volatility.
OpEd Column Syndication 