The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s Economic Leaders’ Meeting is about two weeks away. Leaders of its 21 member economies are coming to Gyeongju, North Gyeongsang Province, for their annual gathering on Oct. 31 and Nov. 1. It will be a critical meeting at a critical time. Amid the global turmoil triggered by unprecedented trade and investment measures in 2025, both governments and companies worldwide are watching the upcoming APEC closely as the first multilateral trade event of the tumultuous year.

While still uncertain given the latest flare-up of Washington-Beijing escalatory actions, US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are still scheduled to meet at this occasion for their first summit in the second Trump administration. Other leaders and their ministers will meet bilaterally or in groups on the margins of the event.

In trade, APEC is unique. Notably, it does not pursue a legally binding arrangement, but instead employs a light, open-ended approach for pilot projects through candid discussions. APEC has been overshadowed by its more prominent cousins, the WTO and the OECD, when it comes to trade matters. It doesn’t apply pressure, as seen in the negotiation-oriented, hard-nosed World Trade Organization. Nor does it delve into details and elaboration as observed in the target-specific, result-oriented OECD.

Let’s be honest. By any account, the APEC in October will not solve the problem we are facing now: the tariff turmoil in 2025. Striking a deal? Far, far away. It is very unfortunate. Most likely, participants will register their differences on record with a blame game and finger-pointing, though in diplomatic niceties. They will then add some statements for the longing for the revival of multilateralism.

Another round of preaching and finger-pointing will not move us forward. The revival of multilateralism has been repeated so many times by so many at so many occasions that it would hardly make a fresh impression at this juncture, and very possibly just one more display of empty desire. With that, we will simply squander a crucial opportunity, and we can’t afford it.

Instead, at the APEC meetings in late October the members need to lower their expectations and aim to achieve something that can be actually achieved and that can have some actual, if small, impact.

We could just aim for one thing: the confirmation of the current status of various trade agreements and investment agreements of the 21 members. After having seen all the bilateral negotiations and tit-for-tat exchanges over the past nine months, many now wonder whether, where and how these existing agreements stand. Few have mentioned existing trade and investment agreements during their respective tariff talks, and even fewer have questioned the relationship between the novel actions and the existing treaties. The silence on this is remarkable.

The APEC leaders can confirm that these agreements are in effect and valid. It is simple and plain. They can declare that recent measures — tariffs and others — are all being sought within the parameters of these agreements. So, they virtually pronounce that these actions and counteractions remain within the bounds of these agreements, either as affirmative obligations or exceptions. No participant would blush or be angry, as such plain confirmation would suit everyone.

The validity and legitimacy of the agreements used to be obvious, of course, but that is not the case anymore. After unprecedented events and remarkable silence, now is the time to confirm the basic and the obvious.

Indeed, confirmation will not eliminate unilateral measures and countermeasures, but it will certainly help remind us that, like it or not, trade is still being done within the frame of existing agreements, despite all the problems and defects, until they are changed and replaced. It will help us avoid the current situation from escalating and spreading further. That is the first step for the restoration of multilateralism. Just saying multilateralism is good does not help countries tackle the challenges at the moment. A concrete action is needed, even if small and basic. The confirmation will give us composure, and the composure so gained will ensure a smooth transition, even if we may end up pursuing a new trade regime.

From that angle, perhaps we had better forget about hot issues such as AI, digital economy and the like, not because they are not important, but because the APEC this time cannot afford to enjoy the luxury of taking up forward-looking rule-setting tasks. Global trade and investment are now in an emergency. And in a state of exigency, you usually do not mind the future; you first need to calm your friends and colleagues here and now.

One notable piece of news three weeks ago was China’s decision not to pursue developing country status in future WTO negotiations. It is an important development given the intensity of confrontation between Washington and Beijing over this particular topic. In a sense, it is a convoluted confirmation that the WTO Agreements are still in place as a valid legal instrument.

We should start small and be realistic. The upcoming APEC is a good occasion to pause and reflect. In times of chaos and anger, APEC’s low-key, soft approach may be the last hope. Leaders should confirm that their trade and investment agreements are still in effect and not going away. If they can achieve at least this much, the APEC this year will be a success at a critical point in time.

Lee Jae-min

Lee Jae-min is a professor of law at Seoul National University. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.


khnews@heraldcorp.com