This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/18/world/asia/apec-us-china-trade-war-joint-statement.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Stalemate at APEC Forum Over U.S.-China Trade Dispute: ‘Entire World Is Worried’ U.S. and China Square Off on Trade, and APEC Nations Duck for Cover
(about 4 hours later)
SYDNEY, Australia — The trade dispute between the United States and China has led to a standoff at a summit meeting of Pacific Rim leaders in Papua New Guinea, leaving the gathering of 21 nations without a joint closing statement on Sunday for the first time since the forum was founded. SYDNEY, Australia — The United States and China turned a Pacific Rim trade summit this weekend into a stage where the world could do little more than stand by and watch as two great powers aggravated their battle over trade.
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, known as APEC, has not ended without a joint statement since 1989, when the forum was established in Australia. Experts said the stalemate would set up a high-stakes showdown at the Group of 20 conference in Argentina this month — which President Xi Jinping of China and President Trump are expected to attend — while intensifying frustration among countries caught in the crossfire. President Xi Jinping and Vice President Mike Pence both made their cases to the global leaders assembled in Papua New Guinea — then they dug in and refused to compromise. That left the group of 21 nations in disarray, unable to agree on even a routine joint statement like those that had closed every other Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit since 1989.
“The entire world is worried,” said Prime Minister Peter O’Neill of Papua New Guinea, after he confirmed that only a summary of discussion would be issued, not a joint statement. Countries caught in the trade-war crossfire between China and the United States are becoming increasingly exasperated.
The disagreement concerned issues that have shaped the trade dispute between the United States and China for months. “The entire world is worried,” said Prime Minister Peter O’Neill of Papua New Guinea.
Draft versions of the communiqué seen by The Associated Press showed that the United States wanted strong language condemning unfair trade practices like those that it says China regularly deploys, including restricting market access and pushing foreign companies to hand over valuable technology. The disagreement reflects a hardening of the conflict between China and the United States, with each side deploying aggressive, uncompromising rhetoric reminiscent of that heard during the Cold War.
The Chinese delegation sought to reaffirm its opposition to what it says are protectionism and unilateralism practices by the United States, especially the American trade tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods. During a weekend of diplomacy in China’s backyard that had been meant to defuse trade tensions, Mr. Xi and Vice President Mike Pence instead chose escalation, attacking each other’s positions and battling for loyalty within a trade group that represents 60 percent of the global economy.
The opposing positions were staked out in stark terms on Saturday, with combative speeches by Mr. Xi and Vice President Mike Pence. Both men argued that their country had the best interest of the region at heart, battling for loyalty within a trade group that represents 60 percent of the global economy. Experts said the stalemate at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, known as APEC, would set up a high-stakes showdown at the Group of 20 conference in Argentina this month, which Mr. Xi and President Trump are expected to attend.
But they also pushed each other toward conflict and escalation. The core issues in the clash were familiar.
President Trump has made a combative stance on trade a signature element of his administration’s foreign policy. So draft versions of an APEC communiqué showed that the United States wanted strong language condemning unfair trade practices like those that it says China regularly deploys. Among them: restricting market access and pushing foreign companies to hand over valuable technology.
The Chinese delegation sought to reaffirm its opposition to what it says are protectionism and unilateralism by the United States, especially the American trade tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods.
Mr. Xi also seemed eager to shore up ties with an important trading partner, North Korea. He told President Moon Jae-in of South Korea on the sidelines of the trade forum that he was considering visiting the North, whose leader, Kim Jong-un, extended an invitation, a spokesman for Mr. Moon said.
Such a visit, as well as any additional support for North Korea at a time when its nuclear promises are falling short of American demands, could bring a new round of threats that go beyond trade to global security.
But in Port Moresby, the capital of Papua New Guinea, the tensions centered on economics.
For years, experts have noted that American foreign policy has sought to balance the economic benefits of cooperating with China with the risks of treating the country as an adversary.
Now, the scales have tipped.
From Mr. Trump’s tweets to defense position papers and a major speech by Mr. Pence on Oct. 4, the United States has made clear that it sees China as a strategic threat.
“It’s a new level of Cold War rhetoric,” said Hugh White, a prominent regional analyst at the Australian National University.
Economic cooperation, he said, is being sidelined.
“The Trump administration, for the first time since Nixon in 1972, has sought to distance America from China’s economic opportunities,” Mr. White said. “That’s a huge shift.”
Mr. Pence has played an especially prominent role.
[Sign up for Damien Cave’s Australia Letter to get news, conversation starters and local recommendations in your inbox each week.][Sign up for Damien Cave’s Australia Letter to get news, conversation starters and local recommendations in your inbox each week.]
Mr. Pence, appearing in Mr. Trump’s place, doubled down on recent criticism of China’s geopolitical strategies and attacked the country’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative — an infrastructure plan financed by China that covers some 70 countries. Appearing in Mr. Trump’s place at APEC, he doubled down on recent criticism of China’s geopolitical strategies and attacked the country’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative — an infrastructure plan financed by China that covers some 70 countries.
He urged Asian nations to work with the United States, which, he said, would not saddle them with debt, an issue some countries are facing as a result of their partnerships with Beijing. He urged Asian nations to work with the United States. If they do, they will not be saddled with debt — a problem some countries are facing as a result of their partnerships with Beijing.
Mr. Xi, speaking before Mr. Pence, insisted that the criticism was misguided, arguing that China’s infrastructure plan would be inclusive and beneficial. Mr. Xi, who spoke before Mr. Pence, insisted that the criticism was misguided. China’s infrastructure plan, he said, is inclusive and beneficial.
“It will not close a door and create a small circle,” Mr. Xi said. “It is not the so-called trap, as some people say. It is the sunshine avenue where China shares opportunities with the world to seek common development.”“It will not close a door and create a small circle,” Mr. Xi said. “It is not the so-called trap, as some people say. It is the sunshine avenue where China shares opportunities with the world to seek common development.”
Experts said the dueling arguments appeared to have become more entrenched. Experts said the two countries’ positions have become more entrenched.
“It boils down to mutual intransigence between the U.S. and China,” said Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at the Australian National University.“It boils down to mutual intransigence between the U.S. and China,” said Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at the Australian National University.
Jonathan Pryke, a Pacific Rim expert at the Lowy Institute, agreed, describing the result as raw “stubbornness.”Jonathan Pryke, a Pacific Rim expert at the Lowy Institute, agreed, describing the result as raw “stubbornness.”
Earlier on Sunday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia tried to sound upbeat. “I think there is a lot more progress being made here than I think is probably being acknowledged,” he said.Earlier on Sunday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia tried to sound upbeat. “I think there is a lot more progress being made here than I think is probably being acknowledged,” he said.
But by Sunday night, it was increasingly difficult to see the summit meeting as anything but a continuation of hostilities. He and many other national leaders seemed eager to return to a time when the world’s strongest powers got along, or at least worked together on building the world economy.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada was among the first to make clear that the negotiations had not yielded a resolution. What the leaders of many countries fear, especially in Asia, is a cleavage into two camps.
“I don’t think it will come as a huge surprise that there are differing visions,” he said. “Those prevented there from being a full consensus on the communiqué.” No one “wants to be forced to make a choice,” said Mr. White, the analyst.
For now, the world beyond the United States and China seems to have been given the task of maintaining calm — and of trying to steer the world away from economic divisions and greater clashes.
By Sunday night, it was increasingly difficult to see the summit meeting as anything but a continuation of hostilities.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada was among the first to make that clear. The joint statement, he said, was a lost cause.
“I don’t think it will come as a huge surprise that there are differing visions,” he said.