Written by Chanseung Kim
Illustrated by April Yang
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Gyeongju, South Korea, concluded with the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting on 1 November 2025, where Asia-Pacific leaders adopted a joint declaration that reaffirmed their commitment to multilateral cooperation and a market-driven free trade order. The statement acknowledged growing challenges to the liberal trading system that has long underpinned APEC’s values. In recent years, the rise of protectionist policies under the Trump administration have further weakened the foundations of multilateral trade. While it was a positive sign that all member economies reached a consensus, some observers noted that the declaration’s omission of any direct mention of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) reflects the broader decline of global support for free trade.
In recent years, APEC has slipped from the spotlight, overshadowed by other international forums such as the G20, G7, and Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Growing political tensions amongst members, fuelled by the escalating U.S.-China rivalry, have made it harder for the group to issue influential joint statements as it once did. With the WTO gridlocked and protectionism on the rise, multilateral trade negotiations have steadily lost momentum. APEC’s voluntary, non-binding framework has also drawn criticism for limiting its ability to deliver concrete outcomes. In this fragmented global landscape, one question remains. Does APEC still matter?
Despite some skepticism, APEC remains a crucial forum for dialogue and regional cooperation.
How APEC’s Vision Faded
When APEC was established in 1989, it embraced the idea of “open regionalism”. In the late 1980s, the Asia-Pacific region underwent rapid economic growth, and the region’s major economies sought ways to advance trade liberalisation and deepen economic integration. APEC emerged as a flexible forum built on consensus and voluntary participation, designed to promote shared prosperity through inclusive growth, economic cooperation, and technological exchange.
However, as the strategic rivalry between the United States and China deepened, cracks began to appear in APEC’s cooperative framework. Once a platform for constructive engagement between the two powers, APEC found itself increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition. Under Trump’s “America First” policy, Washington moved away from multilateralism in favour of bilateral deals and replaced its traditional advocacy of free trade with a focus on so-called “fair trade”. This shift ran counter to the liberal and open trade principles on which APEC was founded. China, meanwhile, sought to portray itself as a champion of multilateralism and open markets. As tensions grew, APEC became less of a forum for cooperation and more of a stage for U.S.-China confrontation, with the rivalry between them eroding consensus and weakening the momentum for collective action.
APEC Still Matters Because Dialogue Does
Despite lingering doubts about its effectiveness, APEC continues to play a practical role in fostering cooperation amid a rapidly changing global landscape. As new issues such as digital trade and AI governance rise to the forefront, APEC’s role as a coordinator of emerging global agendas has become more significant. At this year’s Gyeongju summit, members adopted the “APEC AI Initiative”, a policy framework designed to help all economies in the region take part in and benefit from the AI transition. The South Korean presidential office called it APEC’s first codified AI vision, marking the leaders’ first agreement on AI with both the United States and China participating. Although the final declaration made no direct reference to the WTO, it reaffirmed a shared understanding that strong trade and investment remain essential to Asia-Pacific’s growth and prosperity. At a time when other multilateral institutions are paralysed by political divisions, APEC has reasserted its value as a flexible and enduring space for dialogue.
APEC also continues to offer a forum for cautious, consensus-driven dialogue, building trust whilst avoiding open confrontation. Even at times of heightened tension amongst great powers, it has remained one of the few venues where leaders can meet and communicate directly. Notably, the first U.S.-China summit under Trump’s second administration took place on the sidelines of this year’s APEC summit, amid escalating trade disputes. As open rivalry and geopolitical divisions increasingly limit opportunities for cooperation, APEC’s non-binding yet enduring space for exchange has become more important than ever. Beyond formal agreements, simply sustaining dialogue and continuous engagement within APEC is now a notable achievement itself.
The APEC Summit in Gyeongju demonstrated that despite growing competition and distrust in global affairs, Asia remains a central stage for international diplomacy. By adopting a joint declaration covering 2025 APEC’s core priorities in trade and investment, digital innovation, and inclusive growth, the summit has set a path for comprehensive cooperation on pressing economic challenges. As the world shifts towards a multipolar order and divisions deepen, questions have arisen over the value of non-binding multilateral platforms. Yet, with emerging issues such as AI governance and digital trade coming to the fore, the need for an inclusive and flexible framework for dialogue has become even more pressing. Ultimately, APEC’s true significance today is measured not just by the agreements it issues, but by its ability to keep dialogue alive and maintain engagement across the region.
