US-China trade war ‘derails’ Apec summit

The ongoing trade spat between the US and China has been blamed for an historic “failing” of the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit, held this year in Papua New Guinea.

The Apec summit traditionally ends with a joint communique released by all 21 member states in attendance, however this year a “bitter battle for influence and power broke out among the world’s two superpowers”, the BBC reports.

Tensions over the wording of the final joint statement boiled over on Saturday, when Chinese diplomats “stormed” the office of PNG foreign affairs minister Rimbink Pato, demanding changes to the language in the draft communique.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

The Chinese diplomats reportedly refused to leave Pato’s office until security officials were called to remove them.

According to CNN, the most problematic line in the draft statement was: “We agree to fight protectionism including all unfair trade practices” – language that the Chinese delegation felt was “some kind of singling out” by the other nations.

The Chinese delegation was also reportedly upset by assertions that China has been using its “Belt and Road” programme as a means to ensnare smaller nations in the region in a “debt trap”, by offering infrastructure investment loans that the countries are unable to pay back.

It was left to Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to announce there would be no joint communique this year, telling journalists: “I don’t think it will come as a huge surprise that there are different visions on particular elements regarding trade. Those prevented there being a consensus on the communique document.”