Assessing US objectives for APEC 2023

Charles Boustany:

In what areas do you think the United States can make tangible progress in its host year, and where do you see things being particularly challenging?

Shihoko Goto:

Yeah, so a lot has changed since the United States was actually the host country of APEC. And there are a lot of expectations for the United States to really bring this very disparate group of countries together. But at the same time, there's a lot of skepticism as well. And that skepticism really comes from mixed messages that are coming out from Washington. So on the one hand, the United States is saying yes, we want to work on connectivity and working together, and it wants to have a multilateral effort, but at the same time, it also appears to many outside of Washington, that it still wants to look for a US-led order on the economic front that is also matching that security leadership that it has. Now on the security front, the United States has really been successful in bringing countries together to push back against authoritarian rule—not just in Asia, but also in Europe as well—against China as well as Russia. That kind of clarity, unfortunately, is lacking on the economic front.

Now the expectation, or the hope, I should say, is that APEC provides this forum for the United States to really step up to the plate to bring its economic leadership and the economic agenda that would actually match the military leadership that it has actually provided to date, but if we actually open the box and see what the United States is offering, there seems to be a little bit of slim pickings.

Yes, the United States has come up with IPEF, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, and I do think that the four issues that IPEF lays out are something that is very much forward-looking, and they are issues that other countries can actually rally around. That is to say, trade facilitation in particular, ensuring supply chain resiliency, sustainability, and decarbonization, and dealing with corruption and focusing on good governance—these are issues that most of the APEC member countries can actually agree on. But at the same time, there's a lot of pushback, especially from Southeast Asian countries, saying, “Oh, it's a trade deal. Where's the market access? What are we getting out of this? Why should we sign on to it?” I do think what Washington is saying that trade is taking on a different light, that it isn't simply about market access, and we do have to focus on economic priorities and transparency and bringing like-minded countries together under the four pillars that IPEF has outlined—that is something that can and should be pushed forward at the APEC meetings that are coming forth. But at the same time, the United States does need to recognize that what the Indo-Pacific region in particular is looking for is not just about adhering to the rule of law, but it does actually need greater access to US markets, which are lucrative. It does need to have greater development assistance, it needs support on infrastructure development and the like, and the United States actually needs to put a great deal of money as well as effort into achieving some of these goals. So let me leave it at that for now.