So, Success, or What? Final Thoughts on the Summits in San Francisco
Late but it is a holiday week coming up for my American colleagues. Hey, any excuse.
I could not resist a final thought(s) on the APEC San Francisco Summit and the first bilateral meeting between President Xi Jinping and President Joe Biden since the Bali Summit.
Notwithstanding the mumbling and grumbling from numerous experts, analysts and opinion writers, I think the bilateral summit between Xi Jinping and Joe Biden, at the margin of the APEC Summit, will be described in the future as a measured success. The bilateral summit was clearly not the “be all and end all”, but after a year of tension and ‘tit for tat’ actions by these two major powers, the bilateral summit was a reasonable effort to lower the temperature in the relationship. Does it build in the guardrails that the US seems determined to construct in the US-China relationship - probably not. Does it create conditions for enhanced conflict avoidance, not likely. But at least the agreements reached did improve the lines of communication between the US and China. And a number of agreements were reached desired by one side or the other. And possibly, just possibly, when the next near-miss, or worse occurs in the South China Sea or around Taiwan, the communication lines established, or renewed can cap violence rather than having it spiral out of control. Thus, a key result was the resumption of comprehensive military-to-military communication. As expressed in the White House Readout:
The two leaders welcomed the resumption of high-level military-to-military communication, as well as the U.S.-China Defense Policy Coordination Talks and the U.S.-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement meetings. Both sides are also resuming telephone conversations between theater commanders.
Importantly, as well, the US and China did agree apparently to tackle the fentanyl crisis. Again as described in the White House Readout:
They welcomed the resumption of bilateral cooperation to combat global illicit drug manufacturing and trafficking, including synthetic drugs like fentanyl, and establishment of a working group for ongoing communication and law enforcement coordination on counternarcotics issues.
On the people-to-people front, the leaders agreed that scheduled passenger flights between China and the U.S. will increase starting from early 2024, and China is ready to invite some 50,000 students over the next five years. It would have been positive for Biden to express support for the renewal of the Fulbright US student program to China but not yet it seems.
But there did appear to be a change in tone, at least for the immediate future. Commentators from the NYTimes noted President Xi’s view that there was clearly room for both:
All of this has led to a tonal change in the relationship; when Mr. Xi repeated his line that the planet was big enough for both countries, he was signaling that the two military, economic and technological superpowers could give each other some space.
Were the post summit comments by leaders, at least President Biden who held a short press conference consistent with a more benign appraisal, well not exactly. Biden confirmed his use of the term ‘dictator’ in reference to President Xi Jinping. Some of my Washington colleagues expressed the view that this Biden follow up calling Xi a ‘dictator’ - that caused original consternation in Beijing and strong criticism - had to have been scripted and designed to shield Biden from criticism that he was too soft on China. But not surprisingly, it did lead to serious frustration from Beijing.
And, it should not be forgotten, and notwithstanding criticism that the two leaders did not announce a joint climate agreement, in fact before the Summit gathering the two nations signaled progress in their joint effort to reduce emissions. This has implications for COP28 that will commence on November 30th. As Lisa Friedman of the NYTimes described:
But both countries agreed to “pursue efforts to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030.” That growth should reach levels high enough “so as to accelerate the substitution for coal, oil and gas generation,” the agreement says. Both countries anticipate “meaningful absolute power sector emission reduction” in this decade it says. That appears to be the first time China has agreed to specific emissions targets in any part of its economy.
Finally, a word about the APEC Summit itself. Well, I am not sure what to say. It is hard to discern really what went on. There was, in fact, a ‘2023 APEC Leaders’ Golden Gate Declaration’. Unfortunately, like so many of these summit statements it was long on presumed collective effort but without specificity or any ‘hard’ commitment. I must say I was struck by one commitment – and this on the WTO and reform. Remember this APEC was led by US officials so I was more that surprised by a collective commitment on the WTO:
We are committed to necessary reform of the WTO to improve all of its functions, including conducting discussions with a view to having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all members by 2024. We call upon APEC economies to work towards the timely and effective implementation of WTO agreements and reaffirm our commitment to engage constructively to ensure MC13 is a success and delivers positive outcomes.
There, then, is the United States leading this effort and yet the United States is the major impediment to WTO reform including the dispute resolution system which the United States has brought to a grinding halt.
Still, all-in-all the summit activity was seemingly helpful. Now we need to follow the US-China relationship and determine whether the relationship has stabilized.