Less than three weeks before the APEC Leaders 'Informal Meeting in Gyeongju, South Korea on October 31, US President Trump has not given a clear answer on whether to attend. Although he has confirmed his visit to South Korea, he is still silent on whether to participate. The Asia-Pacific economic drama remains silent.
This diplomatic guessing game of "coming or not" is more like a small climax in the drama of Sino-US relations. On such a platform covering nearly 60% of the world's GDP and 4 billion people, Trump's attitude itself is a diplomatic signal.
"Dark fighting" becomes "open fighting"
APEC has never been just about the economic "feast", it is the crossroads of "show muscles" and "consensus", especially China and the United States, in the past decade on this platform you come and go, and cooperate, and the scene is never cold.
Remember the APEC in Beijing in 2014, when China pushed for the Asia-Pacific Free Trade Area (FTAAP), successfully gaining the support of all members, can be considered a "highlight moment" of multilateral diplomacy.
And the United States of Peter's, is busy drumming not including China's TPP, Minri talks about free trade, but in the darkness, another oven, and a set of "other group of friends circle" scenario.
When the APEC in San Francisco in 2023, the atmosphere has eased slightly. China and the United States took the opportunity to restart communication mechanisms, restore military hotlines, cooperate on anti-drug issues, and even jointly proposed the "San Francisco Vision."
That summit once saw the possibility of "combination" in the Sino-U.S. competitive relations, but the good prospects were not long, and a year later, the reality hit again.
This time in Qingzhou APEC, the winds changed, the clash between China and the United States, from traditional tariffs, trade wars, to more forward-looking science and technology rules.
For example, the governance of artificial intelligence, cross-border supervision of e-commerce, and standard setting of the digital economy are not only competing on who has more advanced technology, but also on who writes the rules of the game and who is qualified to decide the future.
In this context, Trump's " hesitation" seems appealing, he is reluctant to appear in a multilateral occasion that the Chinese side may master the rhythm, nor is he willing to play a "simultaneous smile" in front of the global screen, which is not a simple presence or not, but a subtle shift in the Sino-U.S. game model.
His dilemma
It's not the first time that Trump has "stood up pigeons" on diplomatic occasions, but this dilemma is more complicated. The reason is actually not difficult to understand. The pressure from three directions makes him have to calculate carefully.
The first pressure comes from the U.S. interior, the remaining heat of the 2024 election has not yet dissipated, and Trump wants to stabilize is a group of conservative voters who are highly alert to China.
If he gave China a “good face” at APEC, even if he just shrugged his hand, he could be labeled as “weak” by the opponent.
Especially in these topics of tariffs and technological blockade, a little lax, waiting to be besieged by the media and political enemies, so he has to maintain a "hard" gesture against China, even only to play to the domestic view.
The second concern is the issue of diplomatic face. China has not yet publicly confirmed whether to arrange a formal meeting with Trump, and Trump is unwilling to be a "scrap" in such a world-renowned occasion.
If the Chinese side is calm and restrained, he in turn becomes the one who is "dried up", this "sitting on a cold bench" situation is almost unacceptable for a Trump who is extremely concerned about his personal image.
Therefore, the attitude of "just not coming", in fact, is also the back hand for myself, either I do not appear, or I have to appear.
The third level of consideration, related to South Korea, he this time determined to visit South Korea, the main task is to repair the cracks caused to the South Korean business community after the sudden tariffs in July this year, South Korea is an important ally of the United States, and is also a supplier partner for key industries such as chips, shipbuilding.
The focus of Trump's trip is to discuss bilateral issues such as military expenditure sharing and industrial cooperation. Once he attends APEC, he will inevitably face more complicated multilateral issues between China and the United States, which may make him lose his focus when dealing with South Korea-US relations.
From this perspective, Trump's "whether to leave or not" is actually a true reflection of his turbulent domestic election situation, international limelight and alliance relations.
He wants to talk, but does not want to lose; he wants to appear in front of the camera, but does not want to play the role; this "do not disclose the face" trick, in the end, is still a psychological game under the multilateral order.
Beyond the personal choice.
If Trump's hesitation is personal, then the tense atmosphere at the entire APEC summit actually reflects the deeper conceptual collision between China and the United States.
This time, the dispute is not the high and low tariffs, but the right to formulate the "next generation rules" of artificial intelligence and the digital economy, the United States pushed the "closed source + restrictions", want to hold advanced technology firmly in the hands of themselves and a handful of allies.
What China emphasizes is that "AI is good, fair and universal", advocates open cooperation, and encourages developing countries to participate together. This is not a difference in technical routes, but a head-on confrontation between two global governance ideas.
China has clearly stated its position: opposing technological barriers, adhering to the development of governance logic as the core and equality as the premise, this attitude has won a lot of resonance in the "global south" countries, after all, for these countries, whether they can participate in the future construction of AI and data economy, is about their own competitiveness and survival space.
The small and medium-sized countries in the Asia-Pacific region see better than anyone else. On the one hand, they rely on the United States to provide technical and security support, and on the other hand, they can't do without China's market and investment.
South Korea, Singapore, Canada and other countries are cautious about the U.S.-led “small technological circle”, and do not want to see China and the U.S. openly stand out and strike each other in the end, after all, once the Asia-Pacific economic system is forced to “choose the sidelines”, the biggest loss is often not China and the U.S., but those countries and enterprises in the middle.
Therefore, Trump's choice is not just personal will, but affects the nerves of the entire Asia-Pacific region. If China and the United States continue to "speak out from afar" and refuse to interact at APEC, those small countries that hope to solve problems through cooperation can only Continue to survive.
Finally, whether or not Trump will attend APEC is not just a matter of his personal schedule, but a mirror of observing the Sino-U.S. relationship thermometer.
If he eventually is absent, it may in the short term make APEC less of a "fire-drug" point of view, instead it is easier to reach a small-scale consensus on some issues, but from the perspective of international impact, the absence of the United States, the "protagonist", will eventually weaken APEC's representation and appeal.
If he comes, but the attitude is cold, it is equal to reaffirm before the global camera: the "San Francisco vision" between China and the United States has not really landed, and the trust of both sides is still shaking.
However, no matter how Trump chooses, the direction of Sino-US relations will not be rewritten just because of a meeting. The key is to see whether the "vision" can be turned into action.
In particular, whether the United States is willing to make substantive adjustments on issues such as tariffs and technical blockade. In the final analysis, what the Asia-Pacific needs is a win-win cooperation environment, rather than a game of defense and circumvention.
China has alwaysined an open gesture, a willingness to communicate and win-win, but on the basis of mutual respect, and if the United States always takes multilateral occasions as the stage for domestic affairs performances, it is not only a waste of diplomatic resources, but also a disrespect to the Asia-Pacific countries.
This APEC is a microcosm of a diplomatic game and a touchstone for China and the United States to choose how to get along in the future. Whether to shake hands or face each other, the initiative is not on camera, but in action.