Key Takeaways

- As the free trade era gives way to strategic rivalry, APEC must shift from liberalization toward managing interdependence among competing powers.

- Korea, as this year’s host, is uniquely positioned to bridge divides and champion a pragmatic framework balancing resilience with cooperation.

- The summit’s success will depend on Korea’s ability to turn ambition into achievable outcomes — proving that multilateralism can still adapt in a fractured world.

Let’s face the elephant in the room: the age of the free trade order is over.

The once-unstoppable march of globalization has now splintered into a landscape of rivalry, fragmentation, and strategic protectionism. This is not a passing phenomenon tied to Donald Trump, but a defining reality of our era – one that is likely to endure well beyond his time. What we are witnessing is a return to an era reminiscent of great-power mercantilism – a world where powerful states pursue self-interest above all else, weaponizing trade, technology, and resources as tools of influence. Unlike during the Cold War, when major powers at least extended support to weaker states within their respective blocs, today’s environment appears even more ruthless, defined by a survivalist logic of every nation for itself and by the relentless pursuit of national interests through economic and technological dominance.

Let us now pause and ask ourselves: what purpose does the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) serve in such a world?

What Is APEC and How Has Its Role Shifted?

Since its founding in 1989, APEC has been central to advancing trade liberalization and economic integration across the Asia-Pacific. Its original mission was clear: to reduce barriers, promote policy coordination, and give both large and small economies a voice in shaping regional commerce. Though never a formal organization, APEC long served as the guardian of an open and inclusive trading regime. Over time, its agenda expanded beyond tariffs to include cooperation on connectivity, digital trade, capacity building, and supply chain integration – recognizing that openness requires institutional frameworks to address infrastructure gaps, regulatory standards, and technological change. This evolution sustained APEC’s relevance even as the global trade landscape became more complex.

However, the summit in Port Moresby in 2018 marked a clear break from the past. For the first time in APEC’s history, leaders failed to issue a joint communiqué. The deadlock, driven by intensifying US–China rivalry and disagreements over WTO reform, “unfair trade practices,” and sustainable development clauses, revealed the fragility of what had once been a model of pragmatic cooperation. I was there, covering the event, and I can still remember the jolt that ran through the media room. The usual chatter stopped; reporters stared at their screens, stunned, as word spread that APEC – the forum built on consensus – had fractured. In that instant, the familiar script of summit diplomacy fell apart. The free trade order was no longer a given; geopolitics had taken center stage, eclipsing the spirit of cooperation that once defined APEC. This was a sign that the old consensus behind free trade was beginning to crack.

In the years that followed, that warning proved prophetic. Tariffs, sanctions, and export controls are no longer exceptions; they have become the grammar of great-power competition. The question now is not whether APEC can issue a communiqué, but whether it can remain relevant in a world where the very premise of free trade is being rewritten.

Why APEC’s Consensus Still Matters, and How It Must Evolve

What once seemed a gradual erosion has now reached a tipping point. Tariff wars, weaponized supply chains, and the politicization of economic interdependence have shattered the assumption that openness naturally serves shared prosperity. The return of unilateral measures by major economies and the growing rhetoric of economic security over free trade reflect a profound shift: the language of globalization is giving way to the language of control and resilience. Multilateralism, long the stabilizing force of global commerce, is now under siege, and institutions like the WTO are struggling to contain the centrifugal pressures of great-power rivalry.

In this fractured environment, APEC’s relevance may seem diminished – yet that perception misses the point. Precisely because the free trade consensus is fading, APEC’s model of voluntary cooperation and consensus-based dialogue has become more essential than ever. It remains the only regional forum that brings the US, China, and other major Asia-Pacific economies together under a shared framework, however fragile that consensus may now be. Even amid rivalry, it offers a structured space to manage disagreement and prevent economic fragmentation.

To stay relevant and remain a meaningful platform for regional governance, APEC must evolve beyond the nostalgia of liberalization. Its next communiqué should not seek to revive a bygone era of free trade, but to articulate a post-liberal framework grounded in managed interdependence – one that accepts competition as an unavoidable reality while preventing it from descending into coercion or isolation. The challenge is not to restore the old order, but to shape the rules of a new one that remains cooperative, even if no longer entirely free. Rather than chasing the unattainable ideal of borderless markets, APEC can instead champion a rules-based approach that preserves connectivity through transparency, predictability, and cooperation in critical areas such as supply chain resilience, digital governance, and green technology.

By articulating this pragmatic vision, APEC can reaffirm that rules-based order still matters, even in a transformed guise. The challenge for its host nation Korea will be to balance ambition with credibility – crafting commitments that are modest yet enduring, and that keep open the possibility of cooperation when almost every other channel is closing.

Korea’s Role: The Right Country to Shape Managed Interdependence

Korea’s hosting of APEC this year could not come at a more fitting moment. Few nations capture today’s global paradoxes as vividly as Korea: deeply dependent on trade yet exposed to geopolitical risk, technologically advanced yet strategically vulnerable, democratic yet pragmatic in diplomacy. These contradictions do not weaken Korea’s position – they make it uniquely suited to help shape what the region now needs: a framework of managed interdependence.

If the end of the free trade era is inevitable, then Korea is the right place to chart a new vision – one of economic coexistence among competing powers, built on the preservation of interdependence without allowing the global system to fracture under strategic pressure.

By hosting APEC, Korea can move beyond defending a fading free trade ideal and instead champion a pragmatic vision that balances competition with cooperation. Its ability to navigate between major powers, its technological sophistication, and its diplomatic tradition of bridge-building position it uniquely to translate the concept of managed interdependence into practice.

Korea sits at the intersection of advanced and emerging economies, of suppliers and innovators, of alliances and pragmatic partnerships. From this vantage point, it can help shape frameworks for resilient supply chains, digital governance, and technology security – ensuring that economic resilience does not come at the expense of inclusivity.

Korea’s own experience also offers a compelling model of coexistence under pressure. Once the frontline of the Cold War, and despite living under the constant shadow of North Korea’s nuclear threat, it has built a resilient democracy and an open, innovative economy. That achievement is not merely national; it reflects the very balance the region now seeks, proving that security and openness, competition and cooperation, can indeed be managed together.

Making the Summit Matter

APEC this year is a test of whether cooperation can still function in a fractured world. To make this summit meaningful, Korea as the host nation, must translate ambition into plausible design – turning lofty language into practical outcomes that endure beyond the headlines. The key is to pursue a minimum viable consensus: focus on modest yet tangible deliverables in areas such as digital trade, supply chain mapping, and decarbonization research – achievable goals that can anchor collaboration even among wary members.

To make those commitments last, Korea must mediate to make APEC members to pair this pragmatic agenda with light but credible follow-up mechanisms. Establishing small, results-oriented task forces on digital governance, green technology, and supply chain resilience – with clear timelines and regular progress reviews – would help ensure that even limited agreements translate into sustained cooperation.

Korea should also aim to make APEC as a platform for structured bilateral and minilateral engagements. Quiet working sessions among major players – from US-China dialogues to ASEAN–middle power groupings – can yield practical side agreements that later reinforce the broader framework. Seoul’s role should be that of an orchestrator, ensuring that legitimacy stems from inclusivity rather than dominance. Korea can and should act as an honest broker – bridging divides without diluting ambition and turning a performative gathering into a purposeful one.

Ultimately, this APEC summit is a live experiment in whether managed interdependence can replace the fading ideal of free trade. The global order may be fragmenting, but the demand for credible rules and predictable cooperation remains. If Korea can shepherd even modest, durable agreements that embody resilience, digital trust, and green competitiveness, it will prove that multilateralism is not entirely dead – only waiting for new architects.