A Pacific Big Enough for Both? Trump-Xi Summit and the APEC Moment

In May 2015, during the Obama administration, Chinese President Xi Jinping famously said that “the broad Pacific Ocean is vast enough to embrace both China and the United States” during his meeting with the then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. A decade later, Xi revived this message when he met President Trump during the U.S.-China summit held alongside the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) forum in South Korea. Xi remarked that “China’s development and revival can coexist with and are not contradictory to the ‘Make America Great Again (MAGA)’ vision.” The question remains: did Trump and Xi realize this vision of coexistence through their meeting in Busan, South Korea, at this defining APEC moment?

With APEC 2025 set to take place in South Korea from October 31 to November 1, dozens of national leaders from across the region gathered in Gyeongju, the ancient capital of the Silla dynasty that flourished for more than a millennium, from the 1st century BC to the 10th century AD. Established in 1989, APEC has since served as a cornerstone for regional cooperation across the Pacific and Asia, fostering trade and investment among its members. It comprises 21 member economies, including New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, China, South Korea, Japan, Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Peru. The 2025 APEC meeting resulted in the Gyeongju Declaration, which emphasized efforts to expand regional trade and investment, support digital and artificial intelligence (AI) transformation, and continue APEC’s longstanding achievements and traditions. Notably, the APEC AI initiative and the Collaborative Framework for Demographic Changes were adopted based on common interests of the Asia-Pacific region.

Particularly significant was the first summit between U.S. President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping since the start of Trump’s second term, held in Busan on October 30, just one day before the Gyeongju APEC Summit began. The meeting drew global attention amid heightened uncertainty in the era of great power competition.

De-escalating Tension in U.S.-China Relations

The United States adopted a notably conciliatory tone toward China at the summit. President Trump predicted “a very successful meeting” as he shook hands with Xi for the cameras. Following the talks, he described the meeting as “amazing” and rated it 12 out of 10. On November 1, Trump went further, calling it “my G2 meeting with President Xi of China,” signaling his willingness to pursue a cooperative approach in future negotiations.

However, the outcome of the U.S.-China summit represented an interim compromise aimed at halting the escalation of their trade war. The United States secured several concessions related to fentanyl precursors, rare earths, the semiconductor industry, and agricultural trade issues. Specifically, China agreed to halt the flow of fentanyl precursors into the United States, suspend export control of rare earths, end retaliation against U.S. semiconductor manufacturers, and lift retaliatory tariffs on key American agricultural goods such as soybeans and pork.

In return, Washington lowered the tariffs on Chinese imports by ten percentage points, as a reciprocal measure to China’s commitment to curb fentanyl flow. It also suspended certain export controls based on the expansion of end-user controls (originally intended to prevent technology leakage through non-U.S. affiliates owned by Chinese firms) for one year, and postponed for the same period the implementation of a retaliatory service fee on vessels built in China. Both sides also agreed to pause retaliatory measures targeting the shipbuilding and the maritime industries for one year. Although President Trump praised Xi’s leadership, Washington ultimately secured more tangible gains from the negotiation.

Furthermore, a defense dialogue between the United States and China was held shortly after the Busan summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth met with Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun in Kuala Lumpur, where the two sides agreed to restore military communications channels to prevent inadvertent escalation caused by disagreements and misunderstandings. This move to stabilize military relations reflected the political consensus reached by their leaders in South Korea. Hegseth later wrote in an X post that U.S.-China relations had “never been better” and the summit in South Korea “set the tone for everlasting peace and success for the U.S. and China.”

Deciphering the U.S.-China Compromise

Shifts in U.S. global economic interest over the past decade may actually help reduce tensions between Washington and Beijing. America’s transition into a net-oil export country through shale-gas technology, the reshoring of U.S. companies enabled by the Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies, and the tariff increases of the second Trump administration have collectively shifted U.S. economic interests from a globally distributed structure to one increasingly concentrated within the United States and its neighboring countries. Therefore, the U.S. security strategy is also evolving from an approach centered on global responsibility to one more domestically and regionally focused.

As a result, the United States has pursued a gradual reduction of trade with China, rather than promoting larger trade and investment across Asia and the Pacific. This was symbolically demonstrated when President Trump left South Korea immediately after the summit with Xi, skipping the main APEC sessions that began the next day. His schedule reflected Washington’s hesitation to engage in a regional trade and investment discussion, effectively leaving room for Xi to assert influence through the APEC forum. Meanwhile, the United States has redirected its attention toward political and economic engagement in the Americas. In this manner, the America First policy, growing U.S. regionalism, and its decoupling with China suggest that areas of direct conflict with China have decreased compared to a decade ago. Nevertheless, strategic competition between Washington and Beijing remains pronounced, particularly over the Taiwan issue and technological supremacy.

Moreover, the temporary truce in the trade war has created opportunities for limited cooperation in addressing unresolved regional and global challenges. In the opening remarks at the summit in South Korea, President Xi praised Trump’s mediation efforts in facilitating ceasefire negotiations between Thailand and Cambodia, as well as between Israel and Hamas.

North Korea remains a critical test case. Although Kim Jong Un declined to meet President Trump during his visit to South Korea for APEC, renewed U.S.-China coordination will place Trump in a more favorable standing for future summits. Likewise, joint diplomatic leverage between Washington and Beijing could provide an efficient condition for encouraging Russia to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Middle Powers Amidst the U.S.-China Compromise

Still, the so-called “G2 meeting” between Trump and Xi does not mark a return to international stability. The stability that the international community enjoyed in the previous decades was possible thanks to the contribution of U.S.-led international efforts. Stability requires a global provider of public goods, such as norms, markets, and security. However, it appears that China is not yet capable of providing the same public goods that the United States once did. Despite its growing economy, China cannot yet replace the United States as a global provider of public goods. With a population exceeding 1.4 billion, Beijing must prioritize domestic development and stability, relying heavily on exports to sustain its economy. China also lacks the capacity to absorb foreign products or provide large-scale economic assistance to developing countries. It cannot address global challenges with its surplus resources and expertise as the United States once did.

Thus, to compensate for the shortfall in global public goods, middle powers in the Asia-Pacific, such as South Korea, Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, and Australia, should demonstrate active cooperation at forums like this year’s APEC. During the summit, member economies displayed their willingness to build an institutional foundation for shared prosperity. For instance, South Korea proposed the APEC AI initiative to harness AI for regional economic growth and pledged to establish an Asia-Pacific AI Center to promote and share AI technologies across the region. The future stability of the Asia-Pacific and Indo-Pacific region may well depend on these collective efforts among middle power countries.

The U.S.-China summit resulted in a cooperative arrangement enabled by a temporary truce in the U.S.-China trade war. This could develop into an opportunity to address broader international concerns, including the Russo-Ukrainian War, North Korea’s nuclear development, and military cooperation between Russia and North Korea. Should U.S.-China cooperation evolve into a broader coalition involving South Korea and Europe, it could serve as a stabilizing force in resolving challenges posed by both Pyongyang and Moscow. Progress on the North Korean nuclear issue could, in turn, create momentum for ending the Russo-Ukrainian War, and vice versa. Middle powers across Asia and Europe must support one another and strengthen international cooperation to promote global stability, guided by a shared vision of building a new global concert.