dw.com
APEC Ministers Meet Amid US Tariffs
APEC trade ministers meet in South Korea to discuss multilateral cooperation amid US tariffs impacting over half its members, with Indonesia facing a 32% tariff on its goods starting April 2, 2025, ahead of the November APEC summit in Busan.
- What are the immediate impacts of US tariffs on APEC members and the global trade system?
- APEC trade ministers from 21 member economies are meeting in South Korea to address multilateral cooperation amid US tariffs impacting over half of APEC members. The US has imposed tariffs on various countries, including Indonesia, with a 32% tariff on Indonesian goods starting April 2, 2025. This meeting precedes the November APEC summit in Busan.
- How are individual APEC members, such as South Korea and Indonesia, responding to the US tariffs and the upcoming meeting?
- The US tariffs, impacting roughly half of global trade and 60% of global GDP, are prompting APEC members to seek solutions for multilateral trade and WTO reform. Bilateral talks between the US and South Korea are scheduled, following recent US trade deals with the UK and China, highlighting a shift in global trade dynamics. The EU is also accelerating FTA talks with Asian nations as a response to the US tariffs.
- What are the long-term implications of the US trade policies on the structure of global trade and the role of international organizations like the WTO?
- The meeting's success is uncertain due to a lack of substantive negotiations. South Korea aims to create a favorable atmosphere for future negotiations, while the US approach to trade deals varies; some are rapid (UK), others slower (Korea, Japan). The EU's diversification strategy, including accelerated FTAs with ASEAN nations and CPTPP engagement, shows a shift away from reliance on US trade relations.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the negative impacts of President Trump's tariffs, portraying them as the main cause of global trade slowdown. Headlines and the article's structure prioritize the disruptive effects of the tariffs, potentially influencing the reader to view the situation negatively and to focus on the US as the main actor.
Language Bias
The article uses somewhat loaded language when describing President Trump's actions, such as "warfare," "punishments," and "unilateral steps." These terms carry a negative connotation and could be replaced with more neutral terms like "trade disputes," "tariff increases," or "policy changes." The description of Trump's accusations against the WTO also uses strong language, which could be softened for improved neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the US-China trade war and the impact of US tariffs, but gives less attention to other perspectives and potential contributing factors to global trade imbalances. While mentioning other countries affected, the depth of analysis on their experiences is limited. The article also omits discussion on the potential benefits or positive consequences of the trade disputes, such as increased domestic production in some countries.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing of the situation, focusing primarily on the conflict between the US and China with less consideration for the multifaceted nature of global trade relations and the diverse range of perspectives among APEC members. The narrative largely positions the US tariffs as the primary driver of global trade issues, downplaying other complexities.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impacts of US trade wars on several APEC member countries, leading to job losses, reduced economic growth, and uncertainty in various sectors. Increased tariffs imposed by the US harm export-oriented economies within the APEC region, hindering their ability to create decent work and foster economic growth. The WTO's lowered projection for global trade further underscores this negative impact.