APEC's future as driving force may hang in the balance

The Washington Post reported on July 28 that, bowing to pressure from China hawks in Congress, United States President Joe Biden will bar Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu from attending the annual leaders' meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, which the US will host in San Francisco in November.

In response, Mao Ning, spokeswoman for China's Foreign Ministry, expressed strong dissatisfaction with and opposition to a possible ban on the city's leader, saying that it would be a mistake compounding an earlier mistake.

Lee responded in a more moderate, measured manner in response to media inquiries during his recent Southeast Asia visit. He is reported to have said that the US, as the host country, "should act in accordance with APEC's rules, guidelines and conventions" and send invitations to all member economies, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The Biden administration has not to date made any official announcement regarding Lee's attendance at the economic leaders' meeting. The difference in tone of the Foreign Ministry's and Lee's responses, and the lack of an official statement from Washington, suggest that Lee's attendance is still under negotiation between the US and China.

If Washington does decide to bar Lee, that would be a deplorable betrayal of the original objective of APEC, which was initiated in 1989 by then Australian prime minister Bob Hawke, to promote greater economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. Ten months later, at the first meeting attended by representatives of 12 economies in the region, APEC was officially founded.

In recognition of the contributions to regional growth of the Chinese mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong, the three economies were invited to join in 1991. In view of the political sensitivity concerning the membership of Taiwan and Hong Kong, a political compromise was reached by the parties concerned, with support from the US, for Taiwan to participate as "Chinese Taipei "and Hong Kong as "Hong Kong, China", even though Hong Kong was still under British rule at that time. The zeitgeist was economic cooperation with a view to promoting free and open trade and investment in the region.

All members, large and small, have equal status in APEC, even though some have far more economic heft and political clout than the others.

It's also a highly commendable part of APEC's tradition to treat all members with courtesy and dignity, demonstrating the spirit of friendship and equality that underlines the engagement process.

Even though APEC members have no mandate to negotiate binding agreements on market access, reduction of tariff and nontariff barriers, and investment protection and promotion, APEC meetings held at various levels — whether of economic leaders, ministers, senior officials or entrepreneurs — provide a welcome platform for members to interact on a gamut of issues, ranging from strengthening small and medium-sized enterprises to scientific and technological collaboration.

Face-to-face meetings help build warm relationships despite ideological differences, and they contribute to peaceful coexistence.

As Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao pointed out, the US sanctioning Lee for allegedly "contravening the obligations of China under the (Sino-British) Joint Declaration and the Basic Law" was a mistake, and a gross interference in China's domestic affairs masquerading as support for Hong Kong's "autonomy". Banning Lee on this lame political pretext would deal a body blow to the core economic mission of APEC, and further weaken its ability to contribute to engagement and dialogue in today's tense geopolitical environment.

Under Section 8 of the US' so-called "Hong Kong Autonomy Act", the US president may waive the application of sanctions to a designated foreign person, if the president determines that the waiver is "in the national security interest" of the US and submits a report on the determination and the reasons to the appropriate congressional committee.

Biden has wide discretion to make a waiver under this provision, and a decision not to grant a waiver would be a political act that would put a dagger in the heart of the regional economic cooperation that has been the hallmark of APEC since its establishment.

If Lee is banned, Hong Kong would need to consider whether it is worthwhile to send an alternative economic leader who has not been sanctioned to represent Hong Kong at the summit.

If the government's consensus is that a ban would be an injurious and wholly unjustified slur on Hong Kong, it is questionable whether the SAR should acquiesce to the US' redoubled slander.

The palpable objective of APEC is to promote growth through regional cooperation in open trade, business and investment. Perhaps it is naive to expect the US to continue to adhere to these noble goals. Out of obsession with a so-called "China threat", the US Congress passed and Biden signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act to pour billions of dollars into subsidies to incentivize semiconductor and other high-tech manufacturers to relocate their production to the US, closing markets and ripping apart supply chains.

The US has turned inward and turned its back on free trade and globalization. If the US continues to go down the primrose path of politicization and protectionism in its policy on APEC, it is not just Lee's attendance that hangs in the balance, but also the future of APEC as a driving force for growth and cooperation.

The author is convener of the Executive Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and a legislator.