Make APEC coercion everyone’s business

According to the Taipei Times (“Taiwan protests APEC ‘discrimination,’” Nov. 2, page 1), Beijing has sent Taiwan a letter concerning the forthcoming APEC summit that falls short of a formal invitation and omits “Chinese Taipei,” Taiwan’s established designation in the forum. Taipei lodged a protest. Now, it should make that protest impossible to overlook.

APEC offers a strong setting in which to confront Chinese coercion. Taiwan is a member. Its participation rests on established arrangements. Other member economies have a direct interest in how those arrangements are upheld, and the international media would be watching.

When Beijing pressures a government to restrict its dealings with Taiwan, the dispute can remain confined to diplomatic exchanges. The targeted government might quietly yield; others can look away. At APEC, Taiwan can put the conduct of the host before the entire membership. Beijing should have to explain its actions.

APEC’s ministerial statement last year expressly endorsed all members “participating on an equal footing in all its events including Leaders’ Week.” That commitment appears in the same document welcoming preparations for China hosting the event this year. Taiwan should hold Beijing to it.

The government should publish the correspondence, with any necessary redactions, alongside examples showing established practice. The current reporting does not reproduce Beijing’s wording. If Taiwan wants international support, it should give other governments and journalists the evidence needed to assess its complaint.

It should also specify the remedy: a proper invitation using the agreed designation and respecting established participation arrangements. Every APEC member should receive that demand, together with documentary evidence. Taiwan should ask each government to support the consistent application of the forum’s own commitments. Senior officials should explain the case publicly, repeatedly and in language that foreign audiences can readily understand.

Taiwan has already accepted the name “Chinese Taipei” to participate in APEC. Its immediate demand is therefore particularly difficult to dismiss: Respect the compromise that already exists.

Other governments need not recognize Taiwan diplomatically, endorse independence or revise their respective “one China” policies; they need only insist that an APEC host honor agreed arrangements.

The familiar accusation that Taiwan is “politicizing” an economic forum should be confronted directly. It is Beijing that has introduced the political dispute.

Some will counsel discretion, as public pressure could harden Beijing’s position. However, discretion needs a purpose and a limit. If Beijing can impose discriminatory treatment while Taiwan keeps the evidence private and other members remain silent, the reputational cost of coercion stays negligible. The next departure becomes easier.

Publicity cannot guarantee a reversal. However, it can make the departure visible, establish who objected and prevent a disputed arrangement from quietly acquiring the appearance of acceptance.

Taiwan should prepare to attend. A premature boycott would surrender the very platform on which it can press its case. Its objective should be participation under established arrangements, supported by sustained public pressure. China wants to host a gathering of regional partners. Taiwan should ensure that those partners see how it treats one of them.

Hosting APEC gives Beijing responsibilities. It does not give Beijing ownership of the guest list.

John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong living in Taiwan.