In the context of International Relations (IR), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum shines as a solid example of regional integration. APEC aims to contribute to the global economy by incentivizing member economies to cooperate on trade, investment, and technology since its foundation in 1989. In theory, APEC is compatible with IR liberal theory. This theory defends that mutual economic dependence decreases conflicts and increases cooperation. However, when developments are examined within the framework of realism, it is helpful to analyze the power struggles underlying the forum, particularly the competition between China and the United States (USA).[i]
The theoretical foundations of APEC are rooted in the neoliberal institutionalist approach. This perspective argues that institutions facilitate interstate cooperation and help maintain order within an anarchic international system. APEC embodies this theory through its voluntary participation and consensus-based decision-making mechanism. On the other hand, considering the region’s distinct characteristics, a constructivist perspective suggests that the forum’s normative structure shapes the identities of member economies and fosters a shared vision of an Asia–Pacific market. China’s hosting in 2026 can be seen as a period in which these norms are put to the test. This is because China’s rise challenges Western-centered rules, while current problems in global governance underscore the necessity of an alternative power.
APEC’s historical evolution began in the post–Cold War period. The forum was initially established under Australia’s leadership to accelerate economic integration in the Asia–Pacific region. At this stage, APEC focused on removing trade barriers and liberalizing investment flows. Historically, throughout the 1990s, the forum was shaped by visionary documents such as the Bogor Goals and served as a bridge between developed and developing economies. This period can be interpreted as a victory for liberalism, as cross-border flows were encouraged under the wave of globalization. However, from a political analysis perspective, it is also helpful to consider the underlying power balances behind this integration. In this context, while the United States has used the forum to consolidate its economic hegemony, Asian economies have sought to preserve their autonomy.
In subsequent years, APEC’s agenda expanded. During the 2000s, it was shaped by global challenges such as counterterrorism and financial crises, and the forum began to focus on supply chains and the digital economy to enhance economic resilience. In the historical chronology, this phase highlights elements of realism: geopolitical tensions, such as disputes in the South China Sea, have overshadowed economic cooperation. APEC’s success lies in its ability to reconcile the national interests of its member states. However, the trend toward deglobalization has made this reconciliation more difficult. China’s participation marked a critical turning point during this period, as China’s development model became increasingly widespread within the APEC framework.
In connection with initiatives such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the forum has promoted high-standard trade rules. Historically, this phase coincided with the rise of economic nationalism; the United States’ “America First” policies came to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. APEC’s strength lies in its capacity to manage this competition: liberal theorists argue that interdependence reduces the risk of war, whereas realists contend that technological nationalism could trigger a new Cold War. China’s hosting in 2026 can be seen as the culmination of these dynamics; the first Senior Officials’ Meeting in Guangzhou linked regional growth to the free movement of factors of production.[ii]
The Guangzhou meetings reflect APEC’s current agenda. Today, amid the fragility of the global economic recovery, APEC seeks to sustain growth in the Asia–Pacific through open markets and stable supply chains. In a historical context, these meetings are an extension of the post-pandemic period, as COVID-19 exposed the vulnerability of supply chains. China’s role is particularly evident here: Beijing has positioned APEC as a platform for compliance with high-standard international rules. However, the United States’ promotion of exports in artificial intelligence (AI) and maritime technologies reveals the competitive face of realism.[iii]
The issue of U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) and maritime technologies is a critical area that reflects the technological dimension of geopolitical competition. Especially during the Trump administration, the United States sought to counter China’s technological superiority by promoting AI exports through APEC. In this context, a fund of 20 million dollars was established to support the adoption of American AI technologies in partner economies. This approach concretely illustrates the balance-of-power perspective of realist theory, as technological nationalism transforms economic interdependencies into strategic tools. However, China’s limitations in semiconductor production allow the United States to maintain its advantage in this field, underscoring the need for long-term cooperation.[iv]
In the maritime technology context, the United States promotes innovations such as satellite-tracking systems, AI-based analytics, and sensor-equipped ocean buoys to combat illegal fishing. Viewing China’s 18,000-vessel distant-water fleet as a “state-coordinated” threat, the United States presents these technologies as tools to protect the sovereignty of Pacific coastal states. This issue encompasses security dimensions such as environmental sustainability, maritime sovereignty, and food security. The U.S. moves in this area can be interpreted as a balancing strategy against China’s activities in the South China Sea.
China’s trade data solidifies APEC’s economic impact. In 2025, China’s trade with APEC economies accounted for more than half of its total foreign trade. In the historical chronology, this increase gained momentum through engagement with emerging economies, including ASEAN members, Peru, and Mexico. These data confirm the win–win principle: China’s establishment of high-technology supply chains with Japan and South Korea strengthens the regional ecosystem. From a constructivist perspective, however, this integration also creates shared norms: openness and inclusivity shape the identities of member economies. From a liberal case-study perspective, firm-level examples illustrate APEC’s micro-level impact. An electric fan manufacturer based in Ningbo increased its exports to South Korea, while a cosmetics firm in Guangzhou expanded in the Indonesian and Malaysian markets. Historically, these successes have resulted from APEC’s trade facilitation. The symbolic importance of Shenzhen reflects China’s journey of reform and opening up. Historically, the city transformed from a border town into an innovation hub. In terms of identity, through APEC, Shenzhen shares China’s institutional innovations.
Revisions to China’s fisheries law demonstrate its commitments. Historically, these changes represent responses to international pressure. APEC’s sectoral meetings cover areas such as trade, the digital economy, and energy, strengthening the forum’s practical dimension. China’s hosting, in particular, reinforces multilateralism, while U.S. initiatives intensify strategic competition. Developments such as supply-chain linkages, ASEAN railways, and Latin American energy integration deepen the regional ecosystem.
APEC’s China Year in 2026 marks a critical turning point in international relations. Examining developments through the forum’s historical evolution and political dynamics shows that APEC can serve as a balancing force against global economic fragmentation. Looking ahead, maintaining APEC’s principle of openness will support regional growth. From a liberal perspective, deeper economic integration will reduce the risk of conflict; for example, cooperation in the digital economy and green transition will create new engines of growth. However, realist projections indicate that China–U.S. competition may intensify: tensions in AI and maritime technologies could expose the forum to the risk of fragmentation. In this context, APEC’s success depends on consensus-building; capacity-building programs will enhance inclusivity by empowering developing economies. Ultimately, global challenges such as climate change and pandemics will shape APEC’s agenda. APEC’s future depends on members’ ability to translate vision into action, an outcome that will also determine the Asia–Pacific’s global leadership.
[i] “How APEC ‘China Year’ can boost regional prosperity”, Global Times, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202602/1355211.shtml, (Day Accessed: 16.02.2026).
[ii] “Wang Yi Attends the Opening Session of APEC 2026 First Senior Officials’ Meeting”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs People’s Republic of China, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbzhd/202602/t20260212_11857760.html, (Day Accessed: 16.02.2026).
[iii] “US pushes Fisheries Tech at APEC Amid China Rivalry”, Marine Link, https://www.marinelink.com/news/us-pushes-fisheries-tech-apec-amid-china-535753, (Day Accessed: 16.02.2026).
[iv] Aynı yer.