The shift in focus of political priorities of the world leaders from APEC summit to East Asia Summit is not symptomatic of mere one and half hour travel time between the Vietnamese port city of Da Nang and Philippines’ capital Manila, the two host cities of the international summits.
Rather the contrast is stark.
The fact that Trade Minister Hon David Parker had returned to NZ, leaving PM Jacinda Ardern in the company of Foreign Minister Winston Peters to tackle the requirements of international diplomacy at the East Asia Summit signifies the different set of priorities for NZ in the seemingly similar appearing international groupings.
It is important to note that despite the two groupings of APEC and East Asia Summit appearing deceptively similar, there is a notable variance in the core area of interests emanating from these two international groupings.
Indeed, one certain point of variance is in the degree of ambitions set for the much sought after free-trade deal between the member nations.
Notably, the difference is not only in the geographical focus but also in the set of political, economical and security-related priorities that emanates from the two international groupings.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is a forum for 21 Pacific Rim member economies that promote free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region.
The East Asia Summit (EAS) is an annual forum of 18 countries broadly representing the regions of East Asia, South East Asia and South Asia. The forum is held under largely under the auspices of, or is largely considered an extension of, the Association of South East Asian (ASEAN) summits.
As their name clearly suggests, APEC is exclusively focussed on trade-related issues in the broader Asia-Pacific region, which often discusses other political issues of significance, whereas East Asia Summit deals with other important political issues, along with trade, though with a different emphasis.
The difference in priorities is clearly visible between TPP and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
A quick overview of the variance in major priorities and hence anticipated outcomes for NZ between APEC and East Asia summit is in order.
High-quality trade deal to a workable trade deal
One of the major differing points is the degree of ambitions, and the scope of geographical and market spread, sought after in the Free Trade Agreements pursued by the member nations at these two international grouping.
The talks on the TPP initially emerged as an American desire of curbing the rising global economic influence of China, by forming a highly ambitious free trade area of the largely developed economies in the Asia-Pacific region.
TPP seeks a highly ambitious trade deal covering services and investment instead of just lowering of tariffs for trading goods.
Although, several member nations have started to develop cold feet towards the degree of integration, often at the cost of loss of sovereign rights of the participating states, yet, by all means, it remains ambitious in comparison to all other trade deals in the region.
The RCEP on the other hand, which roughly accounts for a population of 3.4 billion people with a total Gross Domestic Product (GDP, PPP) of $49.5 trillion, and approximately 39 percent of the world's GDP.
The combined GDPs of China and India make up more than half that amount.
The talk of RCEP started in the ASEAN summit of 2012 with a goal of signing the deal by 2017 and is considered less ambitious in scope than TPP.
The RCEP negotiations will continue in 2018 as a ministerial meeting in Manila concluded on Sunday, November 12, revealed.
This is even when leaders' talk scheduled is scheduled for Tuesday, November 14, in the Philippine capital.
From Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific
However, the changing priorities in focus are not just within the realm of geo-economics but instead are in the realm of geopolitics and security.
The two-hour journey from Da Nang to Manila also symbolises the increasing importance of Indo-Pacific over the more antiquated Asia-Pacific region, within the global politics.
Indo-Pacific - a region that has already gained popular recognition within the broader strategic community further gained official acceptability within the government circles of key players within the region.
The increasing use of the phrase “Indo-Pacific” by Donald Trump and his team during their marathon Asian jaunt this week, instead of the "Asia-Pacific" term that has long been common in business and diplomacy, has two important implications.
First, as is widely noted, it is thinly veiled at the rising and an increasingly assertive China in the region.
Toward this goal, the long-suppressed quadrilateral security dialogue or ‘quad’ between four maritime democracies of Australia, Japan, India and the US was officially revived when these four powers came together for the first time to cooperate in creating a free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific region.
Secondly, the revival of ‘quad’ further accentuates the rise of India in this region and the increasing role of India as a new security provider in this region in the American scheme of things in Asia.
It is within the realm of security and stability within this Indo-Pacific region that New Zealand would need to see a greater value in partnership with India.
Needless to emphasise that securing sea lanes of this region from where New Zealand’s majority of trade traverse, should also be a key foreign policy goal for NZ.
Indeed, it will be a test for the new Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to adjust herself quickly with these differing set of priorities in the East Asia Summit.