NOTHNG new came out from the Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore recently. This comes as no surprise as the event, touted as a platform for bringing together defence ministers, heads of ministries and military leaders from Asia-Pacific states, has achieved little since its inception more than 20 years ago.

Initiated by a think-tank and wannabe influencer in regional geopolitics with an Anglo-Saxon lens, its stated objective – “to cultivate a sense of community among the most important policymakers in the defence and security community in the region” – appears more distant than ever.

Countries alleged by the West as belligerent or disruptive to the Western-defined international order were either absent or appeared to dismiss the dialogue as a hollow spectacle. In reality, the much-hyped event has proven to be largely inconsequential in delivering positive security outcomes.

International Institute for Strategic Studies

Take, for example, the exclusion of North Korea shows the inability of the organisers to break free from the ideological partiality that has characterised its agenda and activities right from the beginning.

Although South Korea has been a participant since the forum’s inception, North Korea – regarded as an existential threat by the US and West from the outset – has been treated as if it counts for nothing in the region’s security and geopolitical landscape.

Today the staunchly independent nation – once nicknamed “the hermit kingdom” – is a formidable power with its nuclear capabilities.

Despite attempts by the US to deny North Korea its legitimate position in the international community, the fact is that the country is recognised globally. It holds membership in
the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement, Group of 77 and the Asean Regional Forum – the latter being an intergovernmental forum focused on security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

The exclusionary policy applied to North Korea stands in stark contrast to the stated purpose of an open and impartial forum that brings together countries of the region.

Surprisingly, the forum also includes countries from outside the region – such as Germany, France, Canada and the
UK – that have little or no legitimate credentials in deliberating on the region’s security issues.

This exposes the partisan operations of the private company, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which is registered in the UK, as a
charity but in reality is a profit-making enterprise and the main driver behind the dialogue event.

Western media coverage

As expected, Western media covering the dialogue have also focused on the presentations by the representatives of the US and its allies.

In contrast, there has been little or no attention given to the perspectives of representatives and private sector voices from countries that are less or not aligned with American and Anglo-Saxon foreign policy.

In his widely reported speech, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth – a former Fox News talk show host now hoping to retain his job after bungling on the Signal-leaked chat scandal involving a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen – initially paid effusive praise to President Donald Trump for “restoring the warrior ethos” so that “we (the US) remain the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world”.

He then claimed that “we are not here to pressure other countries to embrace and adopt our politics or ideology; we are not here to preach to you about climate change or cultural issues; and we are not here to impose our will on you”.

His unsurprising main submission highlighted by Western media was the singling out of China as the common enemy in Asia-Pacific and calling on countries to open their treasuries to invest more in the defence and security of the region.

This crass salesmanship pitch duplicates the demand that the Trump administration has made to the European Union although there is no war being fought in the region to justify the alarmist call.

The identification of China as the regional and increasingly global threat
to peace by the US is nothing new. It continues a trend in global geopolitics following the shift in American policy responding to China’s rapid socioeconomic development and increasing prominence on the regional and global stage.

Beginning in 2017, when the US officially designated China as a “long-term strategic competitor” in its national defence strategy, US policy
has moved from the previous friendly and engagement-focused approach to
an antagonistic one, framing the relationship as one of “great power competition”.

To take China down in this great power rivalry, the US has employed
a multifront strategy involving demonisation of China on human rights, democracy and a host of other issues; restrictions on Chinese businesses; technology transfer sanctions and
other forms of economic warfare; and including a trade war most recently.

Building up military assets

Exaggerating the threat from China to manipulate the foreign policy insecurities of countries in the region – while indirectly soliciting procurement for the armament manufacturers of the US and its allies that dominate military markets – Hegseth claimed that Beijing is “preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in
the Indo-Pacific, including building its capabilities to invade Taiwan” and is “rehearsing for the real deal”.

This latest instance of crying wolf over China’s security actions and intentions – while reiterating the US commitment to peace, stability and prosperity in the region – has little support or resonance among non-aligned governments, who see the US through unblinkered eyes and are working on strategic autonomy.

Most countries in the region are more likely to pinpoint the US, rather than China, as the source of regional tension and instability.

It is unlikely that the pressure exerted by the US for regional countries to share the military burden in alliance with the US will improve the prospects for peace.

On the contrary, it could prove to be
a double-edged sword if it generates a more dangerous arms race.

American policymakers should also bear in mind that countries now have the choice to buy Chinese military systems that are cheaper and equally or even more lethal than the ones that Hegseth boasted about in his presentation.

Western and other analysts should realise that increases in the defence budgets of the region will not bring easy victories or peace for any side.

Singapore’s role in regional security building

Perhaps this belated recognition can be a major focus for the 2026 dialogue event. For that to happen, the Singapore government, which serves as host and organiser, needs to get out of its sleeping partner status and assert control over the programme agenda and discussions which are far from neutral, open and candid or intended to help bridge divides as claimed by the event propaganda.

Finally, the primary purpose of the dialogue, which has regressed into one deliberating on how to counter and contain China, should be balanced with one focusing on how Asia-Pacific countries, including Asean, should be dealing with the US – which under Trump’s administration is more intent
on asserting American hegemony and making the countries of the region more subservient.

This and the inclusion of North Korea in the next forum will help bring some credibility to Singapore’s claim to be
a proactive (and hopefully honest) mediator facilitating discussions on balancing deterrence and diplomacy.

Lim Teck Ghee’s Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: [email protected]