China’s Low-Key Presence at Shangri-La Dialogue Draws Attention
At the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on Friday, China’s approach was notably subdued. Instead of sending high-ranking officials like Defense Minister Dong Jun, the delegation comprised mainly academics.
This choice raised eyebrows for Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles, who speculated that Beijing’s decision could indicate a reluctance to respond to challenging inquiries about its extensive military expansion and assertive actions.
“China is engaging in the largest conventional military buildup since World War II, but it doesn’t stem from a feeling of security regarding other nations,” Marles pointed out in an interview reported on Friday.
He stressed that “the global rules-based order is facing challenges in the Indo-Pacific,” suggesting it’s crucial to evaluate international relationships, identify common grounds, and explore areas for collaboration.
Marles noted that in the past, China’s participation was seen positively, as having the opportunity to converse with China is valuable.
The Shangri-La event is billed as a “dialogue,” and including China has historically eased tensions, particularly since many attending nations view China as a prominent security concern.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) organizes this event, which began in 2002 amidst significant global unrest following the September 11 attacks. Initially called the “Asian Security Conference,” it has expanded from 14 participating defense ministers to nearly 50 countries today. Interestingly, this year’s delegation lacks a leading defense figure from China.
If China had sent high-ranking officials instead of research staff, they might have faced awkward situations. For instance, attendees included representatives from the Philippines, who are currently working to counteract aggressive moves by China in the South China Sea.
Recently, tensions flared following the arrest of 24 Chinese nationals in an immigration raid by Manila, prompting a stern reaction from Beijing. Furthermore, China is feeling the pressure as the Philippines and Japan initiate talks to define maritime borders around Taiwan, an area Beijing claims as its own.
Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. recently had a very cordial visit to Tokyo, where he and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi discussed plans for stronger defense cooperation, specifically aimed at addressing concerns regarding China.
The Philippines is also actively pursuing advanced destroyers from Japan, which would enhance its capabilities against China’s increasingly assertive coast guard and armed fishing fleets.
Meanwhile, the relationship between Vietnam and China has become more complex lately, driven by territorial disagreements and U.S. efforts to strengthen ties with Hanoi while distancing it from traditional partners like China and Russia.
Vietnam President Tho Lam will be featured as a keynote speaker at the Shangri-La Dialogue, yet it seems he is not worried about potential implications for China regarding their discussions.
Marles expressed satisfaction that despite distractions like the Iran crisis, “the United States remains firmly committed to the Indo-Pacific.” He emphasized Australia’s alliance with the U.S. as a cornerstone of national security.
On Saturday, Marles will join Hegseth and U.K. Defense Minister John Healy to announce updates related to AUKUS, the trilateral defense pact between their nations, which includes commitments to high-tech submarine capabilities.
Although still sometimes called by its former name, the Shangri-La Dialogue is named after the Singapore hotel where it originally took place.
Discussions surrounding underwater drones, part of the AUKUS agreement, have progressed slower than anticipated, but Australia is a global leader in stealth unmanned underwater vehicle technology.
Notably, some analysts express skepticism about the forum’s efficacy. They point out that crucial conversations might be happening informally, hinting that this could lead traditional allies and neutral nations to reevaluate the reliability of U.S. security commitments amidst various simultaneous crises around the globe.
The ongoing uncertainties stemming from the Iran conflict have further intensified these doubts. It’s clear that not all nations share the same confidence in U.S. support moving forward.
