Policy Alert #190 | June 11, 2019

On May 31-June 2, 2019, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) hosted the eighteenth Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. The annual meeting serves as a forum for Asian leaders, especially defense ministers, to gather to discuss pressing issues in regional security. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tackled the looming elephant in the room by addressing the tension between China and the United States head-on in his keynote speech at the dialogue: “Our world is at a turning point. Globalisation is under siege. Tensions between the US and China are growing and, like everyone else, we in Singapore are anxious. We wonder what the future holds and how countries can collectively find a way forward to maintain peace and prosperity in the world.” With the stage set, Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan fired the first shots in a tense exchange of critiques between the two countries by hinting at the US’s commitment to Taiwanese self-determination in his speech at the event. Although officials from Australia, Canada, the European Union, France, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam were present to weigh-in on other topics, the drama between China and the US appeared to steal the show. With the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and Group of Twenty (G20) Summits fast-approaching, how are the Rising Powers responding to the Shangri-La Dialogue fracas?

 

CHINA

State Councilor and Minister of National Defence General Wei Fenghe attended the dialogue this year, marking the first attendance by a Chinese Defense Minister in eight years. General Wei’s speech at the Dialogue drew much attention for his resolute dismissal of Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan’s comments: “If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs for national unity. Hereby, I have a message for the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] authorities and the external forces. Firstly, no attempts to split China would succeed. Secondly, any foreign intervention in the Taiwan question is doomed to failure. […] Thirdly, any underestimation of the [People’s Liberation Army]’s resolve and will is extremely dangerous. We will strive for the prospect of peaceful reunification with utmost sincerity and greatest efforts, but we make no promise to renounce the use of force. Safeguarding national unity is a sacred duty of the PLA.” Following the Dialogue, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang offered support for Defense Minister Wei’s efforts at the event and detailed the Foreign Ministry’s position: “The pursuit of peace, development and win-win cooperation is an unstoppable trend of the times and the shared aspiration of people all over the world. Any proposal on regional cooperation by any country should be in line with this trend and aspiration, or it will not gain universal support. By hyping up military undertones and confrontation, a country will only end up hurting itself. We hope the US will consider its own interests and the common interests of regional countries and contribute to regional peace, stability and development.”

• The state-supported China Daily praised Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s opening speech for encouraging the global community to accommodate China’s rise, but noted that the message was falling on deaf ears in Washington: “[I]t seems such reasonable voices are far from enough to talk sense into the US president and his like-minded ideologues. Conscious that the unipolar moment of pre-eminence enjoyed by the US is on the brink of ending, they are doing all they can to delay that moment.”
• The nationalist Global Times had tough words for the ruling Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan amidst the hubbub over Acting Secretary Shanahan’s comments: “The Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities are acting recklessly on the US’ ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy.’ From last year to this year, the frequency of American warships crossing the Taiwan Straits has increased, and the US has passed a series of Taiwan-related anti-China acts. Here in particular, we should warn the Taiwan authorities not to assume that now is their chance to achieve a strategic breakthrough by becoming the political and military pivot of the US’ ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy.’ That would be very dangerous for Taiwan.”
• The independent South China Morning Post was optimistic about the dialogue’s effectiveness despite the drama: “The US has a challenging task convincing governments in Asia and the Pacific to side with it rather than China given Trump’s erratic actions. Less uncertain, though, is the desire by the nations’ militaries to keep politics from their dialogue and ensure relations remain cordial. Priorities were right in Singapore; although there was posturing, the trade and tech wars were set aside by China and the US so that they could work for a better communications channel to raise issues and improve understanding.”

 

INDIA

India was notably absent from this year’s dialogue, given Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech at last year’s event. Modi was the first Indian leader to attend the event. This year, however, Modi was busy with his own swearing-in ceremony following his party’s landslide victory in recent elections. As the Economic Times reported, IISS sought the attendance of a senior official this year, but the timing of the event–only a day after the government resumed office–left little time to prepare.

• Commodore Somen Banerjee, Senior Fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation, was pessimistic about India’s foreign policy outlook in the wake of the dialogue: “[The] Shangri-La Dialogue 2019 preempts an ominous future for the Indo-Pacific region. Neither China nor the U.S. has the intent to resolve disputes amicably between them or with others in the region. […] To balance China, India would have to nurture its strategic partnership with the U.S. But leaning too much towards the U.S. might draw India into a Thucydides trap. Thus, India needs to support status-quo in the region while looking for opportunities in the ongoing trade-war and strategic competition, without getting embroiled with them.”
• Harsh V. Pant, Director of Studies at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and Professor of International Relations at King’s College, and Premesha Saha, associate fellow at ORF, penned an op-ed for the left-leaning Hindu that linked Modi’s speech last year to a recent bureaucratic shake up in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to reorganize itself to fit the Prime Minister’s Indo-Pacific framework: “There are still challenges for India, especially how it will integrate the Quadrilateral initiative which got revived in 2017 with its larger Indo-Pacific approach. It will also be important for the new MEA division to move beyond security and political issues and articulate a more comprehensive policy towards the region. Commerce and connectivity in particular will have to be prioritised if India is to take advantage of a new opening for its regional engagement.”

 

JAPAN

Japanese Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya offered a speech during a session on Korean Security, but prefaced his comments with a demonstration of support for Acting US Defense Secretary Shanahan, at least with regards to US policy on the Indo-Pacific: “Before moving on to my discussion about Korean Security, I note Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan’s comprehensive speech about the security of the Indo- Pacific region. I welcome the strong U.S. commitment to the vision of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific, or FOIP, as evident in the overview of the ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy Report’ in the previous session. I am most confident that all those present here today share the same vision.”

• The centrist Japan Times noted the lackluster outcomes of the dialogue this year–especially given the current strained relations between Japan and South Korea–but also took a jab at China’s efforts to create an alternative forum to the Shangri-La Dialogue: “The Shangri-La Dialogue’s emergence as the region’s premier security forum rankles some. That a European think tank convenes this meeting prompted China to create and promote the Xiangshan Forum, now in its ninth year, as an alternative, Asian-run platform for defense discussions. It is a revealing that Beijing felt compelled to establish its own forum to ensure that it sets the agenda. It affords another indication of what a Beijing-centered order would look like. Regional observers would do well to compare the two.”
• The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun supported Acting US Defense Secretary Shanahan’s comments at the dialogue, and had harsh criticism for China’s showing: “China will not be allowed to change the order of the Indo-Pacific region in disregard of international rules. The administration of Chinese President Xi Jinping must listen to the concerns of the international community and rectify its coercive behavior.”

 

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.