At the Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore from 31 May to 2 June, China’s prominent presence commanded discussion and strategic attention. From Philippines President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Romualdez Marcos Jr. to US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, all prominently featured China in their remarks.
Hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the annual dialogue is a preeminent forum for global leaders to elucidate their foreign and security strategies. In 2018, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled India’s Indo-Pacific vision, accentuating the centrality of ASEAN within its Indo-Pacific policy framework.
Like India and the United States, China strategically employs this platform to articulate its regional perspectives. This year, Defence Minister Admiral Dong Jun focused on Taiwan and highlighted China’s role and influence in shaping the regional order.
Dong propagated China’s vision of building a community with a shared future, which aligns with initiatives such as the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilisation Initiative.
However, perspectives from Western nations and Ukraine diverged significantly from Dong’s assertions, with the Ukrainian president even characterising China as ‘an instrument in the hands of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’. Notably, this year’s keynote address by the Philippines president predominantly highlighted ‘the role of ASEAN for a peaceful and stable future in the South China Sea’, while scrutinising China’s activities in the region.
The dialogue showed a clear divide: On one side, China singularly emphasised Taiwan, warned countries against interference, and projected itself as a globally responsible stakeholder. On the other side, some regional countries, the US, and Ukraine expressed their discontent with China’s policies.
Chinese discourse in favour of Dong
The dialogue, held shortly after Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te’s inauguration and amid China’s Joint Sword 2024A exercises, witnessed Dong fervently advocating China’s position on Taiwan. Donning his ‘wolf warrior’ hat, Dong issued a stern warning, asserting, “Whoever dares to split Taiwan from China will be crushed to pieces and suffer their own destruction.” Aiming at both the US and Taiwan, he added, “The prospect of peaceful reunification with Taiwan is being increasingly eroded by Taiwanese separatists and external forces.”
Analysts present at the dialogue described Dong’s comments on Taiwan as a ‘monologue’ and ‘intimidating’. Dong’s use of the Shangri-La Dialogue serves to reinforce China’s rhetoric regarding Taiwan, aiming to convince other countries that an invasion is imminent.
In his speech, Dong sought to promote an alternative world order, diverging from established norms and paradigms. A recurring theme in China’s vision is to prioritise the usage of the Asia-Pacific framework over the Indo-Pacific narrative to counterbalance the US’ influence and diminish India’s prospective leading role in the region.
While Dong’s speech generally garnered praise across Chinese social media platforms, a closer examination of the discourse and insights from analysts reveals a notable disparity. There is a clear dichotomy between domestic perspectives within China and external perceptions of the country.
Wang Yiwei, Vice-Dean of Renmin University’s Xi Jinping Institute of Socialist Thought with Chinese Characteristics in the New Era, hinted at Dong’s speech in a commentary. “Chinese culture, grounded in the ethos of harmony and mutual benefit, contrasts with the Western emphasis on individual security, often culminating in confrontations and divisions that impede the attainment of collective safety,” he said.
Interestingly, a commentary portrayed the dialogue not as neutral ground for discussing critical security matters in the region, but rather as a politically motivated platform. This view is underpinned by the IISS’s decision to provide a platform to the presidents of the Philippines and Ukraine, both of whom have voiced significant critiques of China.
Similar sentiments emerged on Weibo, where a number of posts criticised the organisers for bias, alleging they were advancing the US agenda and Western interests in Singapore, a country typically seen as neutral. A post contended that had the organisers disclosed Zelenskyy’s participation beforehand, many Asian officials and delegates would have objected or chosen not to attend.
Chinese social media users are now accusing the organisers of deviating from regional security issues and ignoring the interests of Asian countries. This view further strengthens the narrative that Asia is for Asians, a viewpoint endorsed by Chinese President Xi Jinping to diminish US influence in the region.
Zelenskyy’s participation in, and the subsequent criticism of China at, the dialogue garnered significant backlash from Chinese commentators and social media users. In defending China’s decision to abstain from the Swiss peace conference on Ukraine, a commentator posited that Zelenskyy’s accusations against China lacked evidence and were merely propagandistic.
Underlining China’s dedication to principles of international justice and the safeguarding of its national interests, the commentator asserted that China rejects external manipulation, be it from Putin or Zelenskyy, thereby emphasising the preservation of its sovereignty and autonomy.
Also read: What do Chinese think of Beijing-Moscow partnership? Russia is both ‘comrade and problem’
China’s preferred choices of platforms
In recent years, despite China’s absence from high-level conferences in India (Raisina Dialogue) and even the West, the Shangri-La Dialogue remains a favoured platform for disseminating its worldview. Southeast Asia has traditionally served as neutral ground for China, where it continues to find partners and proponents for its global perspective.
This dynamic explains China’s continuous presence at the Shangri-La Dialogue. Notably, Singapore was also the venue for the historic meeting between Xi and former Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou in 2015. This highlights its traditional role as a neutral location for sensitive engagements.
Clearly, the venue has been pivotal for China’s participation in the dialogue. However, Dong’s speech and demeanour at the Shangri-La Dialogue suggest that China’s focus will persist on reinforcing its rhetorical stance on Taiwan, maintaining support for Russia, and concurrently finding ways to avoid outright confrontation with the West.
China’s overarching strategy, then, is to shape the regional order in alignment with its perceived interests. There is a growing likelihood that it will continue to cultivate partnerships with rogue countries that align with its worldview. Meanwhile, the regional trend indicates that there are not many takers for China’s worldview anymore, and it is increasingly being confronted by countries seeking collective approaches to address its assertive foreign policy.
Moving forward, a major concern for China remains that the list of countries resolute in dealing with the perceived China threat continues to expand steadily.
Sana Hashmi, PhD, is a fellow at Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation and George H. W. Bush Foundation for US-China Relations. She tweets @sanahashmi1. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)