This year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, run by the International Institute for Strategic Studies took place in Singapore over the weekend. It is one of the largest and most prestigious security events of the calendar and was attended by Defence Ministers, Military Staff and Foreign Ministers from around the globe. The UK Government was represented by the Secretary of State for Defence. The meeting took place against the backdrop of rising energy costs and the natural disasters which have affected China and Burma and the International concern and tensions over North Korea, Burma and Taiwan.
The opening keynote speech was given by the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong. He stated that Asia was now the strategic pivot of the world as well as its economic powerhouse. He criticised some developed countries for a growing “defensive posture” and made a robust defence of free trade. This reflected a widespread anxiety about some of the protectionist rhetoric coming from Europe and from US Democratic candidates. The speech was also notable for its strongly pro-China attitude and drew some gasps when it criticised “Tibetan activists who had set out to embarrass China” over the Olympics. It was clear that this speech reflected anxiety in the Asia Pacific about the outcome of the US Presidential election. The Prime Minister was accurately reflecting the views of many Governments present when he called on the next US Administration to reaffirm its commitment to free trade and globalisation, maintain constructive relations with China and continue the battle with transnational terrorism.
Probably the most important speech was that given by the American Secretary of Defence Robert Gates. This was a speech designed to reassure Asian Nations that the US remained engaged in Asia and had not been distracted by Iraq and Afghanistan. It stressed that the US sees itself as a Pacific nation and welcomed Asia's rise. Secretary Gates said that the United States has now become better attuned to the use of both hard and soft power. He welcomed greater cooperation with India and better engagement with China including recent military communication arrangements designed to avoid “misunderstandings”. He was specifically critical of the Burmese government which, he said, had cost thousands of lives by its obstructive behaviour although the United States was still keen and willing to supply humanitarian aid.
Like the Prime Minister of Singapore, Secretary Gates made a strong defence of free trade asking “do we want an open transparent future or one where (regional) competition and exclusion” set the agenda? Coercive diplomacy and distortions of trade, he said, threaten the unparalleled prosperity and the elimination of poverty seen in recent years. On the other hand transparency would bring confidence and reduce the need for excess defence spending. This was a very conciliatory speech building on the tone he set last year and, looking ahead to the next US administration, he was at pains to point out the areas of policy continuity including the approach to the Asia-Pacific in general and the issue of terrorism. It was clear however that worries were present on both sides about the free trade issue.
Another impressive and important contribution came from Lieutenant General Ma Xiiaothan, Deputy Chief of Staff of the People's Liberation Army. He stressed that China was not hegemonic, did not seek expansion and would base its military policy on a defensive posture. He said that regional tensions had been diminishing with the North Korean talks making progress, tensions with Taiwan abating and regional groupings beginning to work positively. General Ma said that China would always seek to protect its territorial integrity and its maritime interests but when he talked about “ terrorism, ethnic identity and religious fundamentalism that threatens the integrity and the security of the state” he was clearly going beyond the issue of Islamist militancy. There was subtle criticism of Japan's defence relationship with United States. The general said that peace is a product of parity and security co-operation which makes others feel vulnerable is unhelpful. He was also critical of missile defence systems which he said were destabilising (although he was less able to explain why Chinese investment in offensive missile capability was not destabilising). He talked in detail about China's response to natural disasters including the recent earthquake and was generally praised by those present for the way in which China had responded in stark comparison to Burma. It was a cool and impressive performance and was followed by a large number of bilaterals which were generally regarded as very positive.
There were two other individual presentations worthy of note. Mikhail Margelov, Chairman of the Committee for International relations, Federal Council, gave a Russian perspective on energy security. In it he played up Russia's Asian identity saying that Russia is now on the periphery of Europe with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the loss of its European states. He said that 30% of Russian oil and gas will go to Asia within 10 years and that a pipeline from Siberia to China is already under construction. It will not have settled any nerves in the West to have heard him say “Russia will be at the heart of creating an Asian Pacific energy security network”. He was critical of the attitude taken by many in the West to Russia over this issue pointing out that while 80% of Russian oil and gas exports go to Western Europe, only 18% of the EU's oil and gas comes from Russia. “Who he asked is more dependent on whom?”. Sadly, this session was a little flat which was not something that could be said about the following session which featured Major-General Aye Myint, the Deputy Minister of Defence from Burma. He told the conference how well Burma had done mobilising its armed forces and police to deal with the aftermath of the cyclone and all but blamed the local population for ignoring warnings given in the newspapers and on TV in the days preceding the disaster. All in all, it was a fantasy description from a member of a regime clearly in complete denial about its role in the humanitarian catastrophe or utterly indifferent to the suffering of their own people. It was probably good for the other ASEAN members present to see the Burmese denial of reality in all its perversity and French deputy Pierre Lellouche summed up the frustration when he pointed out to the Minister that the rest of the world had been able to see the suffering on TV and in newspapers and did not accept his excuses. Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the Minister to enter even the most basic critical questions pointed out the sheer difficulty in dealing with such a regime.
Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, give a low-key speech which stressed the need to strengthen international structures and stressing British experience in international organisations. He echoed Secretary Gates and others in accepting that Asia is the new centre of gravity in the globalising economy.
Once again it was a very useful meeting to attend and allowed a great deal of informal contact. Dr. John Chipman and his team deserve great praise for the work and detail they put into this initiative. The value of developing personal relationships and the ability to float ideas in private is greatly valued by those who attend. In an interdependent and sensitive global economy such conversations are only likely to increase in importance, frequency and intensity.
