Analysis: Despite absence of US-China talks, Shangri-La Dialogue remains an important platform for countries to communicate

SINGAPORE — While the Shangri-La Dialogue has largely centred on China declining the United States' request for official talks, the annual gathering of defence ministers remains an important platform that provides countries with an avenue to engage in dialogue that would not otherwise have been possible, analysts said.

This can help inform policymaking and potentially help to avoid conflicts, they added.

The importance of communications between countries was stressed upon by Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen on the third and last day of the summit on Sunday (June 4).

He told reporters during an interview wrapping up the meet that it was vital to maintain lines of communications between friends, “and more so (between) potential adversaries”.

Earlier in a speech to the summit attendees, Dr Ng pointed out that unplanned incidents can occur and channels of communications must exist so that conflicts can be de-escalated.

“Such channels of communications must be built over time. It will be too late to start or activate them only in moments of crisis,” he said.

THE CHINA-US ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Asked by the media about his assessment of the 20th Shangri-La Dialogue this year, Dr Ng noted that there were people who “spontaneously said that if we didn't have one, we would have needed one very much”.

“So in that sense it’s an affirmation that Shangri-La Dialogue plays a role and that it fills in the gaps,” he said.

However, the defence minister acknowledged the US-China relationship as the obvious elephant in the room, given how it had deteriorated since last year.

While the two superpowers had a closed-door meeting lasting an hour at last year's Shangri-La Dialogue, this year US defence secretary Lloyd Austin and China's defence minister Li Shangfu merely greeted each other.

Asked if the lack of a formal meeting this time around is an indication of the event’s ineffectiveness, analysts disagreed.

Dr Felix Tan, a political observer from the Nanyang Technological University, said: “While the Shangri-La Dialogue did not start out with an intention to mediate between superpowers, it has certainly become a good avenue for both the US and China — as well as other nations — to engage in dialogue where it otherwise would not have been possible.”

A meeting between China and the US was not the Shangri-La Dialogue’s main objective, he added.

Dr Chong Ja Ian, a political scientist from the National University of Singapore, pointed out that there would have been no guarantee of a breakthrough even if a meeting had occurred between the two countries.

SAFETY VALVES BETWEEN SUPERPOWERS BEING DEACTIVATED

On the brief interaction between the US and China at Shangri-La, Dr Ng pointed to Mr Austin's comment during his plenary speech, when he had said that “the meet and greet was not a dialogue”.

“That's important, particularly given the recent events of near-misses,” Dr Ng said.

He was referring to an incident on Saturday where the US military reported that a Chinese Navy ship had manoeuvred in an "unsafe manner" near an American destroyer transiting the Taiwan Strait.

Dr Ng said on Sunday that not having lines of communication between potential adversaries is “like F1 drivers on the same circuit, driving blindfolded”.

“You better be careful, and bystanders too,” he said.

While “there will always be issues” between nations, especially between neighbours, it is “quite standard” for countries to have de-conflicting mechanisms between them, said Dr Ng.

However, this is now largely lacking between China and the US due to their worsening relations.

“What concerns us in all other countries and what concerns US leaders and Chinese leaders themselves is that all these guardrails, to use their parlance, or safety valves, are one by one being deactivated,” said Dr Ng.

He pointed out that it was not too long ago when top officials from the US and China would meet regularly.

“Both know the price of not having one and that's why they never said they don't want to meet,” he added.

Beijing had turned down Mr Austin's requests for official talks with his Chinese counterpart.

Political and international relations analysts pointed to the red-line issue of Taiwan and US sanctions on China’s defence minister Li for purchasing Russian weapons as some key issues viewed by Beijing as hindering formal talks with Washington.

Mr Dedi Dinarto, an analyst at public policy advisory firm Global Counsel, said: “I would say that the ball is in the US’ hands. If the US takes the initiative to lift the sanctions, it will allow communication for both sides to happen.”

However, he and other experts like Dr Oh Ei Sun from the Singapore's Institute of International Affairs (SIIA) felt that this is a tough ask.

“It's very difficult for the (Joe) Biden administration to do so because there's bipartisan consensus in Congress, which are very, very strongly against China,” said the senior fellow at SIIA.

THE ROLE OF SINGAPORE AND SMALLER NATIONS

While China and the US have spoken about not wanting smaller countries to take sides, worsening relations between the two would “inevitably force difficult choices” upon the smaller states, said Dr Ng on Sunday in his speech.

In that sense, Singapore and other Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) states are “not disinterested bystanders” when it comes to US-China relations.

Stressing the same point later on to reporters, Dr Ng said that Singapore and Asean “have a vested interest” to make sure that “communication lines are good” between US and China.

But at the same time, Dr Ng was measured when asked about what other nations, particularly Singapore, can do in this regard.

He said that there are other platforms such as the Asean Defence Ministers Meeting-Plus, where China and the US are both involved, adding that Singapore can continue to provide more of such initiatives.

“(But) we do not aspire or think that we could ever be an interlocutor or intermediary for any other powers,” he said.

Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, senior international affairs analyst at management consultancy Solaris Strategies Singapore, said that smaller nations can try to make a difference by pooling their voices together.

“The collective amplification of their diplomatic voices, especially through the lens of multilateralism, can culminate in the superpowers taking the concerns and perspectives of smaller nations seriously,” he said.

Nonetheless, the experts generally agreed that there is only so much that onlookers can do.

Dr Tan said that smaller nations of the world do not want to be “caught in a brawl between giants”, while Dr Chong believes that it would take political will on the part of both Beijing and Washington to communicate.

“I think we can provide a platform. We can encourage the two sides to talk. But you know, you can lead a horse to water, you can’t force it to drink,” said Dr Chong.

CHOOSING BETWEEN PRINCIPLE AND SUFFERING

About a year and a half after it erupted, the war between Russia and Ukraine continued to be discussed among participating delegates.

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Dr Ng said that all ministers expressed their respect and empathy for the suffering people of Ukraine.

He referred to the plenary address by Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas who mentioned why small countries “are so sensitive to this crucial principle that no one country can invade another with impunity”.

Estonia is a country in Europe that borders Latvia in the south and Russia in the east.

“If you can do that, then Singapore's existence will always be threatened,” Dr Ng said.

How long the conflict will drag on is “anybody’s guess”, he added.

He said that Europe and Ukraine are “in a hard place”, deciding between showing “you cannot reward aggression under any terms… versus ongoing suffering”.

“I don't think any of us have the wisdom to decide where that balance is,” Dr Ng added.