On June 2-4, Singapore hosted another (already the 20th in a row) Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD), which is held annually by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Judging by the composition of participants and the range of issues discussed, this is one of the most reputable international expert platforms, which examines various aspects of security in the Indo-Pacific region. The very region where the focus of the current stage of the Big World Game is shifting towards.
Each such Dialogue deserves attention, if only because its participants are the defense ministers of the countries whose policies mainly shape the regional situation. Moreover, the most informative in terms of assessing the transformation of this situation is not so much the speeches of the participants themselves (published in advance on the IISS website), which are rather of “official and representative” (that is, more or less clear in advance) nature, as the fact and content of the meetings that are held on the sidelines of this event. The same, however, can be said about the work of all modern international political platforms.
As at any public event, when planning each new SLD, one or another statesman of the highest rank is chosen as a “star.” Last year, this role was assigned to the Prime Minister of Japan Fumio Kishida. This was the reflection of the rapidly accelerating return of one of the two main losers in World War 2 to that very Big World Game.
Remarkably, even last year, there were attempts to give the specified role to Volodymyr Zelensky (the newest “version” of Greta Thunberg), which, however, were rejected. Presumably, IISS still wishes to maintain its reputation as one of the most influential think-tanks in the world. The same cannot be said about the G7, NATO, the EU and such. Apparently, they have nothing to lose in terms of reputation.
It is quite understandable why the mentioned role at the current SLD was given to the Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese. With coming to power of the center-left government in Australia last spring important adjustments were made to the overall process of moving away from the strategy of balancing between the two main players, the United States and China, which had quite clearly manifested itself in the second half of the previous 8-year period of rule of the center-right party coalition.
A direct consequence of this shift was the entry of Australia into a new configuration, AUKUS (also including the United Kingdom and the United States), which has a pronounced anti-Chinese military-political direction. In March of this year, all three participants in this configuration concluded a long-term agreement, which provides, in particular, equipping the Australian Navy with Virginia-class nuclear multipurpose submarines. This agreement, fraught with very serious financial costs for Australia, was prepared by the previous center-right majority, but the incumbent Prime Minister did not dare to abandon it.
However, he sent some signals to China, expressing intentions to restore (to the extent it is now possible at all) the quite favorable format of bilateral relations with Beijing, which was visible some five years ago. The invitation of Anthony Albanese to this year’s SLD as the “main actor” was undoubtedly intended to remind him in which camp his country is now relative to the “fault line” taking increasingly more defined shape in the region.
Nevertheless, Albanese’s opening speech at the event was equally complimentary towards both the United States and China. In particular, he expressed hope for the establishment of “reliable and open channels of communication” between the two leading world powers.
Incidentally, it was the meeting of representatives of the US and China at the SLD 2023 that was the most intriguing question ahead of the event – at the very least the very fact of continuing communications between the world’s two leading superpowers remains of extreme importance for the security in the Indo-Pacific region. And since US-Chinese relations are becoming increasingly confrontational, the answer to this question has recently been an equally extremely important element of the Global Strategic Game between Washington and Beijing in general and specifically in terms of the information and propaganda confrontation.
In this confrontation, in the struggle for the minds and hearts of almost all of humanity, painting oneself as a supporter (and even a leader in defending) of “all things good” (and “the right side of history”) and positioning the opponent almost directly as “quite the opposite” becomes of particular importance. In an environment of universal and increasing anxiety for the fate of almost all mankind, it is important to maintain that “we are all for keeping the negotiation process,” while “they won’t answer our calls.”
This was the general tone of speeches by the US President at a press conference concluding the recent G7 summit in Hiroshima and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin at the latest SLD. The editorial of the Global Times draws attention to the fact that in Austin’s speech the terms “intimidation” and “coercion” were used several times in relation to Beijing’s foreign policy, even though it is precisely the political course of Washington that they best describe.
The latest example of this, in particular, was the demonstrative passage through the Taiwan Strait by US and Canadian Navy ships, which took place at the same time as the SLD, as well as their participation in a subsequent incident with a Chinese Navy ship. In addition, it appears that the Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu is still under personal sanctions from the US Administration.
How on Earth after all this, finding himself at the same time and in the same room with his American counterpart, should he react to the latter’s (repeated) signals “about the need to resume contacts through military departments”? Apparently, only the way it happened in Singapore’s fashionable Shangri-La Hotel. That is, by exchanging handshakes and politeness phrases.
Especially since Lloyd Austin was very busy holding meetings with representatives of the US’s closest allies on the sidelines of this SLD. In particular, a trilateral meeting of the Defense Ministers of the United States, Japan and the Republic of Korea took place. The very fact of this meeting taking place confirmed the major success of the US diplomacy in the sub-region of North-East Asia, due to the emerging process of seemingly “eternal” problems (mainly problems of the “historical” type) in relations between two US allies, which are Japan and the Republic of Korea, being overcome. The facial expressions of the participants in this meeting more or less adequately reflect the current state of affairs in this trilateral configuration.
To consolidate these successes, Lloyd Austin went from Singapore to India, which in the US’s anti-Chinese foreign policy maneuvers in recent years has acquired a special and continuously increasing importance. The next most important event in bilateral relations will be the visit to the United States of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, scheduled for June 20, for whom all government departments (primarily Congress), as well as business and political clubs are already rolling out a proverbial red carpet. The coordination of the details of this trip was undoubtedly included in the plans of the said visit by Austin.
In New Delhi, the guest held talks with his Indian counterpart Rajnath Singh, the main result of which was the signing of a roadmap for the development of cooperation, primarily in advanced military technology. In addition, as noted in the message of the US Department of Defense, the parties “committed to strengthen operational collaboration across all military services, with an eye to supporting India’s leading role as a security provider in the Indo-Pacific.”
It is also worth pointing out that India’s desire to conform to the mentioned “leading role” is manifested, in particular, in the creation at the end of the last decade (with the assistance of the country’s Foreign Ministry) of its own international expert platform for discussing all aspects of the situation in the Indo-Pacific Region. It was called the Raisina Dialogue and is considered a competitor to the Shangri-La Dialogue. This, apparently, was the reason why Rajnath Singh was absent from this year’s SLD, and why Lloyd Austin had to fly to New Delhi to negotiate with him.
Once again keep in mind that any external player who shows an intention to benefit from the development of relations with a particular country in the South Asian sub-region inevitably plunges into extremely complicated “local” interstate squabbles. In New Delhi Austin had to listen to a statement about the undesirability of any weapon supplies to Pakistan, which was (almost) an ally of the United States during the Cold War.
The same external player will also have to take into account India’s equally difficult domestic political situation. Especially in the face of the upcoming general elections due in a year. Last but not least, this is connected with the intensification of attacks on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party by the leaders of the oldest Indian National Congress party which is currently in opposition. One of them, Rahul Gandhi, arriving in the United States a month before Narendra Modi’s visit here, accused him of insufficient “rigidity” in relations with China. Earlier, he said just about the same thing while staying in the United Kingdom.
In general, “world leadership” is not only an international prestige, but also a heavy burden, fraught with serious costs. Both manifested themselves during the participation of the US Secretary of Defense in the latest Shangri-La Dialogue, and during his subsequent trip to India.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”