Sarawak to play key role in ASEAN Power Grid

Shangri-La Dialogue Criticised for Bias, Limited Impact

The Sun

8 hours ago

The Sun

Shangri-La Dialogue Criticised for Bias, Limited Impact

NOTHNG new came out from the Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore recently. This comes as no surprise as the event, touted as a platform for bringing together defence ministers, heads of ministries and military leaders from Asia-Pacific states, has achieved little since its inception more than 20 years ago. Initiated by a think-tank and wannabe influencer in regional geopolitics with an Anglo-Saxon lens, its stated objective – 'to cultivate a sense of community among the most important policymakers in the defence and security community in the region' – appears more distant than ever. Countries alleged by the West as belligerent or disruptive to the Western-defined international order were either absent or appeared to dismiss the dialogue as a hollow spectacle. In reality, the much-hyped event has proven to be largely inconsequential in delivering positive security outcomes. International Institute for Strategic Studies Take, for example, the exclusion of North Korea shows the inability of the organisers to break free from the ideological partiality that has characterised its agenda and activities right from the beginning. Although South Korea has been a participant since the forum's inception, North Korea – regarded as an existential threat by the US and West from the outset – has been treated as if it counts for nothing in the region's security and geopolitical landscape. Today the staunchly independent nation – once nicknamed 'the hermit kingdom' – is a formidable power with its nuclear capabilities. Despite attempts by the US to deny North Korea its legitimate position in the international community, the fact is that the country is recognised globally. It holds membership in the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement, Group of 77 and the Asean Regional Forum – the latter being an intergovernmental forum focused on security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. The exclusionary policy applied to North Korea stands in stark contrast to the stated purpose of an open and impartial forum that brings together countries of the region. Surprisingly, the forum also includes countries from outside the region – such as Germany, France, Canada and the UK – that have little or no legitimate credentials in deliberating on the region's security issues. This exposes the partisan operations of the private company, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which is registered in the UK, as a charity but in reality is a profit-making enterprise and the main driver behind the dialogue event. Western media coverage As expected, Western media covering the dialogue have also focused on the presentations by the representatives of the US and its allies. In contrast, there has been little or no attention given to the perspectives of representatives and private sector voices from countries that are less or not aligned with American and Anglo-Saxon foreign policy. In his widely reported speech, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth – a former Fox News talk show host now hoping to retain his job after bungling on the Signal-leaked chat scandal involving a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen – initially paid effusive praise to President Donald Trump for 'restoring the warrior ethos' so that 'we (the US) remain the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world'. He then claimed that 'we are not here to pressure other countries to embrace and adopt our politics or ideology; we are not here to preach to you about climate change or cultural issues; and we are not here to impose our will on you'. His unsurprising main submission highlighted by Western media was the singling out of China as the common enemy in Asia-Pacific and calling on countries to open their treasuries to invest more in the defence and security of the region. This crass salesmanship pitch duplicates the demand that the Trump administration has made to the European Union although there is no war being fought in the region to justify the alarmist call. The identification of China as the regional and increasingly global threat to peace by the US is nothing new. It continues a trend in global geopolitics following the shift in American policy responding to China's rapid socioeconomic development and increasing prominence on the regional and global stage. Beginning in 2017, when the US officially designated China as a 'long-term strategic competitor' in its national defence strategy, US policy has moved from the previous friendly and engagement-focused approach to an antagonistic one, framing the relationship as one of 'great power competition'. To take China down in this great power rivalry, the US has employed a multifront strategy involving demonisation of China on human rights, democracy and a host of other issues; restrictions on Chinese businesses; technology transfer sanctions and other forms of economic warfare; and including a trade war most recently. Building up military assets Exaggerating the threat from China to manipulate the foreign policy insecurities of countries in the region – while indirectly soliciting procurement for the armament manufacturers of the US and its allies that dominate military markets – Hegseth claimed that Beijing is 'preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, including building its capabilities to invade Taiwan' and is 'rehearsing for the real deal'. This latest instance of crying wolf over China's security actions and intentions – while reiterating the US commitment to peace, stability and prosperity in the region – has little support or resonance among non-aligned governments, who see the US through unblinkered eyes and are working on strategic autonomy. Most countries in the region are more likely to pinpoint the US, rather than China, as the source of regional tension and instability. It is unlikely that the pressure exerted by the US for regional countries to share the military burden in alliance with the US will improve the prospects for peace. On the contrary, it could prove to be a double-edged sword if it generates a more dangerous arms race. American policymakers should also bear in mind that countries now have the choice to buy Chinese military systems that are cheaper and equally or even more lethal than the ones that Hegseth boasted about in his presentation. Western and other analysts should realise that increases in the defence budgets of the region will not bring easy victories or peace for any side. Singapore's role in regional security building Perhaps this belated recognition can be a major focus for the 2026 dialogue event. For that to happen, the Singapore government, which serves as host and organiser, needs to get out of its sleeping partner status and assert control over the programme agenda and discussions which are far from neutral, open and candid or intended to help bridge divides as claimed by the event propaganda. Finally, the primary purpose of the dialogue, which has regressed into one deliberating on how to counter and contain China, should be balanced with one focusing on how Asia-Pacific countries, including Asean, should be dealing with the US – which under Trump's administration is more intent on asserting American hegemony and making the countries of the region more subservient. This and the inclusion of North Korea in the next forum will help bring some credibility to Singapore's claim to be a proactive (and hopefully honest) mediator facilitating discussions on balancing deterrence and diplomacy. Lim Teck Ghee's Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: letters@

The Sun

8 hours ago

The Sun

Selling insecurity and militarisation

NOTHNG new came out from the Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore recently. This comes as no surprise as the event, touted as a platform for bringing together defence ministers, heads of ministries and military leaders from Asia-Pacific states, has achieved little since its inception more than 20 years ago. Initiated by a think-tank and wannabe influencer in regional geopolitics with an Anglo-Saxon lens, its stated objective – 'to cultivate a sense of community among the most important policymakers in the defence and security community in the region' – appears more distant than ever. Countries alleged by the West as belligerent or disruptive to the Western-defined international order were either absent or appeared to dismiss the dialogue as a hollow spectacle. In reality, the much-hyped event has proven to be largely inconsequential in delivering positive security outcomes. International Institute for Strategic Studies Take, for example, the exclusion of North Korea shows the inability of the organisers to break free from the ideological partiality that has characterised its agenda and activities right from the beginning. Although South Korea has been a participant since the forum's inception, North Korea – regarded as an existential threat by the US and West from the outset – has been treated as if it counts for nothing in the region's security and geopolitical landscape. Today the staunchly independent nation – once nicknamed 'the hermit kingdom' – is a formidable power with its nuclear capabilities. Despite attempts by the US to deny North Korea its legitimate position in the international community, the fact is that the country is recognised globally. It holds membership in the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement, Group of 77 and the Asean Regional Forum – the latter being an intergovernmental forum focused on security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. The exclusionary policy applied to North Korea stands in stark contrast to the stated purpose of an open and impartial forum that brings together countries of the region. Surprisingly, the forum also includes countries from outside the region – such as Germany, France, Canada and the UK – that have little or no legitimate credentials in deliberating on the region's security issues. This exposes the partisan operations of the private company, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which is registered in the UK, as a charity but in reality is a profit-making enterprise and the main driver behind the dialogue event. Western media coverage As expected, Western media covering the dialogue have also focused on the presentations by the representatives of the US and its allies. In contrast, there has been little or no attention given to the perspectives of representatives and private sector voices from countries that are less or not aligned with American and Anglo-Saxon foreign policy. In his widely reported speech, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth – a former Fox News talk show host now hoping to retain his job after bungling on the Signal-leaked chat scandal involving a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen – initially paid effusive praise to President Donald Trump for 'restoring the warrior ethos' so that 'we (the US) remain the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world'. He then claimed that 'we are not here to pressure other countries to embrace and adopt our politics or ideology; we are not here to preach to you about climate change or cultural issues; and we are not here to impose our will on you'. His unsurprising main submission highlighted by Western media was the singling out of China as the common enemy in Asia-Pacific and calling on countries to open their treasuries to invest more in the defence and security of the region. This crass salesmanship pitch duplicates the demand that the Trump administration has made to the European Union although there is no war being fought in the region to justify the alarmist call. The identification of China as the regional and increasingly global threat to peace by the US is nothing new. It continues a trend in global geopolitics following the shift in American policy responding to China's rapid socioeconomic development and increasing prominence on the regional and global stage. Beginning in 2017, when the US officially designated China as a 'long-term strategic competitor' in its national defence strategy, US policy has moved from the previous friendly and engagement-focused approach to an antagonistic one, framing the relationship as one of 'great power competition'. To take China down in this great power rivalry, the US has employed a multifront strategy involving demonisation of China on human rights, democracy and a host of other issues; restrictions on Chinese businesses; technology transfer sanctions and other forms of economic warfare; and including a trade war most recently. Building up military assets Exaggerating the threat from China to manipulate the foreign policy insecurities of countries in the region – while indirectly soliciting procurement for the armament manufacturers of the US and its allies that dominate military markets – Hegseth claimed that Beijing is 'preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, including building its capabilities to invade Taiwan' and is 'rehearsing for the real deal'. This latest instance of crying wolf over China's security actions and intentions – while reiterating the US commitment to peace, stability and prosperity in the region – has little support or resonance among non-aligned governments, who see the US through unblinkered eyes and are working on strategic autonomy. Most countries in the region are more likely to pinpoint the US, rather than China, as the source of regional tension and instability. It is unlikely that the pressure exerted by the US for regional countries to share the military burden in alliance with the US will improve the prospects for peace. On the contrary, it could prove to be a double-edged sword if it generates a more dangerous arms race. American policymakers should also bear in mind that countries now have the choice to buy Chinese military systems that are cheaper and equally or even more lethal than the ones that Hegseth boasted about in his presentation. Western and other analysts should realise that increases in the defence budgets of the region will not bring easy victories or peace for any side. Singapore's role in regional security building Perhaps this belated recognition can be a major focus for the 2026 dialogue event. For that to happen, the Singapore government, which serves as host and organiser, needs to get out of its sleeping partner status and assert control over the programme agenda and discussions which are far from neutral, open and candid or intended to help bridge divides as claimed by the event propaganda. Finally, the primary purpose of the dialogue, which has regressed into one deliberating on how to counter and contain China, should be balanced with one focusing on how Asia-Pacific countries, including Asean, should be dealing with the US – which under Trump's administration is more intent on asserting American hegemony and making the countries of the region more subservient. This and the inclusion of North Korea in the next forum will help bring some credibility to Singapore's claim to be a proactive (and hopefully honest) mediator facilitating discussions on balancing deterrence and diplomacy.

The Sun

a day ago

The Sun

Prioritise people over militarisation

THE Association for Welfare, Community and Dialogue (Acid) strongly denounces the recent warning by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who claimed that the threat from China is 'real and potentially imminent'. Hegseth also urged Indo-Pacific allies to increase defence spending, citing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitment to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) as a benchmark. Hegseth made these remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia's premier defence forum. He emphasised the Indo-Pacific as a top priority for the administration of US President Donald Trump, cautioning that any attempt by China to take control of Taiwan would have 'devastating consequences' for the region and the world. In response, Acid would like to highlight several reasons that challenge Hegseth's portrayal of China. China endeavour since 1978 Since opening its economy in 1978, China has largely focused on national economic development through partnerships and collaboration with other countries, rather than engaging in war-mongering. This approach has lifted millions of its citizens out of poverty. In 2013, it launched The Belt and Road Initiative – sometimes referred to as the New Silk Road – a global infrastructure development strategy aimed at investing in over 150 countries and international can a nation be regarded as an imminent military threat when its primary focus has been on economic development and shared prosperity? Unlike the US, which has repeatedly used military force to assert dominance in the Middle East and other regions, China has not relied on military aggression to compel submission. Portraying China as an imminent threat serves to justify and perpetuate US strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. While it is true that there are legitimate concerns surrounding territorial claims in the South China Sea and sovereignty issues related to Taiwan, such disputes should be addressed through dialogue and diplomacy – not through rearmament or an escalating arms race. America's exceptionalism It is important to consider the ideological stance of the current Trump administration, which is heavily driven by the mantra of 'making America great again'. Within this paradigm, other nations are merely regarded as conduits or pawns to serve US interests, with the ultimate goal of maintaining American global dominance by curbing the rise of China, which is seen as a credible strategic rival. Encouraging Indo-Pacific nations to ramp up military spending supports this broader agenda, reinforcing a geopolitical strategy that prioritises US supremacy over regional cooperation. This binary, black-and-white ideological leaning is inimical to common and collective prosperity that is vital for lasting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. Enriching the American arms industry It doesn't take a genius to see that increased military spending by Indo-Pacific nations – including those in South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands – would primarily benefit the American arms industry. The ongoing genocide in Gaza and the persistent destabilisation of West Asia are stark consequences of the proliferation of US weapons in the region – facilitating the enforcement of American-Israeli hegemony and suppressing resistance. Indo-pacific nations should not place themselves in a situation where they are beholden to America for their protection. Instead, they should pursue independent, cooperative security arrangements rooted in mutual respect, dialogue and regional solidarity. Social justice for Indo-Pacific people It would be far wiser for Indo-Pacific nations to invest their resources in uplifting impoverished communities rather than diverting funds towards militarisation. According to a 2024 United Nations report, over 260 million people in the Asia-Pacific region could be pushed into poverty over the next decade unless governments implement robust social protection schemes. The report, Protecting Our Future Today: Social Protection in Asia and the Pacific, highlights a troubling rise in both monetary and non-monetary poverty, alongside growing income and wealth inequalities across the region. The number of people living in vulnerable conditions is expected to increase as the region continues to experience economic shocks amid prevailing inequalities. Access to essential services and basic opportunities remains out of reach for many. In light of this, Acid urges Indo-Pacific governments to prioritise social investment and poverty eradication, rather than aligning with a US-driven rearmament agenda that ultimately serves American strategic and economic interests. Ronald Benjamin is the secretary of Acid. Comments: letters@

Sarawak to play key role in ASEAN Power Grid

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

Shangri-La Dialogue Criticised for Bias, Limited Impact

Selling insecurity and militarisation

Prioritise people over militarisation

Sarawak to play key role in ASEAN Power Grid

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

Shangri-La Dialogue Criticised for Bias, Limited Impact

Selling insecurity and militarisation

Prioritise people over militarisation

Get Started Now: Download the App