June 3rd 2003
By David Boey
THE name Shangri-La may conjure up visions of ageless bliss, but the slate of topics discussed at the defence talks over the weekend at the luxury hotel of the same name here was anything but soothing.
Nightmare scenarios - from weapons of mass destruction to the scourge of global terrorism and moves by some regional countries to justify their intention to launch pre-emptive strikes against threats to their national interests - were among the subjects discussed at the second Asia Security Conference: The Shangri-La Dialogue.
And as the gathering was Asia's first defence conference since the end of the war in Iraq, the 200-plus delegates who attended also made the war's aftermath a talking point.
Though no landmark declarations were agreed upon and no grand communiques were issued when the three-day event ended on Sunday, defence watchers measure The Shangri-La Dialogue's success by other yardsticks.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) scored a coup a year ago when it successfully persuaded defence ministers and armed forces chiefs from more than a dozen countries to attend the inaugural session. That event marked a first as it was Asia's biggest gathering of defence ministers.
If the inaugural Asia Security Conference was a test case for defence diplomacy in Asia, the recently-concluded talks uphold the notion that Asian security planners can actually work through troublesome issues under a framework that promotes rational, sober discussion on weighty, security-related matters.
Outside the conference room, small miracles of sorts also took place in settings as mundane as a dining room. For instance, a lunch hosted on Saturday by Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Tony Tan included ministers from countries which supported and those which opposed the United States-led war on Iraq, as well as countries directly affected by recent terrorists acts.
DPM Tan was joined by defence ministers from opposite sides of the 1999 debate on Timor-Leste (formerly known as East Timor), including countries which had sent troops to keep the peace under a United Nations-backed mandate. Such a gathering would have been unthinkable during the height of the Timor crisis in 1999.
And on the sidelines of the conference, many delegations took the initiative to hold confidential bilateral talks.
A major selling point of an event like The Shangri-La Dialogue is its ability to attract Asia's security elite for discussions on matters of mutual interest.
Apart from host Singapore, other regional players apparently also recognise the value of hosting the annual event.
This March, when the Sars crisis peaked in Singapore, Australia and Japan apparently informed the IISS of their willingness to host the event.
It is understood that IISS director John Chipman - a security analyst in his own right - decided to go ahead with the gathering in Singapore after assessing the situation with input from the Singapore authorities.
The strong turnout by defence ministers and armed forces chiefs from some 15 countries demonstrates their confidence in measures taken by Singapore to protect the health and safety of delegates.
But if The Shangri-La Dialogue is to prove more than a flash in the pan, the IISS needs to convince security planners in the region and beyond that it's worth their time and effort to attend year after year.
A hallmark of the defence talks could be their ability to attract a critical mass of Asia's security elite and its best security analysts. As things stand, the two European Union members who sent their defence ministers - Britain and France - are by no coincidence the same foreign powers whose military forces maintain a regular air or naval presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
The US sent Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz. Though he is the second highest defence official in the US, he nonetheless made his presence felt at the conference.
This was perhaps due to his 20 years of experience as a diplomat in East and South-east Asia which made him more attuned to regional sensitivities.
Some delegates said the presence of more senior defence officials from China, South Korea and - dare we suggest - North Korea, could have sparked off a more vigorous, impactful debate about the security situation on the Korean peninsula.
The Shangri-La Dialogue could take a leaf from Europe's foremost security forum, the Munich Conference on Security Policy, which makes it a point to broaden the range of expertise at the Europe-centric talks.
This long-running event, also known as the Wehrkunde Conference, held its 39th session in February. It attracted 250 policy-makers and security experts from over 40 countries to discuss global defence and security issues.
Backed by the Herbert Quandt Foundation, a name familiar to car lovers as the founder of BMW, the Wehrkunde event took the initiative to invite Asian leaders to give their perspectives.
Singapore was invited for the first time in 2001 and was represented by DPM Tan. Other Asian countries invited that year were China, Japan and India.
As defence forums are a dime a dozen, the personalities who attend help separate mediocre events from heavyweight sessions. IISS planners should work towards sustaining a critical mass of top-notch defence planners when the Third Shangri-La Dialogue is held next year, from May 28 to 30, in Singapore, and perhaps consider pulling in defence chiefs from more European countries who can contribute different perspectives as the discussions unfold.
