By Alex Nicoll
Sixteen years after the end of the Cold War, the world’s tectonic plates are shifting again. The challenge for world leaders is to ensure that moves towards new strategic balances occur peacefully, while fostering prosperity.
Asian aspects of these changes were central to discussion at the fourth annual Asia Security Conference, known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, held in Singapore last weekend.
This informal gathering of defence ministers, top military officers, officials and security experts, is organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (for which I work.)
Change in Asia promises to be lasting and fundamental. As Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s Prime Minister, told the conference: “The emergence of China and India brings tremendous opportunities to all, but also causes major changes to the status quo. The challenge is to integrate these two rising powers within the evolving regional architecture, while maintaining the balance and stability of the region.”
The US has played a pivotal role in keeping the peace in a region full of bilateral rivalries and tensions. It was not surprising, therefore, that the relationship between Washington and Beijing received considerable attention at the conference, with representatives from both countries present.
Singapore’s Prime Minister said China, as its economy grew, knew that it needed to work with the US, which would remain “a more powerful and advanced country than China for many decades to come”.
He pointed to the huge purchases from China by Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the US and the world, and to China’s large orders for Boeing aircraft.
Mr Lee said “mainstream US policy-makers” believed the US needed to cooperate with China and to manage inevitable occasional frictions, for example over textile exports and the renminbi exchange rate. He said: “They recognize that a strategy of confronting China will incur its enmity without seriously blocking its growth, while any attempt to contain China will have few takers in the region”.
This was the cue for Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, to adopt an approach that was not confrontational, but was certainly challenging, and perhaps hinting at the very containment against which Mr Lee had cautioned.
Why was it, Mr Rumsfeld asked the conference, that China was increasing defence spending above reported levels, investing in new weapons technologies, and extending the range of its missile forces, when “no nation threatens China.”
In line with his President’s proselytising zeal for democracy, Mr Rumsfeld noted that “growth in political freedom” had not kept pace with economic expansion. China would be a “welcome partner” if it encouraged free expression.
“Ultimately, China likely will need to embrace some form of a more open and representative government if it is to fully achieve the political and economic benefits to which its people aspire.”
Cui Tiankai, Director of the Asia bureau of the Chinese foreign ministry, immediately asked Mr Rumsfeld two questions: “Do you truly believe that China is under no threat by other countries? …Do you truly believe that the US is threatened by the emergence of China?”
Mr Rumsfeld’s answers were respectively yes and no: China was threatened by nobody, and was not a threat to the US. But he added: “I just look at the significant rollout of ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan and I have to ask the question: if everyone agrees the question of Taiwan is going to be settled in a peaceful way, why this increase in ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan?”
Mr Cui later told the Associated Press: “Since the US is spending a lot more money than China is doing on defence, the US should understand that every country has its own security concerns and every country is entitled to spend money necessary for its own defence.” (According to the IISS Military Balance, US defence spending in 2003 was just over seven times larger than China’s, but as a percentage of gross domestic product was slightly lower than China’s.)
This was the best example yet of the value of the Shangri-La Dialogue: major regional players were debating their concerns about each other publicly and informally, without rancour—with the opportunity for plenty of private contact away from the conference hall. This approach can surely contribute in some degree to greater understanding, helping the tectonic plates to shift peacefully.
What a pity it was, therefore, that India’s defence minister, Pranab Mukherjee, did not attend. Mr Lee gave India a big build-up, noting the revival of the “Look East” policy and saying that India “is becoming a regional power with an outward orientation”.
Mr Mukherjee had been due to be the third speaker, after the Prime Minister and Mr Rumsfeld. It was disappointing that India’s voice was not heard. The slot was filled by a discussion on Asian experiences of peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention, led by Pakistan’s minister of state for defence and the commander-in-chief of Indonesia’s armed forces.
The author is Director of Defence Analysis at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Details of the Shangri-La Dialogue can be found at www.iiss.org
