BEIJING has never sent a high-level delegation to the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual security summit held here, because the forum is seen as anti-China, said Chinese analysts.
'From the beginning, this meeting was, to a certain extent, directed against China,' said Professor Yan Xuetong, head of the Institute of International Studies at Tsinghua University.
Prof Yan, who attended this year's forum and the first one in 2002, noted that some sessions in 2002 focused on the China threat.
He added that the anti-China tone persisted up to last year's meeting. Then, United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld caused a stir when he questioned why China was pouring huge sums of money into its military and buying up sophisticated weapons when it faced no threat from any country.
It resulted in a spirited exchange during the Q&A between him and Mr Cui Tiankai, director of the Asia bureau in the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry.
Prof Yan noted that the anti-China tone was still evident at this year's forum, though reduced.
Mr Rumsfeld again questioned China's lack of transparency in its military spending, though couched in more diplomatic language.
Security analyst Wang Xiangsui of the Beijing Aeronautics and Astronautics University, who did not attend the forum, said China has to consider if it is in its interest to take part in a forum dominated by the US.
'In an Asia-Pacific security forum in which the US is playing a leading role, China needs to consider whether it is a suitable forum to participate in, and a suitable occasion for it to voice itself,' he said.
Arguing that the US used the forum to advance its security policy, he said there is no need for China to take part if it is just a platform for propaganda on one side.
However, it would be worth attending if 'we can enter into multifaceted communication and the forum has constructive meaning'.
Chinese analysts also noted that most participants in the forum, organised by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), were US allies.
Among the 23 countries which took part this year were Australia, Britain, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and the US.
Yesterday, IISS Asia director Tim Huxley denied that the Shangri-La Dialogue was directed against China.
'The objective from the beginning was to bring together defence ministers and military chiefs as a form of confidence-building measure in a region of strategic environment that was in flux,' he explained.
He admitted that states in the region had concerns over China's rising power and growing assertiveness, but said this did not influence the forum to dwell on the threat.
Noting in particular concerns over China's build-up of weapons to intimidate and possibly attack Taiwan, he said Beijing's participation in the dialogue would help allay those fears.
He said it is in everyone's interest if China is represented at the highest level and is able to explain its position on security matters in front of an audience that 'is by no means hostile'.
On Prof Yan's contention that the presence of Taiwanese representatives prevented China from sending high-level officials, Dr Huxley said it is unlikely that the practice of inviting Taiwanese scholars to the dialogue will change.
Chinese analysts agreed that it would be useful for China to take part in forums like the Shangri-La Dialogue.
This year, it was represented by Mr Tan Qingsheng, deputy director of the Foreign Ministry's Asia bureau, a lower-level official than last year.
On Mr Rumsfeld's call for greater transparency, Chinese analysts said China is working hard on this, and has published a White Paper to explain its military budget and objectives.
Professor Jia Qingguo of Beijing University, who attended the forum, said every country needs greater transparency and there should be standard specifications for reports on military spending.
He suggested the US may view China as not transparent enough because there is not enough trust or understanding on either side.
