Singapore S Annual Sale On Insecurity Militarisation

---

 


Nothing new came out from the Shangri-La security and defence summit held in Singapore recently.
This is not surprising as the event, which is touted as bringing together defence ministers, heads of ministries, and military chiefs of Asia Pacific states, has been a non-achiever since its inception more than 20 years ago.
It was started by a think tank and wannabe influencer in the geopolitics of the region with Anglo-Saxon lenses, with its stated objective to cultivate a sense of community among the most important policymakers in the defence and security community in the region.
However, it appears further away now, with countries alleged by the West as drivers of belligerency or disrupters of the Western-defined international order, either absent or deciding that it is not useful to give the ballyhooed but in reality, quite inconsequential, event in terms of positive security outcomes, much or any attention.
ADSNorth Korea’s exclusion
To give one 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 United States and the West since its earliest days, has been treated as if it counts for nothing in the security and geopolitics of the region.
Today, the staunchly independent nation, initially nicknamed “the hermit kingdom“, is a formidable power with its nuclear capability.
Despite the attempts by the US to deny the country its legitimate position in the world community, the fact is that North Korea is recognised by the rest of the world with membership in the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement, G77 and the Asean Regional Forum, the last an international governmental forum focusing on security and stability in the Asia Pacific region.
The exclusionary policy applied to North Korea in what is supposed to be an open and impartial forum, bringing together countries of the region, exposes the partisan operations of the private company, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), registered in the UK as a charity but in reality a profit making enterprise and the main driver in charge of the dialogue event.
For the record, the forum also includes countries from outside the region with really little or no legitimate credentials in deliberating on the region’s security issues, for instance, Germany, France, Canada, and the UK.
Western media coverage
As expected, too, Western media covering the dialogue have given attention to the presentations of the representatives of the US and its allies.
They have also provided little or no coverage to representatives and private sector voices from countries less or not aligned with American and Anglo-Saxon foreign policy.
In his widely reported speech, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, the former Fox talk show host hoping to retain his job longer 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”.
ADSHis unsurprising main submission, highlighted by the western media, was the singling out of China as the common enemy in Asia Pacific and a call on countries to open their treasuries to invest more in the defence and security of the region.
US President Donald TrumpThis 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 a 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 socio-economic 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 multi-front strategy involving demonisation of China on human rights, democracy and a host of other issues; restrictions on Chinese business, technology transfer sanctions, and other forms of economic warfare, and including a trade war most recently.
For war or peace?
Hegseth claimed that Beijing is “preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, including its building its capabilities to invade Taiwan” and is “rehearsing for the real deal”.
This is an exaggeration of the threat from China to manipulate the foreign policy insecurities of countries in the region and indirectly solicit procurement for the armament manufacturers of the US and its allies.
This latest crying wolf on China’s security actions and intentions, whilst reiterating the US commitment to the peace, stability and prosperity of the region, has little support or resonance with non-aligned governments who see the US through unblinkered eyes, and are working for 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 very unlikely that the pressure exerted by the US on countries in the region to share the military burden of the alliance with the US will improve the prospects for peace.
On the contrary, it could prove to be a double-edged knife if it generates an even more dangerous arms race.
Also important for American policymakers to bear in mind is that countries now have the choice to buy into Chinese military systems that are cheaper and equally, if not more lethal than the ones that Hegseth boasted at length 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
Perhaps this belated recognition can be a major focus for the 2026 dialogue event.
For that to happen, it will be necessary for the Singapore government, which serves as host and organiser, to get out of its sleeping partner status and to assert control over the programme agenda and discussions, which are far from being 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, must be balanced with one focusing on how Asia Pacific countries, including Asean, should be dealing with the US.
As it is, Trump’s administration is even 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.
Unfortunately, there is likely to be pushback from members of Singapore’s elite seeking to preserve the fiction of neutrality. - Mkini
LIM TECK GHEE is an economic historian, analyst, and former senior official with the United Nations and World Bank.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---