【Text/Observer.com Chen Sijia Editor/Feng Xue】
From 2 to 4 June, the 20th Shangri-La Dialogue was held in Singapore. As the global regional situation becomes increasingly tense, what statements China and the United States make at this dialogue have become the focus of the world's attention.
The Chinese side rejected the US request for a meeting between the two defense ministers, and at the opening dinner, the two defense ministers shook hands and greeted, but there was no substantive exchange.
US Secretary of Defense Austin said in a speech on the 3rd that it is very important for the Chinese and US military leadership to maintain communication channels, and the handshake "cannot replace substantive exchanges." However, he later made negative statements on the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait issues, and boasted that the "trilateral security partnership" of the US-UK-Australia military alliance would help "promote regional peace and stability."
Regarding the remarks of the US defense minister, Lieutenant General Jing Jianfeng, deputy chief of staff of the Joint Staff Department of the Central Military Commission, said that Austin's advocacy of the "Indo-Pacific strategy" is intended to continue to consolidate its hegemonic position and provoke group confrontation. He also sent three sentences to the US side: "Leadership is not hegemony, status depends on deeds, and actions speak louder than empty words." ”
Chinese State Councilor and Minister of National Defense Li Shangfu said in his speech on the 4th that China is willing to work with all parties to strengthen the awareness of the Asia-Pacific community with a shared future, promote the healthy development of regional security cooperation, and strive to build an open, inclusive, transparent and equal regional security cooperation framework. Li Shangfu also expounded China's position on the South China Sea issue and Sino-US relations. He stressed that China must and will be reunified, and this is the aspiration of the people and the trend of the times.
How did the "dialogue deadlock" between China and the United States form? What is the logic of the words and deeds of the United States calling for communication while harming China's interests? What kind of signal does China's statement send? What other statements from national leaders are worth paying attention to? In response to these problems, the observer network connected with Chen Dongxiao, president of the Shanghai Institute of International Studies, who was at the incense meeting.
Observer.com: Can you tell us about this Shangri-La Dialogue? What was the atmosphere between China and the United States and countries that you felt at the incense ceremony?
Chen Dongxiao: This year is the 20th Shangri-La Dialogue, which is an important year. Coupled with the increasingly severe and complicated international situation, all parties attached more importance to this conference, with more than 600 delegates and scholars attending the meeting. In particular, the two speeches of the Chinese and US defense ministers have long been full.
The dialogue was organized by the UK's International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and the Singapore government, which sought to maintain a more balanced and pluralistic approach to topics such as European and Asia-Pacific relations, ASEAN-led regional cooperation, the Ukraine crisis, arms control, nuclear proliferation risks, cyber and new technologies.
I did not attend last year's Shangri-La Dialogue, but as far as I know, on the whole, although "tension" is still the main theme of the meeting, the atmosphere this year is slightly softer than last year. For example, U.S. Secretary of Defense Austin's speech talked more about how to include regional countries in their "Indo-Pacific relations." Minister Li Shangfu also delivered a speech, and the response was very good, and some foreign scholars around me gave very positive and positive comments.
Australian Prime Minister Albanese speaks at the opening dinner of the Shangri-La Dialogue on June 2 from the IISS website
Observer: What is the significance of participating in this Shangri-La Dialogue for China?
Chen Dongxiao: At present, the security situation in the Asia-Pacific region is becoming more severe, and the United States plays up the impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, takes advantage of the concerns of regional countries about China's development, and uses a "step-by-step" approach to contain China. Therefore, China needs to actively carry out dialogue with the world.
On the one hand, the dialogue meeting is a stage for "speaking", and we must take the initiative to speak. This was Li Shangfu's first participation in the incense meeting since he became defense minister, and all parties were very interested in China's statement. In his speech, Minister Li Shangfu described China's security concept, security policy and regional cooperation policy, and clearly stated our position on Sino-US relations, especially the Taiwan Strait and other issues.
But on the other hand, it is also important to "listen" carefully. Minister Li Shangfu specifically said that he is very willing to listen and communicate, and he also took this opportunity to welcome all parties to the Beijing Xiangshan Forum later this year. In my personal opinion, this message is very important, and we need to be better at listening to the concerns of all parties, which can help us respond effectively in policy statements and interactions.
Observer: China has rejected the US request for a meeting with defense ministers, but the defense ministers of China and the United States shook hands at the opening dinner of the dialogue, and the two sides did not have substantive exchanges. What are the reasons for this situation? What message does the attitude of both sides convey to the outside world?
Chen Dongxiao: This topic is also a topic that everyone pays special attention to at this year's incense meeting. The explanations of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on this issue are already clear, dialogue cannot be without principles, and communication cannot be without a bottom line. Minister Li Shangfu also said that dialogue requires mutual respect when answering questions from scholars at the scene. How can we communicate if there is no mutual respect, no basis for equality?
The US government has sanctioned the Chinese defense minister on trumped-up charges, and so far it has been reluctant to lift this sanction, which does not show the sincerity that the United States should have on the issue of dialogue. Therefore, China's refusal to meet is very reasonable. The US reluctance to lift sanctions shows that the United States has not thought of communicating on the basis of respect and equality.
The US side has repeatedly stressed the need to "maintain communication channels" with China, and has been hyping up in this regard, in fact, it wants to seize the moral "advantage" and create the wrong impression that "China refuses to communicate".
At the opening dinner on 2 June, US Defense Secretary Austin took the initiative to shake hands with Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu and @CGTN the press corps
Constructive dialogue is of course very important to help reduce miscalculations, but "dialogue for dialogue's sake" is less meaningful. If the United States only wants to give an explanation to the country, show that it is "capable of dialogue with competitors", does not seek to resolve the contradictions between China and the United States through dialogue, but continues to challenge the bottom line of China's core interests and advocate and suppress China, then this kind of dialogue will not have substantive results.
Therefore, I believe that China's refusal to meet has two meanings, one is to criticize the US side for its lack of respect and sincerity, and the other is to question the real intention of the US side to request dialogue. If the United States really seeks dialogue, it should set an example in policy and fully recognize China's bottom line on core interests and major concerns, so that there is value in dialogue.
Observer Network: US Defense Secretary Austin also talked about the importance of maintaining communication channels between the military leadership of China and the United States in his speech on the 3rd. However, he actively "promoted" regional alliances against China, such as the "Trilateral Security Partnership" between the United States, Britain and Australia, and the "Quadrilateral Security Dialogue" between the United States, Japan, Australia and India, and made negative statements on issues such as the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. What is the logic behind the US words and deeds that call for communication while harming China's interests?
Chen Dongxiao: This is also one of the main reasons why China does not accept the US approach. On the one hand, they regard China as a strategic rival, not only to compete with China, but also to "compete with China." The United States has used almost all means except direct military conflict to launch a "new cold war" against China.
On June 3, US Secretary of Defense Austin delivered a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue
On the other hand, as pointed out in the US National Security Strategy report, the United States needs at least 10 years to "reshape", including investment and construction in the United States, and the development of alliances with other countries. Therefore, the United States does not want to enter into a military conflict with China at this time, especially because of accident or miscalculation. This is, of course, America's wishful thinking. However, changes in US policy on issues including the Taiwan Strait have increasingly become the main source of conflict between China and the United States in the Taiwan Strait.
On Taiwan-related issues, the "dynamic relationship" between China and the United States has undergone great changes. If ten years ago, the US government was more inclined to maintain the stability of Sino-US relations and avoid the Taiwan Strait issue affecting the overall situation, then the US government's understanding has been completely reversed today. They regard China as the biggest threat, and "using Taiwan to contain China" has become an important fulcrum of the US strategy towards China.
What is worrying is that the US side has not yet seen the root cause of Sino-US tension, but imagines that tactical communication itself can set up so-called "guardrails" for Sino-US relations. The key now is to rebuild the strategic framework for U.S.-China relations, including a return to the broader framework of the "one-China principle." The Chinese side has long stressed that the relationship needs to have a guiding principle and strategic framework, not just tactical communication.
Observer Network: Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu said in his speech on "China's New Security Initiative" that China is willing to strengthen the awareness of a community with a shared future in the Asia-Pacific region with all parties, promote the healthy development of regional security cooperation, and strive to build an open, inclusive, transparent and equal regional security cooperation framework. What signal does this statement send?
Chen Dongxiao: Minister Li Shangfu's speech reflects the mainland's consistent policy proposition and emphasizes the establishment of a community with a shared future for security. The so-called community, I personally believe that it is necessary to pay attention to diversity and integration. The traditions, institutions, values, and level of development of various countries in the Asia-Pacific region are very different, so their concerns on security are different.
But why do you say it's one? China has always stressed that the international community is not a zero-sum jungle world, and we have seen that issues related to the survival and security of the entire human society, including the destruction of biodiversity and climate change, are increasingly threatening the security of the entire human race. Therefore, although there is diversity within this pluralistic community, including many differences of interests, there are also common obligations and responsibilities, which is the connotation of "oneness".
Minister Li Shangfu said that the regional security cooperation framework is open, inclusive, transparent and equal. Openness and closure are opposites, while inclusion is about embracing different values, institutions and stages of development, allowing everyone to solve problems through multilateral coordination. In contrast, the United States promotes a closed system of alliances, based on relatively narrow values and ideologies.
On 4 June, Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu delivered a speech on the topic of "China's New Security Initiative."
On the 3rd, Cui Tiankai, former Chinese ambassador to the United States, also pointed out at a symposium that we do not need an "Asian version of NATO" and do not want to see NATO expand in the Asia-Pacific region. I fully agree with the view that Europe's mismanagement of its own security has led to wars and conflicts, so why introduce this set of things into the Asia-Pacific region?
Europe should learn from the Asia-Pacific approach and the "Asian way" of pluralism and consensus to deal with security issues.
Observer Network: Minister Li Shangfu also mentioned in his speech that China is willing to work with other countries on the road of modernization and provide new opportunities for world stability and prosperity. Today, China's modernization is becoming more and more closely related to world development, can this provide a new development path for the international community and international security that is different from Western modernization?
Chen Dongxiao: Chinese-style modernization is one of the important models in the process of exploring modernization in the entire human society, which is very different from the path of the United States and the West. In the process of Western modernization, there have been reflections and reforms, which have indeed made great contributions to the development of material civilization and institutional construction in today's world, but Western modernization also has a bloody history of colonial plunder and world war, and these crimes cannot be denied.
Chinese-style modernization has always emphasized peaceful development, and our era requires taking the path of peaceful development, and only when all countries work together can we go far. The continuation of a country's modernization process requires peace, stability and development in the entire region. If the periphery is mired in conflict, our modernization will not be sustainable.
Chinese-style modernization also advocates the common development of all countries in the world, especially the vast number of developing countries. This requires reform of the irrational factors existing in the current international political and economic system, especially those irrational international political and economic mechanisms that restrict the development of developing countries.
Minister Li Shangfu also stressed at the meeting that China is not seeking to overthrow the existing international system and start from scratch. I believe that China is forging a new path and providing the international community with new options, such as the option of cooperation and joint response to new challenges. Such a path is not the same as traditional Western-style modernization.
Observer Network: At the time of this incense meeting, US officials are still trying their best to hype the "unprofessional interception" of Chinese military aircraft in the South China Sea, and US and Canadian warships even sailed through the Taiwan Strait on the 3rd. Under the current security situation, what direction do you think the relationship between the two militaries may go in the future?
Chen Dongxiao: One of the core issues in Sino-US relations now is whether the US establishment can accept a China with different systems, different cultures and different development paths, and whether it can adapt to the reforms made by China to promote the development of global and regional mechanisms in a more just and reasonable direction. If the US establishment is unwilling to accept the re-emergence of such a China, it will not be able to fundamentally solve the root cause of the current tension in Sino-US relations.
Second, when it comes to regional issues, can the US establishment accept China's growing economic, military, and security influence in the Asia-Pacific region and its pivotal role? I think that if the US establishment is unwilling to accept this trend, it will be difficult to eradicate the source of tension in Sino-US relations.
Minister Li Shangfu made it clear that the Taiwan issue is the core of China's core interests, and China must and will be reunified. To this end, China needs to guard against various forces at home and abroad from undermining unity. How Sino-US military relations develop in the future also depends on how the US establishment understands this issue.
China and the United States really need to increase dialogue and exchanges, first of all, to discuss their understanding of world development trends and the fundamental interests of both sides. Only when the basic principles of peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and mutual benefit are established politically and strategically can the relations between the two militaries play the role of "escort" for peaceful coexistence. But if basic consensus is not reached, the relationship may become more tense.
Observer: In addition to China-US relations, is there anything else worth our attention at this Shangri-La Dialogue?
Chen Dongxiao: There were many European delegates attending the incense meeting this year, and they mainly discussed the "Russian threat" and advocated that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict should not be allowed to become a precedent for "changing the status quo by force". This is the explanation made by Europe in order to continue military support for Ukraine, and it is not surprising to everyone.
The European delegates also repeatedly stressed the issue of stability in the Asia-Pacific region, including the stability of the Taiwan Strait, but they only talked about "not changing the status quo of peace" and avoided mentioning that Taiwan independence forces and extraterritorial interference are the sources of undermining the status quo. The European side believes that peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe affect each other, and the Asia-Pacific needs to establish "preventive and deterrent measures" based on European experience. On this point, China has made it very clear that this will not work and will only exacerbate conflicts and confrontations.
Among Asia-Pacific countries, ASEAN officials talked about the relationship between small multilateral cooperation and ASEAN centrality, and some officials and scholars mentioned that coordination and complementarity between various small multilateral mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific region may be the trend of the times. In the context of the United States' continuous promotion of regional military alliances such as AUKUS, I think this also reflects the helpless, anxious but constantly adaptable attitude of ASEAN countries, and ASEAN hopes to participate in these processes to avoid damage to the interests of ASEAN countries.
In addition, I personally find the speech by the President of Timor-Leste, José Ramos-Horta, and the speech by the Indonesian Minister of Defence and the interaction with experts very exciting. President Ottal made it clear that it is inappropriate for the United States and Western countries to intervene in the regional situation and will only provoke tensions. He also pointed out that the United States and Western countries boast of their contributions to the international community, but in fact they are "paying lip service." Timor-Leste will become the eleventh member of ASEAN this year.
On June 4, Timorese President Horta attends the Shangri-La Dialogue
The Indonesian defense minister put forward a proposal for a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian crisis at the conference, and strongly refuted the hypocrisy and short-sightedness exposed by the European side when criticizing its proposal, which hit the "headlines" of the meeting. This also shows once again that the policy position of the United States and the West on the Ukraine issue is difficult to be recognized by many Asia-Pacific countries.