（CHANG Ching, Research Fellow, Society for Strategic Studies R.O.C.）
The 21st Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) hosted by Singapore from May 31-June 2, 2024, has successfully concluded. This event, initiated by London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and officially known as IISS Asia Security Summit: The Shangri-La Dialogue, has been held since 2002. It is a regional defense and security platform and has become a great annual event within the international community on regional security policies and military strategies.
In comparison to different security dialogue forums such as Munich Security Conference/ Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, Halifax International Security Forum, Yalta European Strategy (YES)/ Ялтинська європейська стратегія, Beijing Xiangshan Forum and the Raisina Dialogue, the SLD is the only one attended by active-duty defense ministers and top military officials, which could be regarded as a direct and official communication among governments, namely the “first track” dialogue platform defined by the academia.
This Dialogue was attended by many top officials including heads of state and presidents-elect who had actively stated their policies and stands through various channels. Many media, when reporting or quoting, often focus on high-profile speakers’ speeches or key points while lots of political commentators and strategic analysts would quote these remarks for further interpretations or even speculate possible directions of policies through tones and demeanors of the speakers. But in the end, it is still difficult to judge or predict the possibility of peace or war in the future based on information revealed from the forum.
Of course, all the spotlights were inevitably on the delegates of Beijing and Washington, and the focus of Indo-Pacific regional security development varies and fluctuates with the competition between the two major powers. Individual tensions and confrontations might possibly break out in the region, but generally, the overall movement and structure of strategic environment is mainly influenced by the interactions of the two major powers. Many countries in this region are very cautious observing the corresponding responses of both strengths and assessing the prospect of Indo-Pacific regional security framework.
Essentially, three observations were made based on the attendance of the two strengths during this Dialogue. First, “Beijing’s strong stand was highly noted and grasped by all parties.” Second, “the two strengths were engaging in serious talks despite of contradictions, obviously hoping to control conflicts.” Lastly, “communication connections were built among different sides with focus on military and diplomacy.” Through questions and answers crossfire regarding speeches and talks, this Dialogue has become a venue for propaganda, and a significant communication platform to win supports and recognitions from high military levels of various countries.
In terms of current situation in the Taiwan Strait, it is evidently a hot spot for most possible conflicts in the Indo-Pacific Region. Even though the impending threats around the Taiwan Strait posed by China’s “Joint Sword-2024A” military exercise, Beijing and Washing still engaged in the second round of consultations on maritime affairs through electronic meeting during this period of time. Subsequently, Beijing’s Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu was invited to visit the US, and talks were held between US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campell and Ma on the eve of the Dialogue, aside from talks between the defense ministers of both sides during it. Referring to the news releases issued after each talk of both sides, it confirms the above-mentioned observation of “the two strengths were engaging in serious talks despite of contradictions, obviously hoping to control conflicts” out of solid basis, not a subjective judgment.
It should be emphasized repeatedly that the “peace or war” between countries is not arbitrarily decided by defense leaders or the top military commanders no matter how high the participants were in the Shangri-La Dialogue. The whole decision-making process of “peace or war” and its outcome cannot be fully controlled or confirmed through policy statements during the forum. However, such security dialogue forums are important platforms for various sides to test the bottom lines and explore reality of the opponents. Interpreting between lines of diplomatic language and official statements is not only a political art but also a skill of intelligence analysis.
（Translated to English by Tracy Chou）
