By Zheng Wang
How Asia’s premier security summit can return to the path of true dialogue.
There is a difference between dialogue and debate and between debate and quarrel. Unfortunately, the 2014 Shangri-La Dialogues was not a real dialogue, but rather a quarrel between generals and ministers. It also became a media show where Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese state media tallied the scores of their delegates, like a boxing match. It is true that the Shangri-La Dialogue has become more and more famous, with participatory countries fighting for speaking slots and the media fighting for opportunities. While its popularity may be good for the media and the Shangri-La Dialogue’s sponsor, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), this kind of boxing match is not helpful for relations in the Asia-Pacific.
There is no doubt that countries in the Asia-Pacific need dialogue. With rising maritime tensions, dialogue is an essential and safe way for preventing and managing tensions and conflicts. Also the Asia-Pacific region lacks a regional framework like Europe. Prior to the inaugural Shangri-La Dialogue meeting in 2002, the only track one multilateral security forum in the region was the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which was mainly attended by foreign ministers and did not focus on defense and security. So the Shangri-La Dialogue’s rapid development and popularity indicates the need for such dialogue in the region.
Read the full story at The Diplomat