Countries do not have to reach consensus at Shangri-La Dialogue

On June 2 2014, the annual IISS Asia Security Summit and Shangri-La Dialogue concluded in Singapore. During the meeting, defense ministers and politicians from over 30 countries attended several rounds of bilateral and multilateral talks.

As is generally the case, some countries tried to further their interests by declaring their security strategies. This year, the US and Japan had an even stronger incentive to adopt this tactic. US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that the US would enhance the Army's force posture and operate 60% of both Navy and Air Force fleets out of the Pacific by 2020, while Japanese Prime Minster Shinzo Abe declared that Japan would play a "greater and more proactive role" in regional security in Asia. These statements have one thing in common: their security strategies are not compatible with other countries' security interests.

What do the two expect to gain? According to Hagel, the "strategic rebalance" of the US will not be altered by any adjustments to its domestic financial mechanism. On the contrary, the process will be accelerated. The statement aims at further strengthening the military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific region. At the Shangri-La Dialogue, the Japanese delegation repeatedly emphasized that they would build a "strong Japan", and that expanding military power is necessary for the construction of a "strong Japan".

In all previous Shangri-La Dialogues, China was a constant theme due to its increasing power. It was a common practice for certain countries to take advantage of an opportunity to "gang up" on China. However, at this year's meeting such actions have been much less frequent. This multilateral platform has allowed China to declare the bottom line of its position on security and reduce the unnecessary worries of neighbouring countries.

Restricted by the complexities of the security environment, the Shangri-La Dialogue could hardly come to any consensus. In fact, there was no need. From the statements made by different countries with different standpoints, both the potential upsides to be promoted and the potential risks to be dealt with are readily apparent.