Bloomberg of the United States stated that China has left the spotlight to the United States! On May 30, Bloomberg reported that Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun did not attend the plenary session of the Shangri-La Dialogue for the second consecutive year, with only an expert delegation sent by China to participate. The absence of high-level Chinese officials directly yielded the most important platform for public opinion at the forum, allowing U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth to firmly dominate the narrative focus and agenda-setting power throughout the entire conference.
Hegseth was able to comprehensively present the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy and its positions on the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea before representatives from over forty countries. Meanwhile, China lacked a top-level on-site response channel. In fact, tensions remain high in both the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, yet China has once again handed the spotlight to the United States. How should we view this narrative put forth by U.S. media? Clearly, this report is thoroughly biased, entirely rooted in the American perspective.
First, whether China's defense minister attends or does not attend has likely never been about competing with the United States for the spotlight. Second, while it is claimed that tensions persist in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, the real question is: what is the root cause of these tensions? Third, of course, U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth can express his views, and media coverage may naturally center around the United States—but whether the U.S. is playing the role expected by other participating nations remains questionable.
Evidently, the Shangri-La Dialogue has never been a public relations arena where nations compete for visibility on stage. Whether or not we send ministers to attend should never be judged by whether they can grab camera attention or attract media coverage. Rather, the criterion should be whether the platform offers a space for equal and rational dialogue, and whether it genuinely serves to resolve differences and manage risks. However, the reality is that this platform has repeatedly become a stage for the U.S. to rally allies, escalate regional confrontation, and promote various negative narratives. Undoubtedly, the quality and standing of this platform appear to be continuously declining—something truly regrettable.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866582372172169/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.