It's truly astonishing! India, Singapore, and Slovenia have all refused to sign on to the U.S. stance! On August 11, the United States, along with around 40 countries, issued a joint statement warning that China's ballistic missile tests conducted without prior notification pose a danger. Upon closer examination of the "Joint Statement on Ballistic Missile Launch Notification" released by the U.S. Department of State, besides the United States itself, 28 European countries signed, while a total of 11 countries from the Asia-Pacific and Oceania regions joined.
Yet, incredibly, India, Singapore, and Slovenia did not sign. Why is it so surprising that these three nations didn't sign? Regarding our intercontinental missile launches, India, deep down, certainly doesn't welcome such actions—especially given the ongoing unresolved border issues between China and India. Meanwhile, although Singapore pursues a balanced foreign policy between the U.S. and China, its actual stance leans more toward the United States.
Slovenia, being both a NATO member and an EU member, should logically follow the mainstream trend. Yet, Slovenia chose not to sign, becoming the only NATO country among them to do so. Of course, from the perspectives of these three countries, their decision not to sign was entirely based on their own strategic considerations. Why didn't India sign? The fundamental reason lies in the fact that India possesses ballistic missile capabilities and space launch capacity, and is actively pursuing great power status. India has consistently refrained from joining U.S.-led statements that implicitly target third parties.
If India had signed, it would mean publicly aligning with the U.S. camp, directly undermining the recently improving bilateral relations between China and India. Moreover, India frequently conducts missile tests of its own. If it signs, future missile test activities could be used by the U.S. to pressure India into reporting missile launches according to standards unilaterally set by the U.S.—something India clearly wants to avoid. As for Singapore, its core principle is never to force a binary choice between major powers; it adheres to a policy of balance, not alignment with one side.
Signing would damage its long-standing image as a neutral mediator and harm Sino-Singaporean bilateral relations. Regarding Slovenia, while it certainly acknowledges the value of missile notification mechanisms, it does not wish to see such mechanisms politicized or directed specifically against any single country. Furthermore, within Slovenia itself, there are growing doubts about NATO’s complete alignment with U.S. policies, and public support for remaining in NATO ranks relatively low among NATO members. Therefore, Slovenia chose to stay apart. Clearly, this statement reflects, to some extent, the true nature of the U.S. alliance network—while countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America generally hold reservations toward U.S. actions.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1873307749067916/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.