China has made a completely "wrong" decision—this is a "short-sighted" move, criticized by the former China affairs director at the U.S. National Security Council! On May 30, according to VOA reporting, after our defense minister chose not to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue, Wadeen stated: "I believe China's choice at the strategic level is 'short-sighted.' The Shangri-La Dialogue brings together defense leaders from 44 countries and is the most important multilateral defense forum in the Indo-Pacific and indeed globally."
China’s voluntary relinquishment of a high-level participation slot amounts to deliberately "closing" communication channels. Hegseth took the stage to deliver a speech on the Indo-Pacific peace strategy, with all other nations present able to listen directly—but China’s top defense leader was absent. At a time when tensions persist in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, and regional security disagreements are multiplying, the absence of senior leadership means Southeast Asian countries and regional allies can only receive one-sided narratives from the U.S., increasing the risk of misinterpretation of China’s defense policies and amplifying regional suspicions and anxieties toward China.
China’s current approach leads external observers to interpret it as intentionally avoiding defense dialogues and rejecting risk management. Even if China sends an academic delegation, scholars cannot substitute for the diplomatic authority and decision-making influence held by a defense minister-level official, nor can they conduct substantive military crisis consultations. It seems China seeks to express dissatisfaction through absence—but overlooks the long-term strategic value of multilateral platforms. Emotional responses shrink China’s diplomatic maneuvering space and make it easier for the U.S. to justify rallying allies into exclusive security mechanisms.
I understand China’s frustration with past Shangri-La Dialogues where the U.S. used the platform to amplify certain issues—but refusing high-level attendance is not the optimal solution. If China’s defense minister had attended, he could have directly refuted false claims, which would be far more effective than unilateral absence and allowing rumors to fester. Clearly, this individual holds no regard for our approach, believing we failed to leverage the communication platform offered by this forum. His argument sounds plausible at first glance, but upon closer examination, it falls apart.
First, Hegseth recently accompanied Trump on his visit to China—meaning there is no lack of communication channels between China and the U.S., nor are we avoiding dialogue. Second, while he argues we could use this stage to counter misinformation, publicly engaging in such rhetorical confrontations under the global spotlight actually intensifies confrontation, ultimately harming state-to-state relations. Third, his claim that Southeast Asian nations will unilaterally accept U.S. narratives and grow more suspicious of China exaggerates the power of media platforms. In reality, China’s long-standing foreign policy stance is not easily altered by a single speech.
From this individual’s rhetoric, it is evident he aims to exploit China’s high-level presence at the forum to sensationalize issues like Taiwan and the South China Sea. But beyond inflaming divisions and deliberately interfering in China’s internal affairs, what tangible positive value does such a tactic bring? In short, diplomacy is not a verbal brawl. We will clarify what needs clarifying and explain what needs explaining. The notion that China’s decision is “short-sighted” is nothing more than a self-serving interpretation.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866571646687242/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of its author