Takeaways from Shangri-La Dialogue 2025
This year’s Shangri-La Security Dialogue, held in Singapore, had special importance as it took place nearly three weeks after India’s blatant act of aggression and Pakistan’s decisive success in the four-day conflict, and provided an opportunity to Pakistan for strategic messaging. The other issues that dominated the dialogue included US-China tensions, the US preoccupation with Indo-Pacific security, the global impact of the Ukraine conflict, emerging tech warfare, and climate security.
Pakistan’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, and India’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan were among senior defence officials and strategic thinkers from 47 countries who attended the dialogue. In a tense geopolitical climate, this year’s summit was marked by sharply antagonistic language used by the US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, against China, which participated at a lower level. While the platform was used for strategic influence and persuasion, this year’s summit underscored the complex security dynamics of South and Southeast Asia.
The Chairman of JCSC stated that while there was no move towards nuclear weapons, it was a “dangerous situation.” Speaking to Reuters, he said, “Nothing happened this time,”.. “But you can’t rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time, because when the crisis is on, the responses are different.” He cautioned that because the fighting had spread beyond the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir, the likelihood of future escalation had increased, lowering the bar for large-scale conflict between the nuclear neighbours.
Gen. Mirza rued the lack of crisis management procedures between the two nations. Given the pace of escalation, the window for international mediation was also very short. Gen. Mirza voiced concern about India’s continued bellicose statements.
India’s CDS, General Anil Chauhan implicitly admitted the loss of Indian aircraft in recent clashes with Pakistan without specifying numbers. He referred to gaps in India’s joint military coordination, admitting that integrating the army, navy, and air force is still a work in progress. He used vitriolic, inflammatory, and accusatory language threatening Pakistan, reflecting heightened hostility between the two countries. He felt that future challenges would arise out of the unprecedented developments in technology combined with the complexity of emerging geopolitical dynamics.
He also delved into the emergence of non-kinetic means, especially in the domain of cyber and information that provide “wider options to impose one’s will on and to attain political or military objectives.”
The US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth was particularly harsh and confrontational towards China. He accused Beijing of being the primary destabilising force in the Indo-Pacific, stating that China was pursuing regional hegemony through military coercion, cyberattacks, and “grey zone” aggression, particularly in the South China Sea and Taiwan. Hegseth warned, “Any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences.”
Hegseth described the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait as the “core theatres” of the strategic military focus of the US. He expressed the resolve of the US to strengthen alliances with regional partners like Japan, India, and ASEAN nations to reinforce a united front against “Chinese coercion.”
The security dialogue exposed a new fault line, tensions between the US and Europe over security concerns in the Indo-Pacific.
However, even as he warned that China posed an “imminent” threat, the US Defence Secretary made clear he wanted Europeans to concentrate on European security as they boosted military budgets—a clear message regarding conflict in Ukraine. Speaking at a press conference, the French President Emmanuel Macron stated. “We are neither China nor the US, we don’t want to depend on either of them,” outlining a “third path” coalition between Europe and Asia that avoids having to choose between Beijing and Washington.
On the sidelines of the dialogue, two joint statements were issued by the Defence Ministers of (i) the US, Japan, and Australia, and (ii) the US, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines expressing “serious concern about China’s destabilising actions in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.” In response, the Chinese Ministry spokesperson stated that such statements were meant to create disharmony and provoke confrontation among regional countries. He also noted that “engaging in bloc politics and camp-based confrontation is a Cold War mentality that runs counter to the trend of the times.” The Chinese delegation reaffirmed China’s principled positions on Taiwan and the South China Sea, emphasising China’s firm determination to defend its territorial integrity and national sovereignty.
The Shangri-La Dialogue remains an important platform for defence diplomacy. For Pakistan, it provided a timely occasion to unmask India’s blatant aggression based upon falsehood and fiction and to sensitise the world about the absence of conflict management processes between the two risk-prone nuclear neighbours. Occupying a higher moral ground, Pakistan has called for ‘prioritising’ dialogue and diplomacy to ease tensions and resolve all outstanding issues with India.
