最近于新加坡举行的“香格里拉对话会”，虽获得广泛报导，但并未有任何新意。这并不令人意外，毕竟这场号称聚集亚太国家国防部长、部会首长及军事首脑的盛会，自二十多年前创办以来，一直缺乏实质成就。
这项大会由一个具有盎格鲁-撒克逊视角、试图成为区域地缘政治影响者的智库所创，名义上的宗旨是“培养亚太地区最重要国防与安全决策者之间的共同体意识”，但如今此目标似乎比以往更加遥不可及。
原因在于，越来越多的国家与专家认为此项被大肆宣传盛会，在安全课题上毫无实质成果，反而徒有虚名，因而不愿给予重视。因此，今年中国仅派出低阶官员出席，可说是一种明显的冷落。
国际战略研究所
大会把朝鲜排除在外，更突显主办方无法摆脱其意识形态偏见的事实。自该论坛创办以来，韩国一直参与其中，但朝鲜则被美国与西方视为“异端国家”而长期遭到排斥，仿佛在亚太安全与地缘政治中毫无地位。
然而，今日这个曾被喻为“隐士王国”的坚定自主国家，已凭借其核武成为一大强权。尽管美国极力否定朝鲜在国际社会中的正当地位，然而朝鲜早已是联合国、不结盟运动、77国集团与东盟区域论坛等组织的成员，其中后者正是一个聚焦于亚太安全与稳定的政府间机制。
将朝鲜排除于这场原应开放与中立的论坛之外，却允许德国、法国、加拿大与英国等对亚太安全议题几无正当参与资格的非区域国家加入，实际揭示了主办单位——注册于英国、名为“国际战略研究所”（IISS）——运作上的偏颇本质。该机构虽注册为慈善组织，实则是一家营利性机构，仰赖捐款与来自西方的不透明资金援助维持运作。
西方媒体报导倾向
如预料般，报导此次论坛的西方媒体大幅渲染美国及其盟国代表的演说，却几乎忽略来自亚洲与其他非西方、不隶属于美英外交政策体系的国家代表之发言。
这其中美国国防部长赫格塞思演讲获得广泛报导，这位前福克斯新闻主持人，在美国于也门对胡塞组织军事行动泄密丑闻后急欲保住权位——对特朗普总统极力颂扬，称特朗普“重振美国战士精神”，让美国“仍是全球最强大、最致命的战斗力量”。
赫格塞思还表示：“我们来这里不是为了施压各国接受我们的政治或意识形态；不是为了向你们传教气候变迁或文化议题；也不是为了强加我们的意志。”然而，他的真正讯息却与这些保证背道而驰——实际上，就是强调美国要确保在本区域的主导地位，就像特朗普如何视拉丁美洲乃至现在的加拿大为美国的一部分。
赫格塞思的主调不出意外地将中国塑造成“共同敌人”，并呼吁亚太各国加大对国防与安全的投入。他这番露骨的“推销演说”与对军费增加的要求，与特朗普政府向欧洲提出的军事支出要求如出一辙，尽管亚太地区当下并无任何战争。
美国将中国定义为区域威胁早已不是新鲜事。这是美国对中国迅速崛起的社会经济力量，以及中国在区域和全球舞台上日益突出的地位之一种回应，也延伸到全球地缘政治上。
自2017年起，美国在其国防战略中正式将中国列为“长期战略竞争者”，从此政策由过往的友好与接触转向敌对与遏制。
为了压制中国，美国采取多方面策略，包括在人权、民主等议题上对中国进行妖魔化；限制中国企业发展；对科技转移施加制裁，以及经济战手段，包括近日的贸易战。
军备竞赛：为和平还是为战争？
赫格塞思夸大中国威胁，意图操纵亚太各国的外交不安情绪，并间接推销美国与其盟国军火企业的产品。他声称中国正“准备动用军事力量改变印太地区权力平衡”，这包括中国军方正建立入侵台湾的能力，而且“正进行实战演练”。
这种“狼来了”式的恐吓言论在不结盟国家之间回响甚微，这些国家多数正努力实现战略自主。事实上，大多数亚太国家甚至全球，都将美国视为造成区域紧张与不稳的根源，而非中国。
美国企图施压各国购买美国武器、分担与美军联盟的军事负担，并不可能带来和平前景，反而可能引发更危险的军备竞赛。而如今，许多国家可选择价格较低但杀伤力不输美制武器的中国军备。在近日的印度与巴基斯坦冲突中，也证明了中国军事硬体与软体的实战效能。
西方及其他分析人士应意识到，亚太各国提高国防预算，不会为任何一方带来胜利或和平。
或许，这项迟来的觉醒可成为2026年对话的主要焦点。若要实现这点，身为主办国的新加坡政府必须摆脱“沉默伙伴”的角色，对论坛议程与讨论方向发挥实质影响力。
如今“香格里拉对话会”的主要目的已退化为“如何围堵中国”，然而当下至少应有一个对等的讨论焦点：亚太各国该如何因应美国——这个在特朗普领导下的政府更积极推动霸权与让区域国家臣服的强权。
林德宜《亚太地缘政治：贩卖不安与军事化》原文：Asia Pacific Geopolitics : Selling Insecurity And Militarisation
Nothing new came out from the highly reported Shangri_La security and defense summit held in Singapore recently. This is not surprising as the event which is touted as bringing together defence ministers, heads of ministries and military chiefs of Asia Pacific states has been a non achiever since its inception more than 20 years ago.
Begun by a think-tank and wannabe influencer in the geopolitics of the region with Anglo Saxon lenses, its stated objective - “to cultivate a sense of community among the most important policymakers in the defence and security community in the region” - appears further away now.
This is because an increasing number of countries and experts see it as not useful to give the ballyhooed but in reality, quite inconsequential, event, in terms of security outcomes, any attention. Thus, this year's meeting was snubbed by China which sent a low level official to attend it.
International Institute of Strategic Studies
The exclusion of North Korea shows the inability of the organisers to break free from the ideological partiality that has characterized its agenda and activities. Although South Korea has been a participant since the forum’s inception, North Korea, regarded as a parish state by the U.S. and West, has been treated as if it counts for nothing in the security and geopolitics of the region.
Today the staunchly independent nation, initially nicknamed “ the hermit kingdom“, is a formidable power with its nuclear capability. Despite the attempts by the U.S. to deny the country its legitimate position in the world community, the fact is North Korea is recognised by the rest of the world with its membership in the United Nations, Non Aligned Movement, G77 and the ASEAN Regional Forum, the last an international governmental forum focusing on security and stability in the Asia Pacific region.
The exclusionary policy applied to North Korea in what is supposed to be an open and impartial forum bringing together countries of the region - it also includes countries from outside the region with really little or no legitimate credentials in deliberating on the region’s security issues (e.g., Germany, France, Canada, and the U.K.) - exposes the partisan operations of the private company, the International Institute for Strategic Studies which organizes the event. Registered in the United Kingdom as a charity it is in reality a profit making enterprise which depends on donors and less transparent Western financial support to run.
Western Media Coverage
As expected too, Western media covering the dialogue have played up the presentations of the representatives of the U.S. and its allies. To add insult to injury, they have provided little or no coverage to Asian and non Western representatives from countries not aligned with American and Anglo Saxon foreign policy.
In the most widely reported speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the former Fox talk show host hoping to retain his job longer after bungling on the Signal leaked chat scandal involving a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen, paid effusive praise to President Trump for “restoring the warrior ethos” so that “we (the U.S.) remain the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world”.
See https://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech/Article/4202494/remarks-by-secretary-of-defense-pete-hegseth-at-the-2025-shangri-la-dialogue-in/
He then claimed that “we are not here to pressure other countries to embrace and adopt our politics or ideology; we are not here to preach to you about climate change or cultural issues; [and] we are not here to impose our will on you”. However his real message was very different from this assurance. It was all about the U.S. mission to ensure its dominance in this region which it regards as part of the American empire in the same way Trump sees Latin America, and now Canada, as belonging to the U.S.
His unsurprising main submission was the singling out of China as the common enemy and call on countries to open their treasuries to invest more in the defence and security of the region. This crass salesmanship pitch and demand for more defense expenditure duplicates the demand that the Trump administration has made to Europe, although there is no war being fought in this region to justify the alarmist call.
The identification of China as the regional threat to peace by the U.S. is nothing new. It continues a trend in global geo-politics following the shift in American policy responding to China's rapid socio-economic development and increasing prominence on the regional and global stage.
Beginning in 2017 when the US officially designated China as a "long-term strategic competitor" in its national defense strategy, US policy has moved from the previous friendly and engagement-focused approach to an antagonistic one.
To take China down the US has employed a multi front strategy involving demonization of China on human rights, democracy and a host of other issues; restrictions on Chinese business; technology transfer sanctions and other forms of economic warfare; and including a trade war most recently.
Building Up Military Assets For War Or Peace
Exaggerating the threat from China to manipulate the foreign policy insecurities of countries in the region and indirectly soliciting procurement for the armament manufacturers of the U.S. and its allies that dominate military markets, Hegseth claimed that Beijing is "preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific including its building its capabilities to invade Taiwan” and is "rehearsing for the real deal".
This latest crying wolf on China's security actions and intentions has little support or resonance with non aligned governments who see the U.S. through unblinkered eyes, and are working for strategic autonomy. Most countries in the region and world in fact identify the U.S. rather than China as the source of tension and instability.
It is very unlikely that the pressure exerted by the U.S. for countries in the region to buy American weaponry and share the military burden of alliance with the U.S. will improve the prospects for peace. On the contrary it could prove to be a double edged knife as it will generate an even more dangerous arms race. Also important for American policy makers to bear in mind is that countries now have the choice to buy into Chinese military systems that are cheaper and equally if not more lethal than the ones that Hegseth boasted at length about in his presentation. The recent clash between India and Pakistan has clearly shown the effectiveness of Chinese military hardware and software.
Western and other analysts should realize that increases in the defence budgets of the region will not bring easy victories or peace for any side.
Perhaps this belated recognition can be a major focus for the 2026 dialogue event. For that to happen, it will be necessary for the Singapore government as host and organiser to get out of its sleeping partner status and to assert control over the programme agenda and discussions.
The primary purpose of the dialogue has regressed into one deliberating on how to counter or contain China. This should at the very least be counterbalanced with one focussing on how Asia Pacific countries should be dealing with the U.S. which, under Trump’s administration, is even more intent on asserting American hegemony and making more subservient the countries of the region.
要看最快最熱資訊，請來Follow我們 《東方日報》WhatsApp Channel.
