Tension between force and dialogue on stark display at Shangri-La Dialogue

The intent of the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) can be found in its name; every year it brings together defence ministers, military chiefs, analysts and arms dealers in Singapore to debate security issues and policy responses in the Asia-Pacific.

Sitting in the glitzy ballroom of the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore in late May, I could see the value of the defence summit on full display. Since time immemorial, governments of all stripes and from every part of the world have talked to one another to better understand their similarities and differences, and it is arguably more important than ever to keep those discussions going.

Thanks to a grant from the Asia New Zealand Foundation, I got a front-row seat to frank conversations about defence challenges and aspirations in the Asia-Pacific region, filing reports for The Post back home. While the summit was more muted than in previous years — largely due to the absence of China's leadership and the resulting lack of superpower clashes — it highlighted stark differences in how countries want to respond to security challenges.

Vietnam’s President to Lam set the tone for the summit in his keynote address, warning of a “silent yet dangerous crisis” of trust between nations. “The crisis of strategic trust calls for dialogue, transparency, responsibility, and more substantive mechanisms for cooperation,” he said. Lam’s contribution was thoughtful and balanced, acknowledging the many differences between attendees while encouraging them that they had both “the mettle and the shared stakes” to work together.

The following day, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered a blunt response to this emphasis on dialogue. “We don't need more conferences, we need more combat power. I'm sorry to say this here: less Shangri-La, more ships, more subs.” Hegseth made the case for America's demand that its allies spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence, adding that anyone not reaching that threshold — including New Zealand, when asked — was “freeloading”.

Only a handful of countries spend that much, and yet this push to militarise was one of the main headlines to emerge from the SLD. Statistics show defence investment is growing around the world. Global military expenditure rose 41 per cent between 2016 and 2025, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). While US spending fell in 2025, a sharp increase in Europe and continued growth across Asia and Oceania more than offset the decline.

Countries around the world — including those in the Asia-Pacific — are increasing defence spending in response to growing strategic competition, even as they continue to engage in dialogue at forums such as the SLD. Small states like New Zealand are being pulled along in that current. The coalition government has a plan to lift defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP, and there appears to be broad acceptance that the figure may climb higher in future.

Speaking on the sidelines of the SLD, New Zealand Defence Minister Chris Penk told The Post that, far from being a “freeloader”, New Zealand had played an important role in global security “for generations”. In his contribution to a panel on “Asia’s shifting strategic landscape”, Penk toed a measured line, arguing that dialogue and force were not “mutually exclusive” approaches.

Anneke with New Zealand Defence Minister Chris Penk at the SLD. Image credits - Anneke/supplied

Penk sat down with his Australian and Japanese counterparts at the SLD, swapping notes on the Mogami-class frigates, and also met members of the American delegation, including Hegseth and US Senators Tammy Duckworth and Pete Ricketts. He also signed an agreement between half a dozen countries to share information aimed at better understanding and preventing attacks on undersea infrastructure.

Hegseth’s remarks about less dialogue and more force don’t quite square with the rapid-fire diplomacy taking place on the sidelines of the SLD. It’s also worth noting that his “freeloading” comment was about as mild a dressing-down as New Zealand — which plans to double defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP by 2032/33 — could have received. Every expert I spoke to described the remarks as relatively friendly by Washington standards.

Perhaps that is the real lesson from this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue. For all the tough talk about hard power, combat capability and defence spending, the summit itself remains evidence that countries still see value in sitting down together. Ministers and military chiefs who may disagree on major issues continue to seek one another out in hotel corridors, bilateral meetings and closed-door discussions.

This does not mean the world is becoming safer — if anything, the sharp rise in military spending suggests governments, including New Zealand’s, are preparing for a more uncertain future — but nor does it mean dialogue has become irrelevant. The fact that leaders are investing in both military capability and diplomatic engagement reflects a recognition that each has its place.

As strategic competition intensifies, countries such as New Zealand will continue to face pressure to spend more on defence. The challenge will be ensuring that increased military capability does not come at the expense of the conversations that help prevent conflict in the first place.

-Asia Media Centre

*Anneke Smith reported from Singapore for The Post, with funding support from the Asia New Zealand Foundation.