usa.chinadaily.com.cn
US-ASEAN Divide Widens at Shangri-La Dialogue
At the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged Asia-Pacific nations to increase military spending to 5% of GDP to counter China, while Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim advocated for dialogue and warned against bloc confrontation, highlighting the differing approaches to regional security.
- How does the US's approach to China affect the existing relationships between China and other Asia-Pacific countries?
- Hegseth's speech, characterized by Cold War rhetoric and confrontational thinking, aimed to drive a wedge between China and ASEAN. This approach, however, is deemed ineffective by experts like Da Wei of Tsinghua University, who highlight the existing strong foundation of cooperation between China and regional nations.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the US's attempt to create a bloc against China in the Asia-Pacific region?
- The contrasting viewpoints at the Shangri-La Dialogue highlight a growing divergence in approaches to regional security. Hegseth's emphasis on military buildup contrasts sharply with ASEAN's preference for diplomatic solutions, suggesting potential difficulties in achieving regional stability and cooperation.
- What is the immediate impact of the contrasting viewpoints expressed by the US and Malaysia regarding the South China Sea dispute at the Shangri-La Dialogue?
- At the Shangri-La Dialogue, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged Asia-Pacific countries to boost military spending to 5% of GDP to counter China. This call was immediately countered by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who advocated for dialogue over confrontation in resolving the South China Sea issue and warned against major powers dividing the world into exclusive zones of control.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames Hegseth's speech as confrontational and ineffective, emphasizing criticism from experts and Malaysian leadership. The headline and introduction set this negative tone, potentially shaping reader perception before presenting a balanced view.
Language Bias
Words like "drive a wedge," "Cold War," and "confrontational" are used to describe Hegseth's speech, reflecting a negative bias. Neutral alternatives could include "attempt to influence," "strategic approach," and "direct engagement."
Bias by Omission
The article omits perspectives from other ASEAN countries besides Malaysia. While Malaysia's viewpoint is prominently featured, it doesn't represent the entire bloc's stance. The potential diversity of opinions within ASEAN on China and US policy is not explored.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the situation as either cooperation with the US or cooperation with China. Many countries might seek to maintain balanced relationships with both powers, a possibility not explored in the piece.
Gender Bias
The article focuses on the actions and statements of male leaders (Hegseth and Anwar Ibrahim). While Da Wei's analysis is included, the lack of female voices might represent an omission and skew the representation of perspectives.
Sustainable Development Goals
Hegseth's speech, advocating for increased military spending and a confrontational approach towards China, directly undermines efforts towards peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. This fuels an arms race and increases the risk of conflict, contradicting the principles of peaceful conflict resolution and international cooperation.