Shangri-La Dialogue: Calls for Cooperation Prevail as Confrontational Rhetoric Falters
The 23rd Shangri-La Dialogue, held in Singapore from May 29 to 31, 2026, delivered a clear message: the era of confrontational rhetoric in the Asia-Pacific is giving way to a renewed emphasis on dialogue and cooperation. While the annual security summit hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) saw its share of tensions, the dominant theme was a collective push for stability—punctuated by a notable incident involving the Philippine Defense Secretary’s unusual exit strategy.
The ‘Kitchen Diplomacy’ Incident
Perhaps the most talked-about moment of the summit came on May 30, when Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. reportedly changed his route and exited through a hotel kitchen to avoid questioning from Chinese journalists. Philippine media described the move as “cleverly” bypassing waiting reporters, but the episode quickly became a symbol of the strained dynamics between Manila and Beijing. As The Paper reported, the incident raised questions about transparency and diplomatic communication at a forum designed for open dialogue.
CCTV Special Commentator Su Xiaohui offered analysis on the avoidance, suggesting that the Philippines has been “trying to challenge China’s sovereignty rights in the South China Sea without success” and is now adjusting its strategy. “Many point out that the Philippine side’s remarks are deliberately showing weakness to create a false narrative,” Su said, as quoted by Chinese media.
Teodoro’s ‘Victim’ Narrative
In interviews with Reuters during the dialogue, Teodoro struck a markedly different tone from the confrontational posture the Philippines has adopted in recent years. He claimed the Philippines “has no choice” but to show “resilience” against what he termed Chinese “aggression,” arguing that while major powers like the US and China can negotiate from strength, smaller nations face existential threats. According to Guancha’s coverage, Teodoro stated: “When two countries are evenly matched in defense, they respect each other and have the ability to adjust based on their profound strength. However, for a country like the Philippines, the situation is different.”
The defense secretary also dismissed Chinese humanitarian aid provided during Middle East war-induced shortages as “cosmetic and deceptive,” claiming it did not offer “long-term, practical goodwill.” China had provided emergency fuel and fertilizer assistance to the Philippines during the global supply crisis.
US Pressure on Allies
The dialogue also featured a significant shift in US messaging. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that allies increase defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, labeling the current NATO-target of 2% as “freeloading.” The remark drew a sharp retort from New Zealand Finance Minister Nicola Willis, who reportedly responded: “We don’t have tens of billions of dollars hidden under our sofa.”
At the same time, Hegseth confirmed a US-China “constructive strategic stability relationship” consensus—a move that Singapore’s Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen described as “real, substantive, and meaningful,” according to Xinhua News Agency. This dual-track approach—de-escalating with Beijing while escalating demands on allies—created a complex dynamic that left several nations recalibrating their positions.
Regional Voices Push Back Against Bloc Politics
A notable feature of the 2026 dialogue was the strong showing of ASEAN voices pushing back against great power competition. Vietnam’s President To Lam called for building trust and avoiding confrontation, while Timor-Leste President José Ramos-Horta emphasized the importance of wise leadership and dialogue. Cambodia’s Secretary of State Ngo Thy warned against Japan’s military expansionist tendencies, referencing historical memories of Japanese militarism.
China’s delegation, led by PLA National Defense University Professor Meng Xiangqing, presented the Global Security Initiative, emphasizing common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security. The initiative received positive attention from regional scholars, with Singapore’s East Asia Institute scholar Zhang Weiliang noting that “when regional security is increasingly dominated by military force, the insecurity of small and medium-sized countries rises accordingly.”
Japan-Philippines Military Cooperation
Japan’s Defense Minister Koizumi Shinjiro used the platform to promote a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” vision, while advancing concrete security cooperation with Manila. Japan and the Philippines agreed to begin negotiations on a Military Intelligence Protection Agreement, and Japan is progressing with the export of “Abukuma”-class frigates to the Philippines. These moves have raised concerns among regional countries about Japan’s military trajectory, with Cambodia’s Ngo Thy explicitly warning against what he described as Japan’s potential return to military expansionism.
Analysis: A Region at a Crossroads
The 2026 Shangri-La Dialogue revealed a region navigating multiple tensions simultaneously. The US is seeking rapprochement with China while simultaneously demanding more from its allies. The Philippines is pursuing a “victim” narrative to maintain domestic and international support, even as its avoidance of Chinese media suggests a lack of confidence in direct engagement. Meanwhile, Southeast Asian nations are increasingly vocal in their resistance to being drawn into great power competition.
As Kin Phea, Director of the Cambodian Royal Academy International Relations Institute, summarized: “Achieving sustainable stability in the region requires diplomatic dialogue and cooperative security mechanisms, not competitive military force projection and bloc confrontation.”
What to Watch For
As the dust settles on the 23rd Shangri-La Dialogue, several questions remain: Will the Philippines maintain its assertive posture if US-China rapprochement deepens? How will Japan’s military expansion affect regional trust? And can the dialogue return to being a venue for genuine diplomacy rather than public theater? The answers will shape the Asia-Pacific security landscape for years to come.