During this year's Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth laid out an alarming vision for the future of the Asia-Pacific region, a vision that includes the same type of U.S. military encroachment and confrontation that has turned Europe, North Africa and the Middle East into devastated battlegrounds over the past two decades.

Predicated on "deterring aggression by Communist China," Hegseth laid out plans to further expand the presence of U.S. troops and military equipment in places closer to China's borders than to America's own shores.

And while he spoke about Chinese "coercion," it was Hegseth who would insist during his speech that nations across the Asia-Pacific region "do their part on defense," including by diverting public funds to buy U.S. arms, repair U.S. military equipment and naval vessels in the region, and choose "defense cooperation with the U.S." over "economic cooperation with China."

U.S. to Asia: you're next 

Hegseth would at one point admit:"…for a generation, the U.S. ignored this region (Indo-Pacific). We became distracted by open-ended wars, regime change and nation building. I had a front row seat as a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan. These costly diversions lacked clearly defined goals and were not tied to vital and core American interests."

It is no coincidence during this same period, Asia has risen economically, enjoying relative peace and stability while the U.S. was "distracted" by malign conflict it itself sowed elsewhere.

The Shangri-La Dialogue is organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a Western corporate-funded institution advancing Western foreign policy objectives. The defense summit itself focuses on advancing Western interests in Asia rather than any serious discussion about Asia's own best interests or genuine East-West cooperation.

While Western leaders make poorly-couched declarations of their own continued primacy over Asia, Asian leaders have made polite but increasingly firm declarations regarding Asia determining its own path forward into the future.

The confidence with which Asia as a whole is able to slowly push back against the remnants of Western colonialism and primacy has been enabled by the rise of China and the vast array of increasingly attractive alternatives to Western markets, investment, "security" and tourism it offers.

China also offers opportunities the West does not, and cannot, offer such as partnership in building modern region-spanning infrastructure like high-speed rail, sea ports and airports, and power plants, as well as the sale of cheaper, more effective military equipment without entangling military alliances attached.

While China is leading the rise of Asia, Asia as a whole is surpassing the U.S. in wealth, economic progress, regional development and technological advancement. Considering this emerging reality, Hegseth's address at this year's summit served as a deliberate bid to reverse the growing trend of Asia pursuing Asia's interests, not submitting to Washington's or Wall Street's interests.

Despite claims of seeking "peace and stability" for the region, Hegseth's message to Asia was in reality, after destabilizing and destroying the rest of Eurasia, "you're next."

Peace destroyer of Asia-Pacific 

Hegseth began his talk describing how the U.S. is securing its "backyard," by "taking back the Panama Canal from malign Chinese influence," in reference to two ports previously owned by a China-based company located near the canal, which itself was transferred from U.S. control to the nation of Panama in 1999.

He then referred China's "massive military build-up," never once considering the possibility that Beijing is reacting to the large and still growing military footprint the U.S. has established not only in China's "backyard," but even within its own house.

Despite spending the rest of his talk describing the many ways the U.S. is expanding its military presence all throughout the Asia-Pacific—in the Republic of Korea, Japan and the Philippines—many times closer to China's shores than the Panama Canal is to American shores, Hegseth would nonetheless claim, "We do not seek to dominate or strangle China. To encircle or provoke. We do not seek regime change, nor will we instigate or disrespect a proud and historic culture."

However it was Hegseth's claims that China is "harassing" its own province of Taiwan that were the most paradoxical.

According to the 1972 Joint Statement Following Discussions With Leaders of the People's Republic of China, commonly known as the Shanghai Communiqué, the U.S. Government declared: The U.S. acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Straits maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The U.S. Government does not challenge that position.

Not only does the U.S. recognize China's position regarding Taiwan as being part of China, it explicitly stated that it "does not challenge that position."

UN Resolution 2758 recognizes the government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of all of China and explicitly expelled representatives of the "Republic of China" from the United Nations. Even the U.S. State Department's official website has, as recently as last year, explicitly stated, "we do not support Taiwan independence."

Despite the U.S. officially recognizing a "one China" policy, it has for years undermined both its agreement with Beijing and international law, with the U.S. first arming the administration in Taipei, then stationing U.S. troops in Taiwan itself in growing numbers.

If a Chinese company owning ports near the Panama Canal, legally transferred from U.S. control to the nation of Panama in 1999, over 1,700 km from the U.S., is intolerable to Washington, then clearly Washington should not expect Beijing to accept U.S. troops occupying what is recognized as Chinese territory under both U.S.-Chinese agreements and international law.

Similarly, if a civilian port owned by a Chinese company 1,700 km away from the U.S. is unacceptable to Washington, then entire networks of U.S. military bases housing tens of thousands of U.S. troops, missiles, warplanes and other military equipment even closer to China should be easily acknowledged as the motive behind China's "massive military build-up."

While Hegseth claims China is undermining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, it is the U.S. moving its military to the other side of the planet, closer to Chinese shores than America's own borders, backsliding on its commitments to both the Chinese Government and under international law, that threatens peace and stability in the region and around the world.

Hegseth's speech was not an offering of peace and stability to Asia, it is the holding of it hostage in exchange for subordination to Washington and Wall Street and the continued primacy of Western interests over Asia decades into the future.

Only time will tell if Asia is prepared to work with China to protect the hard-fought peace, stability and prosperity built up together in the decades the U.S. was "distracted" consuming much of the rest of Eurasia in conflict, or whether short-sighted, self-serving leaders maneuvered into power through U.S. political interference in the region will succeed in spreading Washington's destructive conflicts consuming Europe, North Africa and the Middle East to Asia as well. BR

The author is a Bangkok-based independent geopolitical analyst and former U.S. Marine. 

Copyedited by G.P. Wilson 

Comments to dingying@cicgamericas.com