On security and peace: Lessons from the Shangri-La Dialogue

Young Leaders Programme at the Shangri-La Dialogue 2025

The infamous Doomsday Clock, which in January was set to “89 seconds to midnight” (i.e. the closest mankind has been to destroying our world), would probably be set even closer today.

I was recently part of the 9th Young Leaders Programme at the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue – One of Asia’s foremost security events, held annually in Singapore, has concluded against the backdrop of unprecedented global security challenges.

A few weeks after the Dialogue, the situation continued to escalate with aid-seekers being killed daily in Gaza, Ukraine launching a drone attack deep within Russian territory, and Israel’s strikes on Iran (and subsequent retaliation), followed by US strikes on Iran’s nuclear

facilities (and further retaliation strikes on their military bases in Qatar).

As I write this piece, the Iran-Israel ceasefire is on the edge as President Trump berates both sides for their lack of adherence on a near-daily basis. How long will this last? Possibly no longer than it will take The Star Online’s uploader to upload this column (or maybe slightly longer).

The Shangri-la Dialogue reminds us that security conferences are mirrors (sometimes unflattering) of how perilous the world has become. Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, French President Emmanuel Macron, and US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth headlined the dialogue with vital messages.

Machomen and muscles

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s keynote – eagerly awaited as it was the first policy pronouncement under the Trump Administration on the Indo-Pacific – did not disappoint.

“Achieve peace through strength” was his overarching message.

It was undoubtedly a very “macho” speech, with the Defence Secretary firing on all cylinders, calling for Indo-Pacific allies to increase military spending, embrace a “warrior ethos”, shore up regional defence bases, and build strategic deterrence capabilities.

Just last week, the Pentagon indicated that their Nato and Asian allies would be expected to increase their defence spending to at least 5 per cent of GDP. For context, in Malaysia that would amount to approximately RM75bil – more than what we currently spend on

education or healthcare annually. The last time Malaysia spent over 5 per cent of GDP on security was in the 1980s.

While “America First” rings loud under the Trump Administration, there is an expectation for European, Asian, and Pacific allies to strengthen their own defence and attack capabilities.

The arising question is: What happens to nations that don’t meet this spending target?

For Secretary Hegseth, a future of higher defence spending is an inevitability.

Middle powers must step up

The French President and Malaysia’s Prime Minister’s speeches departed from the machoism of Secretary Hegseth.

French President Emmanuel Macron urged a “new special relationship” and coalitions between Europe and Indo-Pacific countries to preserve “freedom, prosperity, and security”.

This, he said, entails more open trade, de-risk dialogue, and adherence to rule-based order.

President Macron did not hesitate to call out the double standards seen in the various global conflicts, with a stern reminder not to repeat the tragedies of past wars.

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, in his speech “Holding our Ground, South-East Asia in a Fractured World”, advocated active non-alignment and a middle-power balanced stance.

In cautioning against partisanship, he said: “Coalitions that build walls instead of bridges, stoke arms competition, or undermine the legitimacy of multilateralism should give us pause”, adding that, “a stable region is not one braced for conflict, but one grounded in openness, transparency and habit-forming cooperation”.

Prime Minister Anwar’s speech struck a chord. Arguably, greater militarisation is not what the world needs right now. Instead, it needs fewer destructive weapons and confrontational positions. Anwar’s position of engagement with all nations has been criticised by some.

Though this “Anwar Doctrine” has kept Malaysia as a top recipient of FDI while still holding on to its moral positions in the global order.

Macron and Anwar’s speeches shared a common message: relying solely on superpowers is no longer tenable. What’s certain is that peace is becoming more elusive as all sides shore up their defence capabilities in a never-ending game of one-upmanship. The way forward is more engagement and collaboration with all sides.

Engagement defuses conflict

The Young Leaders Programme traditionally runs alongside the main Shangri-La Dialogue, often starting as early as 7.15am (thanks, Evan and team). It resembles a mini-United Nations with all Asean countries, Australia, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu, the United States, China and more, represented.

It was exciting to find out that I had debated against the Filipino delegates during my university days (over 15 years ago). Today, they have taken up vital government roles overseeing border conflicts, navigation rights and preservation of sovereignty.

The things we used to debate have now become a reality, with the stakes much greater -- occasionally involving life-or-death situations.

As the dialogue progressed, what struck me was how differently security issues were perceived from participant to participant. For example, in Malaysia, we tend to be more insulated from the South China Sea conflict, and recent polls from a Singaporean think tank

indicate a more favourable view towards China by Malaysians generally. And while Asean’s position is to push for a Code of Conduct, the gravity of the situation is viewed very differently from countries nearer to the key contentious waters – be it the Philippines or Japan.

Likewise, the civil war in Myanmar, the rise of scam farms throughout South-East Asia and the rise in cyberattacks from beyond the region, evoke very different reactions from the delegates.

Geography, history and national context shape understandings of threat in ways textbooks seldom do.

If not for dialogue, it is easy to overlook the concerns of our neighbours. Arguably, this is key to why disputes arise. Empathy helps humanise security concerns, while engagement helps diffuse them. Hopefully, with continued dialogue and providing young leaders a platform, a more peaceful future is possible – and the Doomsday Clock can reverse its countdown.

Postnote: Sincere thanks to IISS and the organisers — you know who you are — for ensuring that young voices were not only heard, but answered. The dialogue must — and will — outlast the summit’s closing session.