The 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue, held on Saturday, May 31, 2025, in Singapore, was meant to foster regional security cooperation, but it quickly became a battleground for a sharp exchange between China and the United States. A pointed question from Zhang Chi, a member of China’s National Defense University delegation, to U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ignited a verbal clash that exposed deep-seated tensions over U.S. alliances, ASEAN’s role, and regional power dynamics in the Indo-Pacific.
What Sparked the Clash at the Shangri-La Dialogue?
Zhang Chi’s Provocative Question
During the first plenary session, Zhang Chi challenged Hegseth on the U.S.’s commitment to ASEAN’s centrality. He pointedly asked why U.S.-led alliances like the Quad (U.S., Japan, Australia, India) and AUKUS (U.S., UK, Australia) exclude ASEAN nations, questioning how the U.S. would prioritize between its alliances and ASEAN in case of disputes. “Do you support ASEAN’s centrality? If so, how can you ensure it?” Zhang pressed, highlighting a perceived sidelining of Southeast Asian nations in U.S. strategic frameworks. His question resonated with ASEAN representatives, particularly from Cambodia, who praised it as “excellent” for voicing their concerns about being marginalized by Washington.
Hegseth’s Evasive Response
Hegseth’s reply was notably vague, expressing only a general willingness to “engage in dialogue with all countries” without addressing ASEAN’s centrality or U.S. policy specifics. Experts at the session, as reported by the Global Times, labeled this response as reflective of “American arrogance,” suggesting the U.S. views ASEAN as a secondary partner rather than an equal. A Cambodian representative echoed this sentiment, telling the Global Times, “The U.S. does not take us small countries seriously at all. Hegseth is very arrogant and overbearing; China is the partner we can trust.” This exchange set the stage for a broader war of words, amplifying tensions between Beijing and Washington.
Why Did Zhang’s Question Strike a Nerve?
ASEAN’s Centrality in Question
ASEAN’s principle of centrality—its role as the primary driver of regional cooperation—has long been a cornerstone of Southeast Asian diplomacy. Zhang’s question exposed a sore point: the U.S.’s growing focus on exclusive alliances like the Quad and AUKUS, which bypass ASEAN’s 10 member states. These frameworks, designed to counter China’s influence, have raised concerns among ASEAN nations about being sidelined in their own region. Posts on X reflect this unease, with one user noting, “ASEAN feels like an afterthought in U.S. strategy, while China engages directly with us.” Zhang’s question, lauded by ASEAN delegates, tapped into this frustration, positioning China as a defender of regional inclusivity.
China’s Strategic Messaging
China’s delegation, through Zhang, seized the opportunity to portray the U.S. as dismissive of smaller nations, reinforcing Beijing’s narrative as a reliable partner. By framing the U.S. alliances as exclusionary, China aimed to deepen divisions between Washington and ASEAN. The Global Times reported that Zhang’s question was strategic, designed to “highlight a critical issue” and amplify ASEAN’s concerns on a global stage. This move aligns with China’s broader diplomatic push to strengthen ties with Southeast Asia, evidenced by recent trade agreements and infrastructure investments under the Belt and Road Initiative.
How Did Hegseth’s Response Fuel the Fire?
Perceived U.S. Arrogance
Hegseth’s failure to directly address ASEAN’s centrality was interpreted as a snub, reinforcing perceptions of U.S. condescension. Experts at the dialogue told the Global Times that his response suggested the U.S. prioritizes its strategic allies over ASEAN, undermining the bloc’s regional influence. This perception was echoed by ASEAN attendees, with one representative stating, “Hegseth’s attitude shows the U.S. doesn’t see us as equals.” The lack of a substantive answer allowed China to capitalize on the moment, framing the U.S. as dismissive of Southeast Asian interests.
U.S. Strategic Priorities in the Indo-Pacific
Hegseth’s evasiveness reflects the U.S.’s delicate balancing act in the Indo-Pacific. The Quad and AUKUS are central to Washington’s strategy to counter China’s military and economic influence, particularly in the South China Sea. However, these alliances prioritize major powers like Japan and Australia, often at the expense of ASEAN’s inclusive model. A recent RAND Corporation report noted that while the U.S. publicly supports ASEAN centrality, its actions—such as expanding AUKUS to include Canada and Japan—suggest a focus on aligning like-minded allies over broader regional engagement. Hegseth’s vague response may have been an attempt to avoid committing to a policy that could constrain U.S. flexibility.
What Are the Broader Implications for China-U.S. Relations?
A War of Words with Global Stakes
The Shangri-La Dialogue exchange escalated into a broader war of words, with China leveraging the incident to portray the U.S. as an unreliable partner. Chinese state media, including the Global Times, amplified Zhang’s question, framing it as a challenge to U.S. hegemony. Meanwhile, U.S. officials have defended their alliances, with a Pentagon spokesperson stating on May 31, 2025, that “the Quad and AUKUS enhance regional security without undermining ASEAN.” However, this defense has done little to quell ASEAN’s concerns, as evidenced by critical posts on X, with one user asking, “Why does the U.S. talk ASEAN centrality but act otherwise?”
South China Sea Tensions
The dialogue’s fallout intersects with ongoing tensions in the South China Sea, where China’s territorial claims clash with those of ASEAN members like the Philippines and Vietnam. The U.S. has bolstered its military presence through joint exercises with Quad partners, which China views as provocative. Zhang’s question indirectly highlighted these tensions, suggesting that U.S. alliances could escalate disputes rather than resolve them. A recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that ASEAN nations are increasingly wary of being caught in a U.S.-China rivalry, with 60% of regional leaders favoring neutrality in a 2025 survey.
How Does ASEAN Fit into the Equation?
ASEAN’s Frustrations with the U.S.
ASEAN’s reaction to the exchange underscores its growing frustration with the U.S. The Global Times reported that representatives from Cambodia and other ASEAN nations felt validated by Zhang’s question, seeing it as a rare acknowledgment of their concerns. ASEAN’s centrality is not just a diplomatic principle but a practical necessity for smaller nations navigating great power competition. The exclusion of ASEAN from U.S.-led frameworks has fueled perceptions of marginalization, with one Indonesian delegate telling Reuters, “We want a seat at the table, not to be a pawn in U.S.-China games.”
China’s Outreach to ASEAN
China has capitalized on this discontent, positioning itself as a more inclusive partner. Recent initiatives, such as the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area 3.0, signed in early 2025, have deepened economic ties, with bilateral trade reaching $900 billion in 2024. China’s infrastructure projects, like high-speed rail networks in Laos and Thailand, further cement its influence. At the dialogue, Zhang’s question reinforced China’s narrative of respecting ASEAN’s role, contrasting with the U.S.’s perceived dismissiveness. Posts on X from ASEAN-based users praised China’s engagement, with one stating, “China listens to us, while the U.S. just dictates.”
What Does This Mean for Regional Security?
A Fractured Indo-Pacific Order
The China-U.S. war of words at the Shangri-La Dialogue highlights a fractured regional security architecture. The U.S.’s focus on exclusive alliances risks alienating ASEAN, pushing some members closer to China. A 2025 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies warned that ASEAN’s neutrality could erode if great power competition intensifies, potentially destabilizing the region. The dialogue incident underscores this risk, as ASEAN nations seek assurances of their relevance.
Potential for Escalation
The exchange could escalate tensions beyond rhetoric. China’s military modernization, including its expansion of naval capabilities, has alarmed U.S. allies, while the U.S.’s Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South China Sea provoke Beijing. Hegseth’s vague response may signal to China that the U.S. is unwilling to compromise on its strategic priorities, potentially prompting further Chinese assertiveness. A post on X warned, “If the U.S. keeps sidelining ASEAN, China will fill the vacuum, and tensions will spike.”
Can Diplomacy Bridge the Divide?
Opportunities for Dialogue
Despite the heated exchange, the Shangri-La Dialogue underscores the need for diplomacy. ASEAN leaders have called for inclusive frameworks that prioritize regional cooperation over rivalry. Singapore’s Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen, speaking at the dialogue, urged both powers to engage ASEAN directly, proposing a strengthened ASEAN Regional Forum to address security challenges. Merz’s upcoming meeting with Trump on June 5, 2025, could also influence U.S. policy, as Germany has advocated for multilateral approaches that include ASEAN.
Challenges Ahead
However, bridging the China-U.S. divide remains challenging. The U.S.’s strategic focus on countering China limits its flexibility, while China’s assertive diplomacy risks alienating some ASEAN members wary of its South China Sea claims. Both powers must navigate domestic pressures—Trump’s America First agenda and Xi Jinping’s push for global influence—making compromise difficult. The dialogue’s war of words reflects these deeper tensions, with no easy resolution in sight.
China-U.S. war of words
How did a single question at the Shangri-La Dialogue ignite a China-U.S. war of words? Zhang Chi’s challenge to Pete Hegseth exposed fault lines in U.S. policy, ASEAN’s frustrations, and China’s strategic ambitions. By highlighting the exclusion of ASEAN from U.S.-led alliances, China positioned itself as a champion of regional inclusivity, while Hegseth’s evasive response fueled perceptions of U.S. arrogance. The incident underscores broader geopolitical stakes, from South China Sea tensions to the future of ASEAN’s centrality. As the Indo-Pacific navigates this rivalry, the dialogue serves as a stark reminder: words matter, and diplomacy must prevail to prevent escalation.
