China used the Shangri-La Dialogue to reinforce its stance on sensitive security issues such as the South China Sea and Taiwan, but tight media control undermined its efforts to show openness. The three-day forum, which ended on Sunday, was this year seen as an important platform for China to send a message as its rivalry with the United States escalates well beyond trade. Beijing upgraded its representation at Asia’s biggest security forum with a delegation led by Defence Minister General Wei Fenghe – the highest-profile team China has sent to the gathering in Singapore – aiming to promote its position and seek support from neighbours. A Chinese delegate, who declined to be named, said Wei’s attendance showed Beijing wanted to articulate its position to the international community at a time of heightened tensions with Washington. On Sunday, Wei issued a stern warning to “external forces” that fostered the idea of independence for Taiwan and said China’s construction of man-made islands in the South China Sea was its “legitimate right”. His message was clear but tough, said Shahriman Lockman, a senior analyst with the Foreign Policy and Security Studies Programme of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Malaysia, adding that the international audience may not be sympathetic towards Beijing’s stance on Taiwan. “I didn’t expect the Taiwan angle to be so pronounced … People had expected that China was going to offer reassurance to the region after an absence for so long,” he said, referring to the lack of high-level Chinese representation at the forum in recent years. Andrea Thompson, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said Beijing did not give sufficient answers on sensitive issues, especially those regarding arms control and cybersecurity. But she said it was still a positive sign that China sent Wei to the forum. “The fact that he engaged with his American counterparts is a positive sign,” she said. “[Besides,] putting yourself in front of viewers and taking questions is no easy task.” Analysts said the security forum was all about raising issues, improving understanding and “posturing”. “The Shangri-La Dialogue was never actually designed for solving problems,” said Drew Thompson, a visiting senior research fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. “It’s a place where all the different delegations – both government and academic – all converge at one time, at one place, to discuss [relevant security issues] … This is a venue to posture,” he said. While China used the forum to set out its position, it also had the opportunity to hear from others, according to a Chinese military official. Lieutenant General He Lei, who has attended the forum over the past few years, said the gathering helped to give China a better understanding of international security affairs. “In the past years when [former defence secretary James] Mattis led the American delegation, we appreciated his work despite our differences … He represents the interests of the US as he too was a soldier, and I understand that,” He said. But other analysts said the forum did not have any practical results and only served to reveal the vast gulf between some of those attending. “PRC Defence Minister Wei Fenghe’s saying that Beijing’s Tiananmen Square massacre was justified also shows just how far apart the US and PRC world views are,” said Sean King, a senior vice-president at political strategy firm Park Strategies. Wei defended Beijing’s handling of the bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in 1989, saying China had no option but to use the military to repress the student movement. The defence minister’s question-and-answer session was tightly controlled, which analysts said reflected a lack of confidence from Beijing when it came to sensitive issues. Of the nearly 20 people who asked Wei questions in the session that followed his speech, none “represented American institutions”. During the session, John Chipman, director general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) which co-organises the forum with Singapore, repeatedly said “as we have negotiated” when selecting non-American reporters to ask questions. That was a sharp contrast to Acting US Secretary of Defence Patrick Shanahan’s session on Saturday, when Major General Xu Hui, dean of the College of Defence Studies at the PLA’s National Defence University, was able to ask him a question. A person familiar with the situation said Beijing and the IISS had negotiated over the management of Wei’s session, and questions had been presented to Wei in batches before he answered them. “The Chinese negotiated very hard for that format,” the person said. Tight media control at home also thwarted attempts to show openness to the world, with domestic media “advised” not to run any coverage extensively focusing on Shanahan’s speech, according to a number of Chinese reporters at the event. Managing China’s participation at the forum would continue to be a challenge for the organisers in the future, according to analysts. “You want substantive engagement when China does not,” Drew Thompson said. “What compromises do you make to gain access, and high-level participation, would be a key question to the organisers in the future.” Additional reporting by Minnie Chan