Qamar Bashir

A Call to Arms and Collective Action At the 2025 IISS Shangri-La Dialogue, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered a pivotal speech on behalf of Donald Trump, acknowledging the U.S. military’s diminished capabilities and the need for a comprehensive overhaul. Hegseth candidly admitted that the U.S. Army and Defense Forces have lost their luster, and their current capabilities are incompatible with the evolving global security landscape. The U.S. military outlook is bleak, falling short of the requirements necessary to counter the pressing and growing threats facing the nation. Hegseth outlined three imminent threats to the United States, the Indo-Pacific region, and allied nations, emphasizing the need for collective action. After exposing the shortcomings in America’s military readiness, Hegseth pledged to spearhead the rebuilding of U.S. military might, restoring it to a dominant force capable of global projection. However, he emphasized that this burden would not fall solely on the U.S. Hegseth called on America’s allies to share the cost of this military buildup, citing Europe’s increased defense spending to 5% of GDP in several NATO nations. He urged Indo-Pacific partners to match this commitment, raising their military spending to 5% of GDP.

This, however, transcends the mere defense of collective interests. By constructing a narrative of existential threat—portraying China, North Korea, and Iran as the axis of global instability—Hegseth is laying the groundwork for an aggressive American defense-industrial push. His call for increased defense spending is, in effect, a veiled strategy to promote U.S. military hardware, expertise, and services to allies—transforming the American defense sector into an engine of economic growth while pushing allies into deeper military dependence. Hegseth’s narrative was clear: China is the primary threat, followed by North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities. He made a categorical statement: Iran will never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon—an assertion that highlights the double standard of a global order where the U.S., Israel, India, and Europe reserve the right to develop any weapons they choose, while others are denied the same sovereignty. First and foremost, Hegseth emphasized the unprecedented growth of China’s war capabilities, achieved while the U.S. slept at the wheel. China’s advancements in cyber technology, airpower, and shipbuilding have been nothing short of remarkable. The scale and speed of China’s military build-up—measured in hypersonic missile tests, artificial intelligence integration, and a fleet of over 350 naval ships, including aircraft carriers and stealth destroyers—have raised alarm bells across the Indo-Pacific. Hegseth bluntly warned China not to use this military might to intimidate its neighbors—Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, and others in the region. Yet, Hegseth’s attempt to portray India as a rising counterweight to China rang hollow. He highlighted the U.S.-India defense cooperation as a model, citing joint military exercises and technology sharing. But the recent humiliating performance of India’s military—against a far smaller, resource-constrained Pakistan, grappling with economic and political crises—drew quiet laughter from the audience. Many delegates questioned how India, unable to stand up to Pakistan, could possibly challenge China. It was a moment that underscored the futility of propping up India as a strategic equal to China; India, as Hegseth’s own narrative inadvertently exposed, is years—if not decades—away from posing any meaningful military challenge to Beijing.

While the U.S. is endeavoring to revitalize its military-industrial complex, China has embarked on a distinct trajectory, one grounded in strategic patience, economic integration, and a long-term vision for global engagement. Historically, China has never pursued colonization; even the Great Wall was a defensive measure, not a springboard for conquest. Today, China is constructing a new kind of “Great Wall”—a deterrence strategy based on formidable military capabilities, as well as economic connectivity, infrastructure development, and partnerships that foster win-win scenarios globally. China’s Belt and Road Initiative spans over 150 countries, establishing ports, roads, railways, and digital infrastructure. While the U.S. urges its allies to sever economic ties with China and instead acquire American weapons, China is quietly cultivating interdependencies that promote peace, stability, and shared prosperity. Chinese projects in Africa, Central Asia, and the Pacific are not merely driven by profit; they aim to create an environment where countries are economically intertwined in a manner that renders conflict undesirable. Hegseth’s call to decouple economically from China is a direct acknowledgment of Washington’s apprehension: that economic interdependence renders military adventurism perilous and costly. By urging allies to sever economic ties with China, he aspires to create a geopolitical environment where military options become viable again. However, this strategy is inherently flawed. Allies are not oblivious; they comprehend that acquiring American weapons comes at the expense of their own economic growth. It does not generate employment, construct ports, or provide sustenance for their populace. It merely arms them for wars they may not desire to engage in. Hegseth’s vision, in essence, is a return to the antiquated Cold War playbook—framing China as a “communist threat,” invoking ideological rhetoric that has little resonance in today’s multipolar world. It is a narrative that disregards the fact that China’s system, while single-party, has lifted over 800 million people out of poverty, created the world’s largest middle class, and is now extending prosperity to partner nations worldwide. The stark contrast between America’s approach and China’s could not be more pronounced. While the U.S. constructs walls of militarization, China builds bridges of trade. While the U.S. peddles fear, China offers infrastructure. While the U.S. warns of threats, China promotes mutual benefit. The U.S. narrative is founded upon a crumbling foundation of outdated military dominance, whereas China’s strategy is grounded in economic diplomacy, technological innovation, and a steadfast commitment to non-interference. Hegseth’s Shangri-La speech may have served as a rallying cry for America’s military-industrial complex, but it also laid bare the limitations of the U.S. approach. Until the U.S. pivots from war-mongering to economic cooperation, from selling weapons to building infrastructure, it will struggle to counter China’s rising influence. The world is watching, and the choice is stark: a future of arms races and conflict, or one of shared prosperity and peace. The path forward is clear, but it necessitates the U.S. to shed its antiquated habits—and that is a lesson yet to be learned.