International rules still matter. That was the common theme at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, particularly for Indo-Pacific nations. Australia’s deputy prime minister and defence minister, Richard Marles, told the conference, ‘The international rules-based order is imperfect. But we are much better off with it.’

Giving the opening address on 29 May, Vietnamese President To Lam said the solution to an erosion of international rules was for those rules to be ‘reinforced’.

Reinforcing and then enforcing the rules was the clear message. And it was a message to multiple audiences, some of which were absent from the dialogue.

While not publicly stated, the region was rejecting Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos declaration that the rules-based order was over. Japanese Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said Tokyo’s aim was to strengthen ‘a free and open’ international order.

Smaller nations such as Vietnam were sending a message to both the United States and China not to let tensions erupt into regional conflict as we’d seen in Europe and the Middle East.

But it was also a plea to the US not to abandon the Indo-Pacific. For while much of the Indo-Pacific fears great power competition, their greater fear is no competition as it would likely mean the US leaving the region in China’s hands. Lam said ‘competition is an enduring reality of international relations. But competition must remain bounded by law’.

China refused to hear the message directly, with no senior leaders at the dialogue for the second year running. China was still the elephant in the room. Most speakers didn’t mention it by name but warned of threatening actions that only China was undertaking. Cutting cables in the Taiwan Strait. Militarisation of the South China Sea. Aggressive use of coastguards. All China.

The Japanese and Philippine defence ministers were among those who did directly attribute the region’s insecurity to China. Koizumi called out China’s brazen hypocrisy in trying to turn the region against Japan for increasing its defence capabilities. Such spending was defensive, responding to China’s unprecedented military buildup, including deployment of many more nuclear weapons and construction of nuclear-armed submarines, neither of which Japan had.

Philippines Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro encouraged everyone ‘to call a spade a spade’, saying there was ‘a deficit of trust in China’s words vis-a-vis action.’ He reminded everyone of the importance of international law. In 2013, the Philippines took China to the Hague court of arbitration for its actions in the South China Sea, and the world relies on the historic 2016 international ruling to factually state that China’s nine-dash line is a fiction. The message was that yes, rules may be breached from time-to-time, but don’t give up on them. Enforce them.

While there was unanimity on the need to reinforce and regain trust in the rules, the tougher question was how to go about it.

The answer was to invest in dialogue and defence.

For smaller nations, dialogue is king. China didn’t give them that chance. The region was left wary about the reasons for its absence. The region is less stable if China is so confident in its regional dominance that it doesn’t need to engage in public diplomacy except on its terms.

China hosted presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin last month, after receiving visits by others including the Canadian and Australian prime ministers. China is pulling the key global figures into its orbit, where it can control all movements and media activity. At Shangri-La, ministers need to be willing to be in crowded, chaotic spaces such as hotel foyers and face media questions without notice.

Marles was right when he said China had missed an opportunity to provide strategic reassurance at a time when it was engaging in unprecedented military expansion. Instead, the message through absence is that China is above all other nations and the international order. With much of the region worried about the Iran war’s implications on the cost of living, China also missed the opportunity to attend and claim to be for peace while the US isn’t. And US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth took advantage of that absence with a measured speech praising Indo-Pacific nations and committing to regional ‘peace and prosperity’.

For the US, regional powers such as Australia and Japan, and others such as New Zealand, military power, in addition to dialogue, was mandatory for upholding rules and deterring wars.

While Marles gave an impassioned defence of the rules-based order, he said it was the post-Cold War era – the idea that economic interdependencies could reduce the likelihood of conflict – that was dead. Marles said ‘states that do not invest in credible defence capability will be more exposed to coercion and face greater constraints on their sovereignty.’

Hegseth’s speech was in many ways a call for US’s regional partners to better arm themselves. Echoing Marles, he said a durable peace required ‘more combat power’ and an alliance network ‘built on shared responsibility not dependency’ in which ‘everyone has skin in the game’. In confirming that the US was a Pacific nation and warning it wouldn’t be pushed out by China, Hegseth combined the two ingredients necessary to reinforce and enforce regional order: dialogue and defence. He provided the strategic reassurance Vietnam and others were asking for and which Beijing declined to offer.

Hegseth did leave his own unanswered question. Taiwan epitomises a democracy needing both dialogue and defence. In not mentioning Taiwan, some feared the US was signalling it was walking away from the island. But Hegseth’s hat tip to former US president Teddy Roosevelt’s doctrine of speaking softly and carrying a big stick could be the stronger signal. A choice not to unnecessarily antagonise China through ‘rhetorical theatrics’ knowing that at some point this year the US will sell arms to Taiwan.

If the US doesn’t sell arms to Taiwan, it will confirm that the old democratic order has been replaced by a new Sino-led order and that we are all playing by Chinese rules. If the arms sale proceeds, it will be reassurance that, though being tested, legislative commitments, international law and the rules based order may sometimes sleep but never die.