Singapore—Transparency among generals? That seems unlikely as the armed forces are among the most secretive public institutions.

But that’s exactly what some of them, led by Singapore’s defense minister, Teo Chee Hean, openly advocated—and in a place where transparency is not a buzz word.

Surprises like this do happen at The Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual summit on Asian security.

“Military transparency is a means to peace and security but it is not an end in itself. It depends on what your aspiration is,” Teo said during a panel discussion on military transparency and defense cooperation in the Asia-Pacific.

He explained, in an impassioned tone: “If your aspiration is to create trust and confidence and to build a better region, then you can aim for a higher level of transparency, to sit down, talk, understand what each other’s concerns are. Then perhaps we can achieve a level where it does not matter whether you have 99 tanks or 1,200 artillery pieces. We understand that neither of us wants to get into a fight with each other, and that we are able to maintain forces at certain level, which makes each other feel comfortable and secure.”

There are limits to transparency, of course. In the United Kingdom, Baroness Ann Taylor, minister for international defense and security, pointed out that “operationally, we don’t disclose, even in answers to parliamentary questions, all the details because clearly that could give information to those who need it in order to mount attacks against you.”

But there are institutionalized ways of letting the public know vital information on security. In their experience, Taylor said that reports on activities, budgets and priorities of UK’s security services are made to the Prime Minister, then these are debated in Parliament. “Democratic mechanisms are important to ensure accountability as well as disclosure of certain information.”

China’s deputy chief of the general staff, Lt. Gen. Ma Xiaotian, in a panel on major powers and Asian security, made his own push for transparency. He called for consolidating multilateral dialogue and cooperation: “Countries need to actively engage in military diplomacy, enhance dialogue and consultation between defense establishments and armed forces, and increase understanding and mutual trust.”

The Shangri-La Dialogue has come a long way. When it began eight years ago in this country, it seemed a tentative gathering of defense officials with the noble aim of encouraging discussions that would contribute to stability in this dynamic region. Today, it has attracted more participants—more than 300 delegates representing 27 countries attended this year’s meeting—and, for the first time, Vietnam and Cambodia sent their defense ministers.

The Dialogue is what some describe as a "track one-and-a-half” event, bridging government and the private sector. Track one refers to a government-only activity, while track two is exclusive to NGOs and civil society.

The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Singapore government host this summit and have agreed to do so until 2014.

The vision for the Shangri-La Dialogue is to go beyond being “just a conference” to “a process that directly contributes to defense transparency,” John Chipman, IISS director-general, said.

North Korea and Burma

Not all countries are buying this pitch for transparency. The prime example is North Korea, a hot-button subject during the conference. Recently, this rogue state fired, for the second time, long-range missiles as it continues to build its nuclear arsenal.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that the US “will not accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state...and would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of its action” referring to the transfer of nuclear material to states or non-state groups.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia, who opened the conference, called Burma a “reckless regime” and asked the international community to “respond with one voice and with a common program of action against Pyongyang.” (Rudd is the first head of state, outside Singapore, to address the Dialogue.)

Another problem is Burma. While it sent delegates to this meeting (the first time was last year), Burma wasn’t spared heavy criticism. Gates set the tone on Burma when he said, “We need to see real change in Burma—the release of political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and the institution of meaningful dialogue between the junta and the opposition.”

During a panel on counter-insurgency, Maj. Gen. Aye Myint, deputy defense minister of Burma, unabashedly defended his government’s trial of Aung San Suu Kyi. “It is no doubt that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has committed a cover-up of the truth by her failure to report an illegal immigrant to the authorities concerned.”

He parried criticisms about Burma being a threat by saying that they are solving their internal affairs through their legal system and this “does not amount to the threat of peace or breach of security in the region.”

Participants gave the general a polite applause and ignored him; no questions were asked.

Asia-Pacific Community?

This year’s Dialogue was largely diplomatic, hardly punctuated by forceful remarks, compared to last year’s when participants voiced their frustration over Burma’s behaviour in the wake of Cyclone Nargis, when it refused to let in foreign aid.

Part of the reason may be the non-surprise pulled by North Korea—defense officials appear to have expected this display of weapons and international reaction to it as reflected by Gates’s remark, “I’m tired of buying the same horse twice.”

The other could be Rudd’s tone and proposal. As keynote speaker, he was bland and he put on the table a non-scintillating, slow burning idea of an Asia-Pacific Community. It is something Australia has been pushing, a middle power flexing its intellectual muscle.

Participants had mixed reactions to this idea. For one, Indonesia’s defense minister, Juwono Sudarsono, prefers a sub-regional structure. “Who decides the terms of a regional structure? It’s too wide to encompass, too difficult to be effectively done.”

As of now, the Asia-Pacific community still seems distant and opaque. But, as Chipman said at the end of the summit, key ideas such as this can further be debated in future Shangri-la Dialogues, a rich ground for discussion and diplomacy.