Amid great power rivalry, S’pore must look past ‘bluster’, preserve ability to act in own interest: Shanmugam

SINGAPORE - It is in the interest of small countries such as Singapore to have regional structures that promote cooperation rather than rivalry. But ultimately, Singapore must have the military means and social resilience to defend itself and act in its own interest, because others will help only if it suits their interests.

Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam made these points during the keynote speech on the final day of a two-day workshop titled “The Russia-Ukraine War and South-east Asia One Year On: Implications and Outlook”, organised by the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.

Speaking on Wednesday to close to 70 participants, including diplomats, businessmen and academics, Mr Shanmugam said it is also critical for Singapore to maintain a sharp analysis of the competitive geopolitical trends.

“We have to look beyond the bluster, the headlines and the ideologically driven narratives, to understand the facts,” he said.

He added: “We must continue, as we always have, to act only and always in Singapore’s own interests, and stand up for the principles on which our interests are based.

“But it cannot just be self-interest. There must be basis in international law for these interests.”

Mr Shanmugam, who was foreign minister from 2011 to 2015, noted that two principles of international law at play amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict are indivisible security, where a state should not enhance its own security at the expense of another state; and self-determination or sovereignty, where a state has the right to choose its own military and political alliances.

The two principles can contradict and, given a contradiction, each power will pick one best suited to its interests in that particular geopolitical context, he said.

While the United States today is asserting the right of Ukraine to have sovereignty, Russia says its security should not be compromised by Ukraine’s strengthening of its own security

by joining Nato.

Yet, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, one saw the reverse, with then US President John F. Kennedy speaking about halting Cuba’s offensive build-ups in defence of its own security and calling them a “threat to world peace”.

Meanwhile, then Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev dismissed America’s actions as an “undisguised interference” in the internal affairs of Cuba.

“Both then and now, neither great power accepted a potential threat at its doorstep. I think it’s fair to say that in the future, these sorts of dynamics will continue. And both great powers cited the relevant principle that best suited them, to the position they wished to take,” said Mr Shanmugam.

But small countries often pay a disproportionate price in these geopolitical conflicts among great powers, either as pawns or collateral damage, he said. “There is no mistake that they are often the ones who pay the price.”

On the war in Ukraine, Mr Shanmugam noted that Ukraine’s “defence has been nothing short of heroic” since a war that many thought would end in days has stretched for more than a year.

“Ukraine’s sense of national identity, purpose and independence has now been forged in steel and blood. Whoever might have queried the artificiality of Ukraine as a state before the war, will have no doubts today that Ukraine’s sense of nationalism and statehood is completely formed.

“Ukraine’s spirit has become immeasurably stronger, and it is unlikely to be rolled over,” he said.

While stressing several times that the historical background does not justify an invasion, Mr Shanmugam said the Western portrayal of Russian President Vladimir Putin as having imperial ambitions and being nostalgic about the Soviet Union, although accurate to some extent, does not convey the whole picture.

“It too conveniently absolves the West of any responsibility for the way events have unfolded,” he said, adding that the West has to reflect on whether Russia’s concerns about Nato’s expansion after the Cold War, which the country voiced in 1995 and 2004, for example, were adequately dealt with.

“The West and Nato, in my view, were not uninvolved bystanders who had no role to play in the current situation,” he said.

Yet Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear and gross violation of international law and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, Mr Shanmugam said.

This position is consistent with Singapore’s track record of opposing invasions that threaten sovereignty, he added, citing as examples when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia or then Kampuchea in 1978, and the US invasion of Grenada in 1983.

Singapore had voted in favour of UN resolutions that called for the invasions to end.

“Sovereignty is an existential principle to small countries like Singapore. There can be real-world consequences if one country can unilaterally invade another country, whether on the excuse of common history, alleged historical errors or any other excuse,” the minister said.

He added: “If (such reasons) are accepted, there is nothing to say that another country cannot use the same reasoning with Singapore.”