Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
will see what patterns of behaviour are possible. This is a situation of a standoff now between
a big country and a small country. It offers several lessons for Singapore in real politics
and international relations. Russian troops are in control of parts
of Ukraine. The United Nations Security Council has been debating the issue for days. Russia
and the P3 have been making points against each other.
The P3 point out that moving troops into another country is in gross violation of international
law, and that Russia has breached a 1994 MOU that it had signed. I will refer to this MOU later.
Russia responds by saying that the lawfully
elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown by a coup, and Yanukovych has
invited them into Ukraine to help, and Russia wants to protect Russians in Ukraine, and
Russia refers to American actions in Grenada in 1983.
Will the Security Council take meaningful action beyond being a debating platform? Unlikely,
given the vetoes that the P5 have, and Russia is one of the P5.
So what will happen hereafter? One has to assess Russian interests in Crimea. Since
the 18th Century when Russia annexed Crimea, Russia has always considered its interests
in Crimea to be vital. Russian actions against the Ottoman Empire, in pursuance of these
interests, led to the Crimean War over 150 years ago. Britain and France decided to confront
Russia then, through military action. Russia lost that war. If one had stepped back and
considered the matter, as Ukraine was going through its protests in the last several weeks,
it would have been fairly obvious that there was a significant risk of Russia moving to
protect what it will consider to be its vital interests. We do not know what was or was not
considered by the different parties. And we do not know what the P3 and EU plan to do
next. What is obvious now is that it is, unfortunately, Ukraine and its people who have to face the
consequences of all that has happened. Singapore's stand: We strongly object
to any unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country under any pretext or excuse. Russian
troops should not be in Ukraine in breach of international law. The sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Ukraine must be respected. International law must be respected. There
can be no qualifications to this.
Madam Speaker, I have dwelt on Ukraine at some length for two key reasons:
First, Singapore has always emphasised, that big or small, all countries must observe international
law. And we have consistently opposed invasions, whether East Timor or Cambodia. We have taken
a clear stand, even when our views were contrary to those of far bigger powers, who were quite
unhappy with us. Indonesia, Soviet Union were amongst those who were unhappy then. We take
the same stand now. There should not be any invasion of Ukraine.
Second, the events in Ukraine hold a number of lessons for us. Russia had signed an agreement
in 1994 with the United States and the United Kingdom agreeing not to threaten or use force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. They also pledged
never to use economic coercion to subjugate Ukraine to their own interests. Ukraine's sovereignty
and independence was thus confirmed by a treaty.
So the first lesson really is, when it comes to the crunch, treaties are
only meaningful if you have the ability to enforce them. If Ukraine cannot defend the
treaty, and has no partners which will come to its aid - and I mean with deeds, not just
words, then the treaty by itself will not help Ukraine.
Lesson No. 2: In international relations, size matters. The disparity between big and
small countries is a fact of life. And a small country which cannot protect itself puts its
sovereignty and its people at risk. Russia is vastly bigger than Ukraine, and its armed
forces are much more powerful than the Ukraine armed forces. Russia is a nuclear power, and
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons as part of the 1994 treaty.
Lesson No. 3: something we have repeated many times: the Security Council cannot always
act decisively to protect small countries.
Lesson 4: When squeezed between two big powers or blocs, a smaller country like Ukraine can
become a pawn. The country caught in between can be sacrificed if the two contending powers
or blocs decide to reach a wider accommodation with each other, trading off their various
interests. This has happened frequently in history -- for example, to Poland. Smaller
countries must be aware of this. Mister Speaker, I read what the Honourable NMP
Mr Laurence Lien said about need for "a more positive narrative that is grounded in optimism".
I wish it were possible to agree with him. But at least from the foreign policy perspective
(which has a direct impact on domestic well-being of Singaporeans), that would require one to
ignore the facts and stop being realistic and honest with the people of Singapore.
Everything may look fine on the surface, but does that mean that our size does not
matter? The treaties which guarantee our sovereignty and survival will by themselves be enough?
That we can ignore the reality that we exist on 720 square kilometres? And that we are
quite at the mercy of international economic winds, competition, bilateral disputes, regional
tensions and shifts in strategic balance? It is a harsh world, with rules which are
often ignored by many countries, including the major powers. Success is not pre-ordained
for any country, let alone a small city state. We ignore that at our peril.
One has to accept facts, reality and then calmly and rationally deal with them, and
explain publicly the situation and the response. Last week, I stopped over in Istanbul,
on my way back to Singapore, from Iran. I met the Turkish Interior Minister. He hosted
me to lunch, on the Bosphorus. As I looked out into the Bosphorus, the crisis in Ukraine,
(which is just really across the waters from the Bosphorus and the Black Sea), kept going
through my mind. Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe -- it has a population of
45 million. It has an armed force of 90,000 active personnel with another 1 million reserve
personnel. It had an elected President and Parliament. It was a functioning state, not
a failed state. It was negotiating an economic agreement with the EU. It has embassies all
over the world, including Singapore. Yet it finds itself in deep crisis -- its political
system is in limbo, foreign troops on its soil, facing the serious risk of dismemberment,
economy seriously affected, reserves running low.
I could not help but then think of our own situation -- if we do not constantly run
hard to make sure that everything works, that we out compete the world, that we can defend
ourselves, how long will it take for our situation to unravel?
Mr Lien also said that we should trust our people. That I have no quarrel with -- I
entirely agree with him. But we also have a duty to be honest with our people, and tell
it like it is; and not sugar-coat the truth. It is best to be unvarnished about the truth.