随笔南洋网



 
标题: 新加坡前外长与资深外交官罕见隔空论战:应对南海问题是否考虑周全?
嘉娜峰
中级会员
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 53968
精华 0
积分 1466
帖子 678
威望 777 点
阅读权限 10
注册 2009-12-25
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-3 11:30  资料 文集 短消息 
新加坡前外长与资深外交官罕见隔空论战:应对南海问题是否考虑周全?

我国必须清楚并巧妙推进自己的外交利益,但过程中不应向他国“屈膝磕头”。他国如果认为新加坡在外交上可轻易低头或舍弃原则,日后会指望新加坡同样有妥协的余地。

内政部长兼律政部长尚穆根昨天针对我国两名资深外交官罕见地隔空掀起论战发表看法时强调,我国这个弹丸之地之所以能在国际舞台上赢得尊重,就是因为从不以“小国”思维自认卑微。

新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院院长马凯硕(Kishore Mahbubani)与我国巡回大使比拉哈里(Bilahari Kausikan)前天就新加坡作为小国应在大国面前有什么样的外交姿态意见分歧。马凯硕在《海峡时报》前天刊登的一篇评论上,指我国应以中东国家与卡塔尔断交为前车之鉴,牢记“小国应有小国的作为”。

马凯硕在文中说,卡塔尔因为坐拥雄厚财力而“自以为可以充当中等强国,干涉境外事务”,并以为它和美国的密切关系会让它无需承担一切后果。他未对中东国家与卡塔尔断交所给出的原因置评,但强调卡塔尔正是因为没有遵守现实政治的丛林法则而招致恶果。

比拉哈里:马凯硕观点严重具误导性

马凯硕借此评点我国外交团队在南中国海课题上的言论不够克制,并强调立场一致性和遵守原则固然重要,但我国外交不应只以这些见长。他说:“凡事都有正确的时机。大国争得面红耳赤之际并不一定是强调自己原则的最佳时间点。”马凯硕进一步指出,我国在回应国际法庭就南中国海主权纠纷的仲裁时也应“考虑更周全”。

这个看法随即遭比拉哈里指为“糊涂、虚假和着实危险”。他前天深夜通过面簿回应说,马凯硕的观点“严重具误导性”,因此“即便是得罪老朋友也必须强烈反驳”。

比拉哈里说,马凯硕说这是现实主义的考量,“但现实主义并不意味低声下气,冀望获得大国的认可和垂青”。他对马凯硕“主张附属关系作为国家关系常态”感到失望和惭愧。

马凯硕在文中也提到,建国总理李光耀之所以敢于公开议论大国事务,没有以小国领袖自居,是因为他在国际上获得尊重。但随着新加坡进入后李光耀时代,我国的外交行为也应显著改变。

比拉哈里认为这不但是错误的观点,也冒犯了李光耀的接班人和在李光耀团队领导下获益的新加坡人。

他指出,李光耀之所以赢得尊重,正是因为他和他的团队并没有对大国唯唯是诺。他们就事论事,也明确知道新加坡是弹丸之地,但他们从不受他人恐吓,他们的外交作为有不被国家面积和地理条件局限。

曾在2011年到2015年间担任外交部长的尚穆根昨天下午也指马凯硕的言论“学识上有疏漏”。他说,李光耀并没有提倡怯懦或“小国思维”的外交政策,新加坡因此在国际上赢得尊重。

尚穆根说,自己任内从没有忘记新加坡是小国,能做的东西有限。“但我同样知道,一旦你允许别人欺负你,你就会一直受欺负。”

“有些其他国家的外长在我们不答允他们的要求时用不同方式威胁我们,或语气严厉。但就如我们所有外长所做的,我直视他们,告诉他们我们的立场不动摇。他们的态度过后就改变了。”

新加坡会广结善缘,但友谊应建立在相互尊重的基础上。比拉哈里说:“我们当然认识到国家大小和权力不对称的情况……但这不代表我们须向他国屈膝或接受附属关系是国家关系的常态。”

比拉哈里指出,他“不认为任何人会尊重一条走狗”。他说,李光耀在中国这样的大国面前也能站稳立场,才赢得中国的尊重,与中国领导人建立良好的关系;上世纪60年代马印对抗期间,两名印度尼西亚海军陆战队员在我国麦唐纳大厦放置炸弹炸死平民,我国也没有同意印尼总统苏哈多的要求,赦免死罪。李光耀在1973年走访雅加达,在死者墓前撒花,化解了这段夙怨,也与苏哈多建立起几十年的交情。

叶光荣王景荣分别支持不同观点

我国两名前外交官的争论引起学者和外交界广泛关注,一些人认为马凯硕制造了“小国应服从大国”的错误观念,另一些则认为马凯硕只是提醒小国应在外交上慎之又慎,无可厚非。

新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院中南半岛区域事务顾问叶光荣昨晚在个人面簿上贴文为马凯硕辩解,并指巡回大使比拉哈里的回应“夸大其词、全无必要”。

叶光荣说,马凯硕的论点不过是说小国不应以大国心态自恃,以及新加坡短期内不会再有一个像建国总理李光耀那样的领导人。“他的主要观点是,作为一个小国,我们应当心不要超荷。这样的思路并没有什么错误或不敬的。”

不过南洋理工大学拉惹勒南国际关系研究院执行副主席及我国巡回大使王景荣则指出,马凯硕的文章仍制造了“小国应安分守己,如果阻碍到大国政治就不应该维护自身利益”的印象。

王景荣在发给媒体、回应马凯硕文章的一篇评论中指出,马凯硕主要关注的是我国在处理南中国海课题上不够圆滑。他反驳说:“我个人认为东南亚国家尊重新加坡的战略定位和外交方面的努力。我们已根据我们所知和当下情况采取了所需的行动。”

王景荣也说,大国向小国施压时,小国除了极力维护自己的利益“别无他选”。他写道:“如果不站稳立场,只会鼓励其他比我们大的国家向我们施压。这么做有代价吗?当然会有短期甚至中期的影响……但国际关系如果纯粹取决于国家大小,这并不符合我们的国家利益。”
顶部
阿牛
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6


UID 515
精华 82
积分 12575
帖子 4514
威望 8019 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2006-12-19
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-3 11:47  资料 个人空间 短消息 
Qatar: Big lessons from a small country

Qatar's experience reminds Singapore of the need for small states to behave like small states, and to cherish regional and international institutions.
========

As a long-time student of geopolitics (for over 46 years), I am rarely surprised by geopolitical developments. There is an almost inevitable logic to them.

Let me cite an example. Many Western observers reacted with shock and horror when Russia seized Crimea in violation of international law. Yet, this was an almost inevitable blowback from the reckless Western expansion of Nato onto Russia's doorstep. Geopolitical follies have serious consequences.

Against this backdrop, one recent geopolitical development didn't just surprise me. It shocked me. This was the decision of Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to break off diplomatic relations with Qatar.

They didn't just break off relations. Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, the Maldives, Libya and Yemen have closed their airspace for landings and take-offs between their countries and Qatar. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and UAE have also closed all transport links by air, land and sea. This has caused some suffering for Qatar because as much as 40 per cent of its food comes over the Saudi border.

And why did they do this? The official explanation given in a statement by the state-run Saudi Press Agency was that Qatar was "dividing internal Saudi ranks, instigating against the State, infringing on its sovereignty, adopting various terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at destabilising the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood Group, Daesh (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda".

My simple rule in analysing geopolitical developments is that it is never a black-and-white case. No one side is completely right and no other side is completely wrong. The reality is often messy. So I will not try to analyse the rights and wrongs of this Qatar development.

However, I would like to emphasise as strongly as I can that this Qatar episode holds many lessons for Singapore. We ignore them at our peril. There are at least three big lessons we should learn and take corrective actions to implement the learning.

LESSON NO. 1: SMALL STATES MUST ALWAYS BEHAVE LIKE SMALL STATES.

This was one big mistake that Qatar made. Because it sits on mounds of money, it believed that it could act as a middle power and interfere in affairs beyond its borders.

I recall that I was truly shocked when Qatar decided to interfere in the affairs of Syria in 2011. It imposed sanctions on the regime of President Bashar al-Assad as part of the Arab League.

I was even more shocked when Qatar decided to join in a United States-led bombing mission against Syria in September 2014 (along with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates). I told myself then that Qatar would pay a price some day for not acting prudently like a small state should.

The current blowback against Qatar is not a result of its interference in Syria. Ironically, it was actually working on the same side as Saudi Arabia and the UAE when it intervened in Syria.

Still, this action was part of a larger pattern of behaviour where Qatar believed that its mounds of money and its close relations with the US would protect it from consequences.

In so doing, Qatar ignored an eternal rule of geopolitics: small states must behave like small states. Why? The answer was given by the famous historian, Thucydides, when writing about the war between Athens and Sparta: "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

When I spent a year in Harvard in 1991/1992, Professor Joseph Nye highlighted this rule constantly in his lessons of history.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew never acted as a leader of a small state. He would comment openly and liberally on great powers, including America and Russia, China and India. However, he had earned the right to do so because the great powers treated him with great respect as a global statesman. We are now in the post-Lee Kuan Yew era. Sadly, we will probably never again have another globally respected statesman like Mr Lee. As a result, we should change our behaviour significantly.

What's the first thing we should do? Exercise discretion. We should be very restrained in commenting on matters involving great powers.

Hence, it would have been wiser to be more circumspect on the judgment of an international tribunal on the arbitration which the Philippines instituted against China concerning the South China Sea dispute, especially since the Philippines, which was involved in the case, did not want to press it.

When I hear some of our official representatives say that we should take a "consistent and principled" stand on geopolitical issues, I am tempted to remind them that consistency and principle are important, but cannot be the only traits that define our diplomacy. And there is a season for everything. The best time to speak up for our principles is not necessarily in the heat of a row between bigger powers.

One of my future books will be about our three geopolitical gurus: Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S. Rajaratnam. I learnt a lot from them. Above all, I learnt from them that a small state needs to be truly Machiavellian in international affairs. Being ethical and principled are important in diplomacy. We should be viewed as credible and trustworthy negotiators. But it is an undeniable "hard truth" of geopolitics that sometimes, principle and ethics must take a back seat to the pragmatic path of prudence.

When I was ambassador to the United Nations in 2003, Singapore supported the American invasion of Iraq even though it was not endorsed by the UN Security Council. As Mr Kofi Annan said, this made it an illegal war. However, we prudently followed our geopolitical interests, not our principles, in the Iraq War.

In the jungle, no small animal would stand in front of a charging elephant, no matter who has the right of way, so long as the elephant is not charging over the small animal's home territory. Let us, therefore, use the Qatar episode to ask ourselves whether we have been Machiavellian enough in recent years.




顶部
阿牛
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6


UID 515
精华 82
积分 12575
帖子 4514
威望 8019 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2006-12-19
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-3 11:47  资料 个人空间 短消息 
LESSON NO. 2: CHERISH YOUR REGIONAL ORGANISATION

There are many reasons why our neighbours are unlikely to take against us the actions that Qatar's neighbours took. One of the biggest reasons is that we have developed a high level of trust among all the South-east Asian countries as a result of Asean.

As Mr Jeffery Sng and I document in our recently published book The Asean Miracle, Asean has developed an ecosystem of peace. Who is benefiting most from this ecosystem of peace? It is Singapore. No country in the region has total trade that is 31/2 times the size of its GDP. All our trade depends on the Asean ecosystem of peace. And are we working hard to strengthen Asean? The simple answer is no. Our book explains why.

If we want to avoid a Qatar-type situation for Singapore, there are many things we should do. In my view, the first important step is to invest more in Asean. The Asean Secretariat services 630 million people. Somewhat shockingly, the budget of the Asean Secretariat is only US$19 million, or S$26 million.

A small comparison will indicate how absurdly small it is. The combined gross national product of the European Union is only six times the size of Asean. Yet the EU Commission budget is 8,000 times larger.

Can we just make it 1,000 times larger? Would it involve a lot of money? Not at all! Can we afford it? Well, if we can afford to spend S$900 million on the People's Association (PA), as reported in The Straits Times, can we afford to spend a fraction of the amount on Asean? The People's Association has enhanced the sense of community in Singapore. The Asean Secretariat can enhance the sense of community among the Asean populations. Surely, we should give it more money to do this.

LESSON NO. 3: CHERISH THE U.N.

Another lesson of geopolitics is worth stressing here. For thousands of years, before the United Nations Charter was promulgated, it was normal for small states to be either bullied or invaded and occupied by their larger neighbours. The UN Charter didn't completely stop this: Witness the invasions of Afghanistan in 1979, and Iraq in 2003, and Crimea in 2014. However, there has been a sharp drop in small states being invaded and occupied. The UN Charter has made the world a safer place for small states.

The UN is, therefore, the best friend of small states like Singapore. For the same reason, great powers dislike the UN. This is how distinguished American scholar Edward Luck describes American attitudes towards the UN: "The last thing the US wants is an independent UN throwing its weight around…They aren't going to allow the organisation to dictate things inconsistent with the objectives of US leadership."

Let me, therefore, conclude this column with a simple question. When you examine your beliefs about the UN, do you think that the UN is a positive force on the world stage? Or do you buy the line of the Anglo-Saxon media that the UN is a fat, bloated and pointless organisation that should be cut down?

If you believe the latter, you are paving the way for Singapore to be treated like Qatar some day. Be careful of the intellectual poison you are ingesting daily into your brains through the Anglo-Saxon media.

To sum up, what is happening in Qatar is not just about regional rivalry in the Middle East, or power play between the superpowers. In Singapore, we should pay close attention to developments there, and most of all, draw the right lessons from Qatar's current plight, no matter how hard it may be to swallow the painful lessons from this episode.



Kishore Mahbubani is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore and co-author with Jeffery Sng of The Asean Miracle: A Catalyst For Peace.




顶部
阿牛
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6


UID 515
精华 82
积分 12575
帖子 4514
威望 8019 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2006-12-19
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-3 11:54  资料 个人空间 短消息 
Shanmugam, Bilahari and Ong Keng Yong say Prof Mahbubani's view 'flawed'

SINGAPORE - Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam on Sunday (July 2) said he found a commentary by Professor Kishore Mahbubani on foreign policy “questionable intellectually” for saying that small states must always behave like small states.

The piece, Qatar: Big Lessons From A Small Country, also drew criticism from veteran diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, who described the view as “muddled, mendacious and indeed dangerous”.

Ambassador-at-Large Ong Keng Yong further warned that it is against Singapore’s well-being if international relations are based purely on size.

All three men had taken issue with what Prof Mahbubani said was an eternal rule of geopolitics: “Small states should behave like small states”.

But the professor, who is dean of the the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), also had a supporter in Dr Yap Kwong Weng, regional advisor on Indochina at the school.

He said his colleague was merely saying that “prudence is required of small states when it comes to geopolitical calculations”, adding that there was nothing dangerous with this line of thinking.


In his commentary published in The Straits Times on Saturday, the dean of the the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy had mined the diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its bigger Arab neighbours for lessons for Singapore.

He said Qatar had mistakenly believed that it could interfere in affairs beyond its borders because of its wealth, and drew comparisons between this and Singapore’s stance on the South China Sea maritime dispute.

He added that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who commented openly and liberally on great powers”, was an exception.

“Sadly, we will probably never again have another globally respected statesman like Mr Lee. As a result, we should change our behaviour significantly,” he said.

In his Facebook, Mr Shanmugam - who was formerly foreign affairs minister - said Prof Mahbubani’s assertion is contrary to some basic principles of the late founding prime minister which made Singapore successful.

“Mr Lee never advocated cravenness, or thinking small. Did we get to where we are now, by thinking “small”? No,” he wrote.

“That is why Singapore was and is respected, despite being one of the smallest countries in the world. And Singaporeans are proud to be Singaporeans.”

Mr Bilahari also took issue with the suggestion that Singapore should behave differently now, saying it is “wrong” and “offensive” not only to Mr Lee’s successors but to all Singaporeans.

He said Mr Lee and Singapore’s pioneers leaders were not reckless, but did not hesitate to stand up for their ideals and principles.

Giving examples of how Singapore diplomats held their ground when faced with larger powers, he said “Singapore did not survive and prosper by being anybody’s tame poodle”.

Describing Mr Bilahari’s reply as “exaggerated and unnecessary”, Dr Yap said the diplomat had misconstrued Prof Mahbubani’s words.

He added that the professor had not said Singapore should “lay low” and favour larger countries but “reminded us in his article that Singapore should continue to pursue a course that suits the world without trying to behave like a large country”.

He also said: “As a Singaporean, I don’t want our country to be engulfed in large-scale battles that require enormous resources because we can’t afford to do so as a small country. This is common sense.”

Meanwhile, Mr Ong said Prof Mahbubani’s underlying concern seemed to be that Singapore was not exercising enough “savviness” in dealing with the South China Sea issues.

Mr Shanmugam had shared a link to Mr Bilahari’s post, calling it “a brilliant response – the response that Kishore’s article deserves”.

He questioned if that was truly the case, saying: “I personally thought that the thinking South-east Asians respect Singapore’s strategic positioning and diplomatic efforts. We have done what is needed based on what we know and the prevailing circumstances.”

Mr Shanmugam, in his Facebook post, also drew on his own experiences as foreign minister from 2011 to 2015.

He said he never forgot that Singapore was a small country, with limits to what it could do.

“But equally I also knew, that once you allow yourself to be bullied, then you will continue to be bullied. And I never allowed myself to be bullied, when I represented Singapore,” he added.

In instances where ministers from other countries “threatened us, in different ways, took a harsh tone” when Singapore would not give them what they wanted, Mr Shanmugam said: “As all our Foreign Ministers have done, I just looked them in the eye and told them we stood firm. They changed their attitude after that.”

Singapore must be clear about its interests, and go about it smartly, “but not on bended knees and by kowtowing to others”, he added.

Almost every country is bigger than Singapore, including its neighbours, he pointed out.

“We treat each other with mutual respect. Once we are shown to be “flexible”, then that is what will be expected of us every time,” he wrote.




顶部
阿牛
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6


UID 515
精华 82
积分 12575
帖子 4514
威望 8019 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2006-12-19
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-3 11:56  资料 个人空间 短消息 
Ambassador-at-Large Ong Keng Yong in comment offered to ST:

Kishore Mahbubani has written an article about three big lessons to be learned from the Qatar crisis.

The situation in the Gulf is still developing and the world should watch it closely as there are and will be implications for everyone. I wish to comment on his argument that small states should act like small states.

What is a small state? Is it small based on physical size or size of population or economy? Singapore is a member of the Forum of Small States (FOSS) at the United Nations, a useful mechanism Singapore diplomats helped to create.

Singapore is the smallest country in ASEAN in terms of its land territory. People in bigger ASEAN neighbours have never hesitated to say Singapore is a “little red dot”. But we know that size is a relative thing.

The article seems to suggest that a small state should know its place and not try to stand up for its national interests if these are going to get in the way of big-power politics.

It does not seem particularly interested in examining the elephant in the room: what happens when small states’ core interests are impinged upon, and caught within broader big-power dynamics.  Or do small states’ interests not matter, and should be subordinated to that of big states? Putting it another way, must Singapore be so governed by fears of offending bigger states that we allow them to do what they want or shape our actions to placate them even if they affect our national interests?

Singapore has always adopted a friendly approach to states which want to be friendly with us. We have always been particularly sensitive in managing foreign policy. We do not go around looking for trouble. But when necessary, Singapore has stood up to pressure from other states when its interests were at stake.

There is no choice but to stand up.

Doing otherwise will encourage more pressure from those bigger than ourselves. Does it come with a cost? Of course and there will be short-term, perhaps even medium-term, effects. But for a state like Singapore, we want international relations to be conducted on an equal basis - while we understand some states are bigger, richer and more powerful than Singapore, it is not to our national well-being if international relations are based purely on how big you are.

We would rather have a world in which states find ways to cooperate - we all have our respective comparative advantages - and there are many ways states, big or small, can work together to make the world a better place. It takes all sides to do so.

For years, Singaporeans have been successful in creating space for ourselves. Some have called it “punching above our weight”. I believe Kishore has used this term very often in the past. Has something changed so much that he now disagrees with this Singapore trait?

As a state, we will have to continue to search for new avenues to create space for ourselves even as the world around us continues to change. And this could mean we may at times have to stand up for our national interests against bigger powers.

Basically, Kishore’s underlying concern is that Singapore is not exercising enough apparent savviness in dealing with the South China Sea issues.

Is that the case? I personally thought that  thinking Southeast Asians respect Singapore’s strategic positioning and diplomatic efforts. We have done what is needed based on what we know and the prevailing circumstances. Domestic politics in member states impinging on ASEAN external relations is something beyond Singapore’s control.

Regarding what the ancient Greek historian Thucydides said, it is important to bear in mind the context.  Kishore refers to the quotation: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

This was  actually mouthed by emissaries from Athens sent to the small state of Melos. The Athenians did not like Melos staying neutral in Athens’ war with Sparta and demanded tribute and submission from the Melians who maintained they were neutral and that Athens need not subjugate them. The Athenian emissaries responded with the now oft-cited quote and  said that if they accepted Melos’ neutrality, others would think that Athen was weak. Athens then proceeded to conquer Melos, killing its men, selling its women and children into slavery, and colonising Melos with its own people.

Two thousand years on, small states may still have limited options, but human society has come together to create international norms and legal frameworks that govern the conduct of relations between states big and small. The issue is how modern states successfully preserve their independent foreign policy when caught between rising powers.

Small states do this by being precisely what Kishore says: Machiavellian. They do not preserve the space to manoeuvre by being quiescence on the international stage or minding their own business. I am sure that Singapore’s leaders today understand this point very well.

I agree with Kishore on the need to invest in ASEAN to make it a more effective regional organisation, and cherishing the UN in promoting global peace and security.

On ASEAN, the challenge is to converge the diverse views among ASEAN member states and take into account the organic capability of Southeast Asia. There is the constant yearning to model after Europe. The fact is the two regions are fundamentally different.

As the Secretary-General of ASEAN from 2003 to 2007, I saw ASEAN leaders managing their group chemistry and dynamics to handle the ups and downs of regional cooperation and institutional building. It may be time consuming and there are many imperfections. Yet, there is peace and  steady economic development notwithstanding the complicated relations among member states and between ASEAN and the major powers.

Singapore’s economical contribution to ASEAN’s organisational development is regularly belittled. More money does not mean more desired outcomes. In fact, Singapore spends many times the amount of its annual contribution to the ASEAN Secretariat budget on projects under the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) to narrow the development gaps among member states.

The key thing going forward is to increase public support for a cohesive and united ASEAN which offers small states like Singapore more opportunity to sustain growth and prosperity.




顶部
阿牛
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6


UID 515
精华 82
积分 12575
帖子 4514
威望 8019 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2006-12-19
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-3 11:58  资料 个人空间 短消息 
Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan on Facebook:

Kishore's article in the ST of 1st July, the link is below, is deeply flawed. There are indeed lessons to be learnt from Qatar's recent unhappy experience, but not the ones he thinks.

I have no quarrel with what Kishore has to say about regionalism and the UN. But his first lesson -- that small states must always behave like small states --is muddled, mendacious and indeed dangerous.

Kishore once never tired of saying that we must 'punch above our weight'. He obviously has changed his mind.

But the reason he has done so and what he has to say about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the suggestion that now that he is dead we should behave differently, is not just wrong but offensive not only to Mr Lee's successors, but to all Singaporeans who have benefited from what Mr Lee and his comrades have bequeathed us.

Kishore says that he has learnt a lot from Mr Lee, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S Rajaratnam. I don't think he has learnt the right lessons or he has only learnt half a lesson.

Coming from someone of Kishore's stature -- he is after all the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy -- it is so dangerously misleading that it must be vigorously rebutted even at the cost of offending an old friend.

Kishore says Mr Lee never behaved as the leader of a small country and earned the right to state his views because he was respected by the major powers. True. But how did he earn that right?

Mr Lee and his comrades did not earn respect by being meekly compliant to the major powers. They were not reckless, but they did not hesitate to stand up for their ideals and principles when they had to. They risked their lives for their idea of Singapore.

They took the world as it is and were acutely conscious of our size and geography. But they never allowed themselves to be cowed or limited by our size or geography.

Independent Singapore would not have survived and prospered if they always behaved like the leaders of a small state as Kishore advocates. They did not earn the respect of the major powers and Singapore did not survive and prosper by being anybody's tame poodle.

We will be friends to all who want to be friends with us. But friendship must be based on mutual respect. Of course we recognise asymmetries of size and power -- we are not stupid --but that does not mean we must grovel or accept subordination as a norm of relationships.

In 2010 then PRC Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi at an ASEAN meeting was reported to have publicly and pointedly reminded ASEAN that China was a big country, staring at then Foreign Minister George Yeo. Mr Yeo reportedly stared right back.

I was not at that ASEAN meeting so I do not know if the story is true, but it gained wide international currency

Neither was Kishore at that meeting. Still, he certainly seems to have absorbed the lesson Mr Yang was trying to convey very well even without being there.

Mr Lee stood up to China when he had to. To my knowledge Mr Lee is the only non-communist leader ever to have gone into a Chinese Communist Party supported United Front and emerged victorious. The Chinese respected him and that is why he later had a good relationship with them. I don't think anyone respects a running dog.

In 1981 then US Assistant Secretary of State John Holdridge threatened to complain to Mr Lee and that there would be 'blood on the floor' if our then Foreign Minister S Dhanabalan did not not comply with American wishes.

Mr Dhanabalan calmly held our ground.

Mr Holdridge obviously did not understand either Mr Lee or Singapore. This is perhaps to be expected because the US, like China, is bigger and more powerful than Singapore. But Kishore ought to know better. He was after all part of the delegation to the international meeting where the incident occured. Apparently he does not remember or now finds it politic to feign amnesia.

Mr Lee and his comrades stood up to Indonesia and refused Suhato's request to spare two Indonesian Marines the gallows. Their act of terrorism during Confrontation had cost innocent civilian Singaporean lives. The Marines had been convicted after due legal process and had exhausted all avenues of legal appeal.

On what basis could we have spared them? Because Indonesia is big and we are small? What conclusion would Suharto, and others, have drawn about Singapore had we done so? How would the relationship have developed?

The principle established, some years later Mr Lee laid flowers on the graves of the Marines. Both standing firm and being gracious without compromising principle were equally important and were the foundation of Mr Lee's long and fruitful friendship with Suharto.

I am profoundly disappointed that Kishore should advocate subordination as a norm of Singapore foreign policy. It made me ashamed.

Kishore will no doubt claim that he is only advocating 'realism'. But realism does not mean laying low and hoping for the leave and favour of larger countries. Almost every country and all our neighbours are larger than we are. Are we to live hat always in hand and constantly tugging our forelocks?

What kind of people does Kishore think we are or ought to be?




顶部
阿牛
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6


UID 515
精华 82
积分 12575
帖子 4514
威望 8019 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2006-12-19
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-3 12:01  资料 个人空间 短消息 
Minister K. Shanmugam on Facebook:

[Bilahari’s brilliant response to Kishore]

Kishore Mahbubani had written a piece on foreign policy which I found questionable, intellectually.

Bilahari has given a brilliant response – the response that Kishore’s article deserves. I have included the link to his response below.

Kishore’s comments for example: “Small states must always behave like small states” are contrary to some basic principles of Mr Lee Kuan Yew Principles which made us successful. Mr Lee never advocated cravenness, or thinking small.

Did we get to where we are now, by thinking “small”? No.

That is why Singapore was and is respected, despite being one of the smallest countries in the world. And Singaporeans are proud to be Singaporeans.

As Foreign Minister, I never forgot that we were a small country and there were limits to what we can do. But equally I also knew, that once you allow yourself to be bullied, then you will continue to be bullied. And I never allowed myself to be bullied, when I represented Singapore.

There were Ministers from other countries who threatened us, in different ways, took a harsh tone, when we didn’t give them what they wanted.

As all our Foreign Ministers have done, I just looked them in the eye and told them we stood firm. They changed their attitude after that.

Handling international relations is not all toughness. It has its funny moments. One example for me, is a conversation with a former German Foreign Minister. I liked and respected him. Once he was trying to persuade me to agree with a German point of view. And he said: “We small countries should support each other” – bracketing Singapore and Germany as “small countries!” I laughed and responded to say I wished we were small like Germany, with the fourth largest economy in the world and the largest in Europe, and with a population in excess of 80 million. Charm is also part of diplomacy, and he was being friendly and charming.

We have to be clear about our interests, and go about it smartly. But not on bended knees and by kowtowing to others.

By definition almost every country, including our neighbouring countries, are all bigger than us. We treat each other with mutual respect. Once we are shown to be “flexible”, then that is what will be expected of us every time.

Quoting Thucydides without contextualising, may appeal to those who don’t know foreign policy, and lead to erroneous conclusions.

I will suggest that those with an interest in foreign policy read Bilahari. He is an intellectual, with a deep understanding of how foreign policy works.




顶部
阿牛
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6


UID 515
精华 82
积分 12575
帖子 4514
威望 8019 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2006-12-19
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-3 12:01  资料 个人空间 短消息 
LKY School academic Yap Kwong Weng in comment offered to ST

I am responding to Bilahari Kausikan, an Ambassador-at- large of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He wrote a long Facebook post rebutting the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School Kishore Mahbubani’s ST article titled “Qatar: Big lessons from a small country”.

I find Bilahari’s reply exaggerated and unnecessary. There is nothing “flawed” or “dangerous” about what Kishore had to say. Kishore stated that small states should not behave as if they are big states. He pointed out we will not have another Lee Kuan Yew anytime soon.

His key point was to be mindful not to over extend our capacity as a small nation. There was nothing wrong or disrespectful about this line of thinking. What bothers me is about the way how Bilahari had to misconstrue what Kishore had to say, by bringing his arguments out of context.

This was not about friendship that he claims to have with Kishore or an intellectual argument that he was trying to put forth. It was about the need to exercise judgment in a public setting. Bilahari’s response felt like an irrelevant knee-jerk reaction. He tried to argue that Kishore had changed course on how Singapore should not ‘punch above our weight’. He also suggested that Kishore advocates “subordination as a norm of Singapore foreign policy”.

Both of Bilahari’s assertions are wrong and misleading. Kishore made this point in the context that more prudence is required of small states when it comes to geopolitical calculations. He referred to LKY as a leader who doesn’t behave like a leader of a big country, and gained respect from other world leaders because of his foresight and leadership in bringing Singapore to where it is today. I do not see any problems with that. Kishore did not refer in any way that Singapore should “lay low” and favour larger countries as put by Bilahari. Kishore reminded us in his article that Singapore should continue to pursue a course that suits the world without trying to behave like a large country. Kishore used in his article, as an example, the miscalculations of Qatar by participating in a joint bombing mission with the US and other Arab states because such actions would bring about more negative implications to Qatar, as a small state, as compared to those of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Here, Kishore’s claim is reasonable and well justified. As a Singaporean, I don’t want our country to be engulfed in large-scale battles that require enormous resources because we can’t afford to do so as a small country. This is common sense. In his article, Kishore emphasised the need for small countries like Singapore to exercise discretion concerning matters that involve great powers. He did not steer his arguments to say that Singapore should lay low and not stand up to larger countries.

As Dean of LKY School, it is his job to give useful examples and state lessons learnt in public policy. This article was no exception. Unfortunately, Bilahari went on to exaggerate the matter by pulling in irrelevant examples on how Singapore survived in a separate context. For example, he cited an example that former foreign minister George Yeo “stared back” in an ASEAN event after Yang Jiechi said that China is a big country, which is a fact. What Bihahari meant was that George Yeo stood up for Singapore by staring back whereas Kishore had no intention to stand up for Singapore because of his stated views. This is a weak argument. All Kishore was trying to prove is that small countries shouldn’t make unnecessary moves to survive and thrive in a globalised environment. He merely pointed out that it is difficult to replicate what LKY did because he is a great leader.

But Bilahari tried to relate Kishore’s arguments to LKY as if Kishore had denounced LKY in the first place. This is the part that was deemed unnecessary. I am disappointed that Bilahari, as our Ambassador-at- large, someone whom I still respect, had to criticise Kishore publicly and even attacked his credibility using LKY as a reference point. Given his long years of experience in foreign affairs, he should perhaps suggest ways on how Singapore can become more competitive in current times.




顶部
符懋濂
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 24917
精华 233
积分 16646
帖子 7013
威望 9570 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2008-6-3
状态 在线
发表于 2017-7-4 20:08  资料 个人空间 短消息 
旁观者清,当局者迷!马凯硕属于旁观者,把问题看得更清楚一些。
顶部
kitan89
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 113633
精华 2
积分 19009
帖子 8527
威望 10474 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2012-12-22
状态 在线
发表于 2017-7-4 22:21  资料 文集 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 符懋濂 于 2017-7-4 20:08 发表
旁观者清,当局者迷!马凯硕属于旁观者,把问题看得更清楚一些。

光靠做白日梦,没用!得靠实力说话!卡达尔有近邻伊朗和土耳其帮助,料必能化险为夷!靠远程的美国,只能继续做白日梦,而且,得交无穷尽的保护费!俗语说:远亲不如近邻,何况连远亲都不是!马凯硕看得很清楚!以上的英文只是麻木人的认知而已!毫无意义!


[ 本帖最后由 kitan89 于 2017-7-4 22:25 编辑 ]
顶部
小民
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 101735
精华 4
积分 17122
帖子 8509
威望 8613 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2011-7-7
状态 在线
发表于 2017-7-4 22:37  资料 文集 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 符懋濂 于 2017-7-4 20:08 发表
旁观者清,当局者迷!马凯硕属于旁观者,把问题看得更清楚一些。

这老马靠不停地炒“亚洲崛起”的冷饭,不见有特殊的见解,更有时为了维护观点博取喝彩而不顾常识。当年不过是迎合了老李搭顺风车的策略而上位,如今,却要新加坡放弃自我顺从大国,真是坏了脑壳了。
顶部
super007
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 114909
精华 1
积分 3109
帖子 1512
威望 1595 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-12-17
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-4 23:14  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #11 小民 的帖子

哪里凉,哪里坐,西瓜选大边,此乃大国人常说的识时务者为俊杰也。
顶部
kitan89
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 113633
精华 2
积分 19009
帖子 8527
威望 10474 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2012-12-22
状态 在线
发表于 2017-7-5 11:47  资料 文集 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 嘉娜峰 于 2017-7-3 11:30 发表
我国必须清楚并巧妙推进自己的外交利益,但过程中不应向他国“屈膝磕头”。他国如果认为新加坡在外交上可轻易低头或舍弃原则,日后会指望新加坡同样有妥协的余地。

内政部长兼律政部长尚穆根昨天针对我国两名 ...

”不以“小国”思维自认卑微。”
这是错误的言论!应该是新加坡”不以“小国”思维而自大!”
顶部
Feng2004
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 119759
精华 0
积分 2405
帖子 1121
威望 1207 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2016-8-25
来自 新加坡
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-5 11:58  资料 文集 短消息 
新加坡是不亢不卑!
顶部
德下花园
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 30777
精华 6
积分 3335
帖子 1399
威望 1917 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2008-9-2
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-12 09:25  资料 文集 短消息 
李总理:相辅相成 小国认清现实与捍卫自身利益没冲突

新加坡需要认清作为小国的现实,但还是能对世界有所作为,并捍卫好小国的自身利益和核心立场。

李显龙总理说,认清现实与捍卫自身利益,二者并无矛盾,而是相辅相成,是小国不向命运妥协的生存之道。

李总理认为,新加坡作为小国,如果能与其他小国,乃至大国推进共同事业,既能保障小国自身的利益,也能在国际舞台上扮演一定角色。

李总理上周五在德国汉堡出席二十国集团(G20)峰会的工作午餐会时说,幅员较小的国家尤其需要团结一致,确保他国听到小国的集体声音,以取得共同利益。他星期一晚上结束德国之行接受随行新加坡记者访问时,进一步阐明小国可扮演的角色,以及小国出席G20等多国峰会的重要性。

总理说:“基本上,我们不存在任何幻想,这是个危机四伏的世界,有大国也有小国。新加坡是小国,我们须接受这个现实。与此同时,我们必须保障我们的利益,并竭力为世界做出贡献。这两者听起来有矛盾,但我认为它们是相辅相成的。我们必须清楚知道现实,但这并不代表要向命运低头。”

新加坡本次是以联合国环球治理组织(Global Governance Group,简称3G)代表的身份受邀出席G20峰会,3G是个由30个中小国家组成的非正式组织。

李总理说,不论是与3G的小国,还是与G20的大国合作,新加坡如果能有所作为,就能保护和推进自身的利益。

与此同时,在发生关系到新加坡利益的重要课题时,新加坡有责任表态,处理应对。“尤其是涉及我国安保、安全或基本利益,如新加坡所持的遵守国际法或支持和平解决纠纷的立场时,就不能不表态,以为低调就没人会察觉,而这也是新加坡应该有的外交政策。”

李总理前年11月在拉惹勒南讲座阐明我国外交政策时也曾说,新加坡不愿接受“小国无外交”的命运,希望透过平衡现实和理想的外交政策,奠定我国在国际舞台上的地位,在强国制定议程的大环境里捍卫和推进国家的利益。

小国在大国面前应有怎样的外交姿态,日前也在本地引起热议。新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院院长马凯硕认为我国应牢记“小国应有小国的作为”,并强调立场一致性和遵守原则固然重要,但是我国外交不应只以这些见长。巡回大使比拉哈里反驳时提到,马凯硕说这是现实主义的考量,“但现实主义并不意味低声下气,希望获得大国的认可和关照”。

询及小国应扮演什么角色的立场,李总理认为,他主政13年以来的外交政策,所采取的特定决策和依循的方向等,整体而言是朝正确方向。

“如果局势有变,我们就做出调整。例如,美国有新政府,就得思考这对全球意味着什么。随着中国扩大影响力,我们也得思考如何与中国继续发展关系。这些都是必须做出的改变,因为世界并不是静态的。”
顶部
德下花园
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 30777
精华 6
积分 3335
帖子 1399
威望 1917 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2008-9-2
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-12 09:30  资料 文集 短消息 
尚穆根回应马凯硕“小国外交”

我国必须清楚并巧妙推进自己的外交利益,但过程中不应向他国“屈膝磕头”。他国如果认为新加坡在外交上可轻易低头或舍弃原则,日后会指望新加坡同样有妥协的余地。

内政部长兼律政部长尚穆根昨天针对我国两名资深外交官罕见地隔空掀起论战发表看法时强调,我国这个弹丸之地之所以能在国际舞台上赢得尊重,就是因为从不以“小国”思维自认卑微。
顶部
德下花园
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 30777
精华 6
积分 3335
帖子 1399
威望 1917 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2008-9-2
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-12 09:30  资料 文集 短消息 
李总理和尚穆根的立场是否有不同?
顶部
kitan89
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 113633
精华 2
积分 19009
帖子 8527
威望 10474 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2012-12-22
状态 在线
发表于 2017-7-12 10:57  资料 文集 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 德下花园 于 2017-7-12 09:30 发表
我国必须清楚并巧妙推进自己的外交利益,但过程中不应向他国“屈膝磕头”。他国如果认为新加坡在外交上可轻易低头或舍弃原则,日后会指望新加坡同样有妥协的余地。

内政部长兼律政部长尚穆根昨天针对我国两名 ...

问题是为美国利益而在南海挑衅是谁挑起的,挑衅而碰壁之后说:’不应向他国“屈膝磕头”’,不挑衅不可以吗?把问题始末倒置,这是典型二毛子的心态!不问起因,却问别国的反应!


[ 本帖最后由 kitan89 于 2017-7-12 11:00 编辑 ]
顶部
嘉娜峰
中级会员
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 53968
精华 0
积分 1466
帖子 678
威望 777 点
阅读权限 10
注册 2009-12-25
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-12 11:00  资料 文集 短消息 
李总理说:“如果局势有变,我们就做出调整。例如,美国有新政府,就得思考这对全球意味着什么。随着中国扩大影响力,我们也得思考如何与中国继续发展关系。这些都是必须做出的改变,因为世界并不是静态的。”

请问李总理这么说,是不是不想坚持原则?是不是奴颜屈膝?
顶部
天地
禁止发言




UID 119866
精华 0
积分 374
帖子 186
威望 186 点
阅读权限 1
注册 2017-1-27
状态 离线
发表于 2017-7-12 13:13  资料 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 kitan89 于 2017-7-12 10:57 发表


问题是为美国利益而在南海挑衅是谁挑起的,挑衅而碰壁之后说:’不应向他国“屈膝磕头”’,不挑衅不可以吗?把问题始末倒置,这是典型二毛子的心态!不问起因,却问别国的反应!

挑撥是非並挑衅的是你和你的主子!反新幹將少干涉新加坡事務就啊彌陀佛啦。

你和你的主子叫囂:新加坡总理在日本警告中国“老实点”意图何在?(徹頭徹尾的造謠!)
http://www.sgwritings.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=86735
顶部
 




当前时区 GMT+8, 现在时间是 2017-9-23 11:52

    本论坛支付平台由支付宝提供
携手打造安全诚信的交易社区 Powered by Discuz! 5.0.0  © 2001-2006 Comsenz Inc.
Processed in 0.065347 second(s), 7 queries , Gzip enabled

清除 Cookies - 联系我们 - 随笔南洋网 - Archiver