In 2004, Singapore Foreign Minister Professor S. Jayakumar rationalized Singapore's decision to support the Iraq war as the inevitable result of the country's foreign policy: "Ultimately, what guides us in our foreign policy is our national interest. And that remains the fundamental approach."
While I believe there lies a hint of ambiguity inherent in that approach, I think most of us understood why it had to be done: Singapore is a small nation. No doubt the U.S is a superpower that has helped fueled our economy in many ways. Joining it in its fight against terrorism seemed like the most intuitive thing to do.
I view it like this: so yes, Singapore agreed to support the liberation effort for the sake of national interests, despite it not being supported by the United Nations in the first place. That debate has been exhausted. So yes, our military must be involved in some way. But...to what extent has their involvement there benefited or damaged occupied Iraq, to this very day?
I think our military (MINDEF) should be more transparent in their involvement and the activites they carry out in the war. What exactly does "reconstruction of the war-torn country" constitute, in terms of our military being involved in genuine relief efforts? We have heard that sentence issued from MINDEF countless times.
Over the past five years, many journalists (such as Dahr Jamail) have spoken out against the mishandling of the war by the coalition forces, after experiencing the events there themselves. In my belief, removing Saddam from power, regardless of whether he had WMDs or not (as the Bush admin would have you believe he did), was the right thing to do. But after that? Innocent children and women killed indiscriminately by U.S sniper fire. Mass detentions on the streets of Baghdad. The notorious Abu Ghraib prison scandal. And let's not forget the disaster that was the Fallujah siege in 2004. How much mishandling must be see before we are forced to act?
Critics like to argue that all these incidents are classified as collateral damage. If the end justifies the means, some might say, then it is worth the sacrifices incurred. But can we just idly sit on it and expect the administration to handle it all? If our military has somehow contributed to these mishaps even though the deeds were not directly carried out by our soldiers, the government should investigate and rightfully inform it's people.
For example, if we are allowing coalition forces to use our military facilities, what kind of outcome is brought about by that? Do these outcomes violate the Geneva Conventions? Why are we not utilizing our military resources to aid in more pressing matters such as the damaged infrastructure? Instead, why are we joining the U.S Navy and marines in helping to guard Iraq's "oil-pumping platforms?" Or is the entire war all about protecting Iraq's oil for our own purposes?
My question is simply this: as civilians of a full-fledged democratic nation privileged enough to enjoy more than 40 years of peace and harmony, what are we going to do about the current humanitarian situation in Iraq from mid-2008 onwards? There is more that normal Singaporeans like you and me can do for these people rather than relying on the powers that be. There has to be a some way we can contribute more, if not to end the war (which no doubt sounds like a fantasy to most people npw), then at least to organize relief efforts or raise more awareness on the issue.
I was happy to see Singaporeans banding together to help victims of Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar and the Sichuan earthquake in China. I believe this can apply to more than just natural disaster efforts. We have blood on our hands, and we cannot just expect someone else to come and wash it away for us.
USA invasion of Iraq is a war based on falsehoods and lies.
The aims of that war is to secure USA global hegemony.
Singapore should not be involved in this type of naked aggressive war and occupation.
U.S. congressman moves to impeach Bush for second time over Iraq war lies
TS, it's quite simple.
We are part of the coalition, because it confers upon us a net benefit in a strategic sense.
Our ability to inter-operate with US forces in joint operations is increasing. What use is our Armed Forces if we do not ensure that they get experience in peace enforcement (at the very least)?
Certain individuals here do not like American hegemony but at the end of the day, it is national interest that dictates such things, and the global reach of American influence is akin to a force multiplier for states to continue to flourish in a Westphalian system.
National interest to take part in occupation of Iraq?
Send our troops to die in USA's aggressive wars?
I completely oppose that.
Take part in USA's illegal hostile aggresive war, next day might be your turn.
I find it ludicrous to send SAF troops to take part in USA illegal occupation of Iraq.
USA want to fuck with other countries, they can jolly well send their own fucking troops.
and the global reach of American influence is akin to a force multiplier for states to continue to flourish in a Westphalian system.
Support USA's aggressive and hegemonic wars?
Pui!
Fuck Off.
LazerLordz, one of the main goals in USA invasion of Iraq is to control Iraqi oil.
You want to die for that goal?
You want SAF to send you to Iraq and die serving USA strategic goal of controlling oil?
You accept that?
You want to risk your life for USA to control oil?
first thing first, the america r assholes when they attack iraq. Tis war should never have taken place
now wat should singapore involvement be ? We must know one thing. No matter wat we do, the war is gonna be fought. If we let poh ah pak be the prime minister and he strongly oppose the war using watever method singapore can muster, the war would not be stopped. The people will still die. We just made another enemy... a friend we rely on for a long time
Now the choice is simply tis, against US and be their enemy and everyone still die in iraq, or be a friend of US and do minimal and everyone still die in iraq. The bottomline then become tis. U want to be richer or poorer ? If u want to go against US, then u have to face job shortages, poorer pay higher tax. If u want to go with US, u get higher pay, more jobs and lesser tax.
I am a frank person, I think supporting US is a right move of the gov, even though US is wrong. It is not a pro US. stand. It is a pro singapore decision
And singapore did not help in fighting the war, they only sit in a ship near to iraq doing... well.. nothing... How many iraqis they killed ? Probably zero. Blood in our hands ? U probably have more blood plucking chickens
If u talk about helping iraq people, well... how can we help ? Donate money to them ? Don't need to... US is doing all the donating now
I am not advocating Singapore go against USA.
Only skillful statesman like Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez can afford to do that.
I am saying Singapore stay out of war and occupation.
They did. They just do something symbolic and probably offer some relief. They r out of iraq since 2004 if i am not wrong
It is the US national interest to start a small scale war than to let Al Qaida to gather sttrength and be dragged into a full scale world war later. AL-Qaida's grand illusion is global domination.
It was a good time for the US to strike after the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. It is in the interest of the US to have countries with democratic form of government to be her allies.
Had the US not attacked Afganistan, the surveillance videos and the plot to level Singapore's landmarks would not have been uncovered.
It is the US national interest to start a small scale war than to let Al Qaida to gather sttrength and be dragged into a full scale world war later.
Al Qaida how to wage full scale world war?
This not hollywood leh.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Al Qaida how to wage full scale world war?
This not hollywood leh.
Exactly !
If US and her allies don't pounce on them now, then when? Wait till they grow into a population bomb and then deal with their rising influence?
That must not happen.
Let's be frank. Just about any tom dick and harry is going to claim allegiance to Al Qaeda and blaming everything on Al Qaeda is ridiculous. The real problem is extremist teachings, and the fact that the US is sucking up to Saudi Arabia which happens to be the no. 1 exporter of Wahabism. The only reason why the Singapore Government would suck up to the US, regardless how many stupid policies that the US have pursued, is that at the end of the day, they hope the US will come to our rescue when we get attacked by say China.
If US and her allies don't pounce on them now, then when? Wait till they grow into a population bomb and then deal with their rising influence?
Sounds like lame USA propaganda.
Like Iraq have weapons of mass destruction.
All poppycock.
they hope the US will come to our rescue when we get attacked by say China.
Who is more aggressive, USA or China?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Sounds like lame USA propaganda.
Like Iraq have weapons of mass destruction.
All poppycock.
It could have been used as an excuse to launch an attack but It didn't really matter.
It's in US national interest to attack and weaken the enemy's influence. Many countries also sighed with relief that Saddam's gone, including Iraq.
I oppose USA aggressive wars based on lies and killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
It's in US national interest to attack and weaken the enemy's influence.
It is for their global hegemonic agenda.
Ludicrous to say Afghanistan or Iraq could pose real military threat to USA.
I think it's time we move past the whole "blame game" deal. Let's face it, opposing Singapore's involvement in the war won't change what's happened in Iraq one bit. It's been five years. Our government isn't perfect. I don't think our government made this decision lightly.
Think about it -- would our Singapore government have the foresight to predict the Bush administration seriously mishandling the war? They probably thought, "Heck, yeah, might as well score a trade deal and kick Al-Qaeda in their collective asses while we're at it."
I don't blame them. They probably had their own reasonable assumptions at that time that might have convinced them to do so -- whether these assumptions turned out to be true...well, that's another thing they just have to deal with. Maybe they really thought the Iraqi people would be better off without Saddam's tyranny, maybe they (naively) thought he possessed WMDs, that Iraq could be a hot zone for terrorism if left unchecked....or maybe they were just sharp enough to identify an opportunity for Singapore to benefit economically in some way...and a dozen other assumptions we might never know they made. Who knows, right?
So...let's just let the "blame game" thing rest folks...I'm not saying I'm totally supporting whatever PAP says we should support. What's done won't change a damn thing. Whether you support that decision or whether the 101 crazy things the U.S has done to sell us this war (or, for that matter, whatever the U.S has done in the past) does not change the situation in Ground Zero now. The Iraqi people don't need to hear us arguing and hacking one another to pieces about whether what our government did was right or wrong.
Normal people like you and me: we should focus on the possible things we can do after Singapore has supported the war; heck, despite Singapore supporting it, even. Hell, I'll be honest: I haven't a clue as to what we can do to help. But that's what discussion is for... If we can't do a damn thing to aid those people in Iraq, then maybe we can help ourselves in some way. Maybe learning what the U.S army did wrong after Saddam was deposed... and making sure something like that would never repeated in the future, if and when Singapore is involved in any kind of war.
And yeah: saying that we shouldn't bother donating anything to the people trapped in war or disaster zones (not just limited to Iraq...the Gaza Strip and Burmese people come to mind) just cause others are doing it, that's the kind of mentality that's self-destructive. The billions of dollars coming in from Congress and the American people, to Iraq...you can never be sure what they're used for. Singapore has a pretty efficient and relatively non-corrupt government that could probably oversee several simple relief operations without incident (although there is the problem of how the U.S would interpret Singapore doing this). Hey, we've made it through 40-plus years of independence with good success..we see other countries struggling to do the same, so let's help 'em, even if it changes nothing gargantuan.
The gov probably agree to the war simply because it can make singapore richer than against it. Tat is it. If u talk about helping Iraqis, frankly speaking it is not gonna gather much attention because they r not dying of starvation or a lot of people who r injured and need rescue teams. Now they r just fighting among themselves and maybe just isolated. There r many regions facing worse problems than them, such as Africa. They r literally massacaring each other. Why not help them first ?
Most likely..as you said earlier, this was a pro-S'pore decision, so of course the outcome of it would benefit us, although predictably through money. I guess it's just a fact of politics. You win some, you lose some.
About the humanitarian situation in Iraq...maybe it's not really headline news right now, but a lot of stuff went down in the first few years of the occupation, if you recall. Remember the media frenzy right during the Fallujah seige?
And no, you don't judge whether these people are dying of hunger or wounded or so on just like that. Refer to the dependable sources such as by I believe even the Straits Times doesn't have enough space to inform us whenever an Iraqi civilian, mujahideen or foreign fighter gets killed, wounded, starved, mistreated and so on. If you'd like more perspective on browse through True, you can't believe all the news items, but at least have an idea
Comparing
In my opinion,
Singapore's involvement is just a tribute, from a small state to a big state.
Yes we can say it is for national interest, since Singapore would like to maintain good relations with USA.
Singapore has not much choice as a small state, it has to 'borrow power' from a bigger state to add to its own weight.
If Im not wrong, Singapore also do not wish to make a significant presence....no need to start a quarrel with the Arabs.....so...just a small presence.....you see...
But if I may comment abit, I disagree with the first post, which says it is correct to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
I think it is very dangerous when people start to toy with the idea of 'regime change' and start to accept this ideology.
If Im not wrong, even in the most severe cases, UN Security Council only punish countries who invade other countries, something Saddam didnt do at that time, and also he didnt do other severe crimes against humanity, such as genocide.
It is very wrong for a certain group of countries who happen to be powerful to take matters into their own hands and deploy 'regime change' to suit their vision, or their national interest.
Nobody should remove anyone from power except the people of that country themselves.
Meat Pao.
(Sorry for the distorted post above.)
Most likely..as you said earlier, this was a pro-S'pore decision, so of course the outcome of it would benefit us, although predictably through money. I guess it's just a fact of politics. You win some, you lose some.
About the humanitarian situation in Iraq...maybe it's not really headline news right now, but a lot of stuff went down in the first few years of the occupation, if you recall. Remember the media frenzy right during the Fallujah seige?
And no, you don't judge whether these people are dying of hunger or wounded or so on just like that. I believe even the Straits Times doesn't have enough space to inform us whenever an Iraqi civilian, mujahideen or foreign fighter gets killed, wounded, starved, mistreated and so on. If you'd like more perspective on it, browse through the many news sources that actually dedicate on-the-ground news in Iraq. True, you can't believe all the news items, but with that multitude of information, you can form your opinion better around it. Check out what went down in the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) in Feb 2005, if you like.
Comparing the suffering between countries is impossible, I think. Sure, Africa has its own share of problems like malaria and AIDS, but we shouldn't let these "extremes" divert our attention away from other areas of disaster. Just cause we might perceive the suffering of the Iraqis are lesser than, say, the Somalis or Sudanese in Africa should not deter us from trying to lend a hand to either party. That would be the same as, say, not lending a hand to victims of the Sichuan earthquake because the people there are not suffering enough as compared to others, or believing that helping the Burmese people would be useless because the junta simply would not budge.
I guess we can't always try to extend aid to everywhere around the world, but there are lots of NGOs and international organizations that would love to have more of our support and opinion regarding the rehabilitation of Iraq and other war & disaster zones. These zones can't always get equal support, but that shouldn't stop us.
If I may...just a comment on Meat Pao's post.
You made a good point... whether countries should or should not take things into their own hands and force changes onto another country's regime as they see fit makes for good debate fodder. We can argue both ways and come up with compelling reasons as to why our stand should hold. But when the country in question is handled by someone such as Saddam..that debate could go on for centuries.
Anyway, Saddam did invade a country -- Kuwait, in the early 1990s. And the UN demanded the Iraqi Army's full withdrawal, with the U.S leading a coalition of more than 500,000 to oppose that invasion. The fact that Saddam's toppling occurred more than 10 years later shouldn't diminish what he did in Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq war is another example of what Saddam could attempt to do if he wanted to.
Also, let's not forget the massive genocidal campaign Saddam launched in the 1990s, killing thousands of innocent Shi'ites and Kurdish civilians when George H.W Bush failed to follow up on his promise to support them in their uprising against Saddam. There is plenty of evidence you can find in history books everywhere that would detail to you the horrific things Saddam imposed on his people to ensure he stayed in power.
So...I believe the question of whether forceful regime change should be enforced depends very much on the country in question. I'm not saying the U.S must be the one doing said regime change, but at some point, the UN or any other bodies must draw a line and decide the appropriate action to rehabilitate the regime. What I think is sad, however, is how the U.S army and the coalition forces have severely mishandled the war in its crucial first few months, when they could have been capable of doing so much good to Iraq in the first place.
I think we can debate the geopolitical impact on whether it was a prudent move for SG govt direct support the war. And its impact on our foreign policy because since we demonstrate our political Will to assert our decision on Islamic fundamentalist and WMD, SG simply made its first move and take position with the US. We had inadvertently opened ourselves venerable to restricting our political space within the region together with the US fallout in Iraq.
SG biggest involvement was to help draft resolution 1441 and got it pass, and be part of the coalition. Although countries like China supported the US but it did not do it out right during the Security Council resolution vote.
Only enclosed minded person would continue to sing the hegemony song. China hands are equally bloody in this war and we shall see more of it. So lets not stand on some perceived moral high ground.