This week, Singapore welcomed the one day visit of the most powerful man on Earth, the person that sanctioned the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq for the most holy of reasons but strangely enough, both wars failed in their objectives -- the first failed to kill Osama, the second failed to unearth any chem-bio weapons. Both of which turned out to be failed wars actually, as millions of peace activist brothers around the world stated it would be BEFORE the wars began.
It cannot be doubted that it is stupid to antagonise the US, the reality is that Singapore is not France. But on the other hand, is it so prudent to lavish so much support and attention to the biggest bully on Earth? Practical diplomacy dictates that the weak, in this case Singapore, must always get the backing of the strong ... but practical diplomacy also tells us that the strong is not necessarily always trustworthy. Just go up north from Singapore and ask the Vietnamese about how committed the US can be to saving a country from the evil clutches of Communism. Or more recently, just ask the Somalis how much US troops did for the country after a couple of Ranger and Delta boys were whacked and a couple of Black Hawks went down.
Singapore has no oil, no natural resources as our Sec 1 textbooks have drummed into us, so the reality is that we cannot expect that our gestures of goodwill like naming a orchid for the Bush and sending troops to Iraq will be remembered in the event of a hostile invasion of Singapore from our dearest and nearest neighbours. Singapore ain't no Kuwait. Yep, we do have a large presence of US MNCs in Singapore and a fairly large patriotic bunch of American expats working here, as we can see from the great crowd gathered to catch a glimpse of GI Bush, but rest assured that these people will be the first to be evacuated out of Sg in the event of the slightest tremor of conflict in Singapore. They owe the land nothing, they're here to milk us so as we attract them here to milk them. Yep we do haf a US naval base here, but if we remember WWII, the Great British Empire also built Singapore into an impregnable Fortress with a stupendous naval base but in the end, they were bush-whacked by the Japs and the only action the Great Naval Base saw was preparing the funeral rites for two British battleships. Hard facts, harsh reality.
So, where does that leave the common Singaporean citizen? The gahment may be playing the game of currying support from the main man of the world at the moment but it should also draw the line between support and obsession. We can be normal "fans" of the US but to become a "groupie" of the US, worshipping a hypocritical democracy, invites a greater level of hostile attention which may not be offset by any significant gains. In short, to use economic parlance (which then maybe the MIW can understand), the return of investment or ROI of sending troops to Iraq is not significantly greater in any strategic sense to not sending troops to Iraq. We should just stick to Orchid-naming diplomacy, the ROI there maybe significantly higher.
If we play this game wrongly, the people will be the ones to suffer. The tremendous traffic jam along Stevens Road on Tuesday night to ensure the security of the Greatest Warmonger on this Earth could jolly well become a permanent reality. It would bode well for Singapore to avoid riding along the arrogance of the US : exploit them if possible but never be seen as cosy with them. a reading of Machiavellian politics is essential here.
Bo Zheng Hu
23.10.03
www.thevoiddeck.org
Actually, I thought the point of view is pretty good, and one that I've made here and to friends several times before. If Singapore were to be invaded, we can only count on ourselves to survive. Not the UN, and especially not the US.
As for getting close to the US, we're actually to close for our own comfort, IMO
