The Dark Shadow Shrine

embrace the darkness; that you may see the light nestled within it......

Tuesday, March 05, 2019

Diplomacy matters, but deterrence even more so to safeguard Singapore's interests

Click HERE
If can't access above link, click HERE

Government will spend about $22.7 billion this year, or about 30 per cent of its total expenditure, on defence, security and diplomacy efforts. Of this amount, some $15.5 billion will be allocated to the Ministry of Defence (Mindef)

Note the 'outsourcing signposting of OVs:
Some contend that defence dollars could be better utilised domestically, such as on healthcare and social needs. Others query the logic of procuring big-ticket conventional military platforms in an era of rising non-traditional security threats.


At the end of the day, might is still right in the 21st-century jungle of international politics, and the species with the sharpest claw has a better chance of survival.

Diplomacy and deterrence are two sides of the same coin during peacetime, and they have a symbiotic relationship....Diplomacy is hollow without a credible deterrent force capable of putting action to resolve....Think Russia's aggrandisement in Crimea, where Ukraine's diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis were arguably hindered by the military imbalance between the two sides....had the SAF been weak, it is possible that the diplomatic efforts to resolve the Pedra Branca issue might have developed differently - with Singapore negotiating from a disadvantage. Ditto the ongoing maritime and airspace disputes.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far," Mr Theodore Roosevelt once said. The 26th US president was one of the foremost proponents of a realpolitik foreign policy where a strong military (big stick) backs up diplomacy (speaking softly).

Note the impt idea that diplomacy needs to be backed up with a strong military force (the idea of deterrence used in this article). Without a strong military force, diplomatic talks will be futile; in fact, you may not even make it to the table as your adversary will not even be interested in talking to you at the table. The best example of this is the Trump-Kim summit. Do you think Trump will be willing to come to the table to negotiate with Kim if not for the fact that Kim possesses nuclear weapons? No wonder Kim is so reluctant  to give up on his nuclear arsenal, It is indeed his trump card ! -- pun intended! He really knows how to play his trump card so well!!!!

If it's a comparison qn on whether diplomacy is more important than deterrence or defence spending,  remember that you can always lump the two together instead of being forced to make a choice. You can say BOTH are important; in fact, in this case, BOTH are related, as the effectiveness of diplomacy is dependent on the effectiveness of one's military prowess. So dont just choose A or B and discuss the merits/demerits of each. Try to see if you can see a causal link btw the two and then make the stand that you need BOTH.

Qn: Examine the extent to which expenditure on arms and the armed forces is justified in the modern world. (Cam. 2014)