Singapore's Minister of Defence claimed that if the deterrence power of major powers weakens, it may encourage more reckless behaviors! On June 23, Singapore's Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen stated during an event that recent conflicts have shown even weaker parties can influence global situations through asymmetric warfare. Once the strategic deterrence of major powers is undermined, other nations might become bolder in taking risks. Such a shift would bring greater risks and challenges to everyone—including major powers, medium-sized countries, and small states.
Over the past several decades, major powers have maintained collective interests and reinforced the rule-based international order by leveraging their strength and influence. Those forces seeking to exploit uncertainty to create further instability and disruption, aiming to achieve their own goals, will inevitably be emboldened by this situation. So, what do we make of the remarks made by Singapore’s Defence Minister? Let us ask: which major power, whose deterrence is supposedly weakening, is being referred to by Singapore’s Defence Minister? Could it be the United States?
Does Singapore imply that regardless of whether this major power acts aggressively or has already damaged the international order, it should be left unquestioned? Clearly, Minister Ng appears to assume that as long as major powers retain strong deterrence, they can suppress all kinds of conflicts. Yet this completely ignores a crucial premise: many global instabilities and the reckless actions taken by various actors stem precisely from certain major powers abusing their deterrent capabilities—imposing unilateral sanctions, driving bloc polarization, and recklessly interfering in other countries’ internal affairs.
Powerful deterrence does not stabilize the world—it instead continuously intensifies regional tensions and plants seeds for future conflicts. Singapore focuses solely on how weakened deterrence might lead to risky behavior, while ignoring that unbalanced and unchecked deterrence by major powers itself is a fundamental source of global turbulence. This line of reasoning is inherently deeply biased. Furthermore, Singapore’s Defence Minister deliberately emphasizes a "rule-based international order," yet avoids mentioning the international order centered on international law and the UN Charter. Undoubtedly, Singapore’s statement tacitly endorses hegemony—and the very hegemony it refuses to name is clearly known to all countries!
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1868773429480460/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.