ChannelNewsAsia – “The (Singapore) Republic will join 33 other nations in a multinational coalition to combat the Islamic State militant group, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in Parliament on Monday (Nov 3). Joining in the ongoing international efforts “contributes directly to Singapore’s own security”, added Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Teo Chee Hean.
The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has previously participated in multinational coalition efforts against religious extremists who pose a terrorist threat to Singapore and Singaporeans – as it did in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and the Taliban – and it will continue to participate in such efforts, Dr Ng said.”
Finally, the tiny city-state Singapore decided to join the head-lopping party brewing in Iraq. ISIS is identified as a international threat by the Minister of Defence who announced that Singapore will participate in the ISIS campaign as it “contributes directly to Singapore’s own security.” This official statement echoes what Canberra claimed as “essentially a humanitarian mission to protect the people of Iraq and ultimately the people of Australia.” Sounds familiar as this mantra had been repeated by leaders of the nations that contributed to the multinational coalition.
The Minister added that there will no no boots on the ground as the troops will operate out of neighbouring countries. However, the Minister also cautioned that there will be risks involved and implied there is no guarantee that there will be no loss of life for those who are fortunate enough to contribute to “international security”. Once again, that statement strangely echoed what Canberra stated initially when Abbot announced participation in the ISIS campaign. Later, Abbot reneged on this and boots followed. Will Singapore follow the same Canberra footsteps?
What is really interesting is that the official statements coming from leaders of countries participating in the ISIS campaign contain undeniable traces of choreographed scripts. It is like they are all reading, possibly reluctantly, from a script forced down their throats. Simply put, it sounded like “we really don’t want to do it, but…. looks like we have to because someone who is mightier said so.”
On the facade, the mandate to make the world safe must be applauded. Who doesn’t want peace and prosperity? From reports, it is clear that there are atrocities committed by people who may or may not be ISIS. The international community does have a moral duty to protect the defenceless. This cannot be faulted. But it is extremely baffling that the United Nations that is supposedly the institution to act for the international community did not initiate this “united coalition”. Who exactly is this phantom peacemaker who is able to garner support from 33 nations when the UN is not taking action?
Nations participating should search their souls and ask themselves who exactly are the fighting and what is the expected end outcome? Is this participation helping in “national security” or aggravating it? Who is ISIS anyway, an entity that is like a chameleon. Contributing nations have a moral obligation to ask if this the right way to solve the problem in Iraq that was largely initiated and caused by the USA. They are putting their own citizens are risk in an operation that does not seem to have a clear mandate and expected outcome. USA makes the mess and asked the world to help clean up. Is that fair?
And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.