林任君:从乌克兰回望东帝汶:似曾相识?

俄罗斯满以为能速战速决,一举击垮乌克兰,迫使它屈服,没想到却遭遇乌克兰的顽强抵抗。(法新社)
俄罗斯满以为能速战速决,一举击垮乌克兰,迫使它屈服,没想到却遭遇乌克兰的顽强抵抗。(法新社)

字体大小:

注意,“历史错误和疯狂决定”是个关键词,攸关新加坡的生存。若不明确表态,将来若有某些国家也以我们的独立是“历史错误和疯狂决定”为借口侵略新加坡,我们还能指望国际舆论的支持吗?

迈入虎年不到一个月,对乌克兰一直虎视眈眈的俄罗斯总统普京终于出手了,在2月24日挥军入侵这个邻国。俄罗斯满以为能速战速决,一举击垮乌克兰,迫使它屈服,没想到却遭遇乌克兰的顽强抵抗。战事拖延至今,还看不到将会如何收场,遭殃的是可怜的乌克兰老百姓,家破人亡,死伤惨重,大量难民流离失所,逃亡到邻国。

这是一种在毫无挑衅之下,对另一个主权国家的侵略行为,违反了《联合国宪章》和国际法,遭到各国的谴责,也引发各地人民群起抗议,包括俄罗斯民众。3月初,联合国大会召开特别会议,以141票赞成、五票反对、35票弃权的压倒性多数票通过决议,强烈谴责俄罗斯入侵乌克兰,要求俄军立即撤出。

新加坡也采取了鲜明的反侵略立场,外交部的声明强烈谴责“所有无端入侵主权国家的行为,无论任何借口”,并强调乌克兰的主权、独立和领土完整必须得到尊重。

外交部长维文在国会针对俄乌战事发表了部长声明,除了重申新加坡的立场外,也宣布将对俄罗斯实施制裁,包括禁止一些与俄罗斯相关的银行和金融交易,并将对可直接在乌克兰用作武器而伤害或压制乌克兰人的物资实施出口管制。

政府的这个“空前强硬”表态引起了某些国人的负面反应,在社交媒体上加以非议和否定。他们非难政府:即使要表达反对侵略的立场,有必要这样高调吗?作为一个小国,我们非得如此强出头不可吗?俄罗斯是个大国,我们犯得着去得罪它吗?为了讨好一个大国而得罪另一个大国,值得吗?

一些“社媒影响者”更乘机以他们一贯的尖酸刻薄作风进行讽刺和揶揄,甚至挖苦外交部长。他们的嘲讽获得许多仅从社交媒体获取片面零碎或不准确的信息、全盘接受网上一面倒宣传的网民的呼应,纷纷点赞转发。

不是我国第一次高调反对大国侵略

其实这不是新加坡在联合国的类似表决中,第一次高调反对大国的侵略行为,惹人注目地公开“得罪大国”。

1975年,毗邻印度尼西亚的小国东帝汶(East Timor)宣布脱离葡萄牙的殖民统治而独立不久,印尼总统苏哈多就挥军入侵,将它强行占领,并入印尼版图。

印尼的行动肯定违反了《联合国宪章》和国际法,当年12月,联合国大会通过一项决议,谴责印尼的侵略行为,要求它立刻撤出东帝汶。在那次投票中,所有亚细安国家都投反对票,支持印尼,唯独新加坡独排众议,没有和其他亚细安成员“团结一致”,而是投下了弃权票。

必须指出的是,当时冷战正酣,由于印尼刚在几年前推翻亲共的苏卡诺政府,成为东南亚坚强的“反共堡垒”,在“道义放两旁,利字摆中间”的权衡下,美国、日本、澳大利亚和加拿大这些国家的态度都是倾向同情印尼的,或至少采取了暧昧的态度。

因此,在那种情况下,虽然只是投下弃权票(投支持票是不可思议的),新加坡在联合国对印尼的“反侵略”表态就更显得格外“高调”、甚至是异常出位了,严重惹恼了这个近在咫尺的大国!

对比之下,当年新加坡在东帝汶事件上“得罪”印尼的强烈程度,绝不亚于今日在乌克兰问题上“开罪”俄罗斯。

要知道,新加坡于1968年不顾苏哈多总统的求情,坚持依法处决两名在马印对抗期间,在新加坡进行恐怖袭击,炸死三人的印尼海军陆战队员,使两国关系急转直下,甚至在印尼引起严重的反新加坡示威和暴动。拖了五年,到1973年两国关系才恢复正常,建国总理李光耀和苏哈多总统的个人关系也恢复了,经常会面,包括举行“四眼会谈”。

没想到两年后新加坡的一张弃权票,使两国关系又遇到寒流,第二度陷入低潮。《李光耀回忆录1965-2000》在提到这件事时说:“我们在雅加达举行的军人节和国庆日庆祝会,都遭到印尼军方领袖抵制。新加坡驻雅加达参赞向我汇报说,一些印尼将军透露,比起两名海军陆战队员被处以绞刑正法一事,苏哈多这回的怒气更盛。”

因此,新加坡当年在联合国的这一反侵略表态,严重得罪了一个强大而且友好的邻国,并为此付出了代价。据李光耀忆述,迟至一年后,苏哈多在1976年11月到新加坡进行非官式访问,他们的私人交情才重新修好。他告诉苏哈多,新加坡已接受东帝汶作为印尼领土的事实,但是绝不能公开认可印尼的入侵和占领行动。苏哈多不得不接受新加坡这一基于原则的外交立场。

李光耀在回忆录中说:“如果我们当初投票支持印尼,等于是在我们本身的安全问题上,向全世界发出错误的信息。”

由此可见,从东帝汶到乌克兰,新加坡的这一立场是其来有自、一以贯之的,因为这关系到我们本身的生存。

这一点,从维文在国会的部长声明和新加坡常驻联合国代表柏罕加福在联合国紧急会议上的声明,都可以明显看得出。他们都强调:我们不能接受一个国家毫无理由地侵略另一个国家,辩说对方的独立是“历史错误和疯狂决定”所致,我们不能接受这样的论述,这与包括新加坡在内的许多国家的合法性和领土完整性获得国际认可是背道而行的。这也是为何新加坡强烈谴责,在任何情况下无端侵略主权国的行为。

注意,“历史错误和疯狂决定”是个关键词,攸关新加坡的生存。若不明确表态,将来若有某些国家也以我们的独立是“历史错误和疯狂决定”为借口侵略新加坡,我们还能指望国际舆论的支持吗?

因此,在这种大是大非的问题上,若不对这类毫无理由的侵略行为表达强烈抗议,就如李光耀所说的,无异“向全世界发出错误的信息”。

一些国人批评政府这么做,违背了不在大国博弈中“选边站”的承诺,选择站在美国这一边。他们显然误解了“选边站”的意思:就是与一方结盟,凡事都与另一方对立。我国因为俄罗斯侵略乌克兰而谴责和制裁它,其实是就事论事,“对事不对国”。

当然,今日的乌克兰和当年的东帝汶天差地别。当时刚脱离殖民统治的东帝汶是个弱小的国家,毫无防卫能力,也无大国支持,即使没有去招惹印尼,还是摆脱不了亡国的宿命。而今日的乌克兰却是有其他途径和选项的,也有充裕的时间和足够的空间,若外交运用得当,本来是可以避开战祸的。

事实上,早在八年前,美国前国务卿基辛格就已对乌克兰政府提出了不要加入北约的忠告,而此次俄乌战争的导火线之一,正是乌克兰执意要加入北约。

2014年3月5日,基辛格在《华盛顿邮报》发表文章,对当年的乌克兰危机提出了看法。他认为,如果乌克兰要生存与发展,不应该在西方与东方间抉择、不应该成为一方反对另一方的“前哨”,而应该成为连接两方的“桥梁”,不应该加入北约。俄罗斯必须明白,如果强迫乌克兰成为一个卫星国,从而重新改变俄罗斯边界,则注定要重复俄罗斯与欧洲和美国之间相互施压这一循环的历史。同时,他也提醒西方国家,必须明白对于俄罗斯来说,乌克兰从来不只是一个外国,乌克兰数个世纪以来都是俄罗斯的一部分,它们的历史交织在一起。

信哉斯言,简直震耳发聩!可惜的是,基辛格的金玉良言并没有被乌克兰采纳,也没有被俄罗斯和西方国家听进去,如今一切都已无可挽回!

作为一个主权国家,乌克兰当然有权决定自己的外交政策,选择要与谁结盟,但它也有责任做出利己又不损人的决策,应该深思熟虑,审时度势,运用智慧制定真正“可持续”的外交政策。一厢情愿地希望加入北约,让一个强邻一直提心吊胆,担心它会因此“引狼入室”而威胁自身的安全,肯定是很不明智的。

顺便提一个重要的背景,普京在掌权初期,也曾经几次申请俄罗斯加入北约,但都被拒绝。普京这样做是希望能一劳永逸地消除安全隐患,是出于对俄罗斯国家利益的考量。彼一时此一时,如今因为乌克兰想加入北约而攻打它,也是基于自身的国家利益。其实,在这场俄乌战争中,无论俄国、美国和中国这些大国的行为,也都是以本国的国家利益为出发点的,只要符合本国利益就可以包装成“正义”。

因此,新加坡人也应该多为本国的利益着想,若一味盲目接受外来宣传,一直相信其他国家以自身利益包装成的“正义”,那就未免“太傻太天真”了!

现在回头看东帝汶。印尼在并吞它之后才发现这个不费吹灰之力到手的猎物,原来不是那么好治理的,在接下来的20多年里,东帝汶不断发生抗争运动,爆发了独立战争,造成十多二十万人死亡。直到1999年8月30日,东帝汶才有机会在联合国监督下举行全民公投,绝大多数人民投票支持脱离印尼独立。

但印尼还是不肯将这块到口的肉吐出来,印尼军方和东帝汶的反独立派势力组建民兵,进行大规模焦土运动进行报复,几乎完全摧毁了基础设施。直到当年9月20日国际维和部队介入后,暴力行动才结束。在联合国协助管理两年半后,东帝汶终于在2002年5月正式恢复独立。

可怜的东帝汶,就因为印尼的侵略吞并,牺牲了27年的宝贵光阴,人命财产损失巨大,生灵涂炭,元气大伤,至今仍然是一个贫穷落后的国家!难道小国的命运就该如此吗?

对一个小小的东帝汶(2020年人口为131.8万),印尼这么一个庞然大国(2020年人口2.735亿)尚且吃不下,并吞20多年后还是不得不吐出来,对一个强大得多的乌克兰,俄罗斯真的能轻易征服吗?

从乌克兰政府和人民的坚强抵抗看来,即使有朝一日真被俄罗斯占领了,那些永无休止的抗争,没完没了的游击破坏行动,将会是俄罗斯占领军挥之不去的噩梦。就如当年美国在越南以及俄罗斯的前身苏联在阿富汗一样,若不及早和解脱身,俄罗斯恐怕将会长期深陷在乌克兰的泥沼中。

前车之鉴,为什么总是不能成为后事之师?

作者是《联合早报》前总编辑

Ukraine now and Timor Leste then: A feeling of déjà vu? (Lianhe Zaobao, 12 March 2022) - By Lim Jim Koon 

Barely a month into the Year of the Tiger, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had been eyeing Ukraine with the hungry eyes of a tiger, finally struck and invaded the neighbouring country on February 24. Expecting a quick victory that would crush Ukraine and force it to its knees, Russia had instead met stiff resistance from the latter. As the war drags on, there is no telling how it would end. With families torn apart, heavy casualties and large numbers of displaced refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries, it is the ordinary Ukrainians who are suffering. 

This was an act of aggression against another sovereign state without provocation, which violated the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law. Various countries condemned Russia’s actions and people from all over the world, including the Russian public, rose up in protest. In early March, the UN General Assembly held a special session and adopted a resolution to strongly condemn the Russian invasion and demand immediate withdrawal of its military forces from Ukraine with an overwhelming majority of 141 votes in favour, five against and 35 abstentions. 

Singapore also took a clear stance against the invasion, with a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly condemning “any unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country under any pretext” and stressing that the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine must be respected. 

Apart from reiterating Singapore's position, Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, in a ministerial statement delivered in Parliament on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, also announced that Singapore would impose sanctions on Russia, including a ban on some banking and finance related transactions with Russia, as well as export controls on items that could be used directly as weapons in Ukraine to inflict harm or to subjugate the Ukrainians. 

The Government's “unprecedentedly strong” stance drew negative reactions from some Singaporeans, who took to social media to further express their criticisms and disapproval. They questioned the Government: Even if Singapore wants to take a stand against aggression, do we have to be so high profile? As a small country, is it really necessary to stick our necks out? Do we really have to offend a great power in Russia? Is it worth it to offend a great power to please another? 

Some “social media influencers” went so far as to seize the opportunity to mock and ridicule the Foreign Affairs Minister with their usual vitriol. Their sarcasm was echoed by many netizens who only received fragmented or inaccurate information on social media and accepted wholesale the one-sided online propaganda which they then liked and shared. 

Singapore’s high-profile stance against a major power’s act of aggression not unprecedented

In fact, this is not the first time that Singapore, in a similar UN resolution, made a high-profile stand against a major power’s act of invasion and conspicuously “offended a major power”. 

In 1975, shortly after Timor Leste, a small nation neighbouring Indonesia, declared its independence from Portuguese colonial rule, Indonesian President Suharto sent invading troops to forcibly occupy and annex it. 

Indonesia’s actions were certainly a violation of the UN Charter and international law. In December that year, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that condemned Indonesia’s invasion of Timor Leste and demanded its immediate withdrawal. All the ASEAN nations supported Indonesia and voted against the resolution, except Singapore which broke ranks and abstained. 

It must be noted that the Cold War was in full swing then and Indonesia had just ousted the pro-communist Sukarno government several years ago to become an “anti-communist stronghold” in Southeast Asia. Principle and morality gave way to interest and benefit, and nations such as the US, Japan, Australia and Canada were sympathetic, or at least ambiguous, towards Indonesia. 

Therefore, under those circumstances, although Singapore had only abstained (it would have been inconceivable to vote in support of the resolution), its “anti-invasion” stance towards Indonesia at the UN was particularly “high-profile” and even extraordinary. This considerably annoyed Indonesia, a neighbouring large nation!

By contrast, the extent of Singapore’s “offending” Indonesia in the Timor Leste incident is no less severe than “offending” Russia over its invasion of Ukraine today.

After all, in 1968, Singapore had despite President Suharto's plea, proceeded to execute the two marines who were convicted for carrying out a bomb attack in Singapore and killing three people during Konfrontasi. This caused relations between the two countries to deteriorate sharply and even sparked serious anti-Singapore demonstrations and riots in Indonesia. It took five years for bilateral relations to return to normal in 1973. Personal ties between founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and President Suharto were restored, and they frequently met, including "four-eye meetings". 

Little did we know that Singapore's abstention from voting just two years later would lead to another cold spell in bilateral relations, bringing it to a slump for the second time. Recounting this incident in his memoirs, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965–2000, the late Mr Lee wrote: “Indonesia’s army leaders boycotted our receptions in Jakarta for Singapore Armed Forces Day and National Day. Our counsellor in Jakarta reported that several generals said Suharto had been more angered than over the hanging of the two marines.” 

Hence, Singapore's anti-aggression stance at the UN then had seriously offended a strong and friendly neighbour, and we paid the price for it. Mr Lee recounted that it was only one year later, when President Suharto made an unofficial visit to Singapore in November 1976, that their personal ties were restored. Mr Lee told President Suharto that Singapore accepted East Timor as a part of Indonesia but could not publicly endorse the latter's invasion and occupation. President Suharto had no choice but to accept Singapore’s principled diplomatic stance. 

Mr Lee said in his memoirs: “If we had voted with Indonesia, we would have sent the world a wrong signal about our own security.” 

Be it from Timor Leste then to Ukraine now, it can thus be seen that Singapore's stance has always been principled and consistent as this concerns our own survival. 

This point is made obvious in Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's Ministerial Statement in Parliament, as well as Singapore's Permanent Representative to the UN, Burhan Galfoor's speech at the emergency special session of the UN General Assembly. Both of them emphasised that Singapore cannot accept one country attacking another without justification by arguing that its independence was the result of “historical errors and crazy decisions”. Neither can we accept such a rationale as this would go against the internationally recognised legitimacy and the territorial integrity of many countries, including Singapore. This is why Singapore strongly condemns unjustified acts of invasion against a sovereign state under any circumstances. 

Note here that “historical errors and crazy decisions” is a key term that is of vital relevance to Singapore's survival. If we do not clearly express our stance now, can we still expect support from the international community if in future some other country invades Singapore for the very same reason that our independence was a “historical error and crazy decision”? 

Given that this is a significant matter of principle, we would in effect, as what Mr Lee had referred to, have “sent the world a wrong signal” should we not express our strong condemnation towards such unjustified acts of invasion. 

Some Singaporeans have criticised the Government for choosing to side with the US and going against Singapore's commitment to not take sides in the face of great power politics. However, they have evidently misunderstood what it actually means to "take sides", which is to ally with one side and stand against the other. Singapore's condemnation and sanctioning of Russia because of its invasion of Ukraine is not targeted at Russia specifically, but instead based on the facts of the situation at hand. 

Ukraine today is, of course, a far cry from Timor Leste back then. Timor Leste, which had just emerged from colonial rule, was weak, defenceless and had no support from major powers. Even if it did not provoke Indonesia, it still could not escape its fate of subjugation. Ukraine today, however, does have other avenues and options, as well as plenty of time and room for negotiation. It could have avoided this war if it had managed its diplomacy properly. 

In fact, as early as eight years ago, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had advised the Ukrainian government not to join NATO. One of the key reasons that triggered the war between Russia and Ukraine was precisely the latter's insistence in doing so. 

In a Washington Post article published on March 5, 2014, Mr Kissinger shared his views on the Ukrainian crisis then. He opined that if Ukraine wanted to survive and thrive, it should not choose between the West and the East or become an "outpost" that opposes the other side. Instead, it should function as a "bridge" that connects both sides and not join NATO. Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status and thereby move Russia's again would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the US, he added. At the same time, he reminded Western countries that they must understand that to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country, as it had been part of Russia for centuries and their histories are intertwined. 

Believe it or not, this was simply awakening! Unfortunately, Mr Kissinger's golden words have neither been heeded by Ukraine nor by Russia and the West, and now, there is no turning back! 

As a sovereign state, Ukraine definitely has the right to decide its foreign policies and pick its allies. But it also has the responsibility to ensure that its decisions are not at the expense of others. Ukraine should carefully consider and assess the situation, as well as apply wisdom to formulate foreign policies which are truly “sustainable”. It is definitely unwise for Ukraine to wishfully hope to join NATO, as it causes its strong neighbour to be on tenterhooks, worried about the threat to its security and the possibility of leaving itself open to attacks. 

Incidentally, in the early days of Putin’s rule, Russia also applied to join NATO several times, but was rejected. Russia’s move was out of national interest as it hoped to eliminate security concerns once and for all. In a similar vein, Russia’s attack on Ukraine today was also for its national interest. In fact, in this war between Russia and Ukraine, the actions of big powers such as Russia, the US and China are all for their own national interests. As long as it is aligned with their own interests, anything can be sugar-coated as "justice". 

Hence, Singaporeans should also spare more thought for our nation’s interests. It would be silly and naive to blindly accept foreign propaganda and believe in the sugar-coated “justice” of other countries, which in fact serve their own interests. 

Now back to Timor Leste. It was only after annexation that Indonesia found that this easy prey was not so easy to govern, and over the next two decades or so, there were constant protests and the fight for independence in Timor Leste that left about 100,000 to 200,000 dead. It was not until August 30, 1999, that Timor Leste had the opportunity to hold a referendum under UN's supervision, in which an overwhelming majority voted for independence from Indonesia. 

Still, Indonesia refused to relent and its military worked with anti-independence forces to back militias in launching a massive scorched earth campaign that nearly destroyed all infrastructure in Timor Leste. The violence only ended with the intervention of international peacekeeping forces on 20 September 1999. After two and a half years of UN-assisted administration, Timor Leste officially regained its independence in May 2002. 

Poor Timor Leste has, because of Indonesia’s annexation, sacrificed 27 years of precious time, and suffered a huge loss of lives and property. With the people plunged into an abyss of misery and the country sapped of its vitality, Timor Leste remains a poor and backward country to date! Must this be the inevitable fate of small countries? 

Is it really possible for Russia to conquer a much more powerful Ukraine, when even a huge country like Indonesia (with a population of 273.5 million in 2020) cannot stomach a small country like Timor Leste (with a population of 1.138 million in 2020) and have to “spit it out” after 20 years of annexation? 

Given the strong resistance from the Ukrainian government and its people, it seems that even if Russia does occupy Ukraine one day, the never-ending resistance and acts of sabotage by guerrilla forces will be a continuing nightmare for the Russian occupation forces. Like the US in Vietnam then and its predecessor, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan, Russia may well be trapped in the quagmire that is Ukraine for the long term. 

Why do we never learn from the lessons of the past? 

(The writer is the former Editor-in-Chief of Lianhe Zaobao.) 
 

LIKE我们的官方脸书网页以获取更多新信息