Commentary by Ambassador Dr Bettina Fanghänel, first published in Lianhe Zaobao on 1 March 2025

English Translation

Preserving the Idea of the International Community

-- In response to He Qinglian’s commentary “Buying the Pearl Box and Returning the Pearl”

This year’s Munich Security Conference in Germany has once again provided a forum for open discussion of the most pressing security challenges of our times, and I am heartened to see a high level of engagement from Singapore as well as high public interest in the after-discussions. It must not be forgotten that at the heart of these international fora lies the idea of an international community that can debate and tackle jointly the challenges it faces. The comment by He Qingliang 买椟还珠：欧洲对万斯慕尼黑讲话反应 (Europe's reaction to Vance's speech at Munich Security Conference akin to “chasing appearances, neglecting substance”), published in Lianhe Zaobao’s forum section on 20 February, provides several points of discussion which I would like to reciprocate to.

The Orange Revolution originated amidst the Ukrainian people. Still, the author casually assumes that it was a tactical operation by the US and the EU, and thus grossly neglects the fact that Ukraine is a sovereign country, free to choose its international alliances. In a similar fashion, the author sees NATO a conflict party in Ukraine, and suggests that European nations had an interest in upholding a bloc confrontation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is exactly this rhetoric – frequently used by the Russian Government – which gives the conflict an ideological shade and perpetuates the Cold War thinking that we agree needs to be overcome.

Not only Germany, but also among others Singapore has taken a clear stance: To safeguard a world order which is not dictated by the right of might and by ideological fronts, it is important to call the Russian invasion of Ukraine what it is— a unilateral act of aggression against another state, in open breach of the most important principle of the UN Charter. Upholding the order which the UN Charter establishes and prohibiting the use of force against national sovereignty, certainly serves the interests of all states.

There is no turning back on globalisation

We live in an interconnected world. Trade relations, communication technologies, unprecedented mobility and human interconnections have created a world where nothing happens without having an effect in other parts of the world. Above all, we live with global challenges, with the climate crisis at the forefront, which can by their nature only be answered appropriately with the collaboration of all nations. Any backstep in climate action will have an effect worldwide, as much as obstructions to free trade will reduce prosperity worldwide e.g. in the form of rising inflation.

The so-called reversal of globalisation might be an expression of an understandable wish of individuals who feel overwhelmed by this development, who wish that these realities were not true, or could be reversed by way of political action. I agree that domestic politics must bridge this disconnect, explain complex realities, and find better answers to help individuals cope with these realities, which have effects on everyday life. But every attempt to unilaterally pull out of an internationally shared responsibility – or rather shared reality – will in the shorter or longer run not only rock the boat we are all in, but also sink the one who thought they could swim alone.

There is no need to turn this into a discussion about particular issues such as LGBTQI+ rights, which is a dangerous way of blaming global realities on individual groups. The more universal truth in international relations is that it is in every nation’s very own interest to uphold an international system in which we all can live safely, and benefit from trading with each other. In that sense, there is no disconnect, but rather an immediate interdependence between a rules-based system and national interests.

The Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine marked a watershed moment in the European security architecture, and Europe has woken up to the call for adapting to these challenges. The ‘Zeitenwende’ (turn of times) famously phrased by Chancellor Scholz quite exactly three years ago (27 February 2022) marked a fundamental turn in German security policy, initiating an overhaul of the German military and massively stepping up national security spending. We align with our European partners in a massive effort to take on more responsibility for European security.

Likewise, Germany has restructured its energy supply to be completely independent of Russia. As a result, Germany has not been procuring any gas, oil or coal from Russia since 2023.

Already before the Russian invasion, Germany has been striving for diversification in trade relations. A major part of the implementation involves further intensifying trade with the ASEAN region, as laid down in Germany’s Indopacific Guidelines of 2020. Singapore is a case in point for this development, with a clear growth in Foreign Direct Investment from Germany, and the number of German companies in Singapore having grown to 2,300 by now. The effort for diversification in trade relations is shared by the EU as a whole, with the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement in place already since 2019. A more recent example is the EU Agreement with Mercosur, which created one of the largest free trade zones.

Germany and Europe are currently processing major changes and will continue do so in the future, with the goal of taking on more responsibility for international security, and expand our multilateral network of partnerships based on shared interests. It is worth the effort to uphold international law based on the UN Charter, and the idea of the international community.