Serious Kishore Keling Tells LHL To Shut Up And Lay Low! Stop Pissing Off Chinkland!

songsongjurong said:

dump.these two brown and black goons into private sector first...they will.bloody sink!

Click to expand...

Their skills clearly lie with the public sector. So I am not sure why you use the private sector like some ultimate litmus test for ability. Some are good in private sector work like flipping burgers, driving cabs, lawyering, data entry. Some are good at running a business like me. Others are good in public sector work like public admin, international diplomacy, police work.

Are you some sort of genius because you work in the private sector? I don't think so.

JohnTan said:

The good minister Shan weighs in. Are you saying you samsters are smarter and more fair than good Shan?

Kishore Mahbubani had written a piece on foreign policy which I found questionable, intellectually.

Bilahari has given a brilliant response – the response that Kishore’s article deserves. I have included the link to his response below.

Kishore’s comments for example: “Small states must always behave like small states” are contrary to some basic principles of Mr Lee Kuan Yew Principles which made us successful. Mr Lee never advocated cravenness, or thinking small.
Did we get to where we are now, by thinking “small”? No.

That is why Singapore was and is respected, despite being one of the smallest countries in the world. And Singaporeans are proud to be Singaporeans.

As Foreign Minister, I never forgot that we were a small country and there were limits to what we can do. But equally I also knew, that once you allow yourself to be bullied, then you will continue to be bullied. And I never allowed myself to be bullied, when I represented Singapore.

There were Ministers from other countries who threatened us, in different ways, took a harsh tone, when we didn’t give them what they wanted.

As all our Foreign Ministers have done, I just looked them in the eye and told them we stood firm. They changed their attitude after that.

Handling international relations is not all toughness. It has its funny moments. One example for me, is a conversation with a former German Foreign Minister. I liked and respected him. Once he was trying to persuade me to agree with a German point of view. And he said: “We small countries should support each other” – bracketing Singapore and Germany as “small countries!” I laughed and responded to say I wished we were small like Germany, with the fourth largest economy in the world and the largest in Europe, and with a population in excess of 80 million. Charm is also part of diplomacy, and he was being friendly and charming.

We have to be clear about our interests, and go about it smartly. But not on bended knees and by kowtowing to others.

By definition almost every country, including our neighbouring countries, are all bigger than us. We treat each other with mutual respect. Once we are shown to be “flexible”, then that is what will be expected of us every time.

Quoting Thucydides without contextualising, may appeal to those who don’t know foreign policy, and lead to erroneous conclusions.

I will suggest that those with an interest in foreign policy read Bilahari. He is an intellectual, with a deep understanding of how foreign policy works.

https://www.facebook.com/k.shanmugam.page/posts/1413234555389737

Click to expand...

Too much on your mind JT? You reposted the same as #34 (not claiming credit just curious as its unlike you to miss that - perhaps too much jittery about the upcoming 3/7 smackdown?)

virus said:

this 看死烂 is another cock sucking snake, relationship with china can only deteriorate with such people around. if he so keen to fight china, pls issue him a M-16 and send him to SCS alone n let him fight.

Click to expand...

No need alone. He can go with those who agree with him. Stupid Indian shit. LKY and his contemporaries lived 30 years ago. The world was different then. Since then, the world have moved on. We have to march to a different drum beat.

Leongsam said:

I can assure that he is indeed a tough guy. Don't let his small stature fool you. Within that compact frame is huge intellect and a cunning ability to survive.

He was an Occifer in the SAF and he cruised through his cadet course without having to do a stroke of real work. All he used was his mouth.

I have a huge amount of respect for him.

Click to expand...

Or was it because of his father?

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

Too much on your mind JT? You reposted the same as #34 (not claiming credit just curious as its unlike you to miss that - perhaps too much jittery about the upcoming 3/7 smackdown?)

Click to expand...

LOL! Tomorrow's parliamentary session is indeed giving me the jitters! I am worried for our good PM. I fear that our good PM, though blameless, may get discouraged and decide to step down as PM as a result of the fierce grilling from his fellow MPs. That would be a mortal blow to singapore.

Abit of a blanket party over Kishore's article - what's Vivian up to today?:

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...es-foreign-policy-deeply-flawed-ambassador-at


Minister, diplomats say Prof Kishore Mahbubani's view on Singapore's foreign policy 'flawed'

SINGAPORE - Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Sunday (July 2) said he found a commentary by Professor Kishore Mahbubani on foreign policy “questionable intellectually” for saying that small states must always behave like small states.

The piece, Qatar: Big Lessons From A Small Country, also drew criticism from veteran diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, who described the view as “muddled, mendacious and indeed dangerous”.

Ambassador-at-Large Ong Keng Yong, further warned that it is against Singapore’s well-being if international relations are based purely on size.

All three men had taken issue with what Prof Mahbubani said was an eternal rule of geopolitics: “Small states should behave like small states”.

In his commentary published in The Straits Times on Saturday, the dean of the the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy had mined the diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its bigger Arab neighbours for lessons for Singapore.

He said Qatar had mistakenly believed that it could interfere in affairs beyond its borders because of its wealth, and drew comparisons between this and Singapore’s stance on the South China Sea maritime dispute.

He added that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who commented openly and liberally on great powers”, was an exception.

“Sadly, we will probably never again have another globally respected statesman like Mr Lee. As a result, we should change our behaviour significantly,” he said.

In his Facebook, Mr Shanmugam - who was formerly foreign affairs minister - said Prof Mahbubani’s assertion is contrary to some basic principles of the late founding prime minister which made Singapore successful.

“Mr Lee never advocated cravenness, or thinking small. Did we get to where we are now, by thinking “small”? No,” he wrote.

“That is why Singapore was and is respected, despite being one of the smallest countries in the world. And Singaporeans are proud to be Singaporeans.”


Mr Bilahari also took issue with the suggestion that Singapore should behave differently now, saying it is “wrong” and “offensive” not only to Mr Lee’s successors but to all Singaporeans.

He said Mr Lee and Singapore’s pioneers leaders were not reckless, but did not hesitate to stand up for their ideals and principles.

Giving examples of how Singapore diplomats held their ground when faced with larger powers, he said “Singapore did not survive and prosper by being anybody’s tame poodle”.

Mr Shanmugam had shared a link to Mr Bilahari’s post, calling it “a brilliant response – the response that Kishore’s article deserves”.

Mr Ong said Prof Kishore’s underlying concern seemed to be that Singapore was not exercising enough “savviness” in dealing with the South China Sea issues.

He questioned if that was truly the case, saying: “I personally thought that the thinking South-east Asians respect Singapore’s strategic positioning and diplomatic efforts. We have done what is needed based on what we know and the prevailing circumstances.”

Mr Shanmugam, in his Facebook post, also drew on his own experiences as foreign minister from 2011 to 2015.

He said he never forgot that Singapore was a small country, with limits to what it could do.

“But equally I also knew, that once you allow yourself to be bullied, then you will continue to be bullied. And I never allowed myself to be bullied, when I represented Singapore,” he added.

In instances where ministers from other countries “threatened us, in different ways, took a harsh tone” when Singapore would not give them what they wanted, Mr Shanmugam said: “As all our Foreign Ministers have done, I just looked them in the eye and told them we stood firm. They changed their attitude after that.”

Singapore must be clear about its interests, and go about it smartly, “but not on bended knees and by kowtowing to others”, he added.

Almost every country is bigger than Singapore, including its neighbours, he pointed out.
“We treat each other with mutual respect. Once we are shown to be “flexible”, then that is what will be expected of us every time,” he wrote.

IF Pinky Loong don't resign,we worry.
One simple reason is he is cancer-ridden and is a sick man.

when cobra fights python, do not interrupt. just stand back and enjoy the show.

Rogue Trader said:

Lesson no 4: respect your Lao Peh's will

Click to expand...

Lesson no 4: respect Lin Lao Peh's will.

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/nothing-flawed-or-dangerous-in-kishores-article

Nothing 'flawed' or 'dangerous' in Kishore's article
Published
Jul 3, 2017, 5:00 am SGT

On Saturday, The Straits Times published an article by diplomat Kishore Mahbubani, Qatar: Big Lessons From A Small Country, in which he said the experience of Qatar reminds Singapore of the need for small states to behave like small states, and to cherish regional and international institutions. For example, he said small states should exercise discretion, that "we should be very restrained in commenting on matters involving great powers". He added: "When I hear some of our official representatives say that we should take a 'consistent and principled' stand on geopolitical issues, I am tempted to remind them that consistency and principle are important, but cannot be the only traits that define our diplomacy. And there is a season for everything. The best time to speak up for our principles is not necessarily in the heat of a row between bigger powers." He also wrote: "A small state needs to be truly Machiavellian in international affairs. Being ethical and principled are important in diplomacy. We should be viewed as credible and trustworthy negotiators. But it is an undeniable 'hard truth' of geopolitics that sometimes, principle and ethics must take a back seat to the pragmatic path of prudence." The article sparked much discussion online. Here are three responses to the article from academics.

I am responding to Bilahari Kausikan, an Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

He wrote a long Facebook post rebutting Kishore Mahbubani's article in The Straits Times titled Qatar: Big Lessons From A Small Country.

I find Bilahari's reply exaggerated and unnecessary. There is nothing "flawed" or "dangerous" about what Kishore had to say.

Kishore stated that small states should not behave as if they are big states. He pointed out we will not have another Lee Kuan Yew any time soon. His key point was to be mindful not to overextend our capacity as a small nation. There was nothing wrong or disrespectful about this line of thinking.

What bothers me is the way Bilahari had to misconstrue what Kishore had to say, by taking his arguments out of context. This was not about friendship that he claims to have with Kishore or an intellectual argument that he was trying to put forth. It was about the need to exercise judgment in a public setting.

Bilahari's response felt like an irrelevant knee-jerk reaction. He tried to argue that Kishore had changed course on how Singapore should not "punch above our weight". He also suggested that Kishore advocates "subordination as a norm of Singapore foreign policy". Both of Bilahari's assertions are wrong and misleading.

Kishore made this point in the context that more prudence is required of small states when it comes to geopolitical calculations. He referred to LKY as a leader who doesn't behave like a leader of a big country, and gained respect from other world leaders because of his foresight and leadership in bringing Singapore to where it is today. I do not see any problems with that.

Kishore did not refer in any way that Singapore should "lay low" and favour larger countries, as put by Bilahari. Kishore reminded us in his article that Singapore should continue to pursue a course that suits the world without trying to behave like a large country.

Kishore used in his article, as an example, the miscalculations of Qatar by participating in a joint bombing mission with the US and other Arab states because such actions would bring about more negative implications to Qatar, as a small state, as compared to those of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Here, Kishore's claim is reasonable and well justified.

As a Singaporean, I don't want our country to be engulfed in large-scale battles that require enormous resources because we can't afford to do so as a small country. This is common sense.

In his article, Kishore emphasised the need for small countries like Singapore to exercise discretion concerning matters that involve great powers. He did not steer his arguments to say that Singapore should lay low and not stand up to larger countries. As dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, it is his job to give useful examples and state lessons learnt in public policy. This article was no exception.

Unfortunately, Bilahari went on to exaggerate the matter by pulling in irrelevant examples of how Singapore survived in a separate context. For example, he cited an example that former foreign minister George Yeo "stared back" at an Asean event after Yang Jiechi said that China is a big country, which is a fact. What Bilahari meant was that George Yeo stood up for Singapore by staring back whereas Kishore had no intention to stand up for Singapore because of his stated views. This is a weak argument.

All Kishore was trying to prove is that small countries shouldn't make unnecessary moves to survive and thrive in a globalised environment. He merely pointed out that it is difficult to replicate what LKY did because he is a great leader. But Bilahari tried to relate Kishore's arguments to LKY as if Kishore had denounced LKY in the first place. This is the part that was deemed unnecessary.

I am disappointed that Bilahari, as our Ambassador-at-Large, someone whom I still respect, had to criticise Kishore publicly and even attacked his credibility using LKY as a reference point. Given his long years of experience in foreign affairs, he should perhaps suggest ways on how Singapore can become more competitive in current times.

Yap Kwong Weng, regional adviser for Indochina at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, posted this response on his Facebook page to Bilahari Kausikan's rebuttal on Kishore Mahbubani's article.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on July 03, 2017, with the headline 'Nothing 'flawed' or 'dangerous' in Kishore's article'. Print Edition | Subscribe

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

I am disappointed[/B] that Bilahari, as our Ambassador-at-Large, someone whom I still respect, had to criticise Kishore publicly and even attacked his credibility using LKY as a reference point. Given his long years of experience in foreign affairs, he should perhaps suggest ways on how Singapore can become more competitive in current times.

Click to expand...

LOL….that would involve actual thinking, not oratory skills.

Kudos to Dr Yap. Destroyed Bilahari and Shan at one go. Well argued.

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/nothing-flawed-or-dangerous-in-kishores-article

Nothing 'flawed' or 'dangerous' in Kishore's article
Published
Jul 3, 2017, 5:00 am SGT

On Saturday, The Straits Times published an article by diplomat Kishore Mahbubani, Qatar: Big Lessons From A Small Country, in which he said the experience of Qatar reminds Singapore of the need for small states to behave like small states, and to cherish regional and international institutions. For example, he said small states should exercise discretion, that "we should be very restrained in commenting on matters involving great powers". He added:

Click to expand...

It is laughable when we say we should stand tall and speak up even though we are a small nation.

Look at the haze problem and how we deal with it. How did we respond when the Indonesian minister told us to be thankful for the months of fresh air and stop complaining when the air is foul ? We just shut our mouths with N92 mask.

Wunderfool said:

It is laughable when we say we should stand tall and speak up even though we are a small nation.

Look at the haze problem and how we deal with it. How did we respond when the Indonesian minister told us to be thankful for the months of fresh air and stop complaining when the air is foul ? We just shut our mouths with N92 mask.

Click to expand...

if jiu hu stops shipping eggs and pork to sg, sinkies will kpkb and suck thumbs. no need threaten sg with water cut off. just absence of one ovarian ingredient in sinkies' breakfast and addiction to baked food such as kake and kueh kueh is enough to cause sinkies to kry mother kry father and revolt. no need multi billion dollar budget for defense on either side.

Kishore reiterates: S’pore’s statements must be more prudent

TODAY PUBLISHED:*9:45 PM, JULY 3, 2017

SINGAPORE — A*day after his commentary on how small states should behave like small states drew criticisms from a minister and senior diplomats, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy dean Kishore Mahbubani has defended his assertions and reiterated that Singapore should be more prudent in its public statements. He also denied his article published in The Straits Times (ST) on Saturday was an attack on Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, a point the professor said was raised by some senior officials.

“I wrote this article as I believe that some of our senior officials have been imprudent in their public statements. As a result, there have been some serious mishaps in our external relations,” Professor Mahbubani said in a note to media editors on Monday.

“The hard work done by our founding fathers has been squandered. Our geopolitical space has shrunk,” he added, without elaborating. “My criticisms have hit home. In response, some of these senior officials are floating a canard that this article is an attack on PM because it appeared on the weekend before the parliamentary debate today.”

Prof Mahbubani said that in fact, he had submitted his article to ST several weeks ago, and it had chosen to run it last weekend.

“Hence, it is obviously not an attack on PM. By floating this canard, the officials are distracting attention from their own contributions to our problems.”

Prof Mahbubani did not name the officials.

Ambassador at Large Bilahari Kausikan*had on Sunday morning written a sharp rebuttal on Facebook to the commentary, calling it deeply flawed and dangerously misleading.

In a subsequent comment on Facebook responding to someone defending Prof Mahbubani’s commentary, Mr Kausikan wrote: “I disagree, it is a thinly disguised attack on PM.”

Asked by TODAY for his response to the professor’s explanation on the issue, Mr Kausikan said: “I accept that he may not have intended it as an attack on PM but many read it that way. The timing may be determined by ST but the wording is determined by Kishore. I am glad he has clarified that was not his intention.”

“But that does not negate my profound disagreement to the approach he thinks we should take. He should read Heng Chee’s piece in today’s ST. I entirely agree with her far more balanced approach,” referring to Ambassador at Large Chan Heng Chee’s piece titled “Striking a balance between principle and pragmatism.”

Mr Kausikan added that the mentality and approach suggested in Prof Mahbubani’s article coincides with what some major powers have been promoting in an effort to influence Singaporeans politically.

“I am not suggesting that Kishore is writing at anyone’s behest -- indeed I am absolutely sure he is not -- but this is a cast of mind that cannot be allowed to take root as it will set our country down a very dangerous path. As a Singaporean, Kishore could have more impact than any external party. This is not just an intellectual debate,” he said.

“That is why I decided to set aside considerations of personal relations and vigorously, perhaps even brutally, rebut him on FB which is a potent new medium of communication. Ordinarily I would not have bothered.”

In his commentary, Prof Mahbubani had said that the move by four Arab states to cut off diplomatic ties with Qatar holds lessons for Singapore. The first lesson was that “small states must behave like small states”, adding that in the post-Lee Kuan Yew era, Singapore should change its behaviour to exercise discretion.

“We should be very restrained in commenting on matters involving great powers,” he said, noting that the Republic should be “more circumspect” on the international tribunal ruling on the South China Sea against China.

“When I hear some of our official representatives say that we should take a ‘consistent and principled’ stand on geopolitical issues, I am tempted to remind them that consistency and principle are important, but cannot be the only traits that define our diplomacy,” he added.

In his rebuttal on Sunday, Mr Kausikan said Prof Mahbubani’s point that small states must always behave like small states was “muddled, mendacious and indeed dangerous”.* Homes Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam on Sunday said Mr Kausikan’s response was brilliant as he slammed the professor’s piece as ‘‘intellectually questionable’’, adding that Singapore did not get to where it is by thinking small.

Ambassador at Large Ong Keng Yong also told TODAY he was uncomfortable with Prof Mahbubani’s point as it could give rise to an interpretation that a small country like Singapore cannot speak out against certain positions of big countries on issues even when Singapore may suffer a disadvantage.

Mr Kausikan’s Facebook post rebutting Prof Mahbubani has since been widely shared, garnering over 1,500 likes.

“I suddenly found that I had 10,000 or so followers,” Mr Kausikan told TODAY.*

“I don't think that all of these people -- whom I thank --unreservedly agree with me. I don't expect that. But the numbers at least suggest I have got them thinking about the dangers of accepting subordination as a norm of our foreign policy and reminded them of a fundamental principle,” he added.

“We are not imprudent -- we do not finance foreign wars or support groups and individuals dedicated to undermining our neighbours' systems of government -- *but we must stand up for the autonomy to define and pursue our own national interests rather than have them defined for us, even if this displeases major powers. This is an existential interest intimately linked to the core values that make Singapore, Singapore."

But Prof Mahbubani stuck to his guns on Monday, noting that responses to his piece reflect the state of intellectual discourse in Singapore.

“Some of the responses have been civil. Some have not been,” he said, enclosing both his commentary and another written by an LKYSPP alumni to rebut “uncivil responses” to the commentary.

Prof Mahbubani added:* “I hope you will agree with my big point that Singapore needs to become more prudent in its public statements.”

Kudos to Kishore, see the difference between class and BS.

Kishore is breaking ranks and another Ngiam tong Dow in the making. Time will tell who are the people within the inner circle who are giving him the balls to do so.

Yes, and hope to see more jumping over the barrier.

Annunaki said:

Kishore is breaking ranks and another Ngiam tong Dow in the making. Time will tell who are the people within the inner circle who are giving him the balls to do so.

Click to expand...

Bilahari Kausikan
8 hrs ·
By not succumbing to pressure, Qatar is winning.

The longer Qatar holds out, the greater the dilemma for those piling on the pressure: use force which may make other Gulf states like Oman and Kuwait lean more to Iran and create immense tensions within the Gulf that may also rebound to Iran's benefit and neither is it certain that the US will support the use of force, or give up which may have domestic repercussions.

Qatar pays a cost for holding out, but sometimes the alternatives are worse. And as James Dorsey's article makes clear, small countries are not entirely powerless.

Some of our public intellectuals should understand the core issue in what is happening in the Gulf and not confuse Singaporeans by misleading analogies.

Equating Singapore with Qatar is first of all inappropriate. Nobody ever accused Singapore of funding foreign wars or supporting organisations bent on undermining our neighbours.

And I do not think that if Qatar had 'prudently' laid low it would have been spared. The basic issue was the demand by bigger powers that Qatar define itself by reference to their interests not Qatari interests.

In other words, unless Qatar was prepared to in effect give up being Qatar and become some version of Saudi Arabia or the UAE, sooner or later some sort of conflict would have occured unless Qatar was compliant.

And whatever you may think of Qatari foreign policy -- I think Doha made mistakes --you must now grant Doha the gumption not to be cowed because it understands that it cannot allow itself to be domesticated by larger countries without ceasing to be Qatar.

Singapore is not imprudent but we must always stand up for the autonomy to define and pursue our own national interests rather than have them defined for us, even if this displeases major powers.

This is an existential interest intimately linked to the core values that make Singapore, Singapore.

Qatar: A case study for the role of small states in international relations
Source: Public and Cultural Diplomacy 1
By James M. Dorsey

A Qatari refusal to bow to the dictate of its larger neighbours is a case study of the place of small states in international relations that is unfolding as a Saudi-UAE-led alliance prepares to tighten the noose around the Gulf state’s neck with likely new sanctions intended to strangle it financially.

No doubt, small states are watching closely as the crisis in the Gulf enters a new phase with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt gathering in Cairo to formulate a response to Qatar’s refusal to accept a set of 13 demands that would undermine its sovereignty and humiliate its emir.

A Saudi-UAE deadline for a Qatari response elapsed on Monday. Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said that the demands are non-negotiable. The Saudi-UAE-led alliance demanded that Qatar halt support for militants and Islamists, close a Turkish military base in the Gulf state, lower its relations with Iran, and shutter Qatar-sponsored media, including the controversial Al Jazeera television network.

Qatar’s presumed rejection, delivered to mediator Kuwait, has not been made public but is likely to have been couched in a willingness to negotiate with its detractors based on a refusal to compromise its sovereignty and right to chart an independent course.

The response is certain to take the Gulf crisis to the next level with new sanctions intended to cripple the Qatari economy. A month into the crisis, Qatar has demonstrated that it can sustain the cutting of diplomatic relations and an economic boycott imposed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE and a score of financially and economically dependent Arab, African and Asian nations, many of them small states.

While the jury is out as the Gulf crisis unfolds, one lesson is already clear for small states: Qatar, unlike most small states, has so far on the back of its oil and gas export revenues, had the financial muscle to counter the boycott.

“The lesson learnt is that, at the end of the day, a small country must develop the capacity to defend itself. It cannot depend on others to do so,” said prominent Singaporean diplomat Tommy Koh, who is chairman of the board of governors of the Centre for International Law at National University of Singapore. Heeding Mr. Koh’s analysis, has already started to move towards self-sufficiency in dairy products, a mainstay of past imports from Saudi Arabia.

In circumventing the boycott, Qatar is aided by the fact that inter-Gulf trade accounts for less than ten percent of all the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GGC) trade. The GCC groups the region’s monarchies, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain.

“Trade except for food and construction materials is low. The (Qatari) government can intervene as importer and price regulator,” said Khalid al-Khater, the Qatari Central Banks’s director of research and monetary policy.
Cornelia Meyer, an economist and energy expert, who is frequently interviewed by Al Jazeera, argued that Qatar had so far responded to the crisis adequately. ““Hunker down, let’s make sure we can feed people, let’s make sure we can still export LNG,” Ms. Meyer told the network’s Newsgrid program.
So far, the Saudi-UAE-led boycott has hit Qatar in three areas. The closure of Qatar’s only land border with Saudi Arabia has forced it to secure food and water supplies from alternative sources in Turkey, Iran, India and Oman. The same is true for construction materials.

Qatar Airways has had to absorb higher fuel costs and longer flight times as a result of the closure of Saudi, UAE and Bahrain airspace to flights in an out of Doha. Finally, Oman and India serve as alternative ports for Qatar in- and out-bound vessels because of the closure of the three states’ harbours to Qatari shipping.

Qatar has so far been able to easily shoulder the cost of circumventing the boycott. The next round of what is likely to be primarily financial sanctions is certain to be costlier but analysts and financial institutions believe that Qatar will be able to sustain the blow.

Speaking to CNN, UAE minister of state for foreign affairs Anwar Gargash said the next round would not involve a “big bang" but rather a gradual "turning of financial screws."

The Saudi-UAE-led alliance could announce as early as Wednesday at the gathering of foreign ministers a withdrawal of their deposits from Qatar’s central and commercial banks, the revocation of licenses of Qatari banks in their respective countries, and a divestment of Qatari investments in airlines, telecommunications, retail and real estate.

International ratings agency Standard & Poor (S&P) reported that Qatari banks were strong enough to survive a withdrawal of all Gulf deposits as well as a quarter of the remaining foreign funds the banks keep.
Deposits and other funding sources from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain, represent about eight percent of total liabilities of Qatari lenders or $20 billion, S&P said. It said that in a worst-case scenario, only two of Qatar’s 18 lenders would have to dip into their investment securities portfolio.

Based on scenarios it ran, S&P said that “the results show the rated Qatari banks to be in a decent position, on a stand-alone basis, to face a significant reduction of external funding. Even assuming a 20% haircut on the value of those investment portfolios, the banks should be able to continue operating without requiring the intervention of the Central Bank of Qatar.”

Much like with its response to the Saudi-UAE demands, Qatar has refrained from responding in kind. Similarly, the UAE has been careful to exempt from the boycott Qatari energy supplies, which would hit hard Dubai that relies on Qatari natural gas for 40 percent of its need. The question is whether it will continue to do so as the noose tightens.

As the Gulf crisis escalates, mediators are likely to find the crafting of formulas that allow both sides of the divide to save face challenging. Ultimately, the key is likely to be reciprocity, a principle that Saudi Arabia and the UAE will probably find the most difficult to swallow.

Mr. Gargash predicted that a resolution of the crisis could involve putting monitors from the US Treasury and European financial authorities in the Qatari finance ministry and central bank to ensure that no funds flow from the Gulf state to terrorist groups.

Getting both parties to agree on this is likely to be complicated by a lack of agreement on who is a terrorist and a probable Qatari insistence that the United States and Europe also monitor financial flows in Saudi Arabia and UAE.

Qatar is certain to note that Saudi Arabia has also been accused of funding militants, most recently in Britain. Prime Minister Teresa May is under fire for refusing to publish a report on foreign funding of extremism in the UK that allegedly implicates the kingdom.
A formula floated to address the Saudi-UAE demand that Al Jazeera be shuttered is likely to be equally difficult. The proposed compromise would involve holding Al Jazeera Arabic to the same standards on which Al Jazeera English, widely viewed as a highly professional journalistic product, operates. The formula would uphold the principle of freedom of the media and expression, but fall short of the Saudi-UAE aim of censoring all critical voices.

How the battle in the Gulf unfolds and how the crisis is resolved is likely to have far-reaching consequences for international relations and likely shape the attitudes of small states across the globe. To be sure, Qatar has unique advantages: financial muscle and a network of relationships built in part on its gas exports.

The question is, said Singapore ambassador-at-large and Executive Deputy Chairman of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Ong Keng Yong: “What happens when small states’ core interests are impinged upon, and caught within broader big-power dynamics. Or do small states’ interests not matter, and should be subordinated to that of big states?

Putting it another way, must Singapore be so governed by fears of offending bigger states that we allow them to do what they want or shape our actions to placate them even if they affect our national interests?... There is no choice but to stand up. Doing otherwise will encourage more pressure from those bigger than ourselves,” Mr. Ong Keng Yong said.



Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario and three forthcoming books, Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa as well as Creating Frankenstein: The Saudi Export of Ultra-conservatism and China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom.

Porfirio Rubirosa said:

“I am not suggesting that Kishore is writing at anyone’s behest -- indeed I am absolutely sure he is not -- but this is a cast of mind that cannot be allowed to take root as it will set our country down a very dangerous path. As a Singaporean, Kishore could have more impact than any external party. ”

Click to expand...

I have heard suggestions that this is direct jibe and suspicion that Kishore is doing another's bidding...treacherous accusation wrapped in denial....