Deterrence or Diplomacy: How Did Singapore Stay Safe?

After 1965, Singapore relied on two approaches to stay safe: and . These notes weigh which did more. One view holds that deterrence was the foundation, another that diplomacy did more, and a third that the two worked together as a . The judgement depends on the criterion applied.

What Singapore Faced

Commonwealth soldiers with rifles on patrol — Commonwealth soldiers on patrol during Konfrontasi. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

From the region: Konfrontasi ended only in 1966, and the Vietnam War raised fears that communism would spread.
From within: communist terrorism continued at home.
Standing alone: Britain was withdrawing, and in 1965 Singapore had just two battalions of regular soldiers.

The Two Approaches

Deterrence: National Service, a home-grown defence industry, and military partnerships such as the FPDA.
Diplomacy: bilateral friendships, reconciliation with Indonesia, and membership of the UN and ASEAN.
Together: Singapore built a credible defence while giving other countries a stake in keeping it safe.

Deterrence or Diplomacy: How Did Singapore Stay Safe?

Side 1: Deterrence Did More

PointDeterrence did more to keep Singapore safe, because ultimately it had to be able to defend itself.
EvidenceIn 1965 Singapore had just two battalions, Britain was leaving, and friends could not be counted on to fight for it. National Service built a large force quickly, reservists added a huge pool of trained men, and by the end of the 1970s Singapore had an army, an air force and a navy, kept supplied by CIS.
ElaborationA credible force made aggression too costly to attempt and, if deterrence failed, still allowed Singapore to fight. No amount of friendship could substitute for the ability to defend itself.
LinkHence, on this view, deterrence was the foundation of Singapore's security.

Side 2: Diplomacy Did More

PointDiplomacy did more to keep Singapore safe, because a small country cannot secure its safety by force alone.
EvidenceSingapore's army took years to build, but just over a month after independence it was a member of the United Nations, recognised around the world. Reconciliation ended a bitter quarrel with Indonesia, and through ASEAN its neighbours cooperated rather than fought.
ElaborationRecognition and friendship made an attack less likely in the first place, protecting Singapore during the years when its forces were still too small to deter a determined enemy.
LinkThus, on this view, diplomacy did more to keep Singapore safe, especially in its earliest years.

Third View: They Worked Together

PointDeterrence and diplomacy worked together, each strengthening the other.
EvidenceFriendly countries sold the SAF equipment and trained with it. The FPDA is a defence agreement, but it exists only because five countries chose to cooperate. A strong defence, in turn, made Singapore a partner worth having.
ElaborationDiplomacy supplied the equipment, training and allies Singapore's forces needed, while a credible defence earned it respect as a partner rather than a weak state open to pressure, so the two approaches reinforced each other.
LinkTherefore, the most convincing judgement is that Singapore's security rested on a two-pronged approach.

How to Weigh It Up

It depends on the measure: for standing on its own feet, deterrence mattered more; for quick recognition and peaceful neighbours, diplomacy mattered more.
Look for links: military partnerships such as the FPDA were defence and diplomacy at the same time.
Make a judgement: state which side you lean towards and why, using evidence, then show how the two approaches supported each other.

In One Sentence

Deterrence gave Singapore the strength to defend itself and diplomacy gave it recognition and friends, but each reinforced the other, so its security rested on a two-pronged approach.

Think About It

If Singapore could only have afforded one approach in 1965, which should it have chosen? Use evidence to explain.
How did the FPDA show that deterrence and diplomacy can be part of the same thing?
Can a small country ever be completely safe? What else, besides an army and friends abroad, might it need?