S'pore proposes 3 levels of military transparency to enhanc
-
empty talk about confidence building measures. quite lame rhetoric. S'pore proposes 3 levels of military transparency to enhance defence cooperation http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/432905/1/.html SINGAPORE : Singapore has proposed three levels of military transparency to enhance defence cooperation amongst countries. The suggestion was made on the final day of the Asia-Pacific Security Summit - also dubbed the Shangri-La Dialogue - where tackling terrorism and strengthening the region's defence diplomacy were also discussed. Military transparency is not an end in itself, says Singapore's Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean. He said it serves a larger objective. Mr Teo said: "What are you trying to achieve? That is the first question. What are your underlying assumptions, which is the second question. If your underlying assumption is that you cannot resolve your differences, then all that transparency can hope to achieve is to try and find out who you think your potential enemy is going to be. "And under such circumstances, of course he is not going to tell you what he has and vice versa. Then you only try to reduce the accidents, that is about all. If that is the limit of your aspiration, then transparency is also limited by my aspiration. But if your aspiration is more than that, if your aspiration is to create cooperation, trust and confidence, then you can aim for a higher level of transparency." So, the first level of transparency is disclosing one's armaments and arsenals. Making known information about one's military programmes, military expenditure, and arms exports and imports could reduce the likelihood that such programmes would be destabilising. Mr Teo elaborated: "In the Asia Pacific, there has been a degree of such disclosure. The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) has supported the UN Register on Conventional Arms since 1994. The ARF Annual Security Outlook reports seek to enhance the level of information sharing. The more recent Voluntary Briefings at the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meetings (ADMM) complement this process. "States that have yet to avail themselves of these opportunities should be encouraged to do so, making such transparency a norm in the region. States also contribute to this first level of transparency by arranging for visits to military facilities, and making regular public statements about military procurements, plans and activities." But it is not merely about counting what others have or knowing their capabilities. Mr Teo explained: "North Korea can tell all of us, 'yes I am going to conduct a nuclear test next week, I am going to fire a long range missile'; that is completely transparent. Does that make you feel happier or does that make you feel more secure? Neither. "If somebody tells you 'my intention is to stockpile a thousand nuclear warheads over the next 15 years', does that make you more secure? I do not think so. So it is sort of a fallacy to blindly equate transparency to security, it is not sufficient." Therein comes the next step - countries must articulate their security concerns clearly in order to reassure others. Mr Teo said: "Take a scenario where a state has decided to increase its military spending and the capability of its military because it decides that its defence needs have grown. This could be because the pattern of its trade and energy supply routes has altered fundamentally, or that new areas have been developed, or shifts in population have occurred. "Or another scenario where a few states decide to cooperate to increase their ability to improve security, for example, in the sea lanes. Although that state or these states may consider this self-defence or cooperative security, others may perceive it differently, and this may lead to doubts, suspicion and insecurity. "When we better understand the concerns that we might have about each other, we can more confidently find ways to take these concerns into account and reassure each other. Where we have common concerns, we can find ways to cooperate meaningfully. This second level of transparency can be done through the publication of White Papers, government statements or interviews and dialogues between states." Meanwhile, the British defence secretary said that another element of military transparency is public communications and this is to keep the public well-informed of a country's military deployments to different parts of the world, to bring about international peace and security. Baroness Ann Taylor, UK International Defence and Security Minister, said: "We have to explain to a sometimes sceptical public why counter terrorism operations in Afghanistan are critical to stopping terrorism on our streets. We have to explain why countering piracy, stopping people trafficking or stemming the tide of the drugs trade, is essential work for domestic security." Finally, Mr Teo said military transparency is about cooperative action which contributes directly to regional security, like those seen in the Gulf of Eden and Malacca Straits. Mr Teo said: "Looking ahead, Singapore is working to build a multilateral framework for maritime information sharing and cooperation which is open and inclusive. Interested countries can participate by linking their maritime operations centres, sharing information, and having liaison officers to utilise the Information Fusion Centre at the new Changi Command and Control Centre which is being completed this year." - CNA/yb/ms
-
Military transparency? I do not understand what Uncle teo is asking... Maybe thats why I'm just a fucking Major and he is a Defence Minister.
Reviving Intelligence to your enemy?
...the first level of transparency is disclosing one’s armaments and arsenals. Making known information about one’s military programmes, military expenditure, and arms exports and imports...
“Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.” Sun Tzu
-
???i got not enough food to gimme energy let alone go do n pass ippt?!!hhhelpp...me comrade!
-
hey mr teo!!!wat bout me stranded in antarctica in yer undergrounnd submarine base wiv no food?
-
Originally posted by Airforceone:
Military transparency? I do not understand what Uncle teo is asking... Maybe thats why I'm just a fucking Major and he is a Defence Minister.
Reviving Intelligence to your enemy?
...the first level of transparency is disclosing one’s armaments and arsenals. Making known information about one’s military programmes, military expenditure, and arms exports and imports...
“Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.” Sun Tzu
Teo is a politician.
Disclosing armaments and arsenals - we have F15, we have submarines, 3G army....can or not, what can you do?
Disclosing military programmes- we are all trained in australia, brunei, ...our doctrine is to annihilate our enemy, so don't make yourself our enemy, clear?
Disclosing military expenditure - we are rich, we are going to spend so much, can you match?
Military transparency - Tell me what I want to know, I tell you what I want to tell you.
兵�厌诈。don't take this kind of talk seriously.
-
TO SGDIEHARD:
IM HUNGRY...WATS FER DINNER IN COOKHOUSE....
-
Originally posted by TERMINATOR2000:
TO SGDIEHARD:
IM HUNGRY...WATS FER DINNER IN COOKHOUSE....
You don't go to a World Clean Water Supply forum and ask fer dinner.
You don't go to musical concert and shout you are hungry.
There is time for everything.
and all dictators like those in N Korea, Burma...feed their soldiers first. You will be fed in cookhouse, if that is all that you are asking for.
-
EXACTLY!!!WHERES MY FOOD??!!
-
Actually, this is a mere reflection of political realities.
Arms supplying states subscribe to reveal their exports. Arms purchasing states can only say don't buy or buy. If buy, then you might as well reveal your import cos your exporter is going to reveal your purchase anywayz.
Its not like SG has say to tell US to fly kite. SG tell Israel maybe but Israel doesn't sell the best jets that SG needs or wants to buy.
UN register also has profile and local production reporting to which SG and the rest of the region generally does not ascribe so its not really full disclosure either.
Equipment numbers are just one small portion. How its used, the munitions that equip it, the software supporting it, the effectiveness and efficiency of soldiers, tactics, motivation, morale, etc are all factors that often can be quantified. In that respect, TCH is correct about levels of military transparency.
One can have the latest fighters but if those fighters don't have radar, up to date missiles, good pilots, maintenance support then all waste of money.
-
I don't know who came up with this "military transparency" idea, it is one of the most imbecilic idea. Military strategy involves keeping your armaments and troops secret from any potential enemy so that you could out maneuver them.
If everything is known, might as well compare each others troops and armaments and declare the superior military endowed to be the winner, there won't be need for physical battles.
I hope our scholarly military geniuses or Ministers didn't come up with this idea.
Oh yah! More GST to help the poor and more foreign talents to help with Singapore's unemployed.
-
My bad.
I think Teo Chee Hean came up with the proposal.
-
Transparency is a trend. Now is military striptease.
-
Politicians can talk all they want, spout rhetorics all day long, but the soldier will bleed and die for their mistakes
-
No one will reveal such stuff
-
hmmmm............I thought Action speak louder than Transparency.
..... Russia thought that they have a handshake agreement with Germany during WWII. We know where it end between....US and Japan....negociation.
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
Transparency is a trend. Now is military striptease.
LOL military poker striptease - lots of bluffing involved too. have, say don't have and don't have say have!
-
STILL HUNGRY,,,,,NEEDS GOOD DECENT FOOD.:{
-
Ok you can call it military poker.Singapore show what cards they are are holding and the rest just fold......no need to play>Game Over.
-
You know i was under the impression that MP Teo as a host sort of open the topics for Defense Secretary Gates to bring the message to China about its military transparency.
i thought this type of formal "informal talk" plus the ARF really is the consequences of the 2 power houses. While allow the rest of the states to express their viewed.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
You know i was under the impression that MP Teo as a host sort of open the topics for Defense Secretary Gates to bring the message to China about its military transparency.
i thought this type of formal "informal talk" plus the ARF really is the consequences of the 2 power houses. While allow the rest of the states to express their viewed.
Transparency can be used as strategic leverage towards states that are quite opaque about their activities, yet keen on joining the international order. It throws the ball back into their court to build bonds of trust and reliability of action. Furthermore, transparency regimes build trust and works wonders in Track II diplomacy assuming there is a limit to what sort of defence information is exchanged, within sensible limits too.
And nations dictate the level of transparency anyway, so there's still vital information kept behind closed doors. But information exchange between trusted allies brings far more benefits to help them understand the overall picture rather than second guessing one another.
And you may be right, it might have served as a starting point for US-China defence transparency dialogue.
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
Transparency can be used as strategic leverage towards states that are quite opaque about their activities, yet keen on joining the international order. It throws the ball back into their court to build bonds of trust and reliability of action. Furthermore, transparency regimes build trust and works wonders in Track II diplomacy assuming there is a limit to what sort of defence information is exchanged, within sensible limits too.
And nations dictate the level of transparency anyway, so there's still vital information kept behind closed doors. But information exchange between trusted allies brings far more benefits to help them understand the overall picture rather than second guessing one another.
And you may be right, it might have served as a starting point for US-China defence transparency dialogue.
long time no hear. wellcome back.
-
US has the strategic advantage in terms of intelligence over China, not sure what advantage US can obtain from China, when US has an absolute advantage over China.
This idea of military transparency is pure crap from the Minister's mouth.
If country A declares that it has more military arsenal compared to country B. Does declaring it's armaments to country B, reduce the likelihood that country B would not embark on an arms race to match country A's arsenal?
I think our Ministers should be more pragmatic and refrain from embarking on foolhardy ideas.
-
It's like blackjack, say US has 20, while China has 19 points. What advantage can be gained from US by showing her cards to China? If China knows that US has 20 points, then China will definitely opt for another card to attain 21.
Obviously our Minister lacks practicality in his ideas. Maybe needs to take a class in game theory to understand bargaining process.
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
It's like blackjack, say US has 20, while China has 19 points. What advantage can be gained from US by showing her cards to China? If China knows that US has 20 points, then China will definitely opt for another card to attain 21.
Obviously our Minister lacks practicality in his ideas. Maybe needs to take a class in game theory to understand bargaining process.
This could only work for China if the Chinkay is Kim Jong IL>
Those without a good hand should better play the card game the way it is and not be conned into transparency otherwise what fun is there?
-
yeah u think the other guy won't CALL the bluff......