Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has issued a warning that resonates far beyond the city-state’s borders. In recent interviews with the Financial Times and Business Times, Wong spoke of turbulence ahead in what he described as a “post-American” order. His words are not simply a reflection of Singapore’s anxieties but a broader signal of the shifting tectonic plates in global geopolitics. For decades, the United States has been the anchor of the international system, underwriting global trade, providing security guarantees, and shaping the rules of engagement for nations large and small. But as Wong pointed out, no single country can fill the vacuum left by a retreating America. Instead, the world is moving toward a multipolar order, one that promises both opportunity and instability.

The notion of a “post-American” order does not mean the United States is disappearing from the global stage. Rather, it suggests that America is no longer the sole stabilizer, the indispensable power that can guarantee predictability in trade, finance, and security. The rise of China, the assertiveness of middle powers, and the fragmentation of global institutions all point to a messy transition. Wong’s warning is rooted in realism: Singapore, a small but globally connected hub, has thrived by balancing between great powers. Its prosperity depends on open markets, predictable rules, and a stable environment for trade and investment. In a world where alliances are fluid and influence is distributed, the risks for small states multiply.

The turbulence Wong describes is already visible. The International Monetary Fund has downgraded global growth forecasts, citing geopolitical fragmentation and supply chain disruptions. The World Bank has warned of rising risks to trade flows from regional conflicts and protectionist policies. The US-China rivalry, which increasingly defines the global landscape, is not limited to military competition. It extends to technology, finance, and influence over global norms. For countries like Singapore, caught in the middle of this rivalry, the challenge is to hedge bets, diversify trade, and build resilience. Wong’s call to “build new trade connections and keep up the momentum of trade liberalisation” is both a pragmatic strategy and a plea for cooperation in an era of fragmentation.

What makes Wong’s remarks particularly significant is their timing. Singapore has just undergone a leadership transition, with Wong succeeding Lee Hsien Loong as Prime Minister. His words therefore carry the weight of a new leader setting the tone for his tenure. By warning of turbulence, Wong is signaling that Singapore will not shy away from confronting uncomfortable realities. He is also positioning the country as a voice of pragmatism in a world increasingly defined by polarization. Singapore has long played the role of a bridge between East and West, hosting global businesses, mediating between competing powers, and advocating for open trade. Wong’s comments suggest that this role will continue, but under more difficult circumstances.

The idea of a multipolar world is not new. Analysts have spoken for years about the decline of American unipolarity and the rise of China. But what Wong captures is the sense of uncertainty that comes with transition. Multipolarity does not automatically mean stability. It can mean competing spheres of influence, fragmented institutions, and unpredictable alliances. For businesses, this translates into volatile markets, shifting supply chains, and regulatory uncertainty. For governments, it means recalibrating foreign policy, balancing relationships, and preparing for shocks. For ordinary citizens, it means living in a world where global turbulence can quickly translate into local consequences, from inflation to job insecurity.

Singapore’s warning should therefore be read not just as a national concern but as a global one. The country has always been a bellwether for broader trends. Its economy is deeply integrated into global trade, its financial sector is exposed to international flows, and its security depends on a stable regional environment. When Singapore’s leaders speak of turbulence, they are reflecting the vulnerabilities of small states but also articulating the anxieties of a global system in flux. Wong’s remarks are a reminder that the post-American order is not a distant prospect but a present reality.

The question, then, is how the world should respond. Wong’s emphasis on building new trade connections is a practical starting point. In an era of fragmentation, diversification is essential. Countries must avoid overdependence on any single market or power. Regional trade agreements, cross-border partnerships, and multilateral initiatives can provide buffers against turbulence. At the same time, nations must invest in resilience, whether through supply chain security, technological innovation, or financial safeguards. For Singapore, this means continuing to position itself as a hub for global business, while also preparing for shocks that may disrupt its traditional advantages.

There is also a broader lesson in Wong’s remarks. The post-American order requires a shift in mindset. For decades, the world has relied on the United States to provide stability. That reliance is no longer sufficient. Nations must take greater responsibility for their own security, prosperity, and resilience. This does not mean abandoning cooperation with America, but it does mean recognizing that the future will be shaped by multiple powers, each with its own interests and strategies. The challenge is to navigate this complexity without succumbing to fragmentation. Wong’s warning is therefore both a caution and a call to action.

From an editorial perspective, it is worth noting that Singapore’s voice carries credibility precisely because of its position. As a small state, it has no illusions of dominating the global stage. Its warnings are not driven by ambition but by necessity. This makes them particularly valuable. When a country like Singapore speaks of turbulence, it is reflecting the lived reality of nations that depend on stability but cannot control it. In this sense, Wong’s remarks are a reminder that the post-American order is not just about great power competition. It is about the vulnerabilities of smaller states, the risks to global trade, and the need for cooperation in an era of uncertainty.

The turbulence ahead will not be easy to navigate. But it is not without hope. Multipolarity can also mean greater diversity, more voices at the table, and new opportunities for cooperation. The challenge is to harness these opportunities while managing the risks. Singapore’s warning is therefore not a message of despair but of realism. It is a call to prepare for a world that is more complex, more fragmented, and more unpredictable. For policymakers, businesses, and citizens alike, the lesson is clear: resilience, diversification, and cooperation are the keys to navigating the post-American order.

In the end, Wong’s remarks should be seen as part of a broader conversation about the future of global governance. The post-American order is not a single event but a process, one that will unfold over years and decades. It will be shaped by the rise of China, the strategies of middle powers, the resilience of institutions, and the choices of citizens. Singapore’s warning is a reminder that this process will be messy, turbulent, and uncertain. But it is also a reminder that nations have agency. By preparing, cooperating, and adapting, they can navigate the turbulence and shape a future that is not defined by fragmentation but by resilience.

In an era of shifting global influence, the foreign policy approaches of the world’s two largest powers—the United States (US) and China—present a stark geopolitical contrast. While the US, particularly under the previous administration, pursued a high-profile, rhetorical strategy centered on “ending wars” through large-scale troop withdrawals, China has quietly but effectively intensified its pragmatic regional diplomacy. This difference in style is more than just optics; it reflects fundamentally different calculations for projecting power and securing long-term interests, with China’s less-publicized mediation efforts increasingly challenging the established international order.

The central thesis here is that overt, maximalist actions, like those characterized by the US rhetoric of disengagement, often yield instability, while China’s “quiet diplomacy,” focused on localized conflict resolution, offers a more sustainable, high-effectiveness mechanism for projecting global influence. This article will critically analyze these two divergent paths.

The Rhetoric of Retreat: The US “Ending Wars” Approach 🇺🇸

The foreign policy under the Trump administration was defined by a popular but politically charged rhetoric of disengagement from costly, protracted conflicts, primarily in the Middle East. The promise to bring troops home and “end the forever wars” was a cornerstone of an “America First” agenda, appealing to a domestic audience weary of foreign entanglements.

Analysis of Effects and Motivations

While the intent—to reduce the military and financial burden of overseas operations—was clear, the execution was often abrupt, unilateral, and lacked coordination with allies or local partners. This approach, centered on large-scale troop withdrawals, frequently created immediate power vacuums and signaled a reduction in US commitment to regional stability.

Critical Conclusion: The high-profile US action of “retreat” often produced a strategic instability. By prioritizing the rhetoric of withdrawal over a meticulously managed, diplomatically cushioned exit, the US approach inadvertently created space for adversaries and regional competitors to fill the void, ultimately complicating future diplomatic or military interventions. This transactional, withdrawal-first policy represented a fundamental shift away from decades of sustained liberal internationalism.

The resulting instability, rather than achieving peace, undermined the US’s long-term goal of a secure global order, ceding influence without securing a decisive and stabilising diplomatic end state.

Quiet Power: China’s Pragmatic Regional Diplomacy 🇨🇳

In contrast to the US’s overt strategic withdrawals, China’s recent foreign policy in its immediate periphery has been marked by a strategy of quiet diplomacy and pragmatic, behind-the-scenes mediation. The core motivation is explicitly tied to stability—specifically, securing its borders, ensuring the safety of its massive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments, and projecting influence as a constructive regional power rather than a belligerent one.

By adopting a non-confrontational, economically incentivized approach, China seeks to embed itself as an indispensable arbiter of regional peace, a crucial element of its overall China Peace Diplomacy.

China’s Mediation Drivers

• BRI Security: Instability in neighboring states directly threatens key BRI infrastructure, such as pipelines, railways, and ports, vital for China’s economic future.
• Border Management: Maintaining a peaceful periphery is paramount to securing China’s own internal stability and economic development in border provinces.
• Geopolitical Influence: By successfully brokering de-escalation where the US and other global powers have been absent or ineffective, China subtly builds a reputation as a reliable, results-oriented alternative, strengthening its soft power across Asia.

Case Study 1: The Myanmar Border De-escalation 🏞️

The conflict between the Myanmar military (Tatmadaw) and various ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), particularly the escalation of clashes near the shared border, posed a direct threat to China. Stray artillery fire, like incidents near Yunnan Province, and the influx of tens of thousands of refugees, risked dragging China into a protracted instability.

Instead of a high-profile military intervention or public condemnation, China employed a calculated, multi-pronged approach:

• Pressure and Mediation: Beijing leveraged its unique position as the primary economic partner and arms supplier to both the Myanmar government and, in some cases, certain EAOs. It applied direct diplomatic pressure on all parties to de-escalate, often hosting peace talks on Chinese soil (e.g., in Kunming) to achieve a ceasefire.
• Border Management: At the same time, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) visibly reinforced its border security with air patrols and warnings to the Tatmadaw, demonstrating a resolve to protect its territory and nationals without full-scale intervention.

This Myanmar Border Mediation was highly effective because it was interest-driven and pragmatic. It wasn’t about imposing a democratic or moral order, but about achieving a quick, localized stability essential for the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC).

---

Case Study 2: Facilitating the Cambodia-Thai Ceasefire 🤝

A less-publicized but equally significant example of China’s “quiet diplomacy” is its role in fostering stability between Cambodia and Thailand following flare-ups in their long-standing border disputes, notably around the Preah Vihear temple.

While ASEAN officially leads the efforts, China has played a constructive and supportive role in facilitating or supporting peace efforts:

• Neutral Diplomatic Support: China engaged in diplomatic outreach to both Bangkok and Phnom Penh, utilizing its deep ties with both nations to urge restraint and encourage a return to bilateral mechanisms.
• Economic Leverage: China is a massive economic partner to both countries. Its tacit support for de-escalation carries significant weight, as neither capital wishes to jeopardize crucial trade, investment, or military cooperation with Beijing.
• Subtle Signaling: China’s provision of military and financial aid to Cambodia, while not a direct tool of the ceasefire itself, subtly signals its influence and ability to shape regional defense dynamics, making compliance with de-escalation a prudent choice for both parties. The result was a restoration of the Cambodia-Thai Ceasefire momentum without China ever taking the central, public stage.

---

The Geopolitical Contrast: High-Profile vs. High-Effectiveness ⚖️

The comparison between the US rhetoric of “ending wars” through overt troop withdrawals and China’s method of “peace diplomacy” through quiet, interest-aligned mediation is instructive:

Feature	US Approach (“Ending Wars” Rhetoric)	China’s Approach (China Peace Diplomacy)
Visibility	High-profile, maximalist, and public	Quiet, behind-the-scenes, and pragmatic
Primary Goal	Domestic political appeal; reducing direct cost	Regional stability; safeguarding economic interests (BRI)
Mechanism	Military withdrawal; transactional alliances	Diplomatic leverage; economic inducement/pressure
Immediate Outcome	Strategic instability; creation of power vacuums	Localized de-escalation; reinforcement of influence
Influence Type	Hard power/Military presence (diminishing)	Economic/Political/Soft Power (increasing)

Critical Conclusion: The US strategy risks achieving only the rhetoric of peace while creating the conditions for future conflict. China’s strategy, by contrast, seeks high-effectiveness stability, not for abstract moral reasons, but for tangible economic and security gains. China’s model of conflict resolution—being a subtle, self-interested, yet seemingly neutral partner—may be more appealing to developing nations wary of the political conditionalities often attached to Western intervention.

---

Conclusion: Future Global Leadership and US vs China Foreign Policy

The divergent foreign policy paths—the US focused on dramatic withdrawal and the defense of a liberal order, and China focused on quiet, pragmatic stability in its sphere of influence—will shape the future of global leadership.

China’s increasing engagement in regional conflict resolution is a crucial component of its broader strategic narrative, positioning itself as a responsible, development-focused great power. Its success in Myanmar Border Mediation and supporting the Cambodia-Thai Ceasefire demonstrates that global influence is increasingly projected not only through overt military strength but also through the effective, quiet application of economic and diplomatic leverage. For the non-partisan think tank community, the key takeaway is that the new challenge to Western-led stability is not solely military; it is a direct competition in the realm of effective statecraft. As the US struggles to find a consistent global posture, China’s model of Quiet Diplomacy provides a powerful counter-narrative, suggesting that localized, pragmatic peace is a more sustainable, if self-interested, basis for global influence than the costly, high-profile rhetoric of retreat.

Would you like a comparative analysis of their respective strategies in a different region, such as Africa or Latin America?

In an era of shifting global influence, the foreign policy approaches of the world’s two largest powers—the United States (US) and China—present a stark geopolitical contrast. While the US, particularly under the previous administration, pursued a high-profile, rhetorical strategy centered on “ending wars” through large-scale troop withdrawals, China has quietly but effectively intensified its pragmatic regional diplomacy. This difference in style is more than just optics; it reflects fundamentally different calculations for projecting power and securing long-term interests, with China’s less-publicized mediation efforts increasingly challenging the established international order.

The central thesis here is that overt, maximalist actions, like those characterized by the US rhetoric of disengagement, often yield instability, while China’s “quiet diplomacy,” focused on localized conflict resolution, offers a more sustainable, high-effectiveness mechanism for projecting global influence. This article will critically analyze these two divergent paths.

The Rhetoric of Retreat: The US “Ending Wars” Approach 🇺🇸

The foreign policy under the Trump administration was defined by a popular but politically charged rhetoric of disengagement from costly, protracted conflicts, primarily in the Middle East. The promise to bring troops home and “end the forever wars” was a cornerstone of an “America First” agenda, appealing to a domestic audience weary of foreign entanglements.

Analysis of Effects and Motivations

While the intent—to reduce the military and financial burden of overseas operations—was clear, the execution was often abrupt, unilateral, and lacked coordination with allies or local partners. This approach, centered on large-scale troop withdrawals, frequently created immediate power vacuums and signaled a reduction in US commitment to regional stability.

Critical Conclusion: The high-profile US action of “retreat” often produced a strategic instability. By prioritizing the rhetoric of withdrawal over a meticulously managed, diplomatically cushioned exit, the US approach inadvertently created space for adversaries and regional competitors to fill the void, ultimately complicating future diplomatic or military interventions. This transactional, withdrawal-first policy represented a fundamental shift away from decades of sustained liberal internationalism.

The resulting instability, rather than peace, undermined the US’s long-term goal of a secure global order, ceding influence without achieving a decisive, stabilizing diplomatic end state.

Quiet Power: China’s Pragmatic Regional Diplomacy 🇨🇳

In contrast to the US’s overt strategic withdrawals, China’s recent foreign policy in its immediate periphery has been marked by a strategy of quiet diplomacy and pragmatic, behind-the-scenes mediation. The core motivation is explicitly tied to stability—specifically, securing its borders, ensuring the safety of its massive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments, and projecting influence as a constructive regional power rather than a belligerent one.

By adopting a non-confrontational, economically incentivised approach, China seeks to embed itself as an indispensable arbiter of regional peace, a crucial element of its overall China Peace Diplomacy.

China’s Mediation Drivers

• BRI Security: Instability in neighboring states directly threatens key BRI infrastructure, such as pipelines, railways, and ports, vital for China’s economic future.
• Border Management: Maintaining a peaceful periphery is paramount to securing China’s own internal stability and economic development in border provinces.
• Geopolitical Influence: By successfully brokering de-escalation where the US and other global powers have been absent or ineffective, China subtly builds a reputation as a reliable, results-oriented alternative, strengthening its soft power across Asia.

---

Case Study 1: The Myanmar Border De-escalation 🏞️

The conflict between the Myanmar military (Tatmadaw) and various ethnic armed organisations (EAOs), particularly the escalation of clashes near the shared border, posed a direct threat to China. Stray artillery fire, like incidents near Yunnan Province, and the influx of tens of thousands of refugees, risked dragging China into a protracted instability.

Instead of a high-profile military intervention or public condemnation, China employed a calculated, multi-pronged approach:

• Pressure and Mediation: Beijing leveraged its unique position as the primary economic partner and arms supplier to both the Myanmar government and, in some cases, certain EAOs. It applied direct diplomatic pressure on all parties to de-escalate, often hosting peace talks on Chinese soil (e.g., in Kunming) to achieve a ceasefire.
• Border Management: At the same time, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) visibly reinforced its border security with air patrols and warnings to the Tatmadaw, demonstrating a resolve to protect its territory and nationals without full-scale intervention.

This Myanmar Border Mediation was highly effective because it was interest-driven and pragmatic. It wasn’t about imposing a democratic or moral order, but about achieving a quick, localized stability essential for the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC).

---

Case Study 2: Facilitating the Cambodia-Thai Ceasefire 🤝

A less-publicized but equally significant example of China’s “quiet diplomacy” is its role in fostering stability between Cambodia and Thailand following flare-ups in their long-standing border disputes, notably around the Preah Vihear temple.

While ASEAN officially leads the efforts, China has played a constructive and supportive role in facilitating or supporting peace efforts:

• Neutral Diplomatic Support: China engaged in diplomatic outreach to both Bangkok and Phnom Penh, utilizing its deep ties with both nations to urge restraint and encourage a return to bilateral mechanisms.
• Economic Leverage: China is a massive economic partner to both countries. Its tacit support for de-escalation carries significant weight, as neither capital wishes to jeopardize crucial trade, investment, or military cooperation with Beijing.
• Subtle Signaling: China’s provision of military and financial aid to Cambodia, while not a direct tool of the ceasefire itself, subtly signals its influence and ability to shape regional defense dynamics, making compliance with de-escalation a prudent choice for both parties. The result was a restoration of the Cambodia-Thai Ceasefire momentum without China ever taking the central, public stage.

The Geopolitical Contrast: High-Profile vs. High-Effectiveness ⚖️

The comparison between the US rhetoric of “ending wars” through overt troop withdrawals and China’s method of “peace diplomacy” through quiet, interest-aligned mediation is instructive:

Feature	US Approach (“Ending Wars” Rhetoric)	China’s Approach (China Peace Diplomacy)
Visibility	High-profile, maximalist, and public	Quiet, behind-the-scenes, and pragmatic
Primary Goal	Domestic political appeal; reducing direct cost	Regional stability; safeguarding economic interests (BRI)
Mechanism	Military withdrawal; transactional alliances	Diplomatic leverage; economic inducement/pressure
Immediate Outcome	Strategic instability; creation of power vacuums	Localized de-escalation; reinforcement of influence
Influence Type	Hard power/Military presence (diminishing)	Economic/Political/Soft Power (increasing)

Critical Conclusion: The US strategy risks achieving only the rhetoric of peace while creating the conditions for future conflict. China’s strategy, by contrast, seeks high-effectiveness stability, not for abstract moral reasons, but for tangible economic and security gains. China’s model of conflict resolution—being a subtle, self-interested, yet seemingly neutral partner—may be more appealing to developing nations wary of the political conditionalities often attached to Western intervention.

---

Conclusion: Future Global Leadership and US vs China Foreign Policy

The divergent foreign policy paths—the US focused on dramatic withdrawal and the defense of a liberal order, and China focused on quiet, pragmatic stability in its sphere of influence—will shape the future of global leadership.

China’s increasing engagement in regional conflict resolution is a crucial component of its broader strategic narrative, positioning itself as a responsible, development-focused great power. Its success in Myanmar Border Mediation and supporting the Cambodia-Thai Ceasefire demonstrates that global influence is increasingly projected not only through overt military strength but also through the effective, quiet application of economic and diplomatic leverage. For the non-partisan think tank community, the key takeaway is that the new challenge to Western-led stability is not solely military; it is a direct competition in the realm of effective statecraft. As the US struggles to find a consistent global posture, China’s model of Quiet Diplomacy provides a powerful counter-narrative, suggesting that localized, pragmatic peace is a more sustainable, if self-interested, basis for global influence than the costly, high-profile rhetoric of retreat.

Introduction

In a recent development that has sparked widespread interest and speculation, Qin Gang, China’s former Foreign Minister, has stepped down as a lawmaker. This move comes in the wake of his removal from the foreign ministry, raising questions about the reasons behind his departure from both positions. Let’s delve into the intricacies of this significant event and explore its implications.

Who is Qin Gang?
Qin Gang’s Background and Career Trajectory:
Qin Gang is a seasoned diplomat who has held various prominent positions within the Chinese government. His career spans decades, during which he has been involved in shaping China’s foreign policy and representing the country on the global stage. As a trusted aide to President Xi Jinping, Qin Gang’s influence extended beyond his role as Foreign Minister.

The Ousting of Qin Gang:
Reasons Behind Qin Gang’s Removal as Foreign Minister:
Qin Gang’s tenure as Foreign Minister was marked by both successes and controversies. His diplomatic approach and handling of key international issues drew mixed reactions, leading to speculation about internal power struggles within the Chinese leadership. The decision to remove him from his position sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles and raised questions about the direction of China’s foreign policy.

Qin Gang’s Transition to Lawmaking:
Qin Gang’s Appointment as a Lawmaker:
Following his removal as Foreign Minister, Qin Gang was appointed as a lawmaker in China’s legislative body. This move was seen as a strategic decision to maintain his influence within the political system despite his exit from the foreign ministry. However, his resignation from this position has added another layer of complexity to his political trajectory.

Factors Influencing Qin Gang’s Resignation:
Internal Politics and Power Dynamics:
The intricate web of political dynamics within the Chinese government likely played a significant role in Qin Gang’s decision to step down as a lawmaker. Speculations abound regarding potential conflicts of interest, disagreements with key figures, or shifts in policy priorities that may have prompted his departure. Understanding these internal factors is crucial to grasping the full context of his resignation.

Implications for China’s Foreign Policy:
Impact on China’s Diplomatic Relations:
Qin Gang’s departure from both the foreign ministry and his lawmaker position is expected to have ripple effects on China’s diplomatic engagements. His successor in the foreign ministry will inherit a complex landscape shaped by Qin Gang’s tenure, requiring adept navigation of existing relationships and potential challenges. Observers are closely monitoring how this transition will impact China’s stance on key global issues.

Conclusion:
The resignation of Qin Gang as a lawmaker following his removal as Foreign Minister marks a significant chapter in Chinese politics and diplomacy. The reasons behind his departure, the internal dynamics at play, and the implications for China’s foreign policy all contribute to a nuanced understanding of this event. As we continue to analyze these developments, one thing remains clear: Qin Gang’s exit has far-reaching consequences that will shape China’s future trajectory on the world stage.