Prime
US-Singapore relations: Questioning commitment to climate crisis solutions, a model for Africa?
A woman passes by a #COP29 sign during the United Nations climate change conference COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan November 11, 2024.
Recent events suggest a disconnect between diplomatic rhetoric and genuine climate action among first-world representatives. The alarming case of the US Ambassador to Singapore Jonathan Kaplan offers a telling example - despite representing one of the world's wealthiest nations in a climate-vulnerable region, concrete climate initiatives remain notably absent from his tenure.
In an unusual diplomatic intervention, Singapore's Law and Home Affairs Minister since 2008, Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam has defended Kaplan, just towards the conclusion of COP29 in Baku, where both nations struggled to find common ground on climate initiatives. Kaplan's tenure has been marked by an inability to deliver on climate cooperation between the US and Singapore and reportedly strained relationships with local ministries.
The State Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, released March 1, exposed concerns about the embassy's work culture. According to the February 2024 evaluation, Kaplan's "poor relationships" with several Singaporean ministries have hampered America's diplomatic objectives, including potential climate partnerships between the two nations.
These diplomatic tensions are significant in light of COP29's mixed outcomes. The summit on November 22 highlighted the growing urgency for stronger bilateral climate partnerships, particularly between developed nations and vulnerable regions like Southeast Asia and Africa.
The lack of progress in the US-Singapore climate initiatives mirrors broader challenges faced at the Baku summit, where ambitious climate goals met with implementation hurdles and funding gaps.
Poor outcomes
Shanmugam’s defense of Kaplan as someone who "tried to ensure that the relationship between the two countries continues to be strong" not only contradicts the ambassador’s troubled track record but also implicates the minister in enabling a diplomatic approach that has yielded poor outcomes.
By publicly endorsing Kaplan despite the documented failures, Shanmugam appears complicit in allowing ineffective and self-serving diplomacy to persist, undermining the broader interests of both nations.
The report uncovered even more troubling findings about Ambassador Kaplan's conduct during his tenure, highlighting how he prioritized personal interests over diplomatic responsibilities.
According to the report, Kaplan “developed poor relationships with some [Singaporean] ministries and his actions, in some cases, hurt progress on ICS goals and objectives.” Instead of advancing U.S. foreign policy, his behaviour reportedly undermined embassy operations and strained relationships with key Singaporean ministries.
The report also detailed Kaplan's abusive treatment of foreign service officers, accusing him of creating a hostile work environment. One incident involved directing staff to organize a costly reception supporting Ukraine, featuring a concert by a professional pianist who was a personal friend of Kaplan. The event forced the embassy to scale back funding for other public diplomacy programs “that might have more effectively advanced US interests in Singapore.”
Additionally, Kaplan was found to have authorized embassy funds in unjustified frivolous spending for his residence. The findings underscore a pattern of mismanagement and misuse of resources, raising questions about accountability in diplomatic leadership.
Despite Singapore's position as a key regional partner and its vocal commitment to climate action, having even announced a $500 million decarbonization fund for Asia at Cop29 on November 12, no concrete climate projects have materialized under Kaplan's and Shanmugam’s tenure.
The lack of progress on climate initiatives is particularly noteworthy given Singapore's vulnerability to climate change as a low-lying island nation and its role as a regional financial hub that could potentially channel climate investments.
While the US-Singapore climate partnership announced in June 2023 signalled promising intentions, the initiative has yet to yield concrete projects. Under Minister Shanmugam's leadership and Kaplan as the US ambassador, climate collaboration has taken a back seat to other bilateral priorities, despite both nations acknowledging climate change as a critical concern.
The defense of Ambassador Kaplan's environmental record faces scrutiny given the absence of tangible climate initiatives during this period. The gap between diplomatic declarations and actual implementation raises questions about the partnership's effectiveness in advancing climate goals. With no specific projects launched since the announcement, the partnership remains largely aspirational rather than operational.
Climate commitments
This situation reflects a broader pattern of climate commitments being overshadowed by competing diplomatic priorities in the US-Singapore relationship. The lack of demonstrable progress in joint climate action suggests a disconnect between stated environmental ambitions and their practical execution in bilateral cooperation.
It is the same playbook with the US-Africa climate relations: USAID's September 2023 pledge of $2.1 million for Tanzania's coastal resilience now hangs in uncertainty amid America's own political shifts.
The initiative, designed to strengthen coastal communities against climate impacts, has yet to materialize. The change in US leadership, marked by scepticism toward climate science, casts shadows over this and other climate commitments to Africa.
The annual U.S.-Africa Climate Innovation Week serves as a telling example of this pattern. Despite regular meetings and bold declarations, the gathering has failed to produce concrete climate projects or significant financial support across the continent. The disconnect between diplomatic ceremony and actual implementation grows more pronounced with each passing year.
According to Michael Hass, author of Why Democracies Flounder and Fail, while Singapore has elections and political parties, giving it the appearance of a democracy, the government has systematically eroded civil society, evolving into a totalitarian state. This shift has prompted an increasing number of educated citizens to leave the country in search of genuine democratic freedoms.
The book reveals that “pressure groups have been outlawed, the media is controlled by the government with considerable censorship, efforts at thought control have been undertaken, the educational system and the military are tightly controlled, courts are politicised, and the government has even sought to control marriage practices.”
The outcome has been a corporatist government marked by corruption, injustice, social deviance, systemic brainwashing, deepening inequality, poverty, and discriminatory practices such as racism and sexism, all of which have fueled an exodus of its educated population. Even housing remains tightly controlled by the state.
Alarmingly, Singapore's model is being touted as a blueprint for China and many of its tactics for subverting democracy mirror strategies employed by Donald Trump during his presidency in the United States.
