Introduction

In an era marked by the dissolution of the post-war liberal international order and the emergence of competing power centers, few voices offer as nuanced and strategically insightful a perspective as that of George Yeo, Singapore's former Minister for Foreign Affairs. Through his extensive diplomatic career, scholarly engagements, and his reflective three-volume series "Musings," Yeo has articulated a comprehensive philosophy for navigating what he terms the "birth pangs" of a multipolar world. His recent address at the Danube Institute's Geopolitical Summit, alongside his broader body of work, presents a sophisticated framework for understanding contemporary international relations—one rooted not in Western universalism or Eastern exceptionalism, but in the pragmatic wisdom of a small state that has successfully maintained its sovereignty amidst competing great powers.

This essay examines Yeo's intellectual contribution to contemporary geopolitical thought, analyzing how his perspective on multipolarity, identity, regional integration, and great power relations offers a distinctive "third way" for understanding and navigating the current international transition. Drawing from his Danube Institute remarks and the philosophical underpinnings of "Musings," this analysis explores how Yeo's framework—shaped by Singapore's unique position as a culturally diverse, economically dynamic, and strategically vulnerable city-state—provides valuable insights for understanding the structural transformation of global politics.

The Multipolar Transition: Not Decline, But Transformation

Central to Yeo's geopolitical philosophy is his interpretation of current global tensions not as symptoms of systemic decline, but as the inevitable friction of a fundamental structural transformation. In contrast to declinist narratives that dominate much Western discourse, Yeo frames contemporary international turbulence—from US-China rivalry to the Ukraine conflict—as "birth pangs of a new world emerging." This metaphor is significant: it suggests pain inherent to creation rather than pathology leading to dissolution.

At the Danube Institute summit, Yeo articulated this perspective with characteristic clarity when discussing the collapse of the liberal world order. Rather than lamenting this transition, he emphasized the opportunities emerging for mid-sized states, non-aligned actors, and alternative diplomatic coalitions in a more fluid international environment. This reflects a core principle in his thinking: that the unipolar moment following the Cold War was itself an historical anomaly, and that the return to multipolarity represents not aberration but normalization.

Yeo's framework challenges the binary thinking that has characterized much analysis of contemporary geopolitics. He rejects the notion that we face a choice between continued American hegemony and Chinese dominance, instead envisioning a world where multiple centers of power coexist and interact through complex, overlapping networks of influence and interest. (zhong), the character that represents balance and centrality in Chinese philosophy, is implicit in this vision. It suggests that stability in a multipolar world necessitates equilibrium rather than hierarchy. The implications of this perspective are profound. Strategies aimed at "restoring" the previous order are not only futile but also potentially dangerous if the current transition is structural rather than pathological because they seek to reverse historical momentum rather than channel it constructively. According to Yeo's analysis, rather than eliminating complexity, acceptance of multipolarity's inevitableness and the creation of frameworks for managing it are necessary for success in this new era. Singapore's Paradigm: Diversity as Strategy

Prof. George Yeo on China

Yeo's understanding of multipolarity is deeply informed by Singapore's own experience as what he describes as "the most ASEAN-ised of all ASEAN countries"—a crystalline reflection of Southeast Asian diversity within a single city-state. Throughout "Musings," Yeo returns repeatedly to the theme of Singapore's internal diversity as both challenge and strategic asset. This is not merely descriptive sociology but a foundational element of his geopolitical philosophy.

The Chinese, Malay, Indian, and Eurasian communities that make up Singapore's population all share a common national project while maintaining distinct cultural identities. For Yeo, this internal diversity has been crucial to Singapore's ability to maintain relationships across civilizational divides. He is describing a capacity that was developed through managing internal pluralism when he discusses Singapore's role as a neutral platform where different powers feel comfortable engaging. Yeo's investigation of identity politics in the modern world is guided by this principle. "Everyone of us has multiple identities and they're precious," he says in "Musings." This philosophical stance directly challenges both nationalist essentialism and cosmopolitan universalism. Yeo argues that individuals and nations can simultaneously maintain particular cultural identities while engaging productively across difference—a position informed by his own experience as someone who describes his values as "Chinese and Christian."

The strategic implications of this diversity paradigm are significant. Yeo has consistently argued that Singapore must carefully distinguish its cultural Chinese character from its political identity as an independent, sovereign, multiracial state. Maintaining trust with ASEAN neighbors who have historically questioned the loyalties of overseas Chinese communities has required this distinction. Singapore was able to play such a delicate role in the historic 2015 meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou because of its reputation for managing complex identities. For Yeo, diversity is not merely something to be tolerated but actively cultivated as a source of strategic flexibility. A nation that can authentically engage with multiple civilizational perspectives possesses diplomatic range unavailable to more homogeneous societies. This principle, developed from Singapore's experience, offers a model for how mid-sized powers can navigate a multipolar world where rigid alignment with a single bloc may prove constraining.

President Trump's Tariff to China

ASEAN and the Architecture of Regional Order

Yeo's philosophy of regional architecture is perhaps best captured in his oft-quoted observation that "ASEAN is held together not by love but by fear." This stark assessment, delivered in a 1993 speech and elaborated throughout his subsequent career, reveals a sophisticated understanding of how institutional cooperation emerges not from idealistic harmony but from pragmatic necessity.

The escalation of the Vietnam War and Indonesia's conflict with Malaysia and Singapore, as well as territorial disputes, prompted the formation of ASEAN in 1967. Yet it was precisely these conflicts that generated the imperative for some framework of regional cooperation. As Yeo explains, ASEAN came together because individual Southeast Asian nations feared becoming client states of competing great powers. The genius of the organization was not in reducing these tensions but rather in developing a platform for managing them. This understanding informs Yeo's consistent advocacy for ASEAN centrality in the emerging regional order. Yeo describes the European Union as "hard and rule-based," whereas ASEAN uses mechanisms that seek consensus and save face. Yeo sees this flexibility as strategic wisdom, recognizing that in a diverse region with deep historical animosities, rigid rules would break rather than bind. While critics frequently view this flexibility as a weakness, Yeo sees it as strength. At the Danube Institute summit, Yeo emphasized the opportunities emerging for mid-sized states in a multipolar environment. This entails utilizing collective weight to preserve strategic autonomy for ASEAN. The key is remaining a "neutral platform friendly to all major powers." When ASEAN maintains this neutrality, major powers have incentive to support ASEAN unity and integration, as each seeks to prevent rivals from dominating the region.

This principle has profound implications for how ASEAN engages with great power competition. Yeo has argued time and time again that ASEAN needs to be "reluctant to ASEAN-ise bilateral problems that individual ASEAN countries may have with major powers." The organization's strength lies not in confronting great powers but in providing a framework where small and medium powers can maintain agency. When the Philippines unilaterally took China to arbitration over South China Sea disputes, for example, Yeo noted that this action, while within Philippine sovereign rights, risked politicizing ASEAN in ways that could undermine its role as neutral convener.

For Singapore specifically, Yeo sees ASEAN membership as essential to national security. "I saw our national interest best achieved in cooperation with ASEAN," he writes in "Musings." There could be occasions when we had to move first or faster, or sometimes slowly, but we should never act in a way which separates or detaches us from ASEAN." This reflects a fundamental principle: that Singapore's vulnerability as a small state is best managed through regional integration that multiplies its strategic weight while diluting perceptions of it as a Chinese satellite state in Southeast Asia.

The World Is Now Multipolar - George Yeo

Asia Society: China & America in the NEW WORLD ECONOMY

China's Rise and the Art of Strategic Balance

Yeo's analysis of China's role in the emerging multipolar order has garnered more attention and occasional controversy than any other aspect of his geopolitical thinking. A framework that transcends simplistic narratives of either Chinese threat or Chinese benevolence is provided by Yeo's perspective, developed over decades of diplomatic engagement with Beijing and extensively articulated in "Musings" and various speeches. Instead of making ideological projections, Yeo's method for comprehending China begins with philosophical and historical context. He frequently references Chinese strategic thought, particularly Sun Tzu's maxim "in war, prepare for peace; in peace, prepare for war," to illuminate Beijing's approach to international relations. This is not to suggest Chinese policy is predetermined by ancient texts, but rather that understanding Chinese strategic culture requires appreciating its philosophical foundations.

Central to Yeo's analysis is his characterization of China through the concept of 中 (zhong)—balance and centrality. China's self-conception, he argues, is fundamentally as a balanced state, neither seeking hegemony nor accepting subordination. This stands in stark contrast to American strategic culture, which developed as a result of geographical isolation and subsequent globalization. Understanding this difference is crucial to managing US-China relations constructively.

The Modern China

At the Danube Institute summit, Yeo addressed the strategic friendship between Russia and China, noting that both powers face Western pressure and therefore maintain alignment despite divergent interests. He explained China's carefully calibrated position on Ukraine, describing it as "55 to 45, sometimes 60 to 40, sometimes 53 to 47, but never 50 to 50." This characterization captures Yeo's understanding of Chinese statecraft: Beijing maintains strategic flexibility through calibrated positions that preserve options while avoiding commitments that could prove constraining.

Critically, Yeo argues that a multipolar world is ultimately in both China's and America's interests, though neither power may initially embrace this reality. For China, multipolarity provides the international environment where it can achieve great power status without confronting the costs of seeking global hegemony. For the United States, accepting multipolarity allows it to focus resources on areas where its influence remains decisive rather than exhausting itself attempting to maintain dominance everywhere.

This perspective informs Yeo's advice to China: that it should "act in a way which, over time, persuades the US that the kind of multipolarity China envisages is also good for the US." Similarly, he counsels American strategists to "take a more relaxed attitude," accepting regions "for what they are, warts and all, and not try to transform them in its own image." Both prescriptions reflect his conviction that the transition to multipolarity can be managed peacefully if major powers adjust expectations and strategies accordingly.

Regarding Taiwan, Yeo takes a position that reflects both realism and empathy. He acknowledges the deep emotional significance of the issue for mainland China while recognizing that "independence is an illusion" for Taiwan given geopolitical realities. Yet he also notes that in Taiwan's recent elections, roughly 60 percent voted against the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party, suggesting that pragmatism rather than nationalist passion may guide Taiwanese choices. Yeo's hope is that maintaining current ambiguities while expanding practical cooperation across the strait may eventually render the formal status question less urgent.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Emerging Institutions

When asked at the Danube Institute whether the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) could energize the formation of a "real new Eastern bloc," Yeo's response revealed his vision for emerging institutional architecture in a multipolar world. He affirmed that the SCO states, representing a majority of the world's population and fast-growing economies, would indeed become increasingly significant. However, his framing of their purpose is crucial: "The idea is not to be anti-Western. The idea is to keep the West honest."

This formulation encapsulates Yeo's understanding of how institutional multipolarity should function. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the SCO, and the BRICS are examples of new organizations that are not meant to take the place of Western-led institutions but rather to provide alternatives that restrain the Western monopoly on rule-making and resource allocation. The objective is not conflict, but rather equilibrium, which means preventing any one group from imposing its preferences on others through institutional dominance. Yeo's perspective here reflects his broader conviction that institutional pluralism is healthier than institutional monopoly. Resentment grows and legitimacy is eroded when the United States can use the G7 or IMF to impose decisions on non-Western nations without meaningful consultation. Alternative institutions provide negotiating leverage for developing countries while encouraging Western-led organizations to remain responsive to broader membership interests.

This does not mean Yeo advocates for institutional fragmentation. Rather, he envisions overlapping networks where countries maintain memberships in multiple institutions, each serving particular functions. Singapore has strong ties to both Western and non-Western powers and participates in ASEAN, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and various bilateral free trade agreements. Yeo's conviction that in a multipolar world, rigid bloc politics represent vulnerability rather than security is reflected in this multi-vector engagement. Strategic Autonomy and the Small State Perhaps the most distinctive element of Yeo's geopolitical philosophy is his perspective on how small states navigate great power competition—a perspective informed directly by Singapore's experience but with broader applicability. In "Musings," he employs a vivid metaphor: "We are a price-taker. We have to accept the world for what it is, not for what we wish it to be. We are like a raft flowing down the river. The better we understand what's ahead, the more we can get into a good position early and avoid being sucked into a vortex but instead gain from the momentum."

This raft metaphor is rich with implications. It acknowledges radical constraint—a small state cannot determine the river's course—while emphasizing the agency available through skillful navigation. The key is anticipation and positioning: understanding emerging currents before they become overwhelming, and maneuvering to exploit rather than resist momentum. This requires what Yeo calls "strategic intuition"—the capacity to sense shifts in the international environment before they become obvious.

For Singapore, this has meant maintaining relationships across geopolitical divides while avoiding rigid alignments. Yeo emphasizes the city-state's efforts to make itself valuable to all major powers through various channels when discussing Singapore's approach to relations with major powers. It serves as a financial hub connecting East and West, a logistics nexus for global trade, a trusted venue for sensitive diplomatic engagements, and a reliable partner in regional security cooperation.

Critically, this strategy requires what Yeo terms "strategic ambiguity"—not in the sense of deceptive opacity, but in avoiding commitments that would limit future flexibility. When asked to choose sides, Singapore's consistent response has been to advocate for rule-based order and peaceful resolution of disputes while avoiding positions that would alienate major powers. Observers seeking alignment clarity find this tactic to be frustrating, but it demonstrates Singapore's determination to maintain maximum maneuverability. Yeo's framework suggests that in a multipolar world, the small state's optimal strategy is to make itself indispensable to multiple powers for different reasons, ensuring that no single power can afford to see it fail or fall into rival orbit. This requires cultivating distinctive capabilities—Singapore's efficiency, rule of law, connectivity, and internal stability all serve this purpose—while maintaining sufficient internal cohesion to resist external pressure for alignment.

Economic Statecraft and Connectivity

Throughout his diplomatic career and in "Musings," Yeo has emphasized economic engagement as the foundation of Singapore's foreign policy. This is not just pragmatism; rather, it is a philosophical conviction that, when properly managed, economic interdependence can encourage peaceful coexistence even in the face of political strife. This principle is demonstrated by Singapore's strategy toward China. Yeo played a key role in promoting the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, recognizing that economic integration would provide Southeast Asian nations leverage in managing China's rise. By encouraging China to offer favorable terms that demonstrated its commitment to regional prosperity, ASEAN countries gained both economic benefits and political reassurance. Similarly, Singapore's bilateral FTA with China went beyond the regional agreement, reflecting Singapore's strategy of deepening ties while maintaining distinctiveness.

Yeo's most audacious economic-diplomatic initiative may have been facilitating the 2013 Agreement between Singapore and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Partnership (ASTEP). This carefully named agreement allowed Singapore to maintain an FTA with Taiwan while managing Beijing's sensitivities—a feat possible only because of accumulated trust that Singapore's relationship with Taiwan would "help and not hinder eventual reunification." In 2015, Singapore was able to host the historic Xi-Ma meeting because of this trust. These examples illustrate Yeo's conviction that economic engagement creates frameworks for managing political tensions. When countries have substantial economic stakes in each other's prosperity, the costs of confrontation increase. This principle is essential to the survival of a small nation like Singapore: economic indispensibility gives rise to political stability. Yeo's vision of a multipolar world is one where dense networks of economic interdependence constrain the pursuit of hegemony by any single power.

Values, Civilization, and the Limits of Universalism

A recurring theme in Yeo's work is his critique of universalist ideologies—both Western liberalism's claim to represent human nature's culmination and nationalist particularism's rejection of common humanity. His position emerges from Singapore's experience managing diversity within a small space and from his own intellectual engagement with multiple philosophical traditions.

In "Musings," Yeo frequently discusses his dual identity as Chinese and Christian, showing how these traditions can coexist within a single individual while maintaining their distinctiveness. His conviction that civilizational dialogue is possible without requiring civilizational convergence is reflected in this personal synthesis. Different societies will organize themselves according to different values, emphasizing individual versus collective goods differently, and structuring state-society relations along varied lines.

This perspective underlies Yeo's skepticism about democracy promotion as foreign policy. Even though he places a high value on Singapore's system, which he describes as democratic but distinctively Asian, he questions whether it would be wise to attempt to export any political model. He argues that such endeavors exhibit profound arrogance regarding the universality of specific historical experiences and frequently result in a backlash that jeopardizes both local reform movements and international stability. At the Danube Institute summit, this theme connected to broader discussions about the future of international institutions. Yeo's advocacy for institutional pluralism reflects his conviction that a single set of global rules reflecting Western values is neither achievable nor desirable. Instead, a multipolar world requires frameworks that accommodate different value systems while establishing baseline rules for coexistence—much as ASEAN accommodates profound internal diversity through flexible consensus-seeking rather than rigid constitutionalism.

Yeo does not adhere to moral relativism as a result of this. While recognizing that their application necessitates contextual judgment, he consistently advocates for certain principles, such as territorial integrity, peaceful dispute resolution, and respect for sovereignty. The goal is pragmatic coexistence among different value systems rather than either universal homogeneity or civilizational confrontation.

Taijigong and the Spiritual Dimension: The Qi Field Yeo's discussion of taijigong and the concept of the qi field is one of the most intriguing aspects of "Musings." These topics may appear to be unrelated to geopolitical analysis, but Yeo believes that they are extremely important for comprehending personal and social dynamics. This dimension of his thought reflects his conviction that materialism alone cannot explain human behavior or social outcomes.

Yeo describes how practice of taijigong—a Chinese internal martial art emphasizing energy cultivation and balance—has influenced his understanding of conflict and harmony. The principle of using an opponent's force against them, central to taijiquan philosophy, parallels his approach to geopolitics: working with rather than against prevailing currents, seeking to channel momentum rather than confront it directly.

More broadly, Yeo's discussion of the qi field—the energetic atmosphere that shapes individual and collective behavior—suggests his belief that intangible factors like trust, confidence, and collective psychology profoundly influence social and political outcomes. His emphasis on the significance of symbolic gestures in international relations, the role of cultural understanding in successful statecraft, and the significance of "atmosphere" in diplomatic negotiations are informed by this perspective. This spiritual or philosophical dimension distinguishes Yeo's worldview from the rationalist materialism that dominates much Western strategic thought. It is a reflection of an Asian intellectual tradition that places an emphasis on intuition rather than analysis and views reality as consisting of both material and immaterial dimensions. For Yeo, effective leadership requires sensitivity to these intangible dimensions—a capacity developed through contemplative practice and refined through experience.

Conclusion: Wisdom for an Age of Uncertainty

George Yeo's contribution to contemporary geopolitical thought lies not in proposing a comprehensive theory of international relations but in offering wisdom—grounded in experience, informed by philosophy, and tested through Singapore's successful navigation of great power competition. His framework, articulated at forums like the Danube Institute summit and elaborated in "Musings," provides crucial insights for understanding and managing the current international transition.

Several principles stand out as particularly valuable:

First, the recognition that multipolarity represents normalization rather than disorder. Viewing current tensions as birth pangs rather than death throes enables more constructive engagement with emerging realities.

Second, the understanding that diversity—whether within societies or among nations—can be leveraged as strategic asset rather than merely tolerated as unavoidable liability. This requires moving beyond both assimilationist and separatist approaches toward genuine pluralism.

Third, the conviction that institutional architecture should enable management of competition rather than seek its elimination. Tensions are merely channeled through peaceful frameworks by emerging bodies like the SCO and regional organizations like ASEAN. Fourth, the insight that small and medium powers can maintain agency through strategic positioning and by making themselves valuable to multiple powers for different reasons. This requires avoiding rigid alignments while cultivating distinctive capabilities.

Fifth, the recognition that economic interdependence, properly managed, creates incentives for peaceful coexistence even amidst political tensions. Integration is not panacea but can raise costs of confrontation.

Finally, the acknowledgment that different civilizations will organize themselves according to different values, and that sustainable international order must accommodate this diversity rather than seek to eliminate it through imposed uniformity.

As the world navigates this "intertidal period," in Yeo's phrase, characterized by the recession of one order before another fully emerges, his philosophy offers a navigational framework grounded in balance, flexibility, and pragmatic wisdom rather than ideological rigidity. The question is not whether multipolarity will arrive—Yeo considers this inevitable—but whether the transition can be managed peacefully. His work suggests that success requires accepting complexity rather than seeking to eliminate it, cultivating understanding across civilizational divides, and developing institutional frameworks that enable coexistence among different power centers and value systems.

For scholars, policymakers, and citizens seeking to understand the emerging international order, Yeo's musings provide not definitive answers but the right questions and a framework for thinking through them. In an age of competing grand theories and ideological certainties, this pragmatic wisdom—rooted in Singapore's experience navigating between great powers while maintaining sovereignty—may prove more valuable than comprehensive blueprints for world order. The raft metaphor remains apt: we cannot determine the river's course, but skillful navigation can mean the difference between disaster and opportunity.

This essay synthesizes Professor George Yeo's perspectives as articulated in his Danube Institute appearances, his three-volume "Musings" series, and his broader body of speeches and writings on geopolitical affairs. It reflects his characteristic approach of combining strategic analysis with philosophical reflection, pragmatic realism with cultural sensitivity, and small-state vulnerability with diplomatic agency.