If the rules don’t bind the powerful, small states are in trouble

Where do small nations stand in the new world order? As a small country, Singapore is not comforted by the global events that are taking place around the world, whether it is about the wars in Ukraine or the recent abduction of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. The signs are clear, small nations can be trampled on.

As a small country, Singapore benefits from a rule-based order and Singapore’s Senior Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong didn’t mince his words he spoke about the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. SM Lee offered a calm but firm rebuke. His comments at the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute weren’t just about Venezuela. They were about something much bigger — the uneasy feeling that the rules holding the world together are being stretched, bent, or ignored by those powerful enough to do so.

International law isn’t just fancy talk

When Lee said the U.S. action “is quite clearly a contravention of international law,” he wasn’t making a theoretical point for diplomats or lawyers. He was restating a principle Singapore has long stood by — those countries, big or small, are bound by shared rules under the UN Charter. For small states, this isn’t an abstract debate. If powerful countries can decide when the rules apply and when they don’t, the consequences aren’t academic. They’re real, and they’re frightening.

Why small countries are watching closely

Singapore’s concern is simple but deeply felt. If international law can be brushed aside without serious consequences, then the system that has helped keep relative global stability since World War II starts to crack. As Lee put it bluntly, from the perspective of a small country, “if that is the way the world works, we have a problem.” It’s a reminder that rules matter most to those who don’t have aircraft carriers or armies to fall back on.

Standing on principle, not posturing

What makes Lee’s remarks striking is what they are not. There’s no chest-thumping, no dramatic rhetoric. He recognised Venezuela’s core issues and didn’t turn the issue into a moral spectacle. Instead, his words were cautious but deliberate — military action engaged without an appropriate transnational directive — even against contentious leaders — produces doubts and ambiguity. It makes the world less predictable, and that unpredictability affects everyone.

A wider conversation is unfolding

Singapore is far from alone in this discomfort. Across the world, governments and international bodies, including within the United Nations, have raised similar concerns. The shared worry is that once international law is sidelined, others may feel justified in doing the same. And history shows how quickly that can spiral.

Looking at the bigger picture

Lee’s statement isn’t about rejecting the United States or questioning long-standing partnerships. It’s about consistency. International law only works if it applies to everyone, not just the weak. In an increasingly multipolar world, where rivalry between major powers is sharpening, Singapore — like many small states — is placing its faith in a rules-based order. One where outcomes are shaped by law and principle, not simply by who has the most power.