Singapore, 2008

The collapse of the recent

Doha talks is deeply troubling. The Doha Development

Round was the first round of talks to be launched after

the end of the cold war.

Two years after the failed start at Seattle, it was

launched again two months after 11 September 2001,

when member countries of the World Trade

Organization (WTO) felt a strong sense of common

cause. Since then, however, progress has been

painfully difficult. I remember WTO Director-General

Pascal Lamy telling me that not enough countries felt a

sense of responsibility for the global trading system.

The recent setback in Geneva means that it will be

some time before the Doha Development Round can be

concluded.

During the Cold War, the United States and the

European Union effectively led the global trading

system of the non-communist world. In 1994, the

Uruguay Round was finally concluded after United

States and European negotiators struck a bargain at

Blair House, much to the unhappiness of many

countries that felt excluded but went along nonetheless.

For the Doha Development Agenda, however, a

number of developing country members were

determined that this should not happen again.

08-53135 10

Brazil played a leading role in forming the Group

of Twenty (G-20) coalition of countries, including

India and China. At the Cancún talks in September

2003, the G-20 became a grouping whose position

could not be ignored, altering the traditional dynamics

of multilateral trade negotiations. When the talks failed

in July, it was apparently over the issues of agricultural

safeguards for China and India, but even if a

compromise over safeguards had been possible, United

States cotton subsidies, which were next on the agenda,

would still have been a major sticking point.

The failure of the Geneva talks comes at a time

when the global economy is rapidly slowing down.

Many of us worry that the downturn will be severe

because of the collapse of huge asset bubbles inflated

over many years by loose monetary policies.

Protectionist pressures will now build up in many

countries. A rise in trade protectionism could reduce

global welfare by many billions of dollars. Our

collective efforts to achieve the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) have become much

harder.

Who takes responsibility for the global trading

system? Who takes responsibility for the global

system? While on paper the 153 WTO members make

decisions by consensus, the reality is that a small group

of countries has to take the lead to keep the multilateral

trading system moving in the right direction. On no

major issue confronting the human family can

decisions be taken without the major countries taking

the lead. The challenge of climate change, for example,

cannot be tackled without the major emitters coming to

some broad agreement on the way forward. If the Doha

Round, despite being a positive-sum game, is so

difficult to conclude, it is hard to be optimistic that a

United Nations agreement on climate change can be

negotiated quickly without the exercise of strong

leadership by the United States, Europe, Russia, China,

India, Japan and Brazil. If they could not or would not

exercise such leadership on global trade, can we expect

them to do so on climate change?

The emerging multipolar reality of the twenty-

first century is a fact that we have to face squarely.

International institutions like the United Nations can

only function well when we accept that reality and

work with it. As a small country, Singapore accepts

that while all countries, big or small, have a single vote

each, we do not all carry the same weight. Small

countries need the United Nations and other

international institutions to protect our interests, and

we therefore have every interest in making sure that

those institutions are effective. They can work well

only if the world’s multipolar reality is taken into

account. The Forum of Small States, which is an

informal grouping of more than half the United Nations

membership, takes a realistic view of global politics

because that is the only way to secure our own

interests.

Recent developments in the Balkans and

Caucasus do not bode well for the future. After the

crimes committed against the Kosovar people in the

1990s, many countries expressed sympathy and

supported some form of autonomy for them. However,

Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in

February was greeted with a certain discomfort

because of the precedent it set for other parts of the

world. I remember Association of Southeast Asian

Nations (ASEAN) foreign ministers discussing Kosovo

at our retreat in Singapore in February. While we

supported autonomy for the Kosovar people, we felt it

premature to recognize Kosovo’s independence at that

point in time. There was strong preference for the issue

to be resolved by the United Nations.

Russia’s recent recognition of South Ossetia and

Abkhazia as independent States is also unsettling.

Some analysts see it as Russia’s response to western

support for Kosovo’s independence. While the issue of

Kosovo and the disputes in South Ossetia and

Abkhazia are different and should not be directly

linked, we do have a common concern, which is the

role of the United Nations in conferring legitimacy on

new States. If this century is to be peaceful, it is crucial

that all countries, big and small, abjure violence and

adhere to the Charter of the United Nations and to the

international rule of law.

The relaxation of tensions across the Taiwan

Straits in the past few months serves as a positive

example of how intractable problems from the past can

be creatively transcended with wisdom, goodwill and

patience. Sometimes impatience is its own worst

enemy. After 90 years, the collapse of the Ottoman

Empire has left some problems still unresolved in parts

of its former domain. We cannot expect all the issues

thrown up by the end of the cold war and the break-up

of the Soviet Union to be quickly overcome. What we

know is that, without the United Nations setting

acceptable norms of behaviour, there will be many

more problems in the world and some of the problems

11 08-53135

we now face will become far worse. Universally agreed

human rights are important precisely because they

underpin those norms of good behaviour.

However, the realpolitik of big Power rivalry

cannot simply be wished away; indeed, it has been part

of the human condition for most of our history.

However, we can confine that rivalry and, by a

combination of pressures, prevent any Power from

pushing its claim excessively. International institutions

like the United Nations play a civilizing role in such

efforts. International institutions cannot stop big Power

rivalry, but they can channel it and ensure that the

common interests of the human family are not

completely disregarded.

For that reason, the smaller countries have a

strong vested interest in seeing international

institutions strengthened. The reform of the United

Nations to take into account the changes in the world

since the end of the Second World War is an absolute

necessity; so, too, is reform of the other Bretton Woods

institutions. Either we reform them to forestall crises or

we wait for crises to force change upon us. For

example, if the present global economic downturn is

the once-in-a-century event Alan Greenspan talked

about, then bringing China and India into the Group of

Eight and making the International Monetary Fund and

World Bank more representative of the global economy

today become matters of urgency.

We can also make international institutions more

effective by partnership with regional institutions.

Every region has its own distinctive characteristics

which must be taken into account.

When Cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar in May, there

was for many precious days a stand-off between the

Myanmar Government and the international community

over the provision of assistance. Western warships

bearing relief supplies were viewed with suspicion by a

Government that saw not the supplies but a military

threat. It was absurd that such suspicions got in the

way of soldiers helping cyclone victims in the

Irrawaddy Delta. ASEAN had to step in and build a

bridge of trust between the Myanmar Government and

the international community. A tripartite organization

involving the United Nations, ASEAN and the

Myanmar Government worked effectively day by day

to overcome problems on the ground and ensure that

international aid reached the furthest corners of the

affected area. That prevented a second wave of deaths

from hunger or disease. ASEAN on its own did not

have the capabilities to help Myanmar in a major way,

but ASEAN working together with the United Nations

and other international agencies was able to make a

huge difference.

With globalization, there has been a

mushrooming of regional institutions around the world.

Some have come to play useful roles in fostering

regional peace and development. The United Nations

and other international agencies can multiply their

effectiveness by working closely with such regional

institutions.

While international and regional institutions can

provide a more conducive environment, the key to a

country’s development is its own good governance.

Because every country has its own unique history,

there is no universal model of development applicable

to all countries. Every country must find its own road

to the future.

At the closing of the Olympic Games in Beijing,

the President of the International Olympic Committee,

Jacques Rogge, described China’s hosting of the

Games as truly exceptional. Indeed, from beginning to

end, the organization was superb — from the

spectacular opening ceremony to the hospitality

extended to individual delegations. Everyone was

impressed, and rightly so. That was a Chinese dream

come true, and the world doffed its hat to the

achievement of the Chinese people. Thirty years ago,

all that would have been inconceivable, even to the

Chinese themselves. What has changed? Good

governance and the right policies in place have

unleashed the natural talents of over a billion people.

India, with a different history and political

system, is also making remarkable progress. Here

again, the right policies, introduced less than 20 years

ago, have made a profound difference. Indeed, across

all of Asia, from the Bering Straits to the Gulf, an

ancient continent, encompassing more than half the

world’s population, is stirring again. Although highly

diverse, the countries of Asia are being reconnected by

a new East-West trade in a new age of globalization. To

be sure, not all are doing well. Among those that are,

and they are many, a recent report by the Commission

on Growth and Development, chaired by Nobel

laureate Michael Spence, identified effective

government as a critical factor. In a surprising

departure from Western conventional wisdom, the

08-53135 12

report did not see democracy as either a necessary or a

sufficient condition, at least not in the initial phase of

economic take-off.

That is an important insight which can help the

work of international and regional institutions in

promoting national development. If we set as our

objective the promotion of democracy, the reaction

among many countries will instinctively be negative.

However, if we set as our objective the promotion of

effective government, our task will be much easier. Let

each country, after having achieved a certain level of

development, then evolve the form of democracy best

suited to its culture and history. In a recent speech,

President of the World Bank Robert Zoellick hit it on

the head when he emphasized that the strategic centre

of gravity is to build legitimacy through good and

effective governance.

However, for development to take place, there

must be peace. Without continuing peace in Asia, we

will not be able to realize the promise of this century.

The thoughtful manner in which the United States is

managing its strategic relationship with a rising China

and India is of decisive importance. It is rare in history

for new Powers to emerge without conflict. China and

India are becoming responsible stakeholders in the

global system. That many of the sons and daughters of

Chinese and Indian leaders choose to study in

American universities gives us reason to be cautiously

optimistic about the future of Asia.

We cannot stop rivalry among the big Powers, but

we can limit the harm that rivalry does to smaller

countries. In fact, smaller countries can turn the

emerging multipolarity to advantage if we combine our

strengths in regional and international institutions.

Among those, the most important is, of course, the

United Nations.

We still need global leadership, but it has to be by

a new concert of big Powers going beyond the United

States, Europe and Japan. It has to be a new kind of

leadership exercised in a transparent manner through

both hard and soft power, and preferably through

regional and international institutions. Writing about

the Beijing Olympics in The Wall Street Journal on

26 August, Tony Blair said: “The truth is that nothing

in the twenty-first century will work well without

China’s full engagement”. The same can be said of

Russia, India and Brazil. While the United States will

long remain dominant, a more inclusive global

arrangement will make this a better and safer world for

all of us.