Singapore

First, I would like to congratulate His Excellency Mr. Jean Ping of Gabon, on his election as the President of the General Assembly. We meet in New York under conditions of high security. All over the world, Governments, corporations and individuals are allocating vast resources to combat terrorism. The Beslan massacre last month and the Jakarta bombing two weeks ago remind us once again that the war against terrorism is a long struggle. Fighting it requires us to cooperate worldwide. It is also important for us to understand more deeply why terrorists are prepared to sacrifice their own lives to take the lives of others, including those of innocent children. The human condition has not changed. There is in human beings a restless, competitive spirit that strives to get ahead, make discoveries and order or reorder the world according to their values and world-view. It is a drive that can lead to great good or great evil. The greatest evil is often committed out of a sense of self-righteousness. That has been the case throughout history. Al Qaeda carries out its actions in the name of Islam, which is a gross perversion. Religious wars are the most cruel because human beings are maimed and killed in the name of the divine. Ethnic and ideological conflicts sometimes turn 30 genocidal when one side believes that right is completely on its side. Unrestrained economic competition can also lead to grave injustice. Without rules, ruthless economic competition will return us to the jungle. Without the World Trade Organization (WTO), globalization can become a tool with which the strong can dominate the weak, just as in an earlier period entire continents were carved up by imperial Powers. Global organizations like the United Nations and WTO give us hope that this century can be more civilized than previous ones. We need rules that put limits on our competitiveness in the political and economic arenas. As in the Olympic Games, clear rules and their rigorous enforcement enable individuals to compete fiercely and triumph within a framework of sportsmanship and fairness. The rules are not there to dampen our natural competitive spirit, but to direct it towards positive achievement. But the rules have to be determined by common agreement. Their legitimacy is derived from the shared values that bind participants together. They have to evolve, along with our evolving sense of what is fair and proper. They cannot be imposed. If they are imposed, what we have will not be the Olympics but the gladiatorial pits of the Roman Colosseum. At the most fundamental level, discussions and debates in the United Nations and WTO are really about the values that bind us together as human beings. As the world grows smaller, our sense of interdependence grows. As we interact more, we discover that we are more similar than we think. So many problems like global warming, epidemics and terrorism can only be overcome if we work together. So many new opportunities can only be fully exploited if we combine our efforts. Yes, we have become closer. We celebrated together when for the first time the human genome was mapped a few years ago. We grieved as one on 11 September 2001. The slaughter of children at Beslan outraged us all. But will we ever be the same? That is not possible. It is neither in our biological nature nor in the nature of the historical process for human societies to converge and become identical. Even the same society changes over time in response to changing conditions. There is in each and everyone of us a deep desire to be free, to experiment and to be better than others around us. Like all forms of energy, human energy must be channelled so that it is constructive and not destructive. That is the challenge of governance at all levels, from the village all the way to global institutions. With the world becoming a village because of the ease of travel and instant communication, the design of global institutions is very important. They help us solve problems which we cannot solve individually and set limits on acceptable behaviour. The problem of Palestine, for example, cannot be solved without the participation of the larger global community. All of us are aware of the rights and wrongs, and sometimes particular issues are right or wrong, depending on our perspective. However, we should never lose hope. We should always look for new and creative ways to break old deadlocks. After all, it was only a few years ago that the prospects for peace seemed so much brighter. I remember when, as Singapore’s Trade Minister, I met the Israeli Trade Minister at Davos in the year 2000. He said that he would like to visit me in Singapore with his Palestinian counterpart and, together with me, to take a boat to the Singapore industrial park on a nearby Indonesian island, where he hoped that we could all be received by the Indonesian Trade Minister. I was inspired and immediately worked with my Indonesian counterpart on this project of understanding and goodwill. Unfortunately, within half a year, the intifada began and the cycle of violence became steadily worse. It all seems such a long time ago. However, we must never give up. With goodwill and statesmanship on both sides, and with the support of all of us in the international community, it is possible to re-establish trust and to start again. Moreover, the international community should not allow the deteriorating relationship across the Taiwan Straits to spin out of control. The push towards independence by certain groups on Taiwan is most dangerous, because it will lead to war with mainland China and will drag in other countries. The stability of the entire Asia-Pacific region is at stake. Not many years ago, the relationship between the mainland and Taiwan was much better. In 1991, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) — a grouping of economies around the Pacific Ocean — admitted China, Taiwan and Hong Kong on the basis of certain agreed principles. At an APEC meeting in 1992, I remember joining the Trade Ministers of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong for a relaxed lunch in Bangkok. Later, in 1993, 31 representatives from China and Taiwan met in Singapore for informal talks, with both sides acknowledging, “One China: to each its own interpretation”. All problems seemed soluble then. But, in 1994, Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui gave a shocking interview to a Japanese magazine, describing himself as a Moses leading his people out of Egypt. From then on, cross-straits relations went from bad to worse as pro-independence forces on Taiwan became increasingly adventurous. As in the Middle East, the international community has a strong vested interest in supporting a peaceful resolution of cross-straits conflict, based on the “one China” position that was adopted and settled by the United Nations in 1971. Even when the United Nations has no legal authority to enforce its wishes, its views carry moral weight. This legitimacy of the Organization is derived from its broad membership, its transparent processes and the active participation of Member States. It is important that the Security Council — which has the power to adopt resolutions binding on all United Nations Member States — be reformed and enlarged so as to reflect the reality of the current international environment. We need rules that enable us to make decisions and to express our collective judgement of right and wrong, and those rules must evolve in response to new challenges. However, we cannot expect unanimity of views on all matters. Human society is changing all the time. New scientific discoveries present new challenges, to which different societies must respond differently. On matters of religious belief, for example, no one should expect convergence. Our disagreements over issues like the death penalty, abortion, the nature of democracy, gay rights, animal rights and therapeutic cloning are, in a sense, inevitable and necessary. What we profoundly need is respect for plurality in the world — respect built on the common substrate that defines us as civilized human beings in the twenty-first century. In the nineteenth century, slavery was abolished. In the twentieth century, gender equality became the norm. In this century, we must add more layers to what we share in common. And, upon that shared substrate, we should not only accept diversity, but encourage it. Indeed, as with biological diversity, it is essential for human progress that there should be cultural and political diversity in the world. Without such diversity, our ability to respond to new challenges will be weakened. For all their imperfections, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization (WTO) represent this diversity in unity. At the WTO, the process of multilateral trade negotiations — however complicated and arduous they may be — is still a more civilized method of resolving conflicts and harmonizing national differences than erecting protectionist walls and fighting trade wars. Respecting plurality does not mean that we stop recognizing strengths and weaknesses; that would be hypocrisy. Some cultural values are more suited than others to modern times. Some economic systems are more productive. Some political systems are better able to mobilize the creative energies of their people. But none of us should force our views on others. We should never impose a particular political or economic system on societies with different histories and traditions. What we need instead is an environment that encourages mutual learning and healthy competition. For that, we need to respect one another. As is recognized in the Millennium Development Goals, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the challenge of human development. When Singapore became independent in 1965, there was no ready solution that fitted us; we had to seek our own way forward. Many countries helped us with aid and advice, and we remain grateful to them. The United Nations Development Programme provided valuable assistance. With no natural resources, we had to organize ourselves in a practical way, add value and be of service to others. Little by little, we worked out pragmatic solutions to our problems. Good governance was a precondition for all our efforts. We were tough on corruption and crime. When, in the 1970s, we witnessed attempts by international drug dealers to target young Singaporeans, our Parliament adopted draconian laws. We were criticized by some of our friends in the Western media, but we persisted, with the support of the majority of Singaporeans, always acting with their consent and in their interests. Now that we have reached a reasonable standard of economic development, other developing countries have approached us for assistance. We feel honoured to be asked. But we prefer them to see Singapore more as an ongoing experiment to be studied than as a model to follow. Every country is different, and each must customize its own solutions. 32 Small countries like Singapore need a stable external environment. We are ardent supporters of international organizations like the United Nations and the WTO, because they give us, together with other countries, a say in global governance. A world in which countries big and small can resolve disputes according to commonly agreed rules is infinitely preferable to one in which might makes right. More than four centuries ago, a wise man from the West visited the East. The Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci went to China with the goal of converting China to Catholicism. He had a deep respect for the civilization that he wanted to Christianize. Realizing that the only way to impress the Chinese was to interact with them on their own terms, he proceeded to study the Chinese language, to master the Chinese classics and to employ Chinese philosophical concepts in his discourses on Christianity. Instead of talking at the Chinese, he talked to them, expressing concepts to which they could relate. Although Matteo Ricci did not succeed in converting the Chinese, he left behind a lasting legacy, and when he died the Chinese Emperor consented to his burial in China. His tomb, inscribed with his Chinese name, is to be found today in the compound of the Party School of the Beijing Municipal Committee. History is unending. We need wise men like Matteo Ricci from the West and the East, from the South and the North, to help us, through debate and dialogue, prevent a clash of civilizations. Respecting diversity should never reduce us to hypocrisy and cultural relativism, as if all points of view are equally valid. We should never stop trying to influence one another. Here in the United Nations we are always trying to influence one another, but we must always be prepared to see the same issues from the perspectives of others. Here in the United Nations, we have an institution that can help us create this better world.