Singapore

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.