Speech by George Yeo, Minister for Foreign Affairs at Foreign Correspondents Association's Lunch on 24 June 2005 at 1.30 pm

As a city-state completely dependent on international trade and investment, Singapore has a strong vested interest in a multilateral system which is bound by clear rules and has dispute settlement mechanisms which are transparent, fair and effective. It should therefore not be surprising that Singapore is an ardent supporter of the WTO and the UN.

The slow progress of the Doha Round worries us. Launching it was difficult enough. Seattle in December 1999 was a disaster. We succeeded in Doha in November 2001 principally because of the sense of solidarity after Sep 11. I remember receiving a late night phone call at home some two weeks after Sep 11 asking me whether Singapore could provide an alternative venue to Doha because of its proximity to Iraq. Some of the key players were worried that the ministerial meeting would have to be postponed if war broke out. I took a deep breath and said that I would speak to the Prime Minister. Singapore had already hosted the inaugural WTO meeting in 1996 and it was not our turn to host again for at least a hundred years. Having barely more than a month to prepare for a major ministerial meeting involving at least 200 ministers was not a laughing matter. But then PM Goh decided that we had a responsibility to provide an alternative venue if it was not possible for ministers to meet in Doha. We started work immediately. The Qatari Government was unhappy with us at that time, thinking that we were undercutting them. Happily, our spare tyre was not required and we were able to stand down two weeks later. Doha was a success. Cancun two years later was a disaster. Although some progress was made in Geneva last year, this year's meeting in Hongkong will be critical. If we cannot settle the modalities for tariff reductions, the outcome will be bleak. The US Congress will then be required to vote for an extension of the Trade Promotional Authority which may or may not be doable.

If the Doha Round languishes, countries will turn to alternative arrangements and the world will be divided into blocs. Such a world will be bad for small economies and countries like Singapore will be disadvantaged. While we are enthusiastic about bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements, our overriding interest is still in the proper functioning of the multilateral trading system.

In the same way, we have an overriding interest in the proper functioning of the UN. Created 60 years ago in response to the needs of an earlier era and in a very different global environment, the UN badly needs an overhaul. In November 2003, Secretary General Kofi Annan convened a high level panel chaired by former Thai PM Anand Panyarachun. The Panel recommended a series of reforms which are deserving of serious consideration, such as the proposal for a Peacebuilding Commission, the aim of which is to aid countries in their transition from war to peace and to lay the foundations for preventing the recurrence of conflict. The Panel also addressed the problem of controlling the supply of materials usable for nuclear weapons, including incentivising States to forego the development of uranium enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.

However, it is the proposed enlargement of the Security Council that has dominated international debate. Four aspiring countries - Japan, India, Germany and Brazil, collectively called the G4 - are pushing for an early vote on the increase of permanent members from the present 5 to 11, with one additional member each for Europe and Latin America, and two each for Asia and Africa. This issue has become rather controversial in the UN with a number of countries consisting mostly of neighbours of the G4 acting in concert to thwart the G4. Even if the G4 countries succeed in clearing the first hurdle which is getting the two-thirds majority for enlargement, there are still three additional hurdles they have to cross. Each of them must be voted by name in a secret ballot. A two-thirds majority will again be required. After that, two-thirds of the UN General Assembly must vote for a Charter amendment to reflect the election of the new permanent members. The G4 hope to complete these three steps by September 2005. This is not realistic. Crossing the first hurdle is hard enough. Rushing to cross all three this year will polarise the global community of nations and cause serious damage to the UN. Without the broadest base of support, there will be all manner of procedural fights along the way. I dare not use the word 'consensus' because that term has already been captured by the oppositionist camp.

The final hurdle that has to be crossed is the ratification of the new Charter by two-thirds of the UN membership, including all five permanent members "in accordance with their respective constitutional processes". The last time the UN Charter was amended in 1963 to increase the number of non-permanent seats in the Security Council, it took two years for the amendments to be ratified. At that time, the Charter amendments only dealt with an expansion in the number of non-permanent members. This time, we are dealing with a highly charged issue. Even if the Charter amendments are adopted by a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly, it could take a very long time for the current permanent members who oppose the amendments to ratify them.

China has come out to oppose a hasty decision. It says it is opposed to a Japan that has not reconciled itself with the war past becoming a new permanent member. Last week, the US stated its own position on the enlargement of the Security Council. The US also opposes a hasty decision and is against Security Council reform running ahead of other UN reforms. It supports the inclusion of only two additional permanent members - Japan and one other from the developing world - and without the veto. This has complicated the G4 position.

ASEAN members are torn by this polarisation of views on UN Security Council reform. Japan, India, Germany, China and the US are all close friends of ASEAN. Singapore has long supported the enlargement of the UN Security Council to broaden its representation. Singapore has expressed support for the inclusion of Japan, Germany and India as permanent members. The inclusion of Japan and India will reflect the reality in 21st century Asia and contribute to regional stability. However, Singapore opposes giving the veto to the new permanent members because having 11 vetoes in the Security Council will effectively paralyse its ability to make decisions on any issue of importance. A Security Council which is unable to make decisions will be bypassed and countries like the US will rightly become even more inclined to act outside its framework. Such a world where might is right is inimical to small states. Almost half the members of the UN are small states, meaning states with populations of less than 10 million. It cannot be in our interest to reform the UN only to make it less effective. But of course, as a matter of principle, it might seem unfair that new permanent members should be second class. I can understand why a large country like India should feel strongly about this. Even if new permanent members are not given the veto for the time being, the possibility of them having the veto in the future should not be foreclosed. We can expect intense debate in the coming months before the General Assembly meets in September. The situation is still fluid. The existing five permanent members, who have the power to veto any change they don't like, will play a critical role.

Singapore will participate actively in both the proceedings of the WTO and the UN in the coming months and years because of the importance of both these organisations to our well-being.

Having a regional architecture of peace and cooperation around Singapore is also very important to us. There are three major constructions which we are preoccupied with - ASEAN, the East Asian Summit and APEC. Let me touch on each briefly.

With the re-emergence of China and India on the global stage, the 10 countries of ASEAN have really no choice but to integrate further, not only economically, but also politically and culturally. Recognising this, the Leaders agreed on the Bali Concord II at the end of 2003 envisaging the establishment of an ASEAN Security, Economic and Cultural Community by the year 2020. Later this year in KL, the Leaders are likely to establish an Eminent Persons Groups to recommend how an ASEAN Charter should be drawn up to realise this vision. The coming years will see the strengthening of ASEAN institutions.

When the ASEAN Foreign Ministers met in Cebu in April this year, we agreed on the membership of the newly established East Asian Summit. In addition to the 10 countries of Southeast Asia and the 3 countries of Northeast Asia, the East Asian Summit will also include India, and Australia and New Zealand provided they accede to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation which they are likely to. This construction puts ASEAN in the centre which all can accept including the major powers. The East Asian Summit will be outward-looking and inclusive.

Whatever we do in Asia, it is not in the interest of ASEAN to see the Pacific divided down the middle. It is not at all in our interest to exclude the US which plays such an important strategic and economic role here. The construction of APEC had this in mind from the beginning. With Asian integration accelerating, keeping APEC vital is of crucial importance. The development of the East Asian Summit and APEC should go hand in hand.

Although the Cold War ended quite a few years ago in 1989, it is only now at the beginning of the 21st century that we are seeing the rough shape of a new world emerging. It can still turn either way. If we succeed in strengthening the WTO and the UN in a sensible way, and build strong structures for ASEAN, Asian and Pacific integration, the coming decades will be full of hope and opportunity. If we fail, it will be a darker world.