Importance of a Stable and Rules-based International Order for Small States

I thought your opening comments framed a number of issues and I wanted to focus on one core issue which is, in this conference and I suspect many more, because of the Ukraine invasion by Russia, what happens to the world order, how do we operate, what does it mean and how does it change? I want to give a perspective of small states – different from the larger countries like United States, India and Australia.

I think small states are primarily concerned with stability, and that the international rules protect the interests of small countries, not only the large. I am reminded of a quote by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister who said that, "If there were no international law and order, and big fish eat small fish and small fish eat shrimps, we (meaning Singapore) wouldn't exist." Estonia is 60 times the size of Singapore. So, we are a very small shrimp. We understand that small states do not have the way at all to construct the global domains – the international rules of the world as it were.

But there have been times, where we chose to speak out to the international community to preserve the international order. One such moment was on 28 February this year, four days after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, our Government issued a condemnation of Russia's "unprovoked military invasion" of Ukraine. We made clear that it was a "clear and gross violation" of international law, which was an existential issue for small countries. Ahead of the United Nations (UN), we had applied targeted sanctions to Russia, to constrain Russia's capacity to wage war against Ukraine. We also co-sponsored the UN General Assembly (GA) Resolution which introduced a new requirement for a GA meeting to be convened automatically in wake of any UN Security Council veto, which did come.

So, Singapore's recent actions underscore our strongest commitment to the preservation of sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity, which we believe is a fundamental bedrock for a free and stable World Order, and smaller countries' right to survive and thrive. In that context, our answer to the question on China, this panel's focus as well as the question that BoBo raised – what is China's view?

Perspectives on China

Over the past 70 years of globalisation, China has benefitted and it has recognised that these benefits have accrued to countries across the spectrum of political ideologies, from autocracies to liberal democracies. There was never any debate, as you rightly pointed out, about what ideology was this or when the Clinton administration pushed for China to accede to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which we constantly remind China that it was not "are you ideologically pure enough, like the United States, to join the WTO?" It was never on that preface and never on that eligibility criteria. Coming to the question on what is China's view of the international order – now China wants to preserve the global commons, not only to preserve the global commons of trade and commerce and other systems, but to strengthen it. In Chinese President Xi Jinping's own words, he wants to "lead the reform of the global governance system".

What motivates China? I think China's starting point is that it has gained from the current international system, and I will quickly add that its impact on the World, whether it is trade, commerce, finance, is much larger than Russia's. The US' economy is now about a quarter of global Gross Domestic Profit (GDP), while China, astonishingly has grown from 2% of global GDP in 1990, 30 years ago, to 17%, more than an eight-fold rise. Just another metric, China has over 1,100 billionaires, more than the US, the UK and India, and a middle class of 400 million. There are opportunities and China has integrated into the current global system.

China is seeking greater actualisation, here I agree with Bonnie Glaser and Raja Mohan. Particularly for Asia, as China has often repeated, that Asian countries should be left alone to solve their own problems and to create their own systems. In that context, sotto voce, China as Asia's largest economic and military power would take a leading role.

China cites its long history of "peaceful development" and adherence to principles such as "mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity" and "non-interference" in countries' "internal affairs" as supporting credentials. Here, they have used those credentials to put out their own global security initiatives and global development initiatives.

Now, what was China's reaction to the Ukraine invasion? It has reiterated its fundamental support for sovereignty and territorial integrity. Remember what Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during the Munich Security Conference in February 2022 – "uphold the legitimate rights and interests" of small and medium-sized countries.

Let me end off with risks. The risk of the US and China, two largest economies de-coupling was already there prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A bifurcated global system based on alliances with the US or China and Russia will have disastrous consequences for all of us. We are too connected, and such a choice, if it had to be made, will impoverish countries and imperil global security.

The US is still the largest economy and global military power, and Singapore believes it will continue to be. But China is now the largest trading partner of all Asian countries and the EU's largest trading partner in goods, at close to two billion euros per day. The US-China rivalry is the most significant event of our lifetimes.

I will end off by saying we are at a pivotal, dangerous inflexion in our shared futures. The challenge for both the US and China leadership is to demonstrate statesmanship, to rise above domestic concerns to forge a stronger, more sustainable and equitable global system. I do not think there is a certainty of that hopeful outcome, but I think our futures and collective well-being depend very much on it.