Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's Wrap-Up Interview with Singapore Media During the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Week in New York, 27 September 2024

Minister Vivian Balakrishan:Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. This is near the end of my eighth United Nations (UN) General Assembly session over the years. It has been an exhausting, very engaging and challenging time.

This year, what was different was first, it took place with an ominous backdrop – the wars in Ukraine, in Sudan, in the Middle East, tensions between the superpowers, and the delay in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. So, there were dark clouds on the global horizon.

Second point that was different this time is the Summit of the Future (SOTF) that occurred just before the General Assembly, and this was an opportunity to look at the relevance of the UN and how fit for purpose it is for the future. But I would say it was also a glimmer of hope. Then of course, as traditionally with all UN General Assembly sessions, it is a time of intensive “speed dating” – diplomats ‘on steroids’. This time, I had more than 30 bilateral meetings, and a couple of speeches. There is the General Assembly debate. I also addressed the UN Security Council (UNSC) and there was also the speech at the Summit of the Future, and a couple of others in the thematic sessions.  So, all in all, a very busy time.

If you take a step back and go back to the clouds on the horizon. The fact that the wars in Ukraine, civil war in Sudan, the hot war with horrendous civilian casualties in Gaza, and the unfolding situation in Lebanon occupied top of peoples' minds. Despite repeated debates at the General Assembly and at the Security Council, these wars have not stopped. This is really a source of deep concern.

On the SOTF, I think it was clear to everyone that the UN needs to be transformed and it needs to be made fit for purpose. The fact that we could arrive at a Pact for the Future and I would add, the other point being the role of small states in achieving consensus. Because I would say in the lead up to this process, up to last week, I was not at all sure that a decision would be made and consensus would be arrived at for the SOTF. So, in a way, the fact that our Permanent Representative Mr Burhan Gafoor played such a leading role and was able to mobilise a significant proportion of the small states made a pivotal difference, and the UN Secretary-General António Guterres told me that himself. So, as I said, that is a glimmer of hope.

In terms of the bilateral relations, we focused especially on engaging our partners in the Middle East, in South America, Latin America and Africa. Middle East, for obvious reasons, because Singaporeans are concerned with what is happening, and we want to do more. This was the top of the agenda when I met the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Dr Mohammad Mustafa, and also in my engagement with the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Egypt. We all focused on how Singapore, working through our partners, can deliver more humanitarian assistance for the civilians who need our help. The other topics were more economic, especially for Latin America, South America and Africa. These are places which are of special significance to us in Singapore because they are sources of food, minerals, new markets and areas for Singapore companies to expand into. So, all in all, it has been a very useful, tiring, exhausting, but very useful and very necessary set of interactions.

Tan Ke Yang (Lianhe Zaobao): Good evening Minister, my question is related to the SOTF. Can we invite you to share whether the Summit has met its target, and what does the outcome of the Summit mean to Singapore? We also note your suggestion at the Security Council to constrain the use of veto in the UNSC. What is the reception to that? Thank you.

Minister: Well, first of all, the SOTF was necessary. We need to make the UN fit for purpose. The world has changed since the creation of the UN, and both in terms of the institutions, the processes, the modalities of interaction, all these needed to be reviewed. From the point of view of Singapore's participation, you may be aware that President Tharman (Shanmugaratnam), when he was Senior Minister, was a member of the High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism. This, in turn, fed into the process that led to the SOTF, and ultimately to the Pact for the Future. As I said just now, in these times of low trust between the major powers, conflict and tension, polarisation, you cannot underestimate the challenges to arrive at consensus, and to arrive at an agreement which requires 193 countries to agree. That is why I highlighted the role played by small states, and Singapore's role in representing and mobilising an active constituency of small states to arrive at this Pact for the Future.

The other point worth mentioning is the fact that youth participation, and that the process especially listened to the views and the hopes of the young people becausethe young people have more at stake at securing a future with peace that is inclusive and fair than even the older generation. So that was another element worth highlighting. All in all, you know, this is a glimmer of hope. I just want to commend all the people who put in so much work to make it happen. We cannot take agreements for granted.

Bhagyashree Garekar (The Straits Times): My ears really perked up when you said hope. During your very busy week at the UN in New York and in your bilateral meetings with your Middle Eastern colleagues, was there something that you sensed that adds to that hope amid the very ominous feeling that you have said is around us, especially as expectations from the UN remain low? That is a broad question, but more specifically, since you are in the United States of America (US), how do you regard the upcoming presidential transition in the US, and whether you think it can add to global stability at this point?

Minister: First, it is clear that the wars in Ukraine, civil war in Sudan, and the wars in the Middle East are not going to end in the near future, and that is a negative point. I think all my counterparts in the Middle East are ultra-realistic that the prospects for a quick resolution are very, very low. The second point is that, however, I also detect from all of them a determination to lean in and do more, specifically in the delivery of humanitarian assistance. On the part of Singapore and Singaporeans, we will do more with our Middle East partners to deliver humanitarian assistance. The third point is that everyone, particularly those not directly engaged in the conflict, everyone shares a consensus that ultimately you need a two-state solution, and the Palestinians deserve a homeland of their own, the right to self-determination. Both Israelis and Palestinians need to find a way to live with one another, to make peace, to reconcile, and to build a future. And there are no doubts about that, at least as far as all my interactions at the UN. How long it is going to take, I do not know, but the direction of travel is clear. And for all of us who wish well, we must not lose hope. We must do what we can now and continue to persuade, continue to cajole, continue to make the case for all those directly involved in the conflict that at the end of the day – whether you are in Ukraine or in Africa or in the Middle East – all wars end, and ultimately settlements will need to be negotiated.

But it is a terrible tragedy, that whilst seeking to maximise negotiating leverage, innocent lives are lost. That is appalling, that is unconscionable, and that is painful. It is a tragedy. So that is the mood, a combination of both pain and yet refusing to give up hope and to do what we can do in the meantime.

As far as the political transitions, well, all politics is local, and elections are determined by the citizens in their respective countries. It is not for the UN or for any external country to take positions or to express preferences. We will have to live with the outcomes of elections, and that is why both in terms of our work at the UN and in terms of the maintenance of bilateral relations between countries, we have to take into account the fact that elections occur, elections are reflecting the will of the people, and that as circumstances change, arrangements will have to evolve. So that again is the attitude down here. I do not think any one of us is engaged in forecasting outcomes of elections, but we will deal with the consequences of elections, and we will engage whoever emerges victorious in their respective elections. And by the way, it is not only in America that there have been elections this year; there have been elections in many other big countries in the course of this year.

Tan Min-Wei (Mothership):  We see some young Singaporeans question the ongoing relevance of the UN, especially in light of the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.  How would you reassure them of the UN's ongoing relevance to Singapore and the world?

Minister: That is a good question. You know, at a time of war, tension, polarisation and division, it is very easy to jump to conclusions and to say that, well, it does not work. My first point I would make is that actually, precisely because we live in such a fractured and difficult world, we need multilateralism. We need international law, and we really need the United Nations. It is still the only organisation with universal participation, with legitimacy. When decisions are made and consensus is achieved at the UN, it means something. It sets norms, it sets expectations, it sets international law. So rather than saying, you know, the UN is irrelevant; in fact, we need to double down on the UN. And if things do not work or do not work well enough at the UN, we need to reform the UN, reform the processes and get on with it, and that is why we have had the Summit of the Future. I would also make the point that you know, when most people read about the UN or watch it, you get caught up by the debates at the General Assembly, sometimes the very fractious and emotional debates at the Security Council.

But I would make this point, the UN is far more than just the General Assembly or the Security Council. Let us just go through a few of the principal organs, specialised agencies and related organisations of the UN. The International Court of Justice to answer questions on international law. Think about the World Health Organization, to deal with pandemics. Think about WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization, which just so happens to be led by a Singaporean, Daren Tang. Think about the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which helps to ensure the safe deployment of nuclear energy. The point I am making is that if you take the totality of the UN, its principal organs and the other services that it provides, these are essential public goods that the world needs and the UN provides. So, my point in short is that we need the UN even more than ever before, given the state of the world.

Bhagyashree Garekar (The Straits Times): Just to follow up a little bit on what you said initially, when it comes to positive gestures, humanitarian aid and so on, is there scope for building a sort of “coalition of the healing”, to see the way forward, to provide aid very actively, even as the zones of conflict expand. And could Singapore take a lead in this matter?

Minister: I like your suggestion of “coalition of the healing”. I would not say that Singapore should take the lead on it, but certainly as a small state that depends on international law, as a small state that needs to make common cause with other countries, especially small states, and as a society that has a deep sense of compassion, and especially amongst our young people and their willingness to get involved and to contribute positively – this is a concept that is worth exploring and I think we will discuss it with our partners, especially with our friends and partners in the Middle East and small states everywhere.

I want to emphasise that the problems are not confined to any single region in the world, and this attitude of keeping our eyes and ears open, our hearts open, our conscience engaged, and then being constructive, being helpful and making things happen. I think this is the way in which we need to approach the world with all its faults and anger and fissures. But this is a constructive way for us in Singapore to respond to the world. So, I like your concept of “coalition of the healing”. Let us explore that.

Tan Ke Yang (Lianhe Zaobao): Minister, you made a suggestion at the UNSC to constrain the use of the veto.

Minister:  First of all, this is not a new suggestion. This is a suggestion that has been made repeatedly, and not just by Singapore, but by other countries as well. Realistically, the veto is confined to the five Permanent Members (P5), and obviously you can imagine, it will be very hard to get them to agree voluntarily to constrain their monopoly on the veto. So, I am not underestimating the difficulty of persuading them to do so. Nevertheless, the argument needs to be made, the case needs to be advanced, and actually, there has been some progress. I will give you an example. The ‘veto initiative’ which we also supported, has resulted in a system now that every time a Permanent Member of the Security Council casts a veto, the question goes back to the General Assembly, and that Permanent Member is held accountable and will have to explain why the veto was cast. The fact that we now have a system of accountability and the need to explain and to explain quite soon after casting the veto, has a salutary effect. It has a positive effect. This is still only step 0.5 and there is a long way to go, and I think we will have to keep making this pitch for the need for reform.

And the larger point is that the arrangements in the Security Council were made in 1945 and the world has changed a lot from 1945. If you want to maintain the Security Council fit for purpose for the future, then it must reflect the world as it is today, and it must also have sufficient flexibility to evolve as the world evolves in the future. So, there is no quick answer. There is no quick solution. Again, as I said, the direction of travel is obvious, but we need to mobilise, and we need to move everyone along this journey, hopefully together, as tightly packed as possible.

Thank you.

.     .     .     .     .