Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s Remarks & Dialogue at the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Annual Diplomatic Seminar in Lisbon, Portugal, 4 January 2024

Remarks

Your Excellency João Gomes Cravinho, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Portugal

Excellencies

Ladies and Gentlemen

It is an honour and privilege for me to be here. I think it is about 12,000 kilometres from Singapore. In fact, I am planning to visit Cabo da Roca on Saturday. I think that is supposed to be the westernmost point of (continental) Europe. One way to think about it is from Cabo da Roca, the westernmost part of Europe, (to the) southernmost point of the Eurasian continent, is Singapore – we are one degree 15 minutes north of the equator. It is a long way, but I am deeply honoured to be here. Let me share some perspectives from this tiny island state of Singapore.

The first point to remember is that Singapore is very young. Unlike Portugal, with a history dating back millennia, independent Singapore is only about 59 years old. We achieved independence, not through a war of independence, but after a painful separation from our neighbour, Malaysia, in 1965. We are and we were an improbable nation. We will continue to be an improbable nation because history has never been very kind to tiny city states. Singapore has no hinterland and no natural resources. We have a diverse population comprising many ethnicities and many different religions. It is these realities, these existential vulnerabilities that have always shaped our approach to diplomacy and to nation-building.

Since independence, Singapore has done quite well. Some of the factors for our success in these six decades include, first, a very hardworking and disciplined population. Second, a peaceful labour, employer and government relationship. We can discuss more about our unique tripartite relationship between government, trade unions, and employers, but that is one of the secret ingredients to our success. The third element for our success has been the fact that, although we were a third-world city state, we insisted right from the beginning on quickly building up first-world infrastructure and making it attractive for foreign investors to come in. The fourth element was the rule of law and the predictability that came with it. That again, made us attractive to foreign investors. The fifth element is that because we were cut off from our hinterland, in a sense, in 1965 we were forced to be globalised before the term ‘globalisation’ was popularised. It was not so much a choice as much as an imperative that was forced upon us. What that meant was that again, if you think back to 1965, this is post-Second World War, post-decolonisation, we did not have the luxury of embarking on an economic paradigm of import substitution. We did not have the luxury of indulging in a post-colonial hangover. We welcome investments from Europe, America, Japan and from anywhere in the world, so long as it brought technology, expertise, markets and connectivity with them. The net result of these few unique features six decades ago meant that Singapore's GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita at independence was 500 US (United States) dollars. Today, our per capita GDP somewhere around 70,000 US dollars –not bad for 59 years.

The third aspect of Singapore is that given our national circumstances, we have always had to be a firm believer in multilateralism and internationalism. In a sense, there was no choice. If you are a small city state and you do not subscribe to a rule-based international order, it means giving in to the concept of ‘might is right’. So again, it is not a choice – it is an imperative. That is why if you think over the past six decades, we have always been active contributors and participants in the United Nations (UN). Some examples where we have played an outsized role at the UN include, for instance, UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, where our veteran diplomat Professor Tommy Koh (Ambassador-at-large at Ministry of Foreign Affairs) presided over the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, which generated UNCLOS. We have also contributed actively to global discussions on cybersecurity Artificial Intelligence (AI), climate change, sustainability and most recently, last year at the UN Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). These represent our belief in the importance of multilateralism and international law.

The next point I would want to introduce to you about our approach is that a lot of our success has also been the fact that we have been a focal point, a connection, a node in a global network, which included both east and west. For instance, it meant we connected the US and Europe on one hand with Asia, on the other hand, including China, Japan, and India, and of course, within our own immediate region in Southeast Asia, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). That was also a key tailwind that filled our sails and gave us economic opportunities over the last six decades. If you think about Southeast Asia today - the 10 members of ASEAN and soon to be, I hope, Timor Leste, what you have is a region of the world with a European size population, more than 650 million people, of which 60% are below the age of 30. We are one of the world's fastest growing regions. We hope that we will be the world's fourth largest economy on a consolidated basis by 2030. These are all the positive elements.

Let us now focus on here now. Let me start by saying that 2023 was a very difficult year. The post-COVID economic bounce that we were all anticipating did not fully materialise. Instead, governments all over the world had to grapple with significant inflation, slowing economic growth and challenges to employment. Concurrently, the peace and security which we had taken for granted over many decades, was under severe stress. Closer to home here (Portugal), the war between Russia and Ukraine continued to rumble on last year, continues now, and there is no imminent resolution in sight. As far as Singapore is concerned, we believe that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a direct and flagrant contravention of the UN Charter and a threat to peace and security for all countries, especially small countries with big neighbours. Once you hear a big neighbour cite “historical errors and crazy decisions” as a rationale to cross boundaries, change boundaries or annex territory, all alarm bells have to go off. That was why we took a clear, categorical position to condemn the invasion, just like we did when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. The other event in 2023 which caused us great consternation was the heinous terrorist attack by Hamas into Israel on the 7th of October. We had again to take a clear, categorical position that it was an act of terror. The second point was, we recognise that Israel had a right to self-defence, not just because we are friends with Israel, but because we believe any country whether it is Portugal or Singapore, that confronted a similar attack would have to assert the right of self-defence. But having said that, we also believe that whilst asserting the right of self-defence, all of us would have to comply with international humanitarian law and with the laws of war. You would have noticed that at the two recent UN General Assembly resolutions, both Singapore and Portugal voted in favour of the resolutions and we have called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Again, there is no imminent end in sight to the hostilities. But again, like Portugal, we believe the only ultimate solution is a two-state solution. But it is easy for us, remote from the Middle East, to say a two-state solution yet we know that on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides, this elusive two-state solution, in fact, may not enjoy majority support in the two respective communities. Nevertheless, we have to operate by principle, call out terrorism when it occurs wherever and by whomever perpetrates it, assert the right of self-defence but also insist on compliance with international law. On principle, for what it is worth, state our belief, and in this case, that a two-state solution is ultimately necessary. But it can only occur when there are direct negotiations by leaders on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides with the political courage and capital to make it happen. When will that happen? I do not know. But in the meantime, there is a risk of the conflict in Gaza spilling over to Lebanon. We also watch what is happening in the Red Sea with great concern, because again as maritime states, if you want to move a container ship from Sines to Singapore, the shortest route is to traverse the Suez Canal, go past the Red Sea, come by across the Indian Ocean, down the Straits of Malacca, and then reach Singapore. Any threat to freedom of navigation and safety of navigation in the Red Sea is analogous to a similar threat to passage through the Straits of Malacca or even the South China Sea for that matter. These are concerns that both of us as maritime nations need to pay attention to.

Now, these happen to be two current hot wars, but there is another potential fault line which we in Asia are watching most anxiously in the Pacific. That is the most consequential relationship in the world right now, which is between the US and China. The relations between the two of them can be characterised by,  fundamentally, a lack of strategic trust. When you have two superpowers with a lack of strategic trust, what it means is that almost by definition they have to assume the worst of each other's intentions and actions, and therefore you feel a need to take precautions, but the precautions taken by one party can be easily interpreted or misinterpreted and cause you to take counter reactions, which in turn, carry the risk of miscalculations or even an escalatory spiral. We watch what is happening in the Pacific in the South China Sea. Later this month, there are elections in Taiwan, which will have an impact on relations. Closer to home (Singapore), even the maritime collisions between coast guard vessels of China and the Philippines. All these are reminders that the world is not at peace, and that the dangers of miscalculation and escalatory spirals are very real. The point is, this is not a happy and settled world. This is not necessarily a world which is optimal for small city states, or indeed even for small, open and maritime nations like Portugal. Let me try to spell out how Singapore conducts foreign policy in such a world. I have given you our existential conditions. I have also said how we see both the hot wars and the tensions across the world. But let me now just share with you an approach from a tiny city state. Our approach to foreign policy can be described in five points.

First, we believe that if Singapore was not successful economically, if we were not united politically, as a people, despite our diversity, we would be irrelevant to the world. There is no unique special function that a small city state performs that cannot be substituted or replaced. So, we always remind our people, we need to be successful, we need to be united. Without domestic success, there is no foreign policy to pursue or to protect.

The second point in our foreign policy is that we adopt the position that we cannot be bought or bullied. We will not be a vassal state, nor will we be a cat’s paw or stalking horse or an agent for another superpower. That also means we spend a significant amount of our GDP on defence. We know that in any eventuality, nobody else will shed blood for our national survival.

The third point is to make common cause with as many countries as possible. I obviously include Portugal but let me give you some examples in the last few years, especially in the economic arena, where we have made common cause. In 2006, four tiny economies, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile and Brunei got together, they established the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership – P4 for short. We were hoping that this small grouping of four would grow, and, as luck would have it, eventually the P4 morphed into the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership), which is one of the world's largest free trade areas by GDP. Obviously, after we got to the church, the United States pulled out. Nevertheless, the 11 other members, to my pleasant surprise, were able to get past the finish line and the CPTPP today is a reality. As another example, Singapore, together with the other ASEAN Member States and China, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand, got together to create the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. It is the world's largest free trade agreement covering 30% of the world's population and GDP. From Singapore's perspective, the reason why we are obsessed with free trade agreements is because our trading volume is more than three times our GDP. This is not just a diplomatic talking point. This is lifeblood for a place like Singapore. The other free trade agreement I want to highlight to you is the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which in fact was the first free trade agreement between the EU (European Union) and an ASEAN Member State. And we believe the EU-Singapore FTA serves as a strategic pathfinder for an eventual ASEAN-EU Free Trade Agreement, which will further enhance economic ties between both our regions. More recently, in January 2022, Singapore signed a free trade agreement with the Pacific Alliance, that is Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile. Just last month, I signed another free trade agreement with MERCOSUR – Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. If you think about it, our ability to make common cause and sign free trade agreements, in a time when the political zeitgeist is against free trade and economic integration, is all the more remarkable. If you think about the changes in governments that have occurred in all these countries that we have signed free trade agreements with in the last couple of years, it is all the more remarkable. I would like to believe that they have all signed on with Singapore because they view us as credible, competent, honest, and fair partners. So that is the third element of the way we approach foreign policy – make common cause, be friends with as many partners as possible.

The fourth dimension is that we have to always uphold international law and multilateralism. I have mentioned already our participation at the UN and a variety of UN conventions. On the point of international law, it means that whenever we have any differences, we try to negotiate in good faith and be fair. But if we really cannot, then go for international arbitration or adjudication, or even to the ICJ (International Court of Justice) – at least there are peaceful means of resolving differences. It also means if we have to take a position on Ukraine, in Gaza or in any other part of the world, we will adopt a posture that is consistent with international law.

The fifth aspect of Singapore’s foreign policy is that because we are so small and open, we have to be consistent. Superpowers have the luxury of not being consistent. But if you are small like us, what I say in Lisbon has to be exactly the same as what I say in Beijing or in Washington, or in any other country. Singapore's foreign policy, in fact, is consistent to the point of almost being absolutely predictable. You know the way we think, you know the way we assess developments around the world, and therefore, the positions that we can take. But the other reason for being consistent is that it also makes us reliable, trustworthy partners. That also dovetails into my earlier point about making common cause and being friends with as many people as possible.

Let me now just turn quickly to the bilateral account. João just mentioned that we see the world through very similar lenses. In fact, I cannot think of any major or minor differences between Portugal and Singapore. On the economic side, I am glad to see that that is an account which is growing. If you look at what we are doing in Sines, where we have been for two decades, and when I came here in 2022, I went to officiate the expansion of their current operations. I know there are potential plans for even further expansion, and Sines is in a prime location close to both the north-south and the east-west shipping routes in the Atlantic. We want to build that link from Portugal to Singapore and beyond. But similarly, it is not just one way – in fact, if you look at what EDP (Energias de Portugal) is doing with its investments, I think they have set aside nearly 2 billion Euros for investments in renewable energy in Southeast Asia, and they are using Singapore as a base. These are just two examples where we are working for mutual benefit, in which there will be economic opportunities for Portuguese citizens, Singapore citizens, and our partners in both Europe and in Southeast Asia.

Finally, let me make a more general point, which builds on the speech that my good friend Josep Borell gave all of you yesterday. He mentioned the two wars, Ukraine and Gaza, which are, he said “monopolising” political attention in Europe. I wanted to offer you an opportunity to zoom out the lens, both in time and space. Think about Europe and why Europe matters. The Age of Enlightenment occurred in Europe in the 17th and 18th century. It was critical for mankind because it marked a transition – the Age of Reason, the primacy of science research, the search for truth, the acknowledgement that your current version of truth may be wrong and may need to be updated. There was a profound intellectual, social and political change in Europe. Then, this was followed by the Industrial Revolution, which is basically the 18th and 19th century. The point is that this occurred in Europe – the steam engine in the United Kingdom (UK), and then steel, electricity, and so on across Europe. It is the reason why I am speaking in English today. It has everything to do with the Industrial Revolution which not only enriched Europe, but gave Europe disproportionate military power. If you think about why the Portuguese were in Asia 500 years ago, again, it has got to do with technology. You may not have invented the lateen sail, but you certainly used it. The Portuguese caravels or ships, which had the ability, unlike ships with rectangular sails, the Portuguese ships could sail down the Atlantic, go round the Cape of Good Hope and cross the Indian Ocean and Straits of Malacca because of your use of technology. 500 years ago, one Portuguese galleon would outgun any of the indigenous tribes on the coastlines whom you were visiting.

The point I am making is that in the last 500 years because of the Industrial Revolution, which Asia in particular, both China and India and Southeast Asia missed, you had the age of colonisation, global supply chains, which Portugal had a very critical role to play in. In the 20th century, perhaps as a reaction to the excesses of capitalism, Karl Marx and communism came about. But by 1989, it was clear that as an economic recipe, communism was bankrupt. The Berlin Wall came down, the break-up of the Soviet Union. But again, my point is that Europe mattered because of the Age of Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the establishment of global supply chains. But if you accept this thesis, that it is about technology and transforming the fruits of technology into economic fruits, and from there, the early adopters, just like Portugal was an early adopter of technology, had disproportionate economic and even military power. Then, you need to think about what is happening today. The point I want to leave you with is that we are at an inflection point of technology today, in particular in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, synthetic biology, and renewable energy. Whichever region or whichever country masters these new technological breakthroughs will have disproportionate economic and strategic power. Therefore, even as we contemplate a world which is driven by wars, and even fratricide between brothers, the children of Abraham, it is worth reflecting that terrorism and wars on their own are painful, bloody and almost always unproductive. But the key question for humanity remains, and in this sense I am quoting what my founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew once told us – he said the key question is, do you have a superior way of organising your society? Do you have a new technology which is going to transform your economy and the trajectory of your country? So even as we think about the events today, let us zoom our lenses out in time and space, and decide whether we are at another inflection point or turning point of the global economy. My point is, I think there is. It is for small countries and large countries to understand where the real winds and tides of history are building. Just like the Portuguese caravels and the lateen sails, we have got to catch the wind and seize the opportunities to explore the world which is emerging before us. Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to the questions after this.

Dialogue

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Portugal João Gomes Cravinho (Moderator): Now, it is my role as a moderator to open up to questions. But I am going to take advantage of the unfair position which I sit to begin myself.

One first brief comment to say that this afternoon, we had lunch with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister in his speech to the diplomats, used exactly the same sentence that you used. He was speaking about Portugal, he was speaking about Singapore, saying that because of our characteristics, because of the way that we are, because of our position in the world, we are known and understood as reliable and trustworthy partners. I just wanted to underline the coincidence which is one I think full of meaning and one which is relevant to the relationship between our two countries. I wanted to ask you, to pick up on a couple of the points that you made so brilliantly.

There was a book written about 7 years ago, by the Harvard Scholar, Graham Allison, on the Thucydides Trap, in which he picks up on a problem identified by the historian Thucydides on the relationship between Athens and Sparta in which the war starts because each one is suspicious of the growth of the other. You used a similar way of explaining the relationship between the US and China. Graham Allison’s book is a pessimistic one because his story line really talks about the inevitably of war between US and China.

And so, the first aspect of the question I want to ask is, do you have the same sense of inevitability?

The second point that relates to this is what you said, about Singapore, and also very much the way that we see Portugal, as a country that is a rules-taker. We have to function according to the rules that exist, in that sense we are extremely keen that the rules should be fair, abstract and applicable to all. We both believe in rules-based order but, ultimately, we will not be creating the rules-based order. However, it seems to me that countries like ours can have a role in promoting rules-based order, so although we cannot have the same kind of weight in determining the nature of the international system as the US and China do, we can play a role there.

And there is a link between the two questions I make in the sense that, are we in a situation where there is a negative spiral developing that can take us close to war, and if so, what is the role of countries such as Portugal and Singapore in avoiding this dynamic?

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Do small countries have agency? We believe that we do. Not individually, but collectively. That is why it is important I think, for Portugal, that you are part of the EU, and you can make a collective voice for 27 members. For us in ASEAN, it is to give us a collective voice, which can be heard on the global stage and for us to work together at the UN. If you think about the examples I cited just now, the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, which is like a constitution for the oceans, the BBNJ Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, the Paris Agreement, the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change. I believe we are going to need another global convention for artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. I would not characterise ourselves as just completely rule-takers. But we cannot be rule-makers unilaterally. I think collectively, we can. Therefore, there is a double need for small countries to make common cause and to make our voices heard, and to create a regime that is fair to all countries, large and small. A regime that is predictable, that is consistent and that provides for peaceful resolution of disputes. I think we can. So, I have a more optimistic take on the second question.

The Thucydides question is actually the more fundamental and more dangerous one which we are confronting. Let me make a few candid points. First, based on my direct interactions with the leaderships in both Washington and Beijing, I do not believe that either or both of them actually want a war. I do not believe that. I think both sides do not want to be trapped into an inexorable spiral of escalation. But having said that, I mentioned earlier just now, the lack of strategic trust. The lack of strategic trust means you have to assume the worst just in case. You have to take precautions. But the precautions that you take can be interpreted or misinterpreted to require counterreactions. That is how you can have the risk of accidents, or just simply miscalculations. That is what we are most worried about. Not a deliberate provocation that leads to a war but a mis-assessment. If you ask ChatGPT what China’s share of GDP is over two millennia, you will get an answer like, when China is united, coherent and at peace, it usually constitutes somewhere between 25% to 30% of global GDP. This is a general baseline over two millennia. The preconditions are that China needs to be at peace with itself, it needs to be united, it needs to function as a coherent whole. In fact, a similar point can be made about India. In my speech earlier, I also mentioned, however, the fact is in the last 500 years, it was the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution that was in Europe, and Asia missed it.

What happened after the Second World War, the real winner was the United States of America. At the end of the Second World War, America's GDP was probably about 40% of global GDP. America was a most unusual winner because it was also a beneficent, generous victor. In fact, through the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe and in particular Germany, it played a very major role in the resurrection of Japan post-the Second World War, which is actually historically unique. America also instituted the Bretton Woods organisations, the WTO (World Trade Organisation), the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the World Bank and even hosted the United Nations. It was not just pure generosity on the part of America, but if you constitute 40% of the global GDP, a peaceful, growing and prosperous world is good for the superpower because you get 40 cents out of every additional dollar that the global economy generates. There was of course, that interlude of having to deal with a communist challenge, and that is characterised as the Cold War. But as I said, by 1989-91, that was over and so you ended up with a unipolar moment.

If you think about it from the perspective of Singapore, over the last 80 years, we had the benefit of both Pax Americana and the rise of China. We had the peace imposed by or underwritten by America, particularly for those of us who were non-communist in the 60s, in the 70s, (that) gave us time and space to prove that free markets, economic integration, free trade was a recipe to economic success. So, we benefited from Pax Americana. When China embarked on opening and reform from 1978, and in particular in the last two decades since they joined the WTO, we also benefited from China's growth. The point I am making is that we were double beneficiaries from both Pax Americana, and (the) increasingly and rapidly developing and wealthier China.

The problem, however, is that nothing ever goes on a straight line. America, now for the first time in its history, is facing a peer competitor, capable of generating an economy that is equal to, and perhaps may even overtake America. America has never faced a peer competitor of that magnitude.

On the other side, from an Asian perspective, if you look at what is happening in America, they just cannot understand the political theatre in America. There is a school of thought that believes America must be in terminal decline, and it is trying to do everything possible in the meantime to stymie the rightful development of China to achieve its usual historical position of 25% to 30% of global GDP. So, you can see the old phase where Pax Americana and a wealthy China was good for all of us. Now, because of the way they perceive each other, there is the danger of a trap.

But I do not believe it is inevitable. Western Europe was the source of two world wars and even before the wars in the 20th century, if you go back maybe four centuries ago, Europeans shed a lot of blood in the name of religion. The conflicts in Europe in the 20th century were probably about hyper nationalism. But today, you have the EU (European Union) and you have made war between Germany and France, Spain and Portugal, and Scandinavia, unthinkable. In fact, you have created allies and partners amongst nation states, which in the past used to shed blood. So, I have always made this point to Josep Borrell that Europeans do not give yourselves enough credit for the peace that has been achieved in Western Europe.

So, is it possible that America and China can develop a relationship without having to go through a war first? A relationship that Germany and France have, a relationship that Spain and Portugal have. I know there will always be minor irritations from being close neighbours, but can you imagine a configuration like that, or even for that matter, the relationship between Israel and Germany? The point I am trying to make as an optimistic diplomat, is that if we can find a way to short circuit and avoid wars, it is possible to create win-win collaborations and partnerships. Our hope therefore, is to achieve an open, inclusive global architecture where everyone has a stake in each other’s success and where America and China do not feel a need that they have to go to war to resolve any issues.

One final point I will make about the American and Chinese relationship is that it is very different from the relationship between America and Europe on one hand, versus the Soviet Union on the other hand during the Cold War, because both America and China are operating within the same operating system. For the last 45 years, America and China have worked off the same technology stack, competed in the same global economy, had research and technological progress, because it has been shared in the same academic circuits. It is the reason why in the last 40 years, the world generally has progressed so quickly, generally had peace and was a key reason why inflation and interest rates were low for the last two decades. It is a very different situation from the Cold War, where America had to contain the Soviet Union and wait for the inevitable contradictions to occur and for the Soviet Union to split up. This is not the situation with China. So, I am making the argument that war is not inevitable and if cool heads prevail, and if there is sufficient confident leadership and cohesive domestic politics in both America, Europe, China and hopefully even Russia, it is possible to find peace and prosperity. I think as diplomats here, we all have to be optimistic, otherwise, we cannot do our jobs.

Ambassador of Portugal to Timor Leste, Manuela Bairos: Good afternoon. Thank you. Let me start by thank you for the long journey you have taken to be with us today.

Minister Balakrishnan: From Timor Leste, it is an even longer journey.

Ambassador Bairos: Yes, it is true, I know that my question is out of the line of thought of your presentation, but still, coming from Timor Leste, I think I have to take this opportunity to make this question. Timor Leste’s main challenge today is still the accession to ASEAN. We would like to have your thoughts and perspectives on the accession of Timor Leste and how you can inspire Timor Leste to be a successful and comfortable nation and economy.

Minister Balakrishnan: I think Portugal has a special role in Timor Leste. Not just because they chose to use Portuguese as their working language, but for historical reasons and other both strategic and economic reasons. I think Portugal has a special role. So, I am glad that you (Portugal) are in Timor Leste. The second point I want to make is that we do look forward to Timor Leste being able to join ASEAN as an equal and strong partner standing on her own two feet. In that respect, Singapore remains fully committed to working and lifting the capacity of Timor Leste. I will give you an example – to join ASEAN, there are 66 core agreements which they need to sign on to. You have been in Timor Leste, you know it is a big challenge to be able to sign off on those agreements and fulfil them. Those are the core agreements and responsibilities that Timor Leste will take. We have a special programme to help build capacity in Timor Leste and their bureaucrats. It is one area where we hope to work with Portugal in because you have a linguistic advantage over us – we do not have enough Portuguese speakers in Singapore. But to the extent that for instance, we can run joint programmes to build up capacity within Timor Leste. This is an area where we want to work with Portugal. One difference between Timor Leste and Singapore is that Singapore has no natural resources while Timor Leste does have natural resources. You are there, so you know as well as I do that they do have a challenge. There is likely to be a gap occurring within the next few years when the old oil fields run out, and there may or may not be a delay in the new oil fields. I think we will have to help them get through this. The next few years are going to be critical. We are good friend with the pioneer leaders – Xanana Gusmão, José Ramos-Horta. It is almost the last chance for these founding leaders of Timor Leste to set aside politics, get the right policies in place, and get the economic growth and the jobs that Timor Leste fully deserves. I hope we can both agree. Let us commit to helping our brothers and sisters in Timor Leste to stand on their own two feet and to join ASEAN as full contributing members. I believe it can be done and if I can be impolite, you have a responsibility to help.

Minister Cravinho: Thank you very much for that. We have every interest in working together with Singapore in supporting Timor Leste’s entry into ASEAN because it is fundamental for the prosperity of the country and the long-term stability of the country in the future. We are happy to exercise this historic responsibility that we do have. It is fantastic to have a partner such as Singapore in this process. I think that we bring different skill sets. Singapore has already been working with Timor Leste in supporting its public administration, bringing it up to standard in a number of areas. Because of the structure of the public administration as well as the language and also the judicial systems, we have some comparative advantage there. So yes, I was pleased to see that President of our Development Institute was nodding her head when you were speaking about that. So, we will work on that.

Minister Balakrishnan: I have also asked Brazil to help because they also, like you, have a linguistic advantage.

Ambassador of Portugal to Singapore Mário Miranda Duarte: Minister, my big pleasure to welcome you to my hometown in Lisbon. Great to have you here. You mentioned China in your remarks and how much Singapore and Portugal are supporters and champions of multilateral institutions, but the fact is that these very institutions are under stress and they are under challenge by one big country – by China, and they look to the post-Second World War institutions, Bretton Woods, even the United Nations and many of them recognise the need to update this system. What would be the best way to move forward, to ring-fence this multilateral system as it is now or to take a leap of faith for the restructuring of these entities?

Minister Balakrishnan: The politically incorrect answer is that the world has changed since 1945. The P5, the vetoes, the potential expansion of the Security Council. Similarly, the IMF, the World Bank, and the voting shares will have to be updated to reflect today's realities and not just a static position of 1945.

Now, if the multilateral organisations of 1945 or post-1945 are not updated to reflect today's realities, what that must mean inevitably is that alternative institutions and processes will develop. I think that would not necessarily be a healthy development. Singapore's own belief is that it is better to have reform consultatively and in a consensual basis so that it accommodates today's reality and gives everybody a stake in the future governance of the world.

If you think about the challenges that we face, climate change, pandemics, the fair and productive utilisation of the new technologies in AI, quantum, synthetic biology and renewable energy – these are all areas that call for a multilateral approach and if we insist or we are stuck in 1945, I think it would not work. That is when you will lead to a real bifurcation, a real fracture, and the challenge with a fracture of the global system is that it must mean higher inflation, slower progress, and a more disruptive, volatile world where some countries will be tempted to take hostages. I do not mean physical hostages and human beings, but you take an issue hostage, or you just play the role of a spoiler. I think that is not healthy.

I mean, the other example is even in the case of Europe. I cannot help thinking, one fundamental issue in Europe is you have to decide whether Russia is part of Europe or not. During the Cold War, I think you had the “Iron Curtain”. When the Soviet Union collapsed, you had increasing numbers of Eastern European countries joining NATO (North Altlantic Treaty Organisation) and joining the EU. But if you are still stuck on the strategic question of where the dividing line is, you have not solved the real strategic question of Europe. If you can imagine a future where somehow Russia is an equal and contributing member of the European community in the fullest sense of the word, you can get a new paradigm for peace and prosperity.

So, whether it is in Europe or on the global stage, I think we must always keep open the opportunity for reform. Without reform, and without recognising current realities, we are just dooming ourselves to fighting yesterday's battles. My point is that it is unnecessary. But it is easier said than done.

Minister Cravinho: Thank you very much for that. This has been a brilliant speech and session with you, which I would like to thank you deeply.

I just wanted to leave our diplomats with a couple of points, or a request for them to think about the aspects that you have mentioned. It would be a subject, I think for a good few days of conversation, which is the impact of the enormous technological transformations of which we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

The transformations that are coming about as a result of artificial intelligence, as a result of synthetic biology, as a result of quantum computing,  and the way that these impact geopolitics. This is something that I think that as the diplomatic community worldwide, we are only beginning to grapple with.

Our scientists are working on these, but again, the scientists do not have the political world vision to see the impact that this can have. Today in 2024, we are probably just a few years away from a deeply transformed world as a result of technological change. Thank you very much for making those references. We would like to leave that thought with our diplomatic community so that they can be reflecting upon it from different places around the world. With that, I would like to say an enormous word of thanks on behalf of all of us, on behalf of myself, on behalf of the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for what has been an extremely stimulating conversation – very thought-provoking – and that is going to lead us into the new year full of question marks, which is the best way, I believe. Thank you very much.

Minister: Thank you, and we can pray for peace in our world. That is what we need for this year. Thank you very much.

.     .     .     .     .

Photo Caption: Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan delivering remarks at the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Annual Diplomatic Seminar in Lisbon, 4 January 2024

Photo Credit: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore

Photo Caption: Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s dialogue with Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs João Gomes Cravinho and Portuguese Ambassadors at the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Annual Diplomatic Seminar in Lisbon, 4 January 2024

Photo Credit: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore