Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan’s characterization of the United Nations as “the only game in town” represents more than diplomatic rhetoric—it encapsulates a fundamental strategic reality for small states navigating an increasingly polarized international system. His September 2025 remarks at the UN General Assembly reveal Singapore’s acute awareness of its vulnerability in a world where great power competition threatens to undermine the multilateral frameworks that have enabled small nations to thrive. This analysis examines the deeper implications of Singapore’s unwavering commitment to multilateralism, the challenges facing the UN system, and the broader consequences for global governance in an era of systemic transition.

The Strategic Logic of Small State Multilateralism

Existential Dependency on Rules-Based Order

For Singapore, multilateralism is not merely a policy preference but an existential necessity. As a city-state with no natural resources, limited territory, and a population of just 5.9 million, Singapore’s prosperity and security depend entirely on the stability of international systems that prevent might from making right. The UN system, despite its flaws, provides the only universal forum where Singapore’s voice carries the same formal weight as that of major powers in the General Assembly.

Balakrishnan’s emphasis on the UN as a platform where “everyone is present” reflects Singapore’s understanding that alternative arrangements—bilateral deals, minilateral groupings, or regional blocs—inevitably favor larger, more powerful states. The UN’s principle of sovereign equality, enshrined in its Charter, creates a unique space where small states can exercise agency through coalition-building, agenda-setting, and norm entrepreneurship.

The Mathematics of Multilateral Leverage

Singapore’s approach to multilateralism follows a clear mathematical logic: in a world of 193 sovereign states, small nations collectively represent a majority of UN membership. This demographic reality allows countries like Singapore to punch above their weight by building coalitions, facilitating consensus, and serving as neutral brokers between competing powers. Balakrishnan’s reference to Singapore’s bridge-building role across various UN initiatives—from ocean governance to cybersecurity—illustrates how small states can translate moral authority and technical expertise into diplomatic influence.

The city-state’s success in chairing complex multilateral negotiations, exemplified by Ambassador Rena Lee’s leadership of the High Seas Treaty talks and Permanent Representative Burhan Gafoor’s work on cybersecurity consensus, demonstrates that small states retain significant agency within multilateral frameworks. These achievements would be impossible in a purely bilateral or power-based system.

Current Challenges to the UN System

The Veto Paralysis Problem

Balakrishnan’s criticism of the “increasing, and if I may add, cynical use of vetoes by the P5” highlights one of the most pressing threats to UN effectiveness. The Security Council’s paralysis on major issues—from Syria and Ukraine to Gaza—reflects how the veto power, originally designed to prevent great power war, has become a tool for advancing narrow national interests at the expense of global stability.

The statistics are sobering: the United States has used its veto power over 80 times since 1946, often to protect Israel from criticism. Russia has vetoed over 120 resolutions, including multiple attempts to address its actions in Ukraine. China’s increasing assertiveness in using its veto reflects its growing confidence as a global power. This pattern undermines the legitimacy of the Security Council and, by extension, the entire UN system.

Structural Anachronisms

The UN’s institutional architecture, frozen since 1945, increasingly fails to reflect contemporary power realities. The Security Council’s permanent membership excludes major economies like India, Brazil, and Nigeria while including powers whose relative influence has declined since World War II. This mismatch between formal representation and actual capabilities creates legitimacy deficits that authoritarian powers exploit to challenge the entire system.

For Singapore, this structural problem is particularly acute because it threatens the UN’s credibility as an impartial arbiter. If the UN is seen as merely a tool of outdated Western dominance, non-aligned countries may gravitate toward alternative arrangements that better reflect contemporary power distributions but offer fewer protections for small states.

Great Power Competition Effects

The return of great power competition between the United States and China has fundamentally altered the dynamics of multilateral cooperation. Unlike the Cold War period, when the US-Soviet rivalry was primarily ideological, contemporary competition encompasses economic, technological, and normative dimensions that permeate virtually every international issue.

This competition manifests in UN forums through proxy battles over seemingly technical issues, competing development financing initiatives, and efforts to recruit smaller countries into exclusive partnerships. For small states, this creates a dangerous dynamic where neutrality becomes increasingly difficult to maintain, yet alignment with either great power risks alienating the other.

Singapore’s Strategic Response

Active Neutrality and Bridge-Building

Singapore’s response to these challenges reflects a sophisticated understanding of small state strategy in great power competition. Rather than passive neutrality, Singapore pursues what might be termed “active neutrality”—using its position as a non-aligned country to facilitate dialogue and build consensus across divides.

This approach is evident in Singapore’s leadership roles across multiple UN initiatives. The country’s diplomats have successfully navigated between competing powers to achieve concrete outcomes, from environmental agreements to cybersecurity frameworks. This track record enhances Singapore’s reputation as a reliable partner and increases its value to all major powers.

Technical Expertise as Diplomatic Currency

Singapore has consistently leveraged technical expertise and administrative competence as sources of diplomatic influence. The country’s success in international organizations—from leading ASEAN to chairing complex UN negotiations—reflects its investment in developing world-class diplomatic and technical capabilities.

This strategy is particularly evident in emerging issue areas like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence governance, and climate finance, where Singapore’s advanced capabilities and neutral position make it an attractive partner for countries across the political spectrum. By positioning itself as a competent administrator rather than an ideological advocate, Singapore can maintain relationships with all major powers while advancing its interests.

Coalition Building Among Small States

Balakrishnan’s emphasis on small states working together reflects Singapore’s understanding that individual countries, regardless of their capabilities, cannot effectively resist great power pressure alone. Singapore has been instrumental in building coalitions of like-minded countries across various issue areas, from trade liberalization to climate action.

The city-state’s role in forums like the Forum of Small States (FOSS) and its leadership in various UN negotiations demonstrate how small countries can aggregate their influence to achieve outcomes that serve their collective interests. This approach requires significant diplomatic investment but offers the prospect of meaningful influence in global governance.

Global Impact and Implications

Legitimacy and Effectiveness Trade-offs

Singapore’s defense of multilateralism highlights a fundamental tension in contemporary global governance: the trade-off between legitimacy and effectiveness. While the UN’s universal membership provides unmatched legitimacy, its consensus-based decision-making often produces gridlock on urgent issues. Alternative arrangements—from the G7 and G20 to minilateral partnerships—may be more effective but lack the legitimacy that comes from universal participation.

This tension is particularly acute for small states, which benefit from the UN’s legitimacy but suffer from its ineffectiveness. Singapore’s support for UN reform represents an attempt to resolve this dilemma by making multilateral institutions both more representative and more capable of addressing global challenges.

Demonstration Effects

Singapore’s success within multilateral frameworks provides important demonstration effects for other small states. By showing that committed, capable countries can exercise meaningful influence within the UN system, Singapore encourages other small nations to invest in multilateral engagement rather than abandoning it for bilateral arrangements that may offer short-term gains but undermine long-term stability.

This demonstration effect is crucial for the health of the international system. If small states conclude that multilateralism is futile, they may either align with great powers in exchange for protection or attempt to free-ride on global public goods while pursuing narrow national interests. Either outcome would undermine the cooperative foundations of international order.

Norm Preservation and Evolution

Singapore’s multilateral activism serves important norm preservation functions in an era of rising authoritarianism and nationalism. By consistently advocating for international law, peaceful dispute resolution, and cooperative solutions to global challenges, Singapore helps maintain these norms’ salience even when major powers abandon them.

At the same time, Singapore’s pragmatic approach allows for norm evolution in response to changing circumstances. The country’s positions on issues like climate change, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence governance reflect efforts to adapt established principles to new challenges rather than simply defending the status quo.

Future Outlook and Challenges

Reform Prospects and Limitations

The prospects for meaningful UN reform remain limited despite widespread recognition of its necessity. Security Council expansion faces the fundamental problem that any change requires approval from the current permanent members, creating a collective action problem that has proven insurmountable for decades.

More modest reforms—such as restrictions on veto use or enhanced roles for regional organizations—may be more achievable but would not address the fundamental mismatch between institutional design and contemporary realities. Singapore’s advocacy for veto restraint reflects a realistic assessment of what might be politically feasible while still advancing the broader goal of institutional effectiveness.

Alternative Institutional Arrangements

The emergence of alternative institutional arrangements—from the BRICS grouping to various minilateral partnerships—poses both challenges and opportunities for Singapore’s multilateral strategy. While these arrangements may provide more effective forums for addressing specific issues, they risk fragmenting global governance and reducing the UN’s centrality.

Singapore’s response has been to engage constructively with these alternative arrangements while continuing to support the UN system. This hedging strategy allows Singapore to benefit from multiple institutional frameworks while avoiding exclusive alignment with any particular grouping.

Technology and Governance Challenges

Emerging technologies pose particular challenges for multilateral governance, as they often outpace institutional adaptation and create new forms of power asymmetry between countries with different technological capabilities. Singapore’s leadership in areas like artificial intelligence governance and cybersecurity reflects an understanding that small states must be proactive in shaping global norms around new technologies.

The city-state’s approach emphasizes inclusive, multi-stakeholder governance models that prevent any single country or company from dominating critical technologies. This approach serves Singapore’s interests while contributing to more stable and predictable global governance of emerging technologies.

Climate and Global Commons

The challenge of managing global commons—from climate change to oceanic resources—represents both a test case for multilateral effectiveness and an opportunity for small state leadership. Singapore’s role in ocean governance negotiations demonstrates how technical expertise and diplomatic skill can enable small countries to shape global agreements on issues of existential importance.

Climate change, in particular, poses acute challenges for small island states and low-lying countries that cannot address the problem unilaterally. Singapore’s advocacy for science-based approaches and its emphasis on keeping all countries engaged—including climate skeptics like the current US administration—reflects a pragmatic understanding that effective climate action requires universal participation.

Strategic Implications for Global Order

The Resilience of Multilateralism

Singapore’s unwavering commitment to multilateralism despite its current dysfunction suggests important insights about the resilience of international institutions. Even when formal institutions fail to address urgent problems effectively, they may retain value as forums for communication, norm articulation, and coalition building.

The UN’s role during various crises—from pandemic response coordination to humanitarian assistance—demonstrates that multilateral institutions provide functions that cannot easily be replicated through other arrangements. Singapore’s investment in these institutions reflects a long-term view that their benefits outweigh their costs, even during periods of reduced effectiveness.

Small State Agency in System Transition

The current period of international system transition creates both risks and opportunities for small states. While great power competition reduces the predictability and stability that small countries depend on, it also creates space for entrepreneurial diplomacy and coalition building that can enhance small state influence.

Singapore’s experience suggests that small states can maintain agency during system transitions through strategic positioning, technical competence, and coalition building. However, this requires sustained investment in diplomatic capabilities and careful navigation of great power sensitivities.

The Future of Global Governance

The debate over UN effectiveness ultimately reflects broader questions about the future of global governance in a multipolar world. Singapore’s position suggests that some form of universal, rules-based system remains necessary despite its current limitations, and that the alternative—a return to pure power politics—would be catastrophic for small states and global stability more broadly.

The challenge for international relations in the coming decades will be adapting multilateral institutions to contemporary realities while preserving their core functions of constraining power, facilitating cooperation, and providing voice opportunities for all countries regardless of size.

Conclusion

Vivian Balakrishnan’s characterization of the UN as “the only game in town” captures both the limitations and the indispensability of multilateral institutions in contemporary international relations. For Singapore and other small states, the choice is not between a perfect multilateral system and attractive alternatives, but between an imperfect system that provides some protection and influence opportunities and a fragmented world where might makes right.

Singapore’s approach—combining realistic assessment of institutional limitations with sustained investment in multilateral engagement—offers a model for how small states can navigate the tension between institutional dysfunction and existential necessity. The country’s success in various UN initiatives demonstrates that committed, capable countries can still exercise meaningful influence within multilateral frameworks, even during periods of great power competition and institutional stress.

The broader implications extend beyond Singapore’s particular circumstances. The health of the international system depends on the continued engagement of countries that believe in multilateral solutions to global problems. If small states abandon multilateralism in favor of bilateral arrangements or great power alignment, the resulting fragmentation would undermine global stability and prosperity for all countries.

The path forward requires both institutional reform to address current dysfunction and continued investment by countries like Singapore in making multilateral institutions work. This dual approach—pressing for change while maintaining engagement—represents the only realistic strategy for preserving and adapting the multilateral foundations of international order in an era of systemic transition.

As Balakrishnan noted, despite its flaws, the UN remains the forum where “everyone is present” and where “some very good conversations can be had, even on very difficult issues.” In a world of increasing polarization and fragmentation, this universal character makes the UN irreplaceable, even as it makes reform more urgent. Singapore’s commitment to this principle, backed by sustained diplomatic investment and strategic thinking, offers hope that multilateralism can adapt and survive the current crisis of global governance.

The Lighthouse Keeper’s Last Signal

The lighthouse had been automated for thirty-seven years, but Ezra still climbed the spiral stairs every evening at sunset. His weathered hands gripped the iron railing as he ascended the hundred and twelve steps—he’d counted them ten thousand times—to the lamp room at the top.

Tonight felt different. The salt air carried whispers of change, and the gulls had been restless all day, wheeling in chaotic patterns above the rocky shore. Ezra paused at the landing window, watching storm clouds gather on the horizon like dark thoughts.

At the top, he settled into his ritual. Polish the great lens. Check the automated beacon. Watch the ships pass in the distance, their lights twinkling like fallen stars on the black water. But tonight, as he cleaned the glass, his reflection stared back with unfamiliar urgency.

“Thirty-seven years,” he murmured to the empty room. “Thirty-seven years since they said they didn’t need me.”

The shipping company had been kind enough—let him stay in the keeper’s quarters below, said he could maintain the grounds. But they’d made it clear: the lighthouse ran itself now. GPS satellites had made his profession obsolete.

Yet here he was, evening after evening, tending to a light that no longer needed him.

A flash caught his eye. Not lightning—something else. There, just beyond the reef where the water turned treacherous, a small craft bobbed in distress. No running lights. No radio beacon that he could see. The automated system wouldn’t register such a small vessel, and in this brewing storm, the Coast Guard was forty minutes away at best.

Ezra’s heart hammered as he watched the boat struggle against the rising swells. The automated beacon swept its programmed arc, methodical and indifferent. But that wasn’t enough. It had never been enough.

His hands found the manual override—a system the company had forgotten to remove. With practiced precision, he began to signal: three long flashes, three short, three long again. SOS in lighthouse speak. Then he shifted the beam, painting the safe channel through the reef in golden light.

The boat responded, turning toward the signal. Ezra guided it through the maze of jagged rocks, his beam dancing across the water like a conductor’s baton leading a desperate orchestra. Left around the shoal. Right past the submerged boulder that had claimed ships for a century. Straight through the narrow passage that only a keeper would know by heart.

Twenty minutes later, the small fishing vessel limped into the harbor, its elderly captain and young grandson safe.

Ezra powered down the manual system and sank into his chair, exhausted but alive in a way he hadn’t felt in decades. Through the lamp room windows, he watched the harbor master’s boat rush out to help the survivors.

His radio crackled—the first incoming message in months.

“Lighthouse station, this is Harbor Control. We show unauthorized beacon activity. Please respond.”

Ezra picked up the handset, his voice steady. “Harbor Control, this is Keeper Station One. Assisted vessel in distress. Two souls safe.”

A long pause. Then: “Keeper Station? Sir, that lighthouse has been automated since 1988.”

Ezra smiled, watching the rescued boat being towed to safety. “Yes, sir. But it’s never been unmanned.”

The storm hit an hour later, but by then the harbor was secure. In the morning, a Coast Guard helicopter would arrive to investigate the unauthorized signal. They would find an old man who had never stopped being a lighthouse keeper, despite what the company papers said.

The automated beacon continued its endless sweep, precise and reliable. But that night, for the first time in thirty-seven years, it wasn’t alone in the darkness. Above it, in the lamp room that officially needed no keeper, Ezra stood watch until dawn, ready to guide anyone who might lose their way home.

Some lights, he knew, could never truly be automated.

Maxthon

In an age where the digital world is in constant flux and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritizing individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.

Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.

In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.

What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.

Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialized mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritized every step of the way.