by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
Kishore Mahbubani’s insights into Western narratives about Asia reveal significant misconceptions that have shaped global politics. In addressing the question of how these narratives influence international relations, he draws a clear distinction between American and European viewpoints. He critiques the American narrative for its narrow focus on the “China challenge,” arguing that it obscures a broader understanding of Asia: “The Americans don’t realise that there are 4.8 billion people in Asia, and China is only 1.4 billion.” He emphasises the need for a more comprehensive approach, stating that “they have to understand the rest of Asia too, and work with the rest of Asia.”
Mahbubani highlights that most Asian countries are willing to collaborate with China in various capacities. This collaboration is often met with resistance when the U.S. attempts to force a binary choice between allegiance to China or the United States. He reflects, “When the Americans try to force the Asian countries to choose between China and the United States, there’s resistance.” This dynamic exemplifies the misunderstandings that hinder effective dialogue and cooperation.
Turning his attention to European narratives, Mahbubani argues that they should be capitalising on the economic opportunities that Asia presents. He notes that the largest growth in the middle class will occur in China, India, and ASEAN nations, stating, “You know, the combined population of China, India, and ASEAN is 3.5 billion people.” He highlights the astonishing growth of the middle class in these regions, pointing out that only 150 million people enjoyed middle-class living standards in 2000. By 2020, that number had surged to 1.5 billion, with projections estimating it will reach between 2.5 and 3 billion by 2030. Mahbubani asserts that “if the Europeans were smart, they would learn how to engage Asia and work with Asia.”
However, he expresses disappointment that “the European Union countries do not know how to be humble” and often prefer to lecture Asian nations rather than collaborating with them. He views this as a significant misstep, stating, “This is very, very unwise.” His assessment includes a striking statistic that should alarm European leaders: “In 1980, the combined European Union GNP was ten times bigger than China. Now, it’s about the same size. And by 2050, the European Union will be half the size of China.” He cautions, “When you go from being 10 times larger to becoming half the size, you got to learn how to be humble.”
As the world moves towards a multipolar order, Mahbubani anticipates challenges in achieving global cooperation. He notes that the geopolitical contest between the U.S. and China is likely to continue for the next decade, as many in America feel they have “about 10 years to stop China.” Mahbubani critiques this urgency, arguing that it is “unwise” and that finding ways to coexist with China is essential. He emphasises this need in his book, Has China Won?, where he outlines the benefits of constructive engagement with the rising power.
Furthermore, he points to the emergence of other great powers, including India and Russia, while highlighting the European Union’s unique position: “It’s an economic giant and a geopolitical dwarf.” This phrase encapsulates the need for Europe to reassess its approach in a world where multiple powers coexist. Mahbubani urges Asian nations to demonstrate their ability to navigate this multipolar landscape, asserting, “We have to learn to live with a multipolar world.”
When asked about the potential for conflict between the U.S. and China, Mahbubani expresses cautious optimism, stating, “I’m reasonably confident that there’ll be no war between United States and China.” He explains that in a nuclear conflict, there are no true winners—only mutual devastation. “In a nuclear war, there’s no winner and a loser. There’s a loser and a loser.” He elaborates that even if China were to lose major cities, the U.S. would not accept the catastrophic loss of cities like New York or Washington, D.C. Therefore, he argues, while a vigorous contest between the two nations will continue, outright war is improbable.
Transitioning to the situation in Ukraine, Mahbubani shares his perspective on how the conflict could have been avoided. He believes that American leaders should have heeded the advice of strategic thinkers like George Kennan and Henry Kissinger. He recalls Kennan’s warning about NATO expansion, which he deemed a “mistake” that would “alienate and anger Russia.” He asserts that Kennan, a key strategist during the Cold War, understood the long-term implications of U.S. foreign policy. Mahbubani states, “The American and the European leaders, especially, don’t think long-term and don’t think strategically.”
He observes that while the Ukraine war has strengthened U.S. influence in Europe, it has not benefitted the European Union in the long term. “I don’t see how this Ukraine war has helped the European Union,” he notes, asserting that the EU must acknowledge the necessity of living with Russia for the next century or more. “They have to stand up to Russia,” he acknowledges, while also emphasising the importance of seeking peaceful resolutions. “Certainly, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal, and we should condemn the Russian invasion. But at the same time, we should also try to find a solution for peace that takes into consideration Russia’s interests.”
Through his candid analysis, Mahbubani calls for a deeper understanding of global geopolitics, urging a shift from outdated narratives to one that embraces cooperation, humility, and a recognition of the multi-dimensional realities of the modern world. He encourages leaders and citizens alike to engage with Asia as a vital partner in shaping the future, rather than viewing it through a lens of fear and misunderstanding.
In my recent conversation with George Friedman (Sunday Island, October 6, 2024), the topic of U.S. strategies regarding Russia emerged, where Friedman indicated that the U.S. plans to prolong the conflict, positioning it as beneficial for America in the long run. In response, I probed Kishore Mahbubani about this perspective, and he expressed a more cautious viewpoint on warfare. “Wars are always unwise,” he stated, emphasising that they often lead to “unanticipated consequences.” Instead of pursuing prolonged conflict, Mahbubani advocates for finding avenues to dampen wars. He emphasises that the world’s most pressing issue is climate change, arguing, “If you ask what is the most important thing the world needs to fight today, it is climate change. You cannot fight climate change if you’re too busy fighting over territory.”
He illustrates this point with a powerful metaphor, describing our shared global predicament: “You are all now passengers on the same boat. If the boat is sinking, what’s the point of arguing about who’s got the bigger cabin?” This analogy accentuates the futility of territorial disputes when faced with existential challenges that require collective action.
Transitioning to the United Nations (UN), I asked Mahbubani about his insights regarding its credibility and effectiveness, especially in light of Western nations’ influence. Drawing on his experiences as Singapore’s ambassador to the UN, he asserted the urgent need for reforms, particularly regarding the Security Council.
He reiterated his belief that India should secure a permanent seat, stating, “I wrote a column in the Financial Times saying it’s time for the UK to give up its permanent seat in the UN Security Council to India.” He elaborated on this by noting that the UN’s founding principles intended the veto to be held by “the great powers of today, and not the great powers of yesterday,” asserting, “The UK is a great power of yesterday. India is a great power of today and tomorrow.”
Mahbubani further argued that it would be in the best interest of the UK to “pass on their veto to India,” noting that the UK has largely ceased to use its veto power due to its diminished global standing. He remarked, “The British know that if they use their veto, countries will say, who are you? Why should you use the veto?” Additionally, he critiqued the UK’s political landscape, stating, “When they elect prime ministers who are jokers and jokes, you should first take care of yourself and not try to save the world.”
Regarding the broader challenges facing the UN, Mahbubani expressed concern over the weakening of the organisation, attributing this trend to the actions of the United States and its allies. He emphasised in his book The Great Convergence that “it has been a mistake for the Western countries to try and weaken the United Nations and the multilateral system.” He highlights the statistical reality that the West makes up only 12% of the global population, arguing that minorities in a global village should prefer a rules-based order to avoid chaos and anarchy.
In light of these dynamics, he cited former President Bill Clinton’s observation: “If the United States is going to be number one forever, it can do whatever it wants to do. But if the United States is not going to be number one forever, and may become number two, then it’s in America’s national interest to strengthen multilateral rules.” Mahbubani is adamant that the U.S. and Western nations must recalibrate their approach, shifting from undermining the UN to strengthening it, a perspective he urges all nations from the Global South to communicate collectively to the West.
As we discussed the emergence of alternative organisations, I asked if he believed this was the reason for the growing prominence of BRICS. Mahbubani affirmed that the inadequacies of traditional multilateral organisations have led to the formation of alternatives. He acknowledged the significance of the G20 but noted its current paralysis. “Clearly, many of the global multilateral organisations are not functioning well, and there are all kinds of alternatives developing,” he said. He also mentioned regional agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) as part of this shift towards new forms of multilateral governance.
Addressing allegations against China regarding debt traps in nations like Myanmar and Sri Lanka, as well as countries in Africa, Mahbubani pushed back against these narratives, citing Deborah Brautigam, an American academic who has provided evidence against the “myth of the debt trap.” He pointed out that “the bulk of African debt is not to China; it’s to the West,” emphasising the historical context in which African nations have been politically and economically colonised by Western powers. Mahbubani contended that many African countries appreciate China’s involvement because it offers them a choice in their partnerships. He stated, “If they don’t have a choice, then they get bullied,” highlighting that African nations value China’s presence as it enhances their bargaining power with Western countries.
Finally, I enquired about the significance of peace between India and China, given the existing border tensions. Mahbubani highlighted the importance of cooperation between these two Asian giants, lamenting the current state of their relations. “Many of us in Southeast Asia are saddened that relations between China and India today are not good,” he remarked. He invoked former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s sentiment that “the sky is big enough for China and India to grow together,” expressing hope that both nations can learn to manage their differences effectively.
He also voiced a similar hope for India and Pakistan, advocating for normalised trade relations between them. “It’s shocking that even though Southeast Asia is in ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic terms, much more diverse than South Asia, we have much more successful regional cooperation,” he observed, urging South Asian countries to learn from ASEAN’s successful models.
This is the second of a two-part interview. Read the first part here.
Source: The Island Online