In life, there are many paradoxical truths. One of these, true for over 2,000 years, is that if you wish to enjoy peace, you must prepare for war. It is all too easy for us in Asia to be influenced by Western pessimism. To be blunt, the greatest mistake we are making is our passive response while the West creates an angry dragon. We recognise that this dragon will pose a problem for us, yet we remain silent as the West provokes it. In Southeast Asia, peace is a reflection of geopolitical competence. Conversely, conflicts such as those in Ukraine and Gaza reveal geopolitical incompetence. Thus, we in Asia should consciously and assertively reject Western pessimism and project Asian optimism instead.
Editor’s Note: In a recent interview with Gita Wirjawan, Kishore Mahbubani, the renowned Singaporean diplomat and scholar, shared profound insights into the shifting global power dynamics. With a distinguished career that includes roles such as President of the UN Security Council and Singaporean Ambassador to the UN, Mahbubani’s reflections offer a critical perspective on the rise of Asia and its implications for the global order. His latest book, The Asian 21st Century, which has surpassed 3 million downloads, further underscores his influential views on Asian-Western relations. Wirjawan, an accomplished Indonesian entrepreneur and academic, provides an engaging platform for exploring these pivotal issues, making the discussion a vital contribution to understanding contemporary geopolitics.
 |
| Kishore Mahbubani is a Singaporean diplomat, Founding Dean of LKY School of Public Policy, and Distinguished Fellow at the Asia Research Institute (ARI), National University of Singapore. |
Excerpts;
How do you view these changes over the past two to three years?
Firstly, we have witnessed two major wars that were surprising at the time: the Ukraine war and the Gaza war. While their occurrence was unexpected, the structural forces leading up to these conflicts were clear in retrospect. Additionally, the U.S.-China rivalry has intensified and will likely worsen over the next decade. The internal contradictions within these two nations are becoming ingrained in the system. On a positive note, despite challenges in Myanmar and the South China Sea, Southeast Asia is making steady progress. Many Asian countries continue to show promise.
Regarding the situation in Ukraine, it appears, from various discussions with public intellectuals, that the conflict is bringing China and Russia closer together. This seems to contradict the early U.S. foreign policy strategy of aligning with one to contain the other. What changes have occurred in U.S. foreign policy thinking?
I hope you don’t mind if I’m somewhat provocative and direct. The Ukraine war is a disaster stemming from European geopolitical incompetence. Let’s call it what it is. Peace, as seen in Southeast Asia, reflects geopolitical competence, while wars like those in Ukraine and Gaza demonstrate geopolitical incompetence. After the Cold War, Europe had a golden opportunity to integrate Russia into the European framework. Instead, European leaders, lacking long-term vision, progressively alienated Russia through NATO’s expansion, knowing it would provoke Russia. This illustrates that Europe has not adapted to the changing world.
Paradoxically, the Ukraine issue has been advantageous for the United States. China aimed to work with Europe to counterbalance the U.S., but the war in Ukraine shattered European hopes for strategic autonomy. Europeans realised they couldn’t defend themselves without U.S. support, increasing their reliance on the U.S. for security. In return, the U.S. is now questioning Europe’s stance on China. Thus, the Ukraine war has been a setback for Europe, Russia, and China, but a benefit for the United States.
Interesting. How does this situation relate to what’s happening in Gaza? Or is it the opposite?
The Ukraine war is beneficial for the United States, while the Gaza conflict is detrimental. We’ve never before seen such real-time images of innocent civilians being killed—both Israeli civilians by Hamas and Palestinian civilians in Israeli retaliation. This tragedy has diminished Israel’s international standing, which previously enjoyed significant goodwill. Surveys indicate a decline in support for the U.S. as well, due to its perceived lack of constructive mediation in Gaza.
Is this a manifestation of a shortage of long-term thinking on both Israeli and U.S. sides, given the moral decline associated with Israel’s actions and continued U.S. support?
There is a glaring absence of serious long-term strategic thinking in both Israel and the U.S. Although Israel and the U.S. theoretically support a two-state solution, Israel’s actions undermine this possibility. The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the isolation of Gaza hinder the two-state solution. Removing 700,000 settlers is not feasible, making Israel’s current policies self-defeating. This situation forces Israel into a cycle of constant warfare with its neighbours.
As a friend of Israel, seeing it head towards a cliff with its current policies is concerning. Israel’s assumption of perpetual superiority, coupled with the shifting global balance towards a multipolar world, means it must reconsider its approach. Ignoring the 140 countries recognising Palestine could lead to Israel’s isolation. For its own national interests, Israel needs to genuinely pursue a two-state solution.
Is Israel’s reluctance to heed multilateral institutions and the declining efficacy of these institutions part of this issue?
The complexity of geopolitical issues means that when we say Israel avoids multilateral institutions, it’s more accurate to say that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prioritises personal interests over national ones. Netanyahu’s potential legal troubles and desire to see a specific outcome in U.S. elections influence his decisions. This complicates what should be straightforward issues of war and peace, affecting multilateral institutions. While I am a strong advocate for these institutions, their effectiveness depends on whether nation-states are willing to use them. The UN, despite its weaknesses, remains a crucial forum for multilateral efforts.
The UN Security Council is the most powerful global body, capable of binding decisions. However, its relevance depends on including today’s great powers, not just those of the past. The UK and France, no longer leading global powers, should consider relinquishing their Security Council seats to more deserving nations like India, which has become a significant global player. This move would allow Britain to act more independently while acknowledging changing global dynamics.
Do you think the UK has the humility and realism to make this change in our lifetime?
The British once had significant global influence, but times have changed. Although Britain has produced remarkable intellectuals, it must now create an independent voice rather than remain subservient to the U.S. The Cold War and post-Cold War era have been militaristic, with massive defense budgets overshadowing the UN’s modest resources. Advancing the multilateral narrative is challenging when global defense spending is so high.
Substantial military expenditure does not necessarily lead to imminent war, but understanding the risks is crucial. Nuclear weapons create a reality where major powers recognise the catastrophic consequences of nuclear conflict. Despite this, recent trends suggest a dangerous disregard for these risks. The U.S. has wisely avoided using its weapons against Russian territory but has recently allowed Ukrainian forces to strike Russian soil, increasing the risk of nuclear retaliation.
What explains the West’s current lack of long-term strategic thinking?
The absence of long-term thinking was evident in discussions with Henry Kissinger, who expressed concern about the West’s failure to adapt to a changed world. Leaders who haven’t experienced the horrors of war may act recklessly. The U.S. faces pressing domestic challenges while spending vast sums on military endeavors and foreign conflicts. This misallocation of resources mirrors past Soviet decline, with declining life expectancy and stagnant living standards. Focusing on domestic issues would benefit the U.S. and the world. The recent rise of China suggests a shift away from Western dominance, necessitating adaptation to a multipolar world.
The West has been a major force in modernization, but as other regions advance, Western dominance is naturally diminishing. It’s crucial for the West to adapt intelligently rather than resist change. In the 1940s, it made sense for Europeans to lead the IMF and World Bank, but with Asia’s dynamic economies now, it’s time to consider Asian leadership in these institutions. The entrenched mindset of Western superiority hinders necessary adjustments.
This resistance to change, rooted in the 1940s, can only be overcome through several means, one being the continued rise of China. As China grows more influential, it will push for revisions to the current order. Alternatively, the West might need to acknowledge that leadership roles in multilateral institutions should be shared with individuals from India, China, Southeast Asia, Africa, and other regions.
Are we likely to see the end of India’s engagement with China and the U.S.? In the U.S., the term ‘engagement’ has become contentious. Politicians who support engagement with China face significant political risk, illustrating the gravity of the situation.
Your broader question is whether China will disrupt or support the world order. The answer depends on how we engage with China as it rises. China is a significant global force. Napoleon’s warning about the “sleeping dragon” predicted that awakening China would shake the world. There are two ways to awaken someone: gently, with whispers, or abruptly, with a bucket of water. The latter is likely to provoke anger.
The U.S. effectively engaged with China during the Cold War—from Kissinger’s 1971 visit to the end of the Obama era—which helped China become a responsible global stakeholder. However, recent U.S. policies, including tariffs, chip restrictions, and sanctions, are likely to provoke a strong reaction from China.
The West might not fully grasp the implications of its current strategy. By creating an angry dragon in Asia, the West risks future conflicts. It’s crucial to speak out and address these concerns before the situation escalates further.
I hope General Prabhu, your next president, will articulate the concerns of South Asians. He has a knack for internationalism and could effectively project Indonesia’s role in 2025, marking the 60th anniversary of the Bandung Conference. This anniversary is a chance to revive the Bandung spirit, as many Global South countries are frustrated with the U.S.-China rivalry and want to avoid being pressured into taking sides.
The Global South’s message to the U.S. and China is clear: continue your contest without involving us. We need a platform to express this stance, and a revived Bandung Conference could demonstrate that the majority of the Global South prefers neutrality and wants the U.S. and China to moderate their rivalry.
Regarding Southeast Asia, Western minds often fail to realise that the future will be multi-civilisational, multi-polar, and multilateral. ASEAN exemplifies these characteristics and should be studied as a model for navigating the new global landscape. President Prabhu could play a crucial role in highlighting ASEAN’s story.
On Taiwan, it’s crucial to view it as an internal issue rather than an international problem. The U.S. officially adheres to a “One China” policy, which the Biden administration has reaffirmed, helping to stabilize U.S.-China relations. Future U.S. presidents must maintain this policy, despite some advisors suggesting dangerous deviations.
China faces challenges with the Nine Dash Line, which claims extensive areas in the South China Sea. Its ambiguity and portrayal on Chinese passports create friction with ASEAN countries. China must clarify its position and engage in diplomatic efforts to resolve disputes, which will benefit regional stability and improve relations with ASEAN countries.
As a Southeast Asian, I am cautiously optimistic about the code of conduct resolving this issue. More crucial than the code is achieving a clear understanding between China and the four ASEAN claimant states—Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. Despite their differences, they must manage disputes peacefully. So far, we’ve done relatively well in avoiding escalation. An explicit understanding with China and the claimant states on peaceful dispute resolution would be beneficial.
In your recent session in New York, you touched on how the Vietnamese view China. Leaders in Vietnam must balance standing up to China with managing relations. This attitude could serve as a model for other Southeast Asians, though Vietnam’s unique history with China creates a complex dynamic. Southeast Asians need to navigate coexistence with China while standing firm when necessary.
The historical complexity of relationships, such as between China and Japan, underscores the need for peaceful management rather than antagonism. ASEAN’s success in maintaining peace and stability among its members serves as a valuable example for other regions.
Blocs like the Quad and AUKUS might impact ASEAN’s centrality. While countries have the right to form alliances, such organizations can send symbolic messages. AUKUS, for instance, might reflect a desire to revert to Western dominance rather than adapting to the 21st century. ASEAN should showcase its achievements and continue to foster peace, economic growth, and strategic trust among its members.
ASEAN’s success, despite economic challenges compared to Northeast Asia, should be acknowledged. The association’s contribution to global economic growth between 2010 and 2020 surpasses that of the EU, highlighting ASEAN’s significance.
For Indonesia, the focus should be on actively promoting ASEAN’s successes and values. As the largest ASEAN member, Indonesia should take a leading role in advancing ASEAN’s global narrative, especially as the 60th anniversary approaches.
Southeast Asia’s growing intellectual curiosity is promising. Advances in AI translation will enhance our ability to present our stories globally. With improvements in translation accuracy, Southeast Asians will be able to effectively communicate their views, potentially boosting the region’s global narrative. Despite current global pessimism, Asia must project optimism. The 21st century will be marked by Asian influence, and embracing this potential is crucial for a positive future.
Post a Comment