Transcription
Here are two of Singapore's most prominent foreign policy thinkers discussing the future of peace in Asia. In this conversation, Professor Kishore Mahbubani speaks with Georgio about one of the defining geopolitical challenges of our time, the growing demonization of China in the West and its implications for regional stability. Let's take a closer look at their discussion.
But, you know, George, I'm so glad that you emphasize, as in the case of Pope Francis, if a man like him is to succeed, you have to have this unique combination of being holy and cunning. It's very rare, by the way, that kind of combination. And in this sense, the warriors of peace have to have that, on the one hand, a mission and conviction that peace is important, and yet have the cunning to be able to deliver it, which is not very easy. So, one one one first question My first question to you is you work with many of these people in the field, and you've seen some some of them how they managed to sort of put out some of the conflicts. Maybe one example is your friend Marty Natalegawa and what he is what he did when he was uh as chairman of ASEAN. So, can you give us some concrete examples of people you met whom you think have been trying in a small way to try and promote peace in practical terms? What examples would you mention?
You know, uh Marty is a is a dear friend. We've been foreign ministers together for many years. We still keep in touch. He now chairs an EMID Council, which consists of former foreign ministers and diplomats from Asia and we meet every year. Um We all share similar bias for peace. The council is called MD Council. His wife is Thai. And I think sometimes when you are rooted in more than one civilization your ability to see situations with a binocular vision really improves. If you're purely from one tradition it's very difficult to to jump out of that tradition to see the same problem from the other person's perspective. And it helped say when we were in the foreign ministry that we had um diplomats with different proclivities, different biases and drawn from different traditions. And in the conversation we came up with good outcomes. I think the key is to empathize, to respect, to be a good listener. That doesn't mean you don't have your own view. Doesn't mean that you don't think you have your own powers analysis. But sometimes suspend it, go to the other side. And say, "Oh, how does it look from the other side?" See, Kissinger whose books I read most of whose books I read when he embarked on the journey to reconcile the US and China, he did not know much about China. And he wrote about it. And he set out to understand China. So, when he wrote the book on China many Chinese who read that book after the first two chapters came to the conclusion that he understood them. But today many books written about China reflect very little understanding of China. And to me how do you solve problems that way? I mean, there are those who are geostrategic players like Brzezinski. So, how to maneuver, how to move your chess pieces. You need such analysis. But, in the end where is your heart? If your heart is to dominate to oppress to expand to put down then one way or another they will affect your thinking and they will affect your action.
Yeah. I'm also glad George in your opening remarks you warned against the danger of demonization. And since you just mentioned Kissinger as we all know in the last few years of Kissinger's life he was extremely concerned about the deterioration in US-China relations. I happen to have a couple of one-on-one one-on-one conversations with him. And he tried his best to to to emphasize that you if you for the US and China to get along, the US must understand China on his own terms, which is what he tried to do as you mentioned in chapter one of his book uh on China. But, the sad part of it all is that even though Kissinger was incredibly influential he couldn't stop the tide of demonization. In fact, you know, the sad part is that even on the 50th anniversary of his historic visit to Beijing in 1971 which was by the way the year was 2021. He couldn't go to Beijing to celebrate the 50th anniversary because the mood was so anti-China that he would have been seen to be disloyal. And that was the result of demonization. So, the question therefore is what what do you think we can do in in in in practical terms to handle these challenges of demonization?
Well, specifically on US-China relations, I'm not entirely pessimistic and I I'll give you the reason for this. I was at Tsinghua University just last month for their peace conference. But unlike the Asian peace program, China's peace forum is a big thing. I mean, big halls, big dinners at the Oriental Vice President turns up, makes a long speech. Um it's China's approach. There are very few senior Americans. So, I ask the Chinese, I say, "How come? Did you not invite them?" They say, "We did, but they won't come because they'll be criticized back in the US." This to me was alarming because even if China is an opponent, an enemy, you must know China you must know your interlocutor, you know, your protagonist. Otherwise, you're at a disadvantage. But even for China, it's it's a disadvantage because the possibility of win-win outcomes diminish. I'm not so worried because even though in the US, there are groups who had they had the opportunity would bring China down. I think China is armoring itself on all dimensions, militarily, economically, cyber warfare, biological warfare, any possible threat that they could identify, they will try to respond to. Again, this goes back to out of war where he says, "If you assume the enemy will not attack, he will attack. If you assume he will attack, then he may not attack because he knows you're prepared." So, this is the Chinese approach. Do they want to displace the US as a global hegemon? The US People in the US don't believe it. But for the Chinese, it's it's it's so unwise to aspire to be a global hegemon, to sing that to send your aircraft carriers to the Gulf of Mexico or Gulf of America, to the Baltics, to the Black Sea. I mean, that's the last thing the Chinese will want. Their approach is, "I have enough problems of my own. You have your problems. If you want my help, I'll help you, but good luck to you. And wish me luck with my family." That's their approach. The idea that you can go far away and try and reorder society to your own liking, no, this is completely alien to the ancient wisdom. So, currently, we have a situation now where, in terms of conventional warfare, Indo-Pacific Command, based in Honolulu, I spent 2 weeks with them before. I mean, I spent a total of 1 month with them before. They are responsible for the entire Pacific.
In 1970 six, when I spent 2 weeks in the 25th uh infantry division, Tropical Lightning, and in '91, when I attended the Pacific Armies Management Seminar. So, I visited the different bases, the big trading area on the big island, and so on. And, I mean, the US military is huge, I mean. I mean, compared to them, we are just a little drop, you know, I mean. The arena is the world. Every piece of equipment must be ruggedized from desert conditions to Arctic conditions. They have come to the conclusion that in a conventional war they can win, but they're not likely to win over Taiwan. Which is which is obvious, because your your supply lines are so far away. And for China, it's just next door. And your aircraft carriers, which are your main battle units, will be held at bay by long-range hypersonic missiles. And even Guam will be hit. And I was greatly relieved when we decided when both sides decided that Singapore will no longer base its F-15s on Guam, because it would then become a tripwire. So, militarily, it's difficult for the US to prevail, even though if the US had its wishes, you want to keep Taiwan separate from China forever. That would be the US preference while legalistically adhering to a one-China principle. And if there's war over Taiwan, TSMC will be destroyed. China can do without TSMC. Maybe not 100%, but 70%, 80%. The US can do without TSMC. Europe can do without TSMC. So, if you're planning for war, you say, "How do I ensure that TSMC will not be destroyed?" Because it will be destroyed. And of course, the latest is China has finally played its trump card, which is rare earths. And without rare the US cannot build a F-35s, bunker buster bombs, missiles, and so on. But China doesn't want to overplay it. So, it's it's to put a counter leash on the other side. The reality is in the US, with every change in administration, policies change. So, you have Putin, you're Xi Jinping. And you have agreement with Trump. You say, "Okay, this is with Trump." Who follows Trump? Will there be a change? There will be a change. So, if you have a credit there, you better draw it down, because it's going to be wiped clean. The The reality today is that China understands the US more than the US understands China. And China is managing the US within the powers that it has. And that's more likely to lead to peace, because I don't believe that China's ambition is for war.
I'm glad you mentioned Shivshankar Menon. Incidentally, in addition to this policy essays, we also produce podcasts. And please go to our website, and you will see that we just did a podcast interview with Shivshankar Menon, which was good enough to get an email from Shashi Tharoor to me saying, "Kishore, congratulations on having spoken to Shivshankar Menon." All right. Uh actually, um the most important relationship with South Asia, as you so implied in your remarks, is the one between China and India. And as you said, China and India meet here in South Asia. They've gone through a rough period, but in the last couple of months, there seems to be a kind of a gentle warming in the relationship, uh which it which may lead, as you know, to probably a visit by Prime Minister Modi to China after a gap of 7 years or so. So, what's your sense about what's happening on that front?
I did a Facebook posting when Modi in a tweet said that he'll be visiting China after his meeting with Wang Yi in Delhi. I said the qua the you know the compass which always your man says use, you know, that the qua has shifted again. And this time is towards normalization of relations between China and India and peace. Um I was never too pessimistic because while it seemed an opportunity for both India and China when the border incidents happened to get closer together. The US hoping that India could be used against China and India hoping to use the US against China. That quickly fell apart when the Ukraine war started because the US wanted India to disavow Russia. But how could India disavow Russia when Russia has been a strategic friend for decades? And now the US wants India to stop stop buying Russian oil when the US continues to buy various products from Russia. So, the Indians are hopping mad. And then you hear Peter Navarro talking about India in such contemptible terms. They deserve Maharaja tariffs. I think God. What's gone into them? I mean, if if you are a chess player, India is a big piece. And you must play that piece carefully. How can you be so insulting?
Because that insult is going to be multiplied 100 times in Indian media. And you get the Indians all upset. And the Chinese must they can't believe their luck, you know. I mean
They say, "Oh, thank you, America." Oh, we agree with India. We support India.
But in fact between Modi and Xi Jinping, there's never been any personal animosity. They very Their relationship was handled with great finesse. You remember Xi Jinping's first visit to Modi was in Ahmedabad where a Gujarati monk had gone to China a long, long time ago. And then Xi Jinping returned the favor by hosting him personally in Xi'an and brought him to the Dayan Ta, the Big Goose Pagoda where the great monk Xuanzang, after spending many years in Nalanda and bringing back the sutras, went back to Xi'an to translate the sutras. So, Xi Jinping brought Modi to that pagoda. And later on when he visited Beijing, Li uh Keqiang and Modi witnessed a simultaneous display on one side of yoga on the other side of tai chi. Each an ancient art. Both equally profound. With overlapping truths. But different truths overall. Then later on they meet in Wuhan. And after that Modi hosted Xi Jinping in Mahabalipuram deep in Tamil Nadu. I've been to Mahabalipuram before. Why Mahabalipuram? Because it has a seaside temple. In that temple there is a freeze with more maybe hundreds of Hindu deities. And somewhere in the middle was one of a Chinese face. Who is that Chinese deity? So, they say it must have been Fa Xian. 4th or 5th century Fa Xian after visiting India, he went to Kanchipuram, which is where Mahabalipuram is. And then from there he went to Sri Lanka, and then by sea back to China. So, when they meet each other, it's always beating It is always playing to the rhythm of a long history when both are ancient peoples when they benefited each other. And in Buddhism, India benefiting China more than the other more than the other way around. But mainly it was through Chinese records that India recovered a large part of his own history. So, when we had the opportunity to revive Nalanda University as a symbol of India-China relations over a long time, we jumped at it. But it took a wrong turning. It will come back. And our temporary replacement is the Nalanda professorship at at ARI. Yeah. But there's no reason why these two ancient peoples would want to be mortal enemies. Does China want to absorb 100 million Indians? I don't know. Yes, it's obvious. Would India want to absorb 100 million Chinese? No. And the Himalayas are so high, you can see concede a few kilometers here, give me back a few kilometers there. Who cares? Russia and China have a longer border than India and China. And they fought terrible wars in the Ussuri River over Zhenbao Island, Damansky Island. But when it was finally settled, no one bothered. In fact, you know, Tokayev, the president of Kazakhstan, he was a Soviet diplomat overseeing border negotiations. And when it was concluded, he was head of the Senate of Kazakhstan. I met him. I said, "What do you think of the settlement? I think who will concede more to whom?" He said, "Well, maybe we gave a bit more to China. We gave a bit more to China than China did. But more or less, what it would be. The same thing will happen with India. There'll be a swap of exchange for Arunachal Pradesh. There'll be some quarrels over the area around Taiwan, but that's it. So, for as long as you want peace, there will be peace. But if you want to make use of an event for geopolitical reasons, then there'll be no peace. But I think the clock has turned.
Well, thank you very much, Josh. I
Thank you for watching. If you found this video insightful, don't forget to like, share, and subscribe for more deep dives into geopolitics and global power shifts.