Transcription
The Hague is, I mean the Hague is, I think you have given the answer, nobody, because the UN Charter was for this particular purpose and a particular time and that seemed to have served its purpose. So what now?
Small states have little choices. I think that has always been known. That's why I say the idea that all states are equal and sovereign in the United Nations Charter of 1945 was an illusion. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You are assuming that the United States actually believes it has absolute power. Even the United States would agree that they've actually ruled with absolute power. The need to dominate, the need to be powerful, to win and to have losers admit that they lost. That has not changed at all. Absolutely.
Prof, you are a national treasure! Prof. It's such a privilege to be here, raring to go with you in this interview. How old are you? Nearly 96, about three, four months ago. 96 years. 95 and something. What's your secret? I'm just lucky, and probably my parents got something to do with it. No idea. Especially your mom, I guess. Especially my mom. She lived to 88 too. Wow. And your dad? My dad died young. He was only 67.... 69 when he died.
I would consider you the quintessential son of the Nusantara, the region, the Malay Archipelago. You were born in Surabaya, Indonesia. You were raised in Ipoh, Perak, and you did your undergraduate studies in Singapore, the Malayan University in Singapore. And of course subsequently you travelled all over in Australia. You were vice chancellor of the Hong Kong University. You travelled quite frequently to China. Right? My god, you are the son of this region. I think it is a long, long while. I wish I split a little bit somewhere else for a change. No, but what did you gather in a nutshell? Travelling, working in this region? Well, I found it such a fascinating place altogether. Everywhere there was something new to learn. Southeast Asia alone is a mixture of such a variety of people, cultures, languages, religions, customs, practises, different arts, dances, music in the different countries. Each of the 10 countries of Southeast Asia is different. So just visiting different ones that keep you very busy learning all the time. Yeah.
And there were also plenty of wars during your time. Correct. You would've seen the... Most of the wars. Actually nothing to do with the people within Southeast Asia. They were all wars brought to Southeast Asia by the people, the Chinese, Chinese Civil War from the twenties to... '27, 1927 to '49. Yeah, That's a civil war. Mainly in China. They really fighting over here is really over the expanding empires. Commercial companies fighting with each other like the East India Company. East India Company. Rivalry over economic interests. They were doing most of the fighting. When you look at the real fighting in Southeast Asia, they were only when the Portuguese came because then they had ships which could travel long distances and fire cannons in accurately. Nobody in Southeast Asia has ships that could fire cannons. Now that made a big difference to the way wars are fought. What year? 1500 or so when they took Malacca in 1511. Right, right. They overcome... all other shipping was just helpless in the face of Portuguese shipping. There were not that many of them. They were not very big ships, but they were very well-structured and they could fire cannons. And they were well-trained. The crew. Very well trained. They're not that many of them and yet they control the Persian Gulf all the way to the Spice Islands in Moluccas, in eastern Indonesia. They control all the end to Macau all within a few decades. They control everything. It's only later that the Dutch came and the English came. And the Spanish? Before? The Spanish of course had an agreement. They were only allowed to be in the Philippines because there was a papal agreement by the treaty of Tordesillas, by the papal... papal decree divided the world between the Spanish and the Portuguese half each. Wow, I didn't know that. That's how they saw the world in those days. We are very simple people today compared to those days! And it was the clergy that controlled... a lot of Europe. In the case of the Philippines, it was the clergy who went there and to convert all the people and turned it into a Spanish colony. Just like the Latin Americans. They worked on the same principle. They send the clergy, and they converted all the natives, turned them all into good Catholics and so on. And then the clergy basically ran the place because once the natives are converted, then they have to listen to the clergy who represent them. And then the head of the clergy was the pope. That's right. So that was a different system altogether. Portuguese were different. The Portuguese really came for trade and they were looking for the spices. That's what made them so rich.
Prof. I want to segway into something that I know will ruffle your instincts a little bit. What is the difference between history? You just talked about... you just brought history to life, the gems of information that you provided gives us a sense of what that era was about in this region, the Moluccas. But what's the difference between history and political science? A lot of people, including myself, studied political science, but why is history distinctly different? How is history different and why do you think history is so important? Especially today? History is really how people remember the past, what parts of the past that they find useful, important to remember, things that will help them deal with their future, help them guide, avoid mistakes, guide them to do the right things and be successful. I think that's what history was meant to do today. Of course there's a different idea of history. Since the 19th century we developed the idea that history should be to find the truth. Exactly what happened. But in the ancient times people were not interested in exactly what happened. What they wanted to know was from what happened, what lessons have we learned, what can it teach us about what to do in the future? And that I think was always the case until the 19th century. So whether it exactly happened that way is not as important as whether the lessons you learn from it is really effective. It's really the correct lesson. And how you judge that is because you learn from reading about that other people have learned from the past. If you keep on reading about other people's histories, you learn how other people learn from the past and learn from their mistakes. So in the end, what it boils down to is that you suddenly realise that everything has a history, everybody has a history, whether you recorded it or not, that's a different matter. But if you recorded, how was that recorded? And why did you record it the way you did? And there's no question that you always recorded the way you did because you wanted it to teach you something about the future. So when they say the victors write the history that precisely proves the point. I won! Therefore I tell you how I won and why I won. That's for the losers. They got nothing to tell. They lost, nothing there. But the victors, however, can interpret why the losers lost and why we won. And that is what is recorded and that passes on as a lesson to be learned for future people who want to win and don't want to lose. So it's interesting what you're saying, history is subjective. Historian's history is also subjective because depending on who the historian is and who is paying the historian as well. That too. As you said, the victor. The victor not only interprets it from the victor's point of view, the victor interprets the loser's point of view as well.
Now as they say, history is a great teacher, we are bad students. How would you interpret that statement? I Wouldn't say that we're necessarily bad students. I think lots of people learn from history. I mean, you learn from history. That's why you won again and again. For example, you take all the Chinese dynasties and the emperors, they learn from the past. They don't make the same mistakes they make, they improve the next time they win and they win in the battlefield or they win in the way they govern. They win the people's respect, and the people... why the people love them or do not like them, they learn about that. And other people do that in the same way. I mean the Roman Empire recorded their history so that, also, they want to know why so-and-so was such a good emperor and so-and-so was such a bad emperor in order to teach others to do the same. So each group writes its own history for a certain purpose. And even religions do that. It's not only political people. I mean religions record their history. I mean the Old Testament or the Quran is an actual work of history. It is. It records what happened that to teach you how to be a good person, how you be righteous and ultimately go to heaven instead of going to hell. And why you do that, you learn from the past. And what is selected for you to learn is to enable you to go to the right place and not to the wrong place. So everybody's using the past in one way or the other. It is.
So if you go back to the 1940s, just after the war and infamous Nuremberg trials. 12 people were sentenced to death. Now the victors of course drove that. They used morality, their morality to shape the world after that. If you fast forward today, some of the aggressors are the winners of that war. The US, Russia. US Russia, let's not talk about the other three. But today they're supposed to be playing the role of the global policemen, but they're the ones who are perpetrating what I would consider illegal war. The war on Iran is an illegal war. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was also not sanctioned by the United Nations or any other body. It was done unilaterally. The incursion, the Russian incursion into Ukraine was clearly illegal. Is there a difference between a war being illegal and a war being just? so they are justifying the war even though it's illegal? You see, this comes back to something very fundamental about what we mean by law. Are we sure that that law is really universal to all people with different historical backgrounds, Different religions, Different cultural values and so on? We know the international law of the United Nations as a set of laws that were devised after 1945. I think they were excellent for its time. In 1945, we were extremely fortunate that this set of laws learned from the... World War II. We learned the lessons and we try to create a world in which we will not have those wars again. And I think the whole world appreciated that. But still, it was a victor's law. And those laws were drawn up by people who won. And the principles that they believed why they won is because they observe certain principles and they made that into law. But law is one thing to dictate and just put down in writing. Who enforces the law? That was never very clear. So even from the beginning it was quite clear that nobody could really enforce it because there was a cold war or an ideological war between US and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. And they were non-negotiable. And so they stood opposed to each other. But with nuclear weapons, there was no question of fighting a war because the use of that would destroy all of us. So that held them back from fighting each other, but they could always fight through their proxies. And they did. And as long as they did that, the laws didn't apply. Because if I'm fighting for a proxy, I didn't ask them to fight. But they're fighting for their own reasons. Correct. But I support them because they're my allies. And you support yours because your allies. So the other principles coming which had nothing to do with the law, that becomes national interest. The interest of who wants of the winner, who wants to win, who doesn't want to lose and who wants to lose. So everybody wants to win. So we'll do whatever is possible to win. And if the law stands in the way, you either ignore it or try to change it. But in the end, the question is who enforces the law?
Hardly any Asian country had a seat. The Republic of China had a seat. Yes, had a seat. But it was clearly under the thumb of the United States. Of the United States Who protected It. Yes. So the point here is it is so difficult for a voice other than the Russian voice or the US voice or until recently the European voice to be tempered with an Asian voice. And I believe that that was why Kishore Mahbubani's first book, which I think was his best book, "Can Asians Think?", really got us thinking after a long time. And I remember reading that book at one go, and telling him, telling Kishore, that it really made me think about the time... whether this is the time for us to start asking those inconvenient questions. Now what do you think are the consequences of the world continuing to be dominated by a few countries, when actually those countries have not been abiding by the UN Charter? So who are the ones who actually judge whether we are doing the right thing or not? The Hague is, I mean the Hague is...I think you have given the answer, nobody, because the UN Charter was for this particular purpose and a particular time and that seemed to have served this purpose. So what now? What happens? At the moment, no rules. The rule-based order has actually vanished.
Now do you not think that the time has come for that to be expanded? Well, the only way you can do it is for there to be no superpowers. But that is exactly what the United States cannot stomach. They cannot imagine a world without them as the sole superpower. At the moment, their problem is that they don't want to see any other superpower arise, could challenge their position as the sole superpower, which they earned by 40, 50 years of standing up against the Soviet Union, the evil Soviet empire, which they finally defeated. Having defeated them, they've earned their position as a sole superpower and they now would like to act as the sole superpower. Well the problem is, again, the adage: absolute power corrupts absolutely. You are assuming that the United States actually believes it has absolute power. I think it has actually... even the United States would agree that they've actually ruled with absolute power. Because nobody has the ability to challenge and enforce that challenge. You can't. And I'm not suggesting that the United States was always an evil force or whatever. I'm not saying that. I think that they are the best option for a global policeman. I think they had the best intentions. Until a certain point in time. They actually set up those new rules, believing, quite genuinely believing they were the best possible rules. But do you not think that there's been an erosion of the quality of the American leadership over the years? When I say leadership, I'm not just talking about the president, I'm talking about the entire system of Congress as a check and balance. You see in the earlier years, before the war, before the World War, and just after, I think we had some absolute exceptional leadership. I'm not sure that it is just leadership in the United States. It is a fact that the world has changed in the course of that period. In other words, when those laws were drawn up, there was only really one superpower. And the thing is that, by 50 years later, others are also claiming to have some more power than they had before. And as you said.. they want to have a say. And as you said, by proxy, many of them are fighting these.... I mean Iran is a proxy of... people say it's a proxy of China, it's a proxy of the communist bloc. And The Iranians won't agree. They wouldn't agree, they wouldn't agree. Like North Korea is a proxy of China. Again, the North Koreans or the Chinese don't agree, won't agree with that. But these proxy wars, that's the problem with them. It's like... is the how do you fight the militia when the militia, unlike a conventional army, is not held back by having to abide by conventions.
You see where many of these things stem from: a Eurocentric history of the world in which it was natural to develop from empires into nation-states. It's sort of taken for granted. That is the way it has to be. And I grew up in believing that myself. So when the United Nations was created, we thought that was the end of the era of empires. The new era will be of nation-states and the world will be at peace. But what we forgot was that one of the reasons why those first two world wars were fought was because of nation-states behaving like empires. So they're not two separate words. You can have nations and empires at the same time and a nation that believes it has the power to be an empire would behave like one. So what we have done is that we thought we were giving up empires to have nation states. We now find that nation-states are all, whether they like it or not, more or less under informal or formal empires of one kind or the other, and not in the name of empires, but in the name of some liberal ideology or some values, Some ideological system. There are different ways of putting it. But in effect, they are actually acting like empires. And the nation-states have to pick and choose which empire to be belonged to. And the nation states to not have the kind of sovereignty that we were promised in 1945. We actually innocently believed that nation-states will all be sovereign and equal and all of us will be equal. So that the smallest states like Nauru is the same as the United States of America. Only one vote in the United Nations.
Is that why... Prof, is that why the non-aligned movement started by initiated by India failed? Well, the fact is that they pretended that they had enough to stand in between and not join the Cold War, but they couldn't do it because each one of them in their national interests will also want to choose which side in the Cold War would benefit them better Or not being on any one side but being on both sides. Yes, even that, even that, right? If you can manage that, If you can manage.
Now, when you talked about ideology and principles, what comes to my mind is a couple of months back, a month back, our foreign minister Vivian Balakrishnan made a very strong statement in Parliament, I believe, where he said that we will not negotiate, I'm paraphrasing. We will not negotiate with Iran on the Strait of Hormuz. We will not negotiate. And it's a matter of principle. It made sense on the one hand because, yeah, Singapore has always said we decide on principle, not on political alignment. But was it really principle or was it self-interest? You see, small states have little choices. I think that has always been known. And that's why I say the idea that all states are equal and sovereign in the United Nations Charter of 1945 was a illusion that we actually believed it, but we were so too innocent. We thought he was so new. But it is not true. Never been true. It has always been so that small states have to make up their minds which of the bigger states they should align with or at least be friendly, more more friendly with than another one. So those decisions are based on what we call national interest. But the national interest of a small state is very different from the national interest of the United States or China or Russia. Those are enormous countries. Their idea of a national interest, we mean that all of you have to listen to them. That's in their national interest, but that's not what a small state can claim. So the national interest of a small state is precisely the smallness of the national interest. So my question is, was that national interest at play or principles at play? I would say it was in the national interest of a small nation state to announce and talk about the principle. Yeah. Because you've no choice. That's very well put. Yeah, you had no other way of doing it.
I was very intrigued by your book "No Borders". I mean what you're talking about, what you're talking about is really this: no borders, right? Because it's really about the options available to smaller states and a lot of it is undergirded by your knowledge and your reading of history. Now let's talk about China. Its way of life, its philosophy, its governing philosophy - principles, if you may. Has it evolved because of certain events in history? Is China taking such a firm stance on Taiwan, on South China Sea that appears to be unreasonable? Unrealistic? But they are taking that stance? Is that linked to the 99 years of shame when they lost the sovereignty of Hong Kong and Kowloon and Macau? What was it? What is it that shapes the psyche of China? No other state in the history of the world has managed to describe their history as a continuous development of a centralised bureaucratic state for that long a period with breaks, but breaks always restored and become more powerful afterwards. So that history, you may say is not exactly what happened, but it's again what I said earlier on. It's how they chose to describe the history, how they've recorded the history in such a way to sustain that sense of continuity, to make sure that every Chinese believes in the centrality of that state and there's only one sun in the sky. Now that faith of unity and continuity and based on centralised authority, a bureaucratic state that controls everything within its own borders... is something that Chinese people have all along accepted as the norm. And it doesn't matter who the rulers are, whether they're Chinese or Turk or Mongol or Manchu, when they conquered China, they also took up the same idea that as victors, that is a victor's position. So that has been sustained for now in that standard histories, which I wrote, which every dynasty has the right history of the previous dynasty. Learning from its mistakes and emphasising the right policies, the correct decisions and the moral position that every ruler must take in order to serve the people properly. And to continue to receive the mandate from heaven. To receive the mandate of heaven. Because if you treat people badly, they will rebel against you and take the mandate from you and give it to somebody else. Yes. Now to avoid doing that, you must do your best. So they have written the history in such a way for you to learn. And they've shown again and again, people don't learn. And each dynasty have fallen and they're succeeded by a new dynasty with a new mandate. And that's the continuity. The continuity is that they succeed the same mandate. So they have the belief that they have continuous history of which they're very proud. And behind that history are set of principles: of good governance, good government, meaning the member must care for the people. It must employ people on the basis of meritocracy for people who are the best people chosen to provide good governance, to make the people happy with the ruler so that they don't rebel. You avoid protest. Accountability. Accountability. So you develop a set of principles in which governance becomes most important of all. And that governance has moral principles behind it as well as legal principles or worked out over the centuries to improve the capacity of the rulers to do better and survive longer. And in fact, the later empires lasted longer. For example, Ming Dynasty nearly 300 years, Manchu Qing dynasty could have lasted longer if not for the fact that they got invaded by the west in the 19th century. So all that confirms that that is to way China survives best and does best. Yeah.
So if I could just interject here, what we studied in school in a very rudimentary way, the Chinese considered themselves the "Middle Kingdom" and everyone beyond the borders of China were "barbarians". These were things that... Terminology they used. They stay in my mind from the time I was in secondary school learning about Chinese history. But do you think, and I believe that the Chinese believe it fundamentally; that they are the centre of the universe, centre of the world, of civilization and so on. Now do you think that that accounts for a lot of their current behaviour? South China Sea, dismissing the Hague decision in their conflict with Philippines and saying, look, we are not going to heed this. I think the Chinese will go further than that to say that every civilization believes that of itself. Every civilization had "barbarians" around them. The Greeks - the word "barba" comes from the Greek, Greek and Latin words, for the people who are not civilised, what they mean is they are civilised and there people uncivilised around them. And you have to defend your civilization against those who are not civilised. But the west, when they invaded China, they considered China uncivilised. That's exactly right. So the west... ancient India had the same thing. Same thing. Those outside were not civilised. The people in India were civilised. So everybody had that. So that is not exceptional about China, that's no different. That is what they say. There's "tian xia", all under heaven is that means that those are civilised and those who are not civilised, you either civilised them or you defend yourself against them until they're civilised. So that was a simple principle of which you continue to fight for your civilization and try to develop and make it better, stronger, richer and better respected and admired.
And if you fast forward now to the US-China summit that just ended recently on the 14th and 15th of May, there was nothing exceptional about the summit. Nothing exceptional happened, which is in itself exceptional with someone like Trump there because you would've imagined that he would do something that would be headline news. But what was interesting was - and this is my reading of it - China came out looking gracious, looking thoughtful, reflective and conciliatory and honourable. And all these adjectives, I think, fit the way they managed the entire situation. And a lot more honourable and gracious compared to the US conduct during the summit itself. Although a lot of people would agree that President Trump was in his best behaviour in China. What's your take? Besides this, and besides the emphasis on the how central the issue of Taiwan is - President Xi Jinping emphasised that twice I think. Besides that, is there anything significant about the summit? You see, if you take the short view, it's very simple. The borders of China, the one China always included Taiwan in the eyes of the Chinese. And that one government escaped to there because it was defeated on the mainland; doesn't make that island separate. It's still part of a civil war that has not yet been resolved. So I think that is the norm. So any other attempt to take Taiwan away from China or move it to ally with other powers must be seen as secessionists or endanger the security of China. And also it undermines the oneness of China, the oneness. So fundamental principles are involved here. So on this one they have a red line and this has been simple from the very beginning, that never changed. It was not as if they're changing their minds. The people have changed their minds are actually the people outside who saw an opportunity to take Taiwan away from China. It started with the Japanese long time ago. They occupied Taiwan for 50 years. They took Taiwan way back, in the line that they are islands off the coast of China and therefore they're not part of the mainland. China is a continental power, this is a different one. But anyway, so that has been there and the Chinese have always rejected that. And so when the Japanese lost the war, it was understood that all the territories that the Japanese had taken from China will be returned to China as part of China. So bearing that in mind, why are there people out there, in the eyes of the Chinese, trying to take Taiwan away from China and encourage the Taiwanese to separate from China and look to the United States or look to Japan for support against China, even if they don't declare themselves independent, nevertheless always to be separate from China. Insofar as that is happening, in the eyes of the Chinese, that is a security problem also, in addition to a proprietary problem. So why is the US continuing to persist on this? Because I think it was part of the Cold War. You see this is old history. Part of the Cold War, because when the Republic of China moved to Taiwan, the Korean War started. And the PRC, People's Republic of China, was seen as the ally of the Soviet Union, and somehow Mao Zedong was obeying Stalin's orders to fight, send their troops into North Korea. So then they became a part of the Cold War, and therefore Taiwan was now on their side of the Cold War. They must defend it as the frontline of the Cold War. And so once it was interpreted that way, and Chiang Kai Shek of course always said.. interesting thing, Chiang Kai Shek always said, there's only one China. Yeah, he did. His job was to try to get help to ensure that there's a chance for Taiwan to take back the mainland with American help.
Prof, to shift gears a little bit, 1972 rapprochement, US-China, with President Nixon visiting, making that historic visit to China. Do you think that kind of an rapprochment is possible given the current push factors? You see, you call it a rapprochement, I wouldn't have described it as such. It was a diplomatic victory for the United States to get China away from the Soviet Union. Actually China was already moving away from Soviet Union. This emphasised a break with the Soviet Union that isolated, at least stopped Russia from having any influence in China. So there was a diplomatic victory for Nixon. It was also to some extent for Mao Zedong because it protected China from Soviet Union. So everybody was happy. So you can call it a rapprochement in that sense. But once the Cold War was lost by the Soviet Union, America didn't need China anymore. What then was, sad to see, in the future, they won the Cold War, they're the sole super power... is there anybody out there likely ever to threaten us? And the strategists in the Pentagon in the 1990s already said the only possible one out there is China. Already. I remember reading at the time and met some people who thought like that already. Whose Presidency was it? Whose presidency? Under Clinton. Because after the Cold War, after Elder Bush had lost to Clinton. And they looked around and said nobody else can ever threaten the United States. Only one - potentially possible one - is China. They already saw that because the Soviet Union had been gone. So we start now in our new Cold War against China. That was debated but that was when the Chinese started to develop economically and in fact sought to be very capitalist in its economic acceptance of the global economy. And they joined in entrepreneurially, very successful and doing very well. And they wanted to join the World Trade Organisation. In that debate you can see that debate was vital. Because that debate was, can we take China out of that frame or are we faced with a second Cold War? And there were those who believed that if you let the Chinese be more and more capitalist, ultimately they will develop a middle class, and they will themselves become more like us, and then they will no longer be a threat. They'll join us. So that debate, I think troubled Clinton for quite a while, and Clinton was not convinced for a while. But finally, for a reason I'm not too clear, he accepted it. Allowed China to be a member of the World Trade Organisation under certain conditions and gave them certain exceptions, allowing them therefore to make use of the World Trade Organization's principles and so on to develop the economy, bring in foreign investments on a scale was unbelievable. And of course the capitalists moved into China in a way which... And many of them were from America. Almost, almost... The most important of them all from America. And they feted up the economic miracle in China by fantastic range. So that within a decade they were already... every year, 15-20% increase.
Would you agree with individuals such as Kishore Mahbubani and George Yeo who openly state that China has never had hegemonistic intentions? China has not conquered, attacked or conquered anyone else? Well, never in its history has it expected to be hegemonistic. They were quite content to control their own thing and defend themselves against barbarians. Those who are not... You'd agree with the view that they were not aggressive, they would not be aggressor. More in defence. Would you say... They were conquered many, many times. They were conquered. Parts of them were conquered. And by the Mongols, all of them, It's more accurate to say that Chinese, the Chinese are commercial hegemonists. The central government was not even happy with commercial people. The Ming Dynasty banned the Chinese from going to trade overseas. They set up a system which we call tributary system. To say foreigners can come and trade with us by bringing gifts, and we will give them gifts in return. To pay tribute. And we'll allow them to trade. But we don't want our Chinese people to go out and trade. What's the logic? Because they say then they might be used by them or they be to trade us amongst them and forget their loyalty to their emperor and so on. So we don't need it. You see, they were so... in a way so centred on their... And insular. Would you say they were insular? Confident that they were capable of looking after themselves. But that has changed quite dramatically today. Xi Jinping... and the way President Xi Jinping is engaging the Chinese diaspora. It's quite obvious that the Singapore government was quite uncomfortable with the level at which the Chinese representatives in Singapore were engaging with different parts of the Chinese community in Singapore. In fact, there were opinion pieces by respectable people who were very, very critical of that. So do you think that that China that you talked about that didn't want its people to go out and engage, today is actually engaging the Chinese who went out and became successful? You see, this is a complex question and this is the Chinese point of view. I mean, I'm not necessarily agreeing with that. The Chinese point of view: they're already there. All we need to say is that as Chinese we have interest in what you can do for China and so on. And insofar as you are still culturally linked with us. And so we encourage you to invest in China and help us invest in your countries and so on. Insofar as you are inviting all other foreign investors to your country, China would like to share the same thing. But that is a very different stance from much earlier that you talked about. They were suspicious of their own people going out. Oh yes, in fact completely different. But in a way that is again a recognition that the world has changed. They are now adopting the worldview. They are, they've learned from the west in an ironical way. Is that what troubles the West most of all is that the Chinese have learned so much from the West, and using Western methods to counter what they consider the advantages that the West have enjoyed. So these are paradoxes very hard to to pin down. What is what now today? Because what is China today? Now they say, we are a nation-state. And people said no, but you are an empire and you are still going to using the same map of the Qing Empire. But the Chinese said, but we are nation-state, a member of the United Nations as a nation-state. We're at a multinational state, there many other multinational states. We are no different and we are multinational state. We are protecting national interests. We are doing exactly what other people do. We want to invest. We invite foreign investment. We would like you to invite us as foreign investors when we have the money. So it is normal. It is, it's normal. In fact, some argue that India does that as well. India has the largest diaspora, larger than Chinese. And they're engaging, especially Prime Minister Modi, engaging the Indian diaspora.
We are coming to the end of the interview. It's fascinating the kind of insights that you're providing. Now, I'd like to focus on the word 'civilization', which is different from a state and a nation-state. Or culture. And I can't help but be reminded of how Professor Samuel Huntington's book, "The Clash of Civilizations" was poo-pooed by many intellectuals around the world as being simplistic. But actually I find that a lot of what's going on today is going back to the points that he raised, that there is a civilizational clash. And many in the world, especially the Chinese would say that China, India, they are civilizations. The US is not a civilization. I'd like your thoughts on this. Let me say that if we go back to Huntington, people poo-poo his book because, because people said civilizations don't clash. What clashes are political people making use of civilizations. In the name of civilizations, fight each other for dominance. So they poo-poohed it on that ground that Huntington was wrong to say it's a clash of civilization. He's a political scientist, he's talking about power. People using... He's not a historian. Abusing, abusing civilizations for the sake of political dominance. And to that extent, that extent, Huntington is probably... he didn't make it clear, but that is what he meant. And in that sense he's probably correct. It was powers, in the name of civilizations doing that. In that sense, America represents a civilization. Not America represents western civilization. Modern western civilizations that now say that that represents universal values. And if you don't follow that, you are against civilization. You are not civilised if you don't accept those universal values, which we had defined in the United Nations organisation in 1945 by the West. And if you don't accept that, you are not civilised. Then we have the right to fight you. So again, they are actually fighting in the name of civilization, without calling it Anglo-America, leading the whole Western. So it's not American, it's Anglo-American. It's a Roman... I call it a Mediterranean civilization that became the Renaissance, Reformation, into Enlightenment, Anglo-American at North Atlantic civilization. And Huntington is right to say, they have been opposed by what they call Islamic and Chinese civilization. He didn't even take Indian civilizations seriously. He didn't name them as being a danger because he's a political scientist. He's talking about power. He's not talking about civilizations.
Prof, I'd like you to have the last word in this interview. Could you state categorically, what do you think needs to be done to improve people's understanding of history and the importance of that understanding? I think there are jobs to be done by people who continually remind people that everything has a history, and every history has something to tell us about our present and possibly help us with our future. It certainly help us understand the present. And if you accept that general principle and then look upon the past, not as something to be forgotten and just for storytelling and so on, but to actually look out for those things in the past, which actually tell us something, which might help us understand the present better. I believe that the past actually has lots of things to tell us. We will never learn from the past in the same way because nothing is ever the same. The past is very different, the conditions are different. But there are always certain general principles about us as human beings. Human beings haven't changed all that much. Human beings are still basically what we are. We are nice, gentle, but we also aggressive and greedy. We are corrupt and we are all sort of, all these things are there all the time. They are universal. They are there all the time. And the fact is that we have different skills and technologies and methodologies to make ourselves more greedy, more corrupt and more powerful and more... greater capacity to bully and dominate than ever before. In the past we could only dominate our little valley or our little tribe, but now we can hope to dominate the world. Maybe cyberspace and the moon as well. So these are our ambitions, but the brain behind it, the need to dominate, the need to be powerful, to win and to have losers admit that they lost, that has not changed at all. Absolutely.
Prof, you are a national treasure. Wishing you more good years. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Viswa. You are very kind. You exposed me to all these rough ideas with you. Did you enjoy the interview? That's what's important.