Endgame with Gita Wirjawan - Kishore Mahbubani: The Biggest Mistakes of the US, China, and ASEAN

Episode Date: August 22, 2024

Join Endgame's first and biggest conference ever! https://www.endgametownhall.com ---------------------- Join Gita Wirjawan as Singaporean diplomat, founder of the LKY School of Public Policy, and former President of the UN Security Council, Kishore Mahbubani, makes his return to Endgame. In this conversation, Mahbubani explores the intricate dance between Western and Asian geopolitics, unravels the complexities of the UN Security Council, and examines the decline of multilateral institutions—along with how to bring them back. As new conflicts and alliances emerge, what will the future of global geopolitics look like? #Endgame #GitaWirjawan #KishoreMahbubani ---------------------- About Luminary: 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. Previously, he served as the President of the United Nations Security Council (2001 - 2002), Singaporean Ambassador to the UN, as well as Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Ministry of Singapore (1993 - 1998). A philosopher by training and storyteller by nature, Mahbubani has written various books surrounding Asian and Western geopolitics—his latest open-access book, The Asian 21st Century (2022), reaching over 3 million downloads. About the Host: Gita Wirjawan is an Indonesian entrepreneur, educator, and Honorary Professor of Politics and International Relations at the School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham. He is also a visiting scholar at The Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) at Stanford University (2022—2024) and a fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. ---------------------- To discuss and explore more of this episode, visit: https://endgame.id/

In life, there are lots of paradoxical truths. One of the paradoxical truths that has been true for 2,000 years. If you want to enjoy peace, prepare for war. It is very easy for us in Asia to become infected by Western pessimism. What do you wish from the incoming leadership of Indonesia? for purposes of strengthening the centrality of ASEAN. Well, and I'll be very blunt here, the biggest mistake we are making is that we can see the West creating an angry dragon.

We know that this angry dragon will be a problem for us, but we keep absolutely quiet while the West is making the dragon angry. Peace, as in South. This Asia reflects geopolitical competence, wars as in Ukraine and Gaza, reflect geopolitical incompetence. So we in Asia should consciously and forcefully reject Western pessimism and instead project Asian optimism. Hello, teman, not teresa, it's not there's almost four years since we've started mission our

to give us to give a pangoon to the narrator bankers. Senang to how endgame has been evolutions

that'd at the time that was just about about episode per episode, but this

is a community where the ideas that the need the need to need to the time

for the discussion and the discursuskan. We're quite I'm also very in the team endgame

because evolution the evolution and for them who don't know we're going we're doing we're doing

the endgame town hall where you can learn from and more more than from the blasan

narrator that very much don't remember on 14 September 2004 in Jakata check detail

of the ticket and ticket the endgame Town Hall Hi, friends. Today we're honored to have Professor Kishore Mahubani, who is the founding dean of the LKY School of Public Policy in Singapore. Kishore, thank you so much. My pleasure. For coming again to our show. I'm glad this time in person. Much better.

I know. Since the last time we talked in front of a camera, the world has changed. What would be your take on how the world has changed in the last two days? three years? Well, I mean, firstly, we've had two big wars that were a big surprise. The first was the Ukraine war, and the second was the Gaza war. And yet, paradoxically, looking back, while there were surprises when it happened, you could also see very clearly the structural forces that were building up towards these two wars. Secondly, of course, the US-China contest has accelerated and sadly will get worse over the next 10 years. The contradictions within the two are being baked into the system, you know.

And thirdly, since it's always good to throw in a bit of good news, that while you see many troubled parts of the world, Southeast Asia overall, it's got challenges in Myanmar, South China Sea, Asian and Southeast Asia by and large, are sort of quietly moving forward. many of the countries within Asian continue to look very promising. Good. I want to touch on the situation in Ukraine. It seems on the surface and by way of some of the conversations I've had with other public intellectuals, it seems to be making China and Russia closer to each other. And that seems to around counter what perhaps some of the early thinkers in U.S. foreign policy

would have been advocating for as for perhaps the United States to be closer to one of the two so that they could contain the third. What has happened in the thinking of the U.S. foreign policy? Well, I hope you don't mind anything. if I'm somewhat provocative and blunt in my reply, the Ukraine war is a disaster that is a result of European geopolitical incompetence. And I think we must call a spade a spade. Peace, as in Southeast Asia, reflects geopolitical.

competence, wars, as in Ukraine and Gaza reflect geopolitical incompetence. And the Europeans at the end of the Cold War had a golden opportunity to complete this centuries-long quest to bring Russia and the West closer together, right? If the European leaders had been wise, they should have found ways and means of engaging Russia wisely and integrating it into the fabric of Europe. But unfortunately, after the Cold War ended, the Europeans haven't had those kinds of long-range thinkers. They have progressively alienated Russia by supporting a NATO. those expansion, which they must know would have angered Russia. And why anger an important neighbor of yours when the neighbor is going to be around for

1,000 years is bizarre? And it shows that the Europeans don't understand that the world has changed and they have to adjust to a different world. Now, I have to add that paradoxically, on the Ukraine issue, the United States has been geopolitically very, very shrewd. Because the Ukraine war

has been nothing but a positive for the United States. Because here was China trying very hard to work with Europe as a strategic autonomous actor to counterbalance the US. But

All the European hopes and aspirations for strategic autonomy disappeared as soon as the Ukraine war began because the Europeans realized, oh my God, we can't defend ourselves without the United States. They have become far more dependent on the United States for their security. And as a quid-poco, United States is saying, excuse me, if I'm with you on Russia, where are you with me? China. So the Ukraine war has been clearly a setback for Europe, a set back for Russia, a set back for China, but a plus for the United States of America. Interesting. How is that also a plus for the U.S. in the context of what's happening in Gaza? Or it's probably the other way around? Well, I would say the Ukraine war is a plus for United States.

The Gaza war is a minus for the United States. Because I don't think we've had a war like the Gaza war happen in a long time because we've never had a situation. where people can see in real time innocent civilians being killed. By the way, both the innocent Israeli civilians

who were killed by Hamas, terrorists, and then subsequently the Palestinian civilians who were then killed in the Israeli retaliation against Hamas. And it's such a tragedy for Israel, because Israel always had a certain reservoir goodwill in the world towards a state that they thought was, you know,

in one way, another, isolated or endangered. Now, I think survey after survey will show that the standing of Israel has gone down. And Israel has to deal with international judicial bodies like the ICJ and the ICC. And certainly, as even surveys in Southeast Asia have shown, the standing of the United States has gone down because he's not been seen to play a constructive, mediative role on Gaza. Would this be an event or a phenomenon where you think there's scarcity of long-term thinking

on both the Israelis and the US because there's this apparent, you know, juxtaposition of the declining moral value in terms of what's happening in Israel with respect to the continuing support by the US towards Israel? And it's not, I just don't think it's a good thing for both Israel and the U.S. I mean, on top of the fact that it's much worse for the civilians, more on the Palestinian side. I think what is missing in Israel and the U.S. Is any kind of serious, long-range strategic thinking

on what would be the ultimate solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. Now, in theory, Israel and the US are in favor of a two-state solution. In practice, Israel has been undermining the prospects of a two-state solution partly by the isolation of Gaza, but even more dangerously by having 6 to 700,000 settlers in the West Bank. Now, if indeed you're going to have a two-state solution,

I don't see how any democratically elected Israeli government can remove 700,000 Israeli settlers. I cannot see the Israeli army going in to shoot at Israeli settlers in the West Bank. So in a sense, Israel has created a situation which has prevented a two-state solution. And yet, by preventing a two-state solution, Israel is condemning itself to constant warfare in one way or another with several of his neighbors.

And, you know, this is Singapore, as you know, has been a longstanding friend of Israel. We want to see Israel do well. And if you as a friend see a friend of yours walking towards a cliff, do you say keep on walking or do you say stop? And I personally see Israel walking towards a cliff if it carries on with its current policies. Because its current policies are based on the assumption that Israel and its strongest backer United States

will always remain stronger than all the powers and the rest of the world. And that is certainly true for now, but that cannot be true forever. And remember that in the Cold War, Israel was very careful about how it handled the Palestinian issue. Because he knew that states had an alternative. So if we move from a unipolar world to a multipolar world, and I have absolutely no doubt, that we're moving into a multipolar world, it is not the same unipolar world

in which Israel would have licensed to do everything it had to do. So Israel therefore should start doing its long-term strategic calculations on what its place will be in a multipolar world and what adjustments it needs to make. And if it does those calculations, it will inevitably come to the conclusion

that unless Israel works with the 140 countries that have recognized Palestine as an independent state, you will find itself progressively isolated in the world. So in terms, I'm not arguing in terms of higher ethical values, I'm not arguing in terms of altruism, I'm arguing on the basis of hardcore, selfish national interests of Israel. and these hardcore selfish national interests of Israel means that Israel must work for two-state solution

honestly and realistically. Israel is walking or a parent or seeming walking towards the cliff. Is that also a manifestation of the fact that it's not willing to listen to multilateral institutions and perhaps the declining capacity of multilateral institutions to enforce certain things or to reinforce certain things? I think in many geopolitical issues, it's very important to understand

that there are layers and layers of complexity. So when you say that Israel doesn't want to listen to multilateral institutions, it'd be more accurate to say that it is the current Israeli Prime Minister, Vibineta Nowu, who doesn't want to listen to multilateral institutions or, frankly, anybody else,

because he has a personal interest that may override the country's national interests. It may be in the country's national interests, let's say, to have a ceasefire and maybe a prolonged truce in the war. In the hope you can get some Israeli hostages back, in the hope that you can save Palestinian lives, in the hope that you can bring calm to the region.

But if that happens, it's possible that Bibi Netanyahu may lose his job as prime minister. And if he loses his job as prime minister, according to Tom Friedman of New York Times, he may end up getting charged in court, and he may go to jail. So because of his personal interest in not going to jail, I predict that the war will definitely carry on at least until the presidential elections in the U.S. in November,

because I believe Bibi wants to seize Donald Trump being elected as president, and to see even though he calls Joe Biden his friend, He wants to see Joe Biden defeated in the November elections. So you can see, therefore, what is ostensibly a straightforward issue of war and peace. It's complicated by one person's personal interests, complicated by the U.S. presidential elections, and these are the factors that are also at play. But on the question of multilateral institutions, I belong to an endangered species called the true believers in multilateralism. And even though it's conventional wisdom in today's world to rubbish multilateralism, I believe in the long run, there's absolutely no other way of managing our own.

world except through universal multilateral institutions, especially the United Nations. You're sure, you've written 10 books and you've talked a lot about how, about your views about rejigging the UN, rejigging the Security Council, the rejigging the way we see, you know, multilateralization going forward. Talk about that. Well, you know, while it may appear that the solutions to multilateral, strengthening multilateral institutions may appear difficult, there is actually one silver bullet we have that can rescue the UN immediately. and paradoxically, that silver bullet solution has been provided by a former American president called Bill Clinton.

Because Bill Clinton is, even though his record as president, as you know, was mixed partly because of personal reasons, is actually a very wise thinker. And in a speech in Yale he gave, after stepping down as president in 2003, he said, if America is going to be number one forever, then fine. America can give him doing whatever he wants to do.

But then he added a part. He said, but if you can conceive of a world where America is no longer the dominant, political, military, economic, cultural superpower in the world, then surely it is in America's national interest to strengthen multilateral institutions, multilateral processes, multilateral rules, multilateral norms. And he didn't say this, but what he was implying is that then these multilateral rules and norms would then constrain the next number one power, which of course will be China.

So it was a very wise prescription. and by doing so he was actually admitting what we all know to be the truth, the reason why multilateral institutions have been weak, especially since the end of the Cold War in a unipolar world, is because it has been American policy to weaken multilateral institutions. In fact, in my book, The Great Convergence, I actually cite a former director of the National Intelligence Council of the U.S. telling me, face to face one-on-one

that, okay, Singapore may need strong multilateral institutions because they enhance the voice of small states like Singapore. For United States, multilateral institutions constrain the United States. So he admitted that United States wants to weaken multilateral institutions. And so, but just imagine a world in which the United States realizes that's in its interest to strengthen multilateral institutions. And once it comes to that real,

realization, everything changes. Because right now, we still have a window because China is not yet number one. And the Chinese do believe that multilateral institutions are good. So if you can imagine a world in which United States and China agree that you should have strong multilateral institutions, then voila, the problem has been solved. What about the Security Council? Well, the Security Council clearly is by far, most people are not aware of this, the most powerful organization in the world. Because only the Security Council can make decisions that are binding and mandatory on all UN member states. So the United Nations Security Council imposes sanctions on Iraq, for example, we have to comply. You have no choice because it's a decision of the UN Security Council.

But the only way for the UN Security Council to survive is if it's in its permanent members, it includes the great powers of today or the great powers of tomorrow, but not the great powers of yesterday. and even though 80 years ago or 79 years ago when the UN was founded clearly the five most powerful countries were United States, Soviet Union, China, UK and France, but 80 years have passed. And I think neither UK nor France can be called world powers today. and UK is no longer the top five economies in the world, neither is France, and UK sadly will not be among the top ten economies in the world very soon. So clearly, it will be wiser for the British to acknowledge that times have changed

and perhaps the best thing they can do to make up for their colonization of India is to acknowledge that India is now clearly, comprehensively, the third most powerful country in the world after the United States and China. Right. Makes sense. So why not?

Give up its seat to India. And believe me, it would be a win-win situation because India is strong enough, powerful enough to deserve a seat on the UN Security Council. And the UK once is freed of its, how do you say, of having his hands tied in the UN Security Council.

Now, what do I mean by having his hands tied in the UN Security Council? The British could never do anything independent of the United States. So why put handcuffs on yourselves? by leaving this UN Security Council, the British are giving up their handcuffs and said, okay, I'm now a free and independent nation. I will pursue my own policies. And frankly, the world is looking for countries

to provide independent voices in this world because they're just tired of listening only to the great powers. Do you see the UK as having a necessary humility and realism to do that in our lifetime? The British, it's hard to believe this, but at one stage, they could effortlessly run the world. Exactly a hundred years ago, in 1924, a hundred thousand Englishman

could effortlessly rule over 300 million of my ancestors in India. Amazingly. It's quite shocking. But, you know, that frankly requires a lot of political and strategic acumen to be able to do that. And, of course, it's inconceivable for the British to send 100,000 Englishmen to run India today. I think they'll be massacred if they arrived in India today. but at the same time

there's still some of that old acumen within the British intellectual traditions and it's still a country that has produced great writers whether it's Shakespeare whether it's Jane Austen whether it's Chaucer

J.K. Roaring. Or J.K. Rowling. So they do have a tremendous amount of intellectual capacity which they now should utilize to create an independent British voice in the world and not a subservient British voice, which no one will respect. You know, the Cold War and post-Cold War international order would have been somewhat thick with militarism.

And this is kind of manifested in the fact that if you take a look at the total defense budget of the world, it would have been about $2.75 trillion of which the United States, NATO and their friends

make up about $2.15 trillion. And you compare all these with the single multilateral institution which we call the UN, which is only with a budget of about $4 billion, what's the hope for ushering this multilateral narrative going forward when everybody else is just piling up with defense capabilities,

and this one only sits with about $4 billion worth of budget? Well, you know, in life there are lots of, of paradoxical truths. And one of the paradoxical truths that has been true for 2,000 years, is that if you want to enjoy peace, prepare for war. So in some ways,

having lots of military expenditures doesn't necessarily mean that there'll be war. If you have two very well-armed states facing each other, like, for example, the United States and China today, when both sides realized that war is not a win-lose proposition, that a nuclear war between United States and China would be a loose-loose proposition because even if the Chinese lose 30 to 40 cities, the United States would still lose five to ten cities. And I can't imagine the United States the United States sacrificing New York and Washington, L.A. and San Francisco, Chicago and Minneapolis

to trying to win a war against China. It's one thing to send soldiers to fight in the field. It's another thing to have your cities obliterated. So I think having those nuclear weapons creates a certain degree of reality. But however, I have to add that in the Cold War, most American leaders and Russian leaders and Chinese leaders are very aware of the dangers of nuclear war. Today, unfortunately, after 30 years of a unipolar world, American leaders and strategic thinkers

have forgotten about the dangers of a nuclear war. Because I think that while President Joe Biden was very wise at the beginning of the Ukraine war in insisting that American weapons should not be used to hit the territory of Russia because it could accidentally trigger a nuclear war. But therefore, I'm actually. actually quite short by the latest American decision to allow American weapons to be used by the

Ukrainians to hit Russian soil because then you are moving one step closer towards nuclear retaliation. At the end of the day, given the dangers of nuclear war, you know, there's a famous clock, doomsday clock. We are either two or three minutes away from doomsday once a nuclear war begins. So why not move that clockhand backwards rather than forwards? But to move that clockhand backwards, you need wise, long-term strategic leaders. And the West doesn't have wise, long-term strategic leaders today. And that makes the world more dangerous. So therefore, it's not just just a question of how many weapons you have, you also need to understand the dangers of these weapons

and what they can do to your societies. What explains the fact that the policy thinkers or makers in the West right now don't seem to have the kind of long-term strategic thinking that we were used to seeing in the old days? Well, I must emphasize that the absence of long-term strategic thinking was confirmed to me by one of America's greatest living strategic thinkers, Henry Kissinger. And, you know, I saw him, I think, about eight months before he died.

I saw him in October 22. And he's clearly one-on-one. was very worried about this incapacity of the West at large to understand that you got to deal with a very different world and that the West has got to make some adjustments in this world. But the other reason why there's this absence of long-term strategic thinking, because the generation of people like Kissinger or Richard Nixon, they had experienced World War II. They knew the horrors of war.

But once you stop experiencing the horrors of war, and once you assume that you'll be superior forever, then you begin to do dangerous, reckless things. And the sad part, you know, again, I say this is a friend of the United States. It's a bit tragic that when you go to the United States, you see a crumbling infrastructure. You see bridges collapsing in Pittsburgh. You see bridges collapsing in Baltimore.

And you wonder, why are you spending so much money on aircraft carriers, fighting unnecessary wars like Iraq, when you have much more pressing needs at home? And indeed, surprisingly, a relatively conservative, American thinker like Nile Ferguson has said in a recent article that we Americans are the Soviets now and he's right because if you look at it

in the old Soviet Union what was striking was declining life expectancy in the United States today declining life expectancy in the old Soviet Union rising infant mortality in the United States

rising infant mortality. In the old Soviet Union, stagnant living standards for the bottom 50%. In the United States, stagnant living standards for the bottom 50%. It's actually quite striking. So in a country that has so many domestic challenges, why not spend the time and effort to rebuild your own society? because at the end of the day, as George Kennan said, then talking about the Cold War,

and I mentioned this in my book as China won, that the outcome of the war which is not by military weapons, but by the spiritual vitality of your own society. And American society is clearly a very deeply troubled society. Only a deeply troubled society would re-elect a man like Donald Trump as president. And then by contrast, if you look at China,

if you go to China, you'll be stunned by the infrastructure that you see there. And the living standards of the Chinese people have improved more in the past 30 years than they have in the past 3,000 years. So that's the real. So if the United States could focus more on improving the living standards of his people, less on projecting power overseas, it'd be better for the United States and maybe even better for the world. You've alluded to the fact that the last couple of hundred years of Western domination would have been an historical aberration.

To what extent do you think this will be short-lived? or long lift on the back of China's rise? Well, I think it's to give the West credit where it's due, it's actually quite stunning that there's very small populations in the West first of all, succeeded so spectacularly. I mean, delivering the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the scientific revolutions.

I mean, frankly, if the West hadn't modernized the world, you and I wouldn't be sitting in this room in this incredibly modern environment all around us with this technology that all came in many ways from the West, right? So the West gifted the world with modernization. And the world clearly has been, benefited a lot from the gift of modernization. But once that gift or modernization was shared with the world,

then it was very clear that once the rest of the world could do exactly everything that the West does, the share of Western power of the world would shrink. It's inevitable. And therefore, it would be wiser for the West to adapt its. to a world in which Western power has shrunk, but adapt intelligently, preemptively, instead of trying to resist it and refusing change. To give you a very simple example to it, just to illustrate my point, it made sense in the 1940s for the Europeans to insist that the head of the IMF should be European and the head of World Bank

should be American. that made sense in the 1940s because United States alone at 50% of the world's GNP and the Europeans were obviously going to recover and do very well. But now, eight decades later, when the most dynamic, fastest growing economies are in Asia, how can you deny Asians from running the IMF of the World Bank? But that's an example of how the mindsets of, Western domination are so deeply embedded in the minds of Western leaders that they cannot do the obvious, common-sensical thing make way for somebody else.

This stickiness with respect to the old paradigm that would have dated back to the 40s can only be unlocked through a number of means, one of which is the continuation of the Chinese, the continuation of China's rise, right? China is just going to be much more dominant going forward, right? And they're going to be able to insist upon revising the pre-existing order. Or, secondly, it could take, again, the humility or the realization by the West that perhaps some of these multilateral institutions should be headed up by an Indian, by Chinese, by Southeast Asian, by an African, or whatever.

Are we likely to witness the end of engagement between China and the U.S.? Well, I think nowadays no American leader dares to use the word engagement. Sadly, I mean, engagement, by the way, is a positive. human relationship. Just like you and I are engaging each other now, which is the most civilized thing to do. And the normal position within two great powers, any two great powers should be engagement.

But if you use the word in the United States, if any American politician says, I'm in favor of engagement with China, he's dead. He's finished. I mean, that's how bad the situation. situation is. Now, your bigger question was, where is China hitting? Is it going to disrupt the world order or is it going to become, in a sense, a supporter of the current world order? And my answer to you is that that will depend on how we treat China as it is rising. Now, China is clearly, you know, Napoleon

famously said, don't wake up the sleeping dragon, China, because if you do, it's going to shake the world. Now, you and I know that there are two ways of waking up a human being. Either you wake up the person very gently, whisper soft things into his or her ear, nudge him gently, then he or she will wake up relatively happy. Or you could take a bucket of water. and splash it on the person and say, wake up. You can imagine how angry that person's going to be. And paradoxically, while the United States, to be fair, engaged China very well in the Cold War.

And I would say the whole period from Nick Kessinger's visit in 1971 to roughly till the end of the Obama-Eurban, in 2016. So for 45 years, roughly, United States did engage China quite well. And actually, at the end of the day, created a China that had stakes in the current world order

and also became a responsible stakeholder of the world in many ways. but since then, the United States has now decided to do the opposite and use all kinds of measures to stop the rise of China. And in the case of the United States today, even though the United States is bitterly divided as a society, and Trump and Biden don't agree on anything, but they only agree on one thing, it's time to stop China,

which I think, by the way, is an unwise policy because it ain't going to work. you can't stop China's rise. China's rise or demise will be determined by internal forces inside China. You from outside, you cannot influence it. And so if the United States is now going to take measure after measure against China, tariffs, chips, sanctions, clearly China is going to emerge as a very angry dragon.

And so I wonder whether the West has thought about this and say, is this what we want to see? Happen in the world. Now, for us in Asia, the biggest mistake we are making is that we can see the West creating an angry dragon. We know that this angry dragon will be a problem for us, but we keep absolutely quiet while the West is making the dragon angry.

That's so unwise of us Asians. The trouble about Asians, as you know, is that we are too polite. And when the angry dragon is woken up, the United States may one day sail home and say, okay, I'm going to go home. I don't care what happens. Who's left to deal with the angry dragon?

We are. So why aren't we speaking out? Why aren't we saying the most logical and most obvious thing that, hey, what are you doing? What are you trying to achieve? So we should be the ones acting to tamper the forces that are trying to create an unnecessary conflict. Because our own interests will be endangered by doing so. But we haven't. There's no leader who's been willing to do so so far.

But I do hope that maybe your next president, General Prabhu, will speak out and express what is in the minds of many Southeast Asians. Well, he has that instinct for internationalism, in my view. I think he's going to be able to try to project, you know, Indonesia's internationalism in whatever context possible, regionally or internationally? Well, he has a massive opportunity in the year

2025 next year because it'll be the 60th anniversary of the Bandung Conference. And I know you've had many conferences post-Bandong conference but now I think in the year 2025 we really need a big bang

Bandung conference because I can tell you as someone who travels around the world, many countries in the global south are very upset by this unnecessary emphasis on the zero-sum game between US and China because they feel that their own interests are being damaged by this geopolitical contest. So the global south is looking for a way, of sending a big message to both U.S. and China that if you want to carry on this contest, you go ahead, don't get us involved.

Don't ask us to pick sites. Don't tell us don't buy Huawei. We will do what we need to do. Right? And so since this voice needs to be expressed, it needs a launching pad for it to be expressed. So a second Big Bang Bandung would be a way of sending a very strong message that the majority of the people who live in the global south don't want to take sites in this US-China contest. And in fact, would like the US and China to try and moderate their contests and keep it with a certain guardrails and ensure that other global priorities,

like climate change, like the next pandemic, now I see that bird flu may come back, like another financial crisis. Let's focus on the problems that are most important for humanity and not put the zero-sum game about who's number one power in the world to be the defining force in world events. If you presented this argument very compellingly in the past, many times, about the fact that not just Southeast Asia, but the global South would have been very much used to,

multipolarity. And what is specifically about Southeast Asia, I think people tend to underestimate the degree of agency that we have and we've been able to show for the past thousands of years. But in this tension between the U.S. and China, right? What would be your prediction about what could or would happen with Taiwan.

First, let me say a quick word about Southeast Asia, since you mentioned it. Because it's one of the biggest ideas that most leading Western minds cannot see is that the world of tomorrow will be very different from the world of yesterday where the West dominated the world. they cannot see this new world so let me give everyone a shorthand view of understanding the world of tomorrow and I'm going to call it the 3M world

the 3Ms that will define the world of tomorrow is one multi-civilizational two multipolar as you said three multilateral because in the world that is small global village you need multilateral institutions. Now guess what? Which is the one region in the world that intuitively understands the three amps? Multi-civilizational, multi-polar, multilateral, that's ASEAN. And so ASEAN, therefore,

is a living laboratory of how the world can cope with this new world of tomorrow. And I think the rest of the world should pay greater attention to what ASEAN does. And again, I hope that President Prabhu will make an effort to explain ASEAN better to the rest of the world, because we have an amazing ASEAN story that hasn't been sold to the world. But on your question of Taiwan, it's very important to start off with a key point here. Taiwan is not an international problem. Taiwan is an internal problem. And remember, even the United States has officially acknowledged a one-China policy. A one-china policy means that both Taiwan and China are part of one-China. It doesn't mean one China, one Taiwan. So this is a basic point that people keep forgetting. And so if the United

States says, I must say, I'm very glad that the Biden administration, one of the best things the Biden administration has done, especially after the very disruptive visits of Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, is to emphasize that the United States has not backed away from its one China policy. And you notice how relations between U.S. and China stabilized a bit after San Francisco. Because I think the United States gave a categorical assurance. Now, so if you, and my hope is that if Donald Trump is elected president, that he will also reiterate the one China policy, But unfortunately, some of his advisors may dangerously move away from that.

And I'm not exaggerating here because his former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, after he stepped down as Secretary of State, went to Taiwan and gave a speech in which he recommended that the U.S. should recognize Taiwan as an independent country. Now Mike Pompeo is an incredibly intelligent, sophisticated person. He knows that if the United States recognizes Taiwan as an independent country, he's calling for a declaration of war by China against Taiwan. So that's why it's very important that the advisors who advise Trump on China issues emphasized that he should reiterate that U.S. and other states remains committed to its one China policy.

Sure. You've been a very big proponent of China, right? What would be one thing that you could perhaps be critical of with China? Well, I would say the one of the biggest, and I'll be very blunt here, one of the biggest mistakes that China has made is in strongly endorsing the nine dash line. Now, we all don't know where the nine dash line came from. Professor Wang Gang Wu, the greatest Asian historian in the world today, has said that the nine dash line was probably created by the Japanese,

when they controlled China and Taiwan, as you know. And the trouble with the nine dash line is that no one knows what it means. I mean, many people think that with the nine dash line, China is claiming all of South China Sea at its territorial waters. Now, clearly it isn't. Every day, thousands of ships go through the South China Sea. without asking for permission from China. If it is territorial waters,

they have to ask for permission from China. And so it is a mistake to have a nine dash line whose meaning no one knows. And frankly, looking back now, one of the biggest mistakes that was made by some Chinese officials, I don't think that the decision was made by Chinese leaders to put the nine dash line on the passport of the Chinese. Now, once you put the nine dash line on the passport of the Chinese,

the Chinese government's hands are tied. Now, the reason why I say the hands are tied is because it is not in China's national interests to see the nine dash lines succeed because China today is a global naval power. There are more Chinese goods traveling around the world than American goods traveling down the world. How can Chinese goods travel around the world? They need open seas. They need countries to adhere

to a 12-mile territorial limit. Right? It's in China's interest. So why grab this small body of water in South China Sea and endanger your global interest?

Now the global, this South China Sea is what? two or three percent of the world's oceans, maybe one percent. Why give up 99 percent of the world's oceans were one percent? So the nine dash line, as I said in my book, the new Asian hemisphere, has become an albatross around the necks of the Chinese. And I think the Chinese have got to figure out how to handle this carefully and sensitively because at the end of the day, they need good ties with the ASEAN countries.

And the 9-dash line creates a point of friction between China and the ASEAN countries. And since this point of friction was created by China, China has got to remove that point of friction. As a fellow Southeast Asian, are you code of conduct optimistic with regards to resolving this Kwok-Meyer? I think more important than the Code of Conduct, I don't know whether it'll come about, is a clear understanding between China and especially the four Ashtian-Clayman states, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, that even while they have differences on the South China Sea, they will manage these differences peacefully. and not allow it to ever come to blows. And so far, touch wood, we have done a relatively good job. We've had moments of tension.

We've had dangerous moments that happens, but we manage to resolve them. And so if you can get an explicit understanding within China and the four claimant states that the differences will always be resolved peacefully, then I think we'll be okay. In your famous recent session in New York, you alluded to how the Vietnamese see China. You know, anybody that wants to be the leader of China, I mean, Vietnam,

you've got to be able to stand up to China, but you also got to be able to deal with it. Is that the kind of attitude that the other Southeast Asians, ought to be with, or it's just peculiar with Vietnam? Well, I think you're referring to my session with Ovil Shale, the Asia Society in New York, which, as you indicated, seems to have traveled well around the world. I would say some aspects of the China-Vietnam relationship can also apply to other Southeast,

And certainly we in Southeast Asia must be able to stand up to China because China will become our biggest neighbors. But we must also be able to get along with China. But at the same time, what is unique about the China-Vietnam relationship, which doesn't apply to the other nine Southeast Asian states, is that the other nine Southeast Asian states have an Indic cultural base. Vietnam is the only one that has a cynic cultural base. So there's a kind of intimacy between Vietnam and China that is very deep and goes back thousands of years because Vietnam is the only state in Southeast Asia that's occupied by China for 1,000 years. And at the same time, the Vietnamese and Chinese have a very complicated relationship.

and I'll tell you one story which I told at Columbia University. You know, way back in the 1980s when Asian and Vietnam were still fighting over Cambodia, I gave a speech at Columbia University. What surprised me was that in the front row was some Vietnamese diplomats at time when Singapore and Vietnam were quarreling with each other. So I said Vietnam and China, I've been fighting wars for 2,000 years. And I said, it's not surprising. that sometimes the Vietnamese armies defeat the invading Chinese armies.

So in 1979, the Vietnamese army fought well against the Chinese army. But in the past, whenever a Vietnamese army defeated an invading Chinese army, the first thing the Vietnamese emperor would do would be to send tribute to Beijing and say, I'm very sorry that I defeated your army. Please accept my apologies. And I say in 1979, Vietnam forgot to send the apologies. And you know what? The three Vietnamese diplomats went like this.

So, you know, there are some at the end of the day ancient relationships, especially in Asia. Another example is China and Japan, right? And fortunately, you know, Ezra Bogle points out in his book on China and Japan. Japan, China and Japan have had the longest recorded bilateral diplomatic history. So these two countries know each other very well. And for the past, out of the past 1,500 years, they lived at peace for 1,450 years. So it's important, therefore, for us in Asia to nudge China and Japan back to the 1,450 peaceful-year relationship, rather than trying to push them towards an antagonistic relationship.

Because this is where we in Asia, certainly in Southeast Asia, we are too passive. We don't proactively go out and make a difference. And by the way, you know, that's why, frankly, one of the things I have done is to launch the Asian Peace Program at the Asia Research Institute of the National University of Singapore. Because it is puzzling in our world that even though peace is so important, we spend so much more time and resources on wars and almost nothing on peace. So I hope that programs like yours will also help to encourage peace in Asia. Amen. As a Southeast Asian, are you concerned with the formation of some of these blocks called the Quad, Caucus and what have you? In your view, would that erode the centrality of ASEAN?

Or strengthened, rather? Well, I mean, I have to emphasize that if countries choose to form or create an organization, they have a sovereign right to do so. So when India, China, Russia, Brazil, Brazil and South Africa create bricks, that's okay. They have a sovereign right to do so. And countries have a sovereign right to join or not join. So they should have a right to do so.

But at the same time, sometimes these organizations sent a signal. And I must say, I was very puzzled by the Australian decision to form Ocus. because, you know, the UK has withdrawn several times from East Asia. They promise to defend Singapore till the death and they surrendered. They promised us they will keep the naval base in Singapore forever and then they ran out of money and they left. So the British today have such enormous, Domestic challenges.

I was in Oxford a couple of months ago, and unfortunately I fell sick. And I realized to my horror that one of the worst places in the world to fall sick is the United Kingdom, because you cannot get a doctor right away. And I'm not exaggerating. And after I hung on the phone with the National Health Service, and I must have answered 500 questions, The final advice to me was go and see a pharmacist. And I thought, this is bizarre. This is the modern developed country like the UK.

And it can't provide basic medical services to its population. That's bizarre. And then you want to go around the world and get involved in strategic challenges around the world. And symbolically, it was bad for Australia because at the end of the day, Australia's destiny Australia's cultural destiny lies with the West its geopolitical destiny lies with Asia

and you know I published a 5,000 word essay on Australia's destiny in the Asian century and one of the most obvious things that Australia needs to do is to understand its Asian neighbours better and work with his Asian neighbors better and understand that many of his Asian neighbors

have been very kind to Australia. So for example, ASEAN is a very valuable geopolitical buffer for Australia to cushion it from the rising China. In fact, ASEAN is like a pillow protecting Australia from China. But instead of appreciating this pillow and acknowledging that

Assyan is a valuable geopolitical buffer some of the Australian governments have treated Asian with incredible condescension and even contempt. That shows very short-sighted thinking on the part of several Australian governments, not the present one, I must say.

I would say that Prime Minister Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have been done a good job of rebuilding their ties with Asia but something like Ocus is a signal that Australia is trying to sail

backwards into history when the West dominated the world and not forwards into the 21st century where Australia has got to adjust and adapt to its Asian neighbours. What do we have to do to dispel that perspective that there's not adequate centrality

within ASEAN? Or should we just ignore what the others think about in ASEAN. I would say that ASEAN, the best thing that ASEAN can do is to sell its record not through words, but through deeds. So we've managed to have 3,3.3. plus 24, 57 years of peace of no wars among any two ASEAN member states. Let's have another 57 years of no wars among any two ASEAN states. And more importantly, let us continue to strengthen the ASEAN free trade area,

continue to enhance areas of cooperation in ASEAN, And as I was telling, a former Indonesian ambassador, Dino Jalal earlier today, enhanced the strategic trust among the Asian countries. So if we can provide to the rest of the world a model of strategic harmony in a very diverse region of the world, that's the model. that's the model that people should look at. Look at it on a day-to-day basis and ask yourself, why is it that, you know,

Malaysia and Singapore can separate and become two countries and now have a close functional relationship? India and Pakistan separated much long ago. They'd have a dysfunctional relationship. How is it that Southeast Asia, which in economic terms is much poorer than Northeast Asia has had a successful association

of Southeast Asian nations and Northeast Asia still doesn't have an association of Northeast Asian nations. Why not? Why then they learn from ASEAN? And frankly, the easiest thing, you know, we have five ASEAN founding states, right?

Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Thailand, Philippines. Five. Why don't we take the five in North East Asia, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Mongolia. Say, why don't you form an association in Northeast Asian states? Just talk to each other. Yeah. Just meet each other. Just have regular meetings and play golf with each other. Right. And guess what? The place will be a much better place. So these are the sort of lessons that ASEAN can teach. It gets under-narrated and it gets lost in translation.

just gets underestimated. Yes. And in fact, I can tell you, I'm glad you mentioned the word underestimated. Because at a time, there was a time in the past when Condoleezza Rice

was the Secretary of State of the United States and she had to make a decision of whether or not to visit ASEAN or go once again to the Middle East to solve a problem. Right?

And one of her ambassadors in Southeast Asia called me up and said Kishaw helped me. me. I got to make a case to Condoleezza Rice to ask her to come to Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, she didn't. And you can see, the United States Secretaries of State have paid far more visits to the Middle East. What's the result? Look at Southeast Asia. With American Secretaries of State have skipped so many ASEAN meetings. And what's that?

the result. Very simple. So let our record speak for itself. More peace, more stability, more wealth. More prosperity. And you know, the ASEAN countries, it's important for your listeners to know this. Between the years 2010 and 2020, ASEAN added more to global economic growth than all of the European Union combined. Isn't that stunning? Amazing. Yeah. Amazing. What do you wish from the incoming leadership of Indonesia for purposes of strengthening the centrality of ASEAN?

Well, you know, Indonesia has always played a very special role within ASEAN. Because at the end of the day, to be very candid, the reason why, let me give you an example, the reason why the organization of American states, which has been around longer than ASEAN, is a dysfunctional organization is because the largest member state, the United States, wants to control the OAS,

right, and says, if I don't like it, the OAS will not do it. the wisest thing that Indonesia has done as the largest member state of ASEAN is he said no, we will not control it, let everyone, let all of us run it together. And at the same time, you know, you've also injected some of your values

into ASEAN, the principles of Mushawara, Mufakar, consultation and consensus. And they have work. So I think it's very important first for Indonesia to take ownership of the ASEAN's success story. And once Indonesia feels that this ASEAN success story is in many ways a gift from Indonesia to South Dishishan to the world, then Indonesia should become the chief spokesman of ASEAN. And since Indonesia has got embassies, in more countries around the world than any Southeast Asian country,

I think Indonesia should be actively marketing the ASEAN story. And certainly the year 27, when we celebrate the 60th anniversary of ASEAN, we should make sure that everybody in the world understands and appreciates ASEAN and celebrates the 60th birthday. Amen. Kishu, you've been a great product of intellectual curiosity, and that goes with Singapore also. How do you make sure that the other Southeast Asians become as intellectually curious as you are or as the Singaporeans are? Well, I'm pleased to report that, you know, I travel around the Southeast Asia a lot. For some strange reason, I love Southeast Asia.

You can see I dress like a Southeast Asian. And as I travel around to Kuala Lumpo, to Be. Bangkok to Jakarta, to Manila, to Hanoy. And these are all places I've been to this year, you know, 20, 24. And I can see that there is a growing awareness of how special we are in Southeast Asia. I attended a couple of months ago a one-day conference organized in Vietnam

called the ASEAN Future Forum, I think. So well done. And what touched me is that Vietnam is probably one of the newest members of ASEAN, right? It's amazing. One of the newest members of ASEAN hasn't been a member that long. I know.

And the deep appreciation of ASEAN in Vietnam really touched me a great deal. And remember that Vietnam was an adversary of the founding member states of ASEAN until 1990,

34 years ago. And look at the difference between European Union and Russia. Why could the European Union deal with Russia in the way that ASEAN dealt with Vietnam? Right? We had been quarreling for a long time.

too. So, I mean, it shows there's a certain lack of wisdom in the European Union. Its founding fathers had a lot of wisdom. But the current generation don't understand that in a different world, a multi-civilizational, multipolar, multilateral world, that the European Union must make U-turns in some of its policies and not go by the with the tired old formulas of the past. And they should also look for leaders who can think long-term and look over the horizon and the new challenges coming and not just repeat the old formulas of the past again. So the European Union, sadly, I predict, is going to have a miserable decade ahead of its itself because of its incapacity to adjust strategically to a different world.

Whereas I think ASEAN is going to have overall a wonderful decade ahead because we have shown that we can adapt to a very different world. I want to test this hypothesis with you. if we were all going to be able to speak English the way you do in Southeast Asia. I mean, at the moment, it's the Singaporeans and many Malaysians and many Filipinos. The rest don't articulate our stories. Imagine of instead of 60 to 70 million people in Southeast Asia, we have 3 to 400 million people that speak English. imagine if instead of 10 million Indonesians

we have 100 million Indonesians who can speak English we'd be able to tell the story to the world much better is that is that something that you think is worth trying well I've got some very good news for you I've really solved your problem because I must say I'd be very honest with you I'm not an expert on artificial intelligence, but I am confident that with the advent of artificial intelligence,

it should be quite possible. And as you know nowadays, I just gave a speech on, what day is it today? Today is Thursday. Thursday. I gave a speech on Sunday in Singapore to an audience. half of whom spoke English, the other half only spoke Chinese, right? And behind me were two large screens. Simultaneous translation.

And even as I spoke, no human being did it. AI translated my words into Chinese immediately. And according to a friend of mine who spoke Chinese, it was about 85% accurate. I bet you will get to 95% to 99% accurate. So it's very easy for an Indonesian to explain his views on ASEAN very soon, I'm sure it will be like as small as a phone, and speak to it in Bahasa, Indonesia, and there will be a very fluent translation coming out. So explaining to an Argentinian, for example, you know, if there's countries that have exceeded their potential, they are in Southeast Asia, if there are countries that have performed way below their potential, like Argentina, remember Argentina was one of the top 10 most prosperous countries in the year 1900. Yeah. And look at where Argentina is today. So I think Argentina should learn a bit about ASEAN.

So the Indonesian should speak to an Argentinian in Baja, Indonesia, and not have it translated into English, but into Spanish simultaneously using Spanish idioms to explain, hey, if Argentina had been in Southeast Asia, your economy would be 10 times larger. Wow. You're sure we've covered the world. Any final messages for us? Well, I think it's very easy to become pessimistic in today's world. And certainly, when I go to Europe, all I encounter is doom and gloom. And to be honest with you, sadly, like you, I visited the United States four times. in 2024 in the first six months, there's also doom and gloom in the United States, sadly.

Even though, by the way, the United States is an amazingly successful society. It would be a huge mistake for anybody to underestimate the United States of America. I have enormous respect for the U.S. as a country. But sadly, many of the people are not happy. So it is very easy for us in Asia to become infected by Western pessimism. So we in Asia should consciously, consciously and forcefully reject Western pessimism and instead project Asian optimism. Because the 21st century will be the Asian century.

Amen. I'm with you on that one. Thank you. Thank you so much, Kishore. Thank you. That was Professor Kishore Mabububani. Thank you. This is Endgame.