Kishore Mahbubani I can write only after listening to the melodious voice of Mohammad Rafi. The singer’s magic has certainly worked for Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, who has written several books. geopolitics With a personal memoir. The two-time president of the UN Security Council spoke to the Sunday Times about why Asia needs a bigger voice.
In your Financial Times article, you argued that Britain should give up its UNSC seat in favor of India. As you yourself have acknowledged, that scenario is unlikely, so do you see India getting a seat at the high table any time soon?
Yes, it is possible for India to get a permanent seat in the UNSC soon. However, history teaches us that big changes only come when crises arise. India could stress the issue by announcing that it will not abide by UNSC resolutions if it is not included or consulted. As the third most powerful country in the world, India has the unique ability to stand before the UNSC and force the issue of change. Fortunately for India, this would not be the first time that the UNSC has been disobeyed. Several years ago, in 1998, when the UNSC wrongly passed resolutions (Security Council Resolutions 883, 731 and 748) to punish Libya, the then Organization of African Unity (OAU) refused to comply with these sanctions. Gave. Theoretically, the UNSC should have punished the OAU for not adhering to mandatory resolutions. In practice, the UNSC blinked. Therefore, if India disregards UNSC resolutions, the UNSC will also blink.
If any other permanent member criticizes India for not following UNSC resolutions, India can point out that some permanent members have also not followed UNSC resolutions. After President Obama signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with Iran, this agreement was approved by the UNSC in Resolution No. 2231 in 2015. Therefore, it became binding and mandatory for all member countries. Even though it was binding and mandatory, in 2018, President Trump ignored it and actually violated the JCPOA UNSC resolution by moving away from it.
What will happen if this colonial era world system does not change?
If the UNSC list of permanent members is not reformed, the UNSC will retain its structure but lose its credibility. In my book,
great convergence
Let me explain in detail that if the UNSC does not reform itself, it faces real danger of losing its credibility and legitimacy. The 7-7-7 formula I proposed (with 7 permanent, 7 semi-permanent and 7 elected members) is still the best way to reform the UNSC.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken has just said that America supports India getting a seat at the high table. From your experience as two-time UNSC chair, do you think US policymakers would actually support such reform in practice?
When great powers make statements we should not just pay attention to words. We should observe their actions. In principle, America is in favor of UNSC reformIn practice, this is not the case. A senior US official told me that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had clearly told him that 15 UNSC members were enough. It was not in America’s interest to see more members. Nonetheless, it is good that Secretary Blinken has publicly supported India’s permanent seat. Since America is a close friend of Britain, it can help India by convincing Britain to give up its permanent seat for India. My FT article explains why this would also serve long-term British interests.
An important point is that India should convey this to American and European policy makers in the strongest possible manner. The world has changed dramatically with the resurgence of Asian economies. Global institutional structures must now be reformed to give Asians a greater voice. The West should see that it is in its interest to push for such reform rather than oppose it.
What about the growing frustration with the UNSC over the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as its inability to deal with issues like climate change?
The UN is not weak just like that. It is weak by design. At the height of the Cold War, when the US and the USSR disagreed on virtually everything, they agreed on only one thing: the UN should never have a strong Secretary General. Both the US and the USSR were upset that Dag Hammarskjöld was independent and powerful. He will not follow his orders. After he tragically lost his life, the US and the USSR agreed that each Secretary General they elected should be flexible to their wishes. This policy has not changed. This insistence by the permanent members of the UNSC to elect flexible Secretaries-General explains the inability of the UN organization to resolve issues such as the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts. Therefore, the elected members of the UNSC should fight against this policy of the permanent members to keep the UN weak.
Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, who do you think will be better?
The geopolitical competition between the US and China did not start because of personalities. As I explain in my book,
Did China win?
It was triggered by structural forces. No number one great power gives up its number one position gracefully. It will fight hard till the end. Therefore, the US government’s decision to prevent China from becoming number one is completely predicted by this two-thousand-year-old iron law of geopolitics.
In theory, there should be a difference in personalities. When Joe Biden took over from Donald Trump in 2021, he was the first US president to take office with a pre-existing close relationship with his Chinese counterpart. Xi Jinping and Joe Biden had spent a lot of time together and knew each other well. Yet, even though they were friends, US–China relations deteriorated. Biden became the first US president since Jimmy Carter not to officially visit Beijing. Therefore, it will not matter whether Harris or Trump wins. The United States will continue to work hard to prevent China’s rise. Therefore the relationship will remain difficult.
You write in your memoir that one of your books didn’t do well because Americans don’t like to listen to advice from non-Americans. If they heard, what would you tell them?
In 2005, in my book
beyond the age of innocence
I tried to explain to my American friends that the world order was fundamentally changing. The era of Western dominance in world history was coming to an end. America and its Western friends would be wise to change course. If Americans were to listen to my advice today, I would tell them to pay attention to what Bill Clinton said in a speech at Yale in 2003, that the United States needs “a world with rules and habits of partnership and behavior. We should try to create “where we would like to live when we are no longer a military political economic superpower in the world.”
How do you see India-China relations moving forward?
India-China relations will remain challenging for a long time. For reasons I do not understand, there is very little cultural sympathy between the Indian and Chinese civilizations, even though there have been millennia of contact between Indians and Chinese. Even though relations between India and China are unlikely to improve in the coming years, the two sides can still build a practical and functional relationship where both sides can benefit from a win-win arrangement. India can emerge as a manufacturing power. However, to do this it would have to import components and machine tools from China. Increase in such imports from China is not a sign of weakness. This is a sign of strength.
Various econometric studies have shown that joining the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) will boost the Indian economy. For example, a 2020 study The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) has predicted that India’s income could increase by $60 billion annually if it rejoins the agreement and fall by $6 billion if it does not.
You’ve talked about the MPH secret of Singapore’s success. can you elaborate?
Singapore has been the most successful society since human history began. No other society has improved the living standards of its people as rapidly and comprehensively as Singapore has. When Singapore became independent in 1965, its per capita income was similar to that of Ghana: $500. In 2024, it is $88,447, which is higher than the US and UK. This was achieved without any natural resources.
The secret behind Singapore’s success is the MPH. It implies competence, practicality and honesty. Meritocracy is easy to understand. Just as countries select the best players for their cricket teams, they should select the best players for their economic teams. Practicality is easy to implement. Japan became the first Asian power in recent times to copy the best practices of Western countries. Singapore succeeded by copying this Japanese model. It is strange that some countries still refuse to learn from other countries. Honesty is the most difficult policy to implement. It is almost impossible to eliminate corruption. Singapore succeeded because, as I explain in my memoirs,
living the asian century
Singapore’s founding generation of leaders, notably Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and S. Rajaratnam, was unusually talented and honest. Goh Keng Swee was an economic architect of Singapore. He was frugal to a fault. When he traveled abroad, he did not send his underwear to the laundry. He always washed them by hand in his hotel room. This deeply ingrained habit of thrift explains why Singapore has the highest per capita foreign exchange reserves in the world.
