Robinson
You pointed out that global economics is not a zero-sum game, and another theme that comes across in your writing is that essentially, if we are going to have a prosperous, peaceful 21st Century that deals with the major crises that we face, such as climate change, we will have a world that cooperates, a world of mutual respect, and a world where countries are capable of understanding one another. And in the rhetoric that you hear in the United States, Donald Trump openly says China is our enemy. That’s his quote. The rest of the world is ripping us off. It is really quite the opposite of the story that you’re telling. You tell the story of us all inhabiting one planet and a need to work things out. In the United States, the Trumpian narrative is that we inhabit a world of enemies, those enemies need to be tamed or destroyed, and we need to build up our ability to crush them militarily if necessary. So, it would seem that much of the story told in the United States is really going in the opposite direction of the one that you feel generates the understanding necessary to live well in the 21st Century.
Mahbubani
Well, you’re absolutely right about that, but I can fully understand why Donald Trump wants to try and improve the livelihoods of the bottom 50 percent of Americans. I think that’s a noble goal that he has. I can understand why he wants to make American industries more competitive and re-industrialize America. That’s also an understandable goal. But I think he will find that the best way to achieve those goals is actually to work with the rest of the world. And one thing I’ve learned after studying geopolitics for 55 years is that you’ve got to be cold and calculating if you want to succeed in geopolitics, and if you’re emotional, then you’re at a major disadvantage.
So, for example, how did China become so wealthy so quickly? What they did was to work closely with the United States. Even though, technically, during part of the Cold War the U.S. was an adversary, China worked with the United States to grow its economy. And I think that’s one thing that is taboo in the United States, that actually the best way for the United States to regenerate its economic growth and make it grow faster is not to try and bring down China, but to work with China. Just as in the time when you were worried about Japanese cars taking over the United States, what did you do? You have voluntary export restraints. You encourage the Japanese to set up factories—Toyota factories, Honda factories—in the United States. The same thing can be done with China. It can only be done if you are rational and calculating in your moves and not emotional and say, oh, no, we can never work with China. Why can’t you work with China? If working with China is going to bring benefits to the American people, why not work with them? Because at the end of the day, it’s very clear that all efforts to stop the rise of China by the United States will fail. You cannot stop a 4,000-year-old civilization that has its own civilizational cycles, and as it is rising, depriving them of this technology or that technology is not going to stop the rise of China.
Robinson
And you point out that for most of human history, the Chinese and Indian economies were among the largest in the world. They have the largest global population. And so to try and reverse the trend towards a more equal balance of power in the world, you argue, is futile.
Mahbubani
Yes, that’s a fact that everyone should know, that from the year 1 to the year 1820, for 1,800 out of the last 2,000 years, the two largest economies of the world have always been those of China and India. It’s only in the last 200 years that Europe and North America have taken off. The last 200 years of Western domination of world history have been a major historical aberration, and all aberrations come to a natural end. So it’s perfectly natural to see the return of China and India. But what’s important to emphasize is that the reason why China and India are coming back is that they are studying, absorbing, and implementing Western pillars of wisdom, and that’s why they’re succeeding. And paradoxically, at a time when, for example, China—a Communist Party run country—is discovering the virtue of free trade agreements, free trade agreements have enabled China to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and the United States is walking away from them. But this is where Economics 101 theory is right. The United States should be signing more free trade agreements and not walking away from them.
Robinson
Now, you mentioned there China being a Communist Party run country, but one of the points that you make in your book, Has China Won?, is that one of the major misunderstandings of China comes from seeing it as an ideologically communist entity in the kind of classic Marxist-Leninist sense.
Mahbubani
Well, I think anybody who thinks that China is a communist country should go visit China. I mean that literally: every American who believes that should go visit it. I actually visited Moscow in 1976, and trust me, that place was so controlled, so oppressed. And when you went into the biggest department store in Moscow, and you wanted to buy a toothbrush—I’m not exaggerating—you had a huge cabinet, and you had one toothbrush separated from the other toothbrush by one foot. Even the toothbrushes were scarce commodities. A small 7-Eleven in the United States has more toothbrushes than the largest department store in Moscow. Everything was scarce.
Now, you go to China today, and you will see the most advanced economy in the world in terms of how it produces both private goods and public goods. If you go and see the infrastructure of China, you begin to realize that after going from Kennedy Airport to Beijing Airport, you’re going from a third world airport in the United States to a first world airport in China. And by the way, incidentally, also a first world airport in New Delhi and Mumbai. So there are areas in which Asia has surged ahead, clearly, of the United States, and the United States should consider the possibility that it could possibly try to emulate what the East Asian economies have done. (...)
Robinson
I want to go back to something that you said earlier. People might have been a little surprised to hear you talk of the virtues of being cold and calculating. And when you read your books, one of your prescriptions is to become more Machiavellian. I think this is very interesting because people might be surprised to hear Machiavelli praised—staying on the subject of political philosophy. But one of the interesting things that comes out of your books, your analysis, is that actually, when the United States thinks it’s being cold and calculating—there’s certainly no lack of callousness or coldness in a lot of American foreign policy, or willingness to destroy the lives of others, but there is a certain absence of strategic thinking. And one of the things that you point out is that we mistake what real strategic thinking is. For example, you cite Sun Tzu saying, if you don’t know your enemy as well as yourself, you’re going to lose half your battles. It seems like in the United States, we don’t know either our enemy or ourselves. It might be considered non-strategic or sappy or excessively empathetic to try and understand China, but you say, no, understanding China, understanding how Putin thinks, these are not things you do out of an excess of emotion and sympathy. These are things you do because you are a strategic, careful thinker.
Mahbubani
Absolutely, and it’s a bit sad that the United States, when it launches geopolitical contests against China, decided to do so without first working out a comprehensive, long-term strategic plan. In an early chapter in my book, Has China Won?, I say there are 10 questions that anyone should ask if they’re formulating a strategy. And I’m actually trying to help the United States formulate a comprehensive long-term strategy, because if you don’t have a comprehensive long-term strategy, you just carry out emotional actions and end up hurting yourself. So, for example, the Biden administration thought they could stop the development of semiconductors in China by imposing all kinds of sanctions. And you can see the result a few years later: China’s share of the semiconductor market used to be 10 percent, and now it’s 50 percent. So all the efforts to stop China didn’t work because no one thought strategically. And just to make a very important point of detail, when the United States cut off supplies of advanced semiconductors to China, it was cutting off his nose to spite his face. Because by depriving yourself of 30 percent of your revenue, you lose all your R and D budget, and when you lose all your R and D budget, you’ve lost your capacity to compete. So, you’ve got to think strategically when you carry on an action—is it going to do more damage to my opponent, or is it going to do more damage to me? And I’m actually trying to help the United States work out policies that will be beneficial for the United States.
Robinson
Yes. Another example of this kind of this kind of paradox, where the thing that the United States does to counter China is actually helping China and not the United States, is as you say, irrational and wasteful defense spending. This might surprise some people, but you say it’s in China’s national interest for American wasteful defense spending to continue. The more money America spends on weapons systems that will never be used against China—because, as you say, a war between the two countries would result in the destruction of both countries—the better off China will be, and American military expenditures are geopolitical gifts to China. That is certainly something that those authorizing those expenditures don’t believe.
Mahbubani
Yes, and the tragedy here is that the way America spends money on defense expenditures, in theory, you should first work out a strategy and say, what kind of weapons do we need? And then you work backwards and say, okay, in this new strategic environment, maybe instead of piloted jets, we need pilotless jets, because drones today are as good as piloted jets. You spend so much money on an aircraft trying to protect the body of the pilot, but once you have a pilotless jet, everything is much cheaper, and the planes can go faster—they don’t have to worry about the human body in there. Similarly, today, with advanced missiles, aircraft carriers have become sitting ducks. You no longer need aircraft carriers anymore to project power. But the reason why you cannot change course is that in America, and this is part of being a plutocracy, the arms industry can lobby the US Congress to pass bills to buy weapons that are outmoded and that are no longer needed. So America is producing a lot of weapons that will not be useful when the real war comes. The aircraft carriers will be sitting ducks in the face of all these hypersonic and supersonic missiles that are being developed. You have vested interests in deciding what should be purchased. But if you do a zero-based thing, you can actually defend the United States much more effectively with half the budget, or one quarter of the budget, with much more effective weapons. But of course, a large part of the military industrial complex will complain, then they will go to Congress, and you won’t be able to arrive at a rational decision. So in that sense, it is not China that is distorting your defense expenditures. It’s the American political system that is preventing the United States from having rational defense policies.
Robinson
We’ve been talking here about how United States policy towards China is ultimately irrational and self-defeating and pseudo-Machiavellian, without actually thinking sensibly about what is in the interests of this country. But it’s not the only example that you give of self-defeating Western policy. Just opening up your book here, Has the West Lost It?, you have a section, “Strategic Errors: Islam, Russia and Meddling in World Affairs.” And you make a series of arguments there that, for example, the United States’ treatment of Russia after the Cold War actually led to the rise of Putin, which was preventable, and that the United States, through its disastrous wars in the Middle East, has created, in many ways, or exacerbated, the problems that they that supposedly we are trying to solve.
Mahbubani
Yes. Certainly, the Iraq war was completely unnecessary—completely unnecessary. You spent $3 trillion of blood and treasure, and at the end of the day, delivered a broken state which is not safe for Americans to live in. And similarly, by the way, the removal of Gaddafi was a huge mistake, especially for the Europeans, because Gaddafi was acting like a cork in the bottle, preventing a surge of migrants from Africa towards Europe. But as soon as Gaddafi was removed, the floodgates opened up. So it’s not in your interest. It’s important to do a rational calculation of where your interests lie, and it is not in America’s interest necessarily to fight forever wars and to have 800 military bases around the world, because the United States is a very safe country. You are protected by two wonderful, huge oceans, and you’re protected by Canada and Mexico. You don’t have hostile republics as your border, so you can actually cut down your defense expenditures dramatically. And instead of making it a sole American mission to keep international waterways safe, work with other navies in the world cooperatively, because we all share common interests in keeping international sea lanes safe.
Robinson
I believe you were in the UN Security Council in the lead up to the Iraq war.
Mahbubani
That's right, 2001-2002.
Robinson
Can you tell us a bit about that?
Mahbubani
Yes, you could see the tension building up in the Security Council because the United States was trying to pass a resolution to justify an invasion of Iraq, and it was very clear that Russia, China, Germany, and France thought it was a wrong decision. And frankly, if the United States had listened to its good friends, Germany and France, who said, you shouldn’t fight this war, you will lose a lot of money, and you will be worse off, the United States could have saved $3 trillion, and by the way, used it to develop the infrastructure of the United States and make it as gleaming as that of China. So why spend $3 trillion fighting an unnecessary war? And I’m surprised that no one has been held accountable for this unnecessary war. I should also mention that I’m making these points because I actually believe that the United States can become, once again, a very strong country. And the goal of all my prescriptions is not to weaken the United States, but to strengthen the United States and to make it a more effective actor in a complex world environment.
by Nathan J. Robinson and Kishore Mahbubani, Current Affairs | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Pretty straightforward assessment, I think (there's more). As someone once said "You might not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you!"]
