mahbubani sounds exactly like the comrades in india who want india to roll over and play dead for the hans to walk all over us.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ram Narayanan
From: Ram Narayanan
Dear Rajeev Srinivasan:
A friend sent me the text of Prof Kishore Mahbubani's lecture delivered at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi on January 8, 2011. Prof Mahbubani, a former Singapore diplomat, is now Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
I was totally disappointed by his thesis: He completely ignores China's aggressive, threatening behavior towards India as well as its other neighbors.. It looks to me that Prof Mahbubani wants India to be a de facto vassal of China.
My comments on his specific points:
>>My first point is that one does not have to be a geopolitical genius to predict that the main geopolitical fault line in the next few decades will be the West and China. <<
Yes, but the west is far away and therefore comparatively safe. What about the Chinese threat to the territorial integrity of its neighbours, especially India?
>>However, it would be wiser for China to make its geopolitical plans on the basis that the West will try, directly or indirectly, to thwart China's rise.<<
There is no question of any nation trying to thwart China's rise if that rise is going to be in the economic sphere and is in accordance with international rules. However, not only the west but the west in conjunction with the countries of the east including India, Japan and South-east Asia, MUST work in concert to prevent China from committing aggression against any of them, particularly the neighbouring countries. India especially is vulnerable.
>>Vis-à-vis China, the best instrument that the West could find to thwart the rise of China would be the second fastest rising Asian power, namely India. The emergence of a bitter and persistent geopolitical contest between China and India would be an ideal geopolitical outcome for the West.<<
Nonsense. Prof Mahbubani thinks that he is the only wise man in the world. He ignores the well known fact that India will NEVER allow itself to be USED by the west or anybody else. But since China lays claim to what is 100 percent Indian territory and has recently been saying that there is no common border between Indian Kashmir and Tibet, India has to protect itself and that's possible ONLY if India takes advantage of the west's cutting edge military technology and keep itself a step, if not several steps, ahead of China. India knows how to safeguard its security without becoming anybody's pawn, thanks, no thanks Prof Mahbubani.
>>My third, and I hope most obvious point, is that it does not serve India's interests to be used as an instrument by the West to thwart China's rise.<<
Neither the west nor India is interested in thwarting China's rise as long as that rise is confined to the economic and cultural sphere and does not embrace territorial expansion.. The common interest of the west and the east lies in effectively preventing China from using its powerful military to commit aggression against any of its neigbours, certainly NOT against India.
>>In simple geopolitical logic, the best position for India to take is to maintain a neutral and carefully staked out middle position in the coming struggle between the West and China. The West will try to seduce India by saying that this is not a power struggle but a struggle over virtue and values: democracy versus communist authoritarian systems. However, the history of the West has shown that geopolitical interests always trump values.<<
Does he think India is a nation of idiots? Even the west is NOT interested in initiating any armed struggle with China. There is no question of ideology any more. Ideology is long dead. India and the other countries neighbouring China wish to preserve their territorial integrity. If China respects their territorial integrity , there will be no problem at all between China and the rest of the world. It's as simple as that.
>>the West supported the Saudi-Pakistan axis over India in the Cold War.<<
The cold war had its own logic. China was on the side of the west during the latter part of the cold war. Can any one forget the joint Nixon-Kissinger-Mao tilt against India in 1971? That issue is no longer relevant.
>>The best way for me to elaborate ..... is to answer three critical questions: Firstly, will the West try to thwart China? Secondly, will the West look for alternative instruments to use against China? Thirdly, is it in India's interests to join the West in thwarting the rise of China? <<
All three questions are totally irrelevant, as should be clear from my responses above. The west as well as India and other countries of the east are keen to live in peace with China provided China has no aggressive intentions. China's recent behaviour does not support that viewpoint.
>> while the West used the Islamic world to unhinge the Soviet Union, China is now emerging as the prime beneficiary of stupid Western policies in the Islamic world. 9/11 and the Western reaction to it were huge geopolitical gifts to China.<<
He is dead right there!
>>In the geopolitical contest between China and the West, the score is probably 8 for China and 2 for the West. But it would be foolish for China to be complacent. Indeed, the Chinese believe that they have many reasons to feel distrustful of the West. <<
It should be very clear now, if there was any doubt at all, that the learned professor is an apologist for China NOT a disinterested friend of the west or of India.
>>I presume that it is clear that it is not in India's interest to join the West in trying to de-legitimize the Chinese political system, tempting as it may be. <<
India has never had any interest at any time since China became communist in 1949, to de-legitimize the Chinese political system. As a matter of fact, India went out of the way to befriend an almost friendless China in the early 1950s -- with what tragic consequences to India's own territorial integrity is obvious to any thinking person. Even now, India is hardly interested in whether China continues to be a communist dictatorship or whatever. She wants to live within her present secure borders. It's as simple as that.
>>There is a simple rule of geo-politics. In any three-way contest of power, the best position to occupy is the middle-position. To put it simply, it is better to be courted by both sides rather than to be taken for granted as an instrument by one side and as an adversary by the other side.<<
A wrong analogy. There is NO contest between India and the west for power or whatever. The west may be courting India but China cannot court India and at the same time covet its territory!
>>From the point of view of Western geopolitical interests, with China and India returning as the number one and number two non-Western powers in the world, what better geopolitical scenario could there be for the West than for the number one and number two to struggle against each other as they are rising? And if they both succeed in slowing down the rise of each other, won't the prime beneficiary of this be the West?<<
Absolutely misleading. China's rise since 1979 owes a lot to the west, especially the US, opening up their markets. The US is now looking for greater access to the Chinese market. No responsible person in the west is thinking of slowing down the progress of China or India.
>>Thirty years ago, most would have predicted that the China-Taiwan problem was far more difficult to solve than the India-Pakistan problem.<<
No knowledgeable person would ever have made such an unrealistic statement.
>>There are no immediate pressing issues dividing India and the West (except perhaps climate change and the American position on Pakistan). By contrast, China is near and getting nearer. Several bilateral issues are clouding China-India relations: Pakistan, Arunachal Pradesh, the stapling of visas for Kashmir related passports. It is easy to get aggravated on a daily basis.....In geopolitics, it is a mistake to allow emotions to determine when to get aggravated. Getting aggravated should be a rational choice, not an emotional choice.....it is a mistake to allow emotions to influence geopolitical decisions. Reason must always trump emotion.....This is why the best strategy for India to emulate in trying to rise and emerge peacefully is to follow Deng Xiaoping's advice for China, namely: (1) lengjing guancha—observe and analyze [developments] calmly; (2) chenzhuo yingfu—deal [with changes] patiently and confidently; (3) wenzhu zhenjiao—secure [our own] position; (4) taoguang yanghui—conceal [our] capabilities and avoid the limelight; (5) shanyu shouzhuo—be good at keeping a low profile; (6) juebu dangtou—never become a leader; (7) yousuo zuowei—strive to make achievements. If India were to practice this advice, enormous geopolitical opportunities would open for India. I realise that this is difficult advice for a country with a boisterous free media which works on 24 hour news cycles and requires instant sound bites<<
India has been enormously patient in dealing with China's provocations. Prof Mahbubani's gratuitous advice apparently is that India has no choice but to put up with China's provocations, pocket them and keep quiet!
>>most of the Indian journalists I have met have also tended to be very thoughtful and conscious of India's long-term interests. Most Indian journalists, I believe, would also agree that India is better off pursuing an independent policy rather than one that serves the interests of others.<<
Since independence India has in fact been pursuing an independent foreign policy. Is there a need for more gratuitous advice on this point?
>>There is one fundamental common interest that China and India share. Both have suffered foreign invasions and foreign humiliation over the past two hundred years.<<
Yes, in addition, since the end of colonialism, India had the misfortune of suffering from an invasion from China.
>>It would therefore be hugely ironic that at the most propitious moment in both their histories, they allow the geopolitical interests of the West to trump the common interests they have in seizing the best moment to re-establish themselves as the two most powerful countries in the world. And, if both can follow their common interests rather than Western interests, both can grow together, not grow apart. <<
The west is prepared to accept India as an equal. Is China likewise prepared to accept India as an equal and agree to live as a peaceful neighbour?
******
SOME SENSIBLE REMARKS ON CHINA from Richard Weitz, director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis and a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. He wrote in THE DIPLOMAT of January 11, 2010 ("Why US Keeps Hedging Over China" - http://the-diplomat.com/2011/01/11/why-us-keeps-hedging-over-china/ ):
"In some respects, China presents to Asia the same kind of challenge that Germany represented to Europe from 1870 to 1945. China's huge population and dynamic economy provide it with immense military potential, making it a natural aspirant for regional hegemony and forcing many of its weaker neighbours to seek the help of an external balancer. And China also shares elements of the second dimension of the former 'German problem': its authoritarian political leaders seem dissatisfied with their country's place in the existing Western-dominated Asia-Pacific international system.
These two factors—China's potential military dominance and its possible revisionist foreign policy—mean that other Asian countries and Washington have no choice but to consider how to avert a potential Chinese drive for regional hegemony.
"Even a failed Chinese grasp for Asian primacy would risk triggering a military confrontation with the United States and other countries—as well as severely damaging the Pacific economy. Yet if Washington were to stand aside, it would undermine its credibility as a guarantor of East Asian stability. Against this backdrop, other countries—notably Japan and South Korea—might respond by seeking to bolster their security by acquiring nuclear weapons, which would further undermine regional stability.
"All this means that more than any other plausible arrangement, the status quo in East Asia best satisfies not just the security interests of the United States, but also its allies. And it's a reality that means US policymakers naturally feel compelled to try to prevent China from even attempting to turn to force to resolve the region's numerous territorial disputes."
Cheers,
Ram Narayanan
Text of Remarks by Prof Kishore Mahbubani at the India Habitat Center, 8 January 2011
Will China and India grow together or grow apart?
Prof Kishore Mahbubani
I believe that I have an eminently simple and reasonable argument to put across that can be captured in three simple points. My first point is that one does not have to be a geopolitical genius to predict that the main geopolitical fault line in the next few decades will be the West and China. When China emerges with the world's largest economy by 2027, or earlier, it will be the first time in over 200 years that at a non-Western power will be the strongest power in the world. It is possible that the West will sit back passively and not try to thwart China's rise. However, it would be wiser for China to make its geopolitical plans on the basis that the West will try, directly or indirectly, to thwart China's rise.
My second point is that when the West tries to thwart the rise of China, it would prefer to do it indirectly rather than directly. The ideal scenario is the one that the West used successfully against the Soviet Union. There the West did not confront the Soviet Union directly. Instead, it unleashed radical Islamic forces in Afghanistan to unhinge the Soviet Union. That strategy succeeded. Vis-à-vis China, the best instrument that the West could find to thwart the rise of China would be the second fastest rising Asian power, namely India. The emergence of a bitter and persistent geopolitical contest between China and India would be an ideal geopolitical outcome for the West.
My third, and I hope most obvious point, is that it does not serve India's interests to be used an as instrument by the West to thwart China's rise. In simple geopolitical logic, the best position for India to take is to maintain a neutral and carefully staked out middle position in the coming struggle between the West and China. The West will try to seduce India by saying that this is not a power struggle but a struggle over virtue and values: democracy versus communist authoritarian systems. However, the history of the West has shown that geopolitical interests always trump values. This is why the West supported the Saudi-Pakistan axis over India in the Cold War. Geopolitical seduction is far more dangerous than sexual seduction because the consequences are weightier.
The best way for me to elaborate these three points is to answer three critical questions: Firstly, will the West try to thwart China? Secondly, will the West look for alternative instruments to use against China? Thirdly, is it in India's interests to join the West in thwarting the rise of China? In trying to answer these questions, please let me admit that the answers will be complex, not simple. We will have to get out of simple back-and-white perspectives in trying to understand the coming struggle between the West and China.
There is, for example, no simple black-and-white answer to the question whether the West will try to thwart the rise of China. Certainly, the West will not launch a simple Soviet-style containment policy. One reason why it cannot do so is that, so far, China has managed its geopolitical rise brilliantly. Please see pages 219-234 from "The New Asian Hemisphere". The complex strategy included the following elements: heeding Deng Xiaoping's advice to take a low profile (Note: the following characters describe Deng's advice: (1) lengjing guancha—observe and analyze [developments] calmly; (2) chenzhuo yingfu—deal [with changes] patiently and confidently; (3) wenzhu zhenjiao—secure [our own] position; (4) taoguang yanghui—conceal [our] capabilities and avoid the limelight; (5) shanyu shouzhuo—be good at keeping a low profile; (6) juebu dangtou—never become a leader; (7) yousuo zuowei—strive to make achievements); developing massive interdependence between the USA and China, where the US economy now heavily depends on Chinese purchases of US Treasury Bills; accept the 1945 rules-based order; taking full advantage of America's absolutely stupid policies vis-à-vis the Islamic world. Hence, ironically, while the West used the Islamic world to unhinge the Soviet Union, China is now emerging as the prime beneficiary of stupid Western policies in the Islamic world. 9/11 and the Western reaction to it were huge geopolitical gifts to China.
In the geopolitical contest between China and the West, the score is probably 8 for China and 2 for the West. But it would be foolish for China to be complacent. Indeed, the Chinese believe that they have many reasons to feel distrustful of the West. This suspicion is well captured in the following poem:
An Awakening Message
When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled opium to open markets.
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
When we were falling apart, you marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, it was an Invasion!
When we tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
But when you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
No, you answered, we don't hate you.
We don't hate you either,
But, do you understand us?
Of course we do, you said,
We have AFP, CNN and BBC's...
What do you really want from us?
Think hard first, then answer...
Because you only get so many chances.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
This Big Blue Earth is Big enough for all of Us. [Duo-Liang Lin]
The West did not dominate the world through stupidity. It is capable of geopolitically brilliant moves. Therefore, in answer to my second question, the West will certainly look for alternative instruments to use against China. Let me suggest two it will try. The first is to focus on the obvious Achilles' heel of China: its political system. The most powerful ideological instrument to use in any struggle is the instrument of legitimacy. In one way or another, the West will try to delegitimize the Chinese political system, especially by highlighting its lack of democracy. In so doing, the West will deliberately ignore the fact that Chinese society has never been as open as it is today. Hence, when the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to a dissident like Liu Xiaobao instead of one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century, Deng Xiaoping, it is natural for the Chinese government to get angry because they see it, with some reason, as a Western plan to de-legitimize the political system of China. Please let me emphasize one point: I presume that it is clear that it is not in India's interest to join the West in trying to de-legitimize the Chinese political system, tempting as it may be.
The second instrument that the West can try to use against China is divide-and-rule. Indeed, this is how the West conquered the world. One reason why I published my first book, "Can Asians Think?" was to answer an obvious question: how did 100,000 Englishmen rule so effectively over 300 million Indians. One obvious reason: divide-and-rule. This time around the West cannot use radical Islam to unhinge China. However, it will look all around Asia for instruments to use to either balance or destabilize China: from Japan to South Korea; from Taiwan to Tibet; from ASEAN to India. Each of these instruments provides geo-political opportunities for the West. However, the ideal geopolitical instrument will be India.
Why India? The simplest answer is that from year 1 to year 1820, the two largest economies were China and India. However, with the passing of the era of Western domination of world history, there will be an almost natural return of China and India to the number one and number two slots in Global GNP ranking. Please see the attached McKinsey chart to understand why this return will be so natural and inevitable. From the point of view of Western geopolitical interests, with China and India returning as the number one and number two non-Western powers in the world, what better geopolitical scenario could there be for the West than for the number one and number two to struggle against each other as they are rising? And if they both succeed in slowing down the rise of each other, won't the prime beneficiary of this be the West?
The third and final question is this: is it in India's interest to join the West in thwarting the rise of China? I presume that the answer is no. There is a simple rule of geo-politics. In any three-way contest of power, the best position to occupy is the middle-position. To put it simply, it is better to be courted by both sides rather than to be taken for granted as an instrument by one side and as an adversary by the other side.
However, to be honest, it may be difficult for India to maintain this middle position. The West is now geographically far away. There are no immediate pressing issues dividing India and the West (except perhaps climate change and the American position on Pakistan). By contrast, China is near and getting nearer. Several bilateral issues are clouding China-India relations: Pakistan, Arunachal Pradesh, the stapling of visas for Kashmir related passports. It is easy to get aggravated on a daily basis.
In geopolitics, it is a mistake to allow emotions to determine when to get aggravated. Getting aggravated should be a rational choice, not an emotional choice. Hence, when China had fishing boat incidents with Japan and South Korea, it chose to get aggravated with Japan but not with South Korea. Similarly, when both Lee Teng Hui and Chen Shui Bian were clearly pursuing pro-independence strategies for Taiwan, China did get angry but it also controlled its anger and continued to court both the Taiwanese public and Taiwanese investors. Thirty years ago, most would have predicted that the China-Taiwan problem was far more difficult to solve than the India-Pakistan problem. Today, the reverse is probably true. The lesson from all this is that it is a mistake to allow emotions to influence geopolitical decisions. Reason must always trump emotion.
This is why the best strategy for India to emulate in trying to rise and emerge peacefully is to follow Deng Xiaoping's advice for China, namely: (1) lengjing guancha—observe and analyze [developments] calmly; (2) chenzhuo yingfu—deal [with changes] patiently and confidently; (3) wenzhu zhenjiao—secure [our own] position; (4) taoguang yanghui—conceal [our] capabilities and avoid the limelight; (5) shanyu shouzhuo—be good at keeping a low profile; (6) juebu dangtou—never become a leader; (7) yousuo zuowei—strive to make achievements. If India were to practice this advice, enormous geopolitical opportunities would open for India. I realise that this is difficult advice for a country with a boisterous free media which works on 24 hour news cycles and requires instant sound bites. Yet, at the same time, most of the Indian journalists I have met have also tended to be very thoughtful and conscious of India's long-term interests. Most Indian journalists, I believe, would also agree that India is better off pursuing an independent policy rather than one that serves the interests of others.
There is one fundamental common interest that China and India share. Both have suffered foreign invasions and foreign humiliation over the past two hundred years. Both have also understood well the price they paid for being weak. Both have also suffered the most in the period of Western domination of world history. It would therefore be hugely ironic that at the most propitious moment in both their histories, they allow the geopolitical interests of the West to trump the common interests they have in seizing the best moment to re-establish themselves as the two most powerful countries in the world. And, if both can follow their common interests rather than Western interests, both can grow together, not grow apart.
Kishore Mahbubani, Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, is the author of "The New Asian Hemisphere: the Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East"
Duo-Liang Lin, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
________________
If you wish to respond to this message, and if hitting the "Reply" button, results in your response bouncing back, please try ramn_wins@roadrunner.com
Powered By PanWebMailer Version 2.0 © 2004-2005
A friend sent me the text of Prof Kishore Mahbubani's lecture delivered at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi on January 8, 2011. Prof Mahbubani, a former Singapore diplomat, is now Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
I was totally disappointed by his thesis: He completely ignores China's aggressive, threatening behavior towards India as well as its other neighbors.. It looks to me that Prof Mahbubani wants India to be a de facto vassal of China.
My comments on his specific points:
>>My first point is that one does not have to be a geopolitical genius to predict that the main geopolitical fault line in the next few decades will be the West and China. <<
Yes, but the west is far away and therefore comparatively safe. What about the Chinese threat to the territorial integrity of its neighbours, especially India?
>>However, it would be wiser for China to make its geopolitical plans on the basis that the West will try, directly or indirectly, to thwart China's rise.<<
There is no question of any nation trying to thwart China's rise if that rise is going to be in the economic sphere and is in accordance with international rules. However, not only the west but the west in conjunction with the countries of the east including India, Japan and South-east Asia, MUST work in concert to prevent China from committing aggression against any of them, particularly the neighbouring countries. India especially is vulnerable.
>>Vis-à-vis China, the best instrument that the West could find to thwart the rise of China would be the second fastest rising Asian power, namely India. The emergence of a bitter and persistent geopolitical contest between China and India would be an ideal geopolitical outcome for the West.<<
Nonsense. Prof Mahbubani thinks that he is the only wise man in the world. He ignores the well known fact that India will NEVER allow itself to be USED by the west or anybody else. But since China lays claim to what is 100 percent Indian territory and has recently been saying that there is no common border between Indian Kashmir and Tibet, India has to protect itself and that's possible ONLY if India takes advantage of the west's cutting edge military technology and keep itself a step, if not several steps, ahead of China. India knows how to safeguard its security without becoming anybody's pawn, thanks, no thanks Prof Mahbubani.
>>My third, and I hope most obvious point, is that it does not serve India's interests to be used as an instrument by the West to thwart China's rise.<<
Neither the west nor India is interested in thwarting China's rise as long as that rise is confined to the economic and cultural sphere and does not embrace territorial expansion.. The common interest of the west and the east lies in effectively preventing China from using its powerful military to commit aggression against any of its neigbours, certainly NOT against India.
>>In simple geopolitical logic, the best position for India to take is to maintain a neutral and carefully staked out middle position in the coming struggle between the West and China. The West will try to seduce India by saying that this is not a power struggle but a struggle over virtue and values: democracy versus communist authoritarian systems. However, the history of the West has shown that geopolitical interests always trump values.<<
Does he think India is a nation of idiots? Even the west is NOT interested in initiating any armed struggle with China. There is no question of ideology any more. Ideology is long dead. India and the other countries neighbouring China wish to preserve their territorial integrity. If China respects their territorial integrity , there will be no problem at all between China and the rest of the world. It's as simple as that.
>>the West supported the Saudi-Pakistan axis over India in the Cold War.<<
The cold war had its own logic. China was on the side of the west during the latter part of the cold war. Can any one forget the joint Nixon-Kissinger-Mao tilt against India in 1971? That issue is no longer relevant.
>>The best way for me to elaborate ..... is to answer three critical questions: Firstly, will the West try to thwart China? Secondly, will the West look for alternative instruments to use against China? Thirdly, is it in India's interests to join the West in thwarting the rise of China? <<
All three questions are totally irrelevant, as should be clear from my responses above. The west as well as India and other countries of the east are keen to live in peace with China provided China has no aggressive intentions. China's recent behaviour does not support that viewpoint.
>> while the West used the Islamic world to unhinge the Soviet Union, China is now emerging as the prime beneficiary of stupid Western policies in the Islamic world. 9/11 and the Western reaction to it were huge geopolitical gifts to China.<<
He is dead right there!
>>In the geopolitical contest between China and the West, the score is probably 8 for China and 2 for the West. But it would be foolish for China to be complacent. Indeed, the Chinese believe that they have many reasons to feel distrustful of the West. <<
It should be very clear now, if there was any doubt at all, that the learned professor is an apologist for China NOT a disinterested friend of the west or of India.
>>I presume that it is clear that it is not in India's interest to join the West in trying to de-legitimize the Chinese political system, tempting as it may be. <<
India has never had any interest at any time since China became communist in 1949, to de-legitimize the Chinese political system. As a matter of fact, India went out of the way to befriend an almost friendless China in the early 1950s -- with what tragic consequences to India's own territorial integrity is obvious to any thinking person. Even now, India is hardly interested in whether China continues to be a communist dictatorship or whatever. She wants to live within her present secure borders. It's as simple as that.
>>There is a simple rule of geo-politics. In any three-way contest of power, the best position to occupy is the middle-position. To put it simply, it is better to be courted by both sides rather than to be taken for granted as an instrument by one side and as an adversary by the other side.<<
A wrong analogy. There is NO contest between India and the west for power or whatever. The west may be courting India but China cannot court India and at the same time covet its territory!
>>From the point of view of Western geopolitical interests, with China and India returning as the number one and number two non-Western powers in the world, what better geopolitical scenario could there be for the West than for the number one and number two to struggle against each other as they are rising? And if they both succeed in slowing down the rise of each other, won't the prime beneficiary of this be the West?<<
Absolutely misleading. China's rise since 1979 owes a lot to the west, especially the US, opening up their markets. The US is now looking for greater access to the Chinese market. No responsible person in the west is thinking of slowing down the progress of China or India.
>>Thirty years ago, most would have predicted that the China-Taiwan problem was far more difficult to solve than the India-Pakistan problem.<<
No knowledgeable person would ever have made such an unrealistic statement.
>>There are no immediate pressing issues dividing India and the West (except perhaps climate change and the American position on Pakistan). By contrast, China is near and getting nearer. Several bilateral issues are clouding China-India relations: Pakistan, Arunachal Pradesh, the stapling of visas for Kashmir related passports. It is easy to get aggravated on a daily basis.....In geopolitics, it is a mistake to allow emotions to determine when to get aggravated. Getting aggravated should be a rational choice, not an emotional choice.....it is a mistake to allow emotions to influence geopolitical decisions. Reason must always trump emotion.....This is why the best strategy for India to emulate in trying to rise and emerge peacefully is to follow Deng Xiaoping's advice for China, namely: (1) lengjing guancha—observe and analyze [developments] calmly; (2) chenzhuo yingfu—deal [with changes] patiently and confidently; (3) wenzhu zhenjiao—secure [our own] position; (4) taoguang yanghui—conceal [our] capabilities and avoid the limelight; (5) shanyu shouzhuo—be good at keeping a low profile; (6) juebu dangtou—never become a leader; (7) yousuo zuowei—strive to make achievements. If India were to practice this advice, enormous geopolitical opportunities would open for India. I realise that this is difficult advice for a country with a boisterous free media which works on 24 hour news cycles and requires instant sound bites<<
India has been enormously patient in dealing with China's provocations. Prof Mahbubani's gratuitous advice apparently is that India has no choice but to put up with China's provocations, pocket them and keep quiet!
>>most of the Indian journalists I have met have also tended to be very thoughtful and conscious of India's long-term interests. Most Indian journalists, I believe, would also agree that India is better off pursuing an independent policy rather than one that serves the interests of others.<<
Since independence India has in fact been pursuing an independent foreign policy. Is there a need for more gratuitous advice on this point?
>>There is one fundamental common interest that China and India share. Both have suffered foreign invasions and foreign humiliation over the past two hundred years.<<
Yes, in addition, since the end of colonialism, India had the misfortune of suffering from an invasion from China.
>>It would therefore be hugely ironic that at the most propitious moment in both their histories, they allow the geopolitical interests of the West to trump the common interests they have in seizing the best moment to re-establish themselves as the two most powerful countries in the world. And, if both can follow their common interests rather than Western interests, both can grow together, not grow apart. <<
The west is prepared to accept India as an equal. Is China likewise prepared to accept India as an equal and agree to live as a peaceful neighbour?
******
SOME SENSIBLE REMARKS ON CHINA from Richard Weitz, director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis and a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. He wrote in THE DIPLOMAT of January 11, 2010 ("Why US Keeps Hedging Over China" - http://the-diplomat.com/2011/01/11/why-us-keeps-hedging-over-china/ ):
"In some respects, China presents to Asia the same kind of challenge that Germany represented to Europe from 1870 to 1945. China's huge population and dynamic economy provide it with immense military potential, making it a natural aspirant for regional hegemony and forcing many of its weaker neighbours to seek the help of an external balancer. And China also shares elements of the second dimension of the former 'German problem': its authoritarian political leaders seem dissatisfied with their country's place in the existing Western-dominated Asia-Pacific international system.
These two factors—China's potential military dominance and its possible revisionist foreign policy—mean that other Asian countries and Washington have no choice but to consider how to avert a potential Chinese drive for regional hegemony.
"Even a failed Chinese grasp for Asian primacy would risk triggering a military confrontation with the United States and other countries—as well as severely damaging the Pacific economy. Yet if Washington were to stand aside, it would undermine its credibility as a guarantor of East Asian stability. Against this backdrop, other countries—notably Japan and South Korea—might respond by seeking to bolster their security by acquiring nuclear weapons, which would further undermine regional stability.
"All this means that more than any other plausible arrangement, the status quo in East Asia best satisfies not just the security interests of the United States, but also its allies. And it's a reality that means US policymakers naturally feel compelled to try to prevent China from even attempting to turn to force to resolve the region's numerous territorial disputes."
Cheers,
Ram Narayanan
Text of Remarks by Prof Kishore Mahbubani at the India Habitat Center, 8 January 2011
Will China and India grow together or grow apart?
Prof Kishore Mahbubani
I believe that I have an eminently simple and reasonable argument to put across that can be captured in three simple points. My first point is that one does not have to be a geopolitical genius to predict that the main geopolitical fault line in the next few decades will be the West and China. When China emerges with the world's largest economy by 2027, or earlier, it will be the first time in over 200 years that at a non-Western power will be the strongest power in the world. It is possible that the West will sit back passively and not try to thwart China's rise. However, it would be wiser for China to make its geopolitical plans on the basis that the West will try, directly or indirectly, to thwart China's rise.
My second point is that when the West tries to thwart the rise of China, it would prefer to do it indirectly rather than directly. The ideal scenario is the one that the West used successfully against the Soviet Union. There the West did not confront the Soviet Union directly. Instead, it unleashed radical Islamic forces in Afghanistan to unhinge the Soviet Union. That strategy succeeded. Vis-à-vis China, the best instrument that the West could find to thwart the rise of China would be the second fastest rising Asian power, namely India. The emergence of a bitter and persistent geopolitical contest between China and India would be an ideal geopolitical outcome for the West.
My third, and I hope most obvious point, is that it does not serve India's interests to be used an as instrument by the West to thwart China's rise. In simple geopolitical logic, the best position for India to take is to maintain a neutral and carefully staked out middle position in the coming struggle between the West and China. The West will try to seduce India by saying that this is not a power struggle but a struggle over virtue and values: democracy versus communist authoritarian systems. However, the history of the West has shown that geopolitical interests always trump values. This is why the West supported the Saudi-Pakistan axis over India in the Cold War. Geopolitical seduction is far more dangerous than sexual seduction because the consequences are weightier.
The best way for me to elaborate these three points is to answer three critical questions: Firstly, will the West try to thwart China? Secondly, will the West look for alternative instruments to use against China? Thirdly, is it in India's interests to join the West in thwarting the rise of China? In trying to answer these questions, please let me admit that the answers will be complex, not simple. We will have to get out of simple back-and-white perspectives in trying to understand the coming struggle between the West and China.
There is, for example, no simple black-and-white answer to the question whether the West will try to thwart the rise of China. Certainly, the West will not launch a simple Soviet-style containment policy. One reason why it cannot do so is that, so far, China has managed its geopolitical rise brilliantly. Please see pages 219-234 from "The New Asian Hemisphere". The complex strategy included the following elements: heeding Deng Xiaoping's advice to take a low profile (Note: the following characters describe Deng's advice: (1) lengjing guancha—observe and analyze [developments] calmly; (2) chenzhuo yingfu—deal [with changes] patiently and confidently; (3) wenzhu zhenjiao—secure [our own] position; (4) taoguang yanghui—conceal [our] capabilities and avoid the limelight; (5) shanyu shouzhuo—be good at keeping a low profile; (6) juebu dangtou—never become a leader; (7) yousuo zuowei—strive to make achievements); developing massive interdependence between the USA and China, where the US economy now heavily depends on Chinese purchases of US Treasury Bills; accept the 1945 rules-based order; taking full advantage of America's absolutely stupid policies vis-à-vis the Islamic world. Hence, ironically, while the West used the Islamic world to unhinge the Soviet Union, China is now emerging as the prime beneficiary of stupid Western policies in the Islamic world. 9/11 and the Western reaction to it were huge geopolitical gifts to China.
In the geopolitical contest between China and the West, the score is probably 8 for China and 2 for the West. But it would be foolish for China to be complacent. Indeed, the Chinese believe that they have many reasons to feel distrustful of the West. This suspicion is well captured in the following poem:
An Awakening Message
When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled opium to open markets.
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
When we were falling apart, you marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, it was an Invasion!
When we tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
But when you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
No, you answered, we don't hate you.
We don't hate you either,
But, do you understand us?
Of course we do, you said,
We have AFP, CNN and BBC's...
What do you really want from us?
Think hard first, then answer...
Because you only get so many chances.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
This Big Blue Earth is Big enough for all of Us. [Duo-Liang Lin]
The West did not dominate the world through stupidity. It is capable of geopolitically brilliant moves. Therefore, in answer to my second question, the West will certainly look for alternative instruments to use against China. Let me suggest two it will try. The first is to focus on the obvious Achilles' heel of China: its political system. The most powerful ideological instrument to use in any struggle is the instrument of legitimacy. In one way or another, the West will try to delegitimize the Chinese political system, especially by highlighting its lack of democracy. In so doing, the West will deliberately ignore the fact that Chinese society has never been as open as it is today. Hence, when the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to a dissident like Liu Xiaobao instead of one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century, Deng Xiaoping, it is natural for the Chinese government to get angry because they see it, with some reason, as a Western plan to de-legitimize the political system of China. Please let me emphasize one point: I presume that it is clear that it is not in India's interest to join the West in trying to de-legitimize the Chinese political system, tempting as it may be.
The second instrument that the West can try to use against China is divide-and-rule. Indeed, this is how the West conquered the world. One reason why I published my first book, "Can Asians Think?" was to answer an obvious question: how did 100,000 Englishmen rule so effectively over 300 million Indians. One obvious reason: divide-and-rule. This time around the West cannot use radical Islam to unhinge China. However, it will look all around Asia for instruments to use to either balance or destabilize China: from Japan to South Korea; from Taiwan to Tibet; from ASEAN to India. Each of these instruments provides geo-political opportunities for the West. However, the ideal geopolitical instrument will be India.
Why India? The simplest answer is that from year 1 to year 1820, the two largest economies were China and India. However, with the passing of the era of Western domination of world history, there will be an almost natural return of China and India to the number one and number two slots in Global GNP ranking. Please see the attached McKinsey chart to understand why this return will be so natural and inevitable. From the point of view of Western geopolitical interests, with China and India returning as the number one and number two non-Western powers in the world, what better geopolitical scenario could there be for the West than for the number one and number two to struggle against each other as they are rising? And if they both succeed in slowing down the rise of each other, won't the prime beneficiary of this be the West?
The third and final question is this: is it in India's interest to join the West in thwarting the rise of China? I presume that the answer is no. There is a simple rule of geo-politics. In any three-way contest of power, the best position to occupy is the middle-position. To put it simply, it is better to be courted by both sides rather than to be taken for granted as an instrument by one side and as an adversary by the other side.
However, to be honest, it may be difficult for India to maintain this middle position. The West is now geographically far away. There are no immediate pressing issues dividing India and the West (except perhaps climate change and the American position on Pakistan). By contrast, China is near and getting nearer. Several bilateral issues are clouding China-India relations: Pakistan, Arunachal Pradesh, the stapling of visas for Kashmir related passports. It is easy to get aggravated on a daily basis.
In geopolitics, it is a mistake to allow emotions to determine when to get aggravated. Getting aggravated should be a rational choice, not an emotional choice. Hence, when China had fishing boat incidents with Japan and South Korea, it chose to get aggravated with Japan but not with South Korea. Similarly, when both Lee Teng Hui and Chen Shui Bian were clearly pursuing pro-independence strategies for Taiwan, China did get angry but it also controlled its anger and continued to court both the Taiwanese public and Taiwanese investors. Thirty years ago, most would have predicted that the China-Taiwan problem was far more difficult to solve than the India-Pakistan problem. Today, the reverse is probably true. The lesson from all this is that it is a mistake to allow emotions to influence geopolitical decisions. Reason must always trump emotion.
This is why the best strategy for India to emulate in trying to rise and emerge peacefully is to follow Deng Xiaoping's advice for China, namely: (1) lengjing guancha—observe and analyze [developments] calmly; (2) chenzhuo yingfu—deal [with changes] patiently and confidently; (3) wenzhu zhenjiao—secure [our own] position; (4) taoguang yanghui—conceal [our] capabilities and avoid the limelight; (5) shanyu shouzhuo—be good at keeping a low profile; (6) juebu dangtou—never become a leader; (7) yousuo zuowei—strive to make achievements. If India were to practice this advice, enormous geopolitical opportunities would open for India. I realise that this is difficult advice for a country with a boisterous free media which works on 24 hour news cycles and requires instant sound bites. Yet, at the same time, most of the Indian journalists I have met have also tended to be very thoughtful and conscious of India's long-term interests. Most Indian journalists, I believe, would also agree that India is better off pursuing an independent policy rather than one that serves the interests of others.
There is one fundamental common interest that China and India share. Both have suffered foreign invasions and foreign humiliation over the past two hundred years. Both have also understood well the price they paid for being weak. Both have also suffered the most in the period of Western domination of world history. It would therefore be hugely ironic that at the most propitious moment in both their histories, they allow the geopolitical interests of the West to trump the common interests they have in seizing the best moment to re-establish themselves as the two most powerful countries in the world. And, if both can follow their common interests rather than Western interests, both can grow together, not grow apart.
Kishore Mahbubani, Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, is the author of "The New Asian Hemisphere: the Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East"
Duo-Liang Lin, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
________________
If you wish to respond to this message, and if hitting the "Reply" button, results in your response bouncing back, please try ramn_wins@roadrunner.com
Powered By PanWebMailer Version 2.0 © 2004-2005
5 comments:
Notice how NDTV and other Friends-of-KKKangres are downplaying the NCP-Rahul Baba spat? The same guys were full of "sources said" stories about imaginary divisions within BJP during NDA rule.
Kishore Mahbubani represents Chinese majority Singapore. He definitely cannot utter any anti China remarks.
I really can’t figure out what’s so appalling about this person’s lecture. Kishore M. is a typical servile Indian who can’t envision any role for India except as a second or third rate (“low profile”) power. He should join hands with ex-ambassador Bhadrakumar, another china obsessed Indian.
mahbubani is not an indian, he's a singaporean, and he goes to great pains to make that distinction. he was also in the singaporean foreign service.
what is appalling is that this is what a relatively sane observer says: that india is a hopeless, second-rate power that can only be a vassal.
that, of course, was nehru's dream. he has achieved it.
the very idea of 'non-alignment' suggests that one can never be a pole others aspire to align to.
Granted Rajeev ("is not an indian, he's a singaporean") but – and I am sure u’ll agree with me – how many overseas Chinese (and that includes the Taiwanese) have u heard or read calling on their ancestral country to become a second rate power. Indians have no competition when it comes to servility & self debasement.
Post a Comment