April 23, 2012
The West must work to understand a New World Order
by Kishore Mahbubani*
As the world becomes inexorably smaller, denser, more interconnected and more complex, the biggest danger the world faces is western groupthink, which fails to spot the thousands of nuances that are vital to interpret international affairs. Crisis after crisis would be avoided if the west could learn to understand these nuances better.
Take, for example, the crisis the west worries about most: Iran. The western narrative is clear: the Israeli government may have no choice but to bomb Iran this year, as time is running out to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb. Yes, time is running out for the Israeli government. But the immediate threat in the minds of the Israeli government is not the Iranian bomb. It is the fear of Barack Obama’s re-election. As Mr Obama whispered to Demetri Medvedev, he will have more freedom to launch bold initiatives in his second term. And this is the Israeli government’s nightmare: that Obama will push for a two-state solution (even though, incidentally, it would be in Israel’s long-term interests).
Yet western groupthink suggests that the west is honest and straightforward while Iran, as usual, has been lying and mendacious. In fact, the record is less clearcut. For reasons still unknown, the US government walked away from a deal it asked Brazil and Turkey to offer to Iran, which Iran had accepted. This is why Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the UN nuclear watchdog, asked: “Can the West take yes for an answer?” Equally importantly, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s strongman supreme leader, said: “the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin.” This is as strong a message as Iran’s leader can convey to the Iranian people. If Iran is bombed after denouncing nuclear weapons, it will produce a century or more of anger towards the west, just as the Anglo-American coup against Muhammad Mossadegh in 1953 produced half a century of distrust. In short, any bombing of Iran would be an unmitigated disaster for the west.
Now let’s take another crisis: North Korea. Yes, it was foolish and unnecessary for impoverished North Korea to launch a rocket. But did the North Korean regime have any agenda besides developing the capability to reach America with a ballistic missile? Was it pure coincidence that it was launched on the 100th anniversary of the birthday of Kim Il-Sung, the regime’s founder? Was regime legitimisation an equally important goal? And wait – something even more amazing happened in North Korea. Immediately after the rocket failed, the North Korean government admitted failure.
Holy cow – the North Korean government admitted it was fallible. This is truly a big deal. North Korea has taken a huge leap towards becoming a “normal” country. Did anyone in the west notice this nuance? Alas, no one. The US government once again imposed more sanctions. Does isolating an isolated country really work?
To answer this question, let us look at a third country that is slowly but steadily walking away from a crisis: Myanmar. Here too, the dominant western narrative is clear: western sanctions finally forced open Myanmar. Sadly, the dominant western narrative is wrong. Western sanctions did not work. ASEAN engagement with Myanmar did. The regional organisation forced Myanmar’s officials and leaders to attend thousands of meetings in ASEAN countries. These travels opened their eyes to how far Myanmar was falling behind: they realised it had to become a more “normal” country.
Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Najib Razak, was right in saying “that ASEAN has been instrumental in driving both economic growth and political development, and that there can be no clearer example than its relations with Myanmar. For many decades, Myanmar was on the receiving end of very public diplomatic scoldings, often backed up by sanctions… But ASEAN members took a more nuanced view, believing that constructive engagement and encouragement were just as effective, if not more, than sanctions and isolation in creating positive change.”
As usual, western media largely ignored this reality and gave all the credit to Hillary Clinton and David Cameron. A self-serving western narrative just cannot understand the complex new world that is emerging – and progressing, while the west languishes. Yet the era of western dominance is gone. Can the west begin to understand the new and more complex world order unfolding before our eyes day by day?
*Kishore Mahbubani is Dean and Professor in the Practice of Public Policy of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. He previously served for 33 years in Singapore’s diplomatic service and is recognised as an expert on Asian and world affairs.
Related articles
- Myanmar, N. Korea in focus as Asean summit starts (globalnation.inquirer.net)
- Dialogue, deterrence and Myanmar’s future (asiahacks.com)
- North Korea-US Pact In Peril – Analysis (eurasiareview.com)
- Myanmar Activists Say Go Slow on Easing Sanctions (abcnews.go.com)
- Burma, S. China Sea Dominate ASEAN Summit Discussions (voanews.com)
Din Merican: the Malaysian DJ Blogger 
Mr. Mahbubani misses the point. The “West” is fully aware of all of these “nuances”, even if the media does not always report them. Thousands of bureaucrats at the State Department, Foreign Office, Quai d’Orsay and Auslandsamt analyze the statements and actions from Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, etc. and develop policy responses. The real point is that Western governments have different interpretations of these “nuances” than Mr. Mahbubani.
With respect to Iran, it is generally understood that there is a power struggle going on between various factions within the regime, specifically the religious group led by senior clerics such as Ayatollah Khamenei and the secular hard-liners led by President Muhadinejad. Khamenei may speak for the religious faction when he decries nuclear weapons as un-Islamic, however, we have not heard Muhadinejad make the same statement in public (and I would be willing to make a wager with Mr. Mahbubani that Muhadinejad will NEVER express this view in public). If Mr. Mahbubani were as sophisticated in foreign policy matters as he claims, he would be aware of this factional conflict and know that the Muhadinejad faction has been driving the nuclear program from Day 1.
The sanctions on Iran imposed by the “West” are a calculated approach to solving two problems: first, to prevent or delay the development of nuclear weapons by Iran, and second, prevent or delay a military strike by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities which could trigger a wider conflict in the Middle East.
Unless Mr. Mahbubani believes that the world would be a better place if Iran had nuclear weapons, surely he should agree with the “West” that ‘safer is better than sorry’ when it comes to nuclear proliferation.
What Mr. Mahbubani is really complaining about is that Western governments are acting in their self-interest, as far as they perceive it. He should have the candor to say so.
Mr. Mabubani is right about narratives. The Western narrative he describes is simplistic and misleading. As is the inevitable rise of the ‘other Superpower’ China narrative. There is Mahathir’s narrative. So is Mr. Mabubani’s narrative.
In the world as it is, not as we imagine it to be when we frame our narrative, there are facts. One is that in the seventy-five odd years since his imaginary ‘West” committed its second great fratricide of the twentieth century not a single ‘third world’ state has joined the ranks of the developed nations.
The transition to middle income country requires reasonable governance and some accommodation by the established powers. No one knows what the transition to developed status requires because no state has successfully made it since Japan a hundred years ago.
By all means Miles disagree with Kishore. But we can at least agree that the man has very impressive credentials (read below):
“A student of philosophy and history, Kishore Mahbubani has had the good fortune of enjoying a career in government and, at the same time, in writing on public issues. With the Singapore Foreign Service from 1971 to 2004, he had postings in Cambodia (where he served during the war in 1973-74), Malaysia, Washington DC and New York, where he served two stints as Singapore’s Ambassador to the UN and as President of the UN Security Council in January 2001 and May 2002. He was Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Ministry from 1993 to 1998. Currently, he is the Dean and Professor in the Practice of Public Policy at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) of the National University of Singapore. He is also a Faculty Associate for the LKYSPP’s Centre on Asia and Globalisation (CAG).
Concurrently, Prof Mahbubani continues to serve in Boards and Councils of several institutions in Singapore, Europe and North America, including the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Council, the Asia Society’s International Council, the Yale President’s Council on International Activities (PCIA), and the Singapore-China Foundation – Scholarship Committee.
In the world of ideas, Prof Mahbubani has spoken and published globally. His articles have appeared in a wide range of journals and newspapers, including Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, the Washington Quarterly, Survival, American Interest, the National Interest, Time, Newsweek and New York Times. He has also been profiled in the Economist and in Time Magazine.
He is the author of “Can Asians Think?” (published in Singapore, Canada, US, Mexico, India, China and Malaysia) and of “Beyond The Age Of Innocence: Rebuilding Trust between America and the World” (published in New York). His new book entitled “The New Asian Hemisphere: the irresistible shift of global power to the East” was published in New York in February 2008.
Prof Mahbubani was awarded the President’s Scholarship in 1967. He graduated with a First Class honours degree in Philosophy from the University of Singapore in 1971. From Dalhousie University, Canada, he received a Masters degree in Philosophy in 1976 and an honorary doctorate in 1995. He spent a year as a fellow at the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University from 1991 to 1992. He was also given the 2003–2004 Dr Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award by the Institute for Global Leadership (IGL) at Tufts University.
He has been conferred The Public Administration Medal (Gold) by the Singapore Government in 1998. The Foreign Policy Association Medal was awarded to him in New York in June 2004 with the following opening words in the citation: “A gifted diplomat, a student of history and philosophy, a provocative writer and an intuitive thinker”. Prof Mahbubani was also listed as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines in September 2005.”
http://www.mahbubani.net/biography.html
— Din Merican
“What Mr. Mahbubani is really complaining about is that Western governments are acting in their self-interest, as far as they perceive it. He should have the candor to say so.”
I don’t think thats his message since it is self-evident that all governments act in their self-interest. What he is saying is that the Western groupthink’s failure to read the nuances have, in the past led to tragic consequences. He is saying that this groupthink and failure to listen to alternative views are once again preventing better solutions from emerging.
The tragedy list is long and well known – War on terror and Iraq, Afghanistan, Washington Consensus orthodoxy and Asian financial crisis, and more.
impressive credentials!
Prof. Madhubani’s article is the perspective of an asian and Mark Miles is that of the west.
I actually appreciate both views, the truth you’ll find inbetween them.
Prof. Madhubanis ‘groupthink’ is actually not always the general opinion of a group of leaders but of the ‘lead dogs’!
as Miles says, thousands of bureaucrats, diplomatic services, auslandsamt and foreign offices gather and analyse informations and come to conclusions but the important decisions would be made by the lead puppies!
Hillary C. and David.C were there to secure the Myanmarist market to the west; what is there guess?
Asia appears to be unable to follow in the foot steps of Europe on one fundamental issue- to have stong and independent judiciary and Commissions to deal with the key problems facing the region. We always sweep problems under the carpet and in many Asian countries the carpet industry is flourishing.There is a reluctance to deal with issues related to Human Rights.Witnesses and lawyers are not given sufficient time and more often than not harassed.Lawyers are blocked from challenging the judges’ impartiality. In many of the Commissions set up to look into various issues these Commissions lack even the appearence of independence and impartiality. And in many Parliaments the opposition is so openly denied the opportunity to table motions of interest to the nation.
That for you is Asia. Why must the West work to understand the New World Order when they know that it not sustainable. Those countries that claim to be in the so called New World Order must first of all allow their own citizens to enjoy the New World Order. In many countries the judiciary is nothing to crow about and institutions related to the conduct of free and fair elections are not respected by the those in power. Asia will pay the price for its failure to secure justice for its own citizens. A well run judiciary coupled with an independent election commission will help heal the living wounds of injustice with individuals called to account for their misdeeds instead of groups. We must encourage the respect for the law and strong impartial institutions. But the weak democracies in Asia and illiberal strongmen in-charge the change that the citizens are hoping for is slender indeed.
Now tell me Ambassador Mahbubani why the West must work to understand the New World Order.
The days of Western dominance may be over but not their sale of weapons especially now that they are all broke.