Features
Europeans Must Learn from Asians Instead of Lecturing Them
My Talk with Kishore Mahbubani Part 2
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
Kishore Mahbubani’s insights into Western narratives about Asia reveal significant misconceptions that have shaped global politics. In addressing the question of how these narratives influence international relations, he draws a clear distinction between American and European viewpoints. He critiques the American narrative for its narrow focus on the “China challenge,” arguing that it obscures a broader understanding of Asia: “The Americans don’t realise that there are 4.8 billion people in Asia, and China is only 1.4 billion.” He emphasises the need for a more comprehensive approach, stating that “they have to understand the rest of Asia too, and work with the rest of Asia.”
Mahbubani highlights that most Asian countries are willing to collaborate with China in various capacities. This collaboration is often met with resistance when the U.S. attempts to force a binary choice between allegiance to China or the United States. He reflects, “When the Americans try to force the Asian countries to choose between China and the United States, there’s resistance.” This dynamic exemplifies the misunderstandings that hinder effective dialogue and cooperation.
Turning his attention to European narratives, Mahbubani argues that they should be capitalising on the economic opportunities that Asia presents. He notes that the largest growth in the middle class will occur in China, India, and ASEAN nations, stating, “You know, the combined population of China, India, and ASEAN is 3.5 billion people.” He highlights the astonishing growth of the middle class in these regions, pointing out that only 150 million people enjoyed middle-class living standards in 2000. By 2020, that number had surged to 1.5 billion, with projections estimating it will reach between 2.5 and 3 billion by 2030. Mahbubani asserts that “if the Europeans were smart, they would learn how to engage Asia and work with Asia.”
However, he expresses disappointment that “the European Union countries do not know how to be humble” and often prefer to lecture Asian nations rather than collaborating with them. He views this as a significant misstep, stating, “This is very, very unwise.” His assessment includes a striking statistic that should alarm European leaders: “In 1980, the combined European Union GNP was ten times bigger than China. Now, it’s about the same size. And by 2050, the European Union will be half the size of China.” He cautions, “When you go from being 10 times larger to becoming half the size, you got to learn how to be humble.”
As the world moves towards a multipolar order, Mahbubani anticipates challenges in achieving global cooperation. He notes that the geopolitical contest between the U.S. and China is likely to continue for the next decade, as many in America feel they have “about 10 years to stop China.” Mahbubani critiques this urgency, arguing that it is “unwise” and that finding ways to coexist with China is essential. He emphasises this need in his book, Has China Won?, where he outlines the benefits of constructive engagement with the rising power.
Furthermore, he points to the emergence of other great powers, including India and Russia, while highlighting the European Union’s unique position: “It’s an economic giant and a geopolitical dwarf.” This phrase encapsulates the need for Europe to reassess its approach in a world where multiple powers coexist. Mahbubani urges Asian nations to demonstrate their ability to navigate this multipolar landscape, asserting, “We have to learn to live with a multipolar world.”
When asked about the potential for conflict between the U.S. and China, Mahbubani expresses cautious optimism, stating, “I’m reasonably confident that there’ll be no war between United States and China.” He explains that in a nuclear conflict, there are no true winners—only mutual devastation. “In a nuclear war, there’s no winner and a loser. There’s a loser and a loser.” He elaborates that even if China were to lose major cities, the U.S. would not accept the catastrophic loss of cities like New York or Washington, D.C. Therefore, he argues, while a vigorous contest between the two nations will continue, outright war is improbable.
Transitioning to the situation in Ukraine, Mahbubani shares his perspective on how the conflict could have been avoided. He believes that American leaders should have heeded the advice of strategic thinkers like George Kennan and Henry Kissinger. He recalls Kennan’s warning about NATO expansion, which he deemed a “mistake” that would “alienate and anger Russia.” He asserts that Kennan, a key strategist during the Cold War, understood the long-term implications of U.S. foreign policy. Mahbubani states, “The American and the European leaders, especially, don’t think long-term and don’t think strategically.”
He observes that while the Ukraine war has strengthened U.S. influence in Europe, it has not benefitted the European Union in the long term. “I don’t see how this Ukraine war has helped the European Union,” he notes, asserting that the EU must acknowledge the necessity of living with Russia for the next century or more. “They have to stand up to Russia,” he acknowledges, while also emphasising the importance of seeking peaceful resolutions. “Certainly, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal, and we should condemn the Russian invasion. But at the same time, we should also try to find a solution for peace that takes into consideration Russia’s interests.”
Through his candid analysis, Mahbubani calls for a deeper understanding of global geopolitics, urging a shift from outdated narratives to one that embraces cooperation, humility, and a recognition of the multi-dimensional realities of the modern world. He encourages leaders and citizens alike to engage with Asia as a vital partner in shaping the future, rather than viewing it through a lens of fear and misunderstanding.
In my recent conversation with George Friedman (Sunday Island, October 6, 2024), the topic of U.S. strategies regarding Russia emerged, where Friedman indicated that the U.S. plans to prolong the conflict, positioning it as beneficial for America in the long run. In response, I probed Kishore Mahbubani about this perspective, and he expressed a more cautious viewpoint on warfare. “Wars are always unwise,” he stated, emphasising that they often lead to “unanticipated consequences.” Instead of pursuing prolonged conflict, Mahbubani advocates for finding avenues to dampen wars. He emphasises that the world’s most pressing issue is climate change, arguing, “If you ask what is the most important thing the world needs to fight today, it is climate change. You cannot fight climate change if you’re too busy fighting over territory.”
He illustrates this point with a powerful metaphor, describing our shared global predicament: “You are all now passengers on the same boat. If the boat is sinking, what’s the point of arguing about who’s got the bigger cabin?” This analogy accentuates the futility of territorial disputes when faced with existential challenges that require collective action.
Transitioning to the United Nations (UN), I asked Mahbubani about his insights regarding its credibility and effectiveness, especially in light of Western nations’ influence. Drawing on his experiences as Singapore’s ambassador to the UN, he asserted the urgent need for reforms, particularly regarding the Security Council.
He reiterated his belief that India should secure a permanent seat, stating, “I wrote a column in the Financial Times saying it’s time for the UK to give up its permanent seat in the UN Security Council to India.” He elaborated on this by noting that the UN’s founding principles intended the veto to be held by “the great powers of today, and not the great powers of yesterday,” asserting, “The UK is a great power of yesterday. India is a great power of today and tomorrow.”
Mahbubani further argued that it would be in the best interest of the UK to “pass on their veto to India,” noting that the UK has largely ceased to use its veto power due to its diminished global standing. He remarked, “The British know that if they use their veto, countries will say, who are you? Why should you use the veto?” Additionally, he critiqued the UK’s political landscape, stating, “When they elect prime ministers who are jokers and jokes, you should first take care of yourself and not try to save the world.”
Regarding the broader challenges facing the UN, Mahbubani expressed concern over the weakening of the organisation, attributing this trend to the actions of the United States and its allies. He emphasised in his book The Great Convergence that “it has been a mistake for the Western countries to try and weaken the United Nations and the multilateral system.” He highlights the statistical reality that the West makes up only 12% of the global population, arguing that minorities in a global village should prefer a rules-based order to avoid chaos and anarchy.
In light of these dynamics, he cited former President Bill Clinton’s observation: “If the United States is going to be number one forever, it can do whatever it wants to do. But if the United States is not going to be number one forever, and may become number two, then it’s in America’s national interest to strengthen multilateral rules.” Mahbubani is adamant that the U.S. and Western nations must recalibrate their approach, shifting from undermining the UN to strengthening it, a perspective he urges all nations from the Global South to communicate collectively to the West.
As we discussed the emergence of alternative organisations, I asked if he believed this was the reason for the growing prominence of BRICS. Mahbubani affirmed that the inadequacies of traditional multilateral organisations have led to the formation of alternatives. He acknowledged the significance of the G20 but noted its current paralysis. “Clearly, many of the global multilateral organisations are not functioning well, and there are all kinds of alternatives developing,” he said. He also mentioned regional agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) as part of this shift towards new forms of multilateral governance.
Addressing allegations against China regarding debt traps in nations like Myanmar and Sri Lanka, as well as countries in Africa, Mahbubani pushed back against these narratives, citing Deborah Brautigam, an American academic who has provided evidence against the “myth of the debt trap.” He pointed out that “the bulk of African debt is not to China; it’s to the West,” emphasising the historical context in which African nations have been politically and economically colonised by Western powers. Mahbubani contended that many African countries appreciate China’s involvement because it offers them a choice in their partnerships. He stated, “If they don’t have a choice, then they get bullied,” highlighting that African nations value China’s presence as it enhances their bargaining power with Western countries.
Finally, I enquired about the significance of peace between India and China, given the existing border tensions. Mahbubani highlighted the importance of cooperation between these two Asian giants, lamenting the current state of their relations. “Many of us in Southeast Asia are saddened that relations between China and India today are not good,” he remarked. He invoked former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s sentiment that “the sky is big enough for China and India to grow together,” expressing hope that both nations can learn to manage their differences effectively.
He also voiced a similar hope for India and Pakistan, advocating for normalised trade relations between them. “It’s shocking that even though Southeast Asia is in ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic terms, much more diverse than South Asia, we have much more successful regional cooperation,” he observed, urging South Asian countries to learn from ASEAN’s successful models.
Concluded
by Jehan Perera
The Batalanda Commission report which goes into details of what happened during the JVP insurrection of 1987-89 has become the centre of public attention. The controversy has long been a point of contention and a reminder of the country’s troubled past and entrenched divisions that still exist. The events that occurred at Batalanda during the violent suppression of the JVP-led insurgency, remain a raw wound, as seen in the sudden resurfacing of the issue. The scars of violence and war still run deep. At a time when the country is grappling with pressing challenges ranging from economic recovery to social stability, there is a need to keep in focus the broader goal of unity for long-term peace and prosperity. But the ghosts of the past need also to be put to rest without continuing to haunt the present and future.
Grisly accounts of what transpired at Batalanda now fill the social media even in the Tamil media, though Tamils were not specifically targeted at that time. There was then a ceasefire between the government and LTTE. The Indo-Lanka Accord had just been signed and the LTTE were fighting the Indian peacekeeping army. The videos that are now circulating on social media would show the Tamil people that they were not the only ones at the receiving end of counter-terrorist measures. The Sinhalese were in danger then, as it was a rebellion of Sinhalese against the state. Sinhalese youth had to be especially careful.
It appears that former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was caught unprepared by the questions from a team from Al Jazeera television. The answers he gave, in which he downplayed the significance of the Batalanda Commission report have been viewed differently, depending on the perspective of the observer. He has also made a statement in which he has rejected the report. The report, which demands introspection, referred to events that had taken place 37 years earlier. But the ghosts of the past have returned. After the issue has come to the fore, there are many relatives and acquaintances of the victims from different backgrounds who are demanding justice and offering to come forward to give evidence of what they had witnessed. They need closure after so many years.
MORE POLARISATION
The public reaction to the airing of the Al Jazeera television programme is a reminder that atrocities that have taken place cannot be easily buried. The government has tabled the Batalanda Commission report in parliament and hold a two-day debate on it. The two days were to be consecutive but now the government has decided to space them out over two months. There is reason to be concerned about what transpires in the debate. The atrocities that took place during the JVP insurrection involved multiple parties. Batalanda was not the only interrogation site or the only torture chamber. There were many others. Former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was not the only prominent protagonist in the events that transpired at that time.
The atrocities of the late 1980s were not confined to one location, nor were they the responsibility of a single individual or group. The JVP engaged in many atrocities and human rights violations. In addition to members of the former government and military who engaged in counter-terrorism operations there were also other groups that engaged both in self-defence and mayhem. These included members of left political parties who were targeted by the JVP and who formed their own para-military groups. Some of the leaders went on to become ministers in succeeding governments and even represented Sri Lanka at international human rights forums. Even members of the present government will not be able to escape the fallout of the debate over the Batalanda Commission report.
If the debate becomes a battleground for assigning blame rather than seeking solutions, it could have far-reaching consequences for Sri Lanka’s social and political stability. Economic recovery, governance reform, and development require stability and cooperation. The present storm caused by the Batalanda Commission report, and the prospects for increased polarisation and hatred do not bode well for the country. Rather than engaging in potentially divisive debates that could lead to further entrenchment of opposing narratives, Sri Lanka would be better served by a structured and impartial approach to truth-seeking and reconciliation.
NATIONAL HEALING
Earlier this month at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the government rejected the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights assertion that the external evidence gathering unit would continue to collect evidence on human rights violations in Sri Lanka. This evidence gathering unit has a mandate to collect information on a wide range of human rights violations including intimidation and killings of journalists but with a focus on the human rights violations and war crimes during the course of the LTTE war and especially at its end. The government’s position has been that it is determined to deal with human rights challenges including reconciliation through domestic processes.
Addressing the High-Level Segment of the 58th Regular Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva in February this year, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath said: “The contours of a truth and reconciliation framework, will be further discussed with the broadest possible cross section of stakeholders, before operationalisation to ensure a process that has the trust of all Sri Lankans. Our aim is to make the domestic mechanisms credible and sound within the constitutional framework. This will include strengthening the work towards a truth and reconciliation commission empowered to investigate acts of violence caused by racism and religious extremism that give rise to tensions within Sri Lankan society.”
The concept of a truth and reconciliation commission was first broached in 2015 by then prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government. In 2019 after winning the presidential elections, former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa too saw merit in the idea, but neither of these two leaders had the commitment to ensure that the process was completed. Promoting reconciliation in Sri Lanka among divergent political actors with violent political pasts requires a multi-faceted approach that blends political, social, and psychological strategies.
Given the country’s complex history of armed conflict, ethnic tensions, and political polarisation, the process must be carefully designed to build trust, address grievances, and create a shared vision for the future. A truth and reconciliation process as outlined in Geneva by the government, which has teeth in it for both punishment and amnesty, can give the country the time and space in which to uncover the painful truths and the path to national healing.
Our universities are characterized by hierarchies. They manifest in formal and informal ways, reinforcing power asymmetries based on class, ethnicity and gender, and placing inordinate authority in those with higher status. In medicine, a ‘hidden curriculum’ orients undergraduates to hierarchies from their early days in training, placing professors over lecturers, ‘clinical’ over ‘non-clinical’ teachers, consultants over medical officers, and so on. While hierarchies are needed at universities (and hospitals) to streamline decision-making, dysfunctional hierarchies create unhealthy learning environments and a culture of fear that discourages students from asking questions and voicing concerns. They also legitimize mistreatment, humiliation, bullying, and other abuses of power. A few months ago, when I invited a medical student to participate in a session on ragging and harassment for incoming students, she asked me (quoted with permission), “What’s the point of doing a programme like that if ragging happens in official level by teachers with everyone knowing, Madam?” Her question led me to explore the avenues available at state universities for undergraduates to counter abuses of power by teachers and university administrations.
What can undergrads do?
The University Grants Commission (UGC) and all state universities have established mechanisms for reporting complaints of ragging and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The UGC’s online portal entertains complaints on “all forms of ragging; sexual harassment; sexual or gender based violence; threats and intimidation; bullying; and harassment.” Complaint procedures for ragging and SGBV are described in detail on the websites of each university, as well as the websites of some faculties. Students may also take any complaints directly to the Dean, student counsellors, academic advisors/mentors, and teachers. In addition, many faculties have portals to submit online complaints on ragging and harassment, while others rely on informal mechanisms, like complaint boxes, to protect anonymity. While these systems are used by students to some extent, rarely do they function as checks and balances against abuses of power by teachers and others at the pinnacle of the university hierarchy.
Anyone who works at a state university would know that students (and the university community more broadly) have very little confidence in existing complaint and grievance procedures. While the minority of incidents that get reported may make it to the inquiry stage, the complaints are often withdrawn under threat and intimidation from the authorities or simply brushed under the carpet. More recently, certain universities and faculties have worked towards establishing formal student grievance procedures outside the SGBV/ragging reporting systems.
Newer grievance mechanisms
Sabaragamuwa University appears to be the only university with a university-wide policy for grievance redressal. The protocol described in the standard operating procedure (SOP) requires that students submit their complaint in writing to the Dean or Deputy Senior Student Counsellor of the relevant faculty. On receiving a complaint, a Committee will be set up by the Dean/Deputy Senior Student Counsellor to conduct an inquiry. The Committee will comprise five senior staff members, including “two independent members (one representing another department, and one may represent the Gender Equity and Equality Cell of the Faculty where relevant)…” The SOP further states that “any student can oppose to have his/her mentor and/or any faculty member to be in the five-person team handling his/her issue.” However, this information is available only to the discerning student who is able to navigate the university’s complex website, hit the Centre for Quality Assurance tab, view the list of documents and click ‘best practices’.
Several faculties of medicine appear to have introduced grievance mechanisms. The Grievance Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Colombo, considers complaints regarding “a decision or action that is perceived to adversely affect the grievant in her or his professional academic capacity.” The procedure requires that students submit the grievance in writing to the Dean. The Committee comprises “persons who are not current employees of the Faculty of Medicine” and the complainant may request the presence of a member of the Medical Students’ Welfare Society. The Faculty of Medicine, Ruhuna, implements a grievance policy that is more expansive in scope, covering concerns related to “organizational changes in the teaching and learning environment, decisions by academic staff members affecting individuals or groups of students, changes in the content or structure of academic programmes, changes in the nature and quality of teaching and assessment, supervision of students undertaking research projects, authorship and intellectual property, [and the] quality of student services and access to university facilities and resources.” While the policy notes that incidents related to harassment, discrimination and bullying, come under the jurisdiction of the university’s SGBV policy, it does not entertain complaints about examinations. The medical faculty of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura (SJP), has an online grievance system that investigates complaints related to “any physical, psychological, academic or any other problem related to the University life”. The system commits to maintaining confidentiality, pledging that “information will not be divulged to members outside the Student Grievances Committee without the student’s permission.”
Gaps in existing systems
The university-wide SGBV/ragging reporting system could be used to address harassment and intimidation of all kinds. Sadly, however, undergraduates appear to be unaware of these possibilities or reluctant to use them. It is unclear as to whether the newer grievance mechanisms at universities and faculties have managed to achieve the desired outcome. Are they used by students and do they lead to constructive changes in the learning environment or do they simply exist to tick the check box of quality assurance? None of the websites report on the number of cases investigated or the kinds of redressal measures taken. If these mechanisms are to be used by students, they must fulfill certain basic requirements.
First and foremost, all students and staff must be made aware of existing grievance mechanisms. Policies and procedures cannot simply be included under a tab buried in the faculty/university website, but need to be placed front and centre. Students should know what steps the institution will take to ensure confidentiality and how those who come forward, including witnesses, will be protected. They should be confident that swift action will be taken when any breaches of confidentiality occur. Inquiries need to be conducted without delay and complainants kept informed of the actions taken. All in all, universities and/or faculties must commit to ensuring integrity and fairness in the grievance process.
Second, the independence of inquiries must be guaranteed. Some universities/faculties have SOPs that require the inclusion of ‘independent’ members in grievance committees—members who are currently non-faculty, academics from other faculties and/or student representatives. Whether the inclusion of non-faculty members would be sufficient to safeguard independence is questionable in fields like medicine where there is a tendency to cover up professional misconduct at all levels. Permitting complainants to have a say in the makeup of the inquiry committee may help to increase confidence in the system. It may be advisable for inquiries to be handled by ombudspersons or others who do not have a stake in the outcome, rather than by academic staff who are part of the university hierarchy.
Third, grievance mechanisms must address the very real possibility of retaliation from university administrations and teachers. The TOR of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna, states that the Committee must ensure “students do not suffer any victimization or discrimination as a result of raising complaints or grievances,” but provides no guidance on how this might be accomplished. Any grievance mechanism must address what recourse to action complainants (and witnesses) have in the event of retaliation. At present, there are no regulations in place to ensure that persons alleged of misconduct are not involved in examination procedures. Neither do universities provide any guarantee that complainants’ academic/employment prospects will not be compromised by coming forward. This is especially concerning in medicine where practical assessments of clinical skills and interview-based examinations (viva) are common, and those at higher rank are usually trainers at the postgraduate level.
Going forward
Student grievance mechanisms provide a structured process for students to voice concerns and seek redress when they feel they have been treated unfairly or unjustly by university staff or policies. The mechanisms currently in place at state universities appear to be weak and insufficient. The UGC could call for universities to participate in a consultative process aimed at developing a policy on handling student grievances in ways that promote fairness in academic matters, faculty conduct, and administration at state universities. While such a policy could foster supportive learning environments, build trust between university administrations and students, and protect students from bullying, intimidation and harassment, it must be accompanied by efforts to address and undo dysfunctional hierarchies within our universities.
(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna.)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
By Ramya Kumar
The months literally keep flying and, before long, we will be celebrating Oktoberfest.
In our scene, Oktoberfest is looked forward to by many and the five-star venues, especially, create the ideal kind of atmosphere for the celebration of this event, held in late September and early October.
Suzi Croner, who was in town last month (February), is already contracted to do the Oktoberfest scene at a popular five-star venue, in the city.
She says she will be performing six consecutive nights, from 23rd to 28th September, along with a band from Germany.
Suzi’s scene in Switzerland
According to Suzi, the organisers have indicated that they are looking forward to welcoming around 1,500 Oktoberfest enthusiasts on all six days the festivities are held.
“I’m really looking forward to doing the needful, especially with a German band, and I know, for sure, it’s going to be awesome.”
In fact, Suzi, of the band Friends’ fame, and now based in Switzerland, indicated that she never expected to come to her land of birth for the second time, this year.
“After my trip to Sri Lanka, in February, I thought I would check things out again next year, but I’m so happy that I don’t have to wait that long to see my fans, music lovers and friends for the second time, in 2025.”
Suzi spent 11 amazing days in Sri Lanka, in February, performing six nights at a five-star venue in Colombo, in addition to doing the ‘Country & Western Nite’ scene, at the Ramada, and an unscheduled performance, as well.
Suzi Croner: Colombo here I come…in September
Her next much-looked-forward to event is ‘Country Night,’ Down Under.
It will be her second appearance at this ‘Country Night’ dance and music lovers, in Melbourne, in particular, are waiting eagerly to give Suzi a rousing welcome.
Suzi’s bubbly personality has made her a hit wherever she performs.
In her hometown of Spreitenbach, in Switzerland, she is a big draw-card at many local events.
Suzi was the frontline vocalist for the group Friends, decades ago, and this outfit, too, had a huge following in the local scene, with a fan club that had over 1,500 members.
The band was based abroad and travelled to Sri Lanka, during the festive season, to keep their fans entertained, and it was, invariably, a full house for all their performances in the scene here.
-
Foreign News3 days agoSearch continues in Dominican Republic for missing student Sudiksha Konanki
-
Features6 days agoRichard de Zoysa at 67
-
News7 days agoAlfred Duraiappa’s relative killed in Canada shooting
-
Features3 days agoThe Royal-Thomian and its Timeless Charm
-
Midweek Review7 days agoRanil in Head-to-Head controversy
-
Features6 days agoSL Navy helping save kidneys
-
News4 days agoDPMC unveils brand-new Bajaj three-wheeler
-
Features3 days ago‘Thomia’: Richard Simon’s Masterpiece