Transcript: Lecture by Kishore Mahbubani, Ateneo de Manila University

Spoken text is unedited. Only speaker labels and paragraph breaks were added.

Prayer leader

… and diplomats, and he is remembered for his commitment to truth, to justice, and the common good. He is the King’s good servant, but God’s first. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Lord God, through the intercession of St. Thomas More, grant us wisdom as we seek to understand the world and one another more deeply. Teach us to listen before we speak, to understand before we judge, and to engage differences with patience, humility, and respect. Give us a spirit of genuine dialogue, the openness to encounter perspectives different from our own, the humility to question our assumptions, and the courage to follow truth wherever it may lead. When the issues before us are complex, keep us from easy answers. When disagreements arise, keep us respectful and charitable toward those with whom we differ. May our conversations today lead not to suspicion or division, but to greater understanding and a deeper appreciation of our shared responsibility for the common good. May our university be a place where truth is sought with freedom, differences are encountered with respect, and knowledge is placed in the service of humanity. We ask all this through Christ our Lord. Amen. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Host (Dr. Ma. Lourdes Veneracion)

Thank you everyone. Let us all be seated. Good afternoon once again to our esteemed guests, university officials, faculty, and students. My name is Dr. Ma. Lourdes Veneracion, and I am very happy to be your host for today’s special lecture. Organizing the event are Dr. Rosita G. Leong School of Social Sciences and the Department of Political Science, in cooperation with the Kwan Laurel Enterprise Fund. We are also assisted by the Office of the Vice President for University Partnership and Internationalization. To officially open our event, I would like to call on Father Roberto Yap of the Society of Jesus, President of the Ateneo de Manila University.

Father Roberto Yap, S.J. (President, Ateneo de Manila University)

Good friends, I am honored to be with you this afternoon to listen to a lecture by veteran diplomat, esteemed scholar, and celebrated author, Professor Kishore Mahbubani. On behalf of Ateneo de Manila University, I extend a warm welcome to you, our distinguished speaker, Professor Mahbubani. We are pleased to host your lecture, and we hope your time with us will be both enriching and enjoyable. I also welcome all the attendees who have gathered here today for what promises to be a thought-provoking session.

The topic of Professor Mahbubani’s lecture is particularly engaging and merits thoughtful consideration as it is truly relevant in the present-day dynamics of global diplomacy. A recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that the percentage of Americans with a warm view of China grew from 11% to 19%, while those with a neutral view grew from 20% to 27%. This shift suggests a gradual easing of tensions and negativity towards China among the American public. Interestingly, the report was published on the day Chinese President Xi Jinping began his three-day state visit to America.

The relationship between the United States and China symbolizes a complex dynamic between two of the world’s most influential powers. From a realist perspective in international relations, it can be seen as the emergence of a bipolar system in which each nation strives to assert dominance and expand its influence across the globe. China’s rise to great power status is underpinned by several factors including its massive population, expansive economic capabilities, and a long civilizational history spanning thousands of years. For many scholars in the field of international relations, China’s claim to become a world power has long been part of the country’s historical narrative reflecting its past glory.

On the other hand, from a liberal point of view, there is a strong argument that for the United States to adopt a more multipolar world system. In theory, this involves shifting away from the U.S.’s traditional unipolar and hegemonic ambitions, allowing for a greater emphasis on international cooperation and a commitment to upholding international law. This transition also advances greater influence of India and other rising Asian countries rather than focusing solely on China’s dominance. In this evolving landscape, China should highlight its diplomatic efforts and actively engage with its neighbors to build mutual security, communication, and collaboration.

This afternoon, we are privileged to hear Professor Mahbubani share his perspective on this complex relationship between the United States and China. As we explore this topic, we will consider the implication of China’s resurgence in power and the competitive landscape it creates with other major nations. What world views can be advanced to foster a more peaceful and collaborative international environment? What lessons can we draw from the current international system to enhance mutual respect, diplomacy, and stability? What does the U.S.-China power dynamic mean for smaller and less influential countries such as the Philippines? We look forward to a productive discussion. Thank you and good afternoon.

[Applause]

Host (Dr. Ma. Lourdes Veneracion)

Thank you very much, Father President. To briefly explain the context of this activity, let us all please welcome Mr. Robby Kwan Laurel, CEO of Sunfoot Solutions and alumnus of the Ateneo de Manila University. Sir?

[Applause]

Mr. Robby Kwan Laurel (CEO, Sunfoot Solutions; Ateneo alumnus)

Good evening and thank you to everyone for being here. When we organized this months ago, we were thinking of what happened to the opening spiel and we already listed four pages of jokes or whatever we could crack. But wow, the events of the past few weeks are just disheartening. Many people here do not know and I was given a five-minute slot but eventually asked for an eight-minute slot. One of the big news of course is the Chinese teachers in Chinese schools are being asked by the Chinese government to go back home to China. And schools like IKA and Jubilee I think are really suffering from this big adjustment. And this is a major event. I mean, the last time things like this happened when the Chinese bilingual system of education was being questioned in the Philippines was maybe in the 1950s or 60s with the Filipino First Movement and things like this.

I mean, anyway, I tried to be updated on the US-China rivalry but never really cared about the Philippine-China fight over the waters and who owns what. Because as far as I’m concerned, each country’s nationalism has its point of view. I don’t believe in it. For me, borders are always fraught with debates, imaginary lines. And the European Union was created partly as a lesson of hundred-year wars of countries over borders, over unsettled wars of hundreds of years.

I’ll tell you an incident that I just decided to share to you this morning, personal incident. In 2025, which was just last year, while walking in Times Square in New York, I was punched in the face because I have Chinese teachers. And a week later, when I was in Houston, one of the most educated, rich, maybe the richest state in the United States, white young teenagers were taunting me because I was Asian. So since I went there to graduate from high school, I was really just blown away because I never imagined that this kind of United States will be still there. But it was also a result of Trump in 2016 in national television said, “The Chinese are raping us in this country.” That is nationalism.

Professor Mahbubani’s talk today will talk about the future. We did not impose a topic, we did not suggest a topic, and he wants to look at the future. Let me immediately start by citing two very important events of the past few weeks, not even one month. And then I will read an excerpt from the book of Professor Mahbubani, which is just to show you another point of view. It’s not to convince you, we’re not here to convince you, we’re here to show other points of view.

As we near the next presidential elections, our Secretary of Defense has started to ramp up his language in a manner of a warrior. And always he cites the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, or UNCLOS, and the three letters EEZ, Exclusive Economic Zone. Even my uncles who are divided, the more, I would say, anti-China position, would always cite these two in their position. That’s number one. Number two, just last month, Senior Singaporean Diplomat, Tommy Koh, for his major contribution to international relations, was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award, an award always closely tied to US interests in the Philippines. And he cited in particular for this award, for his contributions, to quote unquote, UNCLOS. So this UNCLOS has become very, very important.

Let me read from Mahbubani’s book, “Undroppable,” I read it in one weekend. Tommy Koh, he has very high regard for him, succeeded because he worked out brilliant compromises between many contending factions, interests. He was particularly good with working with the US Ambassador. Tommy Koh was unprepared for what must have been the greatest diplomatic betrayal he would experience in his life. The United States refused to ratify UNCLOS after pocketing a lot of concessions. This came as a great shock. As usual, the decision not to ratify UNCLOS was made not by thoughtful US policy makers who were supposed to support the ratification, but corporate interests that wanted freedom to mine deep sea bed resources with American technology without UN restrictions. This will go down as one of the most selfish acts in human history. It didn’t just come from me, it came from you.

So I just wanted to quote that, and I will not anymore quote, but I just read this morning an essay by Horacio de la Costa on nationalism. And he was the first to question nationalism in saying that, “How, for instance, to strain the venom of hatreds from the movement, hatred of the stranger, hatred of the colonial master, hatred of the prosperous neighbor.” Father Bobby de la Costa, School of Humanities.

Let me just explain to students here. Our family contributed a very modest fund to the Ateneo to invite international speakers from outside the country to dialogue with the faculty. A simple and modest gesture of gratitude to the Ateneo that gave us wonderful education. The Jesuit leadership in Philippine education through over a century of dedicated work and leadership. And certainly to Father Bobby Yap I mentioned here as a way of thanking the whole Ateneo team. It’s a logistical nightmare to get this whole thing going.

I’ll tell you another anecdote, I’ll end it. When I was having my final undergraduate oral exams, I was standing in Berkman’s in the hallway. Father Leonard, reputed to be a very conservative history professor, stopped and asked me, “So you’re graduating, what do you plan to do?” I said, “I think I’ll take graduate studies in Philippine history or Philippine studies.” He said, “He doesn’t know me, I don’t know him.” “It would be tragic for the country if the best students only study the Philippines.” He said, “The Philippines is becoming more and more inward-looking.” He did not know who I was, I never saw him again. I dismissed it as an American academic saying something that’s not relevant to me. And year to year his words have been proven to be true, accurate, prophetic.

So to you students, you are here to listen and join in this dialogue really meant for the faculty. Hoping you will get one of the greatest skills you can get to become an educated person in the best and broadest sense of the word educated. Somebody did not get it in Harvard. So here, the other side, the dialogue, to contextualize, to seek ways to understand and to be understood. I hope you accept this gift of dialogue. And if you learn this skill, you grab it and run with it. Thank you.

Host (Dr. Ma. Lourdes Veneracion)

Thank you very much Mr. Robby Kwan Laurel. To continue, we’d like to call on Dr. Regina Hechanova-Alampay, Dean of the Dr. Rosita G. Leong School of Social Sciences, to introduce our guest speaker.

Dr. Regina Hechanova-Alampay (Dean, School of Social Sciences)

Professor Kishore M. Mahbubani has dedicated three decades of his life to public service. In his 33 years as a Singapore diplomat, Professor Mahbubani took on many challenging assignments. He also served two stints as Singapore’s Ambassador to the United Nations and held the position of Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1994 to 1998. Professor Mahbubani has had an equally illustrious career in the academia. He was the founding dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy from August 20, 2004 to December 2017. A prolific author, he has published 10 books to date. His ninth book, The Asian 21st Century, is an open access volume and has been downloaded 4.35 million times. Imagine that. His latest book, a memoir entitled Living the Asian Century, was published in August 2024. Professor Mahbubani has been listed among the world’s top 100 public intellectuals by the Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines, and among the top 50 individuals who would shape the debate on the future of capitalism by the Financial Times. He was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in October 2019. It is our ultimate pleasure and honor for everyone to please hear from Professor Kishore Mahbubani.

[Applause]

Professor Kishore Mahbubani

Father Roberto Yap, Mr. Robby Kwan Laurel, Dean Regina, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. Normally you begin by saying, it gives me great pleasure to be here with you. But if I want to be very honest, I would say it gives me a lot of pain, inner pain to be with all of you today because this is an extremely difficult topic to address in our times. Because I was torn, having been a diplomat for 33 years, I was torn within the impulse to be diplomatic and at the same time the need to be honest with all of you. Because if there’s one big message that I want to share with you, which I hope you’ll remember for some time, I want you to know that we are now living in one of the most dangerous times, especially in geopolitics. And my goal today, hopefully, is to try and tell you why it’s so dangerous and also perhaps suggest ways and means in which you can handle this very dangerous time. And this, by the way, this danger is going to affect all the ASEAN countries. But it may actually be especially difficult for the Philippines. So I hope, speaking as a friend, I’ll try to alert you to the dangers that are coming.

And I have basically five big messages to convey to you. The first one is that we are now living, obviously, in a time of great power transition. And as you know, times of great power transition are very difficult. And I’ll explain why. Two, that the US-China contest, clearly, is the biggest contest of our time. And I’ll explain why it is going up and down. My third point, building on a point that Mr. Roby Kwan Laurel hinted at, I shouldn’t say this, but it’s a fact, international law will not help you very much. And the fourth point is, all of us should study Ukraine very carefully. Because Ukraine is a perfect case study of what happens when you don’t understand great power transitions. If you fail to understand, the result is Ukraine. And finally, I want to also highlight that while I’ll be speaking a lot about Southeast Asia and Philippines, other countries face dangers too. And so you’re not alone in having these difficulties. And I’ll give one complete example of Australia. It illustrates how even a strong country like Australia is also going to enter a very dangerous moment in Australia’s history. The dangers are real.

So let me begin with my first point, that times of great power transition are dangerous. And paradoxically, the country that should know the best the dangers of great power transition is the Philippines. Why? Because the Philippines was colonized by Spain in 1565. In 1898, 333 years later, Spain ceded the Philippines to the US. Despite some valiant efforts by Filipino nationalists led by Emilio Aguinaldo, the Philippines became an American colony. In short, external developments determine what happened to the Philippines. And so the point here is that Philippines had nothing to do with it. But when the great power transition took place in the 1890s, when the United States emerged as a great power, it decided, “Okay, I’ll flex my muscles and I will now take over territories.” And interestingly enough, our world of 2020s is now very similar to the world of 1890s.

And one man who’s pointed this out, by the way, you referred to Harvard, it’s a famous Harvard professor, Graham Nelson, who in his book, “Destined for War,” and that book is actually a study of great power transitions and what happens when you have periods of change. And he documents how since 2,400 years ago, since the days of Athens and Sparta, initially Athens and Sparta had co-existed peacefully for decades, but as Athens became more and more powerful, Sparta felt more and more insecure, and then there was a clash between Athens and Sparta. And so you can see it began then.

There’s one interesting note that Graham Nelson makes in his book, and I want to quote him. I want to quote exactly his words so you understand how dangerous times can be. He says, and I quote, “Americans enjoy lecturing China to be more like us. Perhaps they should be careful what they wish for. Historically, how have emerging hegemons behaved? To be more specific, how did Washington, D.C. act just over a century ago when Theodore Roosevelt led the U.S. into what he was supremely confident would be an American century? Believing determination to be the handmaid of destiny, Theodore Roosevelt seized an occasion, even manufactured every opportunity to define that century on his own terms. In the decade that followed his arrival in Washington, D.C., the U.S. declared war on Spain, as I mentioned earlier, expelling it from the Western Hemisphere and acquiring Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. It threatened Germany with Britain in war unless they agreed to settle disputes on American terms, supported an insurrection in Colombia to create a new country, Panama, in order to build a canal, and declared itself the policeman of the Western Hemisphere, asserting the right to intervene whenever and wherever it judged necessary.” Unquote. 1890s. A great power emerges and says, I will now do what I want to do. So, you can see, therefore, how dangerous it is when great power transitions happen.

And all this brings me to where we are today in the 2020s, which is that we are now, for the first time since the 1890s, now experiencing a new situation where for the first time in 130 years, the United States believes that there is now a power that can challenge American power. First time in 130 years. And of course, the spectacular resurgence of China has led to this emergence of this inevitable U.S.-China contest. And that’s why I wrote a book called “Has China Won?” to explain what are the driving forces behind this contest. And the most important thing to know in geopolitics is that geopolitics is not driven by personalities. It’s driven by structural forces. And clearly, as Graham Allison documented, whenever a new emerging power begins to challenge the established power, which today is China challenging the U.S., the established power pushes down the emerging power, which is China.

But I can also emphasize to you that there are often other dimensions that complicate great power contests. And in the case of the U.S.-China contest, everyone talks about the shift of power. No one talks about the dimension, the cultural dimension, which I call the fear of the yellow peril. And the fear of the yellow peril has existed in the Western imagination only for 800 years since the Mongols almost conquered Europe. 800 years. This fear is real. And that’s why Mr. Robby Kwan Laurel is not punched in the face in Manhattan. It’s the fear of the yellow peril. It’s real. And it adds an emotional dimension to the contest, which makes it very difficult for everyone else. And then there’s an ideological dimension.

But with the contest having started, as I explained, it has gone up and down. But the most important thing you have to know is that this is bipartisan and it doesn’t have to do with internal politics. So it wasn’t actually started, but you got a hint it was coming as far back as 2011 when President Obama, a Democrat, announces the pivot to Asia policy. And then in 2015, before even the contest started, Obama said, “Right now, China wants to write the rules for commerce in Asia. If it succeeds, our competitors will be free to ignore basic environmental and labor standards, giving them an unfair advantage over American workers. We can’t let that happen. We should write the rules and level the playing field for our middle class.” Obama is a very nice guy, by the way. And he is saying, “We cannot allow China to become number one and set the rules.”

He was succeeded, as you know, by President Trump in the first Trump administration. And in many ways, President Trump was the one who launched the trade war with China in 2018. And that’s when the US-China contest officially began. And subsequently, President Trump also imposed restrictions on Huawei, SMIC, and other sanctions. But as you know, President Trump lost the elections in 2020. He was succeeded by President Joe Biden. President Joe Biden is a very nice man. You can’t find someone nicer than Joe Biden. And what was amazing is that President Joe Biden was the first American president to come to office with a pre-existing personal relationship with his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping. They were actually, relatively speaking, good friends. And because President Xi had hosted Joe Biden when President Xi was Vice President, Joe Biden was Vice President of China, and then President Joe Biden hosted Xi Jinping in the US. So they were both, in that sense, good friends.

But I can tell you one thing, friendship makes no difference. Actually, the pressure on China increased significantly in the Biden administration. So Joe Biden was the one who created the office. Joe Biden was the one who passed the CHIPS Act. And in 2023, the US added four new enhanced defense cooperation arrangement, EDCA, sites in the Philippines. It was done by President Joe Biden. And also, Joe Biden raised tariffs on goods such as EVs, solar cells, and semiconductors. And implemented other restrictions reducing US dependence on Chinese EV and battery supply chains. So you can see, personalities don’t matter.

And here I can tell you that even though it was very clear that this US-China contest is gaining momentum, and I actually would have predicted that 2026 would be a very difficult year in US-China relations, to my surprise, and to the surprise of many people, we’re now experiencing an amazing love in the US-China relationship. As you could see from the visits of President Trump to Beijing and President Xi to Washington DC recently, the relationship is now very calm. But that calm, as you know, is a result of the fact that when President Trump launched his tariffs on China in April 2025, he launched it on over 100 countries. Only one country was able to retaliate against the United States, and that was China. And when he raised the tariffs to 145%, China said, “Okay, we will have to cut off our supply of rare earths, magnets, and minerals. And by cutting off that supply, you ended up in a situation where the US industries would have ground to a halt if that had happened.” So right now, what we are experiencing, therefore, is an unusual calm in the relationship. But in geopolitics, I can tell you for sure, the calm never lasts. Get ready. Something surprising will happen and the contest will continue. And that’s what you should be prepared for.

Now, my third point, as I explained earlier, was can you rely on international law to protect you? And I know many in the Philippines believe that international law will help to protect the Philippines, especially since Western countries believe in international law. The reality is that Western countries apply international law very selectively. And I’ll give you two examples. Now, I’m going to start with a UK example. The British are, in theory, the greatest believers in the rule of law. And the British, as you know, have also ratified all the major conventions. And of course, the British have ratified the convention of the World Court, the ICJ. You would think that if any country would obey international law, it should be the British. Well, on 25 February 2019, the World Court, ICJ, ruled, and I quote, “The United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible, and that all member states must cooperate with the UN to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.” Unquote. The Chagos Archipelago, by the way, contains an island called Diego Garcia. And Diego Garcia has a major, huge American-British base. So, under the World Court ruling, the British were obliged to return the island to Mauritius. It’s very clear, the decision. Did the British do it? Initially, they tried, and then they got a phone call from Washington, D.C., and then they retreated. So, even a country as powerful as the UK cannot apply international law if it gets pressured not to do so.

Second case. Now, two countries that were, until recently, I must admit, the best of friends were the United States and Canada. And the U.S. and Canada had long disagreed over the legal status of the Northwest Passage, a waterway north of Canada. Canada insisted that this narrow waterway was an internal waterway, because it was between Canadian islands in the south, Canadian islands in the north. They said, “Okay, it’s part of Canada, this narrow waterway.” The U.S. said, “No, no, no, it’s an international strait.” So, Canada gave the arguments, the U.S. gave the arguments, the arguments went on for some years, and then finally the United States decided, “Okay, let’s resolve the issue.” The United States sent a destroyer straight through the Northwest Passage. Matter solved. International law didn’t play a role. Power decided the outcome. So, it’s important for those of you who believe that international law can protect you, be careful. You don’t have history on your side. So, remember, at the end of the day, power is what drives international relations. And you must always recognize changes in power. Because if you don’t, and this brings me to my fourth point, you become a Ukraine.

Now, let me begin what I’m going to say on Ukraine by emphasizing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal. It violates international law. Clearly, and the UN passed a resolution condemning the invasion. It is illegal. But many Europeans, many European leaders especially, like to add, “Yes, the war was illegal, and the war was unprovoked.” Now, when the European leaders tell you that the war was unprovoked, they are lying to you. Because they provoked the war. And that, as you know, many of you have seen the video where Professor John Mearsheimer gave a very thorough explanation of what happened. The relentless expansion of NATO for several decades. And when the Europeans recklessly allowed a NATO declaration to be published in 2008 saying, “At some point in time, Ukraine and Georgia must join NATO.” And the Europeans knew that this was increasing the insecurity of the Russians dramatically. And the Russians kept protesting loudly. But the Europeans never listened. And sadly, the Ukrainian people also didn’t listen.

I can tell you, even after the war began in February 2022, there was a meeting one month later in Istanbul between Russia and Ukraine. And actually, the two sides almost agreed to a peace deal one month after the war began. And you would think that Western powers love peace. They would have welcomed that agreement between Russia and Ukraine. But you know what happened? The then Prime Minister of the UK, Boris Johnson, flew to Kiev and told the Ukrainians, “Keep fighting.” That makes, effectively, Boris Johnson a war criminal. Because the war could have been prevented and he insisted it carried on. And it’s so sad to think about it. Because I can tell you, the fact that they were close to an agreement was told to me by a friend of mine who spoke to somebody in the room when the agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine. So you can see, therefore, when you ignore… Just as a matter of… just to confirm what I said about Boris Johnson, this is what a member of President Zelensky’s negotiating team, whose name is David Arakamia, this is what he said, and I quote, “When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said we would not sign anything with them at all and let’s just fight.” Unquote. This is from a member of Zelensky’s negotiating team.

So the West wanted the war to continue so that they would weaken Russia. And that’s what true politics is about. When you want to weaken your opponent, you look for a proxy. You look for someone who’s prepared to fight the battle for you. So in the Cold War, the Soviet Union was very happy to fight the Americans right down to the last Vietnamese. But to be fair, the United States reciprocated. The United States was very happy to fight the Soviet Union right down to the last Afghan. So you know, it’s so sad. We have seen so many proxy wars in our times and people don’t learn the lessons of proxy wars. If you’re not careful in geopolitics, you become the battering ram for somebody else’s interests. Why do you allow yourself to do that? How do you gain?

Which is why the ASEAN countries collectively have wisely said that in the US-China contest, we’ll be friends with the United States, we’ll be friends with China, and we won’t take sides. And it’s wiser not to take sides with the ASEAN countries. And this is what several leaders have said. This is what, for example, the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, said in 2019, and I quote, “All of the US allies in Asia, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, as well as many of his friends and partners, including Singapore, have China as their largest trading partner. They all hope that the US and China will resolve their differences. They want to be friends with both to nurture security and economic ties with the US as they grow their business links with China.” Unquote. He added that any regional cooperation initiatives proposed should strengthen existing cooperation arrangement centers on ASEAN. They should not undermine them, create rival blocs, default fall lines, or force countries to take sides. They should help bring countries together rather than split them apart. Unquote. This is very wise advice from the former Prime Minister of Singapore. And I’m happy to report that most ASEAN countries have taken that position. And that’s why you see, by and large, Southeast Asia has remained at peace. But you must continue to do that.

Finally, I want to talk briefly about Australia. Because I want you to know that geopolitics doesn’t spare any country. It affects every country in the world. And I wanted to choose Australia because it’s a relatively strong, powerful, developed country. But I can tell you that the one country that will have the hardest time in the next 10 to 20 years will be Australia. Because Australia will be torn between its heart, right? Which is clearly tied with the West. And its geography, which is tied to Asia. And it will be a painful tussle for them. But the thing about Australia is that Australia has got many thoughtful, long-term strategic thinkers who have been consistently warning Australia. Australia should also be careful in the US-China contests. And for example, Hugh White has said, he’s a former Australian official who became an academic. He said, talking about the US-China conflict, he said, “For Australia, the conflict will be devastating whether we join the fighting or not. Our economy will be paralyzed as all trade with China and other Asia-East Asian partners will stop there and may not resume for a long time. If we join the fight and allow the US forces involved to operate from bases here, there will be a clear chance that Australia will face direct attack from Chinese long-range forces.” This is Hugh White.

Another former Australian ambassador to China says, “In view of our unique position, we must avoid becoming, as we have done recently, a cheerleader for either side.” He meant US or China. “Our interests clearly are in the continuing emergence of a strong, confident China. We need the ongoing US presence and we must be helpful to both US and China.” And Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister, has also warned that you should be careful about taking sides in the US-China contest. A former foreign minister, another foreign minister, Bob Carr, says that “Those who believe that Australia must automatically take sides and join the US,” he says, and I quote, “the vision is pure dystopia, our national nightmare. It could spell the end of the Australian national story as we know it.” This is a former foreign minister of Australia warning, “If we take sides in this contest, we’re going to pay a very heavy price.” And he was implying that Australia will become a new primitive.

So I hope I’ve got to you my key message that we live in dangerous times. We must be very, very careful because if you’re not careful, history teaches us that the great powers will not suffer. We will suffer. Thank you.

[Applause]

Host (Dr. Ma. Lourdes Veneracion)

Thank you very much, Professor Mabugan. We will have the open forum to maintain the academic atmosphere and safe space. May we remind everyone to ask their questions respectfully. So, guys, in our conversation, I would like to call Fr. Chester Yacub of the Society of Jesus, Father, to please take over. And may we call Professor Mabugani once again.

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

Thank you, Professor, for that lecture. I’m moderating this open forum. So those of you who would like to ask Professor questions, please approach the mic. We have mics to our left and to our right side. I’d like to acknowledge the presence of Justice Panganiban. Welcome po. Maraming salamat for joining us this evening. Thank you very much.

[Applause]

Okay. Professor, I’m actually teaching international relations this semester. And just this morning, our class had an exam. And we talked about the CDDIS track, which you were talking about your first point. As moderator of this open forum, I have the honor to ask you the first question before we open the floor to questions. At this point, hopefully our IR students, political science, diplomacy IR students, have tried to analyze your position on the U.S.-China rivalry applying IR theories already, etc. But just to give a counterpoint on your point, great power transition. How that rising power challenging the superpower, the hegemon, it’s inevitable to go into war. Just a counterpoint, how do you make sense then of the recent state visits, of the mutual state visits of U.S. and China to basically that mutual state visits? How do you make sense of that, professor?

Professor Kishore Mahbubani

Well, thank you. Thank you for your question. I’m sure that future historians will be very surprised that in the year 2026, there were such amicable visits between the two presidents of two powers that are clearly in a contest with each other. And this happened partly because China has proven that it has the capacity to retaliate against American pressure by cutting off rare earths and that effectively led to a truce. But also at the same time, the paradox about the Trump administration is that the Trump administration has got many senior officials who hold very hawkish positions on China. But the most pragmatic member of the Trump administration is President Donald Trump. Because he’s in many ways the least anti-China person in the Trump administration, which I think is good for the relationship between U.S. and China.

But I also want to add, by the way, that if you read my book, Has China Won?, I also make the case that China is not out to replace the United States as the global hegemon. China doesn’t have the desire to replace the United States. But despite that, the U.S. believes that because China is becoming stronger, because its economy is becoming stronger, it will at some point displace the U.S. as the number one power. And Joe Biden was the most honest man. He said, you know, something like, “Oh, China wants to become the number one power in the world?” And Joe Biden said, “It ain’t gonna happen on my watch.” So clearly, the sense of competition is there.

But I also argue consistently that given our common global challenges that we face, the other countries in the world, the other 191 countries in the world, should collectively try to persuade both the U.S. and China that don’t just focus on your contests, also focus on the common global challenges that we face. And I think that’s the message that all 191 of us should convey to the U.S. and China. Because at the end of the day, that might have some impact on the two of them.

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

Okay. Thank you very much, Professor. I would have wanted to pursue that question, but my task is really to present questions from the floor. Okay. So this is how we are going to do this. We only have time for, we’ll see two sets of three questions. Professor will respond to the first three questions first, after which we will open the floor for another set of three. Please make your questions concise, direct, and focused so that we can accommodate as many voices as possible. Introduce yourself, your program, your year level, and/or your institutional affiliation. We begin with a question from our right side.

Jack Borrell (student, third-year A.B. Diplomacy and International Relations)

Thank you, Father. Good evening, Professor. I’m Jack Borrell, a third-year student taking A.B. Diplomacy, International Relations at Ateneo. And during the presentation, what struck to me was your line on Australia about having the hardest time in the next 10 to 15 years, given the conflict, given the contest between U.S. and China. My question is, given the geopolitical position of the Philippines in between China and U.S. and the gateway to the Pacific, how hard would it be for us in the next 10 to 15 years?

Unidentified speaker (possibly Professor Mahbubani)

For the Philippines? So if Australia is having a hard time, how hard would it be for the Philippines? That is the question.

Jack Borrell (student, third-year A.B. Diplomacy and International Relations)

How hard or how hard, yeah, how hard would it be for the Philippines given our geopolitical position? Thank you very much.

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

Mark? He’s my student.

Mark (student, third-year A.B. Diplomacy and International Relations)

Good afternoon. I’m Mark, pursuing, I’m third-year pursuing A.B. Diplomacy and International Relations. My question to Professor is, I was reminded of the speech of former, of the current Prime Minister of Canada, Mark, already mentioning that we have to diversify our alliances given that there are power shifts. If I would ask, is everyone or all the countries really attentive to what the PM kindly said about diversifying and selecting our options wisely given that we live in a time of great power rivalry as he said? Thank you very much. Coming from a middle power, Canada, thank you.

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

And one last question, first set.

Kirby Fu (student, third-year A.B. Political Science)

Hi, I’m Kirby Fu. I’m in my third year of A.B. Political Science. So yeah, Professor Mahbubani, my question is, considering that the U.S. and the Philippine government are to set a signing for a PACSILICA, AI Hub framework this November 10 at the SAM Summit, I think that’s kind of cemented our current administration’s decision in trying to deepen relationships with the U.S. And they basically pick an aside and that’s with the U.S. in their goal of kind of decoupling with China, at least economically. So we, as Philippine, have a bunch of domestic concerns with this proposed AI framework. We have an energy crisis.

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

I’m sorry to cut you. Your question, please, about PACSILICA.

Kirby Fu (student, third-year A.B. Political Science)

Will this administration’s policy, particularly with PACSILICA and deepening U.S. relations, have more far-reaching effects in like the Far East region, basically, especially when it comes to Taiwan?

Professor Kishore Mahbubani

Okay, three questions. The first one was about how difficult it will be for the Philippines. Second question was about Mark Carney’s statement about great powers. Third question was PACSILICA and its implications.

So the first one, I mean, when you ask me how difficult it will be for the Philippines, my honest answer is very difficult. I mean, it’s a fact of life. It’s going to be very difficult. And sometimes you’re punished by geography. Geographically, you’re very close to China. Geographically, you have competing claims in the South China Sea. So naturally, it’s going to be difficult for the Philippines. But at the same time, despite the difficulties, I still think it is possible for the Philippines to manage these difficulties by being very, very careful in how you handle them. And the important thing is, if you did a survey of most countries in the world, by the way, you know there are 191 countries around the world. You’ll find that out of the 191 countries, the vast majority, 90 to 95 percent of them have said, “We want to be friends with the U.S. We want to be friends with China.” Very few countries are taking sides. In fact, almost none.

And so, you know, even when I mentioned Australia, for example, Australia actually is being very careful and is keeping up its ties with China. And as you know, the government of Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have shifted from the past policies. Now, Prime Minister Carney has been very brave in speaking about the new great power shifts and so on and so forth. But his issues with the United States have nothing to do with the U.S.-China contest. Canada is not becoming by any way an ally of China. This is a very separate issue that has to do with the bilateral relationship between U.S. and Canada. But Canada assumed that it could rely on the United States to protect Canada all the time. So Canada never hedged. So Canada put all its eggs in one basket and suddenly found that that basket now is a bit shaky. So now Canada is trying to take the eggs out of one basket and put it in more baskets. That’s what Canada is trying to do.

Now, in fact, SILICA is a very complicated issue because we haven’t discussed AI at all. Because the next dangerous frontier of competition between U.S. and China, and there are only two players in AI, only U.S. and China. Even though Europe’s economy is the same size as China’s economy, Europe is not a player in AI. There are only two players. And in this AI, what’s happening in AI is phenomenal. It’s going to change the world. And already it’s going to make it difficult for countries. They’re going to choose whether or not to go along with the Americans or go along with the Chinese. But that’s an individual decision that countries have to make. So quite a few countries have joined PEC-SILICA. Some countries have joined China’s WICO, it’s called, World Artificial Intelligence Conference. And only one country is a member of both. That’s Kazakhstan. So Kazakhstan may be the wisest country in the world. But I think it’s a complicated issue. But again, broadly speaking, even if you join PEC-SILICA, you can still say, “Even though I joined PEC-SILICA or WICO, I want to be friends with both.” That’s also possible. Thank you.

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

Thank you. Kazakhstan now has edged the Philippines in the UN Security Council, which I know you’re part of that Security Council. Thank you, Professor, for that first round. We still have time for the second round. Yes, one more round. One or two rounds. We’ll begin with the right side.

Bryn Isaac (student, MA Philippine Studies, University of the Philippines)

Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Professor. My name is Bryn Isaac. I’m taking my MA in Philippine Studies at the University of the Philippines. So, Professor, you frequently highlight ASEAN as a master class in quiet, effective diplomacy. As great power competition intensifies, how long can ASEAN maintain its centrality and neutrality before larger nations force member states into binary choices? Thank you.

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

Siyaan, from this side, please.

Mark Espinas (student, second-year computer engineering)

Good evening, Professor. I am Mark Espinas, a second-year computer engineering student. And this question relates to AI as well as the reason of the visit between the US and Chinese presidents. Do you think that China and US can really set aside their differences? Because this talk, I’m aware that China wants to stop AI use before it gets too out of control because I think hugging face woke up both countries in the use of AI in attack in the front against the conflict. But is this a genuine stunt by the Chinese to want to introduce guardrails or a genuine concern?

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

Okay, on AI, one last. For this one. Yes?

Nadine Ara (student, third-year diplomacy and international relations)

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for your speech. I am Nadine Ara, a third-year diplomacy and international relations student. So, you have mentioned that international law will not help us, especially when history is not on our side. And given that China has been shaping realities also, we can see examples of Vietnam into shaping realities of the South China, West Philippine Sea. My question is, how can ASEAN navigate the rivalry between US and China to collectively change realities between the present and future dangers through multi-alignment strategies while upholding non-interference? Thank you.

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

So, something to do with the ASEAN, how, okay. A bit similar to the first question for this round, right? But anyway, yeah. So, that’s the second round. Professor?

Professor Kishore Mahbubani

Okay. I think the two related questions on ASEAN, as you said. You know, I’m going to say something about ASEAN that’s going to shock all of you. And, you know, to me, I find it quite amazing how the almost 700 million citizens of ASEAN are ignorant about ASEAN. And I tell you what’s their number one ignorance. Their number one ignorance is that they don’t realize that ASEAN is the most successful regional organization in the whole world. It’s number one. You know, if you have an Olympics, right, a contest, and you put all the regional organizations in the Olympics race, okay? Put SAC from South Asia, put Gulf Cooperation Council, put the African Union, put MECOSO, put Organization of American States, name me any regional organizations. If you have a contest among regional organizations in the Olympics of regional organizations, the winner is ASEAN. Because ASEAN is the only regional organization that has had almost now 60 years of peace and prosperity.

You know, in SAC, in South Asia, the leaders have not met for 14 years. We meet every year twice a year. And you think that China, Japan, South Korea are so much more advanced, right? They have much more advanced economies. But ASEAN was Association of Southeast Asian Nations was created in 1967. The Association of Northeast Asian Nations hadn’t been created. And you know what? They can only meet when they come for ASEAN meetings. And they can only cooperate through ASEAN. Come on. I mean, if you look at MECOSO, the leaders of Argentina and Brazil don’t talk to each other. And then if you want the worst case, the European Union is supposed to be the most successful regional organization. And if you had asked me 15 years ago, which organization will break first? Would it be EU or ASEAN? ASEAN, all our members are still members. European Union lost the Euglena Kingdom. Brexit. So you can see therefore, ASEAN is quite remarkable what it has done. And I think it’s important for we the citizens of ASEAN, this is why I wrote the book ASEAN Miracle, to appreciate that we have the world’s most successful regional organization. And all of us, when we wake up in the morning, the first thing we should do is say, “Thank you, ASEAN.”

That was a question about AI and conflict. And it would be very dangerous for the world if the nuclear powers allowed AI to determine when to start a nuclear war. That would be very dangerous for all of us and we would all die. But luckily, there have been secret meetings in Geneva among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, who are the five official nuclear powers. United States, China, Russia, UK, France have been meeting secretly in Geneva. And I think we have more or less reached an agreement that AI should not be used in nuclear weapons. So that I think is one small advance, positive advance in that field.

Moderator (Fr. Chester Yacub, S.J.)

Thank you, Professor, and for that very positive view of the ASEAN. We do not have enough time for the open forum. I know you have wanted to ask Professor your questions, but we’ll have to make sure that your questions will be directed to Professor Mahbubani. Someone will, you will have to email it to the organizers and then we will direct them to you, Professor, if that’s okay. Okay, thank you. So that’s all the time that we have for open forum. Thank you very much for all of your questions.

Host (Dr. Ma. Lourdes Veneracion)

Thank you very much, Professor Mahbubani and Father Chester. At this point, may we request Professor Mahbubani to please stay there on stage. And may we request Father President Bavia and VPHE Dr. Sarina Saloma-Acpedano to please come forward for the awarding. May I know the ones who asked the questions, the first three questions. Who are you? Please raise your hands. One, two, and we’re still the third one. You have, please claim your books later. Thank you very much. Yes, Father President, please. VP Bopin for the awarding of tokens. Thank you.