International theorist spoke to Ezzat Ibrahim in Washington on American foreign policy after the war in Iraq, the limits of empire and how "smart power" should replace military misadventure in reforming the Middle East , dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, is a front- running theorist in the study of international relations. He has served as assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs, chair of the National Intelligence Council, deputy to the undersecretary of state for security assistance, science, and technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nye's most recent books are The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone (2002) and Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (2004). Among many concepts attributed to Nye are those of "soft power", "hard power" and "smart power" as means to understand the behaviour of states. Soft power is the ability of a country to get other countries to do what it wants through encouraging emulation rather than through coercion or tribute. Soft power arises from the overall appeal of a country's culture, political ideals and policies. Smart power is ability to understand precisely when it is best to balance traditional forms of power -- hard power, or force -- with non- traditional forms, like "winning hearts and minds". Even yet, smart power does not engender "empire". The danger of the empire metaphor is it makes leaders think they are stronger than they are. Political control is a matter of degree, and so the contemporary moment in international relations should be seen as one concerned with the politics of primacy, not a politics of empire. One of the principal differences between you and the "neo-cons" seems to be that you believe full control over local communities cannot now be achieved as states pursue power, unlike, for instance, as it was for the British empire. Is this your view? If the US were to try to stay in Iraq and rule the country then it would be a case akin to classical empire. But I think what America is trying to do is to leave Iraq and turn over sovereignty to an Iraqi government. So this is not a classical empire. Empire, in my mind, involves a degree of direct control, such as the Coalition Provisional Authority had in the last year. That turned out to be a short-term, not a long-term, solution. Empire, when it comes to mind, evokes efforts to rule over a long period, like the British in Iraq. But I do not think that the Americans are going to be either desiring to or successful in ruling Iraq over a long period. How well has the Bush administration dealt with the different dimensions of multilateralism, or multilateral cooperation? The Bush administration committed a mistake when it went to Iraq without developing a broad coalition or having the support of the United Nations. It was very costly for the US. If the US had created a broad coalition like it did during the first Gulf war and had obtained a UN resolution backing the use of force, I think the current situation would be much less fraught. I think the Bush administration has learned a lot from ignoring multilateral approaches. The war in Iraq, and something like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, make things worse in the war on terrorism because it diverted attention away from Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda, which is the heart of the problem. How do you characterise the American foreign policy predicament? The problem for the US is to use its preponderate power in a manner that creates global public goods: things that are good for other countries as well as for the US. Imbalance in the use of "soft" and "hard" power has harmed America's image. Will anything change if the White House changes hands after the presidential elections? I think John Kerry would be much more attentive to the question of soft power -- more so than the Bush administration. Kerry's would be, by and large, more similar to Clinton's administration. Winning the war on terrorism is difficult so long as radical groups are experts in using "soft power" to attract others to their ranks through societies and religious institutions that form the backbone of communities. Do you think the recent course of the global war against terror is enough to counter extremist rhetoric? I do not think that the extremists are representatives of most Muslims. I think there is a clash within the Islamic civilisation between a small group of extremists and a much larger group of people who want a better life, better economic opportunities, education for their children and so forth. So, it's not a clash between civilisations. The key question is how can the US help those people -- the majority -- to obtain the things they want, not to impose it but to help them in their own definition of what they want. I do not believe that the extremists' interpretation is the way most Muslims see their life. How do you understand "smart power"? Smart power emerges from soft power when one realises that one has to use force. Take, for example, the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which was providing refuge to terrorists. Clinton tried many times to persuade them to stop hosting training camps for Al- Qaeda. I think force did have to be used against the Taliban and the training camps of the terrorist network. But I do think that after using force much more work should be done in building schools, creating economic opportunities -- essentially, ways to attract Afghans with soft power. Smart power is the combination of the two: soft power and hard power. Do you think American public opinion is receptive to investing in the tools of soft power at a time policy-planners concentrate on hard power? I think American public opinion is now supportive of soft power. What 11 September did was create considerable fear. When people are very afraid they tend to turn to hard power. Now, if you look at public opinion polls, the majority of Americans believe that we should act within the United Nations and with our allies. And I think this is an indication of a kind of sympathy among the American public for the use of soft power. You challenge both under and overestimating US power: that the US is too strong to be challenged by any single state but not strong enough to address by itself such problems as global terror. Do you think American politicians are coming to terms with this? Yes, I think so. Basically, the US is not going to be overtaken by a new rising power such as China. But no country, no matter how strong, is able to deal with transnational problems that we face today without the cooperation of other countries. Transnational terrorism is an example here, and there are many issues such as global climate change, the international drug trade or questions related to the spread of infectious diseases like SARS and HIV. None are threats that can be addressed by one government alone; all are transnational. What would you expect were Bush to win a second term? Bush has learned certain lessons from the experience of Iraq. He failed to produce a broad coalition like his father did, and now he is finding that it was easier to win the war than win the peace. He learned, in my opinion, that there is much to be said for multilateral cooperation. So I expect in the second term -- if there is a second one for Bush -- he will be more multilateral than he was in the first. Regional stability is an essential component of US global primacy. How do you perceive the Middle East regional order after the war in Iraq and recent security threats in Saudi Arabia? Security has to be created so you can have economic development. By and large, I think the Arab Human Development Report identified many of the deepest problems in the region: poor economic growth rates, the absence of open international trading systems, low production of scientific and technical literature and few opportunities in the educational system. These are all things that I think are essential to stability in the region over the long run. In the short run, it is essential to create security so that you have an ability to focus on these issues. What is your view of the Bush administration's handling of the concept of reform in the Middle East? I think the administration has been too American-centric on this issue. The Middle East reform programme discussed at the G-8 summit in Georgia would have been better discussed amongst Middle East countries before being announced from the United States. Each culture produces its own form of democracy and reforms. So, it is not a question of simply taking American ideals and American institutions and imposing them on the region. But as governments in the region develop their own changes, the US should try to be helpful. So, it is not imposing our view of liberal democracy; it is trying to help countries as they evolve and develop their own institutions. We do know that there are democratic Islamic countries: Turkey, Bangladesh and Indonesia. The key thing is to replicate the conditions within which that can occur.
