:00:14. > :00:19.involved. Welcome to HARDtalk. From Syria to
:00:19. > :00:26.the South China Sea, how will the US project its power and protect
:00:26. > :00:30.its interests in the coming decades? My guests today, Joseph
:00:30. > :00:34.Nye, is one of the most influential policy thinkers in the US. He says
:00:34. > :00:39.smart foreign policy requires the soft power of persuasion to be
:00:39. > :00:42.married to the hard reality of military strength. That is the
:00:42. > :00:52.theory. Just how smart is the Obama administration's national security
:00:52. > :01:06.
:01:06. > :01:14.Joseph Nye, welcome to HARDtalk. To what extent do you think is US
:01:14. > :01:18.foreign policy making now, in an era of austerity, dominated by the
:01:18. > :01:22.very fact the US can't afford to do what it used to do in the
:01:22. > :01:27.international arena? It clearly is an era of austerity in terms of
:01:27. > :01:32.budgetary politics. Congress passed a sequestered law, which led to
:01:32. > :01:36.cutbacks in the Budget, leaving too many programmes been cut back
:01:36. > :01:39.domestically and internationally. In could in defence? Including
:01:39. > :01:45.defence. But if you look at what happened there, it went through a
:01:45. > :01:51.huge boost in the run-up doing the Bush years. So we are not coming
:01:51. > :01:59.back below that. If you look at the real economy, as opposed to the
:01:59. > :02:03.budgetary limits within politics, the United States pays half as much
:02:03. > :02:07.as the GDP on defence today as it did at the height of the Cold War.
:02:07. > :02:16.And that will go down further. What strikes me as significant, some of
:02:16. > :02:22.the numbers, with this era in Washington, $670 billion in the US
:02:22. > :02:28.defence budget in 2012, down significantly below $600 billion by
:02:28. > :02:32.2014. A 12% cut in two years. This is in real money terms. If you
:02:32. > :02:36.factor in inflation, something important has happened. Yes but you
:02:36. > :02:46.could make an argument that we had over-inflated the defence budget
:02:46. > :02:47.
:02:47. > :02:52.and also that $670 billion number included the cost of the wars. We
:02:52. > :02:56.presumably will not have that cost. If you go back to a base budget of
:02:56. > :03:00.$500 million, it's a question of how much you cut from that.
:03:00. > :03:03.enjoyed the use of the would presumably about future wars and
:03:03. > :03:08.interventions because his -- that is something you need to talk about.
:03:08. > :03:12.This quote is from a recent book on Obama's foreign policy. It is
:03:12. > :03:15.called the struggle inside the White House to redefine American
:03:15. > :03:20.power. He says American is grappling with the realities of
:03:20. > :03:27.limited money and diminishing US sway over an increasing number of
:03:27. > :03:32.new powers. Do you agree with that? I have argued in books that I have
:03:32. > :03:38.written that the US is not in decline. But we have the rise of
:03:38. > :03:43.the rest. China, Brazil, India are increasing their growth
:03:43. > :03:48.economically and politically. But it has become a little too
:03:48. > :03:54.fashionable to see this as a US decline. It is not. The National
:03:54. > :03:59.Intelligence Council, a body I once headed, which does intelligence
:03:59. > :04:05.estimates, brought out a study of the year 2030. As to what they
:04:05. > :04:14.expected to see. The US will still be the leading country. There will
:04:14. > :04:17.be other powers. That leads be quite easily to a consideration of
:04:17. > :04:22.where the Obama administration strategy is really going in the
:04:22. > :04:28.international arena. You have advised President Obama, you sit on
:04:28. > :04:33.the defence policy board, and over used to have advised other Democrat
:04:33. > :04:41.President's from Clinton to Obama. Do you think that President Obama
:04:41. > :04:45.buys into your idea of smart power, that is, marrying hard military
:04:45. > :04:50.strength to the persuasive diplomatic cultural soft power that
:04:50. > :04:55.you have always said must be a key part of America's approach?
:04:55. > :04:59.Obama administration has been pretty good at getting at. The
:04:59. > :05:02.first statement Hillary Clinton made when she first came in as
:05:02. > :05:08.Secretary of State was that the policy of the O-bahn administration
:05:08. > :05:14.would be based on smart power. But looking at how Obama had of Libya,
:05:14. > :05:19.he did not immediately use military force. -- Obama administration. He
:05:19. > :05:23.first wanted an Arab League and UN resolution. When using military
:05:23. > :05:29.force, he insisted the Europeans take part of the leadership. That
:05:29. > :05:33.is about leading from the rear. There was some laughter amongst
:05:33. > :05:37.Conservatives in Washington but also raised the question about
:05:37. > :05:41.whether the United States the do enough to shape what happened in
:05:41. > :05:48.Libya. We now see in Libya at the potential for an s, as there is the
:05:48. > :05:51.danger of a jihadi blow back. -- a mess. But it is not clear that we
:05:51. > :05:56.will be able to control what happens in Libya, any more than
:05:56. > :06:01.what happens in Iraq. This idea of leading from behind was not a great
:06:01. > :06:06.political slogan but it is not a bad way to think about things.
:06:06. > :06:12.Dwight Eisenhower, one of the more effective President's the Americans
:06:12. > :06:20.had in the last century, has just written a book on presidential
:06:20. > :06:23.leadership. He comes out very well. He led from behind. He had been the
:06:23. > :06:26.leader of the coalition during the Second World War. He knew that he
:06:26. > :06:31.wanted to get a lot of people working together internationally.
:06:31. > :06:36.You don't just go out and give a command, you lead from behind.
:06:36. > :06:42.to lead, you have to be credible. I wonder whether Obama is credible.
:06:42. > :06:47.For example, he has used -- used word in a series of foreign policy
:06:47. > :06:52.speeches, from Cairo to Istanbul, on the need to begin a new dialogue
:06:52. > :06:56.with the Arab Muslim world. To reach out to enemies like Iran. He
:06:56. > :07:01.went to Prague and talked about his vision of a nuclear free world.
:07:01. > :07:07.Lots of words, right down the avenue of your soft power. But what
:07:07. > :07:14.has he actually delivered, in terms of new negotiations, new tyres, new
:07:14. > :07:18.alliances around the world? Let's take the Prague speech on ridding
:07:18. > :07:23.the world of nuclear weapons. The first thing he said, it is an
:07:23. > :07:27.aspiration for the future I doubt we will see in my lifetime. He was
:07:27. > :07:32.careful not to raise expectations. Those are just words. It makes a
:07:32. > :07:36.difference whether you have the aspiration. It gives you a sense of
:07:36. > :07:41.direction for policy. And then he held a nuclear security conference
:07:42. > :07:45.with heads of state, in the White House. There was a second follow-up
:07:45. > :07:49.in the Seoul. They had an arms control agreement with the Russians.
:07:49. > :07:54.He has tried to follow up with him that. But setting an aspirational
:07:54. > :08:01.goal and then doing minor but concrete incremental steps is not a
:08:01. > :08:06.bad way of going about things. does that fit, these ideas and
:08:06. > :08:12.words and the sort of commitment, rhetorical at least, too soft power,
:08:12. > :08:18.how does that fit with a President who has used the hard power of
:08:18. > :08:23.drones and targeted killing in a way that frankly even George W Bush
:08:23. > :08:29.never even dreamt of? One of the questions about drones, I know it
:08:29. > :08:33.is quite controversial here, is that... Right around the world. The
:08:33. > :08:38.UN says this is a major challenge to the international legal system.
:08:38. > :08:43.But if it is within a zone of war, it is not clear why it is different
:08:43. > :08:51.if you use a drone rather than as Britain and America did in Bosnia
:08:51. > :08:59.and Kosovo. You dropped a bomb from an F-16 fighter jet. You to --
:08:59. > :09:05.killing is bad. But in war, certain killing is permissible. I don't see
:09:06. > :09:12.why are targeted killing is worse then dropping a thousand --
:09:12. > :09:16.dropping a bomb from a plane. about Pakistan's? Yemen? In
:09:16. > :09:23.Pakistan, officials say more than 2,000 people have been killed by
:09:23. > :09:33.these unmanned aerial vehicles and Pakistan is not a theatre of war
:09:33. > :09:34.
:09:34. > :09:37.and does not want the Americans to do it. Well, Pakistan in fact gives
:09:37. > :09:47.covert provision for the military to do it because they can't control
:09:47. > :09:49.
:09:49. > :09:54.the ball -- the war crossing the borders. Suppose you started using
:09:54. > :09:59.drones in Marley mac or southern Nigeria. That is outside the zone
:09:59. > :10:06.of war and I think we should have rules that would prohibit that.
:10:06. > :10:10.Mali. This gets to the heart of your balance between hard and --
:10:10. > :10:14.hard and soft power. One US diplomat, I am not sure you have
:10:14. > :10:18.spent much time with him, but he was the US ambassador of Pakistan.
:10:18. > :10:22.He quit and used the word callous to describe the policy he had to
:10:22. > :10:26.try to defend when he was sitting in Islamabad. He said he wanted the
:10:26. > :10:31.ability to sign off on drone strikes that were ordered by the
:10:31. > :10:35.CIA before they were conducted. Leon Panetta, in charge at the time,
:10:35. > :10:39.said absolutely not. There was a face-off about the balance between
:10:39. > :10:45.the higher power and other elements of diplomacy. In your analysis,
:10:45. > :10:51.with your experience, do you think Obama is getting it wrong? I think
:10:51. > :10:55.he had a valid point. That is, we have -- there has been too much use
:10:55. > :11:00.of drones. I think they should be used when you have identified
:11:00. > :11:06.targets, who have committed acts of violence against the United States
:11:06. > :11:10.or its allies. Rather than using them more broadly against what are
:11:10. > :11:16.called Signature groups, groups that look like terrorists. Have you
:11:16. > :11:20.told Obama and his people? I have mentioned this. I think it is under
:11:21. > :11:30.discussion, certainly there have been some public discussions in
:11:31. > :11:31.
:11:31. > :11:34.which the chief of CIA and I talked about this. Drones involve a trade-
:11:34. > :11:39.off. Between hard and soft power. If you have a person that wants to
:11:39. > :11:41.kill you, will you can't reach them, they don't attack may be
:11:41. > :11:45.justifiable. If there's no collateral damage all very limited
:11:45. > :11:50.collateral damage. Drones sometimes have less collateral damage than a
:11:50. > :11:57.thousand pound bomb from a F-16 jet. You are talking about physical
:11:57. > :11:59.collateral damage. This very point about soft power and sending a
:11:59. > :12:03.message to the world about what America is, the values it
:12:03. > :12:08.represents and how it wants to relate to the rest of the world, in
:12:08. > :12:14.that sense the collateral damage that drones do can be extreme.
:12:14. > :12:18.agree. That is why if you owe the use drones, and the Government has
:12:18. > :12:28.not really explained to the Pakistani people for its own
:12:28. > :12:29.
:12:29. > :12:34.political reasons that it has given permission, then we have that and
:12:34. > :12:40.he drone feeling. Particularly in Afghanistan, another point that has
:12:40. > :12:46.been a strongly by a man who used to advise the man who was the envoy
:12:46. > :12:49.for the Obama administration for a while to Pakistan, he said he is
:12:49. > :12:55.deeply disappointed with Obama because he did not really engage
:12:55. > :12:58.with the diplomacy. He did not allow Holbrooke to reach out to the
:12:58. > :13:04.Taliban and do the deals that could have brought a lasting sustainable
:13:04. > :13:07.peace to Afghanistan. In the end, he says Obama did not dare do that.
:13:07. > :13:10.He was driven by domestic considerations, did not want to be
:13:10. > :13:15.seen to be reaching out to the Taliban and a diplomatic
:13:15. > :13:20.opportunity was lost. A soft power opportunity was lost. Fair? He is a
:13:20. > :13:25.friend and has a valid point. But I do you think he is seen it from the
:13:25. > :13:31.perspective of his boss. From the White House perspective, the
:13:31. > :13:36.problem was how do you carry on a counter insurgency when you are
:13:36. > :13:41.trying to use the local forces to counter the Taliban? At the same
:13:41. > :13:44.time, negotiate with the Taliban in a way that makes those who are your
:13:44. > :13:48.allies feel that you will not sell them out. There are some trade-offs.
:13:48. > :13:53.But you have to be a confident leader to do that. Maybe the
:13:53. > :13:56.problem we are getting to in regards to what Obama is doing and
:13:56. > :14:02.some of the internal contradictions is he is not a terribly confident
:14:02. > :14:06.leader when it comes to foreign policy. I don't think I agree. I
:14:06. > :14:12.think Obama actually has done some things quite deftly in foreign
:14:12. > :14:16.policy. I mentioned Libya. The idea that Obama mixed hard and soft
:14:16. > :14:26.power, in getting the resolutions before the use of force, and
:14:26. > :14:31.
:14:31. > :14:38.sharing the use of force, that was Surely you cannot argue that Syria
:14:38. > :14:42.has shown it President Obama's leadership and a foreign policy at
:14:42. > :14:46.his best? He has talked about a red lines and ensuring that America
:14:46. > :14:51.removes a sab but if you look around and look at what he delivers
:14:51. > :14:56.- it is very little. Let us ask for a moment if you really want to get
:14:56. > :15:01.deeply involved in Syria? Could he do more? Perhaps some of the rebel
:15:01. > :15:07.moderates, I would support that. Should the US get involved in with
:15:07. > :15:13.a no-fly zone or with an American intervention to protect areas for
:15:13. > :15:16.refugees inside Syria? I doubt about. Then be honest about it. The
:15:16. > :15:20.problem seems to be that even inside the Beltway, Inside
:15:20. > :15:26.Washington, let alone among rebel groups in Syria, no-one seems to
:15:26. > :15:33.really know what Obama wants to do -- Obama wants to do. He has been
:15:33. > :15:38.pretty prudent and been explicit about not putting boots on the
:15:38. > :15:42.ground in Syria. You do not think that will happen in your view?
:15:42. > :15:46.not think that there will be boots on the ground. The right way to
:15:46. > :15:51.think about it is what I call the Bosnian solution, a very mixed
:15:51. > :15:56.solution which involves negotiations and brings in allies,
:15:56. > :16:01.brings him the Russians. You have to get Russian and Chinese vetoes
:16:01. > :16:05.which means that you have to bargain with them. It may need to
:16:05. > :16:10.conclaves. It is not a nice solution but it is a better
:16:10. > :16:18.solution than a war of all against all. Simply distrain aside with a
:16:18. > :16:23.Christmas or a drone and letting Christians and sunny Muslims in --
:16:23. > :16:27.to each other in a war against war is not a solution. There is
:16:27. > :16:32.something to be said for a negotiated solution. Is there a
:16:32. > :16:37.moral, humanitarian and amid? One man wrote in the New York Times
:16:37. > :16:42.just the other day and I don't know if you wore Obama read it and said
:16:42. > :16:45.that prudence has become a fatalism, cautioned the father of missed
:16:46. > :16:51.opportunities, diminishing credibility and, in Syria, and
:16:51. > :16:55.enlarged the tragedy. I read that speech. I often agree with Keller.
:16:55. > :17:00.Prudence is actually one of the prime virtues of foreign policy.
:17:00. > :17:06.Quite often make the point I'm making my new book that if you look
:17:06. > :17:11.over presidents in the 20th century, proves he's absolutely crucial.
:17:11. > :17:16.This is because foreign policy has a complexity we often do not
:17:16. > :17:21.understand. The first rule in foreign policy should be a
:17:21. > :17:26.Hippocratic Oath - above all, do no harm. George W Bush failed that
:17:26. > :17:31.Test. He had a big vision of how he would transform the Middle East. He
:17:31. > :17:37.did not have the capacity to manage it all the capacity to restructure
:17:37. > :17:40.Iraq and it left the something worse than it if he had not invaded.
:17:40. > :17:46.His prudence is a watchword, what does that tell you that the US must
:17:47. > :17:51.do in the Carmen -- conning months. Challenges about nuclear ambitions
:17:51. > :17:56.and nuclear solutions. In North Korea and Iran? This is putting you
:17:56. > :17:59.on the spot, not just about Obama but also about soft power and the
:17:59. > :18:05.importance of persuasion. Those arguments have not worked with
:18:05. > :18:10.either Iran or with North Korea. Soft power it is not the sole
:18:10. > :18:14.solution. If you think that you can attract him John up one out of his
:18:14. > :18:18.nuclear programme, You Are kidding yourself -- Kim Jong-un. The only
:18:18. > :18:22.solution here is a day I Pal which the Chinese possess, their
:18:22. > :18:27.provision of food and fuel to North Korea. They had been unwilling to
:18:27. > :18:30.do that because they are afraid of a collapse of North Korea and the
:18:30. > :18:35.collapse of their borders more than they fear or North Korea developing
:18:35. > :18:40.a nuclear weapon. With North Korea, you must nudge and push the Chinese
:18:40. > :18:44.to use more of their hard power, their economic hard power that they
:18:44. > :18:49.possess. There are a few signs that they may be beginning. The Chinese
:18:49. > :18:53.are beginning to get annoyed with the North Koreans. How long do you
:18:53. > :18:57.let the protracted talk in a run about uranium enrichment and you
:18:57. > :19:03.run opening up to inspectors - how long to allow that to continue
:19:03. > :19:07.before you say, as President Obama and key advisers may have to,
:19:07. > :19:14.enough is enough? Obama has said that the military option has been
:19:14. > :19:17.taken. -- tabled a number of times. That is standard. It has become so
:19:17. > :19:23.standard I'm not sure that they believe it any more. It is
:19:23. > :19:30.interesting. The intelligence estimates that came out on a run
:19:30. > :19:36.after the Bush administration -- Iran. I am told that the Supreme
:19:36. > :19:40.Leader had actually stopped the nuclear weapon as Asian. They have
:19:40. > :19:48.a programme to prepare for nuclear weapons but after 2003, with
:19:48. > :19:54.American groups seen as a potential threat, they stopped. He has not
:19:54. > :19:59.given the order to stop turning the final screw on denuclearisation.
:19:59. > :20:03.The question is whether we can reach a bargain with him for the
:20:03. > :20:08.relaxation of sanctions. They will allow our expansion which will
:20:08. > :20:12.guarantee that they have stopped short of the final threshold. --
:20:12. > :20:16.allow an inspection. That is the final play. Let me ask you about
:20:16. > :20:22.the biggest relationship that matters in the world today, between
:20:22. > :20:28.US and China. Washington and Beijing, their central relationship
:20:28. > :20:33.in the next few decades, you had your ideas about soft power work
:20:33. > :20:39.and their? Is said that we should not see US-China relations as a
:20:39. > :20:44.zero-sum game. We have more to gain by working together than allowing
:20:44. > :20:50.fear to drive them apart? I think that that is true. If you look at
:20:50. > :20:55.the rise of China, many people say that it is a classic case like the
:20:56. > :21:01.origins of World War One, the rise and power of Germany... QC the
:21:01. > :21:07.disputes in the South China Sea... I think we can avoid it. I went to
:21:07. > :21:10.Beijing last October at the request of Hillary Clinton and other
:21:10. > :21:12.retired or former Americans from retired or former Americans from
:21:12. > :21:16.retired or former Americans from both parties. We met with the Prime
:21:16. > :21:20.Minister of China as well as the Prime Minister of Japan separately.
:21:20. > :21:24.We discussed the problems involved. One thing that struck me from the
:21:24. > :21:28.leaders we spoke to was their statement that they needed 30 years
:21:28. > :21:35.to catch up with the US and they needed the 30 years of peace to to
:21:35. > :21:39.be able to achieve their eager for a war in that region.
:21:39. > :21:44.This is what intrigues me - you are convinced that the ability of China
:21:44. > :21:51.to deliver soft power around the world can never compete with the US.
:21:51. > :21:57.To be effective with the soft power, you need a thriving civil society
:21:57. > :22:01.and independent and free institutions. US Gaza. I did wonder
:22:01. > :22:06.if you had that wrong. If you look at Africa, Chinese soft power is
:22:07. > :22:14.something to behold. China gets the Soft Power benefit from the success
:22:14. > :22:23.of its economy. It also gets it from traditional Chinese culture.
:22:23. > :22:28.If you say, are they doing better in Zimbabwe, yes. If you say, are
:22:28. > :22:34.they doing better in Tokyo, Delhi, Paris, Washington? Clearly, no.
:22:34. > :22:39.Would you rather have Zimbabwe or Delhi? In the areas that matter
:22:39. > :22:44.most, they are not doing as well. Finally, we are almost out of time,
:22:44. > :22:47.I bring this back to the this critique of all about to notions of
:22:47. > :22:52.how America Works in the world and the potentiality of Americans of
:22:52. > :22:58.power. It rests in the end about your belief that there is something
:22:58. > :23:03.truly exceptional about the US. He resorts Steve Waugh, a leading
:23:03. > :23:08.academic in the US, says about that - he says that frankly the idea of
:23:08. > :23:13.the US being virtuous may be comforting to Americans but too bad.
:23:13. > :23:17.It is not true. I do not think that my views depend on American
:23:17. > :23:23.exception was on. Do you believe that America is exceptional?
:23:23. > :23:27.but lots of countries are exceptional. Obama has said that.
:23:27. > :23:31.In the end, you have had lots of interesting thoughts about US
:23:31. > :23:37.foreign policy making but they are premiss upon the virtue of the West.
:23:37. > :23:41.America has a lot of vices as well as virtues. -- the US.A lot of
:23:41. > :23:45.those virtues, democracy and openness can counter some of the
:23:45. > :23:50.vices. That means that there is an attraction to the US. Among many if
:23:50. > :23:53.not all people. It would be foolish to think that America is getting
:23:53. > :23:58.soft power just by exceptional isn't because we do things like the
:23:58. > :24:04.invasion of Iraq. Or drone strikes or one ton load bay which undermine
:24:04. > :24:10.your argument. They undermine our soft power. To conclude with an
:24:10. > :24:14.example for you - in the Vietnam War, American government policy was
:24:14. > :24:17.wildly unpopular around the world. There was marching in the streets.
:24:17. > :24:22.When they were marching in the streets, they did not see the