Joseph Nye - Former US Assistant Secretary of Defense HARDtalk

involved. Welcome to HARDtalk. From Syria to

the South China Sea, how will the US project its power and protect

its interests in the coming decades? My guests today, Joseph

Nye, is one of the most influential policy thinkers in the US. He says

smart foreign policy requires the soft power of persuasion to be

married to the hard reality of military strength. That is the

theory. Just how smart is the Obama administration's national security

Joseph Nye, welcome to HARDtalk. To what extent do you think is US

foreign policy making now, in an era of austerity, dominated by the

very fact the US can't afford to do what it used to do in the

international arena? It clearly is an era of austerity in terms of

budgetary politics. Congress passed a sequestered law, which led to

cutbacks in the Budget, leaving too many programmes been cut back

domestically and internationally. In could in defence? Including

defence. But if you look at what happened there, it went through a

huge boost in the run-up doing the Bush years. So we are not coming

back below that. If you look at the real economy, as opposed to the

budgetary limits within politics, the United States pays half as much

as the GDP on defence today as it did at the height of the Cold War.

And that will go down further. What strikes me as significant, some of

the numbers, with this era in Washington, $670 billion in the US

defence budget in 2012, down significantly below $600 billion by

2014. A 12% cut in two years. This is in real money terms. If you

factor in inflation, something important has happened. Yes but you

could make an argument that we had over-inflated the defence budget

and also that $670 billion number included the cost of the wars. We

presumably will not have that cost. If you go back to a base budget of

$500 million, it's a question of how much you cut from that.

enjoyed the use of the would presumably about future wars and

interventions because his -- that is something you need to talk about.

This quote is from a recent book on Obama's foreign policy. It is

called the struggle inside the White House to redefine American

power. He says American is grappling with the realities of

limited money and diminishing US sway over an increasing number of

new powers. Do you agree with that? I have argued in books that I have

written that the US is not in decline. But we have the rise of

the rest. China, Brazil, India are increasing their growth

economically and politically. But it has become a little too

fashionable to see this as a US decline. It is not. The National

Intelligence Council, a body I once headed, which does intelligence

estimates, brought out a study of the year 2030. As to what they

expected to see. The US will still be the leading country. There will

be other powers. That leads be quite easily to a consideration of

where the Obama administration strategy is really going in the

international arena. You have advised President Obama, you sit on

the defence policy board, and over used to have advised other Democrat

President's from Clinton to Obama. Do you think that President Obama

buys into your idea of smart power, that is, marrying hard military

strength to the persuasive diplomatic cultural soft power that

you have always said must be a key part of America's approach?

Obama administration has been pretty good at getting at. The

first statement Hillary Clinton made when she first came in as

Secretary of State was that the policy of the O-bahn administration

would be based on smart power. But looking at how Obama had of Libya,

he did not immediately use military force. -- Obama administration. He

first wanted an Arab League and UN resolution. When using military

force, he insisted the Europeans take part of the leadership. That

is about leading from the rear. There was some laughter amongst

Conservatives in Washington but also raised the question about

whether the United States the do enough to shape what happened in

Libya. We now see in Libya at the potential for an s, as there is the

danger of a jihadi blow back. -- a mess. But it is not clear that we

will be able to control what happens in Libya, any more than

what happens in Iraq. This idea of leading from behind was not a great

political slogan but it is not a bad way to think about things.

Dwight Eisenhower, one of the more effective President's the Americans

had in the last century, has just written a book on presidential

leadership. He comes out very well. He led from behind. He had been the

leader of the coalition during the Second World War. He knew that he

wanted to get a lot of people working together internationally.

You don't just go out and give a command, you lead from behind.

to lead, you have to be credible. I wonder whether Obama is credible.

For example, he has used -- used word in a series of foreign policy

speeches, from Cairo to Istanbul, on the need to begin a new dialogue

with the Arab Muslim world. To reach out to enemies like Iran. He

went to Prague and talked about his vision of a nuclear free world.

Lots of words, right down the avenue of your soft power. But what

has he actually delivered, in terms of new negotiations, new tyres, new

alliances around the world? Let's take the Prague speech on ridding

the world of nuclear weapons. The first thing he said, it is an

aspiration for the future I doubt we will see in my lifetime. He was

careful not to raise expectations. Those are just words. It makes a

difference whether you have the aspiration. It gives you a sense of

direction for policy. And then he held a nuclear security conference

with heads of state, in the White House. There was a second follow-up

in the Seoul. They had an arms control agreement with the Russians.

He has tried to follow up with him that. But setting an aspirational

goal and then doing minor but concrete incremental steps is not a

bad way of going about things. does that fit, these ideas and

words and the sort of commitment, rhetorical at least, too soft power,

how does that fit with a President who has used the hard power of

drones and targeted killing in a way that frankly even George W Bush

never even dreamt of? One of the questions about drones, I know it

is quite controversial here, is that... Right around the world. The

UN says this is a major challenge to the international legal system.

But if it is within a zone of war, it is not clear why it is different

if you use a drone rather than as Britain and America did in Bosnia

and Kosovo. You dropped a bomb from an F-16 fighter jet. You to --

killing is bad. But in war, certain killing is permissible. I don't see

why are targeted killing is worse then dropping a thousand --

dropping a bomb from a plane. about Pakistan's? Yemen? In

Pakistan, officials say more than 2,000 people have been killed by

these unmanned aerial vehicles and Pakistan is not a theatre of war

and does not want the Americans to do it. Well, Pakistan in fact gives

covert provision for the military to do it because they can't control

the ball -- the war crossing the borders. Suppose you started using

drones in Marley mac or southern Nigeria. That is outside the zone

of war and I think we should have rules that would prohibit that.

Mali. This gets to the heart of your balance between hard and --

hard and soft power. One US diplomat, I am not sure you have

spent much time with him, but he was the US ambassador of Pakistan.

He quit and used the word callous to describe the policy he had to

try to defend when he was sitting in Islamabad. He said he wanted the

ability to sign off on drone strikes that were ordered by the

CIA before they were conducted. Leon Panetta, in charge at the time,

said absolutely not. There was a face-off about the balance between

the higher power and other elements of diplomacy. In your analysis,

with your experience, do you think Obama is getting it wrong? I think

he had a valid point. That is, we have -- there has been too much use

of drones. I think they should be used when you have identified

targets, who have committed acts of violence against the United States

or its allies. Rather than using them more broadly against what are

called Signature groups, groups that look like terrorists. Have you

told Obama and his people? I have mentioned this. I think it is under

discussion, certainly there have been some public discussions in

which the chief of CIA and I talked about this. Drones involve a trade-

off. Between hard and soft power. If you have a person that wants to

kill you, will you can't reach them, they don't attack may be

justifiable. If there's no collateral damage all very limited

collateral damage. Drones sometimes have less collateral damage than a

thousand pound bomb from a F-16 jet. You are talking about physical

collateral damage. This very point about soft power and sending a

message to the world about what America is, the values it

represents and how it wants to relate to the rest of the world, in

that sense the collateral damage that drones do can be extreme.

agree. That is why if you owe the use drones, and the Government has

not really explained to the Pakistani people for its own

political reasons that it has given permission, then we have that and

he drone feeling. Particularly in Afghanistan, another point that has

been a strongly by a man who used to advise the man who was the envoy

for the Obama administration for a while to Pakistan, he said he is

deeply disappointed with Obama because he did not really engage

with the diplomacy. He did not allow Holbrooke to reach out to the

Taliban and do the deals that could have brought a lasting sustainable

peace to Afghanistan. In the end, he says Obama did not dare do that.

He was driven by domestic considerations, did not want to be

seen to be reaching out to the Taliban and a diplomatic

opportunity was lost. A soft power opportunity was lost. Fair? He is a

friend and has a valid point. But I do you think he is seen it from the

perspective of his boss. From the White House perspective, the

problem was how do you carry on a counter insurgency when you are

trying to use the local forces to counter the Taliban? At the same

time, negotiate with the Taliban in a way that makes those who are your

allies feel that you will not sell them out. There are some trade-offs.

But you have to be a confident leader to do that. Maybe the

problem we are getting to in regards to what Obama is doing and

some of the internal contradictions is he is not a terribly confident

leader when it comes to foreign policy. I don't think I agree. I

think Obama actually has done some things quite deftly in foreign

policy. I mentioned Libya. The idea that Obama mixed hard and soft

power, in getting the resolutions before the use of force, and

sharing the use of force, that was Surely you cannot argue that Syria

has shown it President Obama's leadership and a foreign policy at

his best? He has talked about a red lines and ensuring that America

removes a sab but if you look around and look at what he delivers

- it is very little. Let us ask for a moment if you really want to get

deeply involved in Syria? Could he do more? Perhaps some of the rebel

moderates, I would support that. Should the US get involved in with

a no-fly zone or with an American intervention to protect areas for

refugees inside Syria? I doubt about. Then be honest about it. The

problem seems to be that even inside the Beltway, Inside

Washington, let alone among rebel groups in Syria, no-one seems to

really know what Obama wants to do -- Obama wants to do. He has been

pretty prudent and been explicit about not putting boots on the

ground in Syria. You do not think that will happen in your view?

not think that there will be boots on the ground. The right way to

think about it is what I call the Bosnian solution, a very mixed

solution which involves negotiations and brings in allies,

brings him the Russians. You have to get Russian and Chinese vetoes

which means that you have to bargain with them. It may need to

conclaves. It is not a nice solution but it is a better

solution than a war of all against all. Simply distrain aside with a

Christmas or a drone and letting Christians and sunny Muslims in --

to each other in a war against war is not a solution. There is

something to be said for a negotiated solution. Is there a

moral, humanitarian and amid? One man wrote in the New York Times

just the other day and I don't know if you wore Obama read it and said

that prudence has become a fatalism, cautioned the father of missed

opportunities, diminishing credibility and, in Syria, and

enlarged the tragedy. I read that speech. I often agree with Keller.

Prudence is actually one of the prime virtues of foreign policy.

Quite often make the point I'm making my new book that if you look

over presidents in the 20th century, proves he's absolutely crucial.

This is because foreign policy has a complexity we often do not

understand. The first rule in foreign policy should be a

Hippocratic Oath - above all, do no harm. George W Bush failed that

Test. He had a big vision of how he would transform the Middle East. He

did not have the capacity to manage it all the capacity to restructure

Iraq and it left the something worse than it if he had not invaded.

His prudence is a watchword, what does that tell you that the US must

do in the Carmen -- conning months. Challenges about nuclear ambitions

and nuclear solutions. In North Korea and Iran? This is putting you

on the spot, not just about Obama but also about soft power and the

importance of persuasion. Those arguments have not worked with

either Iran or with North Korea. Soft power it is not the sole

solution. If you think that you can attract him John up one out of his

nuclear programme, You Are kidding yourself -- Kim Jong-un. The only

solution here is a day I Pal which the Chinese possess, their

provision of food and fuel to North Korea. They had been unwilling to

do that because they are afraid of a collapse of North Korea and the

collapse of their borders more than they fear or North Korea developing

a nuclear weapon. With North Korea, you must nudge and push the Chinese

to use more of their hard power, their economic hard power that they

possess. There are a few signs that they may be beginning. The Chinese

are beginning to get annoyed with the North Koreans. How long do you

let the protracted talk in a run about uranium enrichment and you

run opening up to inspectors - how long to allow that to continue

before you say, as President Obama and key advisers may have to,

enough is enough? Obama has said that the military option has been

taken. -- tabled a number of times. That is standard. It has become so

standard I'm not sure that they believe it any more. It is

interesting. The intelligence estimates that came out on a run

after the Bush administration -- Iran. I am told that the Supreme

Leader had actually stopped the nuclear weapon as Asian. They have

a programme to prepare for nuclear weapons but after 2003, with

American groups seen as a potential threat, they stopped. He has not

given the order to stop turning the final screw on denuclearisation.

The question is whether we can reach a bargain with him for the

relaxation of sanctions. They will allow our expansion which will

guarantee that they have stopped short of the final threshold. --

allow an inspection. That is the final play. Let me ask you about

the biggest relationship that matters in the world today, between

US and China. Washington and Beijing, their central relationship

in the next few decades, you had your ideas about soft power work

and their? Is said that we should not see US-China relations as a

zero-sum game. We have more to gain by working together than allowing

fear to drive them apart? I think that that is true. If you look at

the rise of China, many people say that it is a classic case like the

origins of World War One, the rise and power of Germany... QC the

disputes in the South China Sea... I think we can avoid it. I went to

Beijing last October at the request of Hillary Clinton and other

retired or former Americans from retired or former Americans from

retired or former Americans from both parties. We met with the Prime

Minister of China as well as the Prime Minister of Japan separately.

We discussed the problems involved. One thing that struck me from the

leaders we spoke to was their statement that they needed 30 years

to catch up with the US and they needed the 30 years of peace to to

be able to achieve their eager for a war in that region.

This is what intrigues me - you are convinced that the ability of China

to deliver soft power around the world can never compete with the US.

To be effective with the soft power, you need a thriving civil society

and independent and free institutions. US Gaza. I did wonder

if you had that wrong. If you look at Africa, Chinese soft power is

something to behold. China gets the Soft Power benefit from the success

of its economy. It also gets it from traditional Chinese culture.

If you say, are they doing better in Zimbabwe, yes. If you say, are

they doing better in Tokyo, Delhi, Paris, Washington? Clearly, no.

Would you rather have Zimbabwe or Delhi? In the areas that matter

most, they are not doing as well. Finally, we are almost out of time,

I bring this back to the this critique of all about to notions of

how America Works in the world and the potentiality of Americans of

power. It rests in the end about your belief that there is something

truly exceptional about the US. He resorts Steve Waugh, a leading

academic in the US, says about that - he says that frankly the idea of

the US being virtuous may be comforting to Americans but too bad.

It is not true. I do not think that my views depend on American

exception was on. Do you believe that America is exceptional?

but lots of countries are exceptional. Obama has said that.

In the end, you have had lots of interesting thoughts about US

foreign policy making but they are premiss upon the virtue of the West.

America has a lot of vices as well as virtues. -- the US.A lot of

those virtues, democracy and openness can counter some of the

vices. That means that there is an attraction to the US. Among many if

not all people. It would be foolish to think that America is getting

soft power just by exceptional isn't because we do things like the

invasion of Iraq. Or drone strikes or one ton load bay which undermine

your argument. They undermine our soft power. To conclude with an

example for you - in the Vietnam War, American government policy was

wildly unpopular around the world. There was marching in the streets.

When they were marching in the streets, they did not see the