Combating Terrorism
Joseph Nye (interviewed by John Dingwall)
SOME (MOSTLY IN THE USA) ARGUE THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ACT UNILATERALLY. Others argue for more multilateral action. As the world’s only superpower, does the United States need alliances and allies?
The United States is a superpower in the military area – but in the economic area, it is not necessarily a superpower; it is balanced by Europe. And in the areas of transnational relations across borders and outside the control of government, it is not a superpower at all. Nobody is. The only way you can deal with issues like the transfer of money across borders, the illegal drug trade, the spread of infectious diseases, and above all, the problems of transnational terrorism is through cooperation with others. And those are the areas where the United States faces its most severe threats.
So we may not need allies in terms of military campaigns, but we certainly need allies to be able to protect the security of the American people in many other respects. I believe that the so-called “new unilateralists” who say that because we are the world’s only superpower we don’t need allies are badly mistaken.
How does this unilateral approach affect U.S. alliances?
The unilateralists still use alliances (or coalitions) but they tend to do so “à la carte” – or as Defence Secretary Rumsfeld put it, “the issue determines the coalition, not the coalition the issue.” And therefore they devalue institutions. They will pick up their coalitions ad hoc – “coalitions of the willing”. The trouble with that is that people feel like they are just being picked up ad hoc. They are less willing to be helpful. If you have an institutional framework, they are more likely to feel consulted and are therefore more willing to be cooperative. A consultative approach works much better. Alliances may have a certain constraining effect, but they also provide us with additional resources and frank advice from our friends, so I think that alliances are essential to being effective on the kinds of issues that we face. If we act arrogantly and assume that we can do as we wish and others have no choice but to follow – yes, sometimes they will follow, but the degree of following will depend upon the degree of attractiveness. This is particularly important for the Islamic states whose cooperation is essential in fighting terrorism.
You win in a war on terrorism through close civilian cooperation – intelligence sharing across borders, the police work across borders, tracing financial flows, and so forth. To fight terrorism effectively, you have to have a high level of cooperation across the board. But the level of cooperation depends on how attractive you are. If you are regarded as arrogant and unattractive, other countries will cooperate to some degree out of their own self-interest, but the degree of cooperation will be less than what it could be. If you look at Pakistan, for example, General Musharraf has to balance his cooperation with the U.S. against how unpopular the U.S. is in Pakistan. Right now if you look at the polls, the United States has lost much of its soft power in Pakistan. The latest polls there show that more people have confidence in Osama bin Laden than in George Bush – and that’s not healthy for the struggle against terrorism.
What does the U.S. need to do to recover its standing in such countries?
The United States has recovered from low levels of soft power in the past – for example, in the period of Vietnam, when it was not very popular around the world. What led to recovery was a change in our policy. The U.S. is going to have to turn towards substantive policies in the Middle East that are more effective than what we have now. We are also going to have to do a better job in the style of foreign policy – in consulting with our allies and with other countries – if we are going to be successful. The administration has already made considerable progress in learning the hard way that it has to bring in more multilateral instruments, so that is a step in the right direction.
What does the U.S. itself need to do to strengthen its alliances and to improve its relations with its allies?
I think that the U.S. has to value its allies more fully, to be more attentive to their concerns, and to be more consultative in its approach. We have to avoid a “new unilateralism” in which we take the view that because we are so strong, we can do what we want and others have no choice but to follow. This is a mistake in terms of attracting and retaining allies. In Iraq, there is much that we could have done to make more effective use of our alliances and international institutions. I wrote in May 2003 that we should treat the reconstruction of Iraq as an international task and we should waste no time in involving both the UN and the countries which had opposed the initial decision to go into Iraq. Unfortunately, that was not the attitude that the administration took. That was a time of considerable hubris. And I think that’s proven to be a serious mistake – one that has been difficult to correct. In the lead-up to the war and in its aftermath, President Bush lost a good deal of credibility with our allies, with the result that after the summer of 2003, as things began to get more difficult in Iraq, we began to ask other countries for support, but they said, “We weren’t in on the takeoff or the flight plan, so we’re not in on the landing.”
What sort of division of labour do you see between the U.S. and its allies?
Looking first at the military area, our NATO allies cannot match American military strength nor need they try to, but there are important complementary roles. Canada’s role in peacekeeping is a case in point. And the role that NATO is playing in Afghanistan today is very important. In addition to the actual provision of forces for specific purposes, there is the question of legitimacy. The support of democratic countries such as Canada and the European countries makes a great difference in legitimizing any necessary use of force, both in the initial conflict and in terms of stabilizing the situation going into the future. For example, if we look at Iraq, it was not a problem for the Americans to win the war with superior military power. But when it comes to winning the peace, that requires not just military power, but also the ability to win hearts and minds – what I call soft power. But in failing to build a strong coalition going into Iraq and in failing to bring in the United Nations right after the war ended, the United States damaged its soft power and its ability to win the peace.
What is the role of diversity and dissent in alliances?
It is important to listen – and if you have allies whom you trust and who are helpful on many things but who say that they think you are wrong on this particular issue, then you ought to do a better job listening. Any time you cut yourself off from criticism and stop listening, you are setting yourself up for a fall. There was not enough listening before the U.S. went into Iraq. Now, after seeing the consequences of their action, people are beginning to realize that perhaps they should have listened a bit more.
How would the U.S. best be able to exercise a leadership role?
Well, I think that the United States ought to be thinking more clearly about ways in which it can share leadership in working towards common goals. It’s true that the largest country often has to take the lead. There are problems of international public goods – whether it’s maintaining an international economic system, or maintaining security or maintaining an open international commons – where if the largest country doesn’t take the lead, it’s hard for others to do so. But in building and maintaining alliances, I think it’s equally important to find ways where other countries can take the lead on particular issues – for example, Europe in the Balkans, or Canada in Haiti.
Where do values fit into the picture?
I believe that the United States does indeed profess values of democracy and human rights which when we follow through on them add to our soft power, making us attractive to others, including allies. And if you look at the Atlantic area, in particular, there still are deeper shared values than in any other part of the world. But, but we don’t always adhere our values as strictly as we should. And if we act as the new unilateralists urge, we essentially ignore those values.
Does the United States need to do more on foreign aid?
Compared to other OECD countries, the United States has been low in aid as a percentage of GNP. There has been a general mistrust of foreign aid. First of all, people think that we are doing more than we actually do. The second point is that there is a feeling that much of our foreign aid has been wasted, and that a good deal of foreign aid has been taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries. There are some problems of perception. But this is one area where it is important to give credit to the Bush administration, in that they have substantially increased American commitment to overseas development assistance, coupling this with efforts in the millennium challenge account to improve the efficiency of how it is used. Bush also deserves credit for the five year, $15 billion AIDS initiative. It is not fully implemented yet, but he has been moving in the right direction.
What advice would you have for Canadian officials seeking to improve relations with the United States?
It doesn’t do any good to gratuitously antagonize the Americans through public statements. But it is an important asset to be able to speak confidently and frankly when you think that something is going wrong. That is something that both the U.S. and Canada could benefit from. Sometimes there is a temptation to do some grandstanding for domestic politics – but if you forgo the luxury of making a big fuss for political effect, and if you convey a serious and well-reasoned objection, I think that may be the most effective form of dissent. In this, the style is important.
What qualities and capabilities is the U.S. looking for in Canada as an ally?
There are obvious areas such as the control of borders – keeping an eye on security while keeping the border open for trade. Here, it is important to develop complementary capabilities on both sides of the border. In the military/security field, Canada can play a significant role both in NATO and in peacekeeping. Canada is a major player in the important area of peacekeeping – especially in situations (such as Haiti) where it has the particular linguistic capabilities that are needed. But to be fully effective in the roles and niches where it chooses to act, Canada needs to strengthen its military capabilities. While the U.S. should be more concerned with its soft power, Canada needs to pay more attention to hard power. As its defence budgets have been reduced over the years, Canada’s range of choice and action has been diminished. And on the world stage, Canada could have a lot more voice if it had better capabilities than it does at present.
Dr. Joseph S. Nye Jr., a Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Ph.D. in political science, was assistant Secretary of Defence, for International Security and Chair of the National Intelligence Council. He has authoredSoft Power: the means to success in world politics (2004) and The Paradox of American Power (2002). He has just completed a nine-year term as Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, where he continues as professor of international relations.
