Strategic Trust-Building

Professor Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. is the former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He currently serves on the Harvard faculty as a University Distinguished Service Professor. Along with Robert Keohane, he founded the theory of “neo-liberalism” in international relations, and more recently coined the often-used phrases of “soft power” and “smart power”. He is one of the world’s foremost intellectuals in the fields of political science, diplomacy and international relations. A 2011 TRIP survey ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the last twenty years, and in October 2014 he was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. 

A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall – November 1989. Many strategic analysts believe that the United States is still using the same pattern of collapse of communism in the East bloc to confront Iran. In the “Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics”, you have pointed to the American experience as well as the designation of the Marshall Plan as the means to undermine the Soviet soft power components. Do you believe that the same pattern can be adopted from the Cold War to undermine Iran’s soft power?

I do not think the situation of Iran today is like the Cold War. Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union collapsed from it own internal economic contradictions. The Marshall Plan was forty years earlier and designed to help West European economies recover from the devastation of World War II. The Soviet Union lost soft power after its invasions on Hungary and Czechoslovakia. If there is a lesson in this for Iran, it is to free up its markets and society, and beware of interventions in neighboring countries.

This rationale has major drawbacks: essentially because Soviet Russia and Iran are profoundly different in not just their ideological makeup but the nature of their soft power. Iran’s Islamic Republic draws its narrative from Shia Islam, while Soviet Russia was born from atheist Marxism. Several critics of the US actually believe the country has ignored those fundamental and philosophical differences which exist in between Iran and Soviet Russia. How do you understand Washington’s position vis-à-vis Iran and are we seeing a repeat of the Cold War strategy here? In which case can this approach really serve the US?

That is correct, but remember that Shia Islam is a minority and Iran should be wary of intervening in sectarian disputes. I do not see this as a repeat of a Cold War strategy. President Obama expressed an openness to dialogue right from the beginning of his presidency. Iran was initially reluctant to engage in that dialogue.

Although the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was to some degree defeated – Russia after all came to embrace capitalism, Moscow nevertheless preserved its political independence by remaining a non-aligned superpower. Is it not possible therefore to envisage that Iran will accomplish such feat – in that its goals might stray from the initial “revolutionary mindset” but still act an opposition to American imperialism? After all there are more than one way to resist and challenge.

Capitalism in Russia is highly distorted by corruption. As I show in my book, “Is the American Century Over?” Russia is heavily dependent on one “crop” (energy) for two thirds of its exports. It also faces a demographic decline. This is not good, because declining powers often take greater risks such as Putin engages in now in his invasion of Ukraine and his intervention in Syria. I have no idea what the future of Iran will be, but it would be a mistake to model it on Russia.

President Richard Nixon called the US’ negotiations with Soviet Russia a “victory without war”. What President Nixon introduced and President Ronald Reagan followed into was a series of non-military actions which led to the ‘internal collapse’ of a country.President Barack Obama alluded a similar strategy, when, in an interview he argued that the path taken by both Nixon and Reagan vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China inspired his own policies. Taking into account that his comments were made on the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal do you think the US is looking for “containment” instead of a real rapprochement? Is Obama replicating a Cold War scenario?

As I said above, I do not think Obama is following a Cold War strategy. My personal view is that the Middle East is involved in decades long series of revolutions, primarily in Sunni areas, which outsiders like the United States have little capacity to control. In that sense, containing the spread of ISIS and its successors makes sense, but large scale intervention like the war in Iraq does not make sense. Where Iran will fit in all this will depend on Iran’s behavior.

Will this Iran nuclear deal lead to an increase of America’s footprint in the ME and therefore see Iran lose influence?

I do not think the Iran nuclear deal will increase the US footprint nor necessarily erode Iran’s influence. Much will depend on how Iran chooses to behave.

Do you think US’ efforts to increase its soft power and smart power in Iran will lead to a change in narrative within the country, in that Iranians will no longer look on America with suspicion and animosity?

In general, increased contacts can reduce the stereotypes of hostility that can develop among countries. I hope with time this will be the case between the US and Iran. Soft power can be a positive sum game from which both sides gain.

In a recent piece for National Interest, you wrote that the real challenge that the US is facing could be called “the rise of the rest”. Some authors such as Fareed Zakaria in his “Post-Americanism World”, are pointing to the same challenge. There are also philosophers who believe that America as “the” world superpower is coming to an end – For example American philosopher, Richard Rorty wrote in a piece for Decent magazine: “The American Century has ended (…) The spiritual life of secularist Westerners centered on hope for the realization of those ideals. As that hope diminishes, their life becomes smaller and meaner.” In view of such analysis, do you think the US can overcome those challenges stemming from its power and hegemony? Or is it the US has no clear awareness of such challenge?

Americans have worried about their decline since the early days of the founding fathers centuries ago. In the last half century there have been several cycles of declinism. This tells you more about American psychology than it does about relative power positions of countries. In my book, I explain why I do not think the American century is over. At the same time, the rise of transnational challenges like climate change, cyber terrorism, and international financial stability will require cooperation among countries. In that sense, the rise of the rest as well as the new transnational challenges will require the US to work with others. There will be no American imperialism or hegemony, but as the largest country, there will still be a need for leadership in organizing global collective goods.

In his September 16 address at a meeting with the IRGC commanders in Tehran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said: “cultural and political penetration is more dangerous than military and security threats.” You also referred to the ‘culture’ as one of the key elements of soft power – you mentioned both the US educational and popular cultures of America as powerful media – maybe here we could use the term Trojan horses. Iran’s leadership has repeatedly warned against such “cultural invasion”. Iranians have themselves naturally organized into movements to counteract Western cultural intrusion, thus manifesting a national trend. Do you see a situation where Iran would disappear to the US; or could it be that Iran will walk a different path than that of the Soviet Union?

Countries evolve over time, and I have no idea what future choices Iran will make, but I suspect that most of its future evolution will be determined from inside Iran.

To read the interview at Iran's View, click here.

Ms. Piin-Fen Kok, director of the China, East Asia and United States Program at the EastWest Institute, indicates that this meeting has great historical significance as the first direct contact between the highest leaders of both sides of the Strait since 1949. For Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, his achievements in cross-Strait affairs can be secured during the last few months of his presidency; to Mr. Xi Jinping, he can use this opportunity to convey the following message to Taiwan: the 1992 Consensus and close and peaceful cross-Strait ties will benefit the people of Taiwan, and Taiwan independence will have disastrous consequences. Ms. Kok thinks that the meeting could also affect Taiwan’s 2016 elections, depending on what is said and done at the meeting, and how all parties in Taiwan interpret what was addressed at the meeting.

According to Ms. Kok, cross-Strait relations will still face various challenges in the future, such as the very possible rotation of ruling parties with a victory by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). To persuade the mainland to trust Tsai Ing-wen’s policy of “maintaining status quo,” the DPP has much work to do. Additionally, possible U.S. arms sales to Taiwan would also have an impact on cross-strait and China-U.S. relations, which will be a challenge to leaders on both sides. 

Mr. Wang Hanwan, a consultant to the Kuomintang on central party affairs who lives in New York, said that this is a historically significant event. After 66 years of separate rule, the first handshake of the leaders from the two sides has immense political value, which also indicates that cross-Strait exchanges should be raised to the political level. He hopes that this meeting will further benefit cross-Strait stability and peace. 

Mr. Zhang Xuehai, member of the Kuomintang’s central review committee, commented that the fact that the two leaders can break through old mentalities and hold a historic meeting after being separated for 66 years is good news for all Chinese people. Although the meeting is short, it can set the tone for the future of cross-Strait relations. It has great historical significance. He thinks that this meeting will further strengthen the role of the 1992 Consensus in cross-Strait relations and will also possibly benefit the Kuomintang’s election situation. Certainly, there will be opposing voices in Taiwan, but if the meeting of the two leaders can bring stability and peace to China and Taiwan, whoever still objects to it will be swimming against the tide. 

Mr. Hua Junxiong, former president of the Association of China’s Peaceful Unification in New York, said that the final realization of the “Xi-Ma Meeting” after several attempts is a pragmatic step at this historic moment in cross-Strait relations. It will benefit the peaceful development of cross-Strait ties. This meeting is also an affirmation of Mr. Ma’s persistence in the 1992 Consensus. It is possible that the DPP will come into power in 2016, and if the 1992 Consensus is not persisted, cross-Strait relations will face unexpected turns. After the news about this meeting broke out, the stock market in Taiwan rallied and people benefited, so even if the DPP comes into power, the achievement of this meeting cannot be easily denied.

This article was translated by former EWI intern Qiyang Niu. The article was originally published in People's Daily on November 7.

To view the article on People's Daily, click here. (Chinese)

EWI's Board Member Kanwal Sibal was quoted in The Diplomat's Novermber 6 article "India May Have Quad Military Exercise with US, Japan, Australia: Ex-Top Diplomat."

As quoted in this article: Speaking at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, on Tuesday, Kanwal Sibal, who previously served as Indian foreign secretary, expressed optimism at this convergence, suggesting that there may even be military exercises between the four countries in the next few years.

“To my mind, this is a step-by-step process, and I won’t be surprised if at some stage we also have the quadrilateral exercises in the Indian Ocean,” Sibal, who now serves as dean of the Center for International Relations and Diplomacy at the Vivekananda International Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank, told the audience.

The four countries already did exercise together along with Singapore as part of Exercise MALABAR – which initially began as a bilateral naval exercise between the United States and India – back in 2007. While expanded exercises with all four countries have not occurred since then, as Sibal pointed out, there are already some signs that things are slowly moving in that direction.

Reflecting on these developments, Sibal said that India’s greater enthusiasm to participate in such exercises was testament to the changing security environment.

“Until a few years ago, it would not have been easy to imagine India to be a part of quad, or for that matter, even trilateral arrangements between the United States, Japan and India,” Sibal said.

“But times have changed, and nature of challenges has changed, and there is now need for these three or four countries to come together to see how these challenges can be addressed, not with a view to contain any country, but to ward off the possibility of peace and security to be disturbed.”

A big part of this, Sibal said, was China’s worrying assertiveness in the South China Sea, with policies which he described as “reckless” and a threat to freedom of navigation and overflight – a concern for India since 55 percent of its trade passes through those waters.

That said, Sibal also noted several challenges should the quad continue to take shape in the coming years. On China, Sibal said that the difficult task for the four nations would be to continue to maintain strong economic ties with Beijing for their own benefit while also challenging its assertiveness. China, he stressed, realizes this and is continuing to roll out new economic initiatives while also slowly testing Washington’s resolve in the security realm without triggering an all-out military clash.

“China is playing a game of brinksmanship, and, unfortunately, succeeding,” he said.

Sibal emphasized the need for the four countries to try to bring other partners – particularly the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) which is at the center of the emerging regional architecture – into the fold.

“The quad should not allow itself to be put in a position where we are at variance with the broader thinking in ASEAN because ASEAN is playing a very central role in terms of Asian security,” he said.

To read the full article at The Diplomat, click here.