Mr. Vice President, you write in your new book, “Our Choice,” that we have at our fingertips all of the tools that we need to solve the climate crisis. The only missing ingredient would be collective will. What makes it so hard for governments to implement change even though most people know what needs to be done?
As human beings, we are vulnerable to confusing the unprecedented with the improbable. In our everyday experience, if something has never happened before, we are generally safe in assuming it is not going to happen in the future, but the exceptions can kill you and climate change is one of those exceptions. Neuroscientists point out that we are inherently better able to respond quickly to the kinds of threats that our evolutionary ancestors survived — like other humans with weapons, snakes and spiders or fire. Also, there is a real-time lag between the causes of the climate crisis and its full manifestation. That makes it seem less urgent to many people.
But America always took pride in being faster and more flexible than other nations. Does that no longer apply?
America’s political system has evolved over the last 50 years in ways that have enhanced the power of business lobbies. The power of television and of money has grown exponentially. Eighty percent of the campaign contributions that candidates and officials running for reelection raise and spend go to TV ads, so they are required to raise enormous amounts of money, mainly from business lobbies. In a way, that has “re-feudalized” the political power and it gave much more power to established interests. When Obama was elected, I said: “What an exciting moment in our history.” But his election did not cure all of the problems in the American system.
Seventeen years ago you, a young senator from Tennessee, and Bill Clinton, a young governor from Arkansas, moved into the White House on the promise of change. Clinton played the saxophone and there was a feeling of spring in the air. Why has it been so much tougher for Barack Obama?
It was hard for us, too. Just remember the resistance to our healthcare reform bill. Obama’s progress on healthcare has already surpassed what we were able to do on healthcare. He will get a climate change bill adopted. So I am optimistic. These are still the early days of the Obama presidency. He had a bad summer, but he is having a good fall.
Isn’t it getting harder and harder to remain an optimist?
I think there is a realistic basis for optimism. The Internet empowers individuals to play a more active role in the political process, as Obama’s campaign has manifested. They felt shut out of the conversation of democracy during the television age, but they are coming back. It is not an accident that virtually every progressive reform movement in the world is now based on the Internet. There are more than 1 million, perhaps as many as 2 million grass-roots organizations that have been established worldwide on the issue of the climate crisis, most of them on the Internet.
Obama’s political opponents also rely on the Internet, though. Could the reason for the resistance to his government be his skin color? Former President Jimmy Carter said many Americans still have a problem with a black man in the White House.
There is no doubt that the issue of race is always present in American politics and in the politics of any multiracial society. There is also no doubt that for some people it is an element in the manifested hostility to Obama. But I don’t think it is the major theme at all. Obama is right when he reminds people: By the way, I was black before the election.
Perhaps the aggressive reactions can be explained by the fact that he, you and large parts of the Democratic Party misinterpreted the will of voters. Perhaps the last election had less to do with a desire among voters to implement transformational change than just getting rid of Bush.
Isn’t that all related? The Bush-Cheney administration had betrayed some basic American values. So there was hunger for change. The difficulties the new government has encountered are in the Congress, and they are connected to the growing influence of business lobbies and people who are simply afraid of government.
Is that a new phenomenon?
People in Congress listen less to each other. The Senate chamber, for example, is now commonly empty when speeches are made. That was different in the past and I know why it has changed. The chamber is empty now because the senators have to be at cocktail parties and fundraisers to raise money. They feel as if they have to spend virtually all their time raising money.
“It is realistic to expect a treaty”
Isn’t Obama’s plate too full? He conducts war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he wants to close Guantánamo, he is trying to reform the healthcare system, he is promising progress on climate change and wants to strengthen, almost in passing, the rights of trade unions and homosexuals. Isn’t that too much change for a rather conservative country like the United States?
I disagree with that criticism. After eight years of retrogression, Obama would have been more bitterly criticized if he had chosen only one priority and had not tried to address the many challenges that need to be undertaken. So I do think there is a grain of truth to it, but I also know that his mandate was and is strongest at the beginning of his term.
But Obama hasn’t achieved much so far — most of the reforms he announced still haven’t been implemented. Many people already call him a sweet talker — all talk, but little action.
One of the tools that a president has is to command the attention of the American people. It has to be used judiciously. There is such a thing as overexposure when a president depreciates the welcome. I think it is too early to make that judgment. There have been times when I thought that President Obama maybe got close to that line — for instance, with regard to his television interviews. But it is the most powerful tool he has to make his direct presentation to the people.
The financial crisis hasn’t made the president’s job any easier. Are times of material want fundamentally bad for reform politicians?
The climate, financial and national security crises are all connected. They share the same cause: Our absurd dependency on foreign oil. As long as we need to spend billions of dollars each year to buy foreign oil from state-run oil companies in the Persian Gulf, our problems of a trade deficit, a budget deficit and a climate crisis will persist. Therefore, more and more Americans begin to realize that the right response to the climate challenge will also help with the economy and a more balanced budget.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was less optimistic after the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. She did not believe there would be a majority for a U.S. climate change law in Congress before the world climate summit in Copenhagen in December.
I am more optimistic. I do not think that we will have the final enactment of the Conference Committee Report in Congress before Copenhagen. But if President Obama is able to go to Copenhagen having passed legislation in the House and having passed it in the Senate, it will be inevitable that the legislation comes out even if the Conference Committee is still pending.
What are your expectations for Copenhagen ?
I think it is realistic to expect a treaty. It will not be as strong as I would like it to be. But it will put a price on carbon and change the forward planning of businesses and cities and states, provinces and nations. In 1986, when the first crisis of the global atmosphere emerged with the discovery of the ozone hole above Antarctica, one year later the nations of the world passed the Montreal Protocol. It was bitterly criticized by environmentalists as being too weak and insufficient. But then it was toughened and toughened, and it is working quite well, and we are on our way to solving that crisis. I am expecting a similar process for Copenhagen. We will produce a treaty that launches the beginning of a huge transformation process.
The U.S. is expecting more commitment from China. Should Obama use his upcoming Asia trip to increase pressure on Beijing?
They have to accept binding provisions. Many developing nations are still thinking that the wealthier countries will take binding obligations, and the developing countries will have non-binding provisions. That is not a formula for success. In an I.T.-empowered outsourcing world it is very easy to replicate the technological basis for production in low-wage countries. Workers in Germany and the United States and other wealthy nations fear for their jobs. We can’t tell them: “We are going to have these binding obligations, but the places that have already gotten some of your jobs are going to have no obligations at all.” That wouldn’t work.
Isn’t that even more of an incentive for developing nations not to accept any binding emission caps?
They are starting to feel the consequences of such a policy. India now faces the prospect of black carbon emissions greatly accelerating the melting of ice that forms the source of the majority of the water in the Indus, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers. They must cut back on black carbon for their own survival.
Do you see indications of a shift in awareness in China, which is the second greatest polluter in the world after the U.S.?
China has been changing fairly dramatically on this issue. While they are still opening a new coal-fired generating plant every eight or nine days, they will soon be the No. 1 power in wind and the No. 1 power in solar. In each of the last several years, they have planted two and a half times as many trees as the rest of the world put together. They are building an 800-kilovolt supergrid that, by 2020, will be the most advanced in the world. They have revised their new five-year plan, beginning a little over a year from now, to adapt the formula by which all bureaucrats and officials are evaluated for advancement or not. They have placed their success in reducing CO2 as one of the principal factors by which they pursue their career successfully or not. These are significant changes.
Will Obama travel to Copenhagen ?
He hasn’t told me that he will, and no one representing him has told me that he will. But I see the calendar, I see unfolding of events and I feel certain he will go.
The White House is currently dampening expectations, because if the American president travels to Copenhagen for the summit, the rest of the world will expect a binding agreement from the United States on emissions caps.
Yes, of course. President Obama has already enacted a binding set of regulations that require a cut in emissions. But the big difference will be whether or not the Senate legislation on climate change passes or not. I believe that the draft bill introduced by Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer really does open up very new prospects. They are likely to add a title to the draft that expands support for nuclear energy. I also think they will add some provisions accelerating the substitution of gas for coal. Gas has only half the CO2 emissions of coal and two-thirds of that from oil. I think that will also generate more support and split the energy lobbies somehow. Therefore, I think there is a very real prospect that the legislation will pass, and that as a result, Obama will have the ability to go to Copenhagen with a more substantive position.
How do you see your own role in this process?
Sometimes the language of Yiddish is the most expressive. I want to be a “nudge” in Copenhagen. Someone who is pushing for action.
The most effective way to “nudge” people into action is to be president of the United States of America. Will you ever run for this office again?
Well, I am trying to recover from politics. But of course there is always a danger of a relapse when you are in recovery.
Mr. Vice President, we thank you for this interview.
Richard Haass, the president of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, talks about new approaches to the Afghanistan war, the country’s decreasing significance in the war on terror and why Pakistan is more important to American interests.
A memo written by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, was recently leaked in which he asks the American people for more patience and President Barack Obama for more troops. Isn’t it rather unusual for U.S. generals to put so much pressure on the president?
It is fine for generals and civilians to ask for more resources. One of their responsibilities is to speak truth to power if they think they need more resources to accomplish the mission. To do that in public is not appropriate, though. The president deserves to have these issues debated in private. Whoever leaked Gen. McChrystal’s memorandum acted unfairly and unprofessionally.
But should Obama follow this advice?
It would be premature to follow it at the moment. First, we need to be more confident that doing more militarily in Afghanistan will produce more results. It is not clear that will be the case. Secondly, we need to challenge the assumption that what happens in Afghanistan is critical for the global effort against terrorism.
Isn’t that effort doomed if Afghanistan remains a safe haven for terrorists? That is why the West invaded the country, after all.
That is not clear either. Even if terrorists were to be denied Afghanistan, they could operate out of other countries. We should also reconsider whether what happens in Afghanistan is essential for the future in Pakistan, which, frankly, matters more to the United States. Pakistan’s internal dynamics will count for more when it comes to determining Pakistan’s trajectory. I believe the president is right to slow down the decision process.
Obama already announced a new Afghanistan strategy in March, which appeared to include more U.S. troops. Now there are calls for that to be reconsidered. What has changed since then?
Today, things are looking even bleaker in Afghanistan. It is not at all obvious that Afghans can overcome ethnic and tribal loyalties, corruption and personal rivalries. The presidential election in August was deeply flawed. No matter who is ultimately declared the winner, this election is almost certain to leave the country even more divided.
Some administration officials have suggested that the U.S. should step up its military operations against terrorists in Pakistan, rather than sending more troops to Afghanistan.
I am sympathetic to the idea. Pakistan is more vital to the U.S. and we are starting to see progress there. There should be a greater level of economic and military support in Pakistan. Carrying out more airstrikes there is an attractive idea as long as the chance of collateral damage is minimized.
President Obama often calls the war in Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” It’s a term he lifted from one of your books…
Please, you are getting me into trouble.
But you no longer call it a war of necessity. Why?
It was a war of necessity after the attacks of 9/11 when you had a hostile government led by Taliban in Afghanistan. Now you have an essentially friendly government in Kabul and al-Qaida has reestablished itself in Pakistan. So I am no longer sure what happens in Afghanistan is still essential to the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is thus a war of choice — Mr. Obama’s war of choice. There needs to be a limit to what the United States does in Afghanistan and how long it is prepared to do it.
What options does the president have?
We have alternatives to an even bigger troop increase. That is another reason why this is no longer a war of necessity. The choice is not between pulling out and increasing resources. We can reduce our troops’ ground-combat operations but emphasize drone attacks on terrorists, the training of Afghan soldiers and police officers, and development aid and diplomacy to fracture the Taliban. Nobody is talking about or should be talking about abandoning Afghanistan.
But we are talking about fewer U.S. troops.
The risk of ending our military effort in Afghanistan is that Kabul could be overrun and the government might fall. The risk of the current approach — or one that involves dispatching 10,000 or 20,000 soldiers more — is that it might produce the same result in the end, but at a much higher human, military and economic cost. But if the U.S. does decide to increase troop levels, it should condition any such decision on specific Afghan commitments and reforms.
This article has been provided by Der Spiegel through a special arrangement with Salon. For more from Europe’s most-read newsmagazine, visit Spiegel Online or subscribe to the daily newsletter.
Monday, President Obama spoke about his commitment to the ongoing U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has shown far more willingness to engage in diplomacy than his predecessor, George W. Bush, but Obama has also continued to expand military operations in Afghanistan. So which is more effective in countering terrorism, so-called hard power that relies on military might or soft power that depends upon diplomacy? In this interview, Harvard professor Joseph Nye talks about America’s role in the world, the change of strategy under President Obama and how Nye’s concept of soft power can be used to solve tough conflicts.
Professor Nye, the Taliban are advancing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, North Korea has a nuclear bomb, Iran is developing one. Isn’t it time for hard power, the use of military force?
Every American president has three options. He can use force — in other words, hard power — to assert his interests, he can invest money or he can lead by attraction. The latter I call soft power, the appeal of American cultural values. I have never argued that the so-called hard-power instruments of a superpower — the military, the intelligence services or economic sanctions — can be replaced. It is all about the right mix of hard and soft power.
And right now military force would be more effective?
It is, of course, pointless to talk to al-Qaida. Their leaders cannot be attracted by American values. But the young people that Osama bin Laden wants to recruit for new terrorist attacks can be reached. That is where the soft power comes in.
How can they be reached? By the speech President Obama gave in Cairo in which he showed respect for the Muslim world, for example?
This speech was impressive. An America that listens, adheres to its own values and respects the values of other cultures makes the recruiting effort of the terrorists much more difficult. So, soft power can also be effective in a conflict that is largely dominated by the use of hard power.
Is there a historical example where a milder form of power politics was really effective?
Think of the end of the Cold War. Not a single shot was fired. For decades, the American military was necessary to deter Soviet aggression and expansion. But it was mainly the soft-power elements that penetrated the Iron Curtain and made the people on the other side lose faith in their system.
What are the sources of soft power?
It comes from three main sources: One is the culture of a country — in the case of America, that ranges from Harvard to Hollywood. Second, political values can be very attractive for other countries, from democracy to freedom of speech to opportunity. And the third one is the legitimacy of a country’s foreign policy — meaning that if your foreign policy is considered to be legitimate by other nations, you are more persuasive. Conversely, a foreign policy that is seen as illegitimate, as was the case under George W. Bush, destroys the power of values and culture.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reacted with annoyance when asked about your concept. He once said that he did not understand the meaning of soft power.
That was the mind-set of the Bush administration, at least during its first term. They did not understand the potential of soft power and could not use it. They had to learn the hard way that hard power alone was not sufficient to achieve their foreign policy objectives.
Obama uses hard power in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in a way that is not very different from his predecessor. The Pentagon is sending an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan in a bid to defeat the Taliban.
We should not play off the hard strategies against the soft strategies. We must restore a certain degree of security in Afghanistan before schools and clinics can be built. Violence must cease before civil aid can be given. In this case, hard power comes before soft power. Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the strategy in her testimony before the U.S. Senate as the “three D’s”: defense, diplomacy, development — in that order.
Has President Obama really changed the strategic goals of U.S. foreign policy?
He is in the process of doing that. Clinton has now created the job of a second under-secretary of state whose primary job will be to oversee development, not just in Afghanistan. Our foreign policy has been over-militarized. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized that most resources went straight to the Pentagon.
President Obama speaks with empathy and wisdom. Is that already a policy?
His speeches are helpful, but he needs to follow them up with concrete policy steps. It is not enough to have an attractive person at the top if his policy is not attractive.
So the hard part is still ahead of the president?
Yes, and that is normal. Every new administration first needs to define where it stands and what its goals are. Then the work really begins.
Does the economic crisis not inevitably weaken America’s attractiveness to the world?
There is no doubt that the crisis of the capitalist system weakens the soft-power possibilities of the United States. Wall Street is currently not very popular in the rest of the world. Now it is important for the U.S. government to master this crisis and make the necessary reforms to prevent it from happening again. That is the right way to strengthen our attractiveness. Should our policies fail, America will be weaker.
You emphasize the importance of a combination of hard and soft power in foreign policy. But does the use of one not sometimes handicap the use of the other? In Pakistan, even the Obama administration is still deploying unmanned drones to target and kill Taliban commanders. There is often collateral damage and many civilians are getting killed. This undermines America’s reputation in that region because such a cruel use of force is seen as illegitimate by the people there.
Too much hard power can be counter-productive. The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has talked about investigating these instances. He promised to avoid civilian casualties in future. Both steps are necessary because such incidents hurt the legitimacy of U.S. policy.
Does Osama bin Laden not have an attractive message for many people in that region of the world?
Sure, he has a lot of soft power. He proved this when he brought down the Twin Towers. Bin Laden did not hold a gun to the heads of the people who flew the planes. He did not pay them either. They did it because they were attracted by his convictions.
Has bin Laden’s soft power increased or decreased since?
I think that his soft power was greater in 2001 than it is today. His excessive use of terror, including numerous attacks that indiscriminately killed many women and children, and of course many Muslims, has hurt the attractiveness of his message.
President Obama has not been able to celebrate any major foreign policy breakthroughs so far — which of course is not all that easy. How, for example, should the United States deal with North Korea? By relying more heavily on hard power?
Yes. But when it comes to North Korea, Chinese hard power is needed. Beijing provides the majority of food and fuel for North Korea. It would be important to persuade the Chinese to actually do more with their hard power. To achieve that, America will have to employ subtle diplomacy. We need to quietly assure the Chinese that we won’t be sending U.S. troops to North Korea. That will alleviate some of the Chinese fears about the consequences of a North Korean collapse.
What strategy would you recommend to Obama for dealing with Iran?
The question with Iran is whether it will be possible to persuade them that they would be better off following the example of Japan. The Japanese have the technology to build a nuclear weapon. But they decided it is too costly to be a nuclear power and not very useful for enhancing prosperity.
And you truly believe that the mullahs will forgo their nuclear ambitions for economic considerations?
We won’t know until we have negotiations. Obama wants to explore the diplomatic options to determine what is possible and what is not. I think he is right about that.
How can a politician learn soft power?
Every politician just has to remember how he got his position in the first place. A young candidate running for Congress or any outsider interested in public office could only achieve his goals by relying on soft power. They could not force anyone to vote for them. They needed to convince their potential voters, they needed to do fundraising, they needed to be attractive candidates. Democracy is the best school to learn soft power.
Is Obama too soft?
If you have grown up in Chicago politics, you understand hard power versus soft power. Obama can be hard and soft.
Henry Kissinger, the doyen of American global policy, would object that foreign policy is not about hard or soft power, but about interests. Isn’t your soft-power concept a contradiction of his realpolitik?
Kissinger was my professor when I was a graduate student at Harvard. There are differences to a degree, but we are not far apart. The key question is how you define the national interest. Was it in America’s interest to go into Iraq? I think not. Was it in America’s interest to go into Afghanistan? I think yes. I partly agree with Henry: It is about interests. It’s the definition of America’s national interest we sometimes disagree on.
How would you define the current national interest of the U.S., the world’s only remaining superpower?
I don’t think that the national interest is predetermined by geopolitics or the history of a country. Important political leaders never just followed their interests — they were concerned about the interests of their people. Take Nelson Mandela: He decided that reconciliation would be more important for South Africa than revenge. Or look at Helmut Kohl: He put the goal of German reunification at the top of his political agenda and was less concerned about the German exchange rate or the effects on the West German economy at that time.
What is the priority of U.S. foreign policy right now?
I think that America should find its interests in ways that are more consistent with the interests of other countries, which are things that are good for us but also good for others. That will make Americans exporters of hope again, not exporters of fear.
Hillary Clinton wanted to make you ambassador to Japan. The White House intervened and appointed a major donor to the Obama campaign instead. Are you disappointed?
Well, the State Department can only recommend a person, but, frankly, the White House has the final say. As you know, there is a long tradition in the United States that about a third of the ambassadors are political appointments.
Should that be changed?
Money and donations are an important part of our political system. They are hard power. I would much rather have Obama spend his political capital on the big issues and not the small issues.
This article has been provided by Der Spiegel through a special arrangement with Salon. For more from Europe’s most-read newsmagazine, visit Spiegel Online or subscribe to the daily newsletter.
Former Vice President Al Gore 
A U.S Marine from Delta Company of 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion patrols near the town of Khan Neshin in Rig district of Helmand province, southern Afghanistan September 10, 2009. 