One thing we are forgetting, or we have at least backed away from, is the effort to rely on international nonproliferation regimes. For example, one of the actions of US President George Bush’s administration of which I would be most critical is the withdrawal of the US negotiator from the 2001 international talks to try to put more teeth into the Biological Weapons Convention. I believe biological weapons are the greatest threat the United States faces. It needs not only to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention, but maybe also to move beyond it. Professor Matthew Mehselson at Harvard University and some of his colleagues in England have come up with a very interesting proposal to make the development of biological weapons an international crime. I think they have done it in a very practical way. It seems to me that if we can make hijacking an international crime, we should also make the development of weapons that could destroy most of humanity a crime.

Is aid the way to eliminate ill will towards the West, or are liberal trade policies and allowing globalization to run its course the best approaches?

First, they are not alternatives to each other. Second, the primary issue is not ill will toward the West, but the development of other societies. I think that aid can be useful, but I think we need to rethink it in terms of a greater focus on structural issues and less of a focus on political goals. This means, for example, even greater concentration on HIV and AIDS. If the virus continues to spread, as it is likely to do, in India, China, and Russia, it will have huge national security implications as well as humanitarian ones. Aid is important, but people generally do not like to be dependent on others, and aid programs have not really generated much popular gratitude. In terms of development, studies have shown that trade and debt relief are more important than aid. We need to focus more on that, including the agricultural subsidies the United States and Europe are providing. I read a few days ago that the average cow in Europe earns more in subsidies than a billion people around the world. I am fond of cows, but there is definitely something wrong with that picture.

With regard to globalization as a solution, I would argue that globalization is not a route to pursue; you do not decide to pursue it or not. Globalization is a fact driven by technology. It is not going to change. The issue is not whether governments pursue globalization. The question is will they get together and work to manage globalization so that more people benefit from it.

Are there any preventive actions that you would recommend as particularly effective for combating terrorism?

There are three fronts. The first is homeland security, where we have a long way to go. We should be providing more resources and a greater sense of urgency than we currently are. The second front is action against the leaders of terrorism. There we are cooperating well with most other governments, and I think that the US Central Intelligence Agency and others are doing quite a good job and have saved a lot of lives in rounding up many of the leaders of terrorism. But the problem is that you will keep finding new leaders unless you address terrorism’s underlying causes. The third front, then, is “draining the swamps” that help to produce the followers and future leaders of terrorism. Here there is a lot to be done. This relates directly to the previous question about working hard to improve economic conditions. The United States, Europe, Japan, and others need to develop more coherent strategies to deal with conflict zones around the world. This means addressing economic and social problems, as well as executing common diplomatic strategies to prevent and resolve such conflicts. As we are seeing in Africa, these conflict zones are a major breeding ground for terrorism.

Many people have said that terrorism against the United States is a direct result of either cultural tensions or political grievances against US policy in the Middle East. Is this reconcilable with pro-active US actions to prevent terrorism?

You have to make distinctions among the various terrorist groups. Let us assume that most groups’ motivations result from a combination of political factors—the US position on the other side of the political divide, and the broader religious or social reactions against a growing cultural influence of the West. I hesitate to use the phrase “clash of civilizations,” as for different groups, the motivation is different. For Hezbollah or Hamas, the terrorism is more politically inspired, but with an important religious overlay. For Al Qaeda and some of its allies such as Islamic Jihad, it is more of a religious, socio-cultural reaction with a political overlay. With Hamas, the suicide bombers are acting for a political goal with regard to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But, by all accounts, they are also inspired by the belief that they will be rewarded in religious terms for their actions. On the other side, there is no doubt that Al Qaeda sees its suicide pilots as religiously inspired activists. At the same time, Al Qaeda uses the US support for Israel and the US presence in Saudi Arabia as means of broadening its support. For most groups, it is both political and religious, but for each of them, it is in a different measure.