America cannot start repairing the damage by just reverting to the policies it pursued prior to 9/11, he pleads. 'We must recognise as the dominant power in the world we have a special responsibility. In addition to protecting our national interests, we must take the leadership in protecting the common interests of humanity.'

'Who would have thought that the United States, which I had learned to regard as the champion of democracy and open society could become a threat to the world order?'

'America has a long tradition of interfering in other countries'

You argue very succinctly in your book that the war on terror and the war on Iraq have lost America the moral high ground to talk about human rights. How significant is this moral loss compared to the loss of moral ground some 20, 30 years during the Cold War when America supported dictators in South America, South East Asia and in Pakistan?

Your point is well taken. America has a long tradition of interfering in the affairs of other countries, protecting the Shah of Iran and so on. That is nothing new. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, America emerged as the unquestioned, sole remaining superpower. Therefore, it could now exert a leadership in the world of a different kind than the one the Bush administration uses.

The actions of the Bush administration stand in the way of the other kind of leadership, one that involves America leading the world in cooperative action to deal with common problems. That is why the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq are so detrimental. I have argued in my previous book and in the new book that the rest of the world speaks of double standards and sees the Bush administration's advocacy of democracy and human rights as a thin cover for American imperialism.

The aspiration for freedom and democracy will live on, but people will have to carry on that struggle regardless of President Bush's rhetoric.

One of the fallouts of the 9/11 attacks is how Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has become a close ally of America. But you write that he is 'a very uncertain and unreliable ally.'

Musharraf in a way exploits the Muslim extremists' presence in Pakistan to gain American support for his regime. In reality, if elections were held in Pakistan, the religious parties would probably get only about 15 per cent of the vote. Democracy could return in Pakistan. But Musharraf prevents that by playing up the threat from the religious extremists and the terrorist organisations, which are present in Pakistan. To some extent, he tolerates their existence in order to justify his existence.

The top leadership of Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan, and the resurgence of the Taliban is supported by elements within Pakistan. In my book, I note that Musharraf says the choice is between him and the fundamentalists; with Pakistan in possession of nuclear weapons, that makes the choice obvious. But Musharraf is in alliance with the religious parties, making it difficult for him to exert pressure on them.

Little effort has been made to reform the madrassas (Islamic seminaries) in Pakistan, and the government spends just about two per cent of its budget on education. Nonetheless, the religious parties would get only a minority of votes in national elections. This is in contrast to Egypt, where elections would bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

I have faith in Pakistan's potential, that elections will actually bring a secular party to power that would push for reforms in Pakistan. This is a case where free elections could resolve what is thought to be an intractable problem. I believe the real problem is persuading the military to hold free elections.

Do you think that could happen and Washington's attitude towards Musharraf could change?

No, not with Bush. Maybe the next President will have a different view.

After 9/11 many liberal and leftist groups set up their protests across America. And the opposition to the World Trade Organisation and such bodies has increased. You discuss in your book the protests against WTO and what happened in Seattle, Switzerland and in other parts of the world. You say that the protesters are creating damage to their cause by going after the organisations and not after the countries. Please elaborate.

I think globalisation is lopsided, and has detrimental effects that have led to opposition. The opposition focuses on the international organisations that are the building blocks of globalisation. But such anger is misdirected because most of these organisations are associations of individual nations. An organisation such as WTO cannot be much better than its member countries. So the fault lies with the members, not so much with the organisations.

Of course, it is easier to attack the organisations than the countries behind them. But I think that is changing; people are increasingly aware that trouble starts at home.

In addition, I hope people will increasingly focus on the fact that there are a limited number of repressive regimes responsible for much of the poverty and misery in the world. A theory I think deserves more attention is the 'resource curse' -- that developing countries rich in natural resources are no wealthier than those without, but they tend to have more repressive regimes and more conflicts.