Parag Khanna, an International Scholar and bestselling author of "How To Run The World," shares his expert opinion on the changing Middle East and North Africa, Gaddafi, China, Muslim integration into Europe and free trade.

Please enjoy Parag's fresh points of view.

Gabrielle Reilly:  How do you think the US should handle the Libyan crisis?

Parag Khanna:  The US has to first recognize that the situation in Libya is an Arab problem first and foremost, a European problem second, and an American problem third. This doesn't mean that America should not take the lead in certain ways, but we should keep in mind the end goal to have Libya embedded in a new Arab order, to have Europe actively engaged in the long-term process of stabilizing Libya and North Africa, with the U.S. generally not overly interfering. Right now, however, it does make sense for the U.S. to support the rebel forces directly or indirectly, to sanction and squeeze Gaddafi through legal means to add pressure, and to provide as much humanitarian assistance as possible. It is a rapidly evolving situation so we will have to adjust our policy accordingly.

Gabrielle Reilly:  What if Gaddafi stays in power, what impact do you think there will there be for the global leaders calling for him to step down?

Parag Khanna:  The scenarios for Libya's near-term future remain highly diverse. If Gaddafi is able to hold on in Tripoli and the surrounding region while the eastern tribes in Benghazi solidify their control with Western support, partition might become a viable option, especially because of Benghazi's oil reserves. Remember to always be suspicious of straight lines on a map. Libya was never a coherent state but rather the result of Berber kingdoms, African tribes, and Arab clans nominally held together by Italian colonization and then Gaddafi's strongman rule. None of this past is a strong case to keep the country together just because it has been. Inertia is not a wise guide for future stability. Meanwhile, the European and American escalation with Libya is following a pattern I describe in HOW TO RUN THE WORLD, moving through the stages of dialogue (UN declarations), isolation (sanctions, asset freezes), punishment (no-fly zones, support for rebels), and eventually sowing dissent. If Gaddafi holds on, Western powers will have to move into this final phase and consider targeted air-strikes and even an assassination attempt engineered from the outside or within.

Gabrielle Reilly:  Yes, policy makers should know that drawing pretty straight lines on a map from the comfort of their offices in foreign countries should be avoided at all costs in the future.  Villages, cities, rivers, mountains, tribes and politics have to be considered amongst many issues.  How should we proceed with the new Egypt?

Parag Khanna:  The uprisings in Egypt and across the region remain more about accountability and service delivery than about democracy. Outside pressure for democracy can backfire because of the taint of Western imperialism and because societies have more immediate concerns than elections. Instead, supporting concrete moves towards good governance are more effective. This means promoting first and foremost economic reform and job creation, constitutional change and curtailing the power of the military. Egypt has four main sources of revenue: tourism, Suez canal fees, textile manufacturing and natural gas production. Rehabilitating all of these will require massive amounts of domestic and foreign investment in infrastructure. Getting American and European companies more involved through smart public-private risk-sharing and diplomacy will greatly increase Western influence moving forward even as its influence on local politics wanes.

Gabrielle Reilly:  Are the protests sweeping the Middle East and North Africa a sped up version of events that could be compared to the democratic uprisings that swept Europe over the past few centuries or is it too early to tell?  What should the overall US policy be towards the Middle East?

Parag Khanna:  It is tempting to compare current events in the Middle East to the European uprisings of 1989 after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but in the European case there was a common external force (the Soviet Union) propping up all the Communist regimes of the Warsaw Pact, and also these regimes were similar. In the Arab world there is a great diversity of regimes ranging from constitutional monarchies to tinpot dictatorships and even complex parliamentary systems. So each will take its own course. Some will reform and be better off, while others will become more chaotic. My view is that this process is inevitable, necessary, and largely a good thing since most of the regimes were as bad as the societies could have suffered under, so by definition what comes next ought to be better. But the people will have to keep the pressure on for governance to improve, and the West should move away from supporting strongmen rulers who breed instability towards genuine partnerships with societies at large. If we genuinely want democracy in the Arab world, then we need to make friends with all the potential winners!

Gabrielle Reilly:  Within cultures there are cultural "hard-wiring" and "soft-wiring."  The soft-wiring can evolve and compromise.  The hard-wiring is innate, uncontrollable and unchangeable (these traits are passed on for hundreds of years from generation to generation)... and when challenged, instantly draws rage.  Right or wrong, as it stands now, how can anyone rationally expect the French, who proudly lay topless on the beach, to peacefully co-exist with a massive Muslim population (many Wahhabis) that are known for stoning women who show any skin beyond their face? It wouldn't be too far-fetched to see a civil war between these two cultures over the right to bare breasts.  What is your perspective on the viability of an integrating these cultures and how should we deal with these clashing ideals?

Parag Khanna:  I think that European countries have benefited from immigration in terms of the labor force it adds to their countries and also the influence it allows them to exercise over immigrants' countries of origin in the Mideast and Africa. However, immigration combined with inflexibility in culture -- on both sides -- can certainly lead to deep tensions such as what we are witnessing in Western European countries today. I believe the right approach is to focus not on the immutable and irreconcilable aspects of each culture but to emphasize rules, laws, and freedoms which all residents in countries like France and the U.K. must respect. This way immigrants realize that they must assimilate because the laws protect everyone, majority and minority alike.

Gabrielle Reilly:  Yes, Singapore would be an example of a very multicultural country with strict rules that make it work.  BUT, Singapore is a very modest country unlike France (and enjoys an unemployment rate of only 2.2% unlike France's 10%.)  As an immigrant myself, I clearly see the advantages of immigration, but believe like trying to save a bad marriage, we have to address the irreconcilable cultural differences to prevent further tensions and riots.  The best working model I have seen in the world to deal with conflicting modesty issues is in Australia.  We have declared nudist beaches, declared topless beaches and declared family friendly beaches.  In video stores there is an "over -18" room at the back of the store for all R+ rated movies so people are not unwilling exposed to images that offend them.  Everyone's lifestyle choices are respected.  On all things that can be integrated, should be, including learning the local language as a right for living there. this would assist tremendously with the integration. But I do not realistically expect that first generation adult immigrants will instantly integrate, particularly if the native tongue is a second language.  It will be the second generation. the children going to school that will integrate, so we should set policy with the on-the-ground reality in mind.

Gabrielle Reilly:  Considering China was one of the most prosperous countries with the world's greatest fleet in the 1500s, it is staggering to see how Europe prospered ahead for the following few centuries after China introduced a closed door policy and prohibited trade, while Europe began to sail the four corners of the earth for trade.  Do these historic events shape your opinion on free trade today?

Parag Khanna:  China's astounding rise to superpower status in recent decades owes itself very much to the fact that it is a highly globalized economy, especially in terms of trade, which makes up a great percentage of its GDP. So clearly openness to the world has been beneficial for China now as it has been for Europe in centuries past. I have argued that the world is now multi-polar and multi-civilizational as it was in the Middle Ages, but rather than assume that this will lead to conflict, I believe that we can take advantage of this diversity and openness to forge new Silk Roads across West and East that are mutually beneficial.