Here is a transcript of an interview last night with Sen. Barack Obama by Post-Gazette Politics Editor James O'Toole.

Q: Should the administration do more to pressure China on its conduct in Tibet? And ... should the U.S. consider boycotting the Olympics, either the games themselves or the opening ceremony?

Mr. Obama: Well I think that we should maintain steady pressure on China around human rights issues. Darfur, the treatment of religious dissidents in China, the Tibetan situation -- all should be of significant concern and should be reflected in our foreign policy. I also think that we have an interest in making sure that China remains a responsible actor on the world stage on a whole host of issues, and we don't want to make them an enemy.

Sign up to be a citizen contributor covering events and sharing your thoughts on the Pennsylvania primary campaign using your mobile phone.
Visit our VoxPop section to learn more and join up today!

They are going to be a competitor, already are a competitor, but we have an interest long-term in maintaining good relations with China.

So I think we have to move on parallel tracks. We should not be afraid of speaking out on issues, but I think we also should try to make sure that the way we speak out is measured and thoughtful.

I am not prepared to say at this point that we should be boycotting the Olympics. But I do think finding an appropriate way to register our concern in a very public way is important and if developments worsen over time, that's something we can always looks at

Q: Is there a principle you would enunciate that would guide you as to when you would commit U.S. forces?

Mr. Obama: I think the general rule is that if we can't muster a strong sense of international support around a military action then we should be very cautious. But if there are interventions that can be accomplished at relatively low cost, in terms of risk to U.S. troops, and the prospects of long-term intervention and would save a significant numbers of lives, as a country I think we have national security interest in preventing genocide or ethnic cleansing from happening.

So the classic example, I think, is Rwanda, where a relatively modest intervention -- if it had happened quickly enough -- might have saved several hundreds of thousands of people and wouldn't have required a long-term occupation of Rwanda.

You just have to break the fever of violence that was occurring there, and I think we could, with leadership have marshaled additional US forces or additional international forces to help and got neighbors in the region to try to try to resolve the conflict.

I think Darfur is a similar situation in the sense that if we can get a protective force on the ground and impose a selective no-fly zone in certain regions and tighten up the economic screws on Khartoum, I think that we can influence their behavior. But part of the problem we've got is that our moral leadership around the world has been so diminished because of Iraq, people are so suspicious of our motives, that it's hard to muster the international support for these kinds of interventions. That's part of the reason it's important for us to restore our standing in the world.

Q. In your autobiography, there's a passage, describing, when you were a very young man in Indonesia, your stepfather warning you about the strong man victimizing the weak man ... Is that a personal story or is there some lesson for how nations deal with one another?

Mr. Obama: No, I think there's obviously a larger theme there -- which my stepfather's thinking represented, both in his real life and as a figure in that book, the pretty cynical realist, or what's considered a realist approach, both to how you interact in your personal life and how you interact as a nation state -- that it's a big, tough, ugly world out there and you should not be under any illusion about it.

Now I always think that if all you're basing decisions on is cynicism, and all you're seeing are dangers [and] you're always afraid of being taken advantage of, that even as a nation-state you may end up making bad decision and missing opportunities.

I think it's important to be hard-headed and realistic about the real dangers of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. I think it's important not to be taken advantage of on the world stage when it comes to economic negotiations, with the countries like China.

I think we have to look out of U.S. interests first, but, we miss the boat if we think that the world is motivated only by material gain, responds only to force and power. Because, in fact, if you look at our history, part of the influence that we built post-World War II was based on a notion that we believed in the rule of law, we believed in certain universal principles. We didn't always abide by them, but that, you know, we were different.

That has concrete benefits in terms of us being able to exert our influence around the world and it shapes how public opinion ... it's reflected in public opinion and that in turn can influence whether an ally is willing to work with us on an issue.

A great example of this is George Bush I, in his approach to the Gulf War. Because they took the time to engage in the diplomacy, because the made the case, because they used moral persuasion as well as self interest, an effort that was completed in a relatively brief time with relatively few casualties cost us $20 billion -- $20 billion, that's what we spend in two months [in Iraq now].

Q: And we were right to go into that war? Some Democrats voted against it.

Mr. Obama: Absolutely, no no I think it was absolutely the right decision to make.

Q: The [Samuel] Huntingdon thesis, [proposed in the book] "The Clash of Civilizations" -- do you believe in that?

Mr. Obama: I think that Mr. Huntingdon offers a gross over-simplification of what's going on. I think that, obviously, religion has always been a fault line in world affairs, and in domestic affairs. It's a powerful force and a powerful organizing principle for a lot of people. And there is no doubt that there has been a widening gulf between the Muslim world and the Western world over the last several years. I don't think it's inevitable though. I think the real clash is actually between modernity and fundamentalism.

I grew up for three or four years ... in Indonesia which is 90 percent Muslim. But it was just as secular and just as, you know, accommodating to modern industrial society as anywhere in the developing world at the time.

What has changed is you've got a certain segment of Islam that is not just fundamentalist but has become anti-modern and anti-Western. How much that comes to dominate Islam, I think, in part depends on us and how we respond to it. If we alienate the Muslim world through poor decisions like the war in Iraq, then we can widen that chasm. If, on the other hand, we reach out, as I proposed, to the Muslim world and say, let's isolate bin Laden, let's isolate those who would do violence, and let's then also find areas of common interest and common concern, then I think we can narrow that chasm of misunderstanding, that's part of the shift in foreign policy that I want to bring about as president.