Condi's New Realism

Condi Rice is a smart woman, for all that I disagree with her politics or hate that she works for a man I truly lack any sort of respect for. I cannot deny she sees things as they are, although sometimes I think she might be optimistic, or unwilling to see more than one side, she is still pragmatic. Her recent essay in Foreign Affairs provides a great deal to chew on and thus as we reach a time where transitions to a new way of American life are potentially arriving, it is worth considering what an article in the economist from mid march concluded: American Foreign Policy cannot do a 180 even if Obama takes the presidency, it just won't happen. There is too much at stake, so while it may bring about a change in attitude from the rest of the world, that hope shouldn't be squandered.

So moving on to, Condi's piece. To agree, or disagree, that is the question?


First she starts off by discussing power and distribution noting logically that globalization has created even greater divisions and left weaker states struggling. They are also at the mercy of the larger ones who have a greater voice of power in the international arena. Therefore she states it is our national interest to make sure that states can follow through with their own sovereign responsibilities and thus concludes with the importance of democratic nation building. While there is logic here, I would like to note briefly from what I've learned: the gaps in globalization and the creation of instability within some state economies is largely the result of new liberalism, trade policies pushed by the IMF where the US is a key player and decision maker in strategies used. Joseph Stiglitz calls it "western hypocrisy" and he's right; if we continue to push policies that countries are not prepared to handle(and I am not an econ person so specifics are beyond me, but essentially rapidly opening borders for trade weakens a country's ability to control flows of capital and if investors leave in a hurry the economy can collapse - more or less - I think), then how can we remove ourself from blame entirely and simply use it to justify pushing for democracy?

Marriage of realism and idealism, the strength of our values, those which MUST continue to guide us. Some of her own perceptions, and they are shared within the US mindset. Well, unfortunately we don't share them so mundanely with the rest of the world, they see the horrors of our bullying, the suspicion of our true end-game and many question our workaholic and power driven policies. It is true perhaps that we are not necessarily devilish in nature, rather we are - as my advisor and others write - an empire of the willing. We want to spread our values and our beliefs, we believe we have that right, but do others?

Condi distinguishes between common values and common interests. Russia and China are connected to us more through common interests than values. This point was highlighted recently by the new Russian president as he called for an end to American dominance, no matter how much common interest we share with Russia, I can't imagine how "well" that went over in the White House. How dare Russia assume our era of dominance is ending? Well in truth, maybe it is not, and Russia is still struggling to maintain their own stability economically, but they have oil. We'll still share common interests with them, even as we shake our head and criticize their so called democracy. With China it is the same thing, we have values, but we have interests and more often than not they seem to overlap.

Whew, okay I'm tired of thinking and typing so part II of Condi critique will be up soon enough. Oh and I recommend www.electoral-vote.com for those of you interested in keeping up to date about the electoral breakdown for '08.

Cheers