Condi Rice authored an article in the WP today,
here, that was quite good. Good in the sense that it demonstrated her depth of knowledge of American foreign policy and how it has evolved over many years. She is clearly a student of diplomatic history.
Starting with the proposition that "our statecraft today recognizes that centuries of international practice and precedent have been overturned in the past 15 years". She goes on to make the following points:
> For the first since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is becoming even more unthinkable. Major states are increasingingly competing in peace, not preparing for war.
> Since its creation more than 350 years ago, the modern state system has always rested on the concept of sovereignty. It was assumed that states were the primary international actors and that every state was able and willing to address the threats emerging from its territory.
> Today, however, we have seen that these assumptions no longer hold, and as a result the greatest threats to our security are defined more by the dynamics within weak and failing states than by the borders between strong and aggresive ones.
> Absent responsible state authority, threats that would and should be contained within a country's borders can now melt into the world and wreak untold havoc.
> Our experience of this new world leads us to conclude that the fundamental character of regimes matters more today that the international distribution of power.
> The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only realistic response to our present challenges.
She makes the point that even though Iraq and perhaps even Arab cultures are not 'accustomed' to the concept of democracy, that doesn't mean that democracy is doomed to failure in Arab lands.
Though the broader Middle East has no history of democracy, this is not an excuse for doing nothing. If every action required a precedent, there would be no firsts. We are confident that democracy will succeed in this region not simply because we have faith in our principles but because the basic human longing for liberty and democratic rights has transformed our world. Dogmatic cynics and cultural determinists were once certain that "Asian values," or Latin culture, or Slavic despotism, or African tribalism would each render democracy impossible. But they were wrong, and our statecraft must now be guided by the undeniable truth that democracy is the only assurance of lasting peace and security between states, because it is the only guarantee of freedom and justice within states
There are some other very worthwhile and considered viewpoints, but I'll leave the rest for interested readers.
One last thing: There are some that think a great presidential contest in 2008 iif the candidates were Hilary and Condi. My impression, as of this moment: I have heard Hilary a lot over the Clinton years, but this is the first in-depth commentary that I have heard from Rice. On balance, Rice comes off as a true intellectual as compared to Hilary's opportunistic politician.
Am very interested in how others see this....
