The New American Realisam - Condoleezza Rice

I read an article titled "Rethinking the National Interest - American Realism for a New World " by Condoleezza Rice. During I read this article, I wondered who Condoleezza Rice is. Throughout the article, she showed her strong belief of her nation, America, and her belief even made me stunned. I didn't get only her belief, but also American's. It was confidence, strong strong confidence. And I realized the confidence has been defining what America is and has been leading the whole world. Sometime, I read this article skeptically(I couldn't help it. I am Korean.) But other time, I read it with admiration.

Before I started this blogging, I searched who Condoleezza Rice is.
She is a famous feature as I've expected . She is the 66th United States Secretary of States, and the first black women, the second African American, and the second woman to serve as Secretary of States. She is not a common smart woman. She has influential power in America, and the world. Actually, she also serves the states as 20th United States National Security Adviser. After I got these, I could understand why her article was chosen as the cover story of FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

Actually, I had not had any concept of the world affairs. I had got lots of interest in the world affairs but I hadn't known what can I start with. Actually, this article was rather difficult to understand as beginner, but it covered what I've wondered about. So it encouraged me to keep reading this article and organizing the new concepts that I got newly.

Rethinking the National Interest
American Realism for a New World

"What is the national interest?"
Rice starts this article with this simple question, but truly, it's not that simple. But the answer in her mind is getting clear whenever I turn a page.

As most people agree, she also agrees that September 11 is the biggest turning point. Since then, two aspects of change has been emerging. One is that has not changed and another is that has changed.

"What has not changed is that United States' relation with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of policy."
"What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within state and the distribution of power among them."

Indicating these two aspects of change, she insists U.S. has responsibility to take care of states those too weak or poorly governed and don't have enough power, especially Afghanistan and Iraq. (Actually I started to feel uncomfortable after I read this thought. I guessed what she wanted to say was America's political power throughout of the world. I can't deny, but I can't be comfortable, either.)

Great Power, old and new.
: Russia, China, India, Brazil.

This chapter covers the relationship between U.S. and these states. These states belong the side that doesn't have a same value as America ; Especially the value of democracy.)

1. Russia

• United States' relationship with Russia has been rooted more in common interests than common values.
  
• Now Russians enjoys greater opportunity and personal freedom than at almost any other time in their country.
• Russia is great power & Russia is the land and culture of a great people. Their technological and economical development define their greatness in the 21 C.
  
• So, even though the bitter memories of relationship between U.S. and Russian, they could have been keeping the balance.
  

2. China

• United States' relationship with China also has been rooted more in common interest than common values.
• She mentions that China has not used their power responsibly and it has caused United States has been challenged. But she also mentioned that China's leader incresinglly realize the necessary of responsible.
  

1.2. China and Russia has dangerous components.

• Transnational terrorism
• Proliferation of weapon
• Climate change
• Instability stemming from poverty and disease

She says that United States should try to find areas of cooperation and strategic agreement with Russia and China, even when there are significant difference. And she also mentions that even though North Korea's nuclear issue has been serious problem, it has helped U.S. and the states of Northeast Asia(China, Russia, Japan, S.Korea) to have cooperative relationship to denuclearize. It's irony.

3. India

• "This democratic nation promises to become a global power and an ally in shaping an international order rooted in freedom and the rule of law."

4. Brazil

• Brazil has also success at using democracy and market

3.4. They both secure in their ability to compete and succeed in the global economy.

And she says United States has a vital interest in the success and prosperity of these and other large multiethnic democracies.


Shared values and shared responsibility.
: Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Europe, Australia, Southeast Asia with Japan, South Korea, Africa(Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, etc)

There are a lot of states who already share almost same value with U.S. And Rice insists that with those countries, U.S. should cooperate and this cooperation should be judged by the work they do together to defeat terrorism and extremism, meet global challenges, defend human right and dignity and support new democracies, not just only be judged by how they related to one another.

And she points South Korea here.
"South Korea has become a global partner whose history can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity."
As South Korean, I can't deny an importance of cooperation with United States. Literally almost all of our identities are influenced by United States'. ; Policy, Culture, Economy, etc.


A democratic model of development.
: Columbia, Lebanon, Liberia, Afghanistan.

She says that U.S. has power to enhance th peaceful political and economic development of weak and poorly governed states. She insists that U.S. must be willing to use her power for this purpose. She points out that U.S. hasn't had strong willing for this. (even though many others have thought U.S. already has used her power too much, include me.)

She also says that it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation of sustained, broad-based economic development - and that market - driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy.
(As she says, I also agree we can't separate democratic with economic issue. )
She also says democratic development is also the best way to ensure that these benefits are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion, repression, or violence.

So she insists promoting democratic development must remain a top priority of U.S. But thankfully, she agrees that democracy cannot be imposed, particularly by a foreign power. But she insists that it is strongly in United States' interest to help sustain weak state's leader, support their countries' democratic institutions, and ensure that their new governments are capable of providing for their own security, especially when their nation have experienced crippling conflicts.

United States has recently built long tern partnership based on mutual responsibility and integration of her power(political, diplomatic, economic, and military) with Colombia, Lebanon, and Liberia. Now U.S. thinks that U.S. must now build such partnership with Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, conflict between the Taliban and the new Afghan government is still severe. We all know that Afghan people has suffered from this conflict.

Here is my question. She says that Afghan people do not want U.S. to leave until U.S. has accomplished their common mission in Afghanistan. I think it's totally "Believe or Not." I really wonder the true of Afghan people's thought and feeling of U.S. I've thought themselves as sacrifices of war between U.S. and Afghan. Anyway, she is believing this way.

She also insists that one of the best ways to support the growth of democratic institution and civil society is to expend free and fair trade and investment. FTA was ans is a big issue in Korea. The government finally agreed FTA but many Koreans are still resisting about it. I want to know more about FTA. But the clear fact is we couldn't deny United States' power and we wouldn't deny it. I'm sorry to say this, "We can't help it. "


The changing Middle East.

In Middle East, al Qaeda is the best-organized political forces, more straightly, extremist group. Since September 11, a relationship between U.S. and Middle East has been more complex than before. But Rice tries to see bright side, saying that "the situation is not that really worse than before." Truly, there were severe problems such as Lebanon's suffering under the Syrian occupation.
After she tried to see bright side, she says that U.S. should increase their interest toward this area to get their ideal : freedom, human right, open markets, democracy, and the rule of law, even though it will be a difficult generational task.

Here are the questions Middle East are searching now for answers. Rice mentions these questions to think what U.S. should consider.

• What are to be the limit on the state's use of power, both within and beyond its borders?
• What will be the role of the state in the lines of its citizens and the relationship between religion and politics?
• How will traditional values and mores be reconciled with the democratic promise of individual rights and liberty, particularly for women and girls?
• How is religious and ethnic diversity to be accommodated in fragile political institution when people tend to hold on to traditional associations?

Actually, I don't have ANY IDEA. I hope I will answers with my strong opinion someday.

Anyway, she says these answers cam come only from within the Middle East but U.S. has responsible to support and shape these difficult processes of change and to help the nation of the region overcome several major challenges to their emergence as modern, democratic states. Ans she mentions three challenges to do this work.

• "The fist challenge is the global ideology of violent Islamist extremism, such as al Qaeda, that throughly reject the basic tenets of modern politics, seeking instead to topple sovereign states, erase national borders, and restore the imperial structure of the ancient caliphate."

She is quite sure that if people were free to choose, they would reject al Qaeda's ideology and rebel against its control. So she insisted that U.S. must be to offer people a democratic path to advance their interests peacefully, adding that fight againt terrorism is a kind of global counterinsurgency in this sense.
But I wonder whether U.S. has really used peaceful way.

• "A second challenge to the emergence of a better Middle East is posed by aggressive states that seek not to peacefully reform the present regional order but to alter it using any form of violence - assassination, intimidation, terrorism."
• "The real question is, what land of influence will these states wield - and to what ends, constructive or destructive?"

She refers Iran. Because "An Iran with a nuclear weapon or even technology to build one on demand would be a grave threat to international peace and security."
But I start to wonder again that why she believes her nation's nuclear weapon or technology would not be a grave threat to international peace and security.
Anyway she is adding this sympathetic sentences ; "But there is also another Iran. It is the land of a great culture and a great people, who suffer under repression." She insists that the Iranian people deserve to be integrated into the international system, to travel freely and be educated in the best universities.
After that, she asserts Iran must make a strategic choice about how and to what end it will wield its power and influence and should also know that the United States will defends and its interests vigorously until the day that change comes.

• "A their challenge is finding a way to resolve long-standing conflicts, particularly tha between the Israelis and the Palestinians."

She finds clear solution in democracy. She says that effective democratic institutions can fight terrorism and extremism, enforce the rule of law, combat corruption, and create opportunities for the Palestinians to improve their lives. And she points out a fundamental disagreement between those who reject violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and those who do not. She adds that only democracy can give the Palestinian people the choice of a peaceful way forward to resolve the existential question.

Finally, Iraq is appeared in her article. She says the Iraqi people's struggle to build a democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein is shifting the landscape of the broader Middle East. Even though the cost of war for Americans and Iraqis has been greater than they ever imagined, she believe removing Saddam from power was right decision because she is sure that Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated. I absolutely wonder what made her to be sure. Anyway she enforces her insistence with this sentence.
"The U.S. overthrow Saddam to remove a long-standing threat to international security."


A uniquely American realism.

She finally tries to make a conclusion. She believes that the U.S. possesses the unique ability to assimilate new citizens of every race, religion, and culture into the fabric of her nation and economic life. She claims what the United States must keep is will to help weak and poorly functioning states.

She shows her pride of her nation's power and value, not because of these being, but their marrying. She believes that marring power and value of U.S. has helped U.S. to help friends and allies to expend the boundaries of what most thought realistic.
She called this disposition of United States' as her uniquely American realism, adding this humble messages ; "Our uniquely American realism also makes us deeply patient. We support democracy not because we think ourselves perfect but because we know ourselves to be deeply imperfect." It's irony.



I tried to summarize this article and to judge it by myself. Both of these were so difficult. Because, as I said before, this political concept was quite new to me. But I believe if I keep trying to read and think about political issues, I will have my own opinion toward and get an insight.
But at least,as the first traveler of U.S. political world, I could experience United States Kingdom. Yes. It is the kingdom. It truly is the kingdom of democracy and tries to conquer the whole world with a weapon named democracy. Actually, I like democracy. I can't imagine communism society and I even don't want to put my self at the communism side. But Rice's opinion was so strong. It has clear color. So it makes me to think and question what democracy really is. It is good stimulation.

Even though I've been keeping this skepticism, I've got what I want learn more forward.

1. Differences between Democratic and Republic.
2. The other point of view of 9/11.
3. The relationship between Afghanistan with United States.
4. The relationship between Afghanistan with Iraq.


After I read
"Rethinking the National Interest" by Condoleezza Rice.