A reflection on 'The New American Realism'

This Saturday I read Madame Secretary Condolezza Rice's essay on the journal Foreign Affairs. This is one of the most comprehensive summaries on the Bush Administration's foreign policy. The essay reveals the strategy of initiating a unique blend of realism and idealism into nation building and the sustained importance of it. In the post-Cold War era and after the 9-11 attacks, supporting despotism to primarily advance the cause of the national interest is not the proper way of advancing the new world order of democracy and free-markets. Key examples of this are the strategic arrangements that gave rise to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, two entities which 'betrayed' the Americans.

With all the talk about the legacy of the Bush presidency, this paper tries to shed light on how the Administration would like to view itself in the history books in terms of foreign policy. She makes a fascinating argument that democracy is not unique to culture. That the right of people to choose its leaders is not a matter of the history of a nation. While it is true that new democracies take time to incubate and incur losses in the short run, it justifies itself in the long run in the realization of global stability It cites the examples of India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and South Africa. These examples are very important because they stand for the apparent success (with great hardship) of the great experiment in democracy and free-markets.

The Bush administration's strategy with Iraq is a reflection of the future of American foreign policy. I am not speaking in terms of war, but in terms of the installation and support of democratic solutions throughout the world while balancing the American interest. This of course does not mean the forceful application of these ideals, but an aggressive diplomatic course of action, the culmination of which was seen in Pakistan, with General Musharraf stepping down as head of the Army and taking the role of the civilian President of Pakistan.

In the 20th century American idealism succeeded in Europe and Japan after World War II. Russia has somewhat gone astray from the ideals of democracy, while Africa's success story is seen in South Africa. The key to global stability now, according to Secretary Rice, is the resurgence of this effort in Asia the Middle East for the 21st century. We see the progression of a global trend which will probably end with Africa.

However efforts in Africa have not gone too well, with multiple instances of the defaulting of democracy in places like Zimbabwe and the events in Sudan. The international community, despite all their efforts could not respond soon enough to quell these threats. If the future of democracy is to be sustained, it is integral that the nations of Africa become a part of the international community to fulfill Rice's vision. This should accelerate over time with the competition of resources between the powers of the world. It is important that South Africa, India and the United States play a vital role is competing with China for both resources and ideals.

Even though I don't agree with the means that America has gone through with, we are at this juncture now. And Rice's comments are pretty enticing. It substitutes the indifference and realpolitik of the 70s and 80s for a more idealistic implementation of American foreign policy which we hope will lead to long term global stability.