Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed the status of several international concerns, notably the state of U.S. alliances, the Administration's push for greater democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere, and relations with China and Asia (among many other topics) in an exclusive interview with the Washington Post. She strikes me as a very sensible and effective combination of principle and practicality.
Asked about refurbishing U.S. alliances in the wake of the Iraq war, she said, "It seems to me that after the Iraqi elections there has been a new kind of coming together about what the next chapter looks like and a really strong desire to put the past behind us." There is a "desire to see the spread of liberty and freedom as essential to the securing of a better future, not just for those people who get to live in liberty and freedom but for those of us who experienced what happens when you have a freedom deficit and you have the rise of extremism. I think that you're beginning to see a kind of focusing and coming together around that project."
Regarding China and Asia she averred, "A lot is going on there and everybody is trying to figure out how they're going to cooperate this huge new factor, which is this rising China.
"And I believe that people are beginning to focus even there on the kind of values that unite us and have made these alliances work in Japan and South Korea.
"And then if you to go South Asia, the remarkable thing is to see that kind of ark that is Afghanistan, Pakistan, India has a new energy to it and a positive energy so that you have -– I hate to sound like a Californian, but positive energy it is — Pakistan and Afghanistan with a better relations than they have ever had. Pakistan and India with better relations than they have ever had and kind of a sense that that region could actually be quite powerful in and of itself."
Focusing on Pakistan, she said, "Pakistan has come a long way, it's on a better trajectory than it's ever been, or that it's been in many, many years, and our job is to support that trajectory and to help bring that along.
Article comments
1 - Temple Stark
Seems to have level head, now.
I didn't realize investing in Pakistan meant selling them F-16 fighters. Kind of a kiss off to the 1.1 billion people of Democratic India, doncha think?
2 - gonzo marx
my hackles raise anytime i hear a demagogue say things like "freedom deficit"
maybe it's just me..but i would rather an honest ex-soldier that understands the depth of international affairs be the Top Diplomat for my Country than ANY ivory tower Idealogue that has a proven track record of ONLY caring about the political Agenda of her Pimp and the furtherance of her "husband..I mean..President"
but that's just me...
Excelsior!
3 - SFC Ski
That's right, Gonzo, it is just you.
I think Ms. Rice is a good choice for SecState, able to put a softpower face on the hard power we have. I also think she is playing cards close to the vest, not a bad move in an atmosphere where every utterance is seen as telegraphing your next move.
Thanks for posting this Eric, I wouldn't have gotten around to it on my own.
4 - Big Time Patriot
Hmm, Pakistan was involved in the spread of nuclear technology to nations we consider "evil" (and still is indirectly at least by sheilding some of the guilty individuals). Pakistan has elections but their President takes anti-democratic steps since the last election.
So other than contradicting two of our stated foreign policy goals of supporting democracy and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, I guess Pakistan is great people aren't they?
Oh, I forgot that pesky harboring bin Laden thing, but what the heck, if George Bush is no longer worried about bin Laden, why should Pakistan be worried?
5 - JR
Tough call on Pakistan. The Right Thing To Do would probably be to impose sanctions against Pakistan's government until they became more democratic. Without our backing Musharraf is toppled by the more extremist factions, which eventually leads to war with India. After a short nuclear exchange, the war devolves into a conventional war with total casualties well into seven figures, at the end of which Pakistan is destroyed.
Good guys win, right?
6 - RJ
BTP:
Are you suggesting we should "liberate" a nuclear Pakistan?
Or that we should intentionally worsen relations with a country that is contributing to the war on terror?
Or are you just bitching about the fact that things aren't instantly perfect everywhere in the world?
7 - Dave Nalle
I believe he's saying that rather than enlisting the relatively open and benevolent quasi-dictatorship in Pakistan to help us find Osama bin Laden and help sort out other problems in the region, he'd like us to arrange to overthrow Pakistan's government, throw the region into chaos, make it really easy for Bin Laden to go wherever he wants, and throw away all the good credit we've earned in the region as quickly as possible.
Pakistan is the classic example of something I've talked about here a few times before. It's a country where a dictatorship is worth supporting and working with because the alternative would be much worse. Pakistan NEEDS a dictatorship. They're straddling the difficult line between a secular society and radical Islam. To hold that position you need strong, unquestioned leadership. And this is a benevolent dictatorship in a country with an educated population and a strong tradition of freedom. They have a free press, freedom of movement and association, property rights and most of the essential elements of a free society - they just don't really have democracy as we know it.
When picking governments to overthrow and countries to invade, benevolent dictatorships like Pakistan should NOT be on the top of our list. Just looking at that part of the world a few years ago, when your choices are between Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria - what order do you put the countries in. Well, let's put them in order of government oppression. That would be:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Syria
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Hmmm which ones have we invaded again, and in what order? And if we're going to do all this nation rebuilding, don't we want to draw a line and say those above this line need military intervention and those below the line just need a firm guiding hand - and maybe some bribes - to go in the right direction? Well right now I'd draw that line somewhere in middle of Iran.
We can't invade everyone, but if we're going to invade some let's make it the really bad ones and see what we can do to be a positive influence on the rest - only makes sense to me.
Dave
8 - Tom
Who does Condoleezza Rice date?