Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Foreign Policy and the Truth
The U.S. Secretary of State is America’s number one diplomat. In the months since Condoleezza Rice’s appointment, however, she seems to have placed a higher value on speaking the truth than on the traditional notion of “diplomacy,” which usually means letting key allies get away with violating the principles on which America was founded.
When Ms. Rice made her first visit to Russia, for example, she criticized Vladimir Putin for acquiring too much power and riding rough-shod over the very process of democracy. On a different trip, she balanced recognition of Musharaff’s contributions in Pakistan with the candid observation that he was resisting popular democratic reforms. Recently, she ruffled feathers in Saudi Arabia by explicitly naming that country as one of the key enablers of human slave trafficking. These are just a few surprisingly blunt statements of truth which the Secretary has made in public without regard to the sensitive feelings of nations on which the United States depends in key areas.
Thirty years ago Henry Kissinger coined the term “realpolitik.” In one word he captured the philosophy of statesmanship practiced by 99% of the nations of the world. Realpolitik means that principles take a distant second place to hard-headed, practical pursuit of a nation’s self-interest.
One of the ways President Bush has dismayed and infuriated many liberals has been his outright statements of faith and belief in “corny” principles. They equate this kind of talk with stupidity and dangerous incompetence, especially with respect to foreign affairs.
On a very fundamental level, Condoleezza Rice’s statements reflect the Bush administration’s conscious decision to elevate some principles above the practice of “realpolitik.” Bush and Rice may just believe that telling the truth and standing up publicly for freedom, democracy, and human rights is a better way to help our nation and the world in the long run than maintaining a “pragmatic” policy of silence in order to avoid ruffling sensitive feathers in the short run. After all, the long-run is always simply the connection of many short runs, and every administration will always be tempted to defer standing up for principle in order to avoid creating a “diplomatic problem.”
For example, Rice’s forthright statements about Putin surely didn’t make him happy. A fearful president would have censored Rice’s comments on the grounds that they would hardly reverse Putin’s march toward dictatorship, but they would surely make him less inclined to cooperate in the war on terror, containing North Korea’s nuclear threat, and so on. It’s easy to imagine that the advice from Rice’s own State Department bureaucracy was to go with “realpolitik” all the way. It’s also fairly clear that Rice’s predecessor Colin Powell followed that advice more often than not. What do Bush and Rice think they’ll gain from this departure from customary practice?
Maybe they’ve simply taken a look at history. The principles Democracy and freedom rarely take shape unless somebody stands up for them, even when it’s inconvenient or downright risky. When Pope John Paul II stood before hundreds of thousands of Poles and defended their freedom to worship, it triggered a tidal wave which eventually swept away communist dictatorships whose power and stability had been unquestioned. It did so simply because he inspired his countrymen to follow his example, to stand up for something worth suffering for.
What is the lesson to be learned from all this? People need leadership when it comes to taking on difficult and worthy tasks. When the world’s leaders fail to provide such leadership by practicing “realpolitik,” such worthy tasks don’t get done: people remain trapped in dictatorships, slave trafficking continues and terrorism prevails.
Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s willingness to speak the truth has been a breath of fresh air through the cynical corridors of diplomacy. We hope she keeps it up; in the long run America and the world will be better for it.
