CHAPTER ONE: How to Think About International Relations

Using the Perspectives

Condoleezza Rice's politics suffer from an institutional "blind spot," according to Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby. In an op-ed piece written in January 2006, Mallaby examined the transformation that Rice's rhetoric and policies had taken since the beginning of her involvement with the Bush administration.

In 2000, while Bush was still campaigning for his first presidential election, Rice laid out her foreign policy manifesto: "American diplomacy should 'focus on power relationships and great-power politics' rather than on other countries' internal affairs."

1.  From what level of analysis and perspective does Rice's initial approach come? How can you tell?
     

However, Mallaby identifies a certain transformation in Rice's policies from 2000 to 2006:

"Rice gave two speeches last week calling for 'transformational diplomacy,' meaning diplomacy that will transform undemocratic societies: The internal affairs of other countries turn out to be important after all. 'The greatest threats now emerge more within states than between them,' she said . . . 'The fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the international distribution of power. In this world it is impossible to draw neat, clear lines between our security interests, our development efforts and our democratic ideals."

2.  What level of analysis and perspective does Rice apply in this instance? What terms or phrase in the quote best captures her      approach, and why?
     

But Mallaby has more to say on that matter. While he admits that Rice's new position is more satisfying than her original beliefs, he argues that it is still outdated. "She's only half-acknowledging the next question," he writes. "Yes, weak and autocratic states are a problem, but can we do anything about them?"

In response to his own query, Mallaby isn't particularly optimistic. Citing work by Francis Fukuyama, he goes on to argue that the ambitions of the Iraq war were untenable because the U.S. does not have the capacity to create a democratic Iraq. "The United States lacks the instruments to transform other societies . . . to build nations you must first build institutions, and nobody knows how to do that."

3.  From what perspective does Mallaby ultimately critique Rice? How do you know?
     

4.  Do you agree with Mallaby's critique of Rice? Why or why not?
     

Sebastian Mallaby, "Rice's Blind Spot," Washington Post, January, 23, 2006