Posted on 03/16/2006 6:41:19 PM PST by blam
Rice doctrine advocates 'soft power' to defend US
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 17/03/2006)
The long-awaited new United States national security strategy unveiled yesterday will almost certainly come to be known as the Condoleezza Rice doctrine.
It is assertive yet nuanced, reflecting the shift in US foreign policy since she became secretary of state last year.
Condoleezza Rice on board the Port Royal
The 49-page document pays homage to its revolutionary September 2002 predecessor which unveiled to a wary world Washington's new- found belief in pre-emption and the abandonment of America's Cold War policy of deterrence.
It has a bleak and dramatic opening: "America is at war. This is a wartime national security strategy required by the grave challenge we face..."
Despite the nightmarish problems facing US troops in Iraq, pre-emption, it makes clear, remains very much an important part of America's strategy. Iran, in particular, is given a stern warning that if diplomacy fails it risks facing Washington's wrath.
But the tone of yesterday's statement is more measured and even multilateral than its predecessor. It is unmistakeably the work of Ms Rice, who appears to have wrested control of foreign policy from the outspoken hawks who dominated President George W Bush's first term.
Three and half years ago, with America still suffused in anger and a desire for revenge following the September 11 attacks, diplomacy was barely mentioned and instead the Bush administration all but dared the rest of the world to defy it.
To defeat the threat of terrorism, America would use "every tool in our arsenal - military power, better homeland defences, law enforcement, intelligence and vigorous efforts. . .", the 2002 strategy said. "It was time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength."
Now, however, America has made clear that it wants to make use of a much more varied set of tools. The use of the imperial bludgeon has not been disavowed, but henceforth "soft power", the use of economic, cultural and diplomatic blandishments will be to the fore.
"In the cause of ending tyranny and promoting effective democracy we will employ the full array of political, economic, diplomatic and other tools at our disposal," runs the introduction to a chapter entitled "How we will advance freedom".
The overarching theme is spreading democracy rather than the more confrontational 2002 vision of facing down rogue states. Also for every reference to the possible use of force there is a balancing sentence stressing that military action should be a very last resort and that diplomacy is to be attempted and preferred if at all possible.
"Taking action need not involve military force," the new document says under a sub-section "The Need for Action".
"Our strong preference and common practice is to address proliferation concerns through international diplomacy in concert with key allies and regional partners."
The document was unveiled by Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, but there is no doubt that its principal author was his predecessor, Ms Rice.
Ms Rice is no dove. She remains a forceful advocate of the mission in Iraq and while she has embraced a multilateral approach to Teheran, she has made clear it is time to be more confrontational.
But, as one of her assistants said, she believes that diplomacy if used as a means rather than an end in itself is vital to US interests.
Doesn't sound "softer" to me.
I like it.
It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. In the world today, the fundamental character of regimes matters as much as the distribution of power among them. The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. This is the best way to provide enduring security for the American people.
Achieving this goal is the work of generations. The United States is in the early years of a long struggle, similar to what our country faced in the early years of the Cold War. The 20th century witnessed the triumph of freedom over the threats of fascism and communism. Yet a new totalitarian ideology now threatens, an ideology grounded not in secular philosophy but in the perversion of a proud religion. Its content may be different from the ideologies of the last century, but its means are similar: intolerance, murder, terror, enslavement, and repression.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
Yup. When I saw the title, I thought ah shite.
Psst. This was also the philosophy back in 2001. They can pretend it's changed under Rice, but it's the same as it was.
I love Condi, but George Bush has always advocated diplomacy before military action.
Might be she believes some of these other techniques might in some circumstances actually be more powerful and longer lasting than military action. Could be.
She's got that vision thang.
The most important trait in an executive.
I have moved her marker up a notch on the Presidential aspirant pile.
Shes right, and not a change from what we have been doing.
Utter garbage. What in the sam hill has happened to The UK Telegraph?? This is the third article reeking of unfounded liberal-ese reporting that I've read in a week. I also think they canceled Mark Steyn's column. Has there been a management change? It used to be a reasonably reliable paper out of Britain, I'll hate to not be able to trust it any longer.
Bump a resolute Sec. Rice and President Bush.
Those of you rationalizing this as good news, who did you vote for in 2004?
Don't kid yourself, this would be the Kerry foreign policy.
The tool that always end up working for us -- when we have had success -- is that most sacred one called by George Waashington "Providence".
"Condi would be great, for 2008!"
Close to a slogan. A little more meter.
I like it too.
Now if only we could get her to run...
Can't blame her if she doesn't want the thankless job.
I don't think so. She seems to be just another CFR minion. The administration is packed with them. Seems to me there are way too many political oportunists in that organization whose primary ambition seems to be promoting international socialism and becoming one of it's administrators.
Based on what?
Btw, your opinion doesn't count.
Condis great 2008?
I fail to see what is "new" about this "policy." It was basically the same one used by everybody from Carter onwards, and it got us to where we are now: our enemies multiplied and stronger, conflicts all over the globe, and a threat (Islam) that we have either allowed or encouraged to grow, watered by our own money. GWB's foray into military power was one brief break with this policy; it seems to have knocked back the most aggressive enemies - but only momentarily, and now that they see they have nothing to fear, they're coming back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.