Madame Secretary Goes to Washington

I recently attended Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's talk on "Transformational Diplomacy," which was held in  Gaston Hall. Rice discussed her new hopes and aspirations for the future generation of diplomats serving the United  States. Her overarching theme was international cooperation and the advocating of absolute gains in international negotiation. I found this especially relevant to Gilpin's book, in which he highlights the liberal view of focusing on absolute gains while still being attentive to relative gains of individual states. Rice repeatedly emphasized the importance of absolute gains in order to achieve a higher level of international cooperation. To work towards this goal, she offered several different strategies for future implementation. One that she particularly focused on was that of foreign assistance to poverty-stricken and conflict-ridden areas such as Darfur. In this she alluded to (but did not specificially name) the role of the IMF in pressing countries to establish democratic economic and political institutions. Gilpin, in Chapter Four of his book, refers to these institutions and norms as "regimes." He cites numerous criticisms of US-established regimes, among them being: neocolonialism, irresponsibility, and the "ploys" to reassure the American public of the stability of the American economy in relation to the international economy. Rice seemed to anticipate these potential sticky points and even engaged in constructive criticism of US policy, acknowledging US tendency to press regimes on other countries. She recognized the worldwide perception of US dominance and hegemony, but insisted firmly on pushing towards the establishment of democracies in developing countries, in spite of the possibility of diminishing US reputation (to which the guy in front of me began shaking his head angrily in obvious disapproval). Rice stated that in spite of unpopular US policies (Iraq, IMF policies, etc.), we are still a formidable nation and as such the US is respected and "revered" in international affiars. This I didn't necessarily agree with -- while it is true that we are still leading on military economic fronts, it is hard to say that we are "revered" by other countries. I can't speak to this, however, as it is sometimes hard to gauge anti-American sentiment.

Rice went on to describe past and current issues in US foreign affairs, which included use of the military to accomplish the international interests of the United States as well as the hastiness of the US to run into conflict when its needs aren't immediately being met. She called for increased training of diplomats, especially in Asian languages and culture, to be able to be "deployed into the field" and called for a change from past diplomacy, which I'll tentatively dub "armchair diplomacy." Rice's vision of new diplomats is true service, rather than leading a life of luxury; of course, she did not dismiss the importance of "armchair diplomats" in international diplomacy. She did emphasize, however, the need for aspiring diplomats to be ready to accompany military missions as well as serve in dangerous areas of the world.

Because I'm way over the word limit, I guess I'll sum up with a question that I have: Rice's vision of transformational diplomacy is solid and seems achievable; however, in the face of a new presidency, how will she/can she expect to put this new vision into practice?