don't show this ad again
From the Autumn 2005 issue: A Conversation with Condoleeza Rice On July 25, 2005, AI editor Adam Garfinkle spoke with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her State Department office. Our purpose was to elicit from Secretary Rice a conceptual analysis of U.S. foreign policy and of the challenges the world now faces. We present the transcript of this conversation--with minor editorial clarifications--in full below.
--The Editors

AI: Madame Secretary, I've got ten questions for you today, and the first is this: We assumed during the Cold War that strong states were the source of most international security problems. Nowadays, a lot of people argue that weak and failing states are the larger source of problems, because they leave room for non-state bad guys to plot and plan. Do you think that's really true? And if it is true, is it a passing blip, or is this a real structural change in world politics that you sense?

Rice: Well, first of all, I do think it's true at this particular point in time. While there are strong states that have conflictual issues from time to time, there are no really underlying conflictual interests that would drive them to the kind of animosity that we had between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, for instance. And so if you look at most of the great powers out there, they actually have perhaps more in common than they have in conflict.

Now the really interesting question is: Will that last over time, or is this a sort of structurally epiphenomenal period after which you will see the re-emergence of great state conflict? I happen to think that because international politics is partly about agency, not just grand events moving or grand forces moving, that if we're smart about it we can probably get to a place where you would not see great power conflict for years, decades, maybe even longer to come. If you go back to the President's September 2002 National Security Strategy, it essentially foreshadows that, saying that you could come to a time where great power conflict doesn't exist and wouldn't exist again long into the future.

Now, the flipside of that is the weak state theory, which I think is clearly true for the time being: the inability of states to engage in what people have called "responsible sovereignty", to do things like guard their borders, to have police forces or border guards that are not corrupt, to manage their internal affairs in a way that does not permit the growth of terrorist cells and the like, the ability to manage trade and flows of people so that you don't get the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction...

Want to read more?
The full text of the article is for subscribers only. To continue reading it, please log in below:
Not a subscriber? Subscribe today for only $19!
This article appeared in:
Table of Contents
Please log in to unlock printing and access to PDFs.
Walter Russell Mead
Why Men Are “Going Galt”: A Review of Men On Strike by Masha Rifkin The perennial refrain is getting louder all the time: “Where have all the good men gone?” Media outlets brim with stories of ... Dr. Helen Smith on Where the Good Men Are, and Why They Left We interviewed Dr. Helen Smith on her new book, Men On Strike, and her views on the challenges men face as they navigate American societal, ... Through Blackmail and Extortion, Chinese Hold Officials in Line Sometimes the pictures are real, and other times creative criminals fake them using Photoshop. True or not, they can quickly bring down a Chinese bureaucrat’s ... King Coal Leaves America for Europe Thanks to the shale boom, US coal exports reached an all-time high last March. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) credits increased Asian demand—Chinese demand, in particular—with ...