Condoleezza Rice’s World View: The Perils of Isolationism and the Legacy of Primacy

Condoleezza Rice’s World View:

The Perils of Isolationism and the Legacy of Primacy

✍️ Author’s Note
From realist to idealist and back again — Condoleezza Rice’s foreign-policy vision reveals how America balances moral language with strategic fear. This reflection exposes the dangers of retreating from engagement while believing one still leads the world.

Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State from 2005 to 2009 and National Security Adviser from 2001 to 2005, played a pivotal role in shaping the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration—particularly in the lead-up to the Iraq War. This period marked the height of what Zbigniew Brzezinski described as “American Primacy,” a fleeting moment of unchallenged dominance that, according to him, lasted no more than two decades. On the eve of the Iraq invasion, President Bush declared, “America is the only model of human progress,” encapsulating the enduring narrative of American exceptionalism.

In her recent article, “The Perils of Isolationism: The World Still Needs America—and America Still Needs the World” (Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2024), Rice revisits the question: Where does America stand today? Confronting fears of global disengagement, she argues that retreating from international responsibilities would invite greater instability and risk. While she acknowledges the need to recalibrate U.S. engagement, her central thesis—that America remains indispensable to global order—continues the doctrinal line that has shaped U.S. policy since World War II.

A Call for Partnership, Not Primacy: Rice’s appeal for continued American leadership comes at a time when U.S. power is under strain: internally divided and externally overextended. The future cannot rest on the outdated premise of unilateral dominance. Rather than pursuing global primacy, the United States must adopt a foreign policy grounded in humility and partnership.

While Rice frames the U.S. as a beacon of democracy and capitalism, America must first confront its own internal crises—deepening inequality, political fragmentation, and institutional erosion. Promoting human dignity abroad is admirable, but sustainable foreign policy requires a balance between moral aspiration and pragmatic interest. A deeper sensitivity to the cultural and historical realities of other societies is essential for building a more respectful and effective international presence.

A 20th-Century Mindset in a 21st-Century World: Rice’s strategic worldview remains anchored in the mindset of 20th-century American primacy—an era shaped by Cold War bipolarity and post-Soviet triumphalism. Yet today, a loosely aligned bloc comprising China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea challenges that dominance—not through ideology, but through shared resistance to U.S. influence.

Her disappointment at China’s rise and refusal to embrace Western-style liberalism reveals a common miscalculation: the assumption that economic engagement would naturally lead to political convergence. This reflects a Western hubris that overlooks China’s 5,000 years of civilizational confidence, and the assumption that others must follow the U.S.’s 200-year path to modernity.

Her continued hard line on Iran and reluctance to revisit frozen assets also reflects the hold of Cold War-era assumptions—namely, that adversarial containment remains the default logic of strategy.

Old Tactics, New Risks: Since the Trump administration, U.S. foreign policy has leaned heavily into Cold War-style tactics: decoupling, massive defence spending, and strategic containment. But the world today is more interdependent—and fragmented—than during the Cold War. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into global markets, making isolationism both impractical and dangerous.

Rice concedes that halting China’s rise is impossible, even as she argues for greater investment to slow its trajectory. This tacit admission reveals the limits of American leverage in a truly multipolar world. Her emphasis on alliances, readiness, and economic competition may offer continuity, but it also risks escalating geopolitical tensions—particularly with China and Russia.

The Return of the Thucydides Trap? While Rice frames the current era as even more perilous than the Cold War—with non-traditional threats like cyberwarfare, disinformation, and AI—her broader diagnosis remains familiar: the need to prevent authoritarianism from gaining ground. Yet this framing risks drawing the U.S. into a Thucydides Trap—where rivalry with China or Russia becomes a self-fulfilling path to conflict.

Her vision, though coherent, could lock the U.S. into another cycle of confrontation. Endless interventions, proxy wars, and militarized competition may once again replace diplomacy and global cooperation.

Toward a Multipolar Diplomacy: To meet today’s challenges—climate change, pandemics, AI governance, nuclear proliferation—the world requires collaboration, not confrontation. Global leadership today must mean primus inter pares—first among equals—not primus solus. Rather than framing competition as a zero-sum contest, the U.S. should help cultivate systems of mutual survival and shared responsibility.

This shift also demands reform of global governance institutions. Rice alludes to the erosion of national sovereignty and institutional imbalance but stops short of proposing meaningful change. Bodies like the U.N., still structured around post-1945 power dynamics, must evolve to reflect today’s geopolitical realities. Without such reform, the credibility of international order will continue to fray.

Conclusion

Rice’s article offers a window into the persistent mindset of postwar American leadership—a worldview that resists adaptation in a rapidly changing world. While she correctly identifies the dangers of U.S. disengagement, her solution—a reassertion of American indispensability—fails to reckon with the world as it is: plural, contested, and increasingly post-Western.

To navigate the coming decades, the United States must align its ideals with its conduct. That means embracing humility, rediscovering diplomacy, and acknowledging that global leadership today is not about dominance—but shared stewardship in the face of existential threats.

Netherlands, WJJH, October 2024

📌 Blog Excerpt

Can America still lead the world without repeating the mistakes of the past? In her recent essay, Condoleezza Rice defends American global leadership—but does her worldview still fit a fragmented, multipolar age? This post revisits the legacy of primacy, the risks of confrontation, and the urgent need for humility in U.S. foreign policy.

Condoleezza Rice: The Perils of Isolationism (foreignaffairs.com)