Albright reflects on U.S., world

Trude B. Feldman

Saturday, Feb. 17, 2001 | 9:58 a.m.

On Jan. 20 Madeleine Korbel Albright, America's first female secretary of state, relinquished her reins of power to Gen. Colin L. Powell, the first black to hold the position.

A hard-driven diplomat with political acumen, Albright, in four years, visited 95 countries, covering about 1 million miles, more than any previous U.S. secretary of state.

Even though she is a commanding personality, being a woman in the world of diplomacy was an advantage and allowed her to add a special dimension to U.S. foreign policy.

"While I was humane," she said, "I was a candid and tough talker."

In an exclusive interview, Albright, who will now assume the chairmanship of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, revealed her greatest frustration: dealing with the Mideast powder keg. She also articulated her personal and professional views on other issues and summed up her eight years of leadership in foreign affairs.

Excerpts of the interview in Secretary Albright's State Department office:

Q: How would you sum up American diplomacy and foreign policy now after four years as secretary of state and four years as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations?

A: Basically, I hope I helped to create a structure here at the State Department that will allow it to do 21st-century diplomacy, and that the Bush administration will understand that 21st-century foreign policy and diplomacy is different from what it was eight years ago, and that it involves a host of subjects that before were not normal foreign policy issues.

Also that there are a lot more global issues that know no national boundaries, such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, HIV/AIDS, narcotics trafficking, refugees, trafficking in women and development issues that were kind of peripheral, and that are now central to what we do.

It used to be that everything was done through the prism of U.S. Soviet relations. Now, I have been to 95 countries because, in one way or another, they are all integral to having a world foreign policy.

U.S. responsibilities

Q: How do you see America's responsibilities as the only remaining superpower in the world? You once said that America is the indispensable nation. Do you still believe that, and how do you respond to charges from some foreign countries that that statement sounded arrogant?

A: What is clear to me in situation after situation is that America can make a difference. Where we act, others act with us. We should not try to do everything, but there are many more situations and circumstances where our interests are involved.

Q: What have been the miscalculations or misperceptions about the Middle East peace process?

A: There is one major misperception, and that is that the U.S. was setting the deadlines. The truth is that the timing came from the leaders in the region.

Primarily, (former Israeli) Prime Minister (Ehud) Barak was elected with a mandate to make peace, and he is one who has been interested in pushing forward the negotiations in the peace process. Another misperception is what President Clinton was attempting to accomplish and his reasons. He is tremendously capable; and because of his capacity to listen closely to both sides, he has been asked by the leaders in the Mideast as well as in Europe to continue his involvement.

The fact is that what Barak was doing was to use Clinton's credibility and popularity to help him achieve his (Barak's) own goals. It was not for the sake of building the President's legacy in history.

A defining issue

Q: What impact will peace or war in the Mideast have on your legacy?

A: Mideast issues are the job of the secretary of state. But in my case, what happened is that Mr. Barak did not use his foreign minister, David Levy. Mr. Barak wanted to have direct contact with President Clinton. So I worked with the president rather than having an individual role. My role as part of a team has been to move the peace process forward.

Also I often went to the Mideast and dealt with Arab officials and with the governments in Israel.

Q: In your estimation, who and what is the key to a solution at this juncture?

A: The issues that were discussed at the Camp David Summit last July have to be dealt with if the problems are to be solved. Those issues include territory, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem, and must be dealt with without sweeping them under the rug. It will take awhile to get there, but the key is always the same: the leaders themselves have to deal with these issues and make the hard decisions. The U.S. can help, and we can have a man like Bill Clinton who is knowledgeable. But it may be a long time before there is one who understands the issues as he does.

Q: In your discussions with Palestinian negotiators, you assume that an international force is a necessity for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement on the ground. Why do you believe that?

A: Because one of the discussions -- and this has been going on a long time -- is, there is a sense that as the Israelis would withdraw from the Jordan Valley and take over -- and the Palestinians would begin to take over, that an international force would be helpful in terms of making sure that things were going properly and act as kind of a combination observer force and a monitoring force.

And the truth is that the international community has been in favor of it and both parties actually have.

Q: At the final completion of negotiations, do you believe there will be a Palestinian state broadly accepted by Israel?

A: I believe that if there is actually a comprehensive agreement and the various parts of it have been worked out, that there would be a broad acceptance of it. But it has to emerge from an international agreement, because nobody -- not just the Israelis, but a large portion of the international community -- would not accept a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

Q: When the current upheaval is over, do you think Israelis and Palestinians will be able to trust each other, or to coexist?

A: Well, that is the hope. I mean, clearly it's more difficult after the Intifada and all the recriminations and things that have gone back and forth as a result of the violence. But my hope really is that if you watch the kids who have been part of the Seeds of Peace Program, the next generation, if not incited, could coexist. And ultimately that is the only solution.

Q: Generally to what extent does oil play a role in the Mideast equation?

A: Clearly, the issue of oil in the Middle East is very important, and it plays a role as we talk to the other Middle Eastern powers. But I have never seen this accusation of trade-off -- you know, oil for our principles. I obviously don't buy that. And the discussions of oil have not come up in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, but the context of the importance of the Middle East strategically because of oil can't be denied.

What of Iraq?

Q: If Saddam Hussein cuts off his oil, what will the U.S. do?

A: Well, first of all, we have already talked to a number of countries about using their spot oil reserves if Saddam Hussein were to cut off oil. I think at least when there was such a threat a few weeks ago, I had spoken on the phone to a lot of our allies, and people seemed to be prepared to be able to deal with whatever shortfall would come up as a result of that.

Q: How will the Bush administration strengthen the sanctions against Iraq?

A: They say they want to do that. And, frankly, I don't know, because one of the most difficult things that we have done is to maintain the sanctions regime longer than anybody ever expected, and quite successfully. But it has not been easy, because that original coalition has had many questions about the sanctions regime. And so I have to say that when I heard the new administration say they wanted to tighten the sanctions regime, I said I would be interested to know how they were planning to do that.

Q: Why do you hope that President Bush will keep our troops in the Balkans? What's the risk if the U.S. withdraws them?

A: Well, first of all, the Balkans story is a complicated one and clearly doesn't take place on the same schedule as our changes of administration. We have been very successful in the Balkans, and they were the missing piece of the puzzle about a Europe that was whole and undivided and free.

But the story is not complete. We are a small part of the numbers of troops that are in the Balkans. The Europeans are doing the lion's share of it, and I think it would be a big mistake to withdraw prematurely, because we are the ones that are helping to provide stability and are kind of the magnet for the other troops being there. But the Europeans have like 85 percent of the forces.

Q: Are you worried about the far right anti-immigration parties in Europe like the one headed by (Jorg) Haider?

A: Yes, definitely. I think there is a huge concern about a dislike of minorities in many of the European countries, and anti-immigration is one aspect of it. And I think that democracies have to obviously have immigration policies, and we have one. Ours is the most generous in the world. But I think everybody has to be very careful, especially in Europe, about not overreacting.

NATO membership

Q: At the next talks on NATO expansion, Poland wants at least one of the three Baltic countries admitted. Is that a good idea and why?

A: Well, we have said that we are for the open door on NATO, and the next summit is in Prague in 2002. All the countries that are aspirants have been given membership action plans that they have to follow. I met with all of the countries that wanted me -- when we were in Brussels -- they're called the Vilnius Nine. And I think that what has to happen is they need to be looked at on the basis of whether they have accomplished the tasks in this membership action plan and whether they are ready to take on the responsibilities.

Q: How has the power of globalization reshaped world economies?

A: Well, totally, because people are more and more interdependent. And it has affected trade, it has affected principles of human rights, it has affected international communication. But it also has what people call the dark side, and we have been concerned about making sure that a safety net is maintained for the populations who might be affected by international financial troubles.

Q: What difference have you made in diplomacy at the U.N. and at the State Department?

A: I made much more evident the partnership of the public in diplomacy and where that was necessary. I think I included more people in our diplomacy. I am especially proud of having brought ACDA (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency) and USIA (U.S. Information Agency) into the State Department in an organized way, thereby making arms control and nonproliferation essential to American foreign policy rather than just peripheral in U.S.-Soviet relationships or Russian relationships. And with USIA, I have shown the importance of public diplomacy.

As a role model

Q: Do you consider yourself a role model for young women like Chelsea Clinton, who has traveled with you to a number of foreign countries, and, from you, learned the art of diplomacy?

A: I like to think I am. Chelsea is a unique young woman, but she does represent a group of women who are outgoing, well-read and interested, and who want to make a difference. So I hope very much that I had an influence on her and women like her.

Q: If you had the past four years in the State Department to do again, what would you do differently -- in general and in the Mideast?

A: I would not do anything differently. I have worked as hard as possible and had taken the numerous issues very seriously.

As for the Mideast, there was not much I could have done differently, given the fact that Prime Minister Barak primarily wanted to work directly with President Clinton, who had been in detailed negotiations with him.

And I was not able to make the kind of difference there that I wanted to make. But I did make more of a difference in other parts of the world.

I was able to have more of an impact in the Balkans as well as on where we might be going with North Korea and in making sure that Latin America is front and center in foreign policy.

Q: Mexico is dependent on the U.S. for 80 percent of its exports. Are you concerned that a U.S. economic downturn would lead to a worsening of relations with Mexico?

A: Clearly, Mexico and the U.S. are more closely tied than ever. But since the implementation of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), Mexico, as well as the U.S., has benefited. The flexibility of our relations after NAFTA makes it easier for economics to adjust. (For his first trip, President Bush visited Mexico on Friday.)

Q: Finally, what would you most want to be remembered for?

A: I want my mark in history to be that I have made clear that democratization and democracy are the hallmark of the 21st century. I'm convinced that we can have a foreign policy that promotes our values and our interests at the same time.

archive