|
Madeleine Albright
Former U.S. Secretary of State
I'm very, very pleased to be back at The Commonwealth Club, now in your 101st year. I remember well my visit in 1997 as secretary of state. I gave a speech about Hong Kong and was asked about every aspect of American foreign policy, from human rights in China to the economic embargo against Cuba. Now that I'm out of office, I may actually be able to answer those questions. This Club is a bastion of free speech, but as a secretary of state who speaks too freely, you can often get into trouble. Although I tried as much as possible to tell it like it was, there were times when the choice I faced seemed to boil down to saying absolutely nothing very briefly or saying absolutely nothing at great length. Now I'm liberated and able to speak my mind, though I naturally still do so in a very diplomatic way.
I'm also liberated from my computer, having finally finished my memoir, Madame Secretary, and I'm excited and relieved that the book is done. It was a much harder job than I had expected - sort of like a pregnancy that lasted two and a half years. And I learned a lot about others and myself in the process; I also learned a lot about the publishing industry and the business of promoting your books. My first experience, actually, was at a booksellers convention some months ago in Arizona. I was really excited about the opportunity of talking to people who had come a long way just to hear about my book, and I wanted the mood to be just right. And then I looked at the program, and I found that I was preceded in this exercise by the author of a volume entitled Time to Pee!, a comprehensive manual on the art of potty training. As I listened to the author, I kept trying to think about segues, and I concluded, in fact, that there were many similarities between managing world affairs and negotiating with two-year-olds - the major difference being the magnitude of the consequences when the inevitable mistakes happen.
More recently, I was signing my book at a very wonderful bookstore in London, and a very dapper gentleman came in and asked me to inscribe the book to Gerard Fitzgerald, my sworn enemy. And I said, "Fine." I'm writing it, and I said, "Well, who exactly is Gerard Fitzgerald?" And he said, "Well, I am." And I said, "Well, why exactly are you buying my book? And why are you my sworn enemy?" And he said, "Because I disagree with absolutely everything you stand for, and I think you're a horrible person." I said, "So why are you going to read my book?" He replied, "I said you were a horrible person, not dull. You're like one of those reality shows on television - perfectly dreadful, but strangely entertaining." So that either has to be the worst compliment or the nicest insult that I've ever gotten.
People ask me now what my main concern was when writing the book, and my answer was that I really did want to make it timely. I obviously did have to write about the past, but I didn't want people to think of me as an outdated carton of milk. I say in the last paragraph of the book, when I'm asked how I want to be remembered, "I don't want to be remembered; I am still here." I spend most of my time, looking forward, not back, which brings me to the substance of what I'd like to talk to you about this afternoon.
This is, as you may have heard, an election year. Which means that in Washington 100 percent of everything is political - and this compares to 95 percent in all other years. Gearing up for the fall, President Bush is understandably attempting to show his record in the best possible light, while the Democratic candidates are trying to do just the opposite. In the process, we are presented with two contrasting visions of where America now stands in the world. According to one view, all is proceeding according to plan: the good guys are confident, the bad guys are on the run, and our leaders are strong, smart and getting results. In the other view: everything is going wrong; the good guys are divided; the bad guys are on the march; and all the administration can think to talk about is steroids, marriage and Mars. The truth, of course, is much more complex. We are certainly moving, but, as the Red Queen says in Alice in Wonderland, Sometimes it takes all the running we can do just to stay in the same place.
Consider, for example, our confrontation with international terror. The Bush administration deserves our support, and that of law-abiding people everywhere, in opposing Al Qaeda and other groups that willfully murder innocent people in pursuit of political goals. The terrorists, of course, will tell you that their cause is just. They claim that America is anti-Islam and anti-Arab, that we're intent on monopolizing the world's oil and anxious to exploit the world's poor. There's a diplomatic word for that: balderdash. Osama bin Laden and his ilk are out to corner the market in destruction and hate, and they will fill innocent young minds with poison. They spew lies, while claiming sole ownership of the truth. They pervert the teaching of one of the world's great religions, and they're trying to frighten America into withdrawing into our responsibilities, betraying our allies and retreating from the world. They're going to have a very, very long wait. America's resolve is not in doubt, and neither is our unity in battling terror.
We do, however, have a great deal of work still to do. Osama bin Laden and many of his top associates remain at large, actively stirring the pot. Al Qaeda operatives have carried out attacks in half a dozen countries, and new threats are received daily. In a State of the Union address, President Bush tried to quantify our progress by saying that two thirds of the known leaders of Al Qaeda have been captured or killed. But in a memo last fall, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted that we don't really know where we stand, because we have no way of knowing whether we are catching more terrorists than are being recruited and trained. Rumsfeld asks in his memo whether there is a case of "the harder we work, the behinder we get."
And that certainly seems to be the situation in Afghanistan. The president is right to take credit for ousting the Taliban, but three years later, attacks on civilians in that country are on the increase; heroin poppy production has risen 1,800 percent, and both the Taliban and Al Qaeda are making a comeback. Clearly, the fanaticism that exploded on September 11th did not arise overnight and will not go away soon. Like the foundations of communism, it must be made to crumble as its central fallacies are exposed, its leaders discredited and its foot soldiers defeated. As during the Cold War, America will do best if our alliances are strong, our example of democratic leadership is unblemished, our commitment to peace is understood and our courage in opposing those who murder innocent people is unquestioned.
Meanwhile, we also have to find a solution to the situation in Iraq. People ask me all the time whether I was for or against the war. The answer is that I had serious questions about the timing, because I didn't want anything to distract from the fight against Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. It was, after all, they, not the Iraqis, who had attacked America. And I was concerned about the risks of starting a second war before the first one was won, and at the same time, I fully shared the administration's desire to help Saddam Hussein make a permanent career move. In eight years as UN ambassador and secretary of state, I probably made more speeches than any other American denouncing the failure of the Iraqi regime to meet its legal obligations. In fact, I was picketed constantly because of my effort to prevent business as usual with Saddam Hussein. And when Saddam complained about the treatment he was receiving, I said he reminded me of the schoolboy who arrived home one day with his face bruised and his clothes torn. And his mother asked him how the fight started; he answered, It started when the other guy hit me back.
Today Mr. Hussein is a prisoner of war, and that is indeed good news. The bad news is that the transition to a democratic and stable Iraq has been far more dangerous, costly and difficult than the administration had predicted. A big reason is that Iraq has always been a divided nation. It was not brought together until 1920, when the British created it out of what had previously been three separate provinces, one Kurdish and two Arab, with the Arabs split between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. For the Iraqi transition to succeed, the three factions must submerge their rivalries in service to the common good. The major wrangle now concerns the U.S. plans to install an interim government by June 30th. The White House has wanted that government to be selected through regional caucuses, sort of like an Iraqi version of what we saw last month in Iowa (although without the dramatic concession speeches). But the Iraqi Shiites want the new government chosen through open elections, and that is because they have most of the votes. That is also why the Kurds and Sunnis prefer the caucus approach, except that the Kurds want to control the northern oil fields and be able to retain their own armies. The other factions are not happy with either of those demands, and neither is the United States. President Bush made it clear from the outset that he wanted to be the one who decided what happened in Iraq. But he is not getting his wish. He has been forced to go the United Nations for help in trying to persuade the Shiites that the elections are premature. And he has had to go to our allies and to Arab countries for help in easing Iraq's foreign debt. And he depends upon the goodwill of the local factions, any one of which could trigger a civil war.
Abraham Lincoln said once that the secret to effective leadership is not to give anyone everything they wanted, but to give everybody more than they could get from anyone else. That is the balancing act we now face in Iraq. The Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites cannot truly expect to get everything they want, but each must have the confidence that they will get more by cooperating than by obstructing.
Despite the many setbacks, I believe that we will eventually succeed in helping Iraq to become reasonably democratic, moderately stable and more or less united. My optimism is based less on military power than on the power of democratic ideals. Because while the extremists are peddling tyranny, poverty and terror, we are selling liberty, prosperity and peace. And, given the chance, most Iraqis will make the right choice, but success will not come inevitably or easily, cheaply or soon. Election year or not, we must stay the course. Because although the war in Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity, winning the peace is a necessity, not a choice.
One way to improve the odds in Iraq is to change the equation in the Middle East. A decade has passed since Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn. During his years in office, President Clinton exhausted himself and everyone around him trying to build on that handshake and bring into being a new and stable Middle East. He didn't succeed, and some faulted him for trying too hard. Given what we've seen since, I don't believe it's possible to have tried too hard. During my years as secretary of state, there were half a dozen suicide bombings on Israeli soil, and each one was an occasion for shock, capturing the world's sympathy as families mourned and victims were buried. And I thought it was horrible. But it was nothing compared to the anguish we have felt since, as the obscene has become routine, and new bombings and killings are reported nearly every week. Many people say now that there is no hope and that the Israelis and Palestinians can never live together unless one side is crushed or the other pushed into the sea. I don't believe that. And we should not accept it, because there is nothing inevitable about murder and mayhem in the Middle East. To seize the sword instead of the olive branch - that's a choice. To teach children to hate is a choice. To glorify murderers as martyrs is a choice. To dehumanize and disrespect the dignity of others is a choice. These are all choices. And while people have the capacity to choose, they have the ability to change. We can't make the choices for those who live in the Middle East, but we can try to persuade both sides that the only way out of the mess they're in is to think clearly about how they got there in the first place. If the Palestinians had firmly and decisively rejected terror when the peace process began, they would have their state today, and they would have their seat in the United Nations and their airport and the ability to travel freely and reason to look forward to the future with hope. Nothing has done more to discredit Palestinian aspirations than terror. At the same time, nothing has done more to fuel Palestinian terrorism than Israel's decision to continue building and expanding settlements in areas previously inhabited by Arabs.
I look forward to how Prime Minister Sharon's suggestions on evacuating the settlements in the Gaza will work, but it has been a long time in coming, and we don't know the results, because the truth is we are witnessing a massive failure of leadership in the Middle East. Unlike Yitzhak Rabin and Jordan's late King Hussein, there are no regional leaders with stature who understand that current modes of thinking on both sides have to change - not to benefit one or the other, but to realize the core aspirations of both.
The general shape of a possible peace between Israel and the Palestinians is no mystery. It is contained in the famous Middle East "road map" that has never really been taken out of the glove compartment. And it is similar to the offer made by Israel to the Palestinians three years ago. There can be no solution for either side through violence, and there will be no progress towards a solution without the active, creative and persistent involvement of the United States. A few high-level visits and a couple of speeches are not enough. Our leaders must work with both sides on a daily basis to turn the killing grounds into common ground, to halt the shooting and resume the talking, because we are the only ones who can, because it's in our interest, and because it reflects the kind of people that we are, and because it's just plain right.
Today America is at the height of our power. We have a president who is determined to assert and use that power, and yet, if you look around the world, you have to wonder just how much control over events we actually have. In Iraq, we are dependent on the UN, our allies and various internal factions. In fighting terror, we rely heavily on the help of two individuals - the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan, both of whom have recently been the target of assassination attempts. In Asia, we are counting on - of all nations - China to put pressure on North Korea not to build nuclear weapons. Economically, we depend increasingly on the willingness of Tokyo and Beijing to purchase our skyrocketing debt. And in Europe, when I was secretary of state and for the previous 50 years, the U.S. met regularly with France, Germany and England in a group known as the Quad. Now it's a trio as the prime ministers from Paris, Berlin and London get together increasingly to coordinate their policies without us.
The issue obviously is not whether America is strong. The issue is whether we have been using our strength in a smart way. Have we been careful to preserve a balance between our ambition and our capabilities? Have we made use of all the foreign-policy tools that are available, or relied too heavily on the blunt instrument of force? Have we preserved our credibility by being honest about our intentions, careful with the facts, and willing, when necessary, to admit mistakes? Above all, have we understood that if we want other people to care about the dangers that threaten us, we need to be concerned about the problems that threaten them? After all, poverty, disease and ignorance kill many more people each year than terrorists and do much more to cause suffering and extinguish hope.
Although I don't agree with all the decisions they've made, I do have much personal sympathy for our leaders. I know that managing U.S. foreign policy is hard, the responsibilities endless and the spotlight sometimes quite harsh. When I was in office, I had a lot of really good days, but there were also times I faced a lot of criticism, and I was accused of being indifferent to the human impact of Iraq's sanctions, and people threw stones at me in the Balkans, and most everyone in the media thought that they could do my job better than I could. And when our campaign to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo began badly, first because of the weather, and then because we accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy, everyone started calling it "Madeleine's war." That was not supposed to be flattering. This was about the time that I started telling friends that the reason I looked fatter was that I had grown a thicker skin. After a while, you learn to cope, and there's no question that I loved my job, and when my time was up I thought they'd have to drag me out. It was an incredible honor to fly into capitals around the world on an airplane that read "The United States of America." As you know, I wasn't born in this country. Because of my parents' love for democracy, we came to America after having been driven twice from our home in Czechoslovakia, first by Hitler and then by Stalin. Because of this nation's kindness, we were given refuge, and I had the opportunity to live my life among the most generous and courageous people on earth. Ultimately, I was given the chance to serve in the world's best job. And for that I will always be grateful to President Clinton, who named me; to the country that welcomed me; and to the citizens I was so very proud to represent. And now in my current capacity as a liberated private citizen, I want to thank you again very much for the invitation to be here and speak to you.
Marwan Muasher
Arianna Huffington
Ben Stein