Madeleine Albright

WASHINGTON —  For the past four years, Madeleine Korbel Albright has reigned as the most powerful woman in U.S. history--and, arguably, in today’s world. The first female secretary of State has covered almost 1 million miles traveling to 91 countries, some of them several times, to contain the world’s last dictators, negotiate peace, deepen alliances and promote democracy.

Born in Prague in 1937, Albright and her family fled both Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin as each pushed into Czechoslovakia during World War II. In 1949, the Korbels ended up in Denver, where her father, a former diplomat, taught political science.

After graduating from Wellesley College and then Columbia University, Albright rose through the ranks of the Democratic Party as advisor to presidential candidates Edmund S. Muskie, Walter F. Mondale, Michael S. Dukakis and Bill Clinton. Along the way, she worked on the National Security Council during the Carter administration, taught at Georgetown University’s school of Foreign Service and headed the Center for National Policy, a Washington think tank.

Albright’s big break was her appointment, in 1993, as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, where she became known for blistering attacks against Baghdad and Belgrade, big brooches selected to match her political messages and dancing the macarena with Botswana’s U.N. ambassador on the Security Council floor.

Her four years at the State Department have been controversial. Supporters feel she’s displayed guts in reorganizing the department to accommodate a globalizing world, trying to end deadlocks with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms and taking difficult stands, most notably prodding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into its first military engagement in a half century.

Critics charge that her bluntness and moralism alienated allies and subordinates, that her thin skin and insecurities made her unwilling to accommodate criticism, and that she failed to provide the kind of leadership at the State Department that she did at the United Nations.

As the Kosovo crisis raged, Peter F. Krogh, the former Georgetown University dean who hired her in 1982, complained in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece about “a foreign policy of sermons and sanctimony.”

In an interview in her seventh-floor suite of offices, which offer a spectacular view of the Potomac, Albright was sanguine about her legacy.

*

Question: Looking back, what were the high points of this administration in foreign policy?

Answer: The one that stands out the most was the Bosnia-Kosovo complex of issues in the Balkans. I believed it was very important to put the missing last piece of the puzzle into a Europe that was whole and free. It’s not over. It’s a story that was long in coming, and it’s going to be long in being solved. Also, a part of that whole and free Europe is the expansion of NATO. The three new countries have been positive contributors and helped create a sense of cohesion within Europe.

We leave America in 2001 safer. Russia has deactivated 5,000-plus nuclear weapons. We dealt with a lot of the nuclear threat of North Korea, and we’re now trying to see whether we can do something about its missile threat.

We’ve left America more prosperous. It’s amazing that we got over the [1997] Asian financial crisis; international institutions are working; and more free-trade agreements are on the way. So we are much more a part of the global economy.

We put Africa policy on the map. We’ve created more focus on the issue of HIV-AIDS by making clear it isn’t just a health issue but also a national-security issue.

A high point for me has been the support of democracy. At the “community of democracies” meeting in Warsaw last summer, more than 100 countries signed the Warsaw Declaration and created a structure in which democracies can get together. They will get together in 2002 in Seoul. There is the beginning of a democracy caucus at the United Nations.

We’ve made women’s issues central to foreign policy, not because I’m a woman, but because when more than half of the [world’s] population is female, [having them] part of the political and economic process helps stability.

Q: What were the administration’s low points?

A: I wish we’d been able to accomplish more on the Middle East peace process. It’s possible now--there’s a new momentum. I wish we could have gone further in terms of our relationship with the Iranians. Because they are going through their own changes with such difficulties, it’s hard for us to plug into it.

I’m sorry I have not been around to witness a change in Cuba. The people in Cuba deserve to have the kind of possibilities that countries that shucked communism have.

The lowest point of all was the bombing of the [two U.S.] embassies [in Africa]. Going to see the bombed-out buildings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam was very hard. The hardest thing I’ve ever done was to bring those coffins home.

Q: The biggest foreign-policy test of your tenure was Kosovo. Critics contend the U.S. underestimated the staying power of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Are there things, looking back, you’d do differently?

A: Milosevic is gone. [Serbia] is having [parliamentary] elections this weekend. People misunderstood. A lot of people said [Kosovo] is like Vietnam and would go on for years. I didn’t think it would, and it hasn’t. But it doesn’t mean the story is over, because there’s an awful lot of work that needs to be done to undo the misrule first, of the communists and then Milosevic.

I had a sense--and it turns out to be right--that Milosevic would ultimately be driven out because the Serb people are actually very smart, and they don’t want to be isolated from the world.

Q: What are the lessons from the Yugoslavia experience?

A: I happen to think that humanitarian suffering, because Americans are a compassionate people, turns out to be [an issue] in the national interest. When children’s hands or limbs are chopped off, I think Americans don’t like that.

A lot of people after the Vietnam War didn’t want Americans to be involved anywhere. I’m not of that generation. I believe in the goodness of American power, not just military power; our engagement is something that is usually positive. So the lesson to me is, in the Balkans, from 1990 to 1991, [the attitude] was “let the Europeans do it”--and they didn’t do it. When the U.S. gets involved and leads, then others join it. [With] things that are of importance, we can’t just wait. Obviously, President Clinton and I have followed a much more activist and engaged American foreign policy.

Q: What do you think will happen to the two rogues you had to deal with--Milosevic and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein?

A: On Milosevic, the war crimes tribunal has no statute of limitations and his time will come. On Saddam, he will continue to be contained in a way that will keep him from being a threat to the region. Even though there are parts of the sanctions regime that are pretty hard to maintain, interestingly enough, they have been maintained. They’re the longest-running sanctions regime. But he’s clearly hung on a lot longer than anyone would have liked. He was left for us, and so we pass him on.

Q: What do you think your legacy will be? When you took the job in 1997, Newsweek ran a cover story titled “Mad About Madeleine.” This year, the Washington Post ran a piece saying that you had “not measured up to the high--and perhaps unrealistic--expectations.”

A: It was impossible to live up to the idea that I would singlehandedly change the world. I was a different kind of secretary of State, and we have a different kind of secretary of State coming in. There’s always this great sense that whoever sits here can automatically change everything. I didn’t buy the initial stories, and I don’t buy the subsequent stories.

Q: What do you think the new administration must deal with urgently in its first few months?

A: While there are statements made during campaigns, ultimately, what is so brilliant about the United States is that there is a continuum in foreign policy. When the Clinton administration came in, it had a [START II accord], which had been negotiated by the Bush administration, and [the North American Free Trade Agreement], also negotiated by it. And then we put [them] into place and got things ratified. Foreign policy doesn’t come in four-year segments.

Obviously, the Middle East is going to continue to be of major importance; our relationship with Russia is going through its own changes; relations with China; massive changes on the Korean peninsula; our relations with Japan continue to be essential to the way we exist; the whole shift in Europe in terms of how it deals with NATO; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is really the biggest threat for our nation.

Q: How real are the dangers of a major conflict between India and Pakistan?

A: We have said that it was one of most dangerous places in the world. At the moment, there’s some respite, but it continues to be a great source of trouble. I would hope they would figure out some way to have a dialogue. That is really something the next generation is going to have to deal with.

Q: This week, the U.N. passed new sanctions against Afghanistan’s Taliban because of its support of Osama bin Laden, who is linked to several terrorist attacks against the United States, including the African embassy bombings. Realistically, what are the chances that Bin Laden will be brought to justice?

A: He clearly is viewed as one of the major threats to the way the rest of the world operates. More and more it’s evident that he’s not just a threat to Americans but to a way of life. It’s going to take a concerted effort by a number of countries to lessen the space [in which] he can operate. But it’s very hard to give you a precise answer. It’s one of the big problems out there that has to be dealt with.

Q: Any words of wisdom or advice for Colin Powell, your successor?

A: We’ve known each other a long time and have friendly relations. He came over last Sunday for three hours, and we had lunch Tuesday. It’s truly remarkable that the first female secretary of State is being followed by the first African American. We have a lot of the same ideas about strengthening the foreign service and reaching out to various minority groups. In different ways, we have a similar story: We’re people who were never supposed to be here, and people who worked hard and did our best for the United States.

Q: You’re the most powerful woman in American history. But you remain in a distinct minority, as the numbers of women in politically powerful positions worldwide have not increased significantly over the past decade. Why?

A: When I started, there were seven [women] foreign ministers. Now there are about 14. There are tremendous prejudices against women. Women have to work twice as hard and run twice as fast. I’ve had to prove myself every single day.

In some countries, women can’t vote. So it’s a constant battle. As women get into various economic roles and into parliaments, we do a very good job because we do work so hard. But I am disappointed about how hard it is.

Q: What are you going to do next? Did you ever give a moment of thought to Vaclav Havel’s suggestion--twice over the past two years--that you run for president of the Czech Republic, the land of your birth, to succeed him?

A: No, I was honored by his suggestion, but I never gave it serious thought. I’m going to write at least one book. I am going to continue to be very involved in the democratization push. It’s something that’s been very much a part of my life.

I believe that I’ve struck a pretty good note with the American people; they see me as an approachable person. I love more than anything walking down any street, anywhere, and having people shout “Hey, Madeleine” or “How’re you doing?” or “good job.” What’s been so much fun is that kids in schools have learned geography through travels with Madeleine. I want to continue the dialogue with the American people so that there’s a sense that foreign policy is not foreign. It’s very much a part of life. *