Albright's Call for Militant Moderation

Former Secretary of State Albright Addresses the America in the World Conference

June 12, 2007

Thank you.  Thank you.  It’s wonderful to be with all of you this morning, and it’s especially nice to be introduced by Mort, who was head of policy planning and was behind so many of the successful policies, and to be with so many good friends this morning.  Thank you very much, Mort.  I also want to thank my good friends, John Podesta and Dick Leone, and everyone else who has been involved in helping to put this conference together.  You are the ones that really deserve all the applause.

Our assignment today is nothing less than to forge a new vision for American leadership in the 21st century.  Fortunately, as John has described, the participants in our panels are brilliant, and by 5:00 everything that needs to be said will have been said, and all the next president has to do is to read the transcript.  And if I know John Podesta, she probably will.  (Laughter.)  All right, to be politically correct, she or he probably will.  For my part, I will try to set the stage and offer a few general principles to guide us.

The first of these principles is that we need to see the world as it is, not as we wish it might be.  The sad fact is that these past seven years, America has lost power while others have gained it.  When I was in the government, I gratified some people and annoyed others by referring to the United States as the indispensable nation.  By that I meant not that other countries were dispensable, just that for hard problems to be solved, America had to play a role.

Today, we look at North Korea and conclude that we need China’s help, and we look at Iran and know that China must acquiesce if sanctions ought to be viable, and we look at Darfur and say that only Beijing can make Sudan toe the line, and we look at the weakness of our economy and decide that Chinese fiscal policies are to blame.  We look at climate change and conclude nothing can be done without China and the table.  And we look at our deficit and we know that we are paying our bills with Chinese cash.

We think of ourselves as the organizing principle in world affairs and yet this past year, China has convened a summit of African leaders, a summit of Asian leaders, a consortium of Central Asian powers – all without our participation.  I don’t mean to overstate this because China faces serious problems itself: its unemployment is too high, its air too dirty, its population aging, and its middle class sooner of later is going to demand political rights.  But there can be no doubt that the equation between the United States and China has changed dramatically.  

The average teenager in the world today is far more likely to know about what is happening at Guantanamo today than what happened 18 years in Tiananmen Square, and he or she is far more likely to associate the United States with Abu Ghraib than with Omaha Beach.  In marketing terms, the American brand has been tarnished and that’s one part of the reality we face in the world today.  

A second is that the global institutions built by our greatest generation no longer work as they should.  In fact, they remind me of a used car lot.  For some vehicles, steering is the problem.  They are always pulling too far to the left or to the right.  Others are obsolete in their design.  They were intended to go 30 miles an hour, but fell apart when we asked them to go 60.  Some weren’t maintained at all, while others were repaired by teams of mechanics who didn’t see eye to eye about what was wrong, resulting, as for example, with the revised Human Rights Council in a fresh paintjob when a whole new engine was needed.

The good news is that we can always start over, and the bad news is that to do so we would have to appoint a committee.  Consider for example the committees that have attempted over the past 15 years to reform the UN Security Council.  We all agree that the council should be enlarged, but China doesn’t want Japan to have a permanent seat, and Pakistan doesn’t want India to have a permanent seat, and if Germany gets a permanent seat, then Italy wants one because, as I was reminded by the ambassador of Italy when we tried this, he said, you’ve got to remember, we lost the war, too, which is a rather peculiar campaign statement.  (Laughter.)  

The international banks pose another series of questions because there is so much private capital now, it’s unclear whether the banks still have much of a role, and the nonproliferation regime is in trouble because of the loophole that allows a country to jump from legal civilian programs to an illegal military one without much of a technological leap.  We could try to amend the Nonproliferation Treaty, except that would be a little bit like trying to rewrite a new American Constitution.  We’d never get past the international equivalent of gay marriage.  

A third element in the reality we face today is that Iraq has made everything harder.  Americans have paid a high price for mistakes in Iraq, and we have not paid equally.  The war had left us with thousands of freshly-dug graves and many thousands of men and women maimed.  President Bush has shared his anguish and prayed with loved ones, but he’s constrained by his own false logic from describing the invasion for what it was: an assault against terror that strengthened terror, a demonstration of American power that exposed the limits of our power, a blow against extremism that served the agenda of Iran, and above all a grisly human tragedy.  Operation Iraqi Freedom would better be described today as Operation Salvage Something.  There are no good options and we have a new tsar, but no new strategy.  

Our best hope is to contain and limit the damage, and I fear that will be job number one for the next president.  He or she will benefit from being a new face.  It may be short, but there will be a honeymoon.  It will be vital to take advantage, because the new president’s job will be extraordinarily difficult.  We all want America to be respected again, but our people are discouraged because of Iraq and also because of what I call the Katrina effect.  They will be reluctant to spend time and money solving problems overseas when we still have so many problems here at home.  

In considering what to do, the new president will have to make judgments about what issues are the same and which are different and what problems must be dealt with immediately and which can be put off, and how to redefine America’s role, and that process should begin with a look inward at how our government makes decisions, because we cannot afford, nor can the world afford, another Iraq.  

We need to look as well at our alliance relationships, which have been allowed to weaken.  The success or failure of NATO in Afghanistan is not a second tier issue because NATO’s credibility and effectiveness are in doubt.  The gravity that has held the international security system together for the past 60 years will be in doubt with no replacement in sight.  We need to rebuild our friendships in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, for the world will not help us deal with dangers that threaten us if we are unconcerned about the dangers that threaten them, including the axis of evil, poverty, ignorance, and disease.

We need to reestablish the core American message to the world tracing back especially to FDR’s four freedoms: that the management of world affairs cannot be treated as a zero-sum game.  I don’t know how many of you remember the song in the movie “Cabaret,” when a young Nazi boy with blond hair and Aryan looks stands up and sings “Tomorrow Belongs to Me.”  America with its hair and skin of many colors must stand up for a different principle that tomorrow belongs not us or to them or to any variation of me.  The future we seek is a victory for all.  Think of how refreshing it would be if all the people in the Middle East and Iraq committed themselves to victory for all, and how much better the world would be if we each truly followed the teaching that is central to every system of ethics I know, and that is to help those less fortunate than ourselves.  

The next president will face a world that seems transformed in every way imaginable.  He or she will be required, in John Kennedy’s phrase, “to think anew,” but it’s also essential that the next president be conscious of what has not changed, and that is America’s commitment to democracy.  There are some who look at the electoral gains made recently by Islamists in such places as Iraq, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority and conclude that democracy is likely to extinguish terror, as President Bush claims, than to ignite it.  Only the naïve, so the realists say, can believe that Arabs are ready for democracy.  I fear that as a result, that a new conventional wisdom will emerge that promoting democracy in the Middle East is a mistake.  It is not.  We should remember that the alternative is embracing governments that lack the blessings of their own people and that leads not to stability, but to its counterfeit, leaving us shackled to dictators, at odds with Arab democrats, distrusted by Arab populations, and unsure of ourselves.  

America cannot rescue its reputation by throwing its ideals over the side, and at the same time we should keep our expectations in check.  Just because the denial of freedom is bad doesn’t mean the exercise of freedom will always be to our liking.  Democracy is a form of government, not a ticket to some heavenly kingdom where extremism is vanquished and everyone agrees with us.  

If Arab democracy develops, it will be to advance Arab aspirations based on Arab perceptions of history and justice.  The right to vote and hold office is unlikely to soften Arab attitudes towards Israel or to end the potential for terror, just as it has not stopped terrorist cells from organizing in the West.  Democracy should, however, create a broader and more open political debate within Arab countries, exposing myths to scrutiny and dangerous ideas to rebuttal.  Though some may fear such an opening, Americans should welcome it, for if we fail to value free expression, we forget our own history.  

Finally, just as our foreign policy cannot be unilateral, neither can it continue to be unidimensional.  We cannot expect democracy to gain ground in the Middle East if it’s slipping backward in Latin America, Africa, and the former Soviet Union.  This is not just a question of geography; it’s a question of victory or defeat in the battle of ideas.  

For decades during the Cold War, the world was split between the free and unfree, and then the Berlin Wall came down and we all felt like dancing, but in recent years the outlines of a new and less concrete wall have become visible.  A loosely organized bloc of governments has emerged with little in common except disdain for international norms and resistance to outside pressure.  The list is lengthening.  It includes not only China, but also such countries as Russia, Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and sad to say, Egypt.  The leaders of these nations challenge the belief that human rights are universal and that abuses warrant the world’s attention when and wherever they occur.  

The Bush administration should be pushing back, but instead has made matters worse by treating the whole concept of international norms as a conspiracy to tie America down.  Over the past six years, the United States has undermined or ignored global standards on the use of force, the treatment of prisoners, the care of the environment, money laundering, biological weapons, and missile defense, while also trying to sabotage the International Criminal Court.  The administration opposes restrictions on American actions because it sees our country as so strong that we gain no benefit from legal protections, but that’s not the issue.  If we do not recognize international standards, others will ignore them as well.  The result will be a world governed not by the rule of law, but by no rules at all.  

Hopefully, the next president will restore a balance so that America is perceived once again as neither timid nor arrogant, but rather confident.  If voters choose wisely, our leaders will take actions that are neither isolationist nor imperial, guiding U.S. policy back to where it belongs: in the moderate mainstream.  Some commentators may scoff at this and associate moderation with weakness or lack of conviction. I say let them, because this morning I would like to issue a clarion call for militant moderation.  I want to see moderates on the march, moderates with swagger, moderates with courage to stand up and fight for what they believe.  It can be done because it has been done.  

Consider Harry Truman.  Truman never asked for a permission slip to defend America, but neither did he ever fail to associate the United States with the purposes of the United Nations Charter, the interests of our allies, and the goal of helping others.  He had the strength to act decisively, but also the wisdom to lead in a way that attracted international support.  He worked tirelessly to strengthen global institutions and law, but reserved the option for independent action.  He saw America as exceptional not because it was exempt from the rules demanded of others, but because it was determined to create a world in which rules had real meaning.  And he was resolute in defining America not in terms of its possessions, but rather its ideals.  

We believe that all men have a right to equal justice under law and equal opportunity to share in the common good, he said.   We believe that all men have a right to freedom and thought and expression, and we believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of God.  Truman’s words, with a little updating as to gender, still speak to us today – a new day in an age-old struggle between hope and fear on the Earth.  

Thank you all very, very much.