02-25-2009

OBAMA’S REALIST IDEALISM IN FOREIGN POLICY

Madeleine Albright is a former U.S. secretary of state. She spoke with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels on Tuesday.

By Madeleine Albright

Madeleine Albright: There is no question that there is a different sense about America and an appreciation that President Obama understands the “Muslim world” — a term I don’t like since it is so diverse and not monolithic — much better than the previous administration. The fact that he mentioned the word “Muslim” in his inaugural address was unprecedented and not lost of those looking for a new relationship with the United States.

For our part, we Americans need to learn more about Islam and strengthen ties, as Secretary Clinton’s visit to Indonesia demonstrated, to the large Muslim nations. But, as the former deputy premier of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, has said, it is a two-way street. Muslim nations must also seek reform within and also try to find ways to improve links to the U.S. as well.

But, there is an understanding on all sides that things aren’t going to change overnight. Our fraught relations were a long time in the making — we are at war in two Muslim countries — and it will take a while to get it right.

Gardels: Did the recent Israeli-Gaza battle cause doubts that Obama might not be so different than the previous administration on the Israel-Palestine issue?

Albright: I didn’t pick that up at all. It is a very big issue, of course, as it has long been. There are those who think the Israeli-Palestinian issue is central to everything, and they found promise in the early visit of George Mitchell to the region as Obama’s special envoy. I understand the importance of it, but it is much more complicated than that. There are, after all, other aspects of our relations with the Islamic world that range from Afghanistan to the rights of women.

Gardels: Though the Obama administration is only a month old, we are now beginning to see illustrations of the new pragmatism in foreign policy and its retreat from the Bush-era ideological crusade to bring democracy to the world.

Already, critics have charged that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton focused more on T-bills than human rights on her visit to China. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made it clear the new administration will not seek some “Central Asian Valhalla,” meaning a democratic paradise, in Afghanistan, but only “a stable Afghanistan that is not a haven for terrorists.” Gen. Petraeus has hinted that we must cut deals with local Taliban and warlords as long as they are not associated with al-Qaida.

The critics see this as a realpolitik accommodation that forsakes America’s idealism. Is that so, or is Obama just recognizing the limits of American power?

Albright: I don’t agree with the critics at all. Before Obama, there was a sense in the world that the US was out there pushing an ideological agenda. There is a turning away from that, but it is not realpolitik that somehow forsakes human rights. It is a blend of idealism and pragmatism that seeks to balance our values and our interests.

I have always said that I was neither a realist nor an idealist but an idealistic realist. I think this is what we are seeing here. We don’t want to have the Bush-style imposition of our views on everybody else, which gave democracy a bad name. I personally would like to see the good name of democracy restored, but in a realistic way.

What we are really talking about is a rebalancing.

Gardels: The IAEA reported last week that Iran has achieved a “breakthrough capacity” of enough enriched uranium for one bomb. Doesn’t this suggest that the policy of sanctions to avoid this outcome has now failed, and that we are headed toward a policy of “containment and deterrence” of Iran — perhaps with a new alliance of moderate Arab Sunni states and the explicit extension of the U.S. nuclear umbrella over Israel? During the campaign, Hillary Clinton already said that the U.S. would “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel with nukes?

Former Centcom commander General Abizaid has said he thinks “Iran is not a suicide state” and would be susceptible to deterrence.

Albright: At the moment, we don’t know. Obviously President Obama and Secretary Clinton have said we need to talk to Iran. There is the IAEA report, but also President Ahmadinejad has sent a letter to Obama and talked about “mutual respect.” There are also political shifts taking place in Iran, with former president Khatami challenging Ahmadinejad in the next elections.

The U.S. also has a new ambassador at the U.N., Susan Rice, who wants to make the United Nations effective in world affairs.

What the Obama administration has said is that there must be a package of incentives and disincentives to stop Iran from going down the path to a nuclear weapon. Now, Dennis Ross, the Middle East expert, will be taking on the task of seeking a regional solution.

Gardels: The aim of sanctions was to stop Iran for enriching enough uranium to make a bomb. But that is now a fact. Doesn’t that mean the sanctions strategy has failed?

Albright: The IAEA is clearly signaling a great deal of disappointment with Iran. Whatever has been happening here has not been going in the right direction. That is a very important fact, since they are the watchdog. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say sanctions have failed, but so far they clearly haven’t worked.

Gardels: North Korea has announced an imminent test of another Taepodong missile capable of reaching Japan and elsewhere in the Pacific. What does it mean? How should the U.S. respond?

Albright: It is very troubling if they do it. When I visited Kim Jong Il at the end of the Clinton administration, I attended the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Korean Worker’s Party in a huge stadium. The performers put on a huge flash card display which showed a missile taking off. Kim turned to me and said, “That is a Taepodong missile, and it is the last one.”

When I left office we were in the midst of negotiations and had a missile moratorium in place. Then the Bush administration abandoned those talks and we lost momentum for many years until they returned to diplomacy.

On her recent trip to Asia, Secretary Clinton said there could be improvement of our relationship with North Korea. Let’s hope they heard that and don’t go ahead with this test.

(c) 2009 Global Viewpoint

DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES