Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright speaks about the nation's security at Union Station in Washington, March 29, 2006.
(3 of 4)
That's perfectly possible. We cannot be in the middle of raging civil war. But I'm more encouraged this week than last week because I think that the new Prime Minister has a possibility here. I think we have to let it play out a bit. But it's still very worrisome — and there's no question in my mind that it's Iran who has benefited a great deal from the whole war.
Speaking of Iran, if diplomacy fails, should the U.S. use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities?
I believe having face-to-face talks is essential before we consider other options. What the Iranians feel is a certain sense that the U.S. is not dealing with them. You can't take the military option off the table, but I have to say that everything I've seen would indicate it's not a definitive military mission because of the way nuclear facilities are distributed and hidden. As a policy maker we've always said you can't take the military option off the table, but it doesn't seem like a very good one to me.
What should the U.S. be prepared to offer Iran?
What we should be looking at are ways we can engage with them — first of all by giving them some sense of respect, recognizing them for what they are, which is a considerable power in the region. I would probe to see if there were any areas of common interest. We lost opportunities at the beginning of the Afghan war to work with them on definitions of terrorism and trying to figure out how to get some common lines on a variety of diplomatic issues.
That's where we should be looking. I know people sometimes see that negotiations are appeasement, but I don't see it that way. It's a way of delivering tough messages about what's expected and at the same time making it possible to develop a broader relationship on a variety of cultural issues, on trade issues and on some diplomatic issues.
You've said that failing to stop the genocide in Rwanda was the biggest regret of your tenure. If you could do it again, would you commit U.S. troops to stop what happened there? And given what we know about the genocide in Darfur, should the U.S. send troops to stop the killing there?
I personally would have wanted to send troops to Rwanda. One hard part is that what is known now is not exactly what was known at the time. Even the U.S. takes a while to get a force together and get it somewhere. Knowing what I know now, it would have been hard to get them there in time to stop what I call volcanic genocide. But Darfur is a rolling genocide. We've watched it for a couple years. I find it ironic and passing strange that at time when there are so many commemorations of Rwanda, we are watching this and not doing enough. I personally think there needs to be more American assistance, whether in logistics or communication, and some troops on the ground in a way to support others. Given what's happened to the U.S.'s reputation since the Iraq war, our presence in certain places is viewed as less benign than it might have been. I am concerned that we will find ourselves in a position where we will be the problem. But I pesonally think the African Union needs to be supported by some additional NATO assistance and American logistical assistance. But definitely more attention needs to be paid to it.
It's fascinating to many Americans that you and Secretary Rice share a mentor, your father, who was her professor in graduate school. Do you see your father's influence in the way she's handling herself as Secretary of State?
I'd have to say yes — but I can't tell you exactly how. The interesting part is that he and I never talked about her — the only way I found out about her was at his funeral, when my mother told me about her. She and I had a very interesting conversation when she was named National Security Advisor — I maintained that my father would have agreed in the importance of a moral aspect to American foreign policy. He approved of the idea that America is a special place and we have moral responsibilities. But I don't know whether he would feel positive about the moralistic approach this Admininstation has taken to foreign policy. I kid with her that I think I channel with my father now better than she does.
Do you see her often?
I don't. She travels a lot. She's very busy. We spoke on the phone over this last weekend because I had some things I wanted to tell her. She's very, very congenial but she's very busy. We're not in the same party. We share an admiration for my father, but she's a busy person.