HIRSH: Your diplomacy seems less confrontational of late. We haven’t heard the phrase “indispensable nation” from you in a long time. Has your style changed? ALBRIGHT: I do wear my patriotism on my sleeve… But, like any normal human being, I also think I learn what is the best way to frame things. I happen to think the United States is the indispensable nation; I see it every day. But if [that phrase] is something that rubs people the wrong way, then there’s no point in using it.
So it’s fair to say your approach has changed in response to the criticism? Absolutely… If something that you’re saying is undermining what you’re trying to achieve, then why continue to hit your head against the wall? There are different ways of doing things.
How have the critics affected you personally? At a certain stage I decided that no matter what I did, there was going to be something that the chattering classes in Washington were going to say about it. I feel good about what I’m doing. I feel very strongly about a certain set of principles, and that is democracy and human rights. They have been the lodestars of my entire life, and they will continue to be. But I also am very pragmatic.
Another criticism is that you have no strategic vision. Do you feel misunderstood? It’s an easy shot to take at people. I think I cared at the beginning. I truly don’t now. People are unclear about what kind of a world we’re living in now, and are waiting for some phrase like “containment” to explain what is going on. And there is no such word. I believe the organizing principle is–and I’ve said this from the beginning–that there are four groups of countries. The first group is the largest, in which there are countries that understand and function in the international system, even though we might not agree with every aspect of their government. The second group are the societies in transition. The third group are those that we used to call rogues, what we now call states of concern. The fourth are those that are totally falling apart and are literally eating their seed grain. My concept is that ultimately what you’re trying to do is to get everybody into the first group. And believe it or not, it is happening… I think when I’m out of this job I’ll probably sit down and write more coherently about how it fits together.
Does it bother you that you’ll leave behind so many open-ended commitments, like U.S. troops in Kosovo, and the quagmire that Iraq seems to have become now? I think that it’s the system. What bothers me is that at this moment there is not enough of a sense of bipartisan foreign policy. Because the world does not operate on four-year cycles. For instance, when President Clinton came in, President Bush had just negotiated the START II treaty, we picked it up and had it ratified. That is what ought to happen. In Bosnia there was a mess going on, and we picked it up and, I think, made a huge difference. It’s a continuum.
