Tag: Madeleine Albright

  • What exactly does “Renewing the U.S.-U.N. relationship” mean?

    What exactly does “Renewing the U.S.-U.N. relationship” mean?

    The New Republic Blog, 24.11.2008

    At the core of the international liberal elites is a hollow.  Nothing confirms this so much as an advertisement published in Thursday’s New York Times that costs anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 depending on the ideological proximity of the sponsors to the editorial positions of the paper.  Now, I don’t really know how much cash was transferred to the Times for printing this hokey pronouncement. But I bet it wasn’t anywheres near top rate.  In any case, the statement and its signatories were put together by the Partnership For A Secure America (whatever that means or is) and the United Nations Foundation, which was founded by that profound thinker Ted Turner who is also one of the endorsers of the manifesto.

    The principles of “We Agree: Renew the U.S.-UN Relationship” are not exactly dangerous.  But they aren’t anodyne either. Instead, they are portentous in the sense that the document presumes to address significant issues while what it actually does is simply assert high-minded attitudes. But they are high-minded attitudes altogether out of context.  And worse: in utterly distorted context.  All addressed to the United States and, at least inferentially, to Barack Obama.

    Here, actually, is one of its nine points that is utterly banal: “Place well-qualified Americans in open positions at the UN.” Still, there is some ambiguity in its meaning?  Does it mean in all positions on the U.S. representation to the organization?  Or for the United Nations positions reserved for the American quota?  Maybe both.  Anyway, what do the signatories presume?  That President-elect Obama, Secretary-designate Clinton and Ambassador-presumptive Susan Rice (a person I suspect I’ve under-rated or maybe over-blamed in the past) are going to place ill-qualified Americans in these positions?

    Here’s one that’s totally out of context: “Help the growing workload assigned to UN peacekeeping by providing logistical and management expertise and support needed to enhance UN capacities.” Being about the UN, the command is quite naturally built on gobbledygook.  But it insinuates a falsehood, and that is that it is the U.S., rather than, say, China and Russia, that cripple U.N. peacekeeping.

    Here’s my favorite that assumes fixability of one of the U.N. organs, the Human Rights Council, but one that is simply unfixable.  “Obtain a seat on the faltering Human Rights Council and work to influence it from within.” This assumes that the United States had not expended energy, thought, resources and diplomatic capital on taking the Human Rights Council (and, before that, the Human Rights Commission) from the absolute control of the worst abridgers and aborters of freedoms in the international arena.  The fact is that the U.N. is dominated by countries which themselves are traducers of human rights or by countries that really don’t care a fig about violations of liberties unless, of course, they can attribute somehow them to Israel.  The Council is actually a council on Israel.  Nothing more, nothing less.  America has little sway with the two of the five permanent members of the Security Council or with many of the 150-off governments in the General Assembly which are in New York as a vacation from home.

    Please take a look at this innocent-sounding but pernicious document.

    Which names other than Ted Turner are affixed to this document?  There are 38 including the excitable Mme. Albright, General Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton who is the axiomatic co-chairman of any national bi-partisan commission that is set up for any reason or excuse.  Also Sandy Berger who, though unable to heed the simplest rules of national security, still purports to tell the city and the world what to do.  Rita Hauser, well, too angry, too pathetic and too unknown to characterize.  And Gary Hart who managed George McGovern’s 1972 campaign, still has McGovern’s politics and once ran for the Democratic nomination for president from which running he escaped when caught doing “monkee business.”  Almost all of these eminences are aged.  Their ideas might have made some sense when the United Nations was founded six decades ago in Flushing Meadows, Lake Success, New York.

    Posted: Monday, November 24, 2008 10:15 A

    Source: blogs.tnr.com

  • Madeleine Albright: A letter to the next president

    Madeleine Albright: A letter to the next president

    [Interestingly this “memo” appeared in a serious right-wing newspaper in UK- food for thought -h]

    By Madeleine K. Albright

    Congratulations on your success. You have won an impressive victory – but with that victory comes the responsibility to guide a troubled America in a world riven by conflict, confusion and hate. Upon taking office, you will face the daunting task of restoring America’s credibility as an effective and exemplary world leader.

    Barack Obama's first job will be to re-establish respect for America

    This cannot be accomplished merely by distancing yourself and your administration from the mistakes of George W. Bush. You must offer innovative strategies for coping with multiple dangers, including the global economic meltdown, two hot wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan), al-Qaida, nuclear threats and climate change. In every realm, you will need to recruit a first-rate team of advisers, apply the principles of critical thinking and develop a coherent strategy with a clear connection between actions and results.

    Your first job as president will be to re-establish the traditional sources of international respect for America: resilience, optimism, support for justice, and the desire for peace. As you recognised during your campaign, America’s good name has been tarnished. Your message to the world should be that the United States, though unafraid to act when necessary, is also eager to listen and learn.

    That first step is important, but you will need to do much more.

    Starting on Inauguration Day, you must strive to restore confidence in the economic soundness and financial stewardship of the United States. The October crash proved that our current leaders have lost their way. All eyes are now on you. Pick the right people; show discipline; stick to the rules you establish; and push for an economic system that rewards hard work, not greed.

    Overseas, you should begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. If you hesitate, you will be forced _ by an evolving consensus within Iraq _ to do so nonetheless. By initiating the process and controlling the timing, you can steer credit to responsible Iraqi leaders instead of allowing radicals to claim that they have driven us out.

    The troops that remain as the redeployment proceeds should focus on further preparing Iraqi forces for command. Despite recent gains, the country is still threatened by sectarian rivalries. These have a long history and can be resolved only by Iraq’s own decision-makers. American troops cannot substitute for Iraqi spine. The time for transition is at hand.

    In Afghanistan, an unsustainable stalemate has developed in which the majority of the population fears the Taliban, resents Nato and lacks faith in its government. Given the stakes, you may be tempted to “do more” in Afghanistan, but that alone would be a reaction, not a strategy.

    Our own military admits that the current approach is not working. We cannot kill or capture our way to victory. We need more troops, but we also need a policy that corresponds to the aspirations and sensitivities of the local population. Under your leadership, Nato’s primary military mission should be to train Afghan forces to defend Afghan villages, and its dominant political objective should be to improve the quality of governance throughout the country.

    Economic development is crucial, and you should encourage global and regional institutions to take the lead in building infrastructure and creating jobs. Diplomatically, you should concentrate on enhancing security co-operation between Islamabad and Kabul. Overall, allied efforts must go beyond killing terrorists to preventing the recruitment of cadre to replace them.

    In addition to the Taliban, the reason we are in Afghanistan is al-Qaida, which remains an alien presence wherever it exists. Even its roots in Pakistan are not deep, and the failure of its leaders to articulate a positive agenda has reduced the allure of Bin Laden-style operations even to potential sympathizers. Al-Qaida, still dangerous, is beginning to lose the battle of ideas.

    Targeted military actions remain essential, but you should avoid giving the many in the Muslim world who disagree with us fresh reason to join the ranks of those who are trying to kill us. This is, after all, an important distinction. Closing Guantánamo will help.

    From the first day, you should also work to identify the elements of a permanent and fair Middle East peace. Cynics are fond of observing that support for peace will not pacify al-Qaida, but that is both obvious and beside the point. Your efforts can still enhance respect for American leadership in the regions where al-Qaida trawls for new blood.

    Only effective regional diplomacy can persuade Israelis and Arabs alike that peace is still possible. In the absence of that hope, all sides will prepare for a future without peace, thereby validating the views of extremists and further complicating every aspect of your job.

    The dangers radiating from the Middle East and Persian Gulf are sure to occupy you, but they should not consume all your attention. Just as an effective foreign policy cannot be exclusively unilateral, neither can it be unidimensional. You should devote more time and resources to regions, such as Latin America and Africa, that have been neglected.

    As a leader in the global era, you must view the world through a wide lens. That is why I hope you will establish a new and forward-looking mission for our country: to harness the latest scientific advances to enhance living standards across the globe.

    This initiative should extend to growing food, distributing medicine, conserving water, producing energy and preserving the atmosphere. It should include a challenge to the American public to serve as a laboratory for best environmental practices, gradually replacing mass consumption with sustainability as an emblem of the American way. Such a policy can serve the future by reducing our vulnerability to energy blackmail, while conveying a clearer and loftier sense of what the United States is all about.

    Mr. President-Elect, the job once held by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and the Roosevelts will soon be yours. In years to come, you will be required to maintain your balance despite being shoved ceaselessly from every direction, and to exercise sound judgment amid the crush of events both predictable and shocking.

    To justify our confidence in you, you must show confidence in us. End the politics of fear. Treat us like adults. Help us to understand people from distant lands and cultures. Challenge us to work together. Remind us that America’s finest hours have come not from dominating others but from inspiring people everywhere to seek the best in themselves.

    Madeleine K. Albright was U.S. secretary of state from 1997 to 2001. She is the author of “Memo to the President: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership” (HarperCollins, 2008).

    Source: www.telegraph.co.uk, 04/11/2008

  • Madeleine Albright serves as Obama proxy at global summit

    Madeleine Albright serves as Obama proxy at global summit

    Madeleine Albright (L) introduces Dmitry Medvedev (R) at the G20 Summit

    WASHINGTON (AFP) — Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright and an ex-Republican lawmaker on Saturday stood in for president-elect Barack Obama in meeting world leaders attending the G20 summit on the economic crisis.

    Obama himself stayed away from the Washington summit of the Group of 20 biggest economies, but foreign delegations have been keen to open channels to the Democrat succeeding President George W. Bush next January 20.

    Albright and former Iowa congressman Jim Leach said in a statement that they “held constructive meetings on behalf of president-elect Obama and vice president-elect (Joseph) Biden” with delegations from 15 countries plus the European Commission, as well as United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

    They included leaders, finance ministers or top bureaucrats from Brazil, Britain, China, Germany, Japan and Russia, among others. They spoke with the French delegation by telephone.

    Albright and Leach said Obama saw the summit as “an important opportunity to seek a coordinated response to the global financial crisis.”

    “We also conveyed president-elect Obama’s determination to continuing to work together on these challenges after he takes office in January,” they said, adding that they would brief Obama and Biden at the conclusion of their meetings.

    Source: www.google.com/hostednews/afp, 16 November 2008