02 October 1997
(Speaks at Bronx High School of Science Oct. 1) (5110) Bronx, New York -- An expanded NATO will help erase the artificial dividing lines created in Europe after World War Two, Secretary of State Albright told students in New York October 1. Fielding questions during her visit to the Bronx High School of Science, Albright said that Eastern Europe "wishes to take its rightful place as a part of a united Europe." She added that the United States believes it is in its best interests to have a NATO expanded by Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, and to make "clear that it is open to other countries that meet the standards of democracy and free market systems...." The Secretary spoke to the students during her stay in New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly. Following is the transcript, as delivered: (begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman (New York, New York) As Delivered REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT TO THE STUDENTS OF BRONX HIGH SCHOOL OF SCIENCE Bronx, New York October 1, 1997 ALBRIGHT: Thank you very much, Jana, for that introduction. Principal Blumenstein, Chancellor Crew, it is a great pleasure to have you with us. Other distinguished officials, parents, teachers and, especially, students, good morning. I am truly delighted to be here in this very special school. I've never been to Bronx Science before, but I feel I know you well. During the past four years, while I served as Ambassador to the United Nations, we had many interns from Bronx Science helping us, and that tradition is continuing this year under Ambassador Richardson. One of my closest college friends, Emily Cohen MacFarquahar attended this school back in the Middle Ages -- I mean, the mid-1950s. And she never lost her love for it or her gratitude for the education she received. In all our classes, whenever we were sitting there, she'd say, "I already know that; I learned it in high school." ALBRIGHT: In addition, a number of people with whom I work every day, including Leon Feurth, who is Vice President Gore's Chief Foreign Policy Advisor, went to school here. And you are renowned for your record number of Westinghouse Science and Nobel Prize winners. ALBRIGHT: And for the many others who have distinguished themselves in fields from medicine, to music, to math. When I was young -- and believe it or not, I was young once -- I wanted nothing more than to be a good student and, as someone who was not born in the United States, to be a good American. I did have other ambitions, however. Every time I entered a new school, I started an international affairs club, because I cared about the world and so I could name myself president. ALBRIGHT: I never thought then -- in fact I never imagined it possible -- that I would one day become Secretary of State. Because of the generosity of this country and the confidence of President Clinton, that dream beyond my wildest dreams did come true. So my primary advice and message to you this morning is that you set no limits on the standards and aspirations you set for yourself. Because I grew up during a time of upheaval and war, it was not impossible for me not to understand the connections between what happened in the world as a whole and my own life. For many young people, it may be more difficult today. But Bronx Science recognizes, in the diversity of students it attracts, the courses it offers, and the outlook it conveys, that you will come of age in the 21st century and that you will live global lives. You will compete in a world marketplace and travel further and more often than any previous generation. You will share ideas, tastes, and experiences with counterparts from every culture, and you are being taught that to have a full and rewarding future, you will have to look outwards. Your individual choices and challenges have their parallel in options now facing the United States. Our country has arrived at the threshold of a new century strong, respected, prosperous, and with no single powerful enemy against whom we must lock our gates. The temptation is to coast, to sit back, avert our eyes, and assume that what does not affect us immediately will not affect us ever. But then we have to ask, what if half a century ago our leaders had decided that America had done enough in helping to win the Second World War, and that we could let a Europe in ruins fend for itself? What if President Truman had decided Americans were too weary of conflict and too wary of new commitments to forge an alliance with other democracies against aggression and for freedom? What if Eleanor Roosevelt had decided that it was enough for Americans to worry about the rights of our own citizens, and that we did not need to lead in forging the universal declaration of human rights? If our leaders then had not looked to the future and made the right choices, the world we live in now would not be as prosperous, as peaceful, or as free. As individuals, each of us must choose whether to live our lives narrowly, selfishly and complacently, or to act with courage and faith. Nations must make the same choice. Today America must choose whether to turn inward and betray the lessons of history or to seize the opportunity before us to shape history. Under the leadership of President Clinton, we are making the right choice. The Berlin Wall is now a memory. We could be satisfied with that. Instead, we are lending a hand to the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. We're enlarging and adapting NATO, and we are striving to create a future for Europe in which every democracy, including Russia, is our partner, and every partner is a builder of peace. Largely because of U.S. leadership, nuclear weapons no longer target our homes. We could relax. Instead, we are working to reduce nuclear arsenals further, eliminate chemical weapons, and ratify a treaty that would ban nuclear explosions forever. The fighting in Bosnia has stopped. We could turn our backs now and risk renewed war. Instead, we are renewing our commitment and insisting that the parties meet theirs to implement the Dayton Accords. And we are backing the War Crimes Tribunal because we believe that those responsible for ethnic cleansing should be held accountable, and those who consider rape just another tactic of war should answer for their crimes. ALBRIGHT: We have built a growing world economy in which those with modern skills and available capital have done very well. We could stop there. Instead, we are pursuing a broader prosperity in which those entrapped by poverty and discrimination are empowered to share, and in which there will be a place at the table for the peoples of every law- abiding nation on every continent. In recent decades, we have seen enormous advances in respect for human rights. We could now lower our voices and, as some suggest, mind our own business. But we believe it is everybody's business whether people are tortured or imprisoned for their political or religious beliefs, or denied a voice in determining their own destiny. The cause of human dignity is our cause, precisely because we are human. Whether violations occur in Burma or Baghdad, the Bronx or Beijing, we will not be silent. We will be heard. All of our efforts in each of these areas is a gift to the future, but there could be no greater gift to the future than to build on the example of Bronx Science and to create throughout the world an ever-expanding tradition and standard of tolerance. I don't mean tolerance for behavior that is illegal or self-destructive; I mean tolerance for the differences of culture and belief that make us who we are, and that should enrich and strengthen communities -- not weaken and divide, which is all too often the case. There is nothing more natural than to want to feel part of a group, whether that group is ethnic, or racial, or a club, or a team. We're all proud of what distinguishes us from others, in language, or heritage, or religion. As long as this pride is expressed constructively, in ways that respect and value others, societies benefit. But when that pride in "us" degenerates into hatred or intolerance towards "them," the grounds for pride vanish, and the result is hurt and violence. In my work as Secretary of State, and before that at the United Nations, I have seen much of the worst that human beings can do to each other in the name of nation or group. During the past few years, I visited in the Balkans with the families and friends of innocent people murdered, not for anything they had done, but simply for who they were. In Rwanda, amidst the beautiful countryside where they filmed "Gorillas in the Mist," I went to a churchyard where volunteers were working day after day to unearth the bodies of those murdered in the genocidal violence perpetrated by one ethnic group against another. In the Middle East, I visited just this past month with victims of terrorist violence, Jewish and Arab, and with people about your age, Israeli and Palestinian -- all seeking an end to the cycle of fighting that has plagued their land for so long, all desiring to find at last the path to a secure and lasting peace. As the recent commemoration of the 40th anniversary of school integration in Little Rock, Arkansas, reminds us, the need for tolerance is as important here at home as it is overseas. No one is born prejudiced. Prejudice is learned and all too often taught. It is a byproduct of personal insecurity and lack of social faith. It causes us to judge by group, rather than according to the qualities of individuals. At best, this leads to hard feeling and to social and political discrimination. At worst, it leads to the kind of horror memorialized here in your Holocaust Museum. To paraphrase Walt Whitman, each of us has a right to take his or her place in the human procession. Each has the right to fulfill his or her potential. This is the principle that defines and elevates the best of America. This is the principle that we would each like to see applied to our own efforts and our own lives. This is the responsibility we each have to one another. And as persons privileged to live in America, this is the standard we must do all we can to uphold around the globe. Today, the greatest dividing line that still exists in the world is not between East and West, liberal and conservative, or old and young; it is between those who have faith in the future and those entrapped by the thinking and prejudices of the past. Three decades ago, in Capetown, South Africa, Robert Kennedy spoke to an audience of students who were about your age, but who were members of a population victimized then by the crushing weight of apartheid and repression. He urged them not to give up hope and not to put upon others the responsibility for acting themselves. "Few will have the opportunity to bend history itself," he told that audience, "but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. Each time a man or woman stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, that person sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, these ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance," said Robert Kennedy. The generation to which Senator Kennedy spoke that day ultimately won the battle against apartheid. In the years ahead, you will each have your own battles to confront. Looking at you now, I am sure that you will face them with courage, that you will aim high, and that you will meet your responsibilities to others. I am sure that you will demonstrate a commitment to excellence, which is the hallmark of this school, and by so doing you will meet the greatest responsibility of all, which is to yourself -- to live a life rich with accomplishment, full of meaning, and dedicated not only to what can be achieved for your generation, but for your children and your children's children, as well. For what you have already achieved as individuals and a school community, I salute you. For what you have the potential to achieve as adults and leaders, and as Americans, I wish you Godspeed. And for your very warm greeting this morning, I thank you very, very much. I will be very pleased now to face probably the toughest audience I have faced while in New York, in comparison to what I did last night at the Council on Foreign Relations or this morning at the American Stock Exchange. So go for it. BLUMENSTEIN: We would like to thank Madame Secretary for her interesting speech, and we're going to move on to the question and answer period, which will be led by Matthew Longo and Michele Paisley. The questions were submitted by the student body as well as the forum members. QUESTION: Dr. Albright, can you describe a little of what goes on during the Middle East peace talks? And where do you see this process going? ALBRIGHT: Yes. Well, let me take advantage of that question to tell you a little bit more about what is happening. An American Secretary of State goes to the Middle East for two reasons -- one is when things are going particularly well, and it is possible for us, as Americans, to push the process over the top and come to an agreement; or when things are not going well, and it is important for us to shore the process up. I had hoped that, as Secretary of State, on my first trip -- I've obviously been to the region many times before -- but as Secretary of State, I had hoped that I would be going for the first reason; but I ended up going for the second reason, because there is a crisis of confidence going on between and among the various parties. The peace process is very tattered because the parties have lost trust in each other's ability and desire to fulfill the mutual obligations that were laid out in the Oslo process. What goes on is that -- or at least what I did when I was there was, first you meet with one side, and I started out meeting with President Weizman and with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and then with him and many members of his cabinet. And you listen to what that side says about what the problems are and what is making it impossible to move the process forward, and what it is they would like us to say to the other side. What was the major concern of Prime Minister Netanyahu was the terrorist activity that was taking place in Israel and the major problems created by the suicide bombers, and the difficulty of moving the process forward under those conditions. I did go -- and I parenthetically tell you -- to the hospital to visit the victims of the bombing. The thing that amazed me, actually, was that in that hospital there were Jewish-Israeli citizens and Arabs. There were Israeli doctors, and there were Arab doctors. And I thought, if they can hurt and heal together, why can't they live together? I then went, the next day, to meet with the Palestinians, and I met with Chairman Arafat and with his closest advisors. What they were saying was that they were trying, in the area of security, but that they had no political space in which to carry out what they thought was the possibility of recognizing the legitimate rights of their people. What we then do is try, through a series of talks, to get them talking with each other, so that as we carry the message back and forth, we can act as the honest broker. That is the role of the United States. As a result of the talks we had there, we were able to get both sides to send representatives to Washington two weeks ago to talk more about the security issues, and then to see whether we could get the peace process back on track. As a result of very careful negotiations, two days ago we were able to announce that they were getting back on track, and that I believe we've arrested the downward spiral. The thing that I found so interesting -- and I'm very glad to be able to tell you about this -- what you read in the papers all the time is accusations by one side versus the other, and a sense that it is hopeless, that they can never get together. What I saw was, first of all, a desire by the negotiators to get together, but I think I was deeply moved by something -- that as we got the two parties together, the Foreign Minister of Israel, David Levy, and the Secretary General of the Palestinian group, a man called Abu Mazen, who -- clearly, they knew each other well, because they had dealt together often -- they came in and they gave each other the warmest possible embrace. I found that deeply moving, because both these men are trying very hard to bring some solution to the Middle East peace process. Now, I have made my reputation on telling it like it is, and I'm not going to stop now. I am an optimist by nature, so I am optimistic, but it is a very tough process. We have to do everything we can to rebuild the trust. We have taken a step forward -- not a very big one, but a step forward, and various parts of the peace process are going to be discussed in the next couple of weeks. Q: How would you respond to the accusations that U.S. foreign policy is designed to further American financial interests; for example, our oil interests in the Middle East? ALBRIGHT: Well, it's just not true, so -- American foreign policy is designed in order to further U.S. national interests. That is true. That is my job every hour of the day, is to try to influence other countries' foreign policy behavior so that it is good for American national interests. American national interests include many things. In the simplest terms, it was stated here that I had Thomas Jefferson's job. I do. I'm very excited about that. Actually, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison talked about the fact that U.S. national interests are to protect our territory, our people, and our way of life. In this day and age, that means that our territory -- the last time I looked, we were still behind two oceans -- but we have very porous borders to the north and south. And we work very hard to have the best relations with our neighbors, and to deal with a whole host of new issues that are national interest issues, such as drugs and immigration and trade and health. Those are different kinds of national interest foreign policy issues. The environmental issue is a different kind of foreign policy issue. When I said "our people," our people don't sit still anymore. They travel everywhere. They invest everywhere. They need to be protected everywhere. And our way of life, to a great extent, depends on other countries being democracies and having free market systems. We are interested in oil. Oil makes our economy work. We have to make sure that our oil routes are protected and that we have ready sources of fuel, so that our economy functions to serve all of you. But that is not the determinant of our foreign policy in the Middle East or anywhere else. The determinant of our foreign policy is to protect our broad national interests, which also include a dedication to making sure that people can live freely in their own societies and that the human rights ideals of America are carried out. Q: Why are we spending millions of dollars on the military to support our image as the international cop, when we owe over a billion dollars in membership dues to the United Nations, which is supposed to be the international cop? ALBRIGHT: The truth is -- you know, the truth is, we have to do both. One of the things that I have found very gratifying about my new job is my relationship with the military. The U.S. military is the best in the world and protects our interests in a way that is very important to me and to all of you. Yesterday, one of our finest military men, General John Shalikashvili, ended his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and 39 years of service to the United States. He and I had become and are -- continue to be -- very good friends. We travel together a lot, dealing with the issues that you describe as the cop issues, and making sure that America's interests were protected and, at the same time, that those interests I talked about as existing in foreign countries -- the ability of people to live freely -- were also supported, and the dedication of our troops as a part of NATO forces or as a part of peacekeeping forces to do their share. One time one of our fellow Cabinet members saw Shali and me in the hall at the White House, and there he was in his uniform with all his wonderful medals, and here I was in my suit. And somebody said, war and peace. And Shali said, which one is which? And the truth is that there is a very close partnership between force and diplomacy and one that has to be maintained if the United States is going to maintain its role -- not to use the force, but have the ability to use it to defend our interests. Now, we also have to pay our debts to the United Nations. Those are not two mutually exclusive points. And believe it or not, this country is rich enough to do both. We owe the United Nations around a billion dollars. This is not a bill; these are dues. I think all of you that are members of clubs know the difference between bills and dues to be a member of the club. We signed a treaty that said we would pay those dues. We are in violation of that treaty. I have worked very hard, as has President Clinton, and now Ambassador Richardson, to work with Congress to try to figure out a way to pay those dues. We are on our way, if Congress finishes its work, in terms of being able to pay back the bulk of the billion dollars. But at the same time, we would like to see the United Nations reformed and become more modern, to get into the 21st century. Now, there may be about, I don't know, ten people in this audience, if that many, who have seen their 50th birthday. I saw mine ten years ago. The truth is that at your 50th birthday, you kind of think about what you should do different; should you go on a diet; how should you change your habits. Well, the United Nations is 50 years old. It needs to go on a diet. Its bureaucracies had grown to elephantine proportions, and then we asked this elephant to do gymnastics. So the point is that the United Nations needs reforming, and the United States is pushing a reform agenda while we are working to repay our debts. Q: How do you respond to critics who describe your policies as too aggressive? ALBRIGHT: Too aggressive? Q: Yes. ALBRIGHT: Again, I don't know what that means. I think that the United States is a unique country. I hope you all feel that, as part of it. I tell you, I do. I was not born here. I came here in 1948 as a refugee from communism. And I had grown up in England during the war, as a refugee from Nazism. I know that the United States is the indispensable nation, because without American intervention -- whether physically, through military force, or by helping to be the honest broker or the pusher, or as I have put it, the pathfinder nation -- we make a big difference. Now, the United States cannot solve everybody's problems. One, they are not all our business. Two, we cannot afford all that. And three, there are other countries that can help in that process now. And four, ultimately, many of the problems -- whether they are in the Middle East or in Ireland or in Bosnia or in the Democratic Republic of Congo -- have to be solved by the leaders themselves. They are the ones that have to make the tough decisions. But where countries are willing to help themselves and the United States' presence, in some form or another, can make a difference, we will help. We will help find the path. We are indispensable as the pathfinder nation. And when we don't do it, then people say, where's the United States; why don't they help us. So I don't believe that American foreign policy is too aggressive. I believe that American foreign policy is fulfilling what is America's goal -- which is to help where we can make a difference. Q: How do you feel your Jewish ancestry will affect your ability to make peace in the Middle East? ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that my importance in trying to make peace in the Middle East is that I represent the United States of America. I am the American Secretary of State. And there have been American Secretaries of State of a variety of ancestries. The point here is that it is the role of the United States that makes the difference, and not the individual. This is to be the last question, I am told. Q: Being Eastern European yourself, do you believe NATO should expand to include Eastern Europe? ALBRIGHT: I definitely do. Even if I were not -- even because I am Eastern European or not Eastern European; it has nothing to do with it. It's a little bit like the previous question, which is that what I am is the American Secretary of State who represents the best interests of this country and follows out what are the wishes of the elected President of the United States, who is acting in America's national interest. Let me tell you why I think that NATO should expand. Europe was divided artificially at the end of the Second World War -- not by choice of the people who live in Central and Eastern Europe. They were liberated by the Soviet Union. They wanted very much to be a part of Western society, even at that time. With the end of the Cold War, that part of Europe wishes to take its rightful place as a part of a united Europe. This is the first time in this century that we have a free and united Europe that is there, ready to take its place in the international system. NATO was in fact created as the prime defensive alliance of our time; and it served very well during the Cold War. We had choices as to what to do at the end of the Cold War. We could have scrapped NATO and decided that there needed to be some different security system for Europe, because the original purpose of NATO was finished. But NATO was a pretty good alliance, and we actually all get along pretty well, and it serves a good purpose, and it's very well organized. So why scrap it, because it's so good. We could have, also, simply decided that we wouldn't take the other countries in because, after all, they weren't there at the beginning. Or we could have just thrown the doors open and let anybody come into NATO. We decided that it was important to set very high standards for who would come in to this best military alliance in the history of the world, and so the countries -- three countries -- Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary -- that were invited to be members this first time have to meet very high standards. And they have to understand that they have responsibilities and obligations with their membership. There are those who think that we shouldn't have taken them at all, and thereby, made permanent the division of Europe; and that it was perfectly all right for us to always keep our alliances with old democracies and never have alliances with new democracies. So we believe that what is best for America is to have a NATO that has expanded now, by these countries, made clear that it is open to other countries that meet the standards of democracy and free market systems and their ability to do their fair share in NATO, to leave the door open for those in the next set of invitations that will go out. So it's a very exciting policy. It's going to be hard work. I'm going to testify before Congress next week about it. But I think it's the right thing to do, and it's a way to make sure that there are no dividing lines in Europe. Since that was the last question, let me say to you how very grateful I am for your reception, for your totally terrific questions. And I hope very much that for all of you foreign policy will not be foreign; that you will see, in a career that somehow involves foreign policy, something very exciting. I have three daughters; they're too old now for me to learn any new vocabulary from them, so I will have to use the vocabulary I learned from them when they were your age -- which is, foreign policy is awesome, foreign policy is cool. And I ask you all to join me in supporting the foreign policy of the United States, which is clearly the best country in the world. Thank you all very much. (end transcript)