*EPF405 06/22/00
Transcript: Secretary of State's Remarks on U.S. Foreign Policy
(Albright criticizes Congress for cuts in funding account) (6510)

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says that "already this year, Congress approved a budget resolution that will slash more than 12 percent from the President's foreign affairs funding request.

"Meanwhile," she said, "it has failed to approve emergency funds to pay our share of UN peace operations in Kosovo and East Timor and has cut the account so severely we may not even be able to pay bills for a beefed up operation near the Israel-Lebanon border.

"This is irresponsible," Albright said in remarks at the annual Eizenstat Memorial Lecture in Atlanta June 18.

"The 21st century is no time for America to retreat," said Albright. "Congress should approve the funds the President has requested so we can meet our responsibilities in the Middle East and around the world."

The Secretary of State responded to questions from the audience on a wide range of U.S. Foreign Policy issues including Kosovo, Europe, Chechnya, Russia, the Middle East Peace Process, Iran, Iraq, China and Korea, as well as the issue of building a National Missile Defense.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman

June 21, 2000

As Delivered

REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT

13TH ANNUAL LEO AND BARRY EIZENSTAT MEMORIAL LECTURE

Atlanta, Georgia

June 18, 2000

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Stu, thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you all. Thank you all very, very much. (Applause.)

Well, there's nothing better than to be introduced by a very close friend. Thanks for saying all that, Stu, and for being such a good and wonderful friend all those years. And I want to thank you all for coming on a hot Sunday, and Fathers Day to boot, to come and listen to me. I'm very, very grateful to you and honored that you would come and listen.

I am delighted that Michelle Henson is here and excellencies from the Diplomatic Corps and so many from the congregation that I said I was allowed to call AA. (Laughter.) And Stu, I'm deeply honored that you asked me to participate in this lecture series in memory of your father and uncle. I know that no one cherishes their family more than you do, so I want to acknowledge all the members of your family who are here today. Sylvia; Fran, my dear friend also; Jay and Jessica; Brian and Erin; Joel and Linda; Renee and Lee. You are a truly outstanding family and whenever we all get to see each other, I am much impressed by your bonds.

And I would like to join with all of you in taking a moment to remember the late Bessie Eizenstat, who had attended each of the earlier lectures in this series and who I know is deeply loved and now is sorely missed. Zichron l'bracha. I also want to thank Rabbi Goodman, Dr. Blumenthal and the members of the Eizenstat Lecture Committee for thinking of me for this shool's hospitality and you have, indeed, made me feel more than totally at home. But, even so, it is with some trepidation that I appear before you, because I know the previous speakers in this series have set a very high standard.

You have heard from some of the great political leaders, diplomats and writers of our time, including three Nobel Peace Prize winners and, next to them, I can only brag about a magazine naming me one of the 25 most intriguing people of 1997, alongside a cloned sheep. (Laughter.) Moreover, the man who introduced me has himself always set the highest of standards. Stu Eizenstat has succeeded at just about everything he's ever tried to do, from basketball to law, and from being a leader on domestic policy under President Carter to leading on international economic policy under President Clinton.

The breadth of Stu's accomplishments is astonishing but it is the character of the man that is so inspiring. Throughout his career, he has been dedicated not simply to succeeding but to succeeding in the right cause for the right purpose and the right way. He understands that public service is not about having a big office or a fancy title; it's about getting things that matter done.

So, to summarize, you here in Atlanta knew it first. I learned it long ago. All the world knows it now: Stu Eizenstat is a total and absolute mensch. (Applause.) And nowhere has his versatility and humanity been displayed to a greater effect than in his leadership of our diplomatic efforts related to the recovery and restitution of Holocaust assets. Just this past week, Stu brokered an agreement with the German Government and industry that will speed the resolution of slave and forced labor claims arising out of the Nazi era. The result is that some $4.9 billion should finally be made available to compensate victims.

Earlier, he helped arrange the promise of compensation for the heirs of Holocaust victims who, long ago, sent their money to Swiss banks for safekeeping. He helped convince some of the largest European insurance companies to pledge that they would make good on policies taken out before the war. And he helped forge an international statement of principles for identifying and restoring works of art stolen by the Nazis and their collaborators to the rightful owners. And he is pressing governments in Central and Eastern Europe to return and restore other properties that were wrongfully taken, including synagogues and cemeteries.

Needless to say, all of this has been and remains hard work. It requires that painful memories be revisited, easy evasions confronted and inconvenient questions answered. It demands a relentless search for truth, despite the fact that in dealing with the Holocaust, the truth is terrible beyond comparison. No one can provide justice to Holocaust victims. We can neither restore life nor rewrite history. But we can make the ledger slightly less out of balance by devoting our time, energy and resources to the quest for fact, the return of property and the payment of just claims. As an American, I am pleased that our nation has taken a leading role in these efforts. As a friend, I am proud of all that Stu Eizenstat and his team have achieved.

And as someone whose family, like many of yours, includes loved ones who perished in the Holocaust, I am deeply moved by all that is being done. I was one of those people who lived in Central Europe for whom the Holocaust was history. Until recently, I didn't know how personal that history was to me. Since then, I have visited Terezin, I have been to the Pinkas Synagogue in Prague where I have found my grandparents' names. I have put the past together but I will never be able to put the past behind me.

The Holocaust reminds us of how great a stake we all have in encouraging cross-cultural tolerance, respect and understanding in our own country and around the world. In that sense, Atlanta's reputation as the city too busy to hate reflects the fundamental values of America at its best. For our nation's very identity is built on the conviction that people of different races, religions and ethnic origins can live together productively, freely and in peace.

From the era of Thomas Jefferson to the time of William Jefferson Clinton, our diversity has been a primary source of our strength and a major reason our country has gained influence and respect through decades and around the world. And today, America is in a unique position to lead the world in defense of freedom, on behalf of peace and in support of respect for fundamental human rights.

Certainly we played that role last year in Kosovo. President Clinton and his NATO counterparts were right to stop Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of terror and to send a message throughout Southeast Europe that ethnic cleansing is intolerable. Now we are working with our partners to transform the entire region from a zone of chronic instability into a full participant in a Europe whole and free.

We are right, as well, to support the War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia because true peace will not come to that land without justice and justice requires that accountability for the atrocities committed there be established and that those who consider rape just another tactic of war answer for their crimes.

The United States and the European Union were right when we responded to the unwelcome entry of the so-called Freedom Party into Austria's Government by saying that we could no longer conduct business as usual. There is no room anywhere in Europe for the politics of hate. We allowed that virus to spread in the past; we will not allow it to infect our future. (Applause.)

Governments from around the world are right in telling officials in Tehran that what happens in the current espionage trial of 13 Iranian Jews will have repercussions everywhere and that if they want to earn international respect, the way to begin is by respecting the dignity of their own citizens.

Finally, it is right for the United States to persist in helping Israel and her Arab neighbors find the path to peace. Prime Minister Barak's goal remains a settlement of all permanent status issues by September 13th, less than three months from now. We fully support that and we are working hard with the parties to make progress towards that goal. This past week, senior Israeli and Palestinian negotiators resumed their discussions in the Washington, D.C., area. We have been in regular contact with them and have sought to impress upon them the importance of not allowing the opportunity that now exists to slip away.

Clearly, the permanent status issues are the most complex and emotional the parties have faced. But nothing as vital as Middle East peace is easy. On Thursday, President Clinton and I met with Chairman Arafat. We told him that we have also told Prime Minister Barak, America is prepared to help in any way we can to make less difficult the hard choices each must make. But we cannot make those decisions for them. The President has since asked me to return to the Middle East, which I will do before the month is out. And my goal will be to determine whether the two sides are close enough on the key issues that it would be useful to invite their leaders to a summit here in the United States.

We are also doing all we can to encourage progress toward peace between Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon. In this connection last Tuesday, I traveled to Damascus to attend the funeral of President Asad who had ruled Syria with an iron hand for three decades. I met there with his son, Dr. Bashar Asad. We will have to wait and see how the succession issues are resolved and in what directions the new leadership will take their country.

I believe very strongly, however, that the logic of peace is compelling for all the parties and that the opportunity for peace has never been so clear. Prime Minister Barak's courageous decision to re-deploy Israeli troops from Lebanon has only underscored this point, and those with authority in Lebanon now have a clear responsibility to ensure that the area bordering Israel is not used to launch attacks. (Applause.)

The weeks to come will be critical. Either we will see a retrenchment that will carry with it dangers far exceeding the risks inherent in peace, or bold strides in the direction of an historic breakthrough. Our hopes are high but our expectations are realistic and the outcome remains uncertain.

What is certain is America's support not only for the peace process but also for Israel. Other Secretaries of State have explained our special relationship on the basis of Israel's strategic significance, its democratic character, its economic might and the ties of family and friendship that bind our peoples. On other occasions, I've made these same points and they are more than sufficient to justify our alliance.

But this afternoon, I want to recall an experience that Eleanor Roosevelt had while visiting a refugee camp shortly after World War II. Walking along, the former First Lady encountered an old woman. "I had no idea who she was," wrote Mrs. Roosevelt, "and we couldn't speak each other's language. But she knelt in the muddy road and threw her arms around my knees. With anguish in her voice, she said just one word, but she said it over and over again: `Israel,' she murmured, `Israel, Israel, Israel.'"

Other grounds are sufficient, but Israel's origins are another reason I am confident that America's commitment to its security and defense will remain as fixed and permanent as the sky. (Applause.) Of course, America's support will mean little if we don't have resources to back it up.

For many years, we've provided generous assistance to reinforce our commitment to Israel and our support for peace. This remains a cornerstone of our policy. But even a cornerstone can erode if the building above it collapses and we are currently engaged in yet another struggle to obtain the resources we need to sustain America's leadership role.

Already this year, Congress approved a budget resolution that will slash more than 12 percent from the President's foreign affairs funding request. Meanwhile, it has failed to approve emergency funds to pay our share of UN peace operations in Kosovo and East Timor and has cut the account so severely we may not even be able to pay bills for a beefed up operation near the Israel-Lebanon border. This is irresponsible. (Applause.)

The 21st century is no time for America to retreat. Congress should approve the funds the President has requested so we can meet our responsibilities in the Middle East and around the world. (Applause.) I think if I were to take a poll even here and ask people how much money we spend on foreign assistance or my budget, my foreign policy budget, many of you might guess 10 percent of our overall budget, 25 percent. Let me tell you what it is: less than 1 percent. Only one penny out of your federal dollar goes to support our foreign policy. That is ridiculous. (Applause.)

History has taught us that no part of humanity can hope to secure its rights if the rights of others are abused and denied. We each know too much of life and of ourselves to expect any human society to be entirely peaceful or perfectly just. But we also know enough of history to understand both that a better world is achievable and that atrocities which should be unimaginable are sometimes not only imagined but carried out.

Although there may be limits on what any of us can do, we each have the power to choose to hide behind ethnic identities or to enrich our heritage through understanding and respecting others; to hide behind national borders or to enrich our world through promoting justice, tolerance and law; to hide behind words or to enrich our future through actions that build peace, open minds and honor truth.

The United States was created and sustained by those who made the right choices. So were the traditions observed in this magnificent synagogue. Together, let us uphold the proud legacies we have inherited and thereby pay our debts to the past by safeguarding the future.

For your warm welcome here this afternoon, I am so very, very grateful to you. For establishing and maintaining such a wonderful community of faith here in Atlanta, I salute you. And for sharing Stu Eizenstat with Washington and the world, I thank you very, very much. (Applause.)

Q: Thank you, Madame Secretary. We asked those of you who wished to fill out cards for questions for the Secretary and we sorted through those and tried to select those that might be most pertinent.

Let me start by asking a question that is on the minds of many people in this synagogue today and that is the fate of the Iranian Jews who have been - and I use the term loosely - tried before an Iranian tribunal. What can we expect? What role has the United States played and yourself in particular in trying to stop the trial or mitigate the punishment? And what effect will the ultimate outcome have on the opening to Iran which you've tried to institute?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that what has been going on with the 13 Iranian Jews is something that we consider outrageous. They have been involved in or have been the victims of a show trial, basically, where they have not been able to have the kind of defense that they're entitled to and a variety of typical kind of show trial activities have taken place.

I have spent a lot of time, as have other members of the Administration, calling our counterparts - that's the diplomatic word for people who do the same thing that I do - foreign ministers, to have them also raise the consciousness about the unacceptability of this trial. And I think that many of them have in fact responded by making quite clear their concern about the trial and their apprehension about the verdict. We also voted against a loan by the World Bank which would give money to Iran. And I was disappointed that many of the other countries did not go along with this, their explanation being that the loan was primarily for humanitarian purposes.

Which brings to the point the problem that we're now having, frankly, in dealing with Iran because, for those of you that have been following the situation, there clearly is movement in Iran where President Khatami has been elected by a substantial group of people, many of whom are young and female and who want to see a change in Iran and who are pressing for reforms. Their new parliament, the Majlis, has also now been able to seat a large proportion of these reform people and so, to a great extent, there is a struggle going on in Iran and the question is, how the judiciary and how their press will in fact react to verdicts that are unacceptable.

But we are watching the situation very closely. We have made clear that it is very hard to move down any road at all for putting a path of any kind to normalization with this kind of a situation. But we are watching very carefully and we have made our views very clear about the unacceptability of a kangaroo type court and a show trial.

Q: Madame Secretary, you have met with the new Russian president, President Putin. And in the several weeks since he's taken office, there have been some troubling developments, including the arrest of Mr. Gusinskiy, the head of the Jewish community there, and seeming pressures on the chief Rabbi of Moscow. The question asked here is, does this indicate a revival of anti-Semitism, what is the US doing about this, is this a broader issue even beyond anti-Semitism and what role can we have to affect this type of action?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me take a little bit longer to answer this question because I do think that US-Russia relations continue to be very important to our overall foreign policy. President Putin is, to put it in the vernacular, a mixed bag. He is a combination of someone who is very smart and someone who is, I would say, a dedicated patriot who would like to see a strong and vital Russia. He is pragmatic and he is very interested, I think, in enlarging the scope of Russia's diplomatic policies and very dedicated to putting Russia back on its feet economically.

He also wants to have some order. Now, the Russian people, since the end of the Cold War, for the last decade, have operated in a setting which I think, to them, is very disorienting after 70 years of Communism and who were - the intellectuals, I think, very much liked all what we had originally started calling glasnost and discussions. But for the most part, a lot of the ordinary people were feeling pinched because their pensions didn't bring them what they needed and for 70 years when they were in a line to get bread, the line was long but at the end of it there was bread and it was the same price that it had always been. Whereas, in more recent times in Russia, it really was chaotic.

And so the buzzword was that they wanted was "poryadok," which means order. Now for me, the question is whether Mr. Putin is going to give them order with a small "o" or order with a capital "O." And some of the moves that he has taken are small "o" type because they really do need to put some rhyme or reason into their tax laws and their land reform and to make their parliament, their Duma, to work. But some have the smell of the large "O" and I think that what happened with Mr. Gusinskiy is in that vein.

Mr. Gusinskiy is what is known as an oligarch, one of the people who has in fact made a great deal of money in the freer, post-Communist period. But he also is the owner of a large media conglomerate. And what the Russians are saying is that there have been allegations of mishandling of money and money laundering and various other aspects. But, in fact - and that may be so. We have no way of knowing. But they have, in fact, taken steps versus him, put him in jail. He's now been released. But he will be undergoing a trial, presumably. And I think the kinds of closing down of media is - doesn't sound good to us at the moment.

There also were allegations of pressure on the chief Rabbi of Moscow. He's now denied that. But I do think that we all have to keep a very watchful eye. We have always spoken to the Russian authorities about the danger of a rise of anti-Semitism and we did this on this last trip. And, at the same time, have also spoken to them about the dangers of cutting down on personal freedoms.

I went to visit Radio Liberty and met with Mr. Babitskiy, that reporter who was lost for a while in Chechnya. One of the main concerns that Mr. Putin has is over Chechnya and I think he does have a legitimate concern about terrorism; we all do in our own way in our various countries. But we made very clear to him that the way he was going about things was not right and that he needed to have political dialogue.

He does. There's a very interesting book which those of you who have access to it called First Person, which is a collection of interviews that President Putin has done which show a lot about him. He did want to be a KGB agent from the time he was 15 and he is very dedicated and determined and he is very smart and he wants to have a Russia that can be respected. And so we have to watch actions very carefully and we have to work with him and we want to have a good relationship with Russia. It is in US national interests to have a good working relationship with Russia, cooperate where we can and make very clear where we disagree.

Q: As you can imagine, there are a number of questions about the Middle East and I think, rather than ask them separately, let me try to group them and let you handle them all at the same time. One has to do with the Lebanon border.

What is the US Government role in support of the UN securing the Lebanese-Israeli border?

The second, as you would anticipate, is the final status talks are now in hopefully their final status. Under what circumstances will the US Government support Israel's desire for an undivided Jerusalem?

You have met with Bashar Asad. What is your assessment about Syria's desire for peace?

And, in total, since all of these are so interconnected, as you go to the Middle East next week, certainly with everyone's prayers and blessings, what are the prospects with the situation in Israel politically also being very tenuous?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: That's easy. (Laughter.)

Let me wade into these questions. Clearly, what we have all been looking for and have worked so hard for is a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. That's what the people deserve. And we have, this Administration, has spent an incredible amount of time on this, with President Clinton deeply involved personally in trips that he has taken there, relationships that he has developed, the amount of time he spent at Wye, time since then. And I just can't even begin to tell you how much time he personally has spent on this.

And he is remarkable, I think, in terms of having a very good relationship and trust with the people of Israel and the leadership of the Israeli Government and also, I think, in having developed a relationship of trust with Chairman Arafat and the leaders in the Middle East. We think that there is an historic opportunity for this President to be able to make a difference. However, the decisions that have to be made have to be made by the leaders themselves. The United States can help, can create the venue, can make suggestions, can narrow gaps, can do all kinds of things. But ultimately, these are existential decisions for the people and the leaders who are there. And I think, as I discussed the various parts of this, it's very important to keep that in mind.

On the Lebanon border, as I said in my remarks, I think that Prime Minister Barak really took a bold and courageous step in deciding to pull the IDF out. And we have since then been trying to deal with how to make sure that the border is secure and that it has been verified that the Israelis have pulled out.

Yesterday and early this morning, I have been dealing with this very specific issue because the Lebanese are very concerned and a little suspicious about some of the things that are going on, so they have not been very eager to say that what the United Nations has done is verifiable. But the United Nations has, in fact, been tasked with doing the verification of the border and they have declared it that the Israelis have withdrawn.

And just as I got off the airplane - I have to tell you I love my airplane; it says the United States of America on it and it has a good phone - (laughter) - I was called to say the Security Council had in fact passed a presidential statement by them to say that the Secretary General's report that the border - that the Israelis have withdrawn and they could verify it, that that had been passed and now the Secretary General I think is supposed to proceed to Beirut to begin to work harder and further in terms of getting the Lebanese to deploy some of their forces down to the border and UNIFIL, the United Nations operation there, to deploy to make sure that the area is secure. Because, as you can well imagine, that is a dangerous area and we all want to make sure that there are no provocations. So that's where we are on the Lebanese side and carrying out Resolution 425 and 426 of the UN.

On Syria, I think that early on in Prime Minister Barak's tenure, he and we and the Syrians seem to be in a position where we are working on how to get that track going. As it turns out, in Geneva, it was clear that there was a disagreement about what was meant about the Israelis withdrawing from the Golan and we set it aside. When I just went to Damascus, Dr. Bashar Asad said that he wanted to continue to work on the peace process. They are now going into a 40-day mourning period and he obviously has to figure out whether he has - what his support is and how he's going to be able to move. But I had met with Foreign Minister Shara in Cairo a few days before that and I think we have both said that the door is open.

Now, on the core issue, and it is very clear and we've said this over and over again, the core issue of the comprehensive peace is the Palestinian track and there have been talks going on in a number of channels. And as I mentioned in my remarks, negotiators are now in the Washington area. They are dealing with the issues that are at the center of all the Palestinian track discussions that have to do with borders, settlements, refugees and the status of Jerusalem. That's the package that was left for the permanent status. They are now first working on a framework agreement that deals with a variety of these issues. And, again, while we can be helpful, the leaders themselves have to make the decisions.

I will be going to the Middle East - everybody goes to the Middle East via China - (laughter) - so I will be going there. And I will be, on the President's request, making an assessment to determine whether there's a basis to go to a summit. Because while there are a lot of dynamics that do take place in a summit that allow for difficult decisions to be made that negotiators can't do, that the leaders face-to-face have to make, it's very important to make sure that there is a chance that we can get this done. Because you can't - you don't have too many chances to kind of leap across an abyss.

So when I have - when I talk to the press, I talk a lot about narrowing gaps. I've kind of run out of different ways to say that. But that's what we're trying to do. And we will be working very hard now through the summer to try to figure out how to get those gaps narrowed on those issues and then various issues which have to do further with this, which is water and some of the other regional issues that are very much a part of the Middle East peace discussion.

Q: There seem to be concerns about the impact of US sanctions on Iraq with Saddam Hussein complaining that they're hurting average people. What is our policy with respect to future sanctions and with respect to dealing with Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses to the region?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: This is an issue - this is a very nice audience; people aren't out there demonstrating against me on this - and I have now survived three commencements being called a war criminal and various things because of what we're doing on Iraq. And so I'm very glad to have the opportunity to discuss this.

I think we have to remember what happened. Saddam Hussein invaded another country. And the international community, with President Bush in the lead, put together a coalition to push him back. Before that, Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, his own people, and since the war he has systematically deprived his people of food and medicine.

Now, there's a mistake out there where people think that there's an embargo against food and medicine. There isn't. He can purchase food and medicine. He chooses to spend his money on building palaces for himself and his cronies. And he's built about 50 since the end of the war, to a tune of about a billion dollars. And we, the United States, because we do care about the Iraqi people, have worked very hard on what is known as an Oil-for-Food Program and now he has the ability to pump around $10 billion worth of oil in order to buy food and medicine. That money can only go for food and medicine and humanitarian needs and is controlled and presided over by the United Nations. And in the areas where the UN actually is able to be in charge of the distribution, the infant mortality has gone down and those terrible stories about how children are suffering, in those areas things are better.

So I have a lot in common with the people who demonstrate about what is happening to the children of Iraq and I would say I care a great deal about them, perhaps more than their leader. But I am demonstrating against Saddam Hussein, not against the United States Government for dealing with a dictator. (Applause.)

Q: Two last questions. First, with the remarkable Korean summit this week, the issue arises of the nuclear shield that we're considering building and that both Russia, Europe and China have concerns about. Can you tell us about that summit and about the impact, if any, it might have, on our decision to build a nuclear shield?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first, let me talk about the summit which really, I think, is an historic event and I think we've been briefed by the South Koreans and I'm going to be going to Seoul also on the way to the Middle East and have a chance to get more information. But what they have done, President Kim Dae-jung, who is a great human rights leader, had for a long time been talking about something called the sunshine policy, where he wanted to open up to North Korea and do what he could about family reunification and try to get a more peaceful and stable peninsula, something that we have supported.

We have concerns, as do the South Koreans, about the nuclear potential of North Korea and their missile testing, and have been having talks in order to try to make sure that a missile moratorium that the North Koreans have talked about stays in place and that an agreed framework that was signed to limit their nuclear -

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: - so in place. And it is, as yet, difficult to say what the results of this historic summit will be. But it's very much a part of what we'd like to see happen, to have a peaceful Korean Peninsula.

Now, at the same time what we are concerned about, and it is the job of those that take care of American national security to worry about whether we are properly protected from the threat of missiles, primarily from these states that are of concern to us because they are building or potentially putting together missile or nuclear programs. And so it is the responsibility that the President has asked us all to try to figure out whether a national missile defense, which would protect all 50 states against this kind of a threat, should be put into place. And the threat that we have seen is primarily from North Korea and a little later from Iran.

We have been able to maintain a position of strategic deterrence with Russia and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has been the one that has held that arms control regime together and we believe that an ABM that is modified can, in fact, allow us to go forward with a national missile defense and that was part of the discussion that we had with President Putin in Moscow and is very much an ongoing discussion.

The President has said that he would make his decision as to whether to decide to go forward on this on the basis of four criteria: the threat; whether the technology for this works, what it costs; and, how it affects our arms control regime, as well as our relationships with our allies and with China and Russia. So he is going to consider all those criteria as he makes the decision and we are very much involved in that process now.

As you all know, there needs to be another test of this technology and then we have to make an assessment as to whether this is the right thing. But it's a very difficult decision because we do have to decide it is our responsibility for this period of time to protect the United States. And we have to find the best way to do that.

(Applause.)

Q: Last question. You've been remarkably generous with your time.

Given your remarkable career and your now almost four years as Secretary of State, what is your proudest accomplishment? Or perhaps it hasn't happened yet?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I have tried very hard not to think about that yet. The proudest thing for me, I have to say, is to represent the United States. There isn't a day that I don't feel proud to go around the world and say that I believe in the goodness of American power. (Applause.)

And I don't just mean that our military. Because our military is the finest in the world, but doesn't have to be used everywhere - (applause) - but in the power of our example and in our unselfishness. The United States is not an imperial country; we do not occupy territory. That's very hard for others to understand. And I think that we want very much to use our power to help resolve a lot of these ethnic disputes, to try to use the principles that this country was built on in order to help others.

I would be incredibly proud if we were able to bring about a Middle East peace. I think that would be an unbelievably good thing to do. (Applause.)

I am proud of what we did in Kosovo. I took a lot of heat for that. By the way, it was called Madeleine's war until it went okay. (Laughter.) I think we did the right thing. It's not easy and it's keeping the peace together and getting that done. But still there is an awful lot to do.

I would like it very much if people understood that the struggles in Africa affect us all. That humanitarian intervention is - (applause) - right. And I would be very proud if I could leave this job feeling that I had some influence on the American people understanding that each of our daily lives is affected by everything that goes on beyond our borders.

We are a great country but we are not alone. But I thank you so much for letting me represent you. (Applause.)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN