The Fletcher School

Commencement Speech by Madeleine K. Albright

Dr. Ackerman, Dean Bosworth, distinguished officials and faculty of the Fletcher School; family, friends, and members of the class of 2002, congratulations and good morning to you all.

It is an honor to share this moment with you and also a great personal pleasure. As a professor, I love academic surroundings. As a parent and grandparent, I love graduations. And as a foreign policy wonk, I know I am treading on hallowed ground.

Although I did not attend Fletcher, I feel many personal connections to this fine school. Back in the 1960’s, this is where I met one of my heroes, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, after he delivered a speech. I never imagined then that I would one day be appointed to Acheson’s job. It’s not that I lacked ambition; it’s just that I had never seen a Secretary of State in a skirt.

When I did have the honor of serving in that position, one of my great pleasures was working with our Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, Steve Bosworth. He is, as you have learned, wise and talented, handsome and charismatic. America could not have had a finer Ambassador. And Fletcher could not have chosen a more capable leader.

The other connection I have to Fletcher is that wherever I went as Secretary of State, I was

constantly bumping into your graduates whether they were in government, the business community or a nongovernmental organization.

The reason is that the faculty and alumni of this school comprise a world affairs dream team. You are everywhere and your record is incredible.

In fact, I would say that Fletcher is more accomplished than any comparable institution—with the obvious exception of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, where I teach.

I have given many commencement speeches before, but usually to undergraduates.

To these younger students, I always speak very personally and try to be inspirational. I urge them to aim high, to go for the gold, to remember what is truly important, and above all, to avoid clichés like the plague.

Fletcher graduates are more experienced and mature. Many of you have been out in the real world and already know what it is like. That is, after all, why you went back to school.

You are also a very diverse and knowledgeable group.

So I feel I can use this opportunity to address controversial world events, secure in the hope that even if you disagree with me; you will disagree even more with one another.

Let us begin with the war against terror.

The Bush Administration deserves our support, and that of law-abiding people everywhere, in opposing Al-Qaeda and other groups that willfully murder innocent people in pursuit of political goals.

They deserve our support in defeating the Taliban, who ran a sort of bed and breakfast for terrorists, and brutally repressed their own people.

And they deserve our support in striving with allies on every continent to defeat the devil’s marriage between technology and terror.

Right now, the front line in this struggle remains Afghanistan, where despite some battlefield successes, we confront a sea of troubles.

The country is badly divided, factions are clashing, criminals are thriving, our enemies are re-grouping, and Osama bin Laden is still missing.

I am proud of the efforts by American and allied forces, but I am upset that the world community has thus far rejected requests from Afghan leaders to enlarge and broaden the international presence.

This is a decision I simply do not understand.

Because after September 11, stabilizing Afghanistan is not simply an option; it is a duty.

It is true our leaders plan to train an Afghan Army for the future.

But the time is now to prevent the seeds of terror from again taking root.

The time is now to come in with a firm hand and make clear to the warlords they need to go out and get real jobs.

The time is now to use our aid to create a compelling alternative to the feuding and fighting of the past.

And the time is now to ensure that when Afghanistan’s future is debated, Afghan women are not just clearing the dishes off the table, they are at the table, helping to make the decisions that will shape their lives and affect our security for decades to come.

This is critical, not only because it is just, but because it may be the only way to get leaders in Afghanistan to focus on education, jobs and health, instead of power, guns and drugs.

Transforming Afghanistan will not be easy. But we must not let the difficulty obscure the necessity.

Because it won’t matter much if we drive terrorists out of sight or even out of Afghanistan for a few weeks or months.

Our goal must be to help Afghanistan become a permanent terrorist-free zone.

And even if we succeed in that, it will only be the beginning. Because the proliferation of hate has become a multinational threat to our security, our economy and our peace of mind.

We must work with leaders and scholars on every continent to isolate and defeat those around the world who are pouring poison into the ears of young people.

This means reforming education in places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia so that children are no longer brainwashed into becoming bombers.

It means fighting bigotry and intolerance wherever those tendencies arise.

And it means encouraging a true dialogue of civilizations, so that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethic is understood as the unifying force it should be, and people everywhere are taught that no one’s blood is less or more precious than their own.

It also means finding a way out of the incredible mess that has developed in the Middle East.

I will tell you honestly that I am sick of stubborn old men leading their peoples into disaster.

I am sick of the hatred, the rationalizations, the cruelty and the indifference to human life.

Above all, I am sick of those who initiate, perpetuate and provoke violence while refusing to be held accountable.

There is no moral equivalence between acts of terror and acts taken to defend against terror.

Palestinian extremists have been and remain the gravest obstacle to Palestinian aspirations.

But responsibility for the present crisis must be widely shared.

Too many Arab leaders speak of peace one day while financing terror the next.

They advocate Palestinian rights while denying even the most basic rights to their own people.

At Camp David, Arafat rejected the best deal the Palestinians may ever be offered. He is a survivor and a virtuoso of doubletalk, not a leader.

But Ariel Sharon was also a fierce opponent of Camp David, and has never put forward a viable plan for peace.

Perhaps most chilling, both Arafat and Sharon are being challenged domestically for not being hardline enough.

As a result, many people now say there is no hope; and that Israelis and Palestinians can never live together, unless one side is crushed or the other pushed into the sea.

I do not believe that. And I will not accept it.

Because there is nothing inevitable about war in the Middle East…...

We cannot make choices for those who live in the Middle East.

But we can stand together and argue firmly the difference between wrong and right, between terror and humanity, between arrogance and compassion, and between the awful dance of death we are witnessing and the unexplored possibilities for peace--for which we daily pray.

I am pleased the Bush Administration is now taking an active role in trying to revive a diplomatic process.

But as I know from experience, this is a delicate and difficult task.

If progress is to occur, the Palestinians must understand they will never regain the land they have lost until they are truly committed to fighting terror on the land they have regained.

Arab leaders must cease to arm, finance, shelter and make excuses for terrorist groups.

Israel must defend itself while leaving the door open to peace.

We must all agree on an economic vision for the region that will give the desperate cause to look to the future with hope.

And as the Bush Administration has proposed, the time has come to establish a Palestinian State, with new and reformed democratic institutions. But that state must not be used, nor have the capability of being used, as a platform for attacking Israel.

This may require at least temporary separation between the parties and a more direct presence by outside parties.

And it will certainly require the steady engagement of the United States.

I strongly favor this because we are the only nation with the power to influence both sides, because we all have a stake in a stable Middle East, because the issues in that region are tied to the wider struggle against intolerance and terror--and because it is just plain right.

I have now been out of office for more than a year, and I am often asked whether I support the foreign policy of the current administration.

In most respects, the answer is yes. When I joined the State Department in 1993, I had all my partisan instincts surgically removed.

After being out of office for a few months, I could feel those instincts starting to grow back. But on September 11, I returned to the surgeon.

So I do support the Administration. I know they are dealing with some very hard problems. And as reluctant as they may be to admit that Bill Clinton did anything right, there are actually many areas of continuity.

At the same time, there are days when I have to ask, “Exactly which Administration are we talking about?”

Because on some important issues, the Bush foreign policy team seems to be suffering from untreated bipolar disorder.

They talk about the importance of our alliances in Europe and Asia and then fail to employ our alliances on matters of mutual security concern.

They advocate a more open system of world trade, while imposing protectionist measures on steel, and backing vastly increased subsidies for America’s corporate farms.

They support a heightened effort to save lives by fighting AIDS, while placing unwise restrictions on life-saving programs to promote reproductive health.

They warn about the dangers posed by ballistic missiles, but needlessly delayed negotiations with North Korea on how to reduce that very threat.

They talk about the importance of the rule of law, but seem allergic to treaties designed to strengthen the rule of law in areas such as money laundering, biological weapons, crimes against humanity, and the environment.

They criticize Cuba’s lack of democracy, while praising autocrats from Malaysia and other lands.

This split personality is also evident in Afghanistan, where one day they are ridiculing nation-building and the next proposing a new Marshall Plan; and in the Middle East, where the signals they have sent have varied day by day.

The root of the problem is that one half the Administration truly believes in what the Fletcher School teaches, which is international diplomacy and law; while the other half is less convinced.

They see alliances and agreements not as platforms for progress, but rather as restraints that may hold America back or tie America down.

There are times when the United States, like any country, must act alone to defend its most vital interests.

But today, in most places, in most cases, America will stand taller and do better if we are part of a larger team.

During his trip to Moscow and European capitals next week, President Bush will have the opportunity to clarify the character and purpose of American leadership by spelling out not only what America is against, which is terror, but also what America is for.

I hope that vision will be a unifying one, stretching across boundaries of geography and culture, gender and wealth, to inspire all who cherish freedom and are willing to meet freedom’s responsibilities.