Is Madeleine Albright All Right?

by Nijad I. Fares

Now that Madeleine K. Albright has been confirmed as secretary of state, I want to comment on remarks in the Arab world about her. I feel strongly that it is not prudent to alienate the secretary of state of the world’s most powerful nation before even getting a sense of how she will direct U.S. policy in the Middle East. Unfortunately, there were cases of semi-official Arab newspapers and at least one Arab leader who bemoaned President Clinton’s selection.

I have asked some of her former colleagues about Secretary Albright’s probable attitude toward the Arab world. The common thread of their answers is that Dr. Albright has no “track record” on the Middle East. Most of her scholarly and professional interests have focused on Central and Eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R./ Russia. She will probably rely heavily on Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross and whomever becomes assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. I am told that Secretary Albright’s personality will be the best indicator of her approach to the Middle East. She is very assertive and is unlikely to tolerate obstructionism in the peace process. In private conversations with Middle East leaders, we can probably expect her to be more pointed than Warren Christopher. This is very important, because the Clinton administration’s style is to avoid public confrontation.

Why is much of the Arab world viewing Dr. Albright’s nomination with such trepidation? Three issues seemed to cause concern while she was U.S. permanent representative: her unyielding stance on the United Nations oil-for-food deal with Iraq, her castigation of the U.N. for the report on the Israeli shelling of the U.N. compound in Qana, Lebanon last April, and her efforts to prevent Boutros Boutros-Ghali, an Egyptian, from seeking a second term as United Nations secretary-general.

The Arab world should realize that, unlike the secretary of state, the permanent representative to the United Nations does not formulate foreign policy, but merely advises on strategy at the United Nations. Dr. Albright has always been characterized by flamboyant rhetoric and some of it was unquestionably insensitive to Arabs, but the Clinton administration foreign policy team was responsible for the policy, not Dr. Albright. No U.S. official exhibits any leniency when it comes to Iraq. The Clinton administration was hoping for the election of Shimon Peres as prime minister of Israel and feared that international embarrassment over the Qana shelling would spoil his prospects. The Clinton administration judged that the Republican Congress would never pay U.S. arrears to the United Nations if Boutros-Ghali remained secretary-general; there was never any animus toward Egypt or Arabs.

Dr. Albright is also characterized by loyalty, and I suspect that some of the zeal she demonstrated as U.N. permanent representative resulted from her attempt to impress President Clinton by implementing administration policy with vigor and efficiency.

The Arab world should definitely be watchful, albeit respectful, of Secretary Albright while she demonstrates how she will handle the Middle East portfolio. Her blunt style may even work to the advantage of the Arabs if Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is judged by the international community as responsible for thwarting the peace process.

President Clinton will have to set the tone on Middle East policy. If the president is willing to do this, the Arab world can take comfort in knowing that Secretary Albright will implement his policy tenaciously.

Although Israel welcomed the appointment of Dr. Albright as a “friend” of Israel, Israeli commentators noted that she was critical of the Netanyahu government for opening the Temple Mount tunnel in Jerusalem last September. The Arab world should note this, too, and consider that Secretary Albright’s performance will likely be more differentiated than they suspect.