My Conversation with Madeleine Albright: Let's Talk to Iran Just Like We Are with North Korea

Madeleine Albright, who met with North Korea's Kim Jong-il when she was U.S. secretary of state during the Clinton administration, is now an adviser to Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency.

She spoke with me on Monday about the new deal between the U.S. and North Korea. (In the deal, North Korea has declared the extent of its plutonium-processing program and agreed to shut down the Yongbyon reactor, but it has not declared how many nuclear weapons it has. North Korea also has not agreed to get rid of those weapons, and it has not reported on its missile capability or its suspected uranium-enrichment activities. These are for the next stage of negotiations. In return, the U.S. has agreed to remove North Korea from its list of "state sponsors of terror" if the declaration is verified. )

Nathan Gardels: You were close to a deal with North Korea, which you personally negotiated, at the end of the Clinton administration. What do you think of the deal the Bush administration has just made?

Madeleine Albright: This deal with North Korea is a very important step in the right direction. But a great deal of the data North Korea has handed over still needs to be verified through inspecting their nuclear facilities.

To be frank, however, the Bush administration could have had this deal many years ago had it picked up where the Clinton administration left off. When the Bush administration came into office, we thought that North Korea had enough plutonium to make one or two weapons; now the best estimates are that they have enough to make six to eight bombs, if not more. And, of course, they have openly tested a nuclear device.

So, while an important step forward -- I don't want to denigrate this deal at all -- from the U.S. standpoint we are nonetheless worse off than eight years ago.

Gardels: You are one of the few Western leaders to have ever met Kim Jong-il. What changed that brought him to the table again? What changed within the Bush administration that made it seek a deal?

Albright: From the North Korean side, the breakthrough came because the U.S. agreed to direct talks. Certainly, my experience has been that it is always direct talks that move a situation forward. When I was involved in negotiations, the American aspect was paramount to the North Koreans.

Also, the North Korean regime is under immense pressure due to food and energy shortages. There is no pragmatic alternative to escaping isolation and making a deal.

On the Bush side, those who believed in diplomacy finally prevailed against the hardliners, no doubt due to the realization that military intervention and policies of isolation without diplomacy rarely get you what you want. This meant that the U.S. negotiator on North Korea, Chris Hill, was given the go-ahead for direct talks with the North Koreans. This was key to getting to the point.

Of course, the direct U.S.-North Korea talks took place within the context of the "six-party" process (the U.S., China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and North Korea), which has proved an important means to get the countries in the region to act together if they have a common interest -- in this case, stopping North Korea's nuclear ambitions from threatening its neighbors and upsetting the stability needed for economic growth. China, in particular, has shown they can be a responsible partner in managing nuclear proliferation in their own neighborhood.

Gardels: Are the North Koreans more likely to stick to this agreement because all the surrounding regional powers have signed on?

Albright: Yes, I think so. Of course, each party has a separate set of issues. For example, the Japanese want to get a full accounting of all Japanese who were abducted by North Korea. China is particularly important in keeping North Korea's feet to the fire because North Korea is so dependent on them for trade and energy.

So, it is a combination of elements that have made this work: direct talks with the U.S. and the "no hostility" aspect ultimately moving toward normal relations as well as the presence of the regional powers -- the Chinese, in particular -- as guarantors.

Gardels: What lessons does this diplomatic step forward with North Korea hold for the efforts of the West to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

Albright: The lesson is that the U.S. has to be engaged in direct talks with Iran to break the current stalemate. The Europeans can't do it alone. As with the North Koreans, for the Iranians, the "American aspect" is critical.

The history of negotiations with Iran has been Europe playing the good cop and the U.S. playing the bad cop. But that has not seemed to move the process forward.

It is time for America's leadership to understand that you don't lose by having direct contact and conversations. Talking is not appeasement. In my conversations with Kim Jong-il, I was extremely clear on what we expected in terms of shutting down their nuclear program in exchange for a course toward normal relations. And I was clear that everything agreed needed to be verified. We weren't just having polite tea and begging them to please be nice.

In some quarters, there is a complete misunderstanding of the vehicle of diplomacy. Its point is to deliver tough messages and to listen. The U.S. is doing neither with Iran. Doing so now with North Korea shows diplomacy can get results.

Gardels: You are now an Obama adviser in the presidential campaign. Is this Obama's message?

Albright: Barack Obama believes we should talk to our enemies, to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with both North Korea and Iran. He lauded the North Korea deal as a step forward and has said we should continue down this fruitful path. This success in North Korea is, in fact, a vindication of the very approach to the world Obama has been calling for throughout his campaign.

As a U.S. senator, he will have a role, since the Congress must agree over the next 45 days on whether North Korea should be taken off the terrorism list. Like others in the Congress, he understands that everything depends on verification of the data North Korea has handed over in its declaration. Obama has asked that the Congress have access to the declaration so it can take the time needed to check it all out.

Gardels: As Reagan said with respect to Gorbachev: Trust but verify.

Albright: Absolutely. The North Koreans want the sanctions associated with being on the terrorism list removed. The U.S. Congress won't remove those sanctions without verification. That is the way it ought to work. It is also, of course, in the interests of China and the other regional powers to have a verifiable agreement, so they too must do their part.

Comments

[funnyguy]

Colin Powell's Chief-of-Staff, Larry Wilkerson, a former Army Colonel who worked for many years in the Defense Department, once described Madeleine Albright as a person "who never met a military option she didn't like."

The reason we have a trillion dollar defense budget [including non- DoD expenditures such as VA and intelligence] is people like Madeleine Albright---a true hawk.

[Troubledgoodangel]

Why not choose Madeleine Albright vice -President. She would do an excellent makarena dancing partner to Sen. Obama.

[katzooks]

Good points. We citizens need to urge our representatives to cosponsor H.R. 5056 which supports diplomatic efforts with Iran, toward staving off what looks more and more like another inevitable Bush-Cheney War. The Physicans for Social Responsibility are working to educate the public and our politicians toward understanding the consequences of such a war, particularly if it involves nuclear activity, which Bush refuses to rule out. You can sign their petition here: https://secure2.convio.net/psr/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=277

Also, consider celebrating National Dennis Kucinich Day, a well-deserved observation of, perhaps, the most patriotic American alive today, who has fought tirelessly to get the truth out on this war, and to urge diplomacy. You can celebrate the day by signing some of the many petitions against the war in Iran, (canarypapers has lots of links) variously addressed to your representatives, the Bush-Cheney gang, et al.

[jeanrenoir]

The American public had better wake up real fast and tell Israel in no uncertain terms that if Israel, or its neocon wind-up puppet, the Bush Administration, bombs Iran, and gives the American masses $10 to $15 A GALLON gas at the pump, destroys our stock market in the process, and causes a genuine economic depression here and worldwide, the American people will entirely BLAME Israel for all its economic woes, and there will be hell to pay. This is still a democracy of sorts, and votes and public rage are worth more than AIPAC campaign financing and spin control. Jews are only 1.8% of the electorate. If Israel becomes genuinely hated by the "hard-working, WHITE" voters Hillary stirred up in her desperate attempt to defeat Obama, all the Jewish donors in the world won't be able to save Israel from the American public's wrath. And a new, virulently anti-Israel demagogue of the George Wallace type won't be far behind. Why Israel and AIPAC are so insanely arrogant that they don't seem to get this is truly beyond rational explanation. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make blind.

[danoj]

LoL, like the old waxworks Madeline Albrite shown many times as I recall toasting champagne with the North Korean Dictator has anything to talk about. The Nort Korea mess was the Clinton Admins baby same as 9/11. I like how the gohsts of Clintons past have constantly tried to rewrite the history of his crap foriegn policy that with Clinton Admins aid saw china and North Korea get nukes, the failure in somaia that left that country in shambles until this day, treating terrorism as as a police action (see kobar tower, world trade center, uss cole, and bin laden declaring war on the U.S.), Bosnia and his, "we will be home by christmas.", and the lead up to 9/11. Of course, if you listen to anyone from that administration it was the golden age of American life all that other stuff was someone elses fault.

[moreupnorth]

History lesson. 9/11 was a direct result of GHW Bush's insistance on putting American troops on Saudi soil during the first Gulf War. That is what turned the mujahadeen allies into the Al-Qaida enemies. Publicly stated by UBL, Nothing to do with the Clinton admin.

The Clinton Admin passed documents, based on solid intelligence that turned out to be true, to the Bush admin during the trun over of the Presidency in 2000. Remember the intelligence document supplied by Clinton's admin stating "Bin Laden determined to strike on American soil" They were promptly ignored and 9/11 happend on Bush's watch. I seem to remember both Bush and Rice saying "Noone could have forseen this coming" I guess that was true for anyone who was not in the Clinton Admin or ingnoring the provided intelligence..

Check the facts!

[glaze]

"butbutbutbut CLINTON...! " OK, you made your point.

[Charley2u]

When Albright showed up beside Barack, I knew the end of "Bamelot" was nigh...there are just certain people on this planet who emit a darkness borne of smoking human flesh...

Albright and Lee "I couldn't find a crime with google maps and a magnifying glass" Hamilton...SHEESH!

http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/

[rwe]

1) Pres Bush and this administration took care of the disaster left by Bill and maddie.. and 2) add her to the rogues gallery of Obama misanthropes... Just recently added to Weasley Clark and Webb

[research]

rwe, is that you Bush? I mean who else would pretend (admit) to still believe BushCo?

[RedDogBear]

Yes, such a disaster! A budget surplus for the first time in decades, no wars, a government infrastructure that actually worked. Thank God that Bush fixed all that.

[jmad]

If you agree with me in advance, I will talk.
The difference is that N. Korea is a basket case, whereas Iran has plenty of what others want regardless if we sanction them or not.
Bombing anyone only pisses them off and hardens their resolve.

[Comanchero]

Alnotsobright and Jimminey Peanutman are TWO of the reasons there remained a huge problem all during and after the Clinton administration debacle! Only Bush's handling of it has provided any results in reducing the threat N. Korea represents!

[freshnotbitter]

I knew a businessman who went to North Korea to do business once (note to FBI: He was not an American national) and he was taken from the airport to a room where he was interrogated and told that he had to answer questions before he could talk to the government office he was visiting. I asked him what kind of questions they asked him and he said they asked him how many times a week he had sex with his wife.

These people are orbiting beyond Pluto.

[research]

The Israelis asked me and my girl friends exactly the same thing when we visited.

[carlmarks]

but still far better off than they way she left the north koreans - with an active, robust and unmonitored nuclear program. old madeline has nothing to talk about except her own failure

[mergina]

It will never get to talks. Bush and Israel are planning to bomb the hell out of them before he leaves office.

To think of the innocent lives that will perish and be turned upside down if they do survive, because of this dimwitted war monger profiteering piece of wretchedness call our president.

I hate him, genuinely hate him.

[noneIn2008]

Albright, there is a name of a disaster in foreign policy.

[partyofone]

You think maybe Madeleine Albright is a little self-serving in her comments? She's another HIllary opportunist turned Obama supporter and adviser when her Clinton gravy train ran out. Obama would be wise to be careful about accpeting Albright's advice.

Reportedly, she is the one who advised Hillary to vote FOR the WAR in Iraq and to authorize use of force against Iran. If so, she has seriously flawed judgment.

[Robertx5]

Sorry wrong Kim
Kim Jong-Il

[Robertx5]

What people leave out on the threads here, are that when the new Bush administration cold shouldered them, the North Koreans were totally humiliated.
The discussions with the previous American administration had led to Kim Il-sung visiting South Korea, the western media were amazed to discover that he could speak foreign languages, knew what was going on in the world and actually didn't appear to be a dangerous lunatic, and Kim Il-sung loved it.
The North Koreans thought that isolation may not be the only option for them. But then because the new govt in Washington didn't deal with people like them, the doors were slammed shut.
Face is very important in Asia, so what was their only option to get noticed again?
Build the bomb.