So, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the stage Madam Secretary, Secretary Albright, and Strobe Talbott. (Applause)

MR. TALBOTT: Well, Madam Secretary, Madeline, you I think are right up there with Bono as a rock star. (Laughter) And he doesn't wear pins.

MS. ALBRIGHT: But he sings.

MR. TALBOTT: Let's get started if we could on something that has to do not just with the topic today, but of Madam Secretary's career. I would say not just her career but her whole life. You have in various ways have been living with the subject that we're talking about, from your youth as a scholar, as a diplomat, as somebody who was promoting and trying to protect democracy around the world. And a few years ago, and I can remember a number of conversations we had with each other, you were concerned that democracy was on its back foot, as it was. When did you become concerned that American democracy is on its back foot?

MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, before I answer that, let me just say how pleased I am to be at Brookings and very pleased with the Bosch Foundation. Have been doing other things and it's a fantastic operation and the combination is great. General Allen, thank you so much, and I remember that panel. But I also remember the other times we've talked and I think it is fantastic that you're here. And Strobe has been a very dear friend for a long time. We've gone through many things together and I don't think you've ever interviewed me.

MR. TALBOTT: Even being shot at.

MS. ALBRIGHT: We have been -- yes, right. But, anyway, I'm delighted to be here.
First of all, I am, for all kinds of reasons, a great supporter of democracy. My whole life my father was a Czechoslovak diplomat who had to leave his country twice because of authoritarian dictators, the first time the Nazis and then the communists. And when we came to the United States my father said he was very worried about the fact that Americans took their democracy for granted. And so I kind of grew up with that concept that it was a gift, but that we had to really cherish it and do something about it.

I'm chairman of the Board of the National Democratic Institute and that is an organization set up by President Reagan, who in 1983 spoke at London at Parliament and said that democracies were not real good in terms of protecting themselves and defining themselves vis a vis communism. And he came back and he started the Endowment for Democracy that has four institutes: the Democrats, the Republicans, the business, and labor. So then the question was, what would we do abroad? And you can't impose democracy, that's an oxymoron.

So promoting democracy. And one of the things that has happened recently as we've been in a number of countries, and we talk about the elements of democracy, the nuts and bolts of it, I say to people, coalition building and compromise is good. And they said you mean like you guys. So all of a sudden we are not the example of how democracy should work as the world's oldest democracy.

And so I am concerned about the fact that we are taking democracy for granted, that we don't fully understand, for whatever reason, the various elements that require democracy, and compromise definitely is one of them. And how democratic systems and the economy work together. So I am worried, and every day I'm worried more. And I have to say, I do make myself really try to listen to things I disagree with. By the way, I did drive here and I listened to right wing radio, so it's dangerous. (Laughter) But I was very troubled because last night I decided to watch television and to watch President Trump in Montana in which he actually told people that so that he wouldn't be impeached, people need to vote. That is a really weird way to summon people to democracy.

MR. TALBOTT: Wow.

MS. ALBRIGHT: Yup. Other than that, I have no views. (Laughter)

MR. TALBOTT: You referenced the NDI and, of course, there is IRI as
well. We lost a great American who was your counterpart as the chairman of the IRI. Are you and your colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if I can put it that way, working together to make sure that that mission succeeds?

MS. ALBRIGHT: The answer is yes and it's much more complicated than meets the eye. Let me just say -- and I'm so pleased you did mention Senator McCain. He and I got to know each other well before we were both chairs of our institutes, but very much associated with it, to go and monitor the elections in Czechoslovakia in the summer of 1990. And I was born in Prague and I had been able to go there a little bit earlier and meet with Václav Havel. By the way, I was handing him a book my father had written about 20th century Czechoslovakia, and as I'm handing it to him Havel says, I know who you are, you're Mrs. Fulbright. And I said no, I'm Mrs. Albright. (Laughter) And that is how it all started. But the fun part --
MR. TALBOTT: "Al" is better than "Ful".

MS. ALBRIGHT: But what was interesting was to be there with Senator McCain and give him a chance to -- for me to take him around the town I was born in. It was an amazing time. Paul Simon was singing in the old town square. And there's an incredible of Jan Hus, who is a first Protestant reformer, and there was always the question about Catholicism and Protestantism. Jan Hus was the first Protestant reformer and there's a thing that is written there that says Czechoslovakia will be saved when Saint Agnes comes to visit Jan Hus. And there was a sign that said Saint Agnes was here. (Laughter)

But basically the idea that the United States could go and monitor elections -- and John and I did that together and became very good friends, and did in fact do a lot to have NDI and IRI do work together. And you didn't know this, but I have now spent the time yesterday and the day before on the Hill talking to members of congress about how to protect the democracy money because the plan is to take it out. And even though Secretary Pompeo had said during his hearings that he was interested in keeping the democracy programs and Secretary Mattis has been very interested in keeping democracy programs, it really is a question.

And so I do think that it is something that we need to understand, not that we are imposing democracy or militarizing democracy, but that the United States, the people of the United States are better off if other countries are democracies.

MR. TALBOTT: As a former Secretary of State, I assume you are appalled at what is happening in that institution. Are you finding friends and colleagues, again in the other party, who agree with that? That we must have a strong Department of State?

MS. ALBRIGHT: Yes, actually. And, by the way, we were good partners when you were Deputy and we worked together on so many things and understood the value of the people that work at the State Department, the Foreign Service Officers and the civil servants, and how important they are obviously to America's diplomacy. I have found -- I do try to do many bipartisan things, and there are many republicans that fully understand the importance of that. And I think that people are speaking out.

The problem is the following -- by the way, I teach a course at Georgetown and I say foreign policy is just trying to get some country to do what you want, that's all it is. So what are the tools? And I go through we are the most powerful country in the world and there are not a lot of tools in the toolbox. And diplomacy, bilateral and multilateral, is the bread and butter tool. And you can't do diplomacy if you don't have diplomats. And so I think the problem at the moment, there are an unbelievable number of vacancies now in very high level posts.

We don't have an Ambassador in Turkey or in Saudi Arabia and others that are vital in terms of our policies. And the whole nomination process has been held up. And despite the fact that I think that Secretary Pompeo is trying to give the State Department back its swagger, I think that there are real problems with that. I have to say I'm very proud of the fact that one of my students, Davi Hale, has been confirmed to be Under Secretary for Political Affairs.

MR. TALBOTT: In your teaching do you have students coming up to you and saying, you know, I really wanted to be a diplomat, a foreign service officer, but it doesn't look like it's a profession that's going anywhere?

MS. ALBRIGHT: I unfortunately do, Strobe. I mean there are those that ask me whether they should go forward with their Foreign Service exams or push in order to really get in and that they are not sure what the career is, but also whether they want to be identified with the policy. And I urge them to go and be a part of what is a great history of our diplomatic service and our civil service. I do tell them they won't actually be accused of being part of the policy, they'll be stamping visas for a while (laughter), but the line is that they really -- I think what bothers me a lot and had bothered me from the beginning when there all the sudden was a freeze on hiring and that there really was a question, and that basically it isn't just an issue of who is ready to be an ambassador now, but that the pipeline will be bent and damaged in a way that we will not have a functioning diplomatic service in 15-20 years. So I am definitely worried about that.

And, by the way, one of the kind of ceremonies that the U.S. Institute of Peace holds is for what they call transferring the baton from one national security advisor to another. There was a dinner the night before and I was at a big table and I was doing something my kids always accuse me of, "eavesing", which is eavesdropping on a conversation. And the people at the table said, well we have to -- I don't know who they were, but they said we have to get rid of all those people that worked in previous administrations because they're not loyal.

And I couldn't help what happen when you "eaves", is to interrupt (laughter) and say that basically that's an outrageous thing to say, that these are people that are loyal to the United States and carry on very difficult jobs. So there really had been kind of the sense of not having those that have been in there before. And then, just generally, underfunding what is one of the most important and basic tools of our foreign policy.

MR. TALBOTT: President Trump obviously is -- for the office that he holds -- is a major (inaudible) in the problem that we're dealing with. But he's a newcomer. There has been I would say maybe 10 years when democracy was under attack, particularly in the west, which has of course been an area of alliance and certainly an integration and NATO and the EU, and that has weakened over the last 10 or so
years. What do you think is the reason for that?

 

MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that -- first of all, I do think democracy is complicated and difficult. It takes the knowledge of what is going on, it requires you to have information -- information is power in a democracy -- and just generally in terms of how problems were being dealt with. And so I have kind of talked about two mega trends and their downsides. So globalization, I think we are all beneficiaries of it in so many ways, especially people here. And has brought a lot of people together in capability of travel and exchanges, et cetera. But it does have a downside, it's faceless. And people feel that they have no identity. And so I think we all do want to have an identity in terms of our religious, ethnic, national identity.

The problem is if my identity hates your identity. Patriotism is one thing, nationalism is very dangerous, and hyper nationalism is especially dangerous. And I think speaking of Europe specifically and -- talking of anniversaries, it is the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. The country that I was born in, Czechoslovakia, was founded on the basis of national identity and language. And the Hungarians felt that they lost a lot of territory. Nationalism became one of the issues -- I remember in '91 when I was doing surveys all over Europe, we asked the question, do you believe a piece of your country is in the neighboring country. And I will never forget the Hungarian answer was 80 percent of Hungarians thought so.

And so trying to get your land back and various aspects of that I think is something that has contributed to this kind of sense of who are these faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and what is the EU about. And NATO I think had not been affected by that, but I think the EU specifically.

Then the other mega trend is technology, which is obviously incredible. And I always like to talk about the Kenyan woman farmer who no longer has to walk zillions of miles to pay her bills, she can do it over the iPhone. But what it does is also separate people's voices, disaggregate them. And people get their information through -- they don't know exactly -- social media -- where it comes from. And you see it, for instance, in what happened in Egypt. People were motivated to go to Tahrir Square by social media, they get there, and then -- I never believe I say something like this, but the elections were held too soon.

The Muslim Brotherhood was organized and the people that had come to Tahrir Square were all over the place and were not. The Muslim Brotherhood wins. Then the confusion continues in Cairo. And I've made up this kind of middle aged man who wants to come into Cairo to set up his stall in the souk and it's a mess. And he says to hell with this, I want order. And all of the sudden you get a military government. And so I do think one can explain these various aspects. And where democracy needs some aspect of knowledge about what it involves, the responsibility.

And then I did just flat out steal this line from Silicon Valley, it's plagiarized, but it explains things so well, which is people are talking to their governments on 21st century technology. The governments listen to them on 20th century technology and provide 19th century responses. And so the governments are not responding to the issues that have been created b globalization and technology, the divisions in societies.

If you get a leader that wants to exacerbate those divisions instead of somebody that wants to find some common answers, it leads towards authoritarian governments and ultimately fascism.

 

MR. TALBOTT: By the way, because that was the last word and of course the first word in the book, fascism does not cover all forms of tyranny, and you make that very, very clear. But is there kind of a merging of what you might call the evil of fascism with autocratic and let's say post-Soviet "autocraticness"?

MR. TALBOTT: Well, first of all, I think not every dictator or authoritarian is a fascist, but every fascist is a dictator or authoritarian. I think part of the problem I had just generally in writing the book, was defining fascism. I mean it's a term that's just kind of thrown around and if you disagree with somebody he's a fascist. Or there is the teenage boy who can't drive his car and calls his father a fascist. And so it's just kind of a term thrown around. So I was trying to figure out how one really defines it. And I think
the simplest way is that -- first of all, it's not an ideology, it's a process for keep gaining and keep control -- but basically, it is when society is divided and there is a we versus them, one of the groups is basically tribal in some way, an affiliation of people that can agree on some aspect of their national heritage or some aspect of it, at the expense of the other group.

And the leader identifies himself with this particular tribal group in order to give them power and take it away from the others. And so, for instance, majority rule without minority rights, but basically very much the division. As I said, the divisions are already there, but they become exacerbated by this leader who identifies himself -- it's always a “himself,” frankly. And in terms of trying to figure out, you know, how that group can prosper at the expense of the other.

But the real issue here is the use of violence. And so the willingness of that leader to use violence to accomplish what he want. So one of the simplest ways is a bully with an army. So the use of violence and really thinking it up and then be willing to use it is the defining factor. But the main thing is this division and the tribalism at the expense of another group.

                              >> CONTINUE >>>>