In a wide ranging speech on U.S. foreign policy August 11, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stressed that America must continue to adhere to its basic democratic beliefs, if it is truly to build the kind of future it wants.

As the United States proceeds through the 21st century, she said, it will rely on its "armed forces, strong alliances, economic leadership and vigorous diplomacy" to preserve its prosperity and security. "But if we are truly to build the kind of future we want, we must also remain true to American principles."

"I believe that a foreign policy devoid of moral considerations could never fairly represent the American people. That is why we help others around the globe who believe -- as we believe -- that people everywhere should have the right to speak, write, assemble and worship freely," Albright said.

She spoke to the Rotary Club, Kiwanis Club and International Visitors Council at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

"Today, Americans may be proud that, around the world, the United States is standing with the peacemakers against the bombthrowers: supporting the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland; trying to end conflicts in Africa; and striving with our partners to build peace in Bosnia and Kosovo.

"We are also working closely with our allies in Seoul and Tokyo to encourage reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula and to put an end to destabilizing nuclear and missile-related activities.

"And we remain determined to do all we can to help Israelis and Palestinians find the way to peace," the Secretary of State said.

Albright noted that now, for the first time ever, a majority of the world's population lives under elected governments.

She said that under the leadership of President Clinton, the United States has spoken up "for basic human rights in Burma and Baghdad, China and Chechnya, and wherever else they may be in jeopardy."

The Secretary of State noted that the Clinton administration also has made efforts to advance the status of women to the mainstream of its foreign policy, "because no country can grow strong and free when denied the talents of half its population."

In her remarks, and in the question and answer session that followed, Albright touched briefly on a broad range of U.S. foreign policy challenges, including the situation in Korea, the Middle East peace process, permanent normal trade relations with China, the global fight against AIDS, and the threats posed by illegal drug traffickers.

Following is the State Department transcript, as delivered:

(Begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
(Albuquerque, New Mexico)
For Immediate Release
August 15, 2000

As Delivered

REMARKS AND QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION BY SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT TO THE ALBUQUERQUE ROTARY CLUB, KIWANIS CLUB AND INTERNATIONAL VISITORS COUNCIL

Radisson Hotel and Conference Center Albuquerque, New Mexico August 11, 2000

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Gleason for those kind words of introduction and good morning Albuquerque! I am pleased to welcome staff members and friends from the offices of New Mexico's congressional delegation, and especially Congressman Tom Udall who is carrying on his family's outstanding tradition of public service.

(Applause.)

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I want to acknowledge Governor Tortaleta, Mayor Hooker, President Harrison and Ms. Dill. It is a pleasure, really, to be here.

Before I left Washington, I spoke with another great leader from New Mexico - Secretary Bill Richardson. He served this state in Congress and succeeded me as Ambassador to the United Nations and is charting a steady course -- often in difficult times -- as our Secretary of Energy. And he sends his best regards and he is jealous that he is not with us here today.

(Applause.)

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I am grateful to the officials and members of Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs and the Council of International Visitors for sponsoring this event. I would also like to welcome those who are here from Africa as guests of the Council of International Visitors, and congratulate all of them on the efforts that you are making to combat HIV/AIDS.

When I first became Secretary of State, I said that I would do my best to discuss the who, what, where and especially the whys of American foreign policy with the people across the United States. It is an essential part of my job. For in our democracy, when we take action overseas, we do so in your name -- with your input, understanding and support, because without it we wouldn't be able to do very much, very well, for very long.

I begin with the fact that nations are like people in that each must choose its role: whether to be a drifter or a doer; a camp follower or a blazer of trails.

We are privileged to live in a country that, through most of the last century, has chosen to lead.

We exercise this leadership not out of sentiment, but out of necessity. For we want to live in peace, prosperity and freedom. But as the new century begins, we know that we cannot guarantee these blessings for ourselves if others do not have them as well.

The reason is simple. More and more, we Americans lead global lives. We compete in a global workplace and do business in a global market. We travel further and more often than any previous generation.

We see advanced technology creating new wonders, but also spawning new dangers, as the threats posed by terror and crime, drugs and disease spread across national borders.

No nation can counter these threats simply by acting alone. International cooperation is required -- which is where American foreign policy comes in. And under President Clinton, we have employed every available tool, from the simple art of persuasion to the blunt instrument of force, when that is necessary, to achieve three basic goals.

First, we work to sustain our prosperity by helping to shape a growing global economy in which American genius and productivity receive their due.

Second, we strive to keep Americans safe and the world as peaceful as we can make it.

And, third, we promote democratic principles and values that will enable our children to grow up in a more just and equitable world.

The first of these goals, then, is prosperity.

Whether you are a CEO or a graduate just seeking your first job, you will want to see a strong and growing world economy that creates good opportunities for Americans in every community at every level.

Under President Clinton and Vice-President Gore, we are doing much to see this hope fulfilled. When they took office, America was being criticized worldwide for our enormous budget deficit and sluggish growth. Today, our deficits are gone; our economy is the globe's most competitive; our international leadership has been restored; and our people are more prosperous than they have ever been.

The State Department cannot take credit for the health of America's economy, but we have done everything that we can to help.

We consult regularly with business, agriculture, labor and environmental leaders. We work hard, both in Washington and through our diplomatic missions, to help Americans take advantage of business opportunities, enforce the protection of legal rights, uphold core environmental and labor standards.

In addition, since President Clinton took office, the Administration has negotiated more than 300 agreements to expand beneficial trade, including the NAFTA and agreements on information technology, financial services and basic telecommunications.

These agreements have helped us to find new markets, raise living standards and keep inflation in check. Today, more than eleven million U.S. jobs are supported by exports, and these are good jobs, paying -- on the average - -significantly more than non-trade related jobs.

So our efforts are paying off, including here in New Mexico, which has become a high-tech export leader.

And we are striving to build on these gains by bringing one of New Mexico's leading trading partners -- China -- into the WTO, where it will be required to play by the world's rules with respect to investment and trade.

In addition, I know that New Mexico boosters such as Jerry Pacheco have plans that will help your state to take greater advantage of the economic opportunities that exist just across your southern border.

The second major goal of American foreign policy is to help build a world in which Americans are increasingly secure.

There was a time, early in our history, when our citizens felt protected by the vast oceans to our east and west. But as technology advanced and our overseas interests grew, we learned the hard way that we couldn't be safe if allies and friends were in danger.

Today, the idea of an ocean as protection is as obsolete as a castle moat. Nations must act together. And we must plot our defense not against a single powerful threat, as during the Cold War, but against a rattlesnake's den of perils.

Foremost among these remains the nuclear danger. For more than seven years, our Administration has worked hard to ensure that no nukes would become "loose nukes" within the former Soviet Union.

With help from congressional leaders such as Senators Domenici and Bingaman, we obtained the removal of nuclear arms from three former Soviet Republics. And we have helped deactivate almost 5000 nuclear warheads.

We strengthened the security of nuclear weapons and materials at more than 100 sites and purchased more than 60 tons of highly enriched uranium that could have been used by terrorists.

We have also led international efforts to renew the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to sign an agreement that would ban nuclear explosive tests. I should note that the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories play a key role in assuring the integrity of our own nuclear deterrent, and in keeping weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands.

I am sure there are men and women from New Mexico serving proudly with the U.S. military in the Gulf or in Turkey doing exactly this in Iraq: hemming in Saddam Hussein so that he cannot rebuild his weapons of mass destruction or use helicopter gunships again against his people in the No-Fly zones.

Another major component of our security strategy is the protection of our borders, especially from illegal narcotics.

The State Department and other Federal agencies work closely with counterparts throughout the hemisphere to disrupt smuggling, reduce production, curb demand and put drug criminals behind bars. This challenge will be one of the topics I am going to be discussing in Santa Fe this afternoon and tomorrow with the foreign ministers of Canada and Mexico.

And later this month, President Clinton will travel to Colombia to support President Pastrana's efforts to crack down on illegal narcotics and build up legitimate economic activity.

One thing we have learned over the past few years is that threats such as international terror and crime require an international response. The same technologies that allow us to do business across national lines enable criminals to do so, as well. When I was in Cartagena earlier this year and went to see how the national police worked there, they use computers in the most sophisticated way to track shipments and to see where criminals are. At the same time, the criminals were also using computers to figure out how to get where they want to go. And that is the paradox of our time.

This kind of work gives us a huge stake in establishing close ties with foreign law enforcement personnel, and in providing training in criminal justice techniques.

That's why I am excited that the State Department is in the process of establishing an International Law Enforcement Academy in Roswell, New Mexico.

Senator Domenici played a key role in gaining funding for this facility. Believe me, every time I testified before him he wanted to know how we were coming along. (Laughter.) When it is up and running, the Academy will contribute greatly to our goal of making it harder for criminals anywhere in the world to operate, and easier for law-abiding citizens everywhere to feel secure.

Another step we are taking to ensure American security is to reduce the risk posed by regional conflicts. For we know that small wars and unresolved disputes can spread, endangering allies, unleashing floods of refugees, and embroiling our own forces in combat.

Today, Americans may be proud that, around the world, the United States is standing with the peacemakers against the bombthrowers: supporting the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland; trying to end conflicts in Africa; and striving with our partners to build peace in Bosnia and Kosovo.

We are also working closely with our allies in Seoul and Tokyo to encourage reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula and to put an end to destabilizing nuclear and missile-related activities.

And we remain determined to do all we can to help Israelis and Palestinians find the way to peace. There are those who wonder why we persist in this effort that has taken so long. There are several answers to that question.

The United States will be safer if the Middle East is stable and secure. The consequences of failure are not predictable, but would entail grave risks. And the progress that was made during the recent Camp David talks is too important to be lost.

But the most basic answer is that by supporting the effort to establish peace, we are doing not only the smart thing, but also the right thing. We are acting in a way that reflects the kind of values we cherish and the kind of people that we are.

As the United States proceeds through the twenty-first century, we will rely on our armed forces, strong alliances, economic leadership and vigorous diplomacy to preserve our prosperity and ensure our security. But if we are truly to build the kind of future we want, we must also remain true to American principles.

Some suggest that it is softheaded for the United States to take the morality of things into account when defending our interests abroad.

But I believe that a foreign policy devoid of moral considerations could never fairly represent the American people. We have learned from our heritage the importance of recognizing the rights of all individuals. We have learned from Native Americans the importance of respecting one's culture and traditions. And it is because we have kept faith with our ideals that, in most of the world, American leadership remains not only needed, but also welcome.

That is why we help others around the globe who believe -- as we believe -- that people everywhere should have the right to speak, write, assemble and worship freely. Today, for the first time, a majority of the world's population lives under elected governments. In Warsaw, in June, we helped forge a new Community of Democracies, with representatives from every continent, to work together on behalf of freedom.

Under President Clinton, we haven't hesitated to speak up for basic human rights in Burma and Baghdad, China and Chechnya, and wherever else they may be in jeopardy. We have also put efforts to advance the status of women where we belong, in the mainstream of our foreign policy, because no country can grow strong and free when denied the talents of half its population.

In years past, we have made enormous progress. But today, around the world, terrible abuses are still being committed against women. These include domestic violence, dowry murders, mutilation and forced prostitution. Some say all this is cultural and there's nothing we can do about it. I say it's criminal and we each have an obligation to stop it.

(Applause.)

The efforts we make to advance our security and prosperity and values are both right and smart for America and for our future. But we cannot lead without tools. And it costs money to detect cheating at a nuclear facility overseas; to do our part in the fighting AIDS; or to protect our citizens against terrorist bombs.

But these costs don't begin to compare to the costs we would incur if we didn't act; if we allowed international criminals to run rampant, democracies to crumble and nuclear arms to spread willy-nilly around the globe.

Many Americans are astonished when I tell them that the amount we spend for all of our international affairs programs combined is equal -- and I bet if I took a poll here you'd be surprised -- but they're equal to only one percent of the total federal budget. There are those who think we spend a quarter of the federal budget on foreign policy. The truth is it's one penny out of every federal dollar, but that one penny, that one percent, may determine fifty percent of the history that is written about our era; and it will affect the lives of 100 percent of the American people.

Today, Congress is proposing a massive reduction to the President's request for international affairs; or what some dismiss as "foreign aid." But the programs I have cited this morning are not foreign aid; they are aid to America, and I hope that I will have your support.

Whether you live in Albuquerque or Washington D.C., whether you are young or not so young, one thing is certain. We will each live the rest of our lives in a world of accelerating and astonishing change, where technological breakthroughs occur daily, and events of just a few years ago can seem like ancient history.

But some things have not changed.

The wonderful diversity of New Mexico's people.

The energy of New Mexico's scientists, miners, ranchers and entrepreneurs.

The beauty of New Mexico's mesas and mountains.

The glory of New Mexico sunsets.

And the purpose of America.

As many of you know, I wasn't born in this country. Because of my parents' love for democracy, we came to America after being driven twice from our home in Czechoslovakia, first by the Nazis and then by Stalin. Because of this nation's kindness, we were welcomed here and I had the opportunity to live my life among the most generous and courageous people on earth.

The story of my family has been repeated in millions of variations over two centuries in the lives not only of immigrants, but of those overseas who have been liberated or sheltered by American soldiers, empowered by American assistance or inspired by American ideals.

Today, although we confront new dangers at a time of great turbulence, we are not weary. We are confident. We look to the future with optimism and faith.

We know that, for our country, there are no final frontiers. Americans are doers. Whatever threats the future may hold, we will meet them. With the memory alive in our hearts of past sacrifice, we will defend our freedom, fulfill our responsibilities and live up to our principles.

And to these missions today, I pledge to you my own best efforts, and respectfully summon both your wise counsel and support.

Thank you all very much.

(Applause.)

MODERATOR: Now we are going to take questions from the floor. There are microphones in each aisle. We do ask that each of you, as you come forward to ask us questions, you give us your name and your affiliation with either Kiwanis, Rotary or the CIV. And we also ask, in the interest of trying to get as many questions forward as possible, that you be very brief and no follow-up questions.

We'll start right over there, sir.

Q: Welcome, Madame Secretary. I am the chairman of Sister Cities with Gijon, Spain. My question is one that concerns New Mexicans very much. It's the relationship between us and Mexico relative to the shameful waste of life among the deserts of New Mexico and Arizona of people from Mexico dying in the deserts, struggling to survive.

Is there a program that will be ongoing, and what is it? Thank you.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: One of the subjects that I discuss all the time with my Mexico counterpart, Foreign Minister Rosario Green, is how to especially deal with terrible problems of people that are struggling, that have had a hard time getting across the border or come illegally where there are very serious problems. The truth is, as both she and I go out of office, we have been talking about how we can continue a humanitarian approach to this. We're going to be talking about this tomorrow.

I also think from what I have heard from President-elect Vicente Fox, who is coming to Washington next week -- I think it's next week -- we are going to be talking about how to alleviate a lot of the problems -- how to help the Mexican economy, how to deal with a variety of issues that involve how people are treated properly in what is the most amazing border in the world, frankly, and what we can do to be more helpful.

Thank you for asking.

Q: Thank you.

Q: Madame Secretary, I'm Tony Day from the Santa Fe Council on International Relations.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think we know each other.

Q: We do.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Not from here, but other places.

Q: The President has decided to commit a lot of money and energy to trying to stop the drug trade in Colombia. Is there any dissent inside the government with this approach?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Inside the American Government?

Q: American Government.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, let me say that we waited a long time for a government in Colombia that would be a willing partner in dealing with what is a scourge to Colombia, the region, and to the United States. It was President Pastrana who constructed Plan Colombia, which we have now funded with $1.3 billion that is supported by the Colombians and also by the Europeans.

There is some -- has been -- discussion as to whether this is an appropriate plan. I will describe the problems and then describe why I think it was a good idea to do this. There are those who are concerned about the fact that there is assistance going to the Colombian military, concern that this militarizes the problem. And then there are those who believe that the money could be better spent on dealing with domestic problems of drugs in terms of needle exchange and various drug programs that need to be taken care of in the United States. And then I think there are those who simply wonder whether the money will be well spent. I think those are the general discussions.

We felt that the plan itself was well-constructed because, on the military question, this is not for the military to become engaged with the insurgents or against the insurgents of Colombia, but to provide a protective envelope for the Colombian police as it goes in to Putumayo, the southern part of Colombia, which is basically no-man's land where the FARC, the rebels, operate. And so they are not there as fighters.

Also, because people have been concerned about the human rights aspect in Colombia, the military that is dealing with this issue has been -- each person in it -- there have been new battalions created out of people that have been individually vetted for human rights, in terms of their human rights record.

It is important for us to do crop eradication and crop substitution in Colombia, and we think obviously part of the problem is the demand, but we also have to deal with the supply side. And then the program itself devotes a lot to economic and social programs in Colombia, so we think it's a balanced program. Under Secretary Pickering has just been to Colombia. The President is going and we're going to monitor this very carefully. We think it's essential for the region.

Q: Thank you.

Q: Thank you, Madame Secretary, and welcome to the Land of Enchantment. My name is Yolanda. (Inaudible) one statement I want to (inaudible) and the other will be in the form of a question, if you will please allow me.

My most precious President Ronald Reagan called it -- another President named Jefferson, I believe, said that when Americans know all the facts, then we won't make mistakes. The Bible says my people perish for lack of knowledge.

I guess the first thing I wanted to say here is -- which will be the question -- on our plank in 1984, which had the honor to be on the platform for President Reagan and George Bush. I remember I voted on a plank that said we will always protect real Israel. And when I saw Israel really being led in like to negotiate (inaudible) strong-armed and giving up everything that it really distressed me.

But my question to you is, how much pressure is Arafat under to take positions that seem unreasonable because of the factions in the Palestinian community which do not allow him the latitude to negotiate at his will and also has the Palestinians denounced (inaudible) plank in the declaration that they have declared that they will never recognize the Jewish nation as such.

And my question is - and this (inaudible) because (inaudible) it's very important, I want --

MODERATOR: Just ask your question.

Q: Yes, please don't interrupt me. I want you to give this to this to (inaudible) and I will give copies to Mr. Udall. But how weak or strong is Mr. Arafat to negotiate?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think you're absolutely right; information makes a lot of difference. And if you have the facts, then I think it might help.

Let me make the following point. The United States did not pressure Israel to come to Camp David; on the contrary, it was Prime Minister Barak who wanted to come. And that was very evident. He wanted the summit and made very clear that that was very important to him. Chairman Arafat was the one who basically -- who felt that this was not the right time for the summit. President Clinton and I believed that it was the right time for the summit.

As I said in my remarks, I think we accomplished a lot at the summit. What we did accomplish is the following. Over the last years, if you've followed the discussion, we have been dealing with issues that came out of the Oslo process that were called interim issues that -- we are not spending an hour here talking about this -- were the simpler issues where the Israelis and the Palestinians were supposed to learn to work with each other in a cooperative way in order to deal with the final status issues, which were put off because they were the most complicated ones -- the really, really existential kinds of issues that had to do with borders, territory, and refugees could come back, and the status of Jerusalem.

Whenever I was asked a question about any of those issues, we'd say, well, that's a final status issue, we'll talk about it later. Well, what happened at Camp David, it was the first time that we kind of unpacked that sentence and began to talk about the final status issues. We talked about the taboo issues and we spent two weeks that were quite remarkable with both of the parties talking about those issues. I think that that now provides a basis for our pursuing the subject.

Chairman Arafat, as President Clinton had made very clear, he thought Prime Minister Barak went a long way, offered some ideas, and that Chairman Arafat was also dedicated to peace. We are now trying to work on the basis of those particular ideas that came forward, and I believe that Chairman Arafat has the mandate that he needs to make decisions. We are working against a deadline, which is September 13th, when Chairman Arafat said that he would declare a state unilaterally. We have said that we don't want to see a state declared unilaterally; if there is a state, it has to emerge from negotiations.

As far as it holds true in 1984, it is not true any more, is the Palestinian National Council in their charter has removed that language which is negative about Israel. I am optimistic that we'll be able to move this forward.

(Applause.)

Q: Thank you.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you. I'll give it to Rosario. Thank you.

Q: Good morning, Madame Secretary. I'm the Executive Director of Wellspring Institute, an American Indian research organization on social and economic development. My question is, in matters of social and economic development worldwide, a lot of the proposed optimization of the projects sometimes do not reach the optimization that we have proposed. And some of that is due to the -- that we've begun to identify the cultural -- the integrity of the people that we're working -- we're intervening on behalf of is sometimes stifled or not introduced.

My question to you is what measures has the Department of State taken to be informed of this rich diversity that we have internationally and how through -- as Americans, how is it that the Department is making sure that resources are available to them so that we have the advantage of the rich diversity of a people who can consult and propose and develop these different models of intervention in the social and economic development issues?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, several ways. First of all, I think that we have tried to reach out in the Department. People think of the State Department as a foreign country. (Laughter.) But, basically, we have tried very hard to reach out to Americans of a variety of all ethnic backgrounds and interests. I have met with nongovernmental organizations. We have had -- we have religious commissions. We have a variety of different human rights commissions, et cetera, that we try to work with.

Also on issues -- this is not exactly what you asked, but just to show you the variety, I talked about what we do for agriculture, for instance. There is a huge debate now about biotechnology and what it is doing in terms of -- you know, the golden rice was developed to feed a lot of people in other countries and, at the same time, there is a lot of question now in Europe about biotech and the safety of food. So, we have created an advisory group on biotech to work with us, so there is that part.

The other part of this -- and I use this question maybe not quite the way you intended it -- but I really believe that it's essential for us to understand the cultural richness of the countries with which we deal. And so I don't want to be accused of tourism, but when I travel I do try to go to cultural monuments in order to honor the history. For instance, when I was in Mexico last we went to Oaxaca in order to see about the Indian background of Mexico. And what we're doing -- the reason we're meeting in Santa Fe this time is in order to show the richness of our diversity in our culture, so we are doing everything we can in terms of also respecting cultural diversity abroad in terms of bringing it in with the social programs.

Q: To making sure that we're not just meting out mainstream ideas.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Absolutely.

Q: Sometimes we're heavy on the economic and not on the social. We need to integrate.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: We are trying.

Q: Thank you so much.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

Q: Madame Secretary, I'm a past president of the Albuquerque Rotary Club. I'm the present CEO of a business that is in the area of nuclear prevention, nuclear proliferation prevention. And we are heavily involved in Russia, and we also are employing Russian scientists to provide new cancer treatments and medical technology.

Very recently there is an amendment to the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that restricts State Department funding into Russia and specifically precludes IMF, Ex-Im Bank and OPIC activities in essentially retaliation for some unwise things the Russians did, which actually I don't agree with what the Russians did, but the problem is that the restriction of these appropriations through the State Department can hurt American business and really open the door to penetration of Russia by Germany, Japan and other countries.

What can we do? Can you please comment on this and what we can do about it?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I'm so glad you brought this up because this is one of those examples where some people throw out the baby with the bath water. We have an entirely new relationship with Russia because there is a new Russia. There are those who somehow are trying to recreate the enemy. This is what I have been saying. We don't need to recreate enemies. There are those that are already out there. We don't need to. (Laughter.)

And the bottom line here is we spent 50 years fighting the Soviet Union. Russia is not the Soviet Union. What we need to do is exactly what you're doing. We have talked a lot about how important it is to employ those Russian scientists so they're not out there selling their brains to countries that have other plans. And so you're doing exactly the right thing.

I have been very upset about the piece of legislation, with the amendment that you're talking about. I don't agree with what the Russians are doing in Chechnya, and I make that very clear every time I talk to the Foreign Minister. But for us to cut ourselves off from trying to encourage reformers in Russia or get them to understand proper business practices or understand that having commercial codes and reforming their economy is good for us is really cutting off our nose to spite our face. So, I am precluded from asking you to lobby, but you know how to do that. (Laughter.)

(Applause).

Q: I represent the International Visitors group from the Department of States. I would like to, first of all, thank the government of the United States, and Department of State in particular, and the people of Albuquerque for this privilege. Your Honor, you are aware that out of 30 -- over 30 million people that have HIV infection, about 70 percent (inaudible) they come from communities where one out of every two, three or four people have HIV infection -- (inaudible) -- very serious threat.

I would be very privileged to hear from you what the plans, what the US Government policies are, the plans to help the situation and the people in Africa, particularly with the issue of HIV/AIDS. They are aware HIV infection is not only a problem for an individual. In our community, it's a problem for our families, our community, for the nation. Indeed, it is threatening the very existence of our continent.

I would be very privileged to hear what your plan is.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, welcome. It's very good to have you here and we're very proud of the International Visitors Program. It is a part of our public diplomacy and I think a very important way for us to understand.

I'm also very glad to know that you're from Nigeria. (Inaudible) how we can best promote (inaudible). I decided two years ago with the coming (inaudible) to power that we had to choose certain countries to really give an extra push. I chose four. Nigeria is one of them. The others are Ukraine, Indonesia and Colombia -- all for obvious reasons, because they are not only important for themselves but for their region. The fact that Nigeria was absent having had military dictators was a huge blight on Africa as a whole. So, and the President is going to Nigeria in a few days. We have spent a lot of time in Nigeria, and so I salute you for being from that country with President Obasanjo, who is a truly remarkable individual.

On HIV/AIDS, we are desperately concerned about it and have done something that I think surprised a lot of people. There is a lot of discussion about what is our national interest; what are our security interests. We came out of the Cold War where everybody understood for 50 years that nuclear weapons posed a threat to the United States, that we had to do something about those, and that was in our national interest. Supporting NATO was in our national interest and defending the Korean Peninsula was in our national interest. Those continue to be, frankly, but what we have added now is the issue of HIV/AIDS is a security threat, and is a security problem for the world. The statistics you offer, I can go through. You know, a quarter of the young people in South Africa are infected. I mean, you can just multiply. And the reason that it's a security threat is it undermines these countries. It undermines their political and economic systems and creates chaos.

What we did this year was to bring the issue of HIV/AIDS into the Security Council of the United Nations. There is going to be another summit of the leaders of the UN during the Millennium Summit where Africa peacekeeping and HIV/AIDS are going to be a subject. We are devoting increasing numbers of our budget dollars to do HIV/AIDS and to fight it and to try to get other countries to help us. We see it as a huge problem. I don't have all the numbers at my fingertips -- we'll get them to you -- in terms of the amount of the money that the President is asking for research and for assistance on HIV/AIDS.

But the difference that we have made is to decide it is not an ordinary disease; it is a security threat to us.

(Applause.)

Q: Madame Secretary, I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here with you today. Since retiring from the Air Force about seven years ago, as a result of budget reductions, we've got a reduction in military, the size of our military, we've had to reduce our modernization efforts, and yet we seem to have a lot of commitments worldwide, peacekeeping efforts and so on and so forth. All that seems to be impacting retention and our readiness in some form.

My question would be, do you share that concern and, if so, what are we going to do about it?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think it's important to correct some facts here. As was stated somewhere, we don't have a problem with readiness. We have been working very hard on that. Our defense budgets have not been cut; in fact, they have gone up. I spoke with the Secretary of Defense two days ago and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the numbers are up in terms of approvals, and we have been working very hard to try to get a military that the United States supports and can be proud of.

I'm very proud of what we've been doing. I couldn't do my job without the US military. We are all in this together. When General Shalikashvili was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, we were standing together once and Secretary Rubin came up and he said, "So here we have War and Peace." (Laughter). And then Shali said, "And who is who?" (Laughter.)

So we spent a lot of time in partnership with the military, and I think we have to have the strongest military in the world. The world depends on us, and we have to choose our missions very carefully. But I believe that the United States has responsibilities that affect us -- and I've tried to talk about this in my remarks -- where overwhelming force is not the only way to deal with an issue. You don't always have an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein who invades a country and where you have six months to prepare and the earth is flat and somebody else pays for it. We have situations where you need help of a limited amount of American force that does the job, as in Kosovo. We managed to save hundreds of thousands of people in Kosovo because we had an air campaign that worked. And our military was -- (Applause).

So I think we need to have strong defense budgets. We have supported them. We will continue to support them. But we have to be clear about what really has happened with the military and what are kind of facts that don't quite jive.

(Applause.)

Q: As one of your former students, I have to ask a question about the tactics of negotiations. I really wanted to be a fly on the wall during the Middle East peace talks and hopefully we'll read your memoirs and we can look back smugly and say that we do have peace, so I look forward to that.

The question I have about negotiations is that while they did not end fully successfully, there were a lot of smaller agreements that were made on water rights, other intransigent issues, but Barak walked away saying, you know, everything is off the table. Presumably, Chairman Arafat, any concessions he said, made also, has the same view. And we have some questions about the future government of Israel.

From a negotiating standpoint, what obligations do a future Israeli government or even a Palestinian leader have with respect to some of those concessions that were made that may not be well liked among some of the people?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, let me just say that a standard kind of statement at all negotiations is nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and I think that protects everybody in terms of what they are doing and allows there to be a freer discussion.

We had a fascinating time at Camp David, and let me just take a couple of minutes because I think people may -- just a little flavor. Camp David is probably the place where, if you thought about the place you really, really wanted to see, you would think that it was Camp David. We were there 14 days, and it was wet and it rained and we got cabin fever, and there was really a sense that we were all -- we had, believe it or not, a press blackout and people were not allowed to go off, and we spent all the time negotiating. Now, maybe because we were dealing with Middle Easterners who negotiate at night or with the President who likes to negotiate at night, too, the whole days were reversed. We had really serious meetings at midnight and stayed till 4 or 5 in the morning (inaudible) privately or take walks would drive on the golf carts. (Laughter.)

So, you know, there were lots of kind of informal negotiations, and then when you brought the sides together you would see that a lot of work had been done on very specific issues.

Prime Minister Barak said -- and we put out in our statement at the end -- that the things -- again, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed upon. But what I think has happened is that a lot of the issues that were out there, by having those kinds of discussions, you don't totally erase the issues from people's minds and it shows that things are possible. And that's what we're trying to do now. The Assistant Secretary for the area is out in the region and consulting with the Arab nations. We have been in touch with the Israelis and with Chairman Arafat. We will reassess where we are, take stock of everything, and see where we can pick up because these are very complex issues and the Israeli Government, as you pointed out, is in perilous shape as a result of this. But I think Prime Minister Barak has indicated that he thinks this is important to do. And Chairman Arafat has, too. And so we're going to pick it up and (inaudible) --

(Applause.)

(End transcript)