The aftermath of the attacks of September 11 highlights the need for more U.S. aid to conflict-ridden, poor countries. President George W. Bush, who once derided nation-building as idealism gone awry, now supports continued U.S. involvement in Afghanistan–if only to prevent a next generation of Osama bin Ladens from emerging. Still, foreign aid is a hard sell. “People hate it,” says Albright.
She suggests a name change that would take into account America’s new needs and erase the stigma of foreign aid. National security is a popular cause in the wake of September 11, so Albright proposes tucking foreign aid into a newly created “national security budget.” That way members of Congress–instead of ducking and hiding over their support for foreign assistance–could send out press releases to their constituents touting their vote. To make her case for greater U.S. diplomatic and economic engagement, Albright invited a group of journalists to her Washington office on Wednesday afternoon to unveil a poll of 275 elite opinion-shapers in 24 countries around the world. A main finding was the anger felt by the political, media, cultural and business leaders at U.S. policies they believe lead to the growing gap between rich and poor. “This is a major red flag,” Albright said. “I only wish I could have used this as secretary of State to go for increased funding for foreign aid. That’s what this is all about–that we are the richest country in the world and that we don’t share.”
When pollster Andrew Kohut brought her the numbers, Albright says she wrote herself a note that, for her, summed up everything. It said, “Powerful and Selfish.” Albright is back in private life, heading a global-strategy group, and doesn’t have to mince her words. (That morning, there was an item in The Washington Post “Style” section about how Albright, 64, told a public radio talk-show host that she is doing strength training and can press 200 pounds with her legs. When the host noted that was a useful skill in diplomacy, Albright agreed that it came in handy when “kicking ass.”) Though she is supportive of President Bush and the military effort he is waging, she worries that the same level of commitment is not there when it comes to economic development and public diplomacy. That’s where the war for hearts and minds will be won or lost over the long term.
According to the poll, elites around the world are mostly supportive of the U.S. effort against terrorism, but–having lived with terrorism themselves–they think the United States is overreacting. Kohut detected “a little bit of a smirk now that the United States knows what it’s like to be vulnerable.” The gulf in thinking between Americans and their foreign counterparts was most striking in a question about the major reasons for liking the United States. While a majority of Americans credited the nation’s good works abroad, only 21 percent of those around the world shared this view. Conversely, only 32 percent of Americans rated technological and scientific advances as having high appeal, while 67 percent of the non-U.S. leaders thought that was a major U.S. attraction.
Albright has spent much of the last year on the speech circuit, saying everybody has a stake in foreign policy. Since September 11, she says, people get the message. She was secretary of State when Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network bombed American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. “Americans died, but mostly not,” she says, reflecting back on the mainly African loss of life. President Bill Clinton lobbed a few missiles at what he thought was a bin Laden training camp, and that was that. If there is a positive development to come out of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, it’s that people are now intensely interested in foreign policy. “People who didn’t even know where Afghanistan was are now talking about the Pashtuns,” she says. “I wish there was a way for that to have happened without almost 4,000 people being dead. It’s a very high price to pay for consciousness.”
PELOSI SLIPS OVER CONDIT
After an almost flawless campaign to become House Democratic whip, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi slipped on her first political banana peel this week. Pelosi took a fall for being too slow in repudiating Rep. Gary Condit’s reelection bid. “He’s our O. J.,” says a Democratic consultant. Pelosi, along with other members of the California delegation, had endorsed Condit back in March, before the disappearance of Chandra Levy raised questions over his relationship with the Washington intern.
Pelosi stayed mum when Democratic leader Dick Gephardt announced earlier this month that he would remain neutral in the Democratic primary–a departure from normal party policy of protecting incumbents. When other Democrats took Gephardt’s lead and cut loose from Condit, Pelosi’s silence grew more noticeable. Condit was a friend and had supported her bid for whip. Was she putting her personal loyalty to him above what was good for the party? Condit, perhaps feeling her pain, put out a statement this week “releasing those members who have endorsed me from their commitments.” Pelosi took the lifeline, saying in a written statement that she would be neutral in the primary.
Nobody except Condit, and maybe his family, gives him a chance of winning. His Democratic challenger is a former aide and six-year California assemblyman, Dennis Cardoza, who also happens to be Hispanic, which gives him an added advantage. Assuming Cardoza wins the primary, Democrats expect to hold the seat. But Pelosi gets tarred with a public-relations embarrassment. “Just being in the same article with Condit hurts,” says a Democratic aide.
