DOCSLIB.ORG

CSIS-The Future of Statecraft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CSIS-The Future of Statecraft Center for Strategic and International Studies TRANSCRIPT CSIS- The Future of Statecraft “Keynote Discussion with Ambassador Susan Rice” EVENT DATE Tuesday, April 2, 2019 TIME 3:30 p.m. EDT LOCATION CSIS Headquarters, Washington, D.C. KEYNOTE Ambassador Susan Rice, Former National Security Adviser and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations MODERATOR Kathleen H. Hicks, Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair; Director, International Security Program, CSIS Transcript By Superior Transcriptions LLC www.superiortranscriptions.com (Applause.) Kathleen H. Hicks: Well, good afternoon. Thank you to everyone for your continuing participation today. Kathleen H. Hicks: And I’m especially delighted to welcome our keynote speaker, Dr. Susan Rice. Ambassador Rice has served as national security adviser, the U.S. permanent representative to the – of the United States to the United Nations, and assistant secretary of state for African affairs. It’s fair to say you know statecraft, the topic of today’s conference, backwards and forwards, and you’ve served in every possible role to view it. You’re also a distinguished vising research fellow now at the School of International Service at American, and you are working on a book, you’re mentoring students. And we’re so thrilled to have you here to talk to us a little bit about your experiences, your thoughts on the state of U.S. statecraft, and some of the major issues that we’ve been tackling here in this conference. So thank you so much for your time. Susan Rice: Thanks for having me, Kath. Susan Rice: It’s good to see you all. Thank you for being here. Kathleen H. Hicks: So I think it might be most interesting for folks to get a little more knowledge of your background and what brought you first into this realm of national security and international affairs and foreign policy that you’ve dedicated your life to. Can you talk a little bit about what drew you to the world? I mean, do you have an early memory of global issues grabbing you and becoming a passion for you? Susan Rice: Well, I grew up here in Washington, D.C. This is where I was born and raised, in 1964 I’m afraid to admit. (Laughter.) And I grew up in an environment and a family and a context where all of the events of the day were very much on my television screen, talked about at my dinner table, where they were talking about the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, Watergate, later issues like, you know, the Cold War and the competition with the Soviet Union, arms control, the Iran hostage crisis. All of these were things that were the stuff of my childhood and my upbringing. Susan Rice: My mother lived not far from here on Massachusetts Avenue, right across the street from the Egyptian embassy. And, you know, I was home on the day that Sadat walked out of the embassy just having signed Camp David, and there were snipers on our roof guarding him to protect him and to enable us to celebrate that extraordinary event. So I feel like I grew up steeped on policy issues. Susan Rice: But for the longest time I thought I’d find myself involved in domestic policy. I went to college at Stanford. I was a history major. You know, I was there at a time when, you know, Condi Rice was on the poli-sci faculty and Alexander Dallin and all these great international relations folks, and I took none of their classes. (Laughter.) Susan Rice: I went to do my graduate work in Oxford, and when I left Stanford my expectation was that I’d do two years in Oxford and I’d come back and I’d go to law school and I’d end up doing some kind of public interest law, whether civil rights law or, you know, public defense, or something. And but I also figured that for the two years that I was at Oxford, thinking that I might one day want to become an elected official – forgetting that I was born and raised in Washington, D.C., and we have no voting representation – (laughter) – I decided to study international relations for two years, and did my master’s degree in IR. Susan Rice: And when I was done with that, I sort of faced a decision point. Do I go to law school as planned, or do I stay on and do my doctorate in international relations? And I chose to stay on and do my doctorate, just because I loved what I was studying, and I was interested in my dissertation topic, and I was convinced by a wise person that at 25 when I finished my doctorate I wouldn’t be too old to go to law school if I still wanted to. I didn’t choose to go to law school. And there are some days when I think I missed my calling, because I think maybe perhaps I should have been a litigator because I like arguing. Kathleen H. Hicks: Well, being a national security adviser, maybe not too different from sort at least arbitration and negotiation, so. Susan Rice: Exactly, exactly. But that’s how I got into international relations. But even after getting my doctorate, it wasn’t clear to me that that’s where I was going to make my career. It went to McKinsey and Company for a couple of years, a management consulting firm. And then I had the opportunity at the very beginning of the Clinton administration to come to Washington and work in the White House. And I actually had two offers – one to work on the newly established National Economic Council and the other on the National Security Council. And I wrestled with that and sort of did an eenie, meenie, miney, moe and chose national security. And sort of one thing led to another. (Laughs.) Kathleen H. Hicks: Amazing. You – backing up slightly, because it’ll take us to that time in the Clinton administration – you had done your dissertation on Rhodesia. Had you developed a strong interest in Rhodesia in particular, or African affairs? What brought you to that issue set? Susan Rice: Well, interestingly it happened because at Stanford I got very involved in the campus anti-Apartheid movement. And that was a time – this is, you know, the mid-1980s – when it was before Mandela was released. The violence was quite substantial in South Africa. And I was just very drawn to that issue as one of – you know, of equity, social justice, equality. And I got interested in Rhodesia, because Rhodesia and its transition to Zimbabwe in 1980 had been at the time – unfortunately, no longer so – a successful example of a transition from white minority rule to black majority rule. And I was interested in what one might learn from the experience and the transition of Rhodesia-Zimbabwe for South Africa’s future. Susan Rice: So that’s how I got into it. But in a manner that I couldn’t have predicted when I started it, I got very deeply engrossed in it, because I was lucky to be studying Zimbabwe in England, where the critical players were present, where the resources and the archival material was rich. I got to go down to Zimbabwe and do extensive field research and meet many of the protagonists and interview them. So there’s just a lot of meat there that I found fascinating. So I wrote on the transition of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. And in fact, the implications of that transition for international peacekeeping because as virtually nobody in the world knows that period of time when the transition occurred there was the only time the commonwealth – the British Commonwealth deployed a peacekeeping force to maintain security during the election period. A first and only attempt at peacekeeping, a successful case study, and one that also got me interested in issues related to the United Nations and peacekeeping, which subsequently became my focus. Kathleen H. Hicks: Well, so fast-forward then to the 1990s, the Clinton administration, and right where you left off. Obviously the genocide in Rwanda, but one of a series of peacekeeping operations that the United States was engaged in, in one form or another. Can you talk a little bit about your – you know, what you brought into that, as you were just commenting, from what you knew academically, and what the reality of the U.S. role during that period and the debates over is America’s the world’s policeman, and in specific how we can help, and where the limits are to our ability to help prevent things like genocide. Susan Rice: Well, over the course of the eight years of the Clinton administration, I had three different jobs. And so three different vantage points on this broad set of issues. My first job during the first two years of the Clinton administration was at the NSC. My first job in government. I was director for international organizations and peacekeeping. And this was in the window from 1994 to early 1996, when we were dealing with Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Haiti, Cambodia – all of these complex operations – and then in February of 1996, I became the senior director for African affairs on the NSC staff. Susan Rice: So I ran the small Africa office at the NSC where my focus was, you know, on the continent, broadly, and not just, obviously, on peacekeeping or security issues. I did that through the end of President Clinton’s first term and about six months into the second term, and then I went over to the State Department and served the rest of the administration as assistant secretary of state for African affairs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • America in the World: Forging a New Vision for Foreign Policy and International Security.”
    SPECIAL PRESENTATION “AMERICA IN THE WORLD: FORGING A NEW VISION FOR FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY.” CLOSING REMARKS: SAMUEL R. BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON 5:15 PM – 5:30 PM TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2007 TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED BY DC TRANSCRIPTION & MEDIA REPURPOSING MR. JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: We are now fortunate enough to have a closing speaker who has graciously agreed to help us make some sense of today’s proceedings, to sum this up for us, and to offer his own perspectives. Right before I introduce him, I want to remind everybody in the audience that we’re going to have transcripts of this discussion posted on the Center for American Progress website, americanprogress.org. We’re going to have video highlights of the conference posted. And you’ll be able to go online tonight and see some of the comments from some of the bloggers who have been here. We’ve had some of the best national security bloggers in the Untied States here, including some from the Nation, the Atlantic Monthly, the National Security Network, the American Prospect, and a half a dozen others. You may think that you already know everything you need know about our next speaker, Samuel R. Berger, the 19th national security advisor to the president of United States. You may know that Sandy Berger worked for the former mayor of New York City, John Lindsay, and for former Senator Harold Hughes, or that he was deputy director of the State Department’s Policy Planning staff. You may know that he headed the international trade group of
    [Show full text]
  • Process Makes Perfect Best Practices in the Art of National Security Policymaking
    AP PHOTO/CHARLES DHARAPAK PHOTO/CHARLES AP Process Makes Perfect Best Practices in the Art of National Security Policymaking By Kori Schake, Hoover Institution, and William F. Wechsler, Center for American Progress January 2017 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Process Makes Perfect Best Practices in the Art of National Security Policymaking By Kori Schake, Hoover Institution, and William F. Wechsler, Center for American Progress January 2017 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 6 Findings 14 First-order questions for the next president 17 Best practices to consider 26 Policymaking versus oversight versus crisis management 36 Meetings, meetings, and more meetings 61 Internal NSC staff management 72 Appendix A 73 About the authors 74 Endnotes Introduction and summary Most modern presidents have found that the transition from campaigning to governing presents a unique set of challenges, especially regarding their newfound national security responsibilities. Regardless of their party affiliation or preferred diplomatic priorities, presidents have invariably come to appreciate that they can- not afford to make foreign policy decisions in the same manner as they did when they were a candidate. The requirements of managing an enormous and complex national security bureau- cracy reward careful deliberation and strategic consistency, while sharply punishing the kind of policy shifts that are more common on the campaign trail. Statements by the president are taken far more seriously abroad than are promises by a candidate, by both allies and adversaries alike. And while policy mistakes made before entering office can damage a candidate’s personal political prospects, a serious misstep made once in office can put the country itself at risk.
    [Show full text]
  • The Progressive
    Books 9.2004 8/11/04 1:51 PM Page 45 Books Who’s to Blame for September 11? The 9/11 Commission Report: team had evaded security checks dur- demanding to know why the United Final Report of the National Com- ing a recent trial run at an unidenti- States had to put up with such mission on Terrorist Attacks upon fied New York airport.” attacks—that Tenet walked out of a the United States meeting of the principals.” Berger also Thomas H. Kean, Chair Sandy Berger stressed to the Bush transition team, W. W. Norton. 567 pages. $10.00. Clinton’s National Security Adviser and especially Condoleezza Rice, the also comes off well. He was alert to the gravity of the Al Qaeda threat. By Matthew Rothschild risk of terrorism earlier than most. He deputized counterterrorism expert William Cohen and the Joint Chiefs n page 340 of The 9/11 Richard Clarke and gave him wide Clinton’s Defense Secretary Commission Report is this authority, placing him on an equal William Cohen was exceptionally Osentence: “If the govern- footing with cabinet members cautious. Relying on the advice of ment’s leaders understood the gravity involved in national security. Berger Joint Chiefs of Staff head General of the threat they faced and under- and Clarke worked admirably together Hugh Shelton, Cohen scorned the stood at the same time that their poli- to prevent the Millennium Plot from idea of attacking bin Laden and his cies to eliminate it were not likely to coming to fruition at the end of 1999, operations.
    [Show full text]
  • 9/11 Report”), July 2, 2004, Pp
    Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page i THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page v CONTENTS List of Illustrations and Tables ix Member List xi Staff List xiii–xiv Preface xv 1. “WE HAVE SOME PLANES” 1 1.1 Inside the Four Flights 1 1.2 Improvising a Homeland Defense 14 1.3 National Crisis Management 35 2. THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM 47 2.1 A Declaration of War 47 2.2 Bin Ladin’s Appeal in the Islamic World 48 2.3 The Rise of Bin Ladin and al Qaeda (1988–1992) 55 2.4 Building an Organization, Declaring War on the United States (1992–1996) 59 2.5 Al Qaeda’s Renewal in Afghanistan (1996–1998) 63 3. COUNTERTERRORISM EVOLVES 71 3.1 From the Old Terrorism to the New: The First World Trade Center Bombing 71 3.2 Adaptation—and Nonadaptation— ...in the Law Enforcement Community 73 3.3 . and in the Federal Aviation Administration 82 3.4 . and in the Intelligence Community 86 v Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page vi 3.5 . and in the State Department and the Defense Department 93 3.6 . and in the White House 98 3.7 . and in the Congress 102 4. RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 108 4.1 Before the Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania 108 4.2 Crisis:August 1998 115 4.3 Diplomacy 121 4.4 Covert Action 126 4.5 Searching for Fresh Options 134 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H3511
    May 25, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð HOUSE H3511 COX REPORT RELEASED; IT IS Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the long- and pledge my efforts to be a protector of our ABOUT TIME awaited Cox Report on Chinese espio- nation's children. (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given nage becomes public today, and we al- f permission to address the House for 1 ready know many of the stunning de- CHINESE THEFT OF NUCLEAR minute and to revise and extend his re- tails about the loss of our most sen- TECHNOLOGY HAS ADVANCED marks.) sitive nuclear secrets. THREAT BY A GENERATION Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, ``The The President's press secretary says Phantom Menace'' is the title to the this goes back 20 years and there is no (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given new popular Star Wars movie. But it Democrat or Republican face on it. He permission to address the House for 1 might also be an apt description of the is using the ``everybody does it'' de- minute and to revise and extend his re- Chinese espionage efforts against the fense. The Energy Secretary has cau- marks.) United States as outlined in the Cox tioned us not to overreact. Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Report. But how should we react to the worst Rosenbergs were executed for giving Unlike this popular movie, however, spy case in American history? It is the former Soviet Union secret infor- this Chinese espionage is not fiction, clear that Clinton-Gore administration mation which allowed them to advance and it may have far-reaching national did not react at all after this was dis- their atomic weapons program by 5 security consequences long into the fu- covered in 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Passing the Baton 2021: Securing America’S Future Together
    Passing the Baton 2021: Securing America’s Future Together United States Institute of Peace Friday, January 29, 2021 Stephen Hadley: Good morning everyone. My name is Steve Hadley. I chair the board of the United States Institute of Peace, and I'm delighted to welcome you to Passing the Baton: Securing America's Future Together. USIP has hosted the Passing the Baton event after every change in administration for the last 20 years, starting in 2001, when President Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, passed the baton to his successor, Condoleezza Rice, who we are honored to have with us again today. This year, we gather in the wake of a violent insurrection against our Capitol, the symbol and foundation of our democracy. The insurrection was marked by hateful expressions of white supremacy and anti-Semitism. These never are, and never can, be tolerated. There is no question that January 6 was one of the greatest tests of American democracy in recent memory. But as lawmakers gathered that same night to fulfill their constitutional duty, it was also the greatest measure of our democracy’s resilience. Ultimately, the events of January 6 underscore that despite the challenges and the fault lines, our democratic system remains the strongest, most powerful form of governance on earth, and the most effective vehicle for driving sustainable peace. Today, as we consider the formidable foreign policy and national security challenges facing the nation, we must recommit to navigating the road ahead together in the spirit, tradition, and principles of liberty and union that have been the bedrock of our republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Tough Love: My Story of Things Worth Fighting for by Susan Rice
    Tough Love: My Story of Things Worth Fighting For by Susan Rice • Featured on episode 456 • Planning to purchase this book? Support the show by using the Amazon link inside our book library. Dave’s Reading Highlights In those early days, it was hard to grasp the depth and force of the reaction to my appearances. It was harder still to imagine that it would endure, not only through the entirety of the 2012 presidential campaign, but long thereafter. I became a household name and the poster child for bilious Obama-haters on Fox and in right-wing social media. For months, it was relentless. And though it ebbed, it has never ended. Ever since my name became synonymous with Benghazi, I have wanted to tell my story. Almost overnight, I went from being a respected if relatively low-profile cabinet official to a nationally notorious villain or heroine, depending on one’s political perspective and what cable news channel you watch. I am neither. The portrayals of me on both sides are superficial and uninformed by who I am and where I come from, by what motivates and truly defines me. I could not tell my own story—until I left government. When I was a senior official who spoke publicly, I was speaking on behalf of the United States of America and our president. For the five years after Benghazi until I returned to private life, I was compelled to allow myself to be defined by others—something I never had to do before or otherwise would have tolerated.
    [Show full text]
  • China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S
    Order Code RL30143 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Secrets Updated February 1, 2006 Shirley A. Kan Specialist in National Security Policy Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Secrets Summary This CRS Report discusses China’s suspected acquisition of U.S. nuclear weapon secrets, including that on the W88, the newest U.S. nuclear warhead. This serious controversy became public in early 1999 and raised policy issues about whether U.S. security was further threatened by China’s suspected use of U.S. nuclear weapon secrets in its development of nuclear forces, as well as whether the Administration’s response to the security problems was effective or mishandled and whether it fairly used or abused its investigative and prosecuting authority. The Clinton Administration acknowledged that improved security was needed at the weapons labs but said that it took actions in response to indications in 1995 that China may have obtained U.S. nuclear weapon secrets. Critics in Congress and elsewhere argued that the Administration was slow to respond to security concerns, mishandled the too narrow investigation, downplayed information potentially unfavorable to China and the labs, and failed to notify Congress fully. On April 7, 1999, President Clinton gave his assurance that partly “because of our engagement, China has, at best, only marginally increased its deployed nuclear threat in the last 15 years” and that the strategic balance with China “remains overwhelmingly in our favor.” On April 21, 1999, Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet, reported the Intelligence Community’s damage assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 6, 1999
    May 6, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 8791 I also submit for printing in the CONGRES- These good people and thousands of ligence, briefed Sandy Berger about the SIONAL RECORD an adjusted fiscal year 2000 others are hauling off all of their full extent of Chinese spying. Berger allocation to the House Committee on Appro- worldly possessions in the trunk of a was told that China had stolen W–88 priations to reflect $1,838,000,000 in additional car or even a wheelbarrow. So many nuclear warhead designs and the neu- new budget authority and $1,774,000,000 in more were not that fortunate. tron bomb data. He was told that a spy additional outlays for designated emergency Nothing can contain their will, their might still be passing secrets to China spending. In addition, the outlay effect of the faith, and their fight. God bless Okla- at Los Alamos. He was even told that fiscal year 1999 budget authority of H.R. 1664 homa. Pray for Oklahoma. the theft of neutron bomb data oc- will result in additional outlays of f curred in 1995 under President Clin- $5,243,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. This will ton’s administration. So if he was told CHINA’S THEFTS OF U.S. NUCLEAR increase the allocation to the Appropriations all that, why did he not go right into SECRETS Committee to $538,109,000,000 in budget au- the Oval Office and tell the President? thority and $577,962,000,000 in outlays for fis- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under Well, I believe he did, and the Presi- cal year 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Why America's Grand Strategy Has Not Changed
    Why America’s Grand Strategy Has Not Changed Why America’s Grand Patrick Porter Strategy Has Not Changed Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment Why has U.S. grand strategy persisted since the end of the Cold War? If grand strategy is the long- term orchestration of power and commitments to secure oneself in a world where war is possible, the United States’ way of pursuing security has been re- markably stable.1 Long before the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States formed a grand strategy of “primacy,” often coined as “leadership.”2 This strategy was interrupted only occasionally. By the 1960s, it had set the parame- ters for Washington’s foreign policy debate.3 The strategy has four interlock- ing parts: to be militarily preponderant; to reassure and contain allies; to integrate other states into U.S.-designed institutions and markets; and to inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons.4 These fundamental security commit- ments have proven hard to change, even amid shocks. Patrick Porter is Professor of International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham. The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers and to Stephane Baele, Tarak Barkawi, Gregorio Bettiza, David Blagden, Sergio Catignani, Peter Feaver, Francis Gavin, Jonathan Golub, Ryan Grauer, Ted Hopf, Burak Kadercan, Michael Lind, Beverley Loke, Jason Reiºer, Robert Saunders, Catarina Thomson, and Hugh White. 1. See Barry R. Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), p. 13. 2. For accounts of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 25, 1999 and It May Have Far-Reaching National Clear That Clinton-Gore Administration Mr
    May 25, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 10787 b 1000 flect on our own lax standards and se- the Missing, Exploited and Runaway curity. Children’s Act. AFTER RECESS Do the initials ‘‘CIA’’ ring a bell? We In my own district, Jimmy Ryce and The recess having expired, the House spend billions on similar activities Shannon Melendi were preyed upon by was called to order by the Speaker pro around the world, but we should be monsters. tempore (Mr. SUNUNU) at 10 a.m. more concerned with protecting our Jimmy was abducted, raped, killed, f own vital national security. and dismembered as he walked home If I were the White House today read- from his school bus stop. Jimmy’s par- PRAYER ing some of the headlines, ‘‘China Stole ents channeled their grief into the es- The Chaplain, the Reverend James Nuclear Secrets for Bombs, White tablishment of the Jimmy Ryce Cen- David Ford, D.D., offered the following House Seeks to Minimize that Type of ter. prayer: Problem,’’ then I would want to change Shannon disappeared from a softball Let us pray using the words of Psalm the subject, too. I would want to talk field and was never seen again. Shan- 147. about campaign finance reform. I non’s parents have taken their daugh- ‘‘Praise the Lord! would want to talk about gun control ter’s case to the public, pushing for ‘‘How good it is to sing praises to our God; in America. I would want to do any- stronger laws to keep sexual predators for He is gracious, and a song of thing to change the tone and tenor of off the streets.
    [Show full text]
  • N Ext Steps in Ko S
    OCTOBER 199 9 Inside 4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE The Institute at 15 Vol. V, No. 6 5 DONOR PROFILE Edna Fuerth Lemle UN I T E D STAT E S IN S T I T U T E O F PE A C E ■ WA S H I N G T O N, DC 6 NORTH KOREA William Perry on Normalization 6 EAST TIMOR Ne xt Steps in Kos o vo Ramos Horta 7 Amb. Kampelman Receives Top Berger, Albright, and Kosovar Albanian leaders consider the steps necessary Honor to achieve a prosperous, democratic future for the province. 8 Women & Peacebuilding hile the Liberation Army (KLA)—at the fighting in request of the State Department. Kosovo has The facilitation was chaired by stopped and Chester A. Crocker, chairman of peacekeeping the Institute’s board of directors, troops are in and organized by place, victory Daniel Serwer, will come only when Kosovo and director of the southeast Europe are “so tightly Institute's integrated into the rest of Europe Balkans that another war is inconceiv- Initiative, and able,” says Samuel “Sandy” executive vice Berger, national security adviser president Harriet to President Clinton. Hentges. At the Clockwise: Berger discussed the challenges meeting, 39 lead- Bujar Bukoshi, facing peace in Kosovo at the U.S. ers of the feuding Madeleine Institute of Peace on September factions, journal- Albright, 30. He chose the Institute as the ists, economists, Hashim Thaqi, site for his address on Kosovo and representatives of nongovern- and Samuel because of the Institute's extensive mental organizations hammered “Sandy” Berger. work on the Balkans.
    [Show full text]