| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Elizabeth Jones Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Page 9 of 9
What is your answer to critics of U.S. foreign policy who say that we've become too unilateralist, we are not focused enough on multilateral solutions, and there's a listing of actions taken by the present administration? What is the answer to those critics?
I think they're wrong. We are very much focused on multilateral actions, multilateral activities. That's why we're in the Security Council on the Iraq resolution. That's why we're working with NATO enlargement the way we are. That's why we're in the Balkans with our NATO allies, trying to bring peace and security there. That's why we've got so many coalition partners in Afghanistan with us. That's why the president put forward the Millennium Challenge Account to address some of the issues in Africa -- not just in Africa, but in countries that are in transition, where democracy has a good chance of taking hold, but where economic prosperity hasn't caught up. The United States is in the forefront of AIDS/HIV work around the world. We are absolutely multilateral. But what people focus on is that we'll say, "But in the end .... " We work in all these multilateral institutions, we'll lead them, we'll participate, we contribute to them, but in the end, if it comes down to what is absolutely required to protect the United States, we'll go ahead and do that if we think we have to. But we'll keep with our multilateral allies and the multilateral [approach] as much as we possibly can.
Is listening to your responses I'm sensitized to this focus in U.S. foreign policy, to a commitment to certain values, to certain principles, whether it be the market or democratization and freedom. On the other hand, the work of international security has a side to it where, for example, one of the things one hears in the current debate on Iraq is [that we should] look back at our record towards Iraq, and at decisions we made at critical points, whether it was giving agricultural support to Saddam Hussein when he was our ally, relations with regard to Iraq and Iran and, in that earlier period, favoring Iraq. How do you respond to the critics who emphasize the latter instead of the former? That is, not the emphasis on values and how we're trying to achieve our long-term goals, but rather the short-term policies that we might adopt in a particular situation?
In looking at the particular period of time that you're talking about between Iraq and Iran, at that point, we didn't have the big concern about Saddam's development of weapons of mass destruction. What we were concerned about was the influence of Islamic extremism coming out of Iran in the Gulf. And so the question there was which of the two (Iran or Iraq) was worse? What is the best way to make sure that neither country overruns any of the Gulf states, neither one imposes itself on any of the Gulf states, and both are contained? That was part of the policy at the time. That was our number one goal, and number two, is there a way that we can work with a guy like Saddam Hussein along the lines that makes sense to us? Will it help to provide agricultural assistance, agricultural credits? At the time, that seemed to make sense. When you looked at that situation at that time, that seemed to be an appropriate policy.
Is the argument then intertwined with the notion that long-term our goal is to secure what we might call these American values in the world?
Absolutely. Absolutely. Definitely, that's precisely the whole idea. Stability is terribly important. But part of the argument in working towards stability is you've got to have a fairly stable situation so you can work on democracy, religious freedom, free media, all those kinds of things. Because if everybody is in turmoil, it's much harder to concentrate on these longer-term, very important issues.
If students were to watch this tape, and this discussion of our foreign policy and your fascinating career, what advice would you give them, in terms of preparing for the future and in terms of preparing for a career in Foreign Service?
A couple of things. I think, first of all, a career in the Foreign Service is terribly exciting. There are huge opportunities to participate, to influence, to make a difference in all of these issues in any part of the world. Because it's a very small service, we have a huge amount of influence personally, individually, in the groups in which we work, and that's very interesting and exciting. But to prepare for it, I think the most important thing is to understand America well, understand how Congress works, understand what the imperatives are of including every part of our government in the decision-making process, and to understand the lessons of history -- the understanding that history brings to us in how to move ahead for the betterment of the American people.
What would you say to women who consider going into the Foreign Service?
I think it's a great career for women. Some people are concerned about family issues, but that's one of the things that we're doing a much better job of addressing now, to make sure that there are good schools almost everywhere, that there is good health care for our people overseas. But it is a great way to be engaged in the world, and demonstrate what is so good about America.
If students were to watch this, do you have any thoughts about lessons they might learn from your career, or lessons that you would like to share with them that you have learned about diplomacy and U.S. foreign policy?
Let me start with the former. One of the things that I tell my younger colleagues is, don't get so stuck on thinking you want to work only on Russian affairs, or you want to work only on South American affairs, that it blinds you to all the other possibilities. Because the way our system works, you might not necessary get to do that right away. But what it does is it opens up opportunities to understand a completely different culture that never occurred to you that you might get to know. It never crossed my mind that I would go to Afghanistan. It never crossed my mind that I would go to Baghdad. But those two experiences have helped me immensely in my job now to understand how to talk to European publics about those societies. So stay loose, is what my advice would be.
Well, on that positive note, Beth, I would like to thank you very much for being with us today, and sharing these really fascinating insights and experiences. Thank you.
Thank you, very much.
And thank you very much for joining us for this Conversation with History.
© Copyright 2002, Regents of the University of California
To the Conversations page
See also these Globetrotter Research Galleries: