|Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Speech and Question and Answer Session at Sophia University
April 28, 1998, Tokyo, Japan
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State
PRESIDENT OTANI (President of Sophia University): Madame Secretary, Ambassador, distinguished guests, professors, and dear students. It is my honor to have Secretary Albright here at Sophia University. She is one of the most important world figures we can think of today. And sheís one of the most important visitors weíve had at this university.
As you may know, we are celebrating the 450 year anniversary of the visit of St. Francis Xavier, a Spanish co-founder of the Society of Jesus to this country. He was the first Jesuit father to conceive establishing a university in Japan. We at Sophia University are proud to note that we are the inheritors of this wish. Since then, we have been trying to be a bridge of understanding between the Western world and Japan. In doing so, we have had our share of difficulties. Our conflict with the Japanese military during the World War is famous. But with deliberate efforts, we have endured hardships and maintained our high goals. Three hundred years later, after St. Xavier, may I remind you, Madame Secretary, your Admiral Commander Perry visited this country and asked to open Japan, then under tight control of feudal forces. We opened the country and eventually this led to the Meiji Restoration, or the beginning of modernization of Japan. This was, in a sense, also an effort to make bridge of understanding between the Western world and Japan.
Our march to modernization also had its share of hardships. One was the war in the Pacific. As we know, both the United States and Japan endured the stormy period and emerged as powerful friends. Sophia University has been functioning as a medium of world understanding, and I also see the American-Japanese relationships functioning as a medium of world understanding. I see the analogy here, and I have a hope here. My hope is that our effort will continue in generations to come, and that the Pacific Ocean will become the new Mediterranean Sea of the ancient times to serve mankind. Mankind would be served by this ocean of communication so we can share our dreams of understanding, our goals of striving for higher truths.
Madame Secretary, may your visit be the occasion of our renewed (inaudible) for this goal of ours. We indeed appreciate your visit and the implications of the occasion you gave to us.
Thank you very much.
MODERATOR: Thank you, President Otani. Now I want you to give our symbol, the medal of Sophia University, to Dr. Albright.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you very much.
MODERATOR: Secretary Albright, would you like to start your presentation?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you very much, President Otani. Thank you very much for what you said about the relationship. Thank you very much for the symbol, Chancellor Yamamoto, Professor Matsuo.
Thank you very much, President Otani. Thank you very much for what you said about the relationships. Thank you very much for the symbol. Chancellor Yamamoto, Professor Matsuo, faculty, staff and students of Sophia University, guests and friends, good afternoon, and I really am delighted to be here.
I want to begin by saying a special word of thanks to America's Ambassador to your country Tom Foley. When President Clinton asked Ambassador Foley to come here to Tokyo, he didn't just make a good choice; he chose the single person best qualified to represent the United States in Japan, and I hope that you agree that he is doing an outstanding job.
My trip to Japan to meet with you and with your leaders is just the latest in a steady stream of high-level exchanges. President Clinton was here in 1996; Prime Minister Hashimoto visited America last spring; I stopped here on my first foreign trip as Secretary of State.
But perhaps the most high level visit of all will occur in just two weeks. According to our friends at Sony Pictures, Godzilla will come to New York, but I hope you'll excuse me if I don't attend that dinner.
I am also very happy to be able to visit Sophia University because for many years I was a professor at Georgetown in Washington which, like this great university, was founded in the Jesuit tradition, and just a few minutes ago I had a chance to visit with some of the Georgetown students studying here, so I feel very much at home. When I was teaching, I really would always enjoy the students that had come here who then became my students who would talk about their experiences so warmly. And I must say, as much as I love the job I have, and I do think it is a pretty good one, I do miss the classrooms, so I am very glad to be here.
This afternoon, I would like to speak with you about the future of America's engagement in Asia and with Japan.
I know that for people here and throughout the region, this is a time of uncertainty, but that should not obscure a larger sense of pride. For, from the perspective of future generations, the final decades of the 20th century will be seen as an era of great accomplishment. During this period, the nations of Asia lifted more people out of poverty than any comparable group of nations at any time in history. From Tokyo and Seoul to Manila and Bangkok, we have seen new democracies born, modern cities rise, and old adversaries become friends.
But especially gratifying has been the development of a unique and lasting partnership between the United States and Japan.
Through the years, we have become more than just treaty allies, though, as allies, we are united by the most solemn security commitments two nations can make.
We have become more than just the world's two largest industrial economies, though our size and wealth give our partnership unique potential and scope.
We have become more than just two democracies that believe in freedom and the rule of law, though our common ideals translate into common interests and a common purpose.
Today, the real definition of our partnership lies not in who we are, but in what we do, for there are few issues vital to the region or globe on which we do not work together.
For example, the United States and Japan stood shoulder to shoulder, with principle and purpose, during the most recent crisis in Iraq.
We both have contributed much to the reconstruction of Bosnia, and have both participated in peacekeeping operations as far away as Rwanda.
Our cooperation under the U.S.-Japan Common Agenda is broad and growing, taking us from the preservation of coral reefs in the Pacific, to the development of disease resistant crops in Indonesia, to the fight against guinea worm disease in Africa.
And, of course, there is our diplomatic cooperation in Asia. Here, we rely on you, and you rely on us, each to do our share as military allies and economic partners to maintain stability, expand trade and investment, and lend a hand to those struggling to promote democracy and peace.
An example is Korea. Since the end of the Cold War, the Korean Peninsula has been perhaps the most dangerous place on earth.
But now representatives from the North and South have begun again to talk to each other, and through the Framework Agreement we have made progress in dismantling the North's nuclear program. There is at least a chance that lasting peace and reconciliation can be obtained. Given what is at stake, it is essential that we do all we can together--not reluctantly but with energy and vision--to ease the food shortages in the North, fund KEDO and ensure nuclear stability.
There is another opportunity we have that lends hope to the closing years of this century, and that is to encourage a rapidly changing China to accept the benefits and responsibilities of full membership in the international system.
Both our nations have an interest in this goal, and our alliance gives us the confidence to seek it together.
We both wish to see China integrated into the global trading system.
We are both working hard, and with growing success, to enlist China in the effort to stop the spread of deadly weapons and technologies.
We both wish to see China reconcile the human right to development with the human need to breathe clean air, and we both wish to see a China where the authorities do not fear freedom of expression but, rather, see it as essential to the development of a stable society.
On this issue, especially, we must continue to speak with clarity, for while some Chinese dissidents have been released to exile in recent months, the Chinese government's repression of dissent and religious freedom has not ceased.
But we must also recognize the ways in which China is changing. The Chinese government is less involved in the lives of its citizens than at any time in the last 50 years, and this year has seen hopeful stirrings of a dialogue among China's students, scholars and officials about the need for political and economic change to go together.
In short, there are many good reasons to feel good about the future. The partnership between our two nations is strong. We have made progress in building an Asia-Pacific community that is more open, peaceful and free than ever before.
But even as we focus on what is right today, we cannot forget what is not right. The economic crisis in Asia has hurt millions of families on this side of the Pacific, and it has hurt America, too, and we are in this together.
And, together, we have been working with the IMF to restore confidence to the troubled economies of the region. Japan's contribution to the IMF package for Indonesia, Thailand and Korea has been more generous than that of any other country.
At the same time, I believe that the most important contribution the United States is making is often taken for granted. We are continuing policies at home that keep our economy growing. We are selling to the world, but we are also buying the exports that will lead this region back to prosperity and growth.
That is what we ask of Japan, and that is why we welcomed the positive steps included in the stimulus package announced last Friday. And that is why we hope Japan will continue to move in the direction of encouraging domestic demand and reducing regulation of the economy.
This is a win-win-win proposition. It will strengthen the relationship between our two countries. It will help the entire region recover and grow, and it will enable Japan to compete even more successfully in the global economy.
I understand that Japan sometimes feels it is being pushed too hard and too fast to take steps that would be difficult even in the best of times. But I hope you understand that the concerns Americans have expressed are those of a good friend and staunch ally who wishes you well.
A few years ago, my country was under pressure from our G-7 partners, including Japan, to show stronger leadership in managing our economy. President Clinton was elected to do that -- just that. It was not easy, but we are glad we did it.
Over the last half century, no country has demonstrated more dramatically the capacity for change than Japan, and I am confident that you will rise to that challenge now.
After all, the edifice Japan has built does not need a new foundation. What is needed, if I can borrow the words of Yoshida Shoin, whose teachings helped inspire the Meiji reformers in Japan 140 years ago, is to "discard the worn-out rafters, and add new wood".
The same need for fresh thinking is changing the way our partnership relates to the world. Our alliance has endured for 50 years; it has contributed to prosperity and security throughout the region; but it is now being redefined to meet a host of new challenges.
For example, the financial crisis has focused our attention on the need for transparency in economic decision-making in all countries and, to this end, we should begin a regional dialogue in Asia on the best ways to combat corruption.
There is also a growing recognition that sound economic policies are far more likely when governments are accountable, the press is free, and courts are independent.
We do not fully understand the causes of the financial crisis. Not every country that was hit hard is authoritarian, and not every country that escaped is a democracy.
And, yet, in democracies like Thailand and South Korea, newly elected governments have been able to start work with a clean slate, in a climate of openness, and with the legitimacy to call for shared sacrifice. Indonesia has had a harder time, at least in part because it lacks similar public participation in decision-making.
Another challenge that calls for new thinking and new resolve is that posed to the health of our planet by global climate change.
Here, our choice is clear. We can continue pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and let future generations deal with the consequences, or we can act now to control emissions and limit the environmental harm.
In Kyoto last December, we took an essential step in the right direction. There, for the first time, industrialized nations agreed to mandatory emission targets. This is appropriate because if we are to slow global warming, the wealthiest nations must show the way.
But we must also understand that we will not find a solution unless developing countries participate, for their emissions will begin to surpass those of the developed world within the next 30 years.
It is vital, therefore, that we get across the message that sound environmental practices and economic growth are not incompatible but, rather, two sides of the same coin.
As President Clinton has said about the American experience, "For decades, every time we sought to improve the environment, someone has stood up and said, if you take this step to clean the air, to clean the water, to improve the health of the food supply, you will cost jobs and hurt the economy. And for decades, every single step we have taken to improve the environment has helped the American economy."
So we need to work together to persuade the developing countries that it is in their interest, and the world's interest, that they participate in appropriate and meaningful ways to combat global climate change.
This, like other challenges I have mentioned, will require us to talk at times about matters that have historically been seen as the internal affairs of other nations. Understandably, there is much sensitivity about this. Certainly, Americans would resent others trying to interfere in our affairs.
But the question we must ask is what we mean by "interference" in this age of interdependence.
Clearly, when one country imposes its will on another, that is intervention. But when Japan and the United States work together to help a nation overcome civil war and find the path to true democracy, as we are trying to do in Cambodia, we are not imposing--we are helping a long-suffering people to realize its hopes.
When we give assistance and candid advice to a neighbor experiencing an environmental crisis, we are not intervening in an internal matter, but dealing with a regional threat.
When we deny aid and investment to a government such as Burma's that stifles democracy and brutally represses human rights, that is not interference. That is recognizing and standing up for the clearly expressed will of the Burmese people.
In these and other areas, we are trying to accomplish as much as we can multilaterally by establishing common standards of international behavior and by building institutions to advance and enforce those standards. We have made a strong start in Asia through organizations such as APEC, ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum.
And the United States believes we should strengthen the United Nations by adding Japan and Germany as permanent members of the Security Council.
In every part of the world, our two countries have encouraged the growth of institutions that bring nations closer together around basic principles of democracy, free markets, respect for law, and a commitment to peace. This effort has brought us closer together as well.
When I visited Tokyo last year, I had the chance to reunite briefly with three former exchange students of mine at Georgetown who had returned to their homes in Japan. Two are now members of the Diet, one is a government official here in Tokyo.
That experience could have made me feel old. Instead, it made me reflect on how closely linked our countries are, not only through student exchanges, but through our shared commitment to human rights, free enterprise and the rule of law.
Much is made of our cultural cross-pollination, as Americans eat sushi and sing karaoke, while Japanese flock to the "Titanic" and cheer the NBA. But there is, beneath the surface, an understanding that is far deeper.
From Europe to Africa to Asia, we are leaders with a common purpose. We share an awesome responsibility to help guide with wisdom the rushing currents of political and technological change.
And I hope that you, the young people of Japan, you who are Japan's twenty-first century, will see to it that your country builds on this tradition of leadership--and of partnership with your friends across the Pacific.
I pledge that the United States will do the same.
And, together, let us not be satisfied with what we have accomplished but, rather, let us make our friendship an ever building force for freedom and peace and dignity and prosperity for our peoples and for all peoples.
Thank you very much, and now I will be very happy to answer your questions.
MODERATOR: All right. We are now ready to receive questions, but questions from the students only, please. And we have ladies with microphones -- hand-held microphones -- so please speak into the microphone. Any questions, please? First the gentleman over there, on the aisle. Please.
QUESTION: Good afternoon, Secretary Albright. I very much enjoyed your speech. My name is Todd Henry and Iím a graduate student studying at this university.
I recall a couple of years ago, a U.S. delegation came to Tokyo to discuss with Japanese officials a number of issues. One of these was reevaluating personal exchanges between the United States and Japan. At the time, policy makers as well as the public realized that there was an imbalance between Japanese students, scholars, and other visitors in the United States and their American counterparts in Japan. Although it would be futile to try to equalize these numbers, efforts have been made to increase Americaís knowledge and familiarity with things Japanese. I would be interested hearing your personal thoughts on the importance of these efforts and how this Administration has been attempting to approach this issue.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you. Well, I happen to believe that one of the greatest ways for understanding to be developed is, obviously, through student exchanges. And I think that some of the comments that I made in my speech would indicate the value of having such exchanges, especially as all the students begin to have jobs of responsibility where they can put their experiences to use.
I think that we ought to do much more in our country to try to have as many Japanese students as possible, as well as other foreign students. A lot of the universities now are benefiting from the idea of having multi-cultural classroom experiences. Even though I no longer teach at Georgetown, I think Georgetown is a very good example of having students from a variety of countries in their classes. I think it has helped the discussion, especially if the subject is international relations. If itís Greek anthology it may not be anything that makes it so different. In the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, for instance, I think one of the things that helped a lot was to have a lot of students from different areas.
I think we ought to do more. I think part of the problem -- and let me bring this to a very specific issue -- is that at this moment there are numbers of students from Asian countries in the United States who are studying there based on their familiesí ability to help them through school. Because of the Asian financial crisis now, that has created great difficulties. The U.S. government is trying to do what it can to help by having the universities work on work-study programs to assist. I think we need to do everything we can to bring more Japanese students to the U.S., and then, obviously, make sure that the exchange the other way also continues.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Any other questions?
QUESTION: Good afternoon. Iím very pleased to listen to your presentation.
I have heard that in Washington, D.C., next to the Vietnam War Monument, there is a sign that says, "Freedom is not free." But our generation in Japan, which hasnít experienced war, does not know the preciousness of freedom. On the other hand, many people in developing countries cannot get freedom easily because of war and poverty. What do you think the young generation in developed countries should do to secure freedom for everyone in the world equally? I would like to invite your comment.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that there is a tendency for young people who have never suffered to not understand how difficult it is in countries where it is, first of all, difficult to exist economically, and second where there may be terrible fighting that has to do with ancient conflicts, or where there are new sources of outbreaks as a result of migrations and lack of food and leaders who may incite portions of the population against other portions.
One of the reasons that I so enjoy talking to students is that you all are, as I said in my remarks, the next century. As such, you have an opportunity to take a fresh look at the world and understand the importance of interdependence. Itís evident in some form or another every day, and in terms of our dependence upon each other, in terms of whether weíre able to breathe freely, whether weíre able to trade, whether weíre able to travel. And the very way of life that each of our countries has depends on other countries having, I believe, democracies and a free market system, because those are the ones that allow people their fullest ability to blossom.
I think the best way for young people to get engaged is actually to understand other cultures and other countries. I think it dovetails with the question I just answered. Itís necessary for an interdependent world to have respect for the culture and traditions of other countries. Very specifically, the way that one can be involved is by joining Non-Governmental Organizations -- for which I have the greatest respect -- that get people involved in helping in other countries, whether itís with elections, as is happening for instance in Cambodia, or the refugee organizations that help people in distress, or Doctors Without Borders, who are able to go around and help people that have had horrible things happen to them, including from land mines.
So there are a number of ways organizations can help people get involved. But the main thing, the main message for you of the 21st century, is that no nation is an island, and that it is absolutely essential for your way of life to continue to be engaged with other countries.
QUESTION: [inaudible] to be talking to you. I would like to ask you about the developments regarding the implementation of U.N. Resolution 425, or the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Southern Lebanon. Israel has presented a proposal to this effect and Lebanon hasnít responded positively to it. Meanwhile, your government has asked Lebanon to seriously consider the proposal. Now as you know, Syria is the main power broker in Lebanon. So my question is, how effective do you think it is to pressurize Lebanon to consider the matter of Israeli withdrawal when the decision isnít really in the hands of the Lebanese?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, youíve asked a very serious and important question. I think that we know that, ultimately, peace for the Middle East has to be comprehensive, and it has to involve the Israeli-Palestinian track, the Israeli-Lebanese track, and the Israeli-Syrian track. And we try to work each one as we can, and there are those people who wonder whether there should be a more visible way of supporting the Israeli suggestion on implementing Resolution 425. Our perspective is that we should try very hard to get a solution wherever we can. You have described aptly the very serious aspect of how decisions are made in the region. Secretary General Khoffi Annan was there just now. He is very interested in dealing with this issue because it does involve the United Nations -- the whole role of the United Nations in the region. And I think that what we ought to try to do is sort out what is happening at each aspect of this, and to try to work whatever part of the problem that we can -- even though the way that you describe it does, in fact, reflect a certain reality. But if it is possible to move that part of the process forward, we should try to do that, maybe through the U.N.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, youíre a distinguished woman, and I can think of three distinguished women on earth: Mother Teresa; Princess Diana; and you. [applause] Mother Teresa, though she was not Asian, she came to India and dedicated her whole life to the poor and suffering people. And also Princess Diana also helps [sic] the poor and deserved [sic] people or children. But these two women suddenly passed away last summer, you know. And as one of the most famous and distinguished women in the world, how do you interpret their contribution to the world? And in your assessment, has anything changed in this world now that we lost these two women?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Itís a loaded question.
QUESTION: Though we still have one...
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I do think it was very tragic and ironic that these two women happened to have been taken from us at around the same time, because obviously they were very different. Mother Teresa had devoted her life to the very worst conditions and helping the poor in a way that I think was beyond human understanding. That is the only way I can picture the things that one knows about her in terms of the places she went and the personal sacrifices she made. I think that she was obviously one of the noblest people that any of us have -- I never met her, so -- ever read or heard about.
Princess Diana had an opportunity because of her position to do a great many very good things in a very short span of time, and her devotion to children and what she did about drawing attention to one of the great scourges, which is landmines, I think did a great deal. I think they both pointed up in totally different ways -- and itís ironic that they should be compared because they were so totally different -- what can be done when attention is drawn to specific problems that most people would kind of like to shove under the rug. And I would hope that as we look out, that we pay attention to some of the same kinds of problems that they raised.
One of the things that I am trying to do is to make the American public understand -- and as I travel, others -- that foreign policy is not some ethereal thing that people only study in classrooms or theorize about, or that high-level officials deal with -- but that foreign policy affects everybodyís lives. And that it is not so much high politics as really a way that we all need to understand how we connect with each other. Disease in one country spreads to another; the weather affects us all; refugees are like the international homeless. It is important for us to understand, first of all, how they came to be created as a result of particular conflicts, and then what happens to them and how we integrate refugees into our societies.
I think also -- and I commented on this in my remarks -- we have to understand that human rights are not any one nationís specific value. We are celebrating this year the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- and that means that all of us, no matter where weíre from, have a basic, inherent value, and the ability to practice it.
So those are the kinds of issues that we need to draw attention to. Whether one is famous, or is not well-known, I think our responsibilities are the same in terms of drawing attention to those kinds of problems and doing everything we can to make it a better place. Thank you.
MODERATOR: I see lots of hands being raised. One short question. The gentleman in front, please.
QUESTION: Good afternoon, Madame Albright. Well, I am [inaudible] and I belong to the Department of International Law. In a few years we are going to be in the 21st century and recently the United States is showing a tendency towards becoming a world-wide police state of world peace. Well, my question is, do you think that in the 21st century, the United States is going to be a real world-wide police that defends the weak?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, thatís a very broad question, and let me answer it in a way that I think might help explain the direction in which I hope U.S. policy goes.
Because Iím a professor at heart, no matter what other job I have -- once a professor, always a professor -- I try to have a conceptual framework. Youíve all heard about conceptual frameworks. When I arrived at the United Nations, there were 183 countries in the U.N., now there are 185. And I thought to myself, is there some kind of conceptual framework or organizing principle I can give to what Iím seeing around myself? And so I came up with a division, which is not perfect, but I think does help to explain what is going on in the world now and what could go on in the 21st century, and the role that the United States and Japan might be able to play in this.
I think that basically one can divide those 185 countries roughly into four national groups. The first group has in it the largest number of countries, and while the United States or Japan, for that matter, might not agree with the form of government of each of those countries in that group, we are part of a system. You are a student of international law. Itís part of a system where a set of rules are agreed to, where treaties are carried out, where there are a variety of regimes for arms control or, now, an attempt to try to get climate change under some kind of a treaty process. Itís where basically we respect the rules and we are trying to have a community of nations that are able to work with each other in an organized way. Within that first group, there are regional organizations, there are ad hoc groups, there are ways that citizens within those countries try to help and work with each other.
The second group, I would say, are societies in transition. Those are countries that now, as a result of the end of the Cold War, or still some that are newly independent countries, which would like to be part of the first group, but donít yet have the democratic institutions firmly enough in place to really be able to carry their weight in that first group of countries.
The third group of countries are those that are quite the opposite, which basically do not see any stake in having a functioning international system, and, on the contrary, do everything they can to destroy it by developing weapons of mass destruction, by not following the rules and literally throwing hand grenades at those that are trying to live an organized existence.
The fourth group are those nations that, for a variety of reasons, have completely lost their underpinnings, which do not have functioning governments at all, which are literally and figuratively eating their seed grain. And they, in many ways, become kinds of wards of the system.
The long-term goal for the United States or any country in the first group is, ultimately, to move all of the countries into the first group. That is, to help support societies in transition by going to assist in elections, or by giving technical advice in democracy, or by helping in many of the medical fields. A lot of different things can be done to try to reform those states in that third group that are trying to undermine the system, to show them that it is more valuable to be a part of it than to destroy it. And in the fourth group, to try to give them some legs to stand on.
So I see the role for all of us in terms of peace now and then helping the needy -- a dynamic vision for the United States and for all democracies and free market systems is to try to move everybody into that first group. I think that is a good goal for all of us as we move into the 21st century.
MODERATOR: I have to give the last opportunity to ask a question to a lady. [inaudible] Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you very much for your lecture, Professor Albright. And as an immigrant who came to the United States when you were a little girl, do you think that the United States should serve as a nation of immigrants for the centuries to come, no matter what happens to your country, like economic crisis or natural disasters?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me just say this. I always find this an easy question to answer in front of an American audience. There was somebody here who had asked about what you do if you havenít lived through a war. Well, I lived through a war. And I remember World War II very well. I happen to have spent it in England, but I remember it very well. And I also remember what it was like escaping communism with my family. I was eleven years old when I came to the United States, and I had the opportunity, thanks to the generosity of the American people, to grow up a free American. For me, this was obviously a life-giving experience. I was born in Czechoslovakia -- and I have now gone back many times to half that country, the Czech Republic -- where I have seen what a difference it made to even people exactly my age, the fact that I grew up an American and they didnít.
And so the idea that I could grow up in total freedom made all the difference in my life. And so, as I look around at the United States and find how many people there are immigrants -- recent immigrants, because actually everybody is an immigrant there -- and I have often asked this question, about... We have some very strict immigration laws now. And one of the hardest parts is talking about the fact that we canít take everybody now because of a variety of pieces of legislation. The United States continues to be the most open country in the world. We have taken in more people annually than any other country in the world, and weíll continue to do so. What we all argue against -- and even I, as a naturalized American, argue against -- is illegal immigration. Because that undermines the entire system. People need to come in legally. And I hope very much that the United States will be in a position to have open arms, because every country is enriched by having a mixture of people. I have found as Iíve gone to other countries -- Iíve just come from Latin America, for instance, where those societies are very heterogeneous and a lot of immigrants have come in. I think we are now a world in which borders are open and should be open, and people should be allowed to live when they can, legally. I think that is part of the issue. And I hope that the United States will always be an open country because it is enriched by people who appreciate that theyíre there.
MODERATOR: Sorry. There are many other questions, Iím sure, but due to the time limitation, I have to stop taking questions now.
Thank you very much for your heartwarming and enlightening presentation this afternoon.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: And Iíd like to thank all of you and the students for letting me be me, and for asking good questions and just having a good discussion here. I hope you enjoy your time at a university. Thereís nothing better. And the ability to talk to your friends and your classmates in a way that you will never have again, where you can explore the kinds of questions with each other that you did with me, and take away a very rich experience and really have a better 21st century.
So, thank you very much for the privilege of talking to you.
MODERATOR: And one of my best boy students prepared a flower for you.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: We have no distinctions here. [applause] Thank you all very much.
[End of Document]
to the Secretary's Home Page. Return
to the DOSFAN Home Page.
This is an official U.S. Government source for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links does not imply endorsement of contents.