In “The End of Intervention,” an Op-Ed published today in The New York Times, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrote,

The Burmese government’s criminally neglectful response to last month’s cyclone, and the world’s response to that response, illustrate three grim realities today: totalitarian governments are alive and well; their neighbors are reluctant to pressure them to change; and the notion of national sovereignty as sacred is gaining ground, helped in no small part by the disastrous results of the American invasion of Iraq.

She argues that during the 1990’s the world was developing a tradition of intervention to “advance certain core values, including development, justice and respect for human rights.” Citing precedents such as Somalia, Northern Iraq (Kurds), Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor, Albright argues that the world was moving toward a view where sovereignty was “central,” but not the only factor considered when considering possible actions in humanitarian crises.

In the wake of the US War in Iraq, Albright continues,

The global conscience is not asleep, but after the turbulence of recent years, it is profoundly confused…. At the heart of the debate is the question of what the international system is. Is it just a collection of legal nuts and bolts cobbled together by governments to protect governments? Or is it a living framework of rules intended to make the world a more humane place?

We know how the government of Myanmar would answer that question, but what we need to listen to is the voice — and cry — of the Burmese people.

Reading this article, I was swept with a wave of nostalgia. I often don’t agree with Secretary Albright, but I respect her highly. I don’t know what, if anything, unilaterally or multilaterally, we should have done with respect to the humanitarian crisis in Burma/Myanmar; I am generally less in favor of intervention than she. What I miss is the type of issue Albright is presenting here for consideration. When was the last time our foreign policy discussion focused on “what the international system is” or should be? Why have we ignored the current political crisis in Zimbabwe, the US rejection of the cluster bomb accord, the global impact of increased corn prices?

Instead, we have spent the last years marginalizing any discussion of human rights, abandoning diplomatic approaches to countries we dislike, inventing words like “Islamofascism” to demonize our enemies, developing the use of rendition to unilaterally prevail against our allies, and advancing issues like “How long can we hold suspects in solitary confinement without charges or legal recourse” and “What type of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ (torture) can we use?”

How has it come to pass that in national discourse we must start from the premise that “multilateral” equals “weakness,” that established international organizations are irrelevant, corrupt or evil?” Witness Madeline Albright’s disclaimer, “These actions were not steps toward a world government.”

It’s probably not fair to lay this change in tone, priority and discussion exclusively on the Bush administration. Unquestionably, this administration changed the foreign policy focus decisively when it chose to invade Iraq. And for much of the last 7 years, our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have sucked the oxygen out of the room, often keeping those with different ideas and priorities too busy or too intimidated to think or talk about other issues. But, one of the things leaders do is to reframe the debate, and to lead us to think about things in new ways. This is what Madeleine Albright is attempting here. Another thing leaders do is display the courage to express unpopular opinions, and demand that they be heard. With President Bush’s approval ratings under 30%, it doesn’t take much courage in 2008 to dissent from current policy. But, where has the leadership been from 2001-2006? Why have we allowed a radical foreign policy to monopolize our discussion for so long?