One point of comparison that seems to work, however, is that both were self-made women. Another is that both had an enormous impact both within and outside of their own nation. Yet another is that, whether one admired or reviled one or the other, both have become household words.

Albright and Thatcher also, however, employed styles as divergent as the position of their surnames in the alphabet. Where Albright was the iron hand in the velvet glove, Thatcher was the iron hand in the glove of chain mail. Where Albright advocated what appears to be a more feminine principle in diplomacy and governance, Thatcher most often presented herself as the 'artificial man.' Following is an examination of how each of these powerful women came to a position of leadership with enormous power in global politics, and a brief asse

She was not above making 'wish fulfillment' statements in public, however, along the lines of her speech concerning the United Nations payments. At one point, when she wanted U.S. troops to be dispatched to Yugoslavia, she mentioned the need in a speech; less than a week later, President Clinton announced that he was ready to send as many as 4,000 U.S. troops to Kosovo to enforce a political settlement, although that became moot when NATO warplanes took on the job (Lippman, 2000, p. 104). Albright continued to press for fairness for all constituencies in Yugoslavia, and for the United Nations and the United States to ensure a good outcome; she used rhetoric, historical precedent and logic much more often, as evidenced by her own speeches, than intimidation to persuade others to her point of view (Albright, 1999, p. 28).

In this case, she was also probably pushing President Clinton, who had refused to sign the bill approving payment because of an anti-abortion rider that had been attached to it. Refusal to pay the debt would, however, ensure that the United States would lose its vote in the General Assembly, rendering Albright virtually powerless. Albright told a business group that "The time has come to stop treating the United Nations like a political football" (Lippmann, 2000, p. 87). She noted that the United States had no excuse not to pay its bills; her pressure via public forums eventually produced a bill that had the rider attached but was structured so that Clinton could sign the appropriations bill while negating the rider. This apparently assuaged the fundamentalists who had added the extraneous material to the bill, as well as getting the United Nations bills paid.

Albright preferred the third choice. Not long into her tenure, she began to insist hat the United States pay its dues arrearage to the United Nations, giving another clue as to the importance to Albright of having a workable forum in which to lead global powers toward harmony and consensus. (She also believed in NATO enlargement as a means to keep the peace (Goldgeir, 1999. p. 159)).

The crisis of accelerated economic decline (Walsh et al, 1995, p. 56).

Perhaps the most striking maneuver to point to the possibility that Albright was a peacemaker far removed from Clark's paradigm is her treatment of African leaders. Rather than judging them by western standards, when they had to struggle to keep their nations intact, never mind economically viable if not healthy, she decided to nurture transformation by making an effort to treat those leaders "as equals, tolerating if not approving of certain counterinsurgency and crowd control tactics that would have outraged human rights purists, and avoiding putting public pressure on leaders such as Museveni and Ethiopia's Meles Zenawi to hold elections and ensure political openness" (Lippmann, 2000, p. 114). In short, she used a pragmatic approach to win some ground, but without forcing her ideas on others against their will.

Royal contends that Thatcher's leadership depended on her knowledge of the British people, a knowledge she had gained simply by growing up a commoner. He says that her "efforts to bring that dimension of society back into public prominence transformed the nation. So successful was she that in 1997, even as the Labour Party was headed for a landslide victory after seventeen years in opposition, one observer noted the profound shift toward conservative views among the Labour leaders:..." (Royal, 1998, p. 290+). Her abrasiveness had apparently worked, at least on that front. Royal contends that as a leader, Thatcher was forceful and energetic enough to reverse "processes in motion for over a century in developed democracies" (1998, p. 290+).

She also pressed for a more active role for the United Nations in Bosnia; she also managed the ascension of the Clinton administration's choice for United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan of Ghana, to replace Boutros-Ghali.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Margaret Thatcher, United Nations, Thompson Thompson, Albright Thatcher, Minister Thatcher, Foreign Relations, Thatcher Albright, George Schultz, Nations United, President Clinton, united nations, margaret thatcher, 1998 290+, royal 1998, royal 1998 290+, thompson thompson, 2004 21+, nolan 1997, clark 2004 21+, clark 2004, walsh et al, albright thatcher, walsh et, et al 1995, thompson thompson 1994,
Approximate Word count = 4894
Approximate Pages = 20 (250 words per page double spaced)