Zbigniew Brzezinski on the state of the world

I had the extreme pleasure of being able to attend a lecture at the Chatham House given by Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977-1981. The lecture mainly focused on the current challenges that the United States has in terms of its foreign policy, as well as providing solutions thereof. He concentrated his lecture on the areas of China, Iraq, Russia, Europe, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He began with a provocative statement that the United States’ national and financial self-indulgence has discredited its role as a world leader. He emphasized that with the current troubles facing the US, it can no longer dictate or control policy as it has historically done, but rather must work closer with other actors, that play a large role in world affairs, and have proven stable governments. Interestingly, the European Union (EU) took the main role as a vital partner to the US, with Zbigniew identifying three of the most important member states: The United Kingdom, France and Germany. With the US’ unilateral decision to invade Iraq, public and political opinion between the above three was split, which is continually proving to be problematic, with him naming Europe’s role in Afghanistan as an example. Only with the strengthening of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, can those countries that are found on the Atlantic Ocean maintain their position as world leaders, as well as continue to project their values and beliefs. He then split his argument into three sections, or rather descriptive words: Unify, Enlarge and Pacify.

Under Unify, he asserted that there must be a greater effort to sustain and generate shared decision making between the US, EU, and NATO. This is difficult, as there is no political unified Europe that can dictate a coherent universal foreign policy. He used the current NATO effort in Afghanistan as an example, illustrating the different mandates that different countries have. How some are more willing to partake in the fighting, while others refuse. He stated that there should be a political will to stand and fall together. Additionally he emphasized that the US must begin to give Europe a larger decision making role, rather than dictating policy and expecting them to follow. Only when the US and Europe effectively work together, mainly US, Germany, France, and the UK, can the challenges outside the US be resolved.

With Enlarge he focused on including principle partners that are committed to interdependency in the decision making process. He mentioned a new group of fourteen or sixteen States that have enough political weight and proven stability that can dictate world governance and finance. He emphasized an increase in dialogue with China, and moving carefully but forcefully to include China in decisions before she can make decisions completely unilaterally. Russia was additionally given mention, that it should also be given a part. He warned that Russia, though not a power as it once was, is agitated and yearning for international respect. Russia is a global power due mainly to its nuclear weaponry, and the next President, according to Zbigniew, must work closer in continuing to dismantle its nuclear stockpile. Russia must however first shed its view of the world as being an imperial power, as it is experiencing large problems in providing health and care to its citizens. He contributes this financial weakening to the mere fact that much of Russia’s social spending planning was done under the assumption that oil would remain at $110 a barrel and continue to increase. If the social problems or increasing gap between the rich and poor are not quickly and effectively addressed by the Kremlin, the country could experience a more devastating internal disorder than has been previously experienced.

Regarding “Pacify,” he stated that the US should avoid the risks that it will be militarily and politically bogged down in all regions of the world. That it must tone down its language with Iran, and firstly, not demand large concessions on Iran’s part just to get to the negotiating table, and secondly to cease threatening to attack her, which only unifies public support against the US. Furthermore, when the US does withdrawal its troops from Iraq, it must reach a consensus and dialogue with Iraq’s neighbouring states to ensure the safety and stability of the country. Regarding Afghanistan, Zbigniew suggested that the country should become de-militarized , while “politicizing its regions. He stated that violence is increasing which is causing the Afghans to lose the will to support NATO troops. Furthermore, dialogue should be opened to the “Talibans,” which could assist the peacekeepers in rooting out and extinguishing Al-Qaeda cells. Finally, to conclude the Pacify section, Zbigniew asserted that the two-state solution in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is slipping away, and can only be resolved if the US takes a clear and strong position. He offered the solution of a US presence in Jordan in order to give Israel a buffer or feeling of security against Iran. A right of return for the Palestinians must be made out of the question, but compensation and acknowledgement of suffering must however be offered and implemented. Finally, a sharing of Jerusalem as two capitals must be created, along with the disarming of the Palestinians.

He concluded with, in my opinion, a very profound and relevant statement. That the general population in the United States must become better aware of the outside world. Only through an increase of education in foreign affairs, or international politics and history, can the people become educated in order to  influence how its leaders dictate foreign policy. He stated that in order for the above solutions to be achieved, in order for the United States to maintain its role as the leader of the free world, foreign policy must finally reflect the popular will and replace the current culture of fear.
I found his lecture to be very provocative and profound. He understandably and without a doubt has a large rich knowledge of his area, and additionally is a clear and concise speaker. The only thing that I did not like was that he stated quite obviously and clearly his stance and opinion towards the current U.S. President calling him even “unintelligent.” Though it is not that I disagree with him in his statement, it however created for me a clear line of bias, which makes it increasingly difficult to weigh his words as being accurate and intelligent. Another disappointing feature was that he did talk in general terms on some issues, which is understandable as the lecture part was only around 35 minutes. It would have been nice to see more specific suggestions on policies in certain areas. However, the end regarding the belief that the US public needs to become educated about the outside world was very relevant to me personally, and additionally I feel a strong agreement with him toward this issue. Finally, what was extremely interesting was that he didn’t mention Africa once. If Afghanistan will be successful, and extremists groups like the “bad” Taliban and Al-Queda are removed from the region, where would they go? And if the security risks (food, energy, water) are not addressed in Africa, then it will be powder keg waiting to explode and a breeding ground for extremist action against the west. That sad thing is, perhaps only then will the West become interested enough in this region and devote its full attention and entire capabilities to it.

The Future of U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East

      During my pursuit of this Masters degree I am continually becoming more enthralled by the U.S. involvement in the Middle East and particularly when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Without a doubt the U.S. is in a unique position in the world to barter an agreement in the Palestinian dispute, it has both the financial ability to support ventures as well as the goodwill and political capital (albeit not much after the Bush administration.) to bring people to the table.

     It is possible that the Israeli-Palestinian region is reaching a point demographically where it will be impossible for a two-state solution to be successful. If Obama’s administration is going to tackle this monumental problem, and I don’t see how it couldn’t, the United States has to be prepared to make a few changes in structure and attitude.

     1. Foreign policy decisions within the U.S. do not happen in a domestic vaccuum. One of the reasons that the Israeli lobby is so strong in the United States is that there isn’t an opposition. While it is true that there is a significant jewish population in the United States, there is equally a similar sized population that supports the Palestinian point of view. The way that the U.S. system is structured, there is no way sustainable political pressure can be maintained in Congress and thus upon the President to include Palestinian viewpoints. The U.S. government cannot create a Palestinian lobby, this needs to come naturally from the population. Although once created, the government will have to allow equal access. 

     2. A major change that the United States needs to make is to support groups if they are playing by the rules, even if the U.S. doesn’t necessarily like them. Hamas winning the election a few years ago shows that even traditional terror groups are beginning to realize they have to play the political game. I am not saying the U.S. needs to support Hamas, however the U.S. has a tendency to push people toward democratic tendencies, and if it doesn’t like the result then the U.S. sabotages the whole thing. As long as a regime or group does not commit terrorist acts and stays within the bounds of human rights, the U.S. needs to be prepared to support it politically if it is within our national interest or publicly stated goals. Otherwise the U.S. will continue to look like a hypocritical idiot.

   3. Beyond cooperation the U.S. has to be ready to allow groups to learn from their mistakes (as long as they haven’t attacked the U.S.). It is obvious that there are movements within the Middle East over the last few years that hold a kernel of democracy in them. This week is no exception. (see http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/15/iraq.security.pact/index.html) While Muqtada al-Sadr isn’t my cup of tea, the action he is calling for is very democratic. It will remain to be seen if the protest actually is peaceful, but if it is – it will be a huge statement to have a peace march protesting U.S. military presence in Iraq from the Iraqi people. Something that the U.S. should take notice of and seriously consider. If there is a successful peace march it will be time for U.S. policy makers to say ”mission accomplished”.

History will be made

Being an “expat” for about a year and half has finally been brought to my full attention. Never have I ever felt more of a longing for home, than watching how exciting people seem to be in wanting to “get out the vote.”

There even is excitement in the UK, as many Europeans (British and the like) have often questioned, without knowing how offensive it can be, who I have voted for. At first the normal reaction was me telling them to stick it where the sun don’t shine, as it is none of their business, but now in retrospect, the question was more out of curiosity and respect, than perhaps a wanting to tell me for whom I should have voted for.

This is probably the most important vote in the history of our country. The sheer numbers and the predictions of it being the largest turnout is more than enough to prove that statement. What is important however, is that a nation is now questioning itself and is doing something about it through a process in which it vigorously promotes abroad, and sometimes even dies for. This excitement is felt around the world, and us as Americans should not forget that.

What’s important is not really if anything will change on Americans foreign policy (which it more or less will not, see article), but that there will be an appearance of change. Whether it’s the first black President or the first female vice-President, change will be here in less than 24 hours.

Now, I cannot leave this post if I was not going to support one candidate. My vote has gone out for Obama, simply because of the Republican party’s poor showing at the White House for eight years, that has resulted in the instability of Iraq, at the cost of losing the more important war in Afghanistan. The Republican party does not deserve another run, and even if I feel that the Democrats probably would not have fared any better given the circumstances, the Republicans must experience the consequences, and that is losing the precious job of being the head of the Executive Branch. This is how it is supposed to work. My prediction is that Obama will more than likely win. But anything is possible.

That is what makes this election so exciting and important. Get out there and vote.

I know it’s like kicking a dead horse….but

I just found a fantastic article by the Economist, doing a little commentary regarding the Lisbon Treaty in their Charlemagne section.

Here’s the link.

It’s very well written, and sums up in less than 2,000 words the challenges the EU is facing right now. This quote stuck out:

Insanity is a harsh term, but you would not want a dinner-party guest who reads European Union treaties for fun. Much of the EU’s business may be important, but it is baffling to outsiders—and very dull.

Not so bad after all?

Being in this new program has resulted in a new wave of actual motivation. Thus my new subscription to Foreign Policy Magazine, which consists of a very interesting article by David Frum, the former speechwriter and special assistant to President George W. Bush, who, despite the contrary it seems in media coverage leading up to the presidential election, is rather full of praise of our current Commander in Chief. Furthermore, I think he has a couple of good points, if not a couple of bad ones.

Bad News First

He outlines his piece with titles that serve more or less as statements, such as: “Iraq is Bush’s Only Foreign Policy Legacy” or, “America Has Never Been More Hated.” Interestingly, in regards to the latter, Frum’s argument is that America has always been this much hated is probably an understatement.

However, what I found to be most interesting is where he attempts to look into the future, in order to see how the Iraq war will probably turn out, and probably how Bush’s presidency will be perceived. He states,

“by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a nonaggressive, albeit weak, elected regime, the United States will have achieved a real improvement in the region.”

There’s no denying that Saddam Hussein was an evil man, and that the situation will more or less improve in the future, but to state that it will be because of the United State’s invasion of Iraq in March 2003 could be going a little too far, and giving the man too much credit. Firstly, the War in Iraq was started illegally. There was never a sound resolution by the Security Council, and the failure in finding any remnants of Weapons of Mass Destruction, proved that it could not have been in the US’ self defense. (The other, if not unofficial legal way of going to war is in the event of an ‘humanitarian crisis,’ according to the principles of jus ad bellum) Secondly, if this thing was started illegally, and if there will be (as no doubt there will) an improvement in the region, then how could giving credit to the US be a good thing? Would this not encourage future states to “go it alone” and unilaterally attack and threaten the sovereignty of a country due to a theoretical improvement in a government, which was perceived as needing to be improved? In fact, we have already seen this same facet come to life with the Georgian crisis. Many statements coming out of Moscow before and after the invasion had the tone of a public distaste for Mikheil Saakashvili, which made the goal or interest of a regimé change in the region by Russia that more possible.

Furthermore, Frum argues that the Iraq War has made America actually more safe, as

Where terrorism has declined in the Middle East, it has steadily declined in both effectiveness and sophistication…It would be absurd to attribute this improving trend line solely to President Bush. But it would be equally absurd to deny that things are improving.

Frum is obviously referring to security here, and I think this depends on how one defines it. Granted, the number of terrorist attacks have decreased on US soil, as he correctly states, but does that mean that we, the American people, are actually safer? What about the US state as a whole? Have we lost prestige in the international system if not credibility? How much money and man power have we spent in Iraq, where it could have been spent in Afghanistan, a state that posed a greater risk to American security (if not the Middle-East) and additionally I wonder if there would ever again be a serious humanitarian disaster or perhaps a country really were developing WMDs and about to fire on us, where we were forced to act in our self-defense, how suspicious the world would be of our actions and in doing so, would move to try to stop us, or perhaps worse, delay our response. This is a very realist way of thinking, but I would argue that the Iraq War has actually decreased US influence and security. Moreover, and now its getting interesting, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, probably the two most prominent thinkers in the school of Realism, argued the exact same thing. In their article An Unnecessary War, which was published about a month before the invasion of Iraq, they conclude with the following statement:

If the United States is, or soon will be, at war with Iraq, Americans should understand that a compelling strategic rationale is absent. This war would be one the Bush administration chose to fight but did not have to fight. Even if such a war goes well and has positive long range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly – whether in the form of high U.S. casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the United States in the Arab and Islamic world – then its architects will have even more to answer for.

Now For the Good News

Regardless, President George W. Bush does have the worst rating of any president. There is even already an Oliver Stone film in development about him, that cannot contain anything but criticism. However, regardless of his faults, he’s done some pretty darn good things too.

First Frum states that it is wrong to think that Iraq is his only legacy in foreign policy. He is quite right. There have been a strengthening of ties with India regarding naval exercises, which will do well in putting a better check on China. Among others Frum adds,

Other foreign-policy legacies of the Bush years include the signing of new bilateral trade agreements, the world’s first convention on cybercrime, the wise decision to give Hugo Chávez enough rope to hang himself, and the continued successful management of the U.S.-China relationship.

Finally, where I must agree with Frum is that the next President will probably not radically revise Bush’s policies. Spending on our military will probably stay the same or increase, promotion of democracy will continue, as well as a pull back of American troops from Iraq will probably not happen, at least not at the speed that Presidential candidate Obama wants us to believe.

Regardless, a change of leadership is overdue. It is time to give the world a fresh face, which might free up some room to give a new breath of initiative in our foreign policy. And whether it is McCain or Obama who ends up being that face is irrelevant, it will still not resemble the current leadership. But let’s try to give the guy a little bit of a break.