Zbigniew Brzezinski: 7 Years of Neo-Imperialist Propaganda

[iro]

letting the actual event of 9/11 and the pecularities of that take a back seat for a moment, i would invite you to have a read through some important context in which the 9/11 issue rests. A major world conflict is coming due to the war on terror - facilitated by 9/11 and it was all foretold by a leading member of the trilateral commission and the Council of Foreign Relations. A major part of my own academic study is on this fellow below - he is certianly worth watching.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Seven Years of Neo-Imperialist Propaganda

In The Grand Chessboard Brzezinski carefully and concisely lays out the future path that a successful America must take in order to secure its position in the world. It must avoid the pitfalls that lead to the demise of other great empires of the past by staying active and not succumbing to cultural and political decay and financial inflation. (1997, 12) Of course a casual reader may assume that America is not an Empire, but Brzezinski disagrees fundamentally classifying the four decisive domains that together make America a World superpower and a de facto Empire;

1) Military dominance
2) Economic Leadership
3) Technological Dominance
4) Cultural Envy (1997, 24)

Of course being an Empire, America must heed the ‘three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy’: ‘to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.’ (1997, 40) Now this sounds incredibly Victorian, but for Brzezinski even though times have changed, the underlying principles of strategic management of the civilised world have not. America to survive must apply these principles to the modern context. Lenin said the age of Imperialism began in 1900, when the large power blocs of the Earth had already staked a claim to every inch of the globe leaving only continual war and battling over who kept what. Of course Lenin predicted that this system was unsustainable and the eventual collapse of the whole western system was inevitable at some stage… Brzezinski argues here that far from the system of imperialism collapsing, a single (albeit late) player in this imperial age has aggregated all the power and influence of the other players and emerged as the only remaining superpower. Of course this is contentious, but even Brzezinski realises this and this book is an attempt to influence American policy to ensure they maintain and strengthen power in the face of the challenges they will encounter.

Europe

Far from just focusing on America, Brzezinski has a lot to say about all the potential power blocs globally, particularly Europe. Europe must ditch its social concerns and confederate. (1997, 72) America’s interest is served in helping the EU to further unite as its break-up would destroy NATO and create renewed power rivalries. (1997, 75-76) Of course this regional model is only pursued as it benefits America, creating a sympathetic partner bordering on the Middle East which is the principal theatre of the future.

Russia

Russia is in a ‘geopolitical void’ after the USSR’s collapse. It has lost much of its permanent sea access in the Caspian leaving it isolated and landlocked leaving it three choices:
1) Partner with America permanently in mutual self interest
2) Form a new economic integration with its ‘near abroad’ and balance American power in the region
3) Form a ‘counteralliance’ – a Eurasian anti American coalition. (1997, 89-9
When Yeltsin came to power he denounced imperial ideology, ‘people that rule over others cannot be fortunate’ (1997, 99) A familiar instance of doublespeak as the guns and tanks keep firing in Chechnya. Russia staggered onwards directionless. I would argue that in recent times they have begun under Putin to veer towards option Three, the anti-American counteralliance as evidenced through the closening relations with once bitter enemy, Communist China. Both these large nations know well that whomever controls the landmass south of their borders will ‘become master of the world’ (1997, 111) America can expect resistance therefore in its Middle Eastern endeavours.

The Eurasian Balkans



The Eurasian Balkans are, as described by Brzezinski, a large landmass of many nations south of Russia, West of India and East of Egypt. This area is ‘not only a power vacuum but also internally unstable’ (1997, 125). America is too distant to be dominant in Eurasia ‘but too powerful not to be engaged’ (1997, 148). Of course this engagement by America is ‘to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it’ (1997, 148). Therefore any American strategy must be a blueprint to neuter the stronger powers and encourage volatility and fragmentation in the area. This prescription describes perfectly the policy towards the Middle East since the end of the cold war. The area’s two powerhouses Iran and Iraq were allowed to wage a long war resulting in the weakening of both. Then Iraq was systematically destroyed as a viable nation after the Gulf War and prolonged United Nations sanctions and currently is slipping towards fragmentation after a further invasion. America is purposely de-stabilising the area right on script.

Iran

Of course the spectre of Iran is still present, unlike its western neighbour Iraq. Iran is dismissed by Brzezinski as a regional leader citing its ethnic splits as a hindrance, but does realise it as a ‘geopolitical pivot’ (1997, 134). Iran is undoubtedly the focus of American planning for the Eurasian Balkans currently, but this is not on Brzezinski’s script. ‘It is not in America’s interest to perpetrate American-Iranian hostility’ (1997, 204). Uzbekistan is the candidate expected to have risen to regional dominance due to its large ethnic population and memories of the Tamerlane Empire of 1336-1404 (1997, 130). This has not come to fruition. Iran’s role in Brzezinski’s eyes is as a westernised regional stabiliser. Efforts should be made to ‘encourage such a turn in Iran’s conduct’ (1997, 150) again this is way off target currently. Iran will now have to be destroyed as a regional power base. There is no other option for Imperial America.

East Asia

Recent economic growth, from 4% of world GNP 40 years ago to 25% in 1996 with further rises since has lead the region to surpassing America in this measure. Eleven areas of potential conflict exist in this area and any or all are likely to erupt if political passions overflow as growth and prosperity slow in the region. (1997, 152-156)
The division of Korea is seen as temporary, despite both halves arming themselves exponentially to the teeth. American troops, some 100 000 strong in this area are wasted and better used elsewhere – again following the principles of imperial strategy there is no scruples about letting the barbarians fight amongst themselves as long as it does not affect the Empire.

China

China’s historical weakness internationally is an ‘aberration’ (1997, 158) for Brzezinski. It will not be a global power until well after 2020 at its current pace. On the way to this eventuality it will almost certainly absorb Taiwan and Korea and by default control much of South East Asia through localised Chinese control of those countries’ economies. This ‘Greater China’ should be a natural ally to America like the growingly powerful EU, but many scholars disagree with Brzezinski on this assumption citing that by default ‘America becomes China’s unintentional adversary rather than its natural ally’ just by simply getting in each others way. (1997, 169)

‘The US strategic aim is to seek Hegemony in the whole world and it cannot tolerate the appearance of any big power… that will constitute a threat to its leading position’ (Song Yimin, 1996).

It looks like Zbig has gotten it wrong with China (and Iran) becoming acquiescent with American pre-eminence. He even goes so far as to say that any cooperation between China and Russia is unlikely, but that is occurring in many areas currently and this is most likely due to the escalation of American power and the mutual threat both face as a result.

The American Vision for the future (A New World Order)

No challengers are likely to America in at least a generation. This is the key window for America to ensure that the possibility of that happening in the future is demolished. (1997, 195) ‘The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia.’ (1997, 198) Partnerships with a united Europe and China are crucial for this. It may be worth pointing out the inherent simplicity and ethno-centrism of this opinion as for that to work would require China and Europe to follow and exert American values and vision. This is certainly not the case with Europe particularly since the Iraq invasion in 1993 and China seems to be following a more self centred policy process. Indeed Europe is now more divided than ever thanks to American actions in the War on Terror. It would seem logical to assume the war on terror is Zbig’s plan applied to reality and it currently is failing and fracturing the world not uniting it behind American hegemony. Brzezinski once called communism ‘The Grand Failure’ well this strategy is shaping up to being a cataclysmic failure.

Getting back to the vision, Brzezinski realises that this kind of expansionist and interventionist foreign policy is going to be downright unpopular with a peace loving public, not to mention incredibly expensive financially. So how, remembering we are in 1997 here, are the visionary imperial leaders of America going to pull it off… ‘in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat’ (1997, 211). In a word, 9/11, the new Pearl Harbour.

‘America is the first, as well as the only and likely the last truly global superpower’ (1997, 209) Its mission is to level the playing field globally and foster a favourable American cultural and political climate with which to replace its hard power with soft power processes; Globalisation / Liberalisation – call it what you like.

American policy must be unapologetically two-fold: (1997, 215)
1) Perpetrate American dominance for at least a generation and preferably longer.
2) Create a geopolitical framework that can evolve into a shared peaceful global management with upgraded United Nations structures.

This is an American built and designed New World Order, and it is laid out explicitly for any academic reader who cares to see it.

America in Brzezinski’s eyes is like Machiavelli’s Prince; a seemingly evil creature with double standards and outward zeal. However as careful readers of Machiavelli will understand, the Prince is far from evil, he has an incredibly moral compass as his evil actions are the result of chaotic times and every evil deed he is willed to commit is for a greater good – that of founding an honourable and representative form of republican government. This is the American Academia led view of America’s current ‘mission’ in the world. Of course the only problem being that Machiavelli’s Prince was trusted to throw down his leadership after achieving the goal of a better state. Applied to the reality of our situation today, it seems America is hell bent on domination and is leading to a path of sure destruction masquerading in a sheath of ideological legitimacy in the Machiavellian sense.

Brzezinski would alter many of his above views after the War on Terror seemingly accepting the futility of his plan as applied in reality – this was outlined in the 2004 book ‘The Choice’ and makes for interesting reading.




In ‘The Choice, Global domination or Global Leadership’ Brzezinski updates his now ailing thesis in the wake of the Iraq disaster and flagging public opinion. The book is as bold as its title, suggesting America must either dominate the world by force or lead it by example. Recent foreign policy blunders have apparently made this Choice imminent as ‘America’s unique standing in the global hierarchy is now widely acknowledged’ but ‘history is a record of change, a reminder that nothing endures indefinitely’ (2004, 1-2). America must make this choice as its demise will mean the demise of the status quo and civilisation itself as we know it. It is easy to see the attraction to the war on terror for the American political elite when viewed through this lens.

‘In the era of globalisation, insecurity will be the enduring reality’ (2004, 7)

Why…?

…because of the doctrine of pre-emptive war announced by Bush in 2002. Brzezinski himself acknowledges that a nations sovereignty is ‘an illusion for all but a few very powerful states’ (2004, due to this policy and it is perfectly justified for America to be ‘increasingly cavalier towards others sovereignty’ (2004 11). This meddling in other countries is destructive and will only breed war and terrorism, another glaring doublespeak. This threat of pre-emptive strikes creates a situation where the ‘acquisition of WMD would become a high priority for states unwilling to be intimidated… such states would then have an additional incentive to assist terrorist groups, which fuelled by a thirst for revenge, would be even more likely to anonymously unleash WMD against America’ (2004, 34). Therefore the American strategy in the War on Terror is facilitating a global conflict, not preventing one. Zbig even admits the threat of global anarchy is a real possibility (2004, 37) Iran is being moved into the role highlighted in the quote above clearly; although Brzezinski does not name check it specifically.

Iran (again)

Iran’s days are numbered in its current state. Why? - ‘Islamic fundamentalism is essentially reactionary – that is the source of both its short-term appeal and its long term weakness.’ (2004, 53) Brzezinski describes Iran as an example of Islamic populism which is the antithesis to Islamic fundamentalism, the synthesis will replace both and therefore Iran in its current state is doomed… as is the entire Islamic fundamentalist movement. Just like Marxists believe capitalism will die by itself due to its contradictions – this thesis supposes the whole current Islamic infrastructure is dying of its own accord. (2004, 57)
Like Samuel Huntington’s Third Wave theory (1992), in which he states that the world will shift naturally into democracy and liberalism as a wave of unbreaking momentum is engulfing the world as it is clear the western way is the best way – Brzezinski believes Islam will adopt democracy and embrace the West after reaching its ‘synthesis’.

Keeping this in mind the whole Islamic issue is a ‘regional problem’ and the Islamic world id disunited, unstable and weak and is therefore no threat to the world order (2004, 59) Again avoiding the issue of the Iranian rise to consciousness. Huntington talked of a leader uniting Islam and propelling it to defeat the ‘west’, Brzezinski thinks that is unlikely and doesn’t even bother commenting on it.

The End of America?


Another keenly interesting commentary of Brzezinski is his insistence that American unilateralism will be ‘a menace to all’ (2004, 85), and ‘will destroy the global architectural progress of the last several decades’ (2004, 127) this is alarming admission that a major World War is likely due directly to the War on Terror. Of course then we have the broken America and the order out of chaos scenario coming to the fore. Again – openly admitted.

The changes in American domestic politics following the War on Terror are also commented upon explicitly, ‘such a fundamental redefinition, especially when coupled with America’s unique technological capabilities in the area of security, could progressively transform America into an isolated, intensely security conscious, somewhat xenophobic hybrid of democracy and autocracy, perhaps even with overtones of a vigilant garrison state’ (2004, 206). This is academic speak for America is a fascist police state – it is basically a direct translation. ‘In some measure this ominous trend has already begun’ , ‘global sympathy as given way to widespread suspicion of the true motivations of the exercise of American power… its global political credibility has never been lower’ (2004, 214).

World War Three by design ..er.. blame the neocons



For what it’s worth Brzezinski’s take on the future is that an American world dictatorship is possible – and it is to be avoided at all costs for America and the Worlds best interests. On the flip side, ‘World Government is either a pipe dream or a nightmare, but not a serious prospect for some generations to come’ (2004, 218). He insists that forcing democracy on the Middle East will fail, and in the time since the book has been published he has went further disgracing the Iraq occupation and more.

With that in mind, he is not advocating a World Government, or an American Empire, he is saying candidly that a major conflict is therefore coming as without either of the aforementioned, it is the only eventuality that computes. He knows that his Grand Chessboard war plan (now in action) was a recipe for global chaos not stability, but is now at ease to say ‘I was wrong’ and blame the neocons! If I have ever seen a plan for order out of chaos these two books read together are it – the only glaring inconsistency is the omission of a serious role for Iran…maybe it is worth considering that we are now off script entirely and the Iran situation (and also that of Venezuela) is a spontaneous show of frustration and anger against a very much steamrolling process directed from above by elite academic planners like Brzezinski and their political henchmen. Worth a thought as the events unfold.


© Iro

references: (both by Zbigniew Brzezinski)
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books (1997).

The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, Basic Books (2004).

more on Zbig:
http://p4.forumforfree.com/exclusive-full-disclosure-of-the-technetron ic-era-vt1971-laidbackchat.html
useful background:
http://p4.forumforfree.com/summary-of-the-clash-of-civilisations-vt214 8-laidbackchat.html

[AntiZionistAntiNeocon]

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." ? from The Grand Chessboard


How these people planned! They are self destroyed!
________
Honda Civic Si specifications

[sr4470]

[scubadiver]

[sr4470]

[blackcat]

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks Iroboy.

I haven't read the Grand Chesboard yet but plan to. Also, I wasn't aware of ZBig's 2004 book Choice.

I understand that the Grand Chessboard has been touted as the blue print for the new American century. The theme you describe as offered by Choice; America leading by force or by example indicates two different options if I have understood it correctly.

The force choice being self explanatory, the option of leading by example suggests an alternative to the current eternal war.

Do I have that right ?

If so, is ZBig's Choice largely rhetorical ?

[iro]

[Mark Gobell]

That's very revealing.

When you think long and hard about this, either way, America is being set up for the fall. Eventually.

Once you get past Bush as a useful idiot, you begin to see the USA as the useful idiot in the long term game plan.

I wonder who plans on filling the void.

[iro]

[AntiZionistAntiNeocon]

[Mark Gobell]

[iro]

[Mark Gobell]

Your cover's blown Iro.

You are a fraud.

[iro]

[Mark Gobell]

To quote you Iro:

If you cannot understand a clear statement then I will not retype it.