By The Diplomat
As the world changes so too must U.S. foreign policy. The Diplomat asks Zbigniew Brzezinski about America's role in the 'Asian Century.'
The Diplomat's Assistant Editor Zachary Keck sat down with former U.S. National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to discuss America's role in world affairs, the shifting geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific, the feasibility of eliminating nuclear weapons, and rising powers growing involvement in America's backdoor.
In Strategic Vision you argue that in today’s world no one power will ever be capable of dominating Eurasia in the way Harold Mackinder famously envisioned. Taking that argument at its face, this represents a tectonic shift for U.S. foreign policy given that, long before Washington was able to meaningfully affect the balance of power in Eurasia, its leaders saw preventing a hegemon from dominating it as a key strategic necessity. If the U.S. no longer has to concern itself with safeguarding Mackinder’s “world-island” from a potential hegemon(s), what should be the main objective of U.S. engagement in Europe and Asia going forward?
The main objective of U.S. engagement in Europe and in Asia should be to support an equilibrium that discourages any one power from acting in an excessively assertive fashion towards its neighbors. In the foreseeable future, it is, in any case, unlikely that any single power will have the military superiority that would enable it to assert itself in a hegemonic fashion on as a diverse, complex, and complicated mega-continent such as Eurasia. Having a close relationship with Europe, though maintaining a complex partnership with China and an alliance with Japan, will provide the United States with sufficient foci for a strategic engagement designed to maintain a relatively stable even if delicate equilibrium on the so-called “world island.”
In the book you state that the U.S. should act as a neutral arbitrator between Asia’s major powers, with the possible exception of Japan. The Obama administration has usually heeded this advice but recently diverged from it by issuing a harsh statement about the South China Sea that singled out China. What do you see as the reasoning behind doing this and do you think it was a mistake?
I think the United States’ position on freedom of navigation is generally correct, but it has been pursued lately in a clumsy fashion. It is to be regretted that it was announced in the context of a so-called “strategic pivot,” implying in the process that it involves an augmentation of American military power in Asia as a necessary response to the newly emerging geopolitical realities in the Far East. In brief, it is not surprising that the Chinese understood it to mean that the United States is beginning to fashion a coalition against China, something which at this stage at least is premature and runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Photo Credit: Wikicommons
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
George
For a hegemon,look no further than the nearest mirror.
DAVE PHILLIPS
ONE of the intriguing 'raw meat' questions toward the end of thisi nterview, was a bold assumption that President Obama might actually 'survive the General Elections' [November, 2012] in order to have a chance to nominate another US Secretary of State. ** The 'raw meat' was seasoned with a dire prospect that an unnamed US Senator John Kerry [D. - MA] might be under consideration. My own preference is former Ambassador Bill Richardson [D. - NM] due to the latter's more pragmatic resume internationally. Example: As Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry displayed a typically patrician, blatantly arrogant, even snooty disdain for any contrary criticisms of the "New Start Arms Control Treaty" – NO ONE with a negative view was allowed to testify. That is a very un-healthy habit on a world of diverse viewpoints which demands both intellectual rigor and then some compromise. To do otherwise in a multi-lateral landscape with so much at stake, risks being doomed to an early demise on a world stage. During those "Re-START" Capital Hill hearings, only Dr. Keith B. Payne did offer 'some cautions' on that treaty ratification, but he did so before the Senate Armed Services Committee - at urgings of Senator John McCain [R. -AZ]. Holding Kerry's cards that close to a vest is not a quality one seeks in foreign policy advocacy norduring wide ranging international diplomacy, during these fragile days, IMHO! -30-
Anjaan
At the moment Brzezinski, clearly, does not consider India to be a player of any significance. This might however change with the commissioning of India's first nuclear sub. I wish he would live to see the day when the extended range of Indian ICBMs would encompass the globe, and India would have two dozens of nuclear subs roaming all over north Pacific and north Atlantic …. !
Bankotsu
India should upgrade the range of their ICBMs so that they can hit the U.S, otherwise people like Brzezinski will take India for granted.
India should also deploy naval forces into the Gulf of Mexico and Middle East. Some people in the west are trying to build up the strength of India to contain China, but India should use its strength against the U.S.
Joseph
Your idea s good, and that what Indians wish to do, but in reality India is facing shortage of funds. India economy has slowed down and growth rate now resembles that of 90s, govt is already scrutinizing the acquisition plans and going slow on major ones. The gap with China is widening every year. It is in this context that Brzeisinski do not see India as capable of balancing China. No one wish to side up with the loosing side.
Anjaan
@ Joseph,
1. Indian economy slowing down, is not an isolated event. It is as a result of global slowdown. However there is no reason for celebration for either Dr. Brzezinski or yourself, because Indian economy is poised to bounce back, regardless of global slowdown. In any case, the growth rate of India would remain far above global average.
2. It is also true that Indian economy would never look like the Chinese, due to obvious reasons. Regardless, it would continue to grow and overtake most economies in the world in next fifty years, and make the current US economy of $ 15 Trillion look a thing of the past.
talking points
the basis of Mr. Brzezinski's thinking is that China is still far from been a serious challenger to U.S. Hence there is no need to build an alliance against China at this stage.
For all the heated rhetoric about China, China hasn't really done anything. It has not attacked Vietnam or Philippines. It may have used economic pressure on Philippines, but that's benign and non violent. China should be commended for doing that.
Nick
The people like Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger still live mentally in the Cold War Era. They think that Russia is the major threat to the world as it was during the Cold War. Wake up! Russia is already democracy however imperfect. The main threat to the world peace is China with its communist political system, fast growing economy and military capability, and assertive and bullying foreign policy.
CHINA MUST BE DEFEATED AND CONTAINED AND DIVIDED IF THE WORLD WILL BECOME A SAFE PLACE.
Bankotsu
"CHINA MUST BE DEFEATED AND CONTAINED AND DIVIDED IF THE WORLD WILL BECOME A SAFE PLACE."
I admire your honesty about your intent of dismembering China. To be frank, I don't mind Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Samoa and other areas to be split off from U.S.
Bankotsu
"I disagree with much of the foreign policy establishment in regard to the need for a strong relationship with India which, prima facie, would be directed at China."
Brzezinski fears that if U.S and India form an alliance to contain China, this would alienate China and push it into closer ties with Russia, and Russia with its eastern flank with China secured, would be free to moves westwards to weaken the U.S influence in europe. As always, the main concern of Brzezinski is with Russia.
ImperiumVita
That's one possibility, but it is just as likely that Brzezinski sees an Indian/Chinese conflict as inevitable given geographic proximity, resource requirements, and differing ideologies; and the Tibet issue, and would rather the USA remain aloof and unentangled.
…but congratulations on finally making a comment that is not ridiculously wrongheaded.
Anjaan
You are right ….. Brzezinski advocates a policy of playing China against India to weaken both. But he discounts the very fact that the Americans have very little credibility as a reliable partner amongst the Chinese and the Indians, due to its history of the past six decades. The British colonial games that the Americans are trying to re-play lies exposed to the whole world. Therefore both China and India would allow little leverage to the Americans to interfere in their affairs.
Brzezinski also discounts a nightmare scenario of India siding with China and Russia in any major global conflict in the Asia-Pacific theater.
Bankotsu
My comments are not wrongheaded, even if you don't like them. My position is multipolar world and anti imperialism.
I completely reject your U.S unipolar world system.
Typical Trolls Disinformation in Comments
@imperium vita (sic) - Your wrong-deaded attempt to put words in Mr Brezinzski mouth is a joke. It may have had passed many readers notice but Mr Breszinzski did not expect war between India and China. That is your bl**dy opinion intended to mislead perception. He intended that Washington should let things be. He is a man of peace. He does not encourage war and conflict. His central premise is equilibrium and balance but the Obama Administration continuing from Mr Bush – the war criminal – Administration, had been overly aggressive and war-mongering in his "strategic pivot" to East Asia. It is stoking war and conflict and it had not been neutral in maintaining that balance. no matter your hatchet job, the world is fully aware of the neocons in the U.S. surreptitiously taking over the reins of power in Washington. and you are probabaly one of those detested right wing neocons. You can stuff your self righteous comments.
Anjaan
" He is a man of peace" …… ? Since when ……….. ?
Clearly, you have no knowledge of recent history of Afghanistan. Brzezinski is the considered the American father of the Taliban. Creating Islamic Jihad against the Soviets was his brain child, conceived even before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
One may argue that what he did was in the US national interests. But see the consequences of that today ….. the cost of preservation of American national interests, is largescale death and destruction for others …. is it any different from Vietnam, Combodia …… ?
ImperiumVita
You guys needs to settle down! Bankotsu came up with a hair-brained idea about the reasoning behind Brzezinski's views, I simply provided another equally plausible possible motivation. Its a practical point of view from a realist foreign policy perspective. It does not mean I advocate or support war between China and India. You need to learn to understand the context of someone's post rather than imputing your own biases.
Take your anger and accusations and "stuff" them.
Correct
Anjann, is absolutely correct, pre Taliban he walked the Ayatollah to the US ally Iran
He is Satan incarnate
Jooju
He will see to it that a conflict starts. He was a master of the failed Middle East policy that led to where we are today.
Someone he and his minions will guide it from the darkness of their cloak rooms
Sharmishtha
Yes, I think Brzezinski's personal history of being Polish and the experience of Poland at the hands of Russia and Germany does color his geostrategic thinking. The Soviets were pro-India during the Cold War, therefore India must be bad. China became pro-US in 1972, ergo China good. Sigh! Once a Cold Warrior, always a Cold Warrior. Hopefully, the new lot in the State Dept will be able to look beyond the outdated framework of superpower rivalry.
Bankotsu
India is still the main strategic ally of Russia. If U.S purses a policy of strengthening India to contain China, it means that U.S is helping Russia's ally! To Brzezinski, the old cold war foe of Russia this is taboo!
India-Russia has unique strategic partnership: PM
http://post.jagran.com/IndiaRussia-has-unique-strategic-partnership-PM-1302702916
Seems like Brzezinski is still for the old U.S China tacit alliance of containing Russia. If Russia is not contained and somehow a German-Russian alliance emerges to oust U.S out of europe, the entire eurasian hegemony game for the U.S would be over. That is Brzezinski's main concern – not China at all.
JF
An interesting interview – but did you have to plug Brzezinski's book in almost every question?