The Interview: Zbigniew Brzezinski
Image Credit: Wikicommons

The Interview: Zbigniew Brzezinski

0 Likes
28 comments

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.

Comments
28
Tomtom
October 2, 2013 at 08:08

Im surprised and relieved by how well-informed the commentators here are

sangos
June 19, 2013 at 18:09

Am glad he is not. Remember how the Romans overlooked the Barbarians and finally lost everything.

Bankotsu
September 17, 2012 at 00:32

"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.

Nick
September 15, 2012 at 15:55

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.

Correct
September 14, 2012 at 18:49

Anjann, is absolutely correct, pre Taliban he walked the Ayatollah to the US ally Iran
He is Satan incarnate
 

Jooju
September 14, 2012 at 18:47

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

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief