The Broken
Chessboard: Brzezinski Gives Up on Empire
By Mike
Whitney
August 26,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Counterpunch"
-
The main
architect of Washington’s plan to rule the world has
abandoned the scheme and called for the forging of
ties with Russia and China. While Zbigniew
Brzezinski’s article in The American Interest titled
“Towards a Global Realignment” has largely been
ignored by the media, it shows that powerful members
of the policymaking establishment no longer believe
that Washington will prevail in its quest to extent
US hegemony across the Middle East and Asia.
Brzezinski, who was the main proponent of this idea
and who drew up the blueprint for imperial expansion
in his 1997 book
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its
Geostrategic Imperatives, has done an
about-face and called for a dramatic revising of the
strategy. Here’s an excerpt from the article in the
AI:
“As its
era of global dominance ends, the United States
needs to take the lead in realigning the global
power architecture.
Five
basic verities regarding the emerging
redistribution of global political power and the
violent political awakening in the Middle East
are signaling the coming of a new global
realignment.
The
first of these verities is that the United
States is still the world’s politically,
economically, and militarily most powerful
entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in
regional balances, it is no longer the globally
imperial power.” (Toward
a Global Realignment, Zbigniew Brzezinski,
The American Interest)
Repeat: The
US is “no longer the globally imperial power.”
Compare this assessment to a statement Brzezinski
made years earlier in Chessboard when he claimed the
US was ” the world’s paramount power.”
“…The
last decade of the twentieth century has
witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For
the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has
emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian
power relations but also as the world’s
paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the
Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid
ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the
United States, as the sole and, indeed, the
first truly global power.” (“The Grand
Chessboard: American Primacy And Its
Geostrategic Imperatives,” Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Basic Books, 1997, p. xiii)
Here’s more
from the article in the AI:
“The
fact is that there has never been a truly
“dominant” global power until the emergence of
America on the world scene….. The decisive new
global reality was the appearance on the world
scene of America as simultaneously the richest
and militarily the most powerful player. During
the latter part of the 20th century no other
power even came close. That era is now ending.”
(AI)
But why is
“that era is now ending”? What’s changed since 1997
when Brzezinski referred to the US as the “world’s
paramount power”?
Brzezinski
points to the rise of Russia and China, the weakness
of Europe and the “violent political awakening among
post-colonial Muslims” as the proximate causes of
this sudden reversal. His comments on Islam are
particularly instructive in that he provides a
rational explanation for terrorism rather than the
typical government boilerplate about “hating our
freedoms.” To his credit, Brzezinski sees the
outbreak of terror as the “welling up of historical
grievances” (from “deeply felt sense of injustice”)
not as the mindless violence of fanatical
psychopaths.
Naturally,
in a short 1,500-word article, Brzezniski can’t
cover all the challenges (or threats) the US might
face in the future. But it’s clear that what he’s
most worried about is the strengthening of economic,
political and military ties between Russia, China,
Iran, Turkey and the other Central Asian states.
This is his main area of concern, in fact, he even
anticipated this problem in 1997 when he wrote
Chessboard. Here’s what he said:
“Henceforth, the United States may have to
determine how to cope with regional coalitions
that seek to push America out of Eurasia,
thereby threatening America’s status as a global
power.” (p.55)
“…To
put it in a terminology that harkens back to the
more brutal age of ancient empires, the three
grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to
prevent collusion and maintain security
dependence among the vassals, to keep
tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep
the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)
“…prevent
collusion…among the vassals.” That says it all,
doesn’t it?
The Obama
administration’s reckless foreign policy,
particularly the toppling of governments in Libya
and Ukraine, has greatly accelerated the rate at
which these anti-American coalitions have formed. In
other words, Washington’s enemies have emerged in
response to Washington’s behavior. Obama can only
blame himself.
Russian
Federation President Vladimir Putin has responded to
the growing threat of regional instability and the
placing of NATO forces on Russia’s borders by
strengthening alliances with countries on Russia’s
perimeter and across the Middle East. At the same
time, Putin and his colleagues in the BRICS (Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries
have established an alternate banking system (BRICS
Bank and AIIB) that will eventually challenge the
dollar-dominated system that is the source of US
global power. This is why Brzezinski has done a
quick 180 and abandoned the plan for US hegemony; it
is because he is concerned about the dangers of a
non-dollar-based system arising among the developing
and unaligned countries that would replace the
western Central Bank oligopoly. If that happens,
then the US will lose its stranglehold on the global
economy and the extortionist system whereby fishwrap
greenbacks are exchanged for valuable goods and
services will come to an end.
Unfortunately, Brzezinski’s more cautious approach
is not likely to be followed by
presidential-favorite Hillary Clinton who is a firm
believer in imperial expansion through force of
arms. It was Clinton who first introduced “pivot” to
the strategic lexicon in a speech she gave in 2010
titled “America’s Pacific Century”. Here’s an
excerpt from the speech that appeared in Foreign
Policy magazine:
“As the
war in Iraq winds down and America begins to
withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United
States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10
years, we have allocated immense resources to
those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we
need to be smart and systematic about where we
invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves
in the best position to sustain our leadership,
secure our interests, and advance our values.
One of the most important tasks of American
statecraft over the next decade will therefore
be to lock in a substantially increased
investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic,
and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region…
Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central
to American economic and strategic interests and
a key priority for President Obama. Open markets
in Asia provide the United States with
unprecedented opportunities for investment,
trade, and access to cutting-edge
technology…..American firms (need) to tap into
the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…
The
region already generates more than half of
global output and nearly half of global trade.
As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of
doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for
opportunities to do even more business in
Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s
dynamic markets.”
(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)
Compare
Clinton’s speech to comments Brzezinski made in
Chessboard 14 years earlier:
“For
America, the chief geopolitical prize is
Eurasia… (p.30)….. Eurasia is the globe’s
largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A
power that dominates Eurasia would control two
of the world’s three most advanced and
economically productive regions. ….About 75 per
cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and
most of the world’s physical wealth is there as
well, both in its enterprises and underneath its
soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the
world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the
world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)
The
strategic objectives are identical, the only
difference is that Brzezinski has made a course
correction based on changing circumstances and the
growing resistance to US bullying, domination and
sanctions. We have not yet reached the tipping point
for US primacy, but that day is fast approaching and
Brzezinski knows it.
In
contrast, Clinton is still fully-committed to
expanding US hegemony across Asia. She doesn’t
understand the risks this poses for the country or
the world. She’s going to persist with the
interventions until the US war-making juggernaut is
stopped dead-in-its-tracks which, judging by her
hyperbolic rhetoric, will probably happen some time
in her first term.
Brzezinski
presents a rational but self-serving plan to
climb-down, minimize future conflicts, avoid a
nuclear conflagration and preserve the global order.
(aka–The “dollar system”) But will bloodthirsty
Hillary follow his advice?
Not a
chance.
Mike
Whitney lives in
Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK
Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle
edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com. |