[Peace-discuss] Lemme Splain

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Brzezinski is at pains here to insist, as Obama does, that the only reason 
we're killing people in Afghanistan is 9/11. "...the problem is specifically 
al-Qaeda;  Taliban may be an umbrella."  That's so obviously false -- however 
necessary for propaganda purposes -- that the administration can't even get its 
own cabinet ministers and proconsuls to observe the distinction: Clinton, Gates, 
Petraeus et al. insist that it's the Taliban who pose the "existential threat" 
to Pakistan that requires US military operations there. In fact, they're part of 
the region-wide resistance. The problem is that the only authorization for 
killing Pakistanis that the Obamans have is Congress' "Authorization for Use of 
Military Force Against Terrorists," enacted September 18, 2001.  So call in an 
experienced explainer. (The reporter below calls him on the imposture, as I'm 
not sure an American reporter would.)  --CGE]   	


	Brzezinski's interview with Press TV
	Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:32:32 GMT
	Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski
	By Susan Modaress, Press TV

The following is a Press TV interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, 
Polish-American statesman and former national security advisor under President 
Jimmy Carter.

Press TV: Dr. Zbigniew, thank you for joining us today on this special edition 
of Face to Face.

Brzezinski: It's nice to be with you. It is nice to have the opportunity to talk 
to Iranian viewers.

Press TV: And our international viewers abroad as well?

Brzezinski: Of course, but the former are more important.

Press TV: Dr. Zbigniew, before the interview we were talking about the fact that 
how fascinated I was, personally, that you were at the forefront of American 
politics when two or three of the most major internal developments of our time 
took place; one was the Iranian revolution, two was the Soviet invasion of 
Afghanistan, and as you mentioned the relations with China.

Looking at these issues one by one, how would you assess the current 
administration's policy toward Afghanistan, and how has it changed throughout 
the years?

Brzezinski: Well, the current administration's policy has not changed throughout 
the years, because it has been in office under several weeks.

But American policy is going to change, because the new administration has a 
more serious, more responsible, and more nuanced view of the problem. That is to 
say the problem is specifically al-Qaeda. Taliban may be an umbrella. It may be 
connected with it by historical circumstances, but Taliban is essentially a 
specific Afghan phenomenon focused on Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is an extremist 
organization which has a variety of very hostile intentions towards a number of 
countries in the world. The United States very much so, and we know this very 
painfully because of what happened here in New York City.

And it also involves other countries. If I dare say so, it also probably 
involves Iran as an object of some hostility on the part of al-Qaeda. Our 
objective, as articulated by President Obama, is to separate al-Qaeda from 
Taliban and to find a way whereby Afghanistan can be governed, in part, through 
traditional arrangements, in part, through some improvements, modernization, 
better social services, better transportation and, in part, also perhaps by some 
limited regional accommodations with different groups within the Taliban that 
maybe satisfied with a local status-quo arrangement, who can't see themselves as 
part of a larger global conspiracy.

Press TV: Now, we have good terrorist, bad terrorist. We have good Taliban, 
moderate Taliban and the bad Taliban which would become al-Qaeda. These 
definitions seem to change with administration. Do you think that the policy 
negotiating with the "moderate Taliban", would be wise for America's national 
security?

Brzezinski: There is an obvious difference between, not several administrations, 
but two administrations, the Bush administration and the Obama administration. 
The Bush administration had a sort of generalized, black/white view of the 
threat and sometimes used language that almost implied that the threat was in 
some fashion, in an un-generalized manner, an Islamic threat.

I think Obama recognizes the specificity of the threat: Al-Qaeda. Taliban 
happens to be a historically accidental association with al-Qaeda. And I think 
that if we can manage to negotiate with some second nuance of the Taliban, not 
the entire Taliban - the movement is not that centralized anyway - then perhaps 
arrange for a kind of modus vivendi in parts of Afghanistan.

Actual Taliban is not that influential throughout Afghanistan. It is more 
influential in certain zones.

Press TV: It's gaining momentum...

Brzezinski: Well, up to a point. It is certainly not a dominant force in terms 
of popular support. It is also very much a Pashtun phenomenon, and that spills 
the problem over into Pakistan.

I approve of what President Obama has been doing, in part because I have been 
advocating it myself for months now, in the press in the United States, in the 
European press, in the leading German, French, and British publications, on the 
radio and television. So, I am happy to see the administration doing what it 
does, and I think that is a better way towards finding an acceptable solution to 
the problem.

Press TV: To what extent do you think that the United States was responsible in 
creating the Mujahideen, the Taliban, and today al-Qaeda? [THIS HILARIOUS -- 
GALLOWS HUMOR -- BECAUSE THEY BOTH KNOW Z.B. TOOK CREDIT FOR CREATING THE 
MUJAHIDEEN IN THE 1970S.]

Brzezinski: I think if anyone is responsible for the creation of the Mujahideen 
it was the Soviet Union. The Mujahideen was a reaction to the Soviet invasion. 
It was a spontaneous national reaction in Afghanistan. Supporting it made great 
sense. Because a Soviet victory at that time, with the Soviet Union actively 
sponsoring terrorist camps on the Soviet territory would have given the Soviet 
Union enormous momentum in the region. [IN FACT, THE CARTER ADMIN COLLECTED THE 
MOST BLOOD-THIRSTY FANATICS IT COULD FIND TO, AS THEY SAID, GIVE THE USSR ITS 
OWN VIETNAM -- BEFORE THE RUSSIAN INVASION. Z.B.: “What was more important in 
the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few 
stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold 
War?” THAT WAS BEFORE 9/11 OF COURSE.]

And incidentally, since this program is originating in part from Tehran, it 
would have been a threat to Iran as well. And this is why the Iranian leadership 
was not enamored of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I think this was the 
right decision.

The Taliban arose after the Soviet Union was driven out, and when the West 
basically ignored the ravaged destroyed Afghan society. The Taliban came and 
filled a void which should not have been permitted to develop, there should have 
been an earlier, more constructive, more positive Western reaction.

In some ways, there should have been a reaction then, of the kind that took 
place in early 2002.

Press TV: A military invasion? [SHE'S GOOD.]

Brzezinski: When the United States and others, drove the Taliban and al-Qaeda 
out of Afghanistan, initially, with the support, incidentally of Iran, very 
active, very important support.

That should have been done much earlier. We should have gotten together in a 
constructive fashion to help Afghanistan recover immediately after the departure 
of the Soviet in the late 1980s.

Press TV: Basically, militarily attack Afghanistan? [REAL GOOD.]

Brzezinski: No, the contrary! Provide positive political, social, and economic 
support to Afghanistan. After the Soviets had been driven out by the Mujahideen 
there was a social void, there was a political vacuum, there was enormous 
suffering and the rest of the world simply ignored Afghanistan at that moment 
and that created the opportunity for the Taliban.

Press TV: It is interesting that today, or during the previous years, the Afghan 
war has been termed as the forgotten war. Are we seeing that again? Are we 
seeing Afghanistan being ignored again?

Brzezinski: No, I do not think so; quite the contrary. We are not seeing 
Afghanistan being ignored. There is a lot of involvement now in Afghanistan. 
There is the international community, not only directly on the ground forces, 
but social aid, economic assistance, but also international conferences.

The most recent one which is about to conclude as we speak, involves a large 
number of countries, including incidentally the United States and Iran.

Press TV: What do make of President Obama's comments acknowledging Iran as the 
Islamic Republic after thirty years?

Brzezinski: I totally endorsed him. You know, I met with [head of Iran's interim 
government Mehdi] Bazargan and [leader of the Iran Freedom Movement Ebrahim] 
Yazdi after the [1979 Islamic] revolution.

And without going into enormous amount of historical detail, I am positive, 
without pointing accusatory fingers, there was even then a chance for some 
normalization. I am glad it may be now beginning to become reality. But 
normalization takes two, it can not be undertaken by one side alone.

I think President Obama made a historic effort. I think it was intellectually 
brave, politically courageous, and potentially and historically constructive. I 
think it is therefore very important to go forward. But it can only go forward 
if there is reciprocity.

Press TV: Iranian officials have asked for action, saying that actions speak 
louder than words. Do you think that these comments are basically enough on the 
part of the United States in reaching out to Iran?

Brzezinski: A relationship has to be built on mutual accommodation. A 
relationship between serious powers is not built on begging or pleading. If 
there is a genuine interest in mutual accommodation, actions as well as words, 
have to be reciprocal. Words are usually the beginning of a diplomatic dialogue. 
I think President Obama made a really historically significant gesture, and it 
can leads to things.

But, we sit down and start pointing fingers at each other, but and if we start 
to say: you have to take the first action ... No, you have to take the first 
action, it is not going to be very productive.

Press TV: I do not think that either side is at that point right now. I think 
that acknowledging that Iran is the Islamic Republic was a positive gesture 
definitely. But, then there are analysts who say what America needs to do, is 
stop setting pre-conditions for negotiations with Iran. You cannot set 
preconditions for pre-negotiations and negotiations.

Do you think that on that front perhaps the United States stop its "carrot and 
stick" policy, as some analysts like to put it?

Brzezinski: Well, you confused the two. Preconditions is one aspect of the 
American policy, and the "carrot and stick" is a generalized description of some 
aspects of it. It so happens that in my testimony before Congress, in my 
writings, I have said that if there are to be negotiations, they can not be 
based on unilateral preconditions. The United States should not insist on 
unilateral preconditions. Or alternatively there can be reciprocal 
preconditions; one side does this, the other side does that-more or less 
simultaneously.

But that kind of process can only get on the way if there is a willingness, 
seriously to sit down, to in effect signal a willingness to discuss seriously, 
and not start by making demands that one side only has to undertake actions and 
the other side can simply sit back and wait on whether it approves of these 
actions.

That is a formula for a stalemate. So I am hopeful that mature leadership in 
both countries, sense of responsibility for the region in the future, and 
awareness of the fact that both countries play important roles in the world, 
will accumulate to create condition under which we sit down in the wake of the 
intuitive undertaken and talk with each other as people are prepared seriously 
to negotiate.

Press TV: And for the United States at this point in time, what is that concrete 
action? What is the bottom line for the United States to see for negotiations to 
resume?

Brzezinski: Willingness to negotiate. That is all.

Press TV: Will the United States change its policies, change its actions and not 
just its words?

Brzezinski: Well you know, I could ask you the same question, except that you 
are interviewing me and I am not interviewing you.

Press TV: I could give the answer that Iranian officials are saying ...

Brzezinski: If you were someone who was involved with Iranian government I could 
ask you: what actions are you prepared to take?

I am not authorized to negotiate. I am not negotiating. I speak for myself. But 
as someone who knows something about international affairs, I can say that you 
are not going to get negotiations going if one side insists that the other side 
undertake actions, that the side insisting then approves and then after that 
there are negotiations. Negotiations begin by serious discussions.

I think, what Mr. Obama did is to initiate the process in a constructive way, 
from the American side. It is a decision for Iran to make on its own, from the 
standpoint of its own sense of history and interests, whether it wants relations 
with the United States or whether it does not.

I hope that it does, because I think that it would be good for the world. I 
think it would be good for the United States. I think it would be good for Iran. 
But that is a judgment that each side has to make on its own.

Press TV: And on the part of Iranian officials, what I have been hearing - of 
course I do not have a government post - but what they say is that they are open 
to dialogue, if and when they see a change of policy and if and when the 
situation is right, hopefully the situation is right and to the benefit of both 
sides.

Brzezinski: I do not think that you are getting the point that I am making. If 
the Iranian position is that negotiations will only take place when they see 
evident changes in American policy, then I think they are failing to see 
something important that has already taken place; namely an overture that is 
constructive in spirit and in historic significance.

And the proper response to that is not to say that we are going to wait and see 
that you prove by some actions, that we either desire or specify or will then 
judge. That is not the way to begin serious negotiations.

Press TV: So what you are saying is that the United States' change of tone has 
been a step forward.

Brzezinski: Well, in diplomacy and in international affairs, tones are very 
important. Abusing, accusing, insulting, are sometimes also negotiating methods. 
The intent then if it is conducted by intelligent people, who know what they are 
saying, is obviously to prevent negotiations.

You can operate that way either if you are very stupid, or if very, very 
Machiavellian. But if you do not want negotiations to succeed, you can start 
them by insulting, abusing, accusing.

Press TV: Let us talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You were an 
extremely influential figure during the Camp David negotiations. Do you think 
that a two-state solution is possible at this point in time?

Brzezinski: I think it is not only possible, but it is necessary. It seems to me 
that if there is not such a solution in the not too distant future, the 
opportunity for that solution may pass.

There is settlement activity, which makes a real accommodation difficult. There 
are incidents, events, tragic situations, like what happened in Gaza [SIC], 
which poisoned the atmosphere.

There is a tendency, in different degrees perhaps and not yet irrevocable, but 
there is a tendency on both sides towards more extremist views.

So I think, time is of the essence. But I do think that still, it is possible to 
have a settlement in part because, according to public opinion polls, both 
within Israel itself and within Palestine, the majorities are still for 
settlement. And very interestingly, public opinion polls show that the majority 
of American Jews, who are as Americans interested in American policy and try to 
influence it, the majority, 60%, favor a two-state solution.

Press TV: What about the coming to power of a figure like Benjamin Netanyahu. Do 
you think that this will affect negotiations between the two sides?

Brzezinski: You know, the obvious and the short-range answer is, it will 
complicate it. On the other hand, sometimes, the leaders of that type are the 
ones that in the end can deliver a settlement, which reduces the opposition of 
the most rigid dogmatic elements within their camps.

In a way, if Netanyahu has some, as his foreign minister who has been described 
in American newspapers as having racist views, he may have a match on the 
Palestinian side, with Hamas in the government, who is described in Israel and 
elsewhere as a terrorist group, and paradoxically such two governments can reach 
a more comprehensive solution than when both sides are divided among moderates 
and extremists, and thereby paralyzed.

So it depends, it depends a bit on their personalities. It depends also a great 
deal on how the United States conducts itself. Because the fact is we have a 
great deal of influence with both sides.

Press TV: Regarding the Palestinian issue and Hamas, do you think that it is 
wise to draw a parallel between a Hamas, which was democratically elected in 
2006, and the Israeli government? Because Hamas still enjoys great support among 
the Palestinian people, so when we say these are extremist views, are we calling 
as the international community is calling it? Are we using that definition? Or 
do you really believe that this is the case.

Brzezinski: You know both groups have been elected by their constituencies, and 
both groups have support in their constituencies. But within both groups, there 
is also a spectrum of opinion; some leaders are very rigid, very extremist, very 
uncompromising; some less so. And the name of the game is to find some kind of 
formula in which both sides recognize that in the long run they are better by 
accommodating than by waging a conflict, which will exclude the two-state 
solution but also in the long run create an abyss, a division, between both 
sides that will make for permanent instability and conflict in the region.

And from the American point of view, I think, paradoxically, it may be even a 
moment of opportunity.

Press TV: Coming back to the United States, are there any elements in a certain 
lobby that have an extremist tendency, or a very influential sense of power in 
the Obama administration right now, at this point in time?

Brzezinski: I think it is really changing. As I just cited, 69% of American Jews 
favor a two-state solution, that is something that probably a few years ago was 
a kind of anathema to the majority. I think that there is a growing realization 
within the responsible leadership of the Jewish-American community that [not] to 
let the two-state solution pass, is to create in the long run, conditions 
increasingly inimical to Israel's long-term survival in the region as an 
accepted part of the region.

Press TV: What about organizations like AIPAC?

Brzezinski: This would fit our previous discussion, and I am sure since AIPAC is 
a large-scale organization, there are probably differences of opinion in it now 
too.

Press TV: What did you make of the Charles Freeman saga recently?

Brzezinski: What do you mean what did I make of it?

Press TV: Well, he was chosen to head the National Intelligence Committee, and 
he resigned. President Obama did not back him. There was a wave of accusations 
against him, that he is too moderate and that he does not have Israeli interests 
at hand and that he might be perhaps a dangerous figure in the current 
administration, and in dealing with the future of the Middle East.

Brzezinski: Well you know some of these accusations were extreme and in my view 
unacceptable, and from a human point of view hurtful. So in that sense it was 
deplorable. On the other hand, I also have to acknowledge the fact that from a 
realistic point of view, that you want someone in that position who is not a 
priori, very controversial.

And the reason that he withdrew, he was not incidentally appointed by Obama 
himself [SIC], he was chosen by the head of National Intelligence, and the 
reason that he withdrew was that he realized that as a consequence of this very 
unfortunate, very unfair attacks on him, [he had become] so controversial that 
if he then makes a judgment or renders an opinion as the head of the 
Intelligence Council, that opinion will automatically be questioned, because he 
is viewed in some fashion as having been part of a very deep and wrenching debate.

So, probably, from a practical point of view, once that affair escalated to the 
level of ugliness that it did, the decision was a right one, I am sorry to say.

Press TV: And do you think that he became this controversial figure because he 
was swimming against the stream?

Brzezinski: We do not know. I mean, I do not think that he was swimming against 
the stream, if anything, if my final analysis turns up, he was swimming with the 
stream, but there were many rocks in that stream.

Press TV: What about the appointment of Denis Ross? How do you see him in the 
equation of American foreign policy?

Brzezinski: He is a very experienced foreign policy specialist who took an 
active role in the Camp David II discussions, and to the extent that one can 
judge from the sometimes conflicting accounts of the Camp David II, he played a 
constructive role in them and certainly, he could be quite important in trying 
to find a formula which would also be reassuring to both parties and especially 
to the Israeli side, because the Israeli side of course has to assess any 
settlement from the standpoint not only of its immediate effects but also of its 
long-range prospects.

Press TV: What about the Palestinians?

Brzezinski: Well, What about the Palestinians?

Press TV: Well do you think that he will be a fair broker?

Brzezinski: Well, first of all I do not think that he is going to be a broker. 
The broker is going to be the Secretary of State and even somebody more 
important than the Secretary of State, and that is the President and 
Vice-President of the United States. I think that is where the decisions are 
going to be made.

Press TV: And finally, you are a realist and do you see our world, the 
international community, as moving towards a more multi-polar world, as we speak 
or a uni-polar world?

Brzezinski: Neither, Neither. I think there are strong tendencies towards 
international chaos in the world today. That chaos could become very 
destructive, because chaos generally breeds intolerance, extremism, violence, 
and self-destructive behavior. But at the same time, I think there is also a 
growing realization in the world that we have to work together, that conflicts 
whether they are a hundred years old or thirty years old, have to be revised and 
reviewed.

That in such a world, everyone will have to participate but not everyone is 
equal. And whether one calls it multi-polar or uni-polar, the fact is that at 
this historical junction some countries are more important than others, and one 
country particularly is critical to economic recovery in the world and in many 
respects therefore to its political stability, and that is a reality. It will 
not endure forever. History has seen powers rise and decline and no one is 
immune to that historical process, but the process does require recognition of 
existing realities. Now this is why America's role in the world is important.

But it is also important, and it should be important, that that role be defined 
intelligently and in a historically relevant way. And one of the reasons why I 
supported Obama from early on was that I felt he understood something about the 
21st century that others did not, especially our previous president, and 
therefore his presidency would be very timely.

And since you said that this was the last question, let me add that it is 
particularly timely to what we were talking about earlier, namely the 
relationship between America and Iran. [I GOTTA GET OUTTA HERE.]

Press TV: What is the biggest challenge that the United States is facing today?

Brzezinski: I think what I just said is part of it. I think there is a risk of 
the international framework disintegrating into something that will be 
collectively self-destructive. [SO, DO WHAT WE SAY.]

Press TV: Dr. Brzezinski, thank you for your time and company on this edition of 
Face to Face.

Brzezinski: Thank you very much.

http://www.presstv.ir/classic/detail.aspx?id=92451&sectionid=3510302