image: 1
The Broken Chessboard: Brzezinski Gives Up on Empire
Brzezinski, member of the Circle of Twelve, who we can call as a playmaker of the Obama Administration, have
promoted a strategy “to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence
among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the
barbarians from coming together” with the recognition that the U.S. is the
supreme power in the world.” He demonstrates the recognition which sounds like
a concession speech by saying that the rise of Russia and China led to the
establishment of the BRICS alliance and the AIIB, which caused the strategy to
completely fail and even saying in an article posted in April this year that “the
U.S. is no longer the globally imperial power. That era is now ending.”
However, it seems that he make a proposal
of “global order” absolutely led by the U.S. while coordinating with
other forces. The U.S. does not know when to give up, which I think still
causes confusion on the earth.
August
30, 2016
Chief Editor
Note:
Shanti-phula has indicated some parts of
the following text in black boldface type or in red letters.
Excerpt from a Japanese article: Creation Design Society – August 29, 2016 –
The Broken Chessboard: Brzezinski Gives
Up on Empire
Source:
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.
*snip*
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.