Common Dreams / Published on Saturday, November 15, 2003 by the International Herald TribuneZbigniew Brzezinski
Paradoxically, American power worldwide is at its historic zenith while its global political standing is at its nadir. Why?
Since the tragedy of Sept. 11, which understandably shook and outraged every American, the United States has increasingly embraced, at the highest official level, what can be fairly called a paranoiac view of the world. This is summarized in a phrase repeatedly used at the highest level: "He who is not with us is against us."
Let's not forget this was a phrase popularized by Lenin when he attacked the social democrats on the grounds that they were anti-Bolshevik and, therefore, "he who is not with us is against us" and can be disposed of accordingly.
There are two troubling conditions that accompany this mindset.
First, making the "war on terrorism" the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today reflects a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's primary superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.
The second troubling condition, which contributes to the crisis of credibility and to the isolation in which the United States finds itself today, is the absence of a clear, sharply defined perception about what is actually happening abroad.
This kind of blindness is of particular concern regarding the spread and availability of weapons of mass destruction. It is terribly important not to plunge headlong into the tempting notion that America will unilaterally take preemptive action on suspicion that a country possesses weapons of mass destruction, which is what the doctrine right now amounts to. Without a revitalized American intelligence service, the United States simply does not know enough to be able to pre-empt with confidence.
In recent months, the United States has experienced what is perhaps the most significant intelligence failure in its history. That failure was contributed to by extremist demagoguery that emphasizes worst-case scenarios, stimulates fear and induces a very simple, dichotomous view of world reality.
All of this calls for a serious debate about America's role in the world. Can a world power provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety? Can the United States mobilize support, particularly the support of friends, when it tells them, "you are against us if you are not with us"?
The need for such a serious debate cannot be satisfied by theologizing the challenge as "terrorism," which is "used by people who hate things" while we are "people who love things," as America's highest spokesman has put it.
Terrorism is a technique for killing people. That can't be an enemy. It's as if we said that World War II was not against the Nazis but against blitzkrieg. We need to ask who the enemy is, and what springs him or her to action against us?
The first and most important policy shift the United States should now undertake is to emphasize the enduring nature of the alliance relationship, particularly with Europe, which does share America's values and interests even if it disagrees with America on specific policies.
America cannot have that relationship if it threatens and condemns those who disagree. There is something transcendental about shared values that shouldn't be subordinated to tactical requirements. America should seek to cooperate with Europe, not divide it into a fictitious "new" and "old."
The United States should be supporting a larger Europe as a zone of peace and prosperity in the world that is the necessary foundation for a stable international system in which American leadership could be fruitfully exercised.
Part of the process of building a larger zone of peace also involves engaging Russia and drawing it into a closer relationship simultaneously with Europe and with the Euro-Atlantic community. But the United States can only do that if it is clear as to what it is seeking in pursuing that strategy.
Unambiguously, America ought to be seeking the promotion of democracy and decency in Russia, and not tactical help of a very specific and not always very useful type purchased at the cost of compromising America's own concept of democracy.
On the question of Iraq, whether one supported the war on not, failure now is not an option. Two prerequisites have to be fulfilled as rapidly as feasible for a successful political solution - the internationalization of the foreign presence in Iraq and the transfer of power as soon as is possible to a sovereign Iraqi authority.
There is nothing to be lost in prematurely declaring the Iraqi authority as sovereign if that helps it to gain political legitimacy in a country that is searching to define itself. The sooner America transfers sovereignty, the sooner an Iraqi authority under an international umbrella will itself become more effective in dealing with the residual terrorism and opposition that we continue to confront.
Ultimately, stability in the region, of course, depends on peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated de facto into a policy of support for an increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall.
At stake is the destiny of a democratic country, Israel, the security of which the United States has been committed to for more than half a century. But soon there will be no option of a two-state solution.
Soon the reality of the settlements - which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there is no drinking water and where 50 percent of the population is unemployed - will scuttle the viability of a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering.
If this continues, Israel will become increasingly like apartheid South Africa - the minority dominating the majority, locked in a conflict from which there is no extraction. If the United States wants to prevent this, it must above all else identify itself with peace and help those who are the majority in Israel, who want peace and are prepared to accept peace.
All public opinion polls show that. I also believe that the majority of the Jewish community in the United States - which is liberal, open-minded and idealistic - is not committed to extremist repressions.
The political cowardice of U.S. political leaders on this issue is unjustified. Both the Israeli people and the American Jewish community, like all Americans, prefer a moderate peaceful solution.
Fortunately, the Bush administration is learning that America can only deal with the threat from North Korea and Iran by cooperating with other major powers. If America tries to resolve the North Korean problem with arms alone, it will produce a violent reaction against the United States in South Korea and precipitate a nuclear-armed Japan, creating a whole new dual strategic dynamic with China in the Far East.
It is in the interest of the West that the theocratic despotism in Iran fade, which it is beginning to do. If the United States takes pre-emptive action it will reinforce the worst tendencies in the theocratic fundamentalist regime, as well as widen the zone of conflict in the Middle East.
Ultimately at issue is the relationship between the new requirements of security and the traditions of American idealism. For decades the United States has played a unique role in the world because it was viewed as a society that was generally committed to certain ideals, which Americans were prepared to practice at home and to defend abroad.
Today, for the first time, America's commitment to idealism worldwide is challenged by a sense of vulnerability. The United States has to be very careful in that setting not to become self-centered, preoccupied only with itself and subordinating everything else in the world to an exaggerated sense of insecurity.
Americans are going to live in an insecure world. It cannot be avoided. Like everyone else, we have to learn to live in it.
The writer was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. His forthcoming book on U.S. foreign policy is titled "Choice: Domination or Leadership"
