The Broken Chessboard: Brzezinski Gives Up On Empire

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-26/broken-chessboard-brzezinski-gives-empire


Submitted by Mike Whitney via Counterpunch.org,

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?

SHOCKING Email Trail Now Shows Connections Between THEM

Nwo Report

Soros Has Come Under The Spotlight Recently Due To His Over-The-Top Donations To Hillary

Soros Has Come Under The Spotlight Recently Due To His Emails To Hillary When She Was Secretary of State

It appears that there is someone else pulling the strings for the Democratic Party. It certainly isn’t Hillary Clinton. It seems that the real leader of the Democrats is someone who isn’t even a natural American.

Thanks to an email hack, the American people have discovered that George Soros is the true mastermind behind the Democratic Party. He has been donating quite a bit of money to the Democratic Party, which has led people to call Soros the Democrats “sugar daddy.” He is a Hungarian-American billionaire who has given a lot of money to all sorts of left wing causes.

The emails actually showed that while Clinton was acting as Secretary of State, she received orders from Soros on how to handle a specific incident in Albania. Now why is the Secretary…

View original post 892 woorden meer

Philippines President Threatens to Withdraw From UN

Philippines President Threatens to Withdraw From UN

After enraging globalists around the world recently with hisvow to ignore the “stupid” United Nations climate regime adopted in Paris, firebrand Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte (shown) is at it again. This time, responding to UN criticism of his controversial “war on drugs,” the recently elected leader of the Philippines is now threatening to leave the entire UN as well — and maybe even set up a rival organization.

The Filipino president, sometimes mischaracterized by establishment media outlets as Asia’s version of GOP presidential candidate “Donald Trump,” has developed a reputation for speaking his mind in highly undiplomatic ways. Last month, he ridiculed the UN and its “stupid” global-warming scheming, saying it was designed by oligarchs to “stifle” poorer nations. Over the weekend, Duterte again denounced the global outfit as useless and stupid, throwing out numerous expletives while defending his hardcore approach to illegal drugs and those who traffic them.

“Maybe we’ll just have to decide to separate from the United Nations,” fumed the president, expressing outrage over comments made by self-styled UN “experts” who attacked the Philippines and Duterte over hundreds of alleged drug dealers killed in recent months. “If you are that disrespectful, son of a whore, then I will just leave you. So take us out of your organization — you have done nothing, anyway.” The UN should also return contributions made to the outfit by the Philippines’ taxpayers, he said.

Duterte also attacked the UN for failing even in its ostensible mission of preventing war. “You know, United Nations, if you can say one bad thing about me, I can give you 10 [about the UN],” he continued. “I tell you, you are an inutile [useless], because if you are really true to your mandate, you could have stopped all these wars and killing.” He referred to Syria as the most recent example.

The Filipino leader, an ultra-“tough-on-crime” former mayor of the crime-ridden city of Davao, also suggested he might set up a new international organization to rival the UN. “I would invite everybody,” he said about his proposed new international organization. “I would invite maybe China, the African [governments].” The brutal communist dictatorship ruling China is unlikely to ditch the UN, especially considering the fact that its agents now run numerous important UN bureaucracies.

The Filipino president’s comments, made at a late night press conference, were a response to criticism and threats made by two UN “special rapporteurs,” as the dictator-dominated UN “Human Rights Council” refers to its “experts.” The first UN figure, Dainius Puras, lambasted Duterte for his response to dealing with illegal drugs, which included asking the public to help stop drug trafficking in what was widely perceived as a call to vigilantism.

An estimated 500 alleged drug dealers have ended up dead amid Duterte’s fierce crackdown on trafficking, with many of those reportedly dying in shootouts with police. Duterte stirred major controversy, though, when he urged armed citizens to help deal with crime bosses and what he said were corrupt police, judges, and military officials on their payrolls. Almost 5,000 drug dealers have been arrested so far. And in a phenomenon that has led to vastly overcrowded jails, media reports suggest some 600,000 people have surrendered to authorities to avoid being killed.

The other UN figure to criticize Duterte and his approach recently was Agnes Callamard, the UN’s “Special Rapporteur” on summary executions. “Claims to fight illicit drug trade do not absolve the Government from its international legal obligations and do not shield State actors or others from responsibility for illegal killings,” Callamard said in what was widely understood to be a threat against Duterte.

Despite its absurdity, the perceived threat of prosecution by the UN, often ridiculed by critics as the “dictators club,” appears to have particularly infuriated Duterte. “You can’t stop me and I’m not afraid even if you say that I can end up in jail,” he said, vowing to put his life and his presidency on the line to stop the scourge of drugs. “What is … repercussions? I don’t give a [expletive deleted] to them.”

Duterte said the UN “experts” should not just tally the number of dead alleged drug dealers, but also the number of innocent lives lost to drugs. While the UN cannot even fulfill its own mandate, it instead worries about “the bones of criminals piling up,” he said. “I will prove to the world that you are a very stupid expert.”

Instead of publicly condemning the Philippines, Duterte added, the UN should have sent its “experts” to talk to him. “You do not just go out and give a [expletive deleted] statement against a country,” Duterte said in the press conference, suggesting that “protocol” had been violated. He said the UN “experts” had not investigated the facts, but relied on biased media reports.

Duterte also took aim at the UN, suggesting it was beyond hypocritical. Pointing to dead Syrians, he said the UN should examine its own role in mass deaths. “Anybody in that stupid body complaining about the stench there of death?” Indeed, with the UN’s “peace” troops facing global criticism for murdering protesters and raping children with impunity around the world, there is plenty for Duterte to complain about when it comes to the UN’s flagrant abuses of human rights.

Aside from the UN, Duterte also lambasted the U.S. government and the Obama administration, pointing to alleged “human rights violations” and “killing the black people” in response to U.S. government criticism of his extreme drug war. Earlier in August, Duterte even attacked Obama’s ambassador to the Philippines as a homosexual and “son of a whore.” He then refused to apologize.

In any case, senior Filipino officials later “clarified” the president’s remarks. “He was basically stating the fact that the Philippines is a sovereign nation and should not be meddled with,” said presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella, noting that Duterte was tired at the time and did not really intend to dump the UN or set up a rival. Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay also said that the Philippines remains “committed” to the UN, even though Duterte was “extremely disappointed” with the UN “experts.”  Yasay, too, lambasted the UN officials as “highly irresponsible.”

It is not the first time an East Asian nation has threatened to ditch the UN. In fact, in 1965, Indonesian authorities sent a letter to the UN announcing their withdrawal. The UN refused to acknowledge the withdrawal, instead pretending like the Indonesian government was still a member. Eventually, new leadership re-joined the “dictators club,” and the spat faded into history.

Ironically, considering the recent brouhaha between Duterte and the UN, the global “war on drugs” is actually underpinned by a series of UN treaties purporting to criminalize certain plants and chemicals worldwide. Indeed, the UN has in recent years been attacking the United States on the issue, blasting for “violating international law” the growing number of American states nullifying federal statutes and UN treaties by ending prohibition of marijuana. The UN has also been attempting to impose its views on the death penalty on American states.

Unfortunately, while the UN has no business or authority to interfere in the internal affairs of member states, its criticism of the hardcore Filipino drug war might be viewed as otherwise justified in this case by proponents of the rule of law and due process. However, just as often, the UN and its hordes of bureaucrats use similar tactics to denounce the protection of actual human rights in the United States and around the world.

Most recently, the UN’s top human rights bureaucrat disgraced his office by demanding that the U.S. government defy the Constitution to impose “robust gun control” on Americans. That was in response to the jihadist terror attack in Orlando. Before that, the UN has repeatedly attacked the United States and other nations for everything from free speech and due process of law to low taxes and constitutional limits on government power.

The UN may be able to bully its smaller and less powerful member governments, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, and even try to refuse to let them exit upon demand. However, the same is not true for the United States, which pays far more than any other nation to keep the dictators club that is the UN up and running. Without the U.S. government as a member, the UN would promptly collapse.

If and when the American Sovereignty Restoration Act becomes law, the U.S. government would be legally obligated to sever all U.S. ties with the outfit, end all funding for it, stop American subservience to radical UN treaties and conventions, and even evict UN headquarters from U.S. soil donated by the globalist Rockefeller banking and oil dynasty. As the UN becomes increasingly radical and transparent in its efforts to impose its dangerous agenda on humanity, calls for an American exit from the UN — or an Amexit — will continue to grow louder. Perhaps Duterte, despite all his flaws, can lead the way.

 

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, was at the UN climate summit in Paris. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

Philippines Rejects “Stupid” UN Climate Deal; Globalists Freak

United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.

UN Drug Czar Attacks U.S. States for Ending Cannabis Prohibition

Citing International “Law,” UN Demands U.S. End Death Penalty

UN Demands “Robust Gun Control” After Orlando Terror

UN Demands Bigger, Stronger UN “Police” Force

After Dallas Cop Killings, UN Touts “Black Lives Matter”

End “Failed” UN Drug War, Urges Panel of Global Experts

U.S. Government and Top Mexican Drug Cartel Exposed as Partners

The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government

UN Panics Amid Growing Scandal on Child Rape by “Peace” Troops

Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN

#Brexit to #Amexit: Keep the Momentum Going!

U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence