Dignity, Idealism and Steadfastness
When I was in college in the 1980s, I was fortunate to have several classes in international affairs and security policy with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security advisor to President Carter. An imposing and intimidating personage in his thousand-dollar suits and difficult accent, he treated the room full of young ingenues as peers and confidants as he expounded his then-unconventional views on the future shape of the international order. In 1986, at the height of Reagan-era Cold War paranoia, he gave an entire lecture on the possibility of the break-up of the Soviet Union along the lines of nationality (who at that time considered the USSR anything other than a monolith?), and, toward the end of his talk, made an offhand remark that, absent the present threat of Soviet force, Yugoslavia would probably dissolve into 6 or 7 different countries, all at war with each other. I suppose it was possible even then to know those things if you were paying attention, as Brzezinski was paid to do. Nevertheless, such insight in those days was in rather short supply.
Last week, Brzezinski spoke to the "New American Strategies for Peace and Security" conference, delivering a ringing clarion call for a return to the ideals of principled internationalism that guided the country to greatness through the post-World War II era. The speech is well worth reading in its entirety (and it’s not that long), but it is notable for several features absent in today’s discourse.
First is an absence, for the most part, of partisan rancor. Brzezinski is a proud Democrat, albeit of the nearly-extinct Scoop Jackson species, but he wastes little time directly criticizing the decisions of the Administration except to note in passing how the simplicity of the rhetoric damages our international credibility. His reaction to the policy is more one of disappointment than anger. His overriding theme is a need for renewal of fundamentals, including bipartisanship as the basis for an American foreign policy that represents the goals and aspirations of the entire citizenry.
Brzezinski sees the actions and rhetoric that we’ve taken since 9/11 as a decent into fear and emotionalism that has frightened the world and isolated America to a troubling degree. He notes:
…we have increasingly embraced at the highest official level what I think fairly can be called a paranoiac view of the world. Summarized in a phrase repeatedly used at the highest level, "he who is not with us is against us." …I strongly suspect the person who uses that phrase doesn't know its historical or intellectual origins. It is 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 handled accordingly.
Brzezinski is not an idealist for the sake of ideals. He sees the value of a powerful America leading by example – promulgating and itself adhering to rules of international conduct out of a far-sighted commitment to the benefits of overall security, rather than taking actions out of tactical convenience or fear. He has hope, it seems, not just for a stronger America, but for a better America: one not afraid to trust its allies as much as it hates its enemies, and one that trusts its own values enough to share them with the world, not impose them on the world.
8:01:41 AM 
|
|
