What are Zbigniew Brzezinski's priorities?

I actually thing Zbigniew is being very clever, it's soft sustainable power for trade. Trade is important, but unless the USA & China move closer diplomatically and become more culturally accepting of each other then having trade 1-5 is not really going to be as big a win as you'd like & is built on pretty rocky foundations, just think Yuan valuation / Tibet / US protectionist politicians.

Brzezinski's piece on strategic cooperation with China in said areas should be understood not as placing security above economics, but as a reminder, in times of economic crisis, that China's place in the world should not be regarded just in terms of its emerging economic status, but also its geopolitical clout. Moreover, his point seems to be that China's current economic standing and bilateral economic relations are largely a byproduct of a primarily strategically-oriented rapprochement.

That said, I am not at all convinced that it is a good idea for China to enter the quagmire of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or that China and the US stand on the same side regarding Iran. In fact, China has been the biggest beneficiary of the deterioration of American-Iranian relations.

So I think I share Professor Drezner's disbelief that I am about to disagree publicly with one of the most brilliant strategists in history, but I think the excerpt from Dr. Brzezinski's FT piece leaves two questions:

1) Does China want to be involved in a dialogue with Israel, Iran, India, Palestine, or Pakistan?

2) Do WE want China to be at the table for those conversations?

With respect to the former, I think the answer is no because China's foreign policy emphasizes economic expansion over almost any other objective, with the possible exception of only the primacy of national sovereignty. I don't think China sees the profit (literally or figuratively) of exercising influence in these debates. If their role in the Korean peninsula is instructive because its one of the only issues which reaches their threshold for leadership, and even in that case they often prefer to be reticent.

With respect to the latter, I think the answer is even more assuredly no. American and Chinese preferences align on a few issues, but not the sticking points on Pakistan or on Israel. I don't think they'd offer much help to us.

Why would China be helpful to us in these areas? Their interests clearly conflict with our own in many of the areas he references (i.e., Iran is an ideal source for oil for them), they are not ideologically aligned with democracies, so a country like Israel is mostly an irritant, because it tends to push up the price of oil and won't share its most sensitive military tech. And just as importantly, what would we have to give up for the mere hope that they would help us? There's been a lot of talk about sacrifices we should make to get Russia on board with Iran, so what would China demand?

We've seen what China's help has gotten us with N. Korea--more of the same. It's much better to focus on issues we have in common--such as it's in both our interests because of our current symbiotic relationship to have strong economies.

And is it really in our interest to further China's international clout? I guess it depends on what we get in exchange, but the Chinese model of brutal authoritarianism seems to be getting quite popular; and in times of economic stress, we know from history, tends to get even more popular. We know Europe is willing to do absolutely nothing when it comes to standing up for quaint things like freedom, human rights and democracy (unless they can demonize us or the Jews), so that leaves who to stand up for these ideals?

We really do seem to be reliving the 70s. At least the neocons can take hope--by 2038 we can recycle their failed ideas.

Joshua Marcuse
"Do WE want China to be at the table for those conversations?"

We may have no choice in the future, the Chinese and other sovereign funds just about own us. Besides does anyone else really want the U.S. at the head of the table? Haven't we been the intrusive but irrelevant "mother-in-law" for some time, Taking sides on arguments we truly do not understand?

It should never be forgotten by anyone that it was the deliberate policy of the Carter administration to introduce and recruit Radical Islamic forces to destabilise Afghanistan drawing the Soviet Union into a quagmire. It was the Brzezinski policy adopted by Carter to further export fundamentalist (Salafist/Wahabi) Islam to Central Asia to further destabilise the Soviet Union.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was the architect of that policy which saw the world through strictly 2 dimensional cold war tunnel vision. Here was his answer in 1998 admitting to the deliberate destabilisation.

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries. (Remember this is 1998 and not all has unfolded)

Full interview http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

It was this same tunnel vision whereby the Carter presidency deliberately decided not support the Shah and accept a revival of the old Islamic Republic because they would be anti communist, believing that is all that mattered.

Fast forward, the US is now deeply mired in 2 wars both of which can be directly traced back to policies of Carter and Brzezinski.

If the US had not pulled the rug on the Shah there would have been no Iran/Iraq war, No Gulf War 1 or 2, No Iranian support for Syria or Hizbollah, No Iranian support for the most extreme irredentist elements in the Arab world, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, interesting side bar you remember them, they got chased out of Egypt settling into Afghanistan renamed themselves Al Quaeda. And interestingly enough New York where they first started trying to blow up the World Trade Towers in 1993.

Further no 1982 attack on US forces in Lebanon. No sleazy US military assistance to Iraq and most importantly there would have been a strong US ally in Central Asia unlike the candidate Brzezinski chose to go with Pakistan. If the US had not destabilised Afghanistan it would not have become a Taliban state hosting foreign extremists that developed into Al Quaeda.

Brzezinski enlisted Saudi Arabia to build a string of Jihadi Madrasas in Pakistan catering to students from Central Asia to destabilise the Soviet influence. He does not seem to reflect for 1 moment that Saudi Arabia is a much worst police state than the former Soviet empire with far greater contempt for liberal western values.

The list is longer but I think the uninformed can start to grasp the enormity of these failed short term policies.

Although Islamic extremism was already a well developed ideology and a growing threat, and we can't know how we would be dealing with threat today, it is most certain the US would not be in Iraq now or 1991 or NATO bogged down in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

As for China I don't see what the US has to offer. China benefits from the current confrontations and stalemates. Sudan, Iran or Myanmar all economic opportunities with no competition from the US.

How is a US already in deep debt going to be able finance offering more to China than what Oil rich countries like Iran and the Sudan offer?

Those who ignore history are fated to repeat it.

Brzezinski is blah blah. There will be no progress on Chinese-US relations. There is only so much one can do with a totalitarian, opaque country, with a set of interests very much contrary to our own.

What scares me about Brzezinski, is his seeming ignorance of American East Asia policy. Our allies are Japan and South Korea, and Taiwan. China relations are certainly important, but they are subservient to our primary alliances. Brzezinski either misses this point, or just doesn't get it.

There's too much hype about China. We should get over the CNNization of our attention span.

No, AllenGreen, you're ignorant of Brzezinski's work.

If you know anything about East Asia, then you know handling the twin pillars of Japan and PRC is crucial. Brzezinski has sought a means to placate both, to keep both from frustrating the other. As for the Koreas, they are secondary to the major powers.

Dr. Drezner, with all four East Asian powers bulking up on military kit - witness ROK's new destroyers and Japan's inclusion in TMD - and nationalist spats over territory and history, PM Taro Aso and President Lee Myung-bak had to put blinders on just to cobble together an economic deal this week that no one in either country wants. And, with Lee hobbled by opposition and Aso most likely on his way to defeat by the DPJ, what does that even matter?

What navy will guarantee freedom of the seas when China's navy expands, and collides with those new South Korean AEGIS destroyers and Japan's MSDF in its home waters? And then, what will happen to trade?

A look at Brzezinski's article in the last number of International Affairs could clarify further his thoughts on this and other matters.

China is a defacto ally in terms of aligned interests (more aligned than not). The more we treat them as such, the more they will respond as such. There is a real sense among the Chinese, both those at the top and those at the bottom that we're in this together. Many even see the US as a sort of pattern to follow. We don't have to give up a lot to nurture this relationship.

To be clear, I think this starts with the economic and agree with DD.

I agree completely with Zbig on this. China's help is needed to bring greater stability to Afghanistan, and to end the Israel/Palestine problem. Iran's help is also needed to improve stability in Afghanistan, and Iran is also an important party in resolving the Palestine/Israel situation.