People of World Influence: Zbigniew Brzezinski Brzezinski Says World Thirsty For Competent U.S. Leadership by John Shaw Zbigniew Brzezinski believes the world is eager for strong, purposeful, effective American leadership, which in his opinion has been long overdue since the fall of the Berlin Wall. But he also warns that people are — with good reason — growing very impatient with the United States and this might be the last chance for America to regain its international standing. Since 1990, U.S. leadership has not only failed to win the confidence of allies, but has emboldened adversaries, Brzezinski told The Washington Diplomat, arguing that this leadership has varied from competent but not visionary, to visionary but not disciplined, to utterly catastrophic. The net result, according to this former national security advisor, is that the United States has squandered almost two decades during which it could have helped build a strong and secure global structure. “We’ve missed a great opportunity, but more importantly we’ve damaged our position in the world very grievously. We’re neither as liked as before, nor as feared as before, nor as respected as before,” he said. Brzezinski is widely viewed as one of the wise men of U.S. foreign policy who — unlike anyone in his generation except for Henry Kissinger — has successfully inhabited the worlds of both ideas and action. A former State Department official, director of President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council, and member of a host of high-level advisory panels, Brzezinski has worked in the trenches of U.S. foreign policy since the 1960s. Brzezinski also clearly resides in the world of ideas as the author of more than a half dozen highly regarded books, a professor at such distinguished universities as Harvard, Columbia and Johns Hopkins, and currently a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Brzezinski’s most recent book,“Second Chance:Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower,” chronicles U.S. leadership since the end of the Cold War. He concludes that U.S. foreign policy during this time has been highly erratic, sometimes bewildering, and in several instances, deeply destabilizing and even self-destructive. Brzezinski charges that the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush have all failed to adequately meet the challenges they confronted, although he singles out the first Bush as the best of the three post-Cold War presidents. Although not a visionary, Bush Sr. was a skilled practitioner of power politics and traditional diplomacy, Brzezinski says, calling him a superb crisis manager who handled the collapse of the Soviet Union with skill and dealt with Saddam Hussein with toughness and adroit coalition-building. Bush’s finest hour, accord•ing to Brzezinski, was his role in the peaceful reunification of Germany in 1990. Yet Bush failed to translate these victories into enduring successes, Brzezinski says, arguing that America’s political influence and moral legitimacy were not strategically applied to transforming Russia, pacifying the Middle East or bolstering the Atlantic alliance. As an example, Brzezinski praises the first Bush for convening the Madrid Conference in 1991, which persuaded the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to recognize Israel’s right to exist in return for which the PLO was allowed to set up a subordinate administration under continued Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. But Bush never built on this tactical success, Brzezinski says, criticizing the 41st president for not having come out firmly against the right of return for Palestinians and Israeli expansion beyond 1967 borders. He believes Bush should have also backed territorial compensation for any border changes, a formula for sharing Jerusalem, and demilitarization of the eventual Palestinian state. Brzezinski concludes that Bush was competent but failed to leave behind a compelling sense of direction, offer a sweeping global vision, or undertake creative institution building such as that which followed World War II. On President Clinton, Brzezinski admires the 42nd president’s political skills, his understanding of the power of globalization, and his strong commitment to integrating the United States into the world economy by expanding international trade and investment. Brzezinski also notes that Clinton supported a stronger U.S. relationship with Russia and an expanded NATO. But he faults Clinton for lacking the toughness and discipline to transform U.S. foreign policy so that by the end of his presidency, Clinton’s hopeful agenda was in doubt and only his embrace of globalization and the consolidation of the Atlantic community stood out as enduring strategic achievements. Brzezinski is especially critical of Clinton’s work in the Middle East, arguing that the president missed several historic opportunities to advance peace and that under the Clinton administration, U.S. policy gradually drifted from impartial commitment toward a fair settlement to an increasingly one-sided pro-Israel posture. Next Page