Mr. Brzezinski my book argues we havent really exploited that opportunity very well. Brian what is that opportunity . Mr. Brzezinski we havent led very well. The opportunity is to really shape a world which is more congenial to our values, more in keeping with our interests, more responsive to fundamental human aspirations. Brian lets go over your own personal background for a moment so people that see you all the time and dont know where you came from. Born in poland, major way eventually to canada. How did that happen . Mr. Brzezinski not entirely on my own. I was a small kid. My father was a diplomat. We came to america. I have been thinking about that lately because we came by boat in those days. We arrived first in new york. A family of diplomats, so it was a nice, comfortable trip. Of the first thing i saw them was the statue of liberty. That this being told is the symbol of america. I cannot help but think often these days that for so many people around the world, the symbol of America Today is guantanamo. Brian what does that mean . Mr. Brzezinski what has happened in the course of these 15 years since my previous appearance on the show, namely that we have adopted a position in World Affairs which isolates us and unites much of humanity from us. I think it is dangerous to our interests and to our values. Brian how long did you live in poland . Mr. Brzezinski a total of three years. Brian how long did you live in canada . Mr. Brzezinski i lived in canada for a total of 12 years. Brian something i remember reading somewhere that something happened in canada that had you got what you wanted, you might have never made your way to the United States. Mr. Brzezinski thats true. I dont remember precisely the details, and i dont want to mistake them. Basically, i qualified for some fellowship. I graduated from mcgill and qualify for some fellowship that should have sent me to oxford for graduate studies. Then, since i wasnt canadian ,orn or yet a canadian citizen i could not get the fellowship. But my grades were good enough that with some help from friends of my father, i was able to go to harvard with enough money to pay for the first two months. And thats all. I was admitted to harvard, so i went to harvard and got my phd. Fortunately, things worked out for me extremely well at harvard. After the first two months, i had no problems whatsoever. Brian you pointed out in our first interview that you and Henry Kissinger are the only people that have been National Security advisers who had a Political Science degree. Has that changed since those 18 years . Mr. Brzezinski thats a good point. I dont know. I havent really looked at it from that standpoint. At westhem taught point, and he must have an advanced degree, but im not sure what it is in. It may have been International Affairs or Political Science, as well. He would be in that category. Rice had, condoleezza a phd in politics. Since us, there were some others. Brian what is the importance of having a Political Science phd . And in being in that kind of position . Mr. Brzezinski not very much, to be frank. My sense has been for quite some , and it was already the case before i came National Security adviser, that too much of american Political Science over stresses the word science and not enough of the word politics. Politics is an elusive process of exercising influence, acquiring power, causing events to happen. Morece is a kind of abstract, rigid notion of how to analyze reality and how to cope with it. I think that is part of Political Science that doesnt really prepare you for the kind of job that National Security adviser has to undertake. Brian you taught at harvard for how long . Mr. Brzezinski i got my phd in 1953 and taught until 1960. Brian at columbia for how long . Mr. Brzezinski i taught at columbia that is more difficult to analyze. I accepted a professorship at columbia in 1960, and i taught until 1966, then took two years off to be in the state department, then came back to columbia. Inn i took a year or so off the early 1970s to be in japan. 1967 i and then in took a leave of absence to take a government job. Then i came back to columbia in 1981. I think i resigned from columbia a. B. Four years later because i didnt want to commute so much from washington. Brian and you are at Johns Hopkins still . Mr. Brzezinski im connected with Johns Hopkins and i taught at Johns Hopkins, and i have the title of professor. But my primary base is the center for strategic and political debate. You married when . Mr. Brzezinski i married in 1955 to a graduate of wellesley college. She is of czechoslovakian origin. We met at a harvardwellesley knicks are harvardwellesley mixer. A week after we met, she told her brother she was going to marry me. I did not learn that until about a year later. Brian what year did you marry . Mr. Brzezinski 1955. Three children. They are here and in new york. Is a republican, and he served in the senate, spend some time in ukraine. Volunteered for the military at one point and became a reserve officer. He was a Deputy Assistant secretary of defense under rumsfeld. Is now at booz allen. A second son is a democrat, their active politically. Currently engaged in a national campaign. He served on the clinton National Security council staff. He also obtained a phd at oxford. Got into harvard. My daughter is a Television Reporter or anchor. She was doing that for cbs for a while, and then after the upheaval there, she left and is now connected with msnbc or nbc. Person that a people i defy me of being the father of. Brian back in 1989 and i have interviewed you sense, havent interviewed you se you since here is what you said back then. Mr. Brzezinski i dont think the media is terrible. Who aree some people , whoperceptive, thoughtful analyze or focus their stories on significant truths. But theres also an enormous number of people in the media who are devoid of any other ages of any ideas of their own, who follow the pack, who are digging for sensations. Because of the experience of the 1970s, more often than not, anyone who is in the government they assume is either a creek or an enemy who have to be exposed and attacked. Most people in the government are generally dedicated, patriotic people who are making a major sacrifice doing what they are doing. Brian any changes . Mr. Brzezinski not really. I think perhaps i would be less critical. But basically it is a mixed picture. There are some topnotch reporters and commentators in World Affairs. They are as good as any. In some respects, i was some of them would serve in the government occasionally. I think they would infuse a sense of reality into the thinking within the government. But by and large, i think the problem is that the mass media as a whole dont educate the public about World Affairs. Television is replacing newspapers as a source of information. Gives yousion news practically nothing about the world. It gives you a lot of trivia about the world. As a consequence, the public of the public of this superpower is not very well informed about the world. Today vacated sometime in my book on how few americans know even the fundamentals of geography. People who are about to go to college couldnt identify where Great Britain was or afghanistan. Close to 30 couldnt locate the Pacific Ocean on the map. Dont ask anyone about the history of other major nations. That come into my mind, is becoming a more serious problem because the special role of america requires america to act in a way that affects the rest to an unprecedented degree, and we should our policy on the basis of what attitudes. If these attitudes are ignorant, it becomes all the more difficult to fashion a policy that is responsive to what i call the historical moment. Brian correct me if i am wrong, you are involved in the john f. Kennedy campaign and Lyndon Johnsons campaign. You served jimmy carter as his National Security advisor, and then served george h. W. Bush. Mr. Brzezinski i also directed the Foreign Policy task forces for hubert humphrey. I sensed that the crisis in the soviet union was getting the, that the United States had to have an effective response. I endorsed bush when he was 17 points behind. I emphasize that. It was not a political opportunistic step. Dukakis would not be able to handle these complex realities and bush would. And i think retrospectively i was right. He handled the disintegration of the soviet union extremely well, even though on some other issues, and my judgment, he didnt quite seize the moment or opportunity. Brian back to your family. Is aave a son that democrat, one is a republican, and a daughter that is a journalist. How did that happen, do you think . Mr. Brzezinski i didnt have a lot to do with the fact that we are an engaged family that is interested in issues, talks about the issues. We traveled a lot with our kids. We went abroad a lot. We engaged in a lot of discussions. I hope that my wife and maybe i helped to simulate to stimulate their interests, but helped to stimulate them and make in making their own judgments. We always just respected their judgments, and i am very proud of my kids. I enjoyed talking to them. One thing we tried to do is to discourage overly intensified political debates because they can escalate and create tension. But short of that, we can have wonderful discussions about different subjects. I think that the kids formulated their own ideas, took their own paths, and we are very proud of them. Brian what kind of labels would you put on yourself at this point in your life . Mr. Brzezinski i am engaged. Brian are you a democrat . Mr. Brzezinski i have a democrat fundamentalist. That is to say, when it comes to a domestic choice, i am automatically a democrat. When it comes to choosing president s, i lean towards democrats, but i make my judgment on the basis of the person. Myself wedded to the idea that i have to support a democratic candidate for president. If i dont agree with his so for example, if there is someone on the democratic ticket that is in 2008 who is saying we ought to y the course in iraq butk god there isnt one that person is not likely to be the nominee. On iraq, your strongest feelings . Mr. Brzezinski i think the iraq adventure is a profound misadventure which was wasted in this country by demagogy from the top down. It involved basic misjudgment of what was needed and how to go. Bout pursuing what was needed the consequences are visible to all. Our credibility worldwide has been shot. Our legitimacy has been undermined. Last but not least, local respect for our power has been much reduced. To thei want to go back videotape from 1989 and what you had to say about mr. Gorbachev and the soviet union. Mr. Brzezinski i think one has to differentiate between mr. Theachev the person and face of the policies hes promoting. He certainly is a very intelligent person. Ive had the opportunity of meeting him. ,e makes a very good impression certainly better than any of his predecessors. That clearly explains why he is so attractive because he stands in such contrast to those who preceded him. His policies, which are based on meaning overords overtness andg there has been talking and ventilating issues more openly the mayor have. But reforming the system has proven to be very difficult. My own expectation is that he will not succeed in creating a spontaneously self energizing, increasingly pluralistic, generally open soviet union. There are too many inbuilt contradictions and legacies of the past within the soviet system to make that kind of success for his policies possible. His major historic significance will be that he has dismantled stalinism, probably not , and that heninism will have initiated a protracted systemic crisis and the soviet union which will last for many years. All of these and legacies of the past these are contradictions and legacies of the past. Brian how did you do . Mr. Brzezinski i think i did pretty well until the last sentence when i talk about the crisis lasting long. Brian in your book you have an international chronology, december989 to 1991. What is the result of all that happened in that one year . Mr. Brzezinski a lot of the things still stand. The berlin wall doesnt stand, but the reality of it still stands, mainly a reunified germany and redefined europe. The soviets left afghanistan. The defeat of the soviets in afghanistan accelerated the soviet conviction. Tiananmen square, the suppression of the students did not result in a longterm problem. China still has to resolve this d of detergent trajectory divergent trajectory of its economic developed which is increasingly pluralistic and political change which is much slower, much more reliant on the authority of a single dominant party, and the legacy of Tiananmen Square is still to be confronted by chinese leaders. 1977 wheno 1997 you were National Security adviser. What is the best decision you made that then and the worst . Mr. Brzezinski if i say my decisions, i have to qualify that they were at my decisions. Shey were the president decisions, though i had input into some of them. I think the things that were ite where the decision and had a mocon out problem, we would have had guerrilla warfare if we hadnt reacted the panama problem, we would have had guerrilla warfare if we hadnt reacted, even know the republicans disagreed. With accomplished at least one major breakthrough. Of the arab phalanx states surrounding israel by precipitating the first peace treaty ever between israel and an arab state, mainly egypt. That was a very major compliment for the president , and i was helping in that. That was his decision. But we agreed that we have to apply the pressure. If the u. S. Hadnt done it, it would have never happened. It was certainly important in normalizing relations with china, which created a new strategic situation in which the chinese and we were able to collaborate more confidently and offsetting him at that time, and aggressive and ambitious soviet union. We had a very major setback in iran. That poisoned last year. I recently attended a conference at the Carter Center on the 30th anniversary of the presidency. Someone there very aptly said that carter had three excellent years and one bad year. I played a role in those three years and in that bad year. Brian what happened in that bad year . Mr. Brzezinski he was stuck, basically. We were not able to resolve it. The iranians were manipulating us very effectively while holding hostages. They were always holding out a little bit of a caret keep the negotiating process going. At the same time never consummating it. We were not able to cut the cord. We finally undertook a rescue are to, which we felt we try because the summer was coming and in the summer we wouldnt have had nightfall long enough to do it. We were worried that at some point it would put some of the hostages on trial and even execute them. We felt we had to try it, but it didnt work. That rebounded very negatively on carters political fortunes. Brian at the time, where you and cyrus on different sides of the issue . Mr. Brzezinski we were on different sides of the issue on two issues. We were on different issues regarding the soviet union. , the president of the United States and the leader of the soviet union, do not have the same goals and aspirations, which is what the secretary of te leave was the case believed was the case, and it we had to be tougher and more responsive to their dynamism and selfconfidence. Secondly, we differed on how to deal with the iranian issue. He was more patient and more appreciationseld and freely hostages, and i felt that the protracted stalemate was doing us a harvest damage doing us enormous damage, and that we up to fourth the issue. Were two different views, and the ultimate decisionmaker was the president. Brian did it ever get personal . Mr. Brzezinski no, contrary to what was said, never. We had a good relationship. With play tennis from time to time. We had a rather congenial relationship. We had meetings several times a week. When there was some dissatisfaction with him at some point in the press and the white house, i went to the president and said it would be nice if the president went to the airport to greet him on a return from a mission he was undertaking a broad. We had disagreements and some real conflicts and some real sharp discussions, but no personal. He resigned because he disagreed fundamentally with the decision to make the hostage rescue effort. He felt strongly that that was a mistake and decided to resign. I suspect, though i cannot really a that with any categorical conviction, that he also did have the feeling that in the internal balance on the number of important issues like relations with the soviet union, relations with china, the military renewal buildup of our strategic capabilities, that his influence receding in , and my views were becoming predominant. Brian historian Robert Dallek has a book out very soon on Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon and their relationship. Thehe book itself, hes got nixonkissinger tapes from the oval office. The ferocious dislike that Henry Kissinger had for william rogers, the secretary of state. The reason i bring this up is cousin you think back and i wrote four of them down the difference between william , thes and Henry Kissinger differences between weinberger and george schultz, the difference between colin powell and donald rumsfeld, and your differences with symantecs mance, does that work . Mr. Brzezinski i think he really is useful for the president to have different opinions. These days intion which the decisionmakers circle around the president is very small and very unanimous. I think that is part of the explanation for the mistakes we have made in iraq. I think this agreement within bounds is useful. Animus influences the positions people take. A think that becomes counter productive. Can not the one who conventionally say that the conflict between me and vance did not have personal animus and it. Is somek there opportunity when youre interviewing president carter, you can ask and. Hear members he remembers. My guess is that carter will confirm what i am saying. Namely, i did not go to the president and gossip. To the contrary, i preferred him to remain secretary of state. Frankly, i preferred him because it was easier for me. In the competitive relationship over policy, i felt i could handle him. If someone else came in who is very assertive and dynamic, i might not have had i might have had a difficult time. But also i liked him, and i think the president would concern that i never smacked against him. To my knowledge, he never did against me either. He several times raised serious objections and we had about had it out. And that was it. Brian what about these other cases . Different groups begin to leak information out to try to embarrass the other side. Staff do this awesome. Do this often. Mr. Brzezinski that happened in our case, too. There was stuff in late against me from the state department. I could name the people, but i am not going to. And i suspect some of my staffers were doing the same. After all, these people work very hard. To go to cocktail parties. They move around the city. They are asked to comment on issues, on personalities. They become part of the game. To show of the game is how important they are and how wrong the other people are. That escalates because then it comes back as gossip to the principles. They do get excited at some point and say, was he really saying that about me . That is human nature. But i dont think the conflicts with vance and me were in any way comparable to rogers and kissinger, nor to the schultz and weinberger stuff. Brian does any of our government from your experience have the situation where you have different departments trying to outdo one another . Mr. Brzezinski sure, absolutely. Maybe it is a little more dramatic because in a sense, you have the secretary of state which has all the trappings of ceremony, and the illusions of power, and then you have the National Security adviser, who is close to the president. And if the president is interested in Foreign Affairs and wants to run for an affairs, the National Security adviser just overshadows the secretary of state because that is the guy or woman on whom the president relies and sees. I could walk to the president s Office Without knocking anytime i wanted to. Obviously i wasnt doing it all the time because i would be kicked out at some point, but i literally could walk into his office anytime a wanted just to stick my head in and indicate there were something i had to talk to him about. Number ofe him x times a day. He would call me in the morning. The very first meeting of the day. Very often the day ended that way. That places a person and that office at a tremendous advantage visavis the secretary of state who is sitting somewhere over there. Last but not least, just a little point, but not irrelevant to create ant you also havehich some upper hand on policy issues, it helps if you can have the opportunity to say to the president , is about time that secretary of state went on a trip to latin america. We have been neglecting that region. The nice tenday trip is really what is needed. There arets many advantages to being close to the president. If the president is interested in Foreign Affairs. Brian what was your reaction when Henry Kissinger was National Security adviser and secretary of state at the same time . Mr. Brzezinski i thought it was an over concentration of authority. Ford was really not that interested in Foreign Affairs. Henry bleakley briefly retained the position at the same time. When i came into the white house, was shown the different telephone arrangements in my office. I was shown something that would ring in my office, and i said that is when the president calls you. It rings in your office. Not your secretary. Another button that rings in your office, that the secretary of state. He can also reach you directly. And i said, oh . Can i ring him . Visit, no. It they said, no. It was put in when Henry Kissinger was in the state department. , will take the telephone out. Disconnected. Brian what was the reaction on mr. Vances part . Mr. Brzezinski no reaction. I think you realize the asymmetry. He realized the asymmetry. He did not object. Brian to the back to 1989 again about japan and china. Mr. Brzezinski on china, i dont think there is too much division. Thereby recognizes that the relationship has evolved very well. First president nixon broke through and established contact, thenpresident carter broke through and normalized relations. Since then the political, economic become economic, military relations has grown very well. President bush has a lot of sensitivity for china. He understands china very well. He is the first president , in my judgment, we have had where the relationship is just spontaneously natural and felt to be as important with our relationship in the atlantic. 4 brian japan brian japan . Mr. Brzezinski same thing. A relationship with japan on balance is a good one. We have a number of issues with the japanese, but the white house was very right in saying when bush was leaving for japan the singles for us most important bilateral relationship we have with any country in the world. It is true. Brian is it still . Mr. Brzezinski not quite. I think one has to parse that and probably say the relationship with china is just as important. But certainly the relationship with japan is one of three or four most important relationships in the world. I would say the relationship with the European Union as a whole is the most important of all. After that, china and japan are in terms ofparable importance, though it relationship, it differs in substance. After that, you have a different level with specific european countries. The u. K. Has a privileged position, and germany is important now that it is unified and is the leader of the European Union. Residual he, russia is still important. Brian go back to china. How are we doing in that relationship . Mr. Brzezinski reasonably well. We are adjusting to the reality that they are a major world power in the process of emergence. Secondly, the number one mainland far eastern asian power. China is clearly on the historical rise. The chinese, on the other hand, have also adjusted to the reality that they are not going to be dominating the world in the near future, and that it is in their interests to be part of the system that already exists. Financial, monetary, economic, social, political. Rises, theyluence can then start changing that system to their on advantage to accommodate their interests more. Are intelligent enough that is a big difference between the Current Situation involving a rising new power and the situation that existed in europe prior to 1914 when imperial germany was rising. France, greatays, britain, russia were not prepared to accept it. It was there was eventually a collision and a world war. Brian our relationship with japan . Mr. Brzezinski i think it is good. Japan is becoming an important not on the economic and political but increasingly a Security Partner of the United States. Japan is getting to assume more security responsibilities, peacekeeping and so forth. It has essentially significant military power that, if push comes to shove in the far east in some fashion, could be another life by the japanese on their own behalf, but also on behalf of the u. S. Japanese alliance. Brian want to show a chart that you have in your book, second chance, which is already on the New York Times bestseller list. Mr. Brzezinski it came out in the second week of march. March 17, it gained a spot on the list. How did that happen . Mr. Brzezinski either a freak or because it is a very good book. Take got a terrific review from the New York Times. Is very generous recommendation from the washington post. It appeared on a couple of shows on radio and television, including the daily show, which is a bright, lively, intelligent satirical show. All of that created the initial impact. Brian why do you decide to go on the daily show with jon stewart . Mr. Brzezinski i never thought of doing it, but my publisher convinced i should, and gave me a list of all the people that i know and respect who have appeared on it. I said to myself, they survive that show. I think i will probably survive, too. He is a bright guy. There entertaining and very engaging. We had a lively semiserious, semiamusing conversation. More serious than amusing. Brian journalists love these kind of things. It really is your rating. It maybe is hard for some people to read your rating of the last three president s. You give an overall solid b to eorge h. W. Bush, and uneven g toclinton, and a failed george w. Bush. F to george w. Bush. Why . He didnt seize the moment or vision for the future for which the moment was right in the world was expecting. We gradually slipped into troubling posture, particularly in the defense Posture Statement that his staff developed for him. The offers of that defense posture then resurfaced as the neocons in the bush ii administration. On somedid pretty well issues, particularly on american appeal to the world and identification on global issues. Andertainly was energetic creative and expanding by creating a larger, more secure europe. And he handled very well because wars. The kosovo but he flubbed on the middle east. He left it in worse shape than he imparted that he inherited it. He had eight years and only got seriously involved in the very end. Kind of nurtured unintentionally a mood of national selfindulgence in this country. Maybe even he didnt personally. That had the effect of america become gradually more unresponsive to the new Global Developments which can only be addressed if we are willing to exercise selfrestraint, selfdenial. I think it is more a matter of missing real opportunities. I think plunged the United States into a war of choice on the basis of false , withtions, demagogy catastrophic consequences for our position internationally, with painful losses for thousands and thousands of american families, with horrible consequences for the iraqi people. We dont even appreciate remotely this country how much suffering we have inflicted on the iraqis. He has had the same time adopted a posture of total passivity on the israelipalestinian conflict which is so damaging both to the israelis and palestinians. Andreeds found in security exposes the palestinians to continued repression and suffering. The u. S. Has been passive. , assessment overall has to be very critical. I am very critical of the domestic exploitation of that war on terror, which has created a culture of fear. Literally created a culture of fear in this country. To me, america is nothing but confident. That is what i have always loved about america. A dynamic confidence. Now you cant walk around washington and going to a building without being reminded of being in a state of siege. Brian where you on 9 11 . Mr. Brzezinski i was in beijing. Total shock and amazement. I remember the moment vividly. I had a hard time getting back to my family. It was shock and outrage, but at the same time i remember as a child being at some event which had something to do with some Dancing School i was being forced to attend by my parents. Interrupted by news that pearl harbor had been attacked. Andmember the determination confidence with which america responded. I find the present abetting of fear by the government and the mass media, the socalled terror entrepreneurs, the Entertainment Industry is pernicious and destructive. And dont deny the reality of terror, but i think cicely because it is a reality, it is something we have to view with a sense of perspective and determination and calm if we are going to be successful. Brian what was your reaction when the president used the axis of evil comment in the state of the union . Mr. Brzezinski i wasnt impressed. It seems to be a slogan. Haveal years later, people a different interpretation of what the axis of evil is composed of. There is a very painful Public Opinion poll couple of weeks ago around the world conducted by to bbc which asked close 35,000 to rank the countries and their view which play the most negative role in World Affairs. The judgment of this number of people was that the three most negative countries are, shockingly, israel, iran, and the United States. To many in the world, that has now become the axis of evil. Brian if this president asked you to come see him in the oval office and get him recommendations on how to change all this, what would you tell him . Mr. Brzezinski i would tell him to reassess very seriously where the present circumstances are headed if they are not altered, and that he shouldnt bequeath to his successor the war in iraq because 20 months from now is too long. He should avoid escalating that war because more people will die needlessly. If he escalates the war, he may willynillymstances that will produce an enlargement of the war. Escalation and continuation of the conflict can generate incidents that are unpredictable, but which can have very destructive, sudden effects, and i have in mind particularly the risk of some collision with a large war. If we get an enlarged war, we are stuck in the next 20 years pakistan,nd iran, and and in afghanistan. The recent incident with british sailors which just occurred recently, i think highlights the validity of the concerns i have about a war continuing and potentially escalating. Brian saudi arabia. What would do with our relationship there . Mr. Brzezinski i would let the saudis deal with their own internal problems as they are dealing with them, and i think they are dealing with the. I think they are beginning to loosen up the structure at their own speed, not on the basis of preaching from us. We have to drop this notion of cultural superiority which is inherent in our selfrighteous prescriptions. Different societies have different historical roots, and if they crave anything more than anything else, collectively and individually, it is dignity. Not someone preaching to them from the standpoint of moral superiority. The saudis are dealing with a terrorism problem with increasing efficacy and are beginning to change their society at their own pace. We have to have respect for that. Ambassador to the u. S. From saudi arabia, do you know him . Mr. Brzezinski yes. Brian we see a lot of the friendship between him and toward Herbert Walker bush president george Herbert Walker bush. He went to see his son in 1999 to advise him on running for the presidency. How about a relationship like that . Is it too close . Mr. Brzezinski i dont honestly know the details and know how important that advice was. Im not aware of the fact that the current president was resistant to the idea of running for the presidency. I just dont know whether those facts are valid. Brian if you have ever heard any of our callin shows, you know we have people that think about the conspiracy theories of people like you. You would be a poster child for these people because you have served on the board of the council of foreign relations. You helped start the Trilateral Commission, and you have been to the builder berger groups. Mr. Brzezinski that is partial reduction, i suppose. Brian what is belonging to all those groups . We talked about the Trilateral Commission when you hear in 1989. Are people too close in this world, people in business to close to the governments . Mr. Brzezinski there is such a thing as insidious influence. The question is, how does it operate . Does it involve bribery . Does it involve some sort of psychological domination of individuals . I dont believe in this notion of some sort of secret society controlling people. , and any political system, there are over the table and under the table arrangements. As far as organizations that you have mentioned, they are all on top of the table organizations. We know what they are. We know what they do. We probably exaggerate their influence in many cases. Most importantly, they operate covertly. Anyone can know what the council of foreign operations does. Once they find out, they will probably discover that it really doesnt run the world. It often makes very useful recommendations. For example, we are all confronting the problem of iran. Maybe just to reinforce the conspiracy theories, two years study on u. S. Ed a policy with a ron for the council of foreign relations. I think it is still a very good study. I said i could directed. Who was the other cochairman . Robert gates, currently the secretary of defense. On the one hand, maybe that reinforces the conspiracy theory. That we are pulling the strings from behindthescenes. Alternately be, maybe it tells you that this is an open process and that anyone can get these recommendations, read them, dont they are assess them. Brian . What did you learn about robert gates that you can share with us . Mr. Brzezinski what i learned about him does many years back. He was my executive assistant in the white house. We traveled together. I came to know him and respect him. I think he has very good judgment. Is very solid, very serious, intelligent person. He had a sense of patriotic commitment to this country. I dont think he undertook that job just to advance his personal interests, to enhance is bio, which is quite impressive anyway. He did it because he thought the country was in trouble and he has to serve as best he can. He obviously works for the president , and therefore have to follow the president s lead. But i think the president has someone there who will get him solid, serious judgment, that comes from someone who is not responsible for the decisions that have gotten us into this the mess in which we find ourselves. Brian what was it like for you having a former student, madeleine albright, as separate area state that of secretary of state mark mr. Brzezinski i didnt have as secretary of state . Mr. Brzezinski i didnt have disagreements with her in policies. We were very much of the same mind. Brian biggest problem in the future . Mr. Brzezinski whether the United States can effectively a significantly constructive leadership role in the world. I think that can only happen after we somehow terminate the war in iraq, after we resolve the israelipalestinian conflict, after we get engaged in a serious and constructive negotiating relationship with the iranians. The middle east is now the arena on which American Leadership is being tested, just as europe was the arena during the cold war. Therefore is very important we be successful. If we are, i am reasonably hopeful for the future. We will be i think sliding into more anarchistic phase in World Affairs. Brian or would you do with the troops . Mr. Brzezinski i would bring most of them out of iraq. I would try to work out some arrangement whereby mutual consent, some American Military presence is maintained in kurdistan. That would help to offset the possibility of any collision between the kurds and turkey, or maybe even iran. I would probably try to work out some arrangement for residual american present in kuwait, which is very close by. Above all else, i would try to set a date jointly with the iraqi leaders for american departure to get ourselves out. I think we have to make that decision jointly. There are iraqi leaders with whom we could seriously talk. The fact is that in different raqs, every one of the i neighbors will be afflicted negatively if iraq explodes upon our departure. , your your first book last clip where we talked about capitalism. Brian was capitalism its own victim . Mr. Brzezinski that i doubt because the one area where capitalism is really successful is in ratifying material wants satisfaction is still a very major source of motivation. I dont think there will be a crisis of capitalism as much because of these cultural difficulties. It could simply be a crisis of social commitment, social virility. We have become a decadent society. Society,ome a decadent can be vulnerable. Brian have we become a decadent society . Mr. Brzezinski no, but i fully subscribed what i said then. I think the major risk to as that in this interwoven, interdependent world in which we now exist, we will try to be an island of self gratification, of hedonism, detaching ourselves from our responsibilities towards the rest of humanity, thereby producing investment producing resentment against us. , iaddressing global problems think we have to become increasingly concerned about the moral, cultural dimensions of the potential crisis that the world will face and we will face if we are not more responsive. Brian have we deteriorated in the last 18 years toward that decadent mark that decadent end . I think public ignorance about the world is part of the problem. I think our emphasis on self gratification and self amusement part of the problem. Ashink our mass culture reflected in mass entertainment is a serious problem because of the kind of values it propagates. I think we as a country have to ask ourselves, is the globe is , ife effectively operative the crisis that we face in the environment for those in social and political and religious affairs is to be overcome, what kind of obligations does that imply upon us . Brian our guest has been Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book is called second chance. Oh x for joining us. Thanks for joining us. Drewncer his death statements, including from former president barack obama, who said he was and a couple as public servants, a powerful intellect, and a passionate advocate for American Leadership. George and former National Security advisor brisco crossed himeorge h. W. Bush called a widely respected scholar and practitioner, his command of Foreign Affairs made them both and instrumental architect of key policies and an influential voice in key policy debates. Announcer cspans washington journal, line every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Eunday morning, u. S. Justic Action Network discusses new policy sentencing guidelines. Than the National Iranian American Council talks about u. S. Iran relations. A politico reporter will discuss u. S. Education policy and funding. Be sure watch washington journal, live at 7 a. M. Eastern sunday morning. Atcoming up next, a look recent commencement addresses from colleges and universities across the country. First we will hear from after arnoldernor schwarzenegger followed by former Vice President joe biden ode founder. O c governors dont do see and rick snyder. Actor and former california governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was the Commencement Speaker at the university of houston. He talked about the importance of helping others by focusing on the many people crucial to his own success as a bodybuilder,
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.