 |
| Volume XII, Summer 2005, Number 2 |
| |
| EXCERPT: Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski |
| |
Dr. Brzezinski was national-security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. He is a trustee and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a professor of American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. The following interview was conducted by Middle East Policy editor Anne Joyce on April 20, 2005.
Q: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talks about a transformational strategy in the Middle East. What should be the U.S. strategic focus in the greater Middle East?
Dr. Brzezinski: Obviously, from the U.S. point of view, the basic American interest is a region that is relatively stable, that is not subject to internal convulsions or external wars, and -- last, but not least -- that is also capable of serving as a major source of energy supplies for the world at large. I emphasize the words "for the world at large" because actually not that much energy, not that much oil, used in the United States originates in the Middle East. But obviously the global economy depends on Middle Eastern oil, and the consequences of political unrest in the Middle East would be indirectly damaging for the American economy as well.
Q: In your opinion, where does the Middle East fit into U.S. interests
generally?
Dr. Brzezinski: We would be adversely affected in a very real way if the Middle East were torn by conflicts, whether internal or external. Let me add here in connection with your earlier question that the so-called "transformational diplomacy" makes sense if these broader international consequences are its objective. If "transformation" refers merely to democratization, then that formulation runs the risk of being either a slogan or an excuse for something else. If it is a slogan, then it fails to take into account the fact that pursuing democracy without addressing some other issues could produce highly radical populist regimes quite hostile to the United States. And if the notion of transformation is an excuse for delaying the solution of some issues, the result could be equally negative.
|
| |
|
