Talk:Zbigniew Brzezinski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Does this maniac really want to carve up the Russian Federation?
Into how many parts???
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
He is a Polish nationalist -- the more the better. If the Polish nationalists could do the same to Germany, or at least dream about it, they would.--193.194.63.129 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyedit
Someone needs to go through this article and give it a consistant tense. I think that past tense would appropriate for an article mainly concerned with historical events.
B- The content is good but the writer appears to have started learning the writing the style of Frank Lloyd Wright.
Agreed; I tagged it for cleanup with a focus on copyediting. Looking at it, someone may want to streamline the talk, too. Lightwiki 00:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Early Years
Hi. What does "posted" mean? There are several entries using the term "posted." I am associating it with the military as in "posted" or stationed but I don't know if anyone else is having problems understanding what is meant by it. Is it meant to refer to "lived" or "moved"? Thanks. Stevenmitchell 06:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- It refers to his father, who was posted to various countries as a diplomat, and presumably took his family with him.—Perceval 03:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quality of writing is poor
The content of this article seems to be good, but it has been written by people who do not always make complete sentences, who spell the past tense of "lead" as "lead" (like the metal) instead of "led," etc.
This article would be a good project for somebody with lots of time and patience to go through it like a good high school English grammar teacher. P0M 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The use of "realist" is rather biased, assuming that hawkish views are correct and dovish views are overly idealistic. To call Kissinger a realist is about as accurate as calling him an idealogue. Neither word has any meaning or merit without backing and support. (1 May 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.144.39.188 (talk • contribs).
==External Links==
- [1] Photos of Zbigniew Brzezinski inspecting Osama bin Laden's dragunov rifle while at a terrorist training camp.
- There is no scintilla of evidence that that rifle belonged to bin Laden.
- I agree, there's no indication whatsoever that the person pictured is Osama, moreover the person pictured doesn't even look like Osama--thames 00:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the contention that ZB supported "terrorist" training camps. There is no proof given in the article. -- Zoe
24.68.108.109, please provide proof of your accusations. -- Zoe
- The claim is reasonably plausible, but I too would like to see a source. I have the Spiegel archive which contains the issue (45/2001) that reproduces the small photo, and the caption (translated) reads: "US security advisor Brzezinski: Russians went into Afghani trap. - At the Pakistan-Afghanistan border." No word about bin Laden, and even the web page above only mentions this in passing. The other guy in the photo could be bin Laden, I dunno. I found no email address on the website above to ask for details. If we can confirm the claim, I'd actually support putting the picture in the article under fair use, but as one of many photos demonstrating US support of fundamentalists it's not particularly interesting. --Eloquence
I have decided to remove the link http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/1990s/grandchessboard1997.html because it contained material that asserted that ZB was part of some global conspiracy to impose a world dictatorship. Check the link yoruself. Neilinoz
I've added actual textual support for Brzezinski's relationship to the Afghani 'freedom fighters' as Reagan would later call them.--thames 00:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Name pronunciation
How does one pronounce his first name?
- Oddly enough, you pronounce it the way it's spelled. "Zbig" is like "spig", but you vocalize it. "Niew" rhymes with "pew". Accent is on the "Zbig". The last name is kinda like "burr-zizz-inski", but the "burr" is very short. Accent on the "in". – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:57, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
- If you want to be even more correct in the pronunciation of his first name, make the "w" at the end sound a bit (but not entirely) like a "v", but that's only if you want to impress Polish speakers --thames 03:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The Polish pronunciation is more or less: ZBEEG-nyev bzheh-ZHEEN-ski. I guess Americans may pronounce it as they wish. -- Kpalion 18:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If you want to be even more correct in the pronunciation of his first name, make the "w" at the end sound a bit (but not entirely) like a "v", but that's only if you want to impress Polish speakers --thames 03:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The guy was on John Stewart last night, and pronounced his own name ZBIGNIEF. 74.15.2.138 02:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone make an OGG-clip and a IPA transliteration so that one can get a hint on how his name is pronounced? --Shandristhe azylean 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. The description of how his name is pronounced is in another language again, not exactly helpful. Make it simple please, I want to say his name, but I don't want to learn another language to do it. Plus why just translate his last name? As if the first name is easy. Moomot 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's an interview where he pronounces his first name himself: http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/brzezinski_on_the_daily_show/
Jon Stewart jokingly says that "You know where I screwed it up? The 'w' should be an 'f'! They spelled it wrong on your book!" And Brzezinski replies "that's right." To me it sounds something like "ZBIGnyef". One could get into a phonological argument over whether the final sound should be transliterated as "f" or "v", but I think for the English-speaking reader an "f" is more effective.
As for his last name, I get the impression that "berZINskee" is pretty close. I'll leave the IPA in place and add an approximation as well. babbage 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GIZ-BEEG-NYEF ??
Zbigniew appearing on the March 14 edition of the daily show w/ Jon Stewart pronounces his own name to correct Jon and it sounds like GIZ-BEEG-NYEF. A way that I've never heard it pronounced and which contradicts the pronunciation on this page (I think). --Deglr6328 06:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Diacritical Mark on the 'N'
I've removed the diacritical mark. It may be the correct Polish spelling, but it is not used in English-speaking countries. The overwhelmingly predominant usage, in the United States especially, throughout Dr. Brzezinski's career has been without the diacritical. As far as I can tell, from Dr. Brzezinski's op-eds and TV appearances and books, he does not use the diacritical either. I've not gotten ahold of any of his books in their Polish translations, but it is possible that they use the diacritical—I'm not sure. In any case, I'm inclined to keep his name plain on the english version of the wikipedia entry for Brzezinski. —thames 04:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, the name is witten with the diacritical mark in Polish. I know he's better known internationally as Brzezinski but perhaps it should be written somewhere in the article that back in Poland he's known as Brzeziński? (Compare Nicolas Copernicus and Mikołaj Kopernik.) --Kpalion 10:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps then you'd like to add to the intro blurb a small bit on proper pronunciation and the Polish spelling, distinguishing between the proper Polish and the American spelling/pronunciation which is used commonly (Zbig-new Bruh-zhin-ski vs zbeeg-niev brzheh-zeeń-ski). —thames 13:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, I added Polish spelling and pronunciation. I'm not sure about what pronunciation is most common in English so I'll leave it to someone else. --Kpalion 15:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Unless ZB had his name legally changed, I think we should refer to him as Brzeziński. Appleseed 15:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- His legal name in the United States, when he got his citizenship in 1958, is Brzezinski, with no diacritical mark. Every government document available to the public bearing his name spells it without the diacritical. In all of his published op-eds and articles in newspapers, magazines, and journals he uses his name without the diacritical. This article will not use the diacritical—it would be patently absurd to do otherwise. —thames 16:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Does the American administration accept diacrites in personal names at all? Halibutt 09:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- People can have whatever diacritics they like in their names. It's a free country. Just go to Amazon and look at his book covers. Not a single one uses the diacritic, even ones published recently when putting diacritics on letters was made easier by computers. He just doesn't use it. —thames 13:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Did you check it or is it just your assumption? I'm asking because, frankly, I never-ever saw any American name written with any diacritics. It seems that perhaps the American administration simply does not support it. In that case all name changes might in fact be done by the authorities and not by the people themselves. Halibutt 18:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- As far as I know, there is no official government policy on diacritics. I wouldn't even know where to look for for such a policy. There is, however, no policy on the official language of the United States, and as such, it is unlikely that there are any restrictions on writing one's name with the appropriate alphabet characters. In any case, the point is moot since Brzezinski does not ever use a diacritical. Here is an image of a letter he wrote on his official stationary:[2]. Note that there is no diacritic either in his typed or signed name. Here is an image of his latest book (pub. 2003) in its Czech translation (Czech uses diacritical marks):[3]. Note the diacritical marks used in the title, but not on Brzezinski's name. Again, the cover of the French translation: [4] -- no diacritics. The Turkish cover: [5] -- no diacritics. Compare his page [6] on the CSIS website to Fred Ikle's page [7] on the CSIS website: Ikle's page uses accents, Brzezinski's doesn't. If the man used diacritics on his name, don't you think there might be one example of him using it that way? None of his articles, none of his books, nothing uses the diacritic marks. Only the Polish use the spelling Brzeziński, simply because that's how the name is traditionally spelled there--but it is _not_ how he spells his name.—thames 20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry to disappoint you after you spent so much time researching the matter, but I believed in your version from the beginning :) . I was simply curious as to what is the legal status of diacrites in the US of A.
- So, is there no official language in the US? Do citizens of the US have a right to request that the local administration contacted them in their native languages? And is the US obliged by any international conventions to obey non-English diacritics in names of its citizens? I'm asking because there is a huge problem, for instance, with Polish diacrites in most of European states, and especially in the UK (which does not permit them at all) and in Lithuania (which officially does permit the local Poles to bear Polish names yet does not put them properly in the documents). Halibutt 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hopefully this will lay the issue to rest, with prejudice. I think the answer to your question about official languages in the U.S. may be answered here: Languages_in_the_United_States#Official_language_status (apparently while there's no federal language policy, individual states can set their own official languages). Strange about the EU—I was under the impression that every member's language was an "official language" according to the acquis communitaire. Perhaps it's a problem in implementation of the acquis. All the best. —thames 02:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Normalization
In fact, "normalization" of relations usually refers to the Carter/Brzezinski efforts, while "opening" or "establishment" of relations refers to Nixon/Kissinger's initiatives. Relations were not normalized under Nixon/Kissinger, they were only opened. It was under Carter/Brzezinski that relations assumed a normal diplomatic channel and character. Google searches for "Nixon normalized China" and "Carter normalized China" illustrate that the latter is in more common usage, as it has three times as many hits. —thames 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- the search is not useful without exact phrases. carter+"normalized relations"+china gets 699 while nixon+"normalized relations"+China gets 662. this suggests that "normalization" is an ambiguous term that can refer to either case. "establishment of official relations" is most clearly (note the word "official") refers to the establishment of relations in 1979.--Jiang 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
"Official" is the more ambiguous term, since it's not a proper diplomatic term. "Normalized relations" has a known diplomatic definition. What occured in 1979 was a normalization of relations. What Nixon/Kissinger did was not. "Offical" relations does not have an exact meaning in international relations parlance. —thames 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is a State Department document of remarks by Sec. State Albright referring to 1979 as the date of normalization [8]. —thames 02:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- do you have any sources to back up what you mean by "international relations parlance" and "proper diplomatic term"? do you have a textbook that defines this?
- As a simple google search demonstrates, "normalization" is frequently used to refer to the actions of Nixon in 1972. (This does not exclude it from being used to refer to 1979, but since it is being used for both, we should avoid to term.) I don't see how it can be disputed that what happened in 1979 was the establishment of official diplomatic relations. This is certaintly the usage of the Chinese press and government February 27, 2002 is the 30th anniversary of the normalization of relations between China and the United States. "30 times more than in 1979, when China and the United States established official diplomatic relations" On January 1, 1979, the United States established official diplomatic relations with China, formally recognizing the government of the PRC--Jiang 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- evidence of the term being used by authoritive sources: [9]--Jiang 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Jiang, if you read your sources you will see that normalization occurred in 1979 not 1972. The first link you provide says that in 1972 "both nations pledged to work toward full normalization of diplomatic relations" while "On December 16, 1978, the 30-year abnormal situation between the two countries came to an end". If you do searches for "official diplomatic relations" and "normalized relations" at Google Scholar you will see that there are five times as many references to normalized relations as there are to official diplomatic relations. Furthermore, in all cases, the normalization of relations between the U.S. and China are said to occur in 1979. It could not be more clear. —thames 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- there is still no evidence here that "official diplomatic relations" is improper wording.
- The first link stated "February 27, 2002 is the 30th anniversary of the normalization of relations between China and the United States" 30 years before February 27, 2002 was February 27, 1972, not 1979. The quote "both nations pledged to work toward full normalization of diplomatic relations" implied normalization to be a long standing process lasting from 1972 to 1979. This is also implied in the Shanghai Communique. This would mean that to state 1979 as the date of the normalization of relations (as is done here) would be misleading. The other links I provided were meant to illustrate the use of "official diplomatic relations" and make no reference to "normalization".
- a search on google scholar of "official relations"+China+"United States" gets 315 results while "normalized relations"+China+"United States" gets 215 results.--Jiang 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
When Brzezinski was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom it was for "the normalization of U.S.-Chinese relations" [10]. Look at this Foreign Affairs article [11]: it states that Nixon/Kissinger could not complete normalization, that it was Carter/Brzezinski that achieved the normalization of relations. "Official relations" are not mentioned in the text of the presential speech award, nor are they mentioned in the Foreign Affairs article precis. The Brzezinski article should read that he was responsible for the normalization of relations, while the Nixon/Kissinger article should say that they opened relations or that they began the normalization process. —thames 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- the reason given for removing "official diplomatic relations" given above was that it is "not a proper diplomatic term". So far, no evidence has been given to suggest this. On the contrary, I have provided evidence to show that this phrase is in widespread use.
- just because the Presidential Medal of Freedom citation and a particular Foreign Affairs article uses "normalization" does nothing to prove or imply that "official diplomatic relations" cannot be used to describe what was established in 1979. Just because these two specific texts do not use the phrase does not mean that the phrase is wrong or improper. It implies nothing.
- Furthermore, the Foreign Affairs article states, "but even the architect of America's opening to the world's most populous communist power had to leave full normalization of U.S.-Chinese ties to his heirs." The insertion of the word "full" again implies that the normalization was a process spanning the period 1972 to 1979. This is made more explicit further in the text where it characterizes 1979 as the "final step" and the "final difficult step" in the process. If the Brzezinski article reads that he (alone) was responsible for the normalization of relations, then Wikipedia will contradict Foreign Affairs which gives him credit for the "final step" and not the beginning and middle steps implied by the insertion of the phrase "final step" in the article. --Jiang 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason for removing "official diplomatic relations" was that the wording was incorrect, and far more ambiguous than the original wording of "normalized relations". If you wish to make the point that Carter/Brzezinski did the last step, then insert that point rather than changing the wording to an ill-defined poor substitute. Put in the article text in the China section that Nixon/Kissinger were responsible for the dramatic opening of relations, while Carter/Brzezinski were responsible for consolidating that initiative in finally normalizing relations.—thames 02:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I see no evidence on this talk page to suggest that "official diplomatic relations" is "incorrect" or "ambiguous". Therefore, I see no reason for removing it. Please back up the claim with links and citations. How is "official diplomatic relations" "incorrect" and "far more ambiguous" than "normalized relations"? I am not convinced here.
- The use of "official diplomatic relations" is more succinct than trying to state "the full normalization of relations." Moreover, the latter usage seems (to me) to be more ambiguous because it doesn't automatically imply diplomatic recognition. Until then, the American ambassador to China was posted to Taipei meaning that the U.S. did not recognize the PRC as a sovereign state. It wasn't just about normalized relations: it was about recognition of the PRC's legitimacy. --Jiang 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's be clear here: you are the one who removed the "normalization" wording, inserting "official diplomatic relations". However, the wording "normalization" is what is used by diplomats to describe what occurred, as can be seen in the wording of Brzezinski's Presidential Medal of Freedom award text, the Foreign Affairs article, Madeline Albright's speech, and every bio of Brzezinski available on the internet. In fact, normalization of relations does imply full diplomatic recognition. When relations were normalized the ambassador was posted to the PRC and recalled from Taipei. There's nothing ambiguous about that. Before that time, relations had not been normalized. The normalization was achieved under Carter/Brzezinski, and this article should state that. "Official diplomatic relations" is an inelegant substitute which could mean a number of things--we certainly had diplomatic relations with the PRC between Nixon's opening and normalization which were officially sanctioned by both sides--however relations were not normalized. Your change to the wording was inaccurate and unwarranted. —thames 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- you keep repeating that "official diplomatic relations" is improper wording, but I see no links to websites or published sources to suggest this. Do you have a link to back up your claims? The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations certainly uses the term "diplomatic relations". No one is calling the period before 1979 to be "established diplomatic relations" so I really don't see how it is ambiguous. Do you have evidence of people calling the relations between 1972 to 1979 to be "official diplomatic relations"? This link from the PRC embassy repeats "establishment of diplomatic relations" over and over again, mentions Brzezinski several times, to mean the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1979. The document signed between the two governments is called the "Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations". There are countless more links on official websites and published sources that use "establishment of diplomatic relations" exactly as I meant it. Is this not enough justification for the term? Are you to call the Joint Communiqué of 1979 to be inaccurate too?
- i believe "establishment of diplomatic relations" is simply a more specific and accurate term to pinpoint what happened in 1979, as opposed to what happened over the course of the 1970s in a two step process (for most countries, it is a one step process).--Jiang 19:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If you read the text of the Joint Communiqué you will find the final bullet point says quite plainly: "Both believe that normalization of Sino-American relations is not only in the interest of the Chinese and American peoples but also contributes to the cause of peace in Asia and the world." That's what the Communiqué achieved: the normalization of relations. The Chinese source you cite specifically refers to the events of 1978-79 as normalization, and in fact does so three times, using the phrase "the normalization of Sino-U.S. relations", and once more using the term "normalize". The complete term "Official diplomatic relations" appears in neither of the sources you cite. —thames 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, this Carter Center document [12] specifically refers to the event in 1979 as the normalization of relations. —thames 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Of contention here is whether "official diplomatic relations" is 1) improper/inaccurate and 2) ambiguous. You don't need to show me that "normalization of relations" can be used to describe the events terminating in 1979. I conceded that point long ago, in my second post to this page. I would like you to prove that "official diplomatic relations" is 1) improper/inaccurate and 2) ambiguous to justify not using the term.
- If you read the text of the Joint Communiqué more closely, you will see that prior to the lited points, it states that these points "reaffirm the principles agreed on by the two sides in the Shanghai Communique and emphasize once again..." (emphasis added). The 1979 Communiqué doesn't do any more to state that normalization has been achieved than the 1972 Communiqué. Both simply affirm that normalization is a good idea. It does not state "normalization has been achieved" (or something to that effect). And while Jimmy Carter would like to take all the credit for normalization ("when I normalized relations with China"), the previous links you and I have listed show that credit is not usually given solely to Mr. Carter. To give him all the credit would be POV.
- The links have been provided show that "official diplomatic relations" is in common and widespread use, even in official contexts, and is neither 1) improper/inaccurate nor 2) ambiguous. Unless there is evidence provided to the contrary, I see no reason for not using the phrase. If you prefer to slice out the word "official" from "official diplomatic relations" to be in line with the 1979 Joint Communiqué, that is fine with me too. "Official" is simply there for emphasis.--Jiang 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The term "official diplomatic relations" is improper because it is not the most commonly used phrase by authoritative sources, such as: the communique itself, brzezinski's bios, president carter, madeline albright, Foreign Affairs, etc. "Normalized relations" is the term that they use. You say that your terminology change is due to POV issues: that Carter/Brzezinski cannot claim credit for the entire process of normalization. That's fine. As I said above, if you wish to make that point, add a sentence or two in the appropriate places explaining that the process had its genesis with Nixon/Kissinger "opening" China, and that normalization was achieved later by Carter/Brzezinski. Don't make a terminology change which does not actually help the reader in understanding this point, and moreover is a term which is not used either by the principal documents or by the principal participants in the events of 1979/79.—thames 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The term "official diplomatic relations" is certainly used commonly by authoritative sources and I don't see how "normalization" is more common. It is used (as the variant "establishment of diplomatic relations") in the "Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations", in the Joint Communique of 1982 ("between the two countries on establishing diplomatic relations"), by the the PRC government ("US President George Bush...who had served under President Ford from 1974-1976 as the chief liaison officer from the US to the People's Republic of China before the establishment of diplomatic relations"). it has been used in congressional resolutions such as Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 19 ("The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China in December 1978 simultaneously issued a joint communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, wherein the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China agreed to recognize each other and to establish diplomatic relations as of January 1, 1979"), by the CIA World factbook ("With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979..."), the US state dept ("With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979"), Bill Clinton ("As we mark the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China").
- The use "diplomatic relations" instead of "normalized relations" to makes it clear to the reader that the change was one of diplomatic recognition - the official recognition of the PRC as a legitimate state. "Normalization" makes no such implication (regarding the switch in diplomatic recognition) and is unprecise because it occurred over the course of the decade. The establishment of diplomatic relations was a precise event that was the work of Carter/Brzezinski. This is an article on Brzezinski, no Sino-American relations in the 1970s. Why not use a shorter term/explanation when there is nothing wrong with it? I don't see anything wrong with it.--Jiang 09:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Normalization did not recognize the PRC as a legitimate state. Normalization acknowledged that the PRC was the legitimate government of the state of China. The United States never stopped recognition of the state of China, but it did switch recognition from the Nationalist government to the Communist government. Its relations with the PRC were "diplomatic relations" before 1979, but they were not normalized. That's why saying that 1979 achieved the establishment of diplomatic relations misleads the reader, and why normalization of relations is the more precise term. As before, if you want to make the point that the process of achieving normalized relations was begun with Nixon/Kissinger opening China by all means add that to the article. But the achievement of normalization occurred under Carter/Brzezinski: that's the language that they use to describe the event, that's the language in the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award, and that's the language in the Joint Communique itself. —thames 23:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brzezinski's address
Brzezinski's address is well known and has been published on the internet by Fairfax County numerous times--as early as 2002:
http://www.fairfax.va.us/pcom/calendar/CalendarJan02.pdf
The information regarding the easement negotiations has been published in the Washington Post and should be included.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801133.html
- Your link is broken, but I think this is what you are referring to. However, we have a Presumption in favor of privacy, which is official Wikipedia policy. I think that putting his exact address in the encyclopedia is a violation of privacy, and adds little or no value to the article. Whether the information is available elsewhere is immaterial to whether it should be placed here. However, I will add a link and a sentence regarding the land dispute to the article.—thames 21:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flag Event
Brzezinski Suggests False Flag Event Could Kick-Start Iran War. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.21.232.236 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Zbigniew Brzezinsk's Testimony February 1, 2007
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI February 1, 2007
Mr. Chairman:
Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.
It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:
1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.
2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.
This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran -- though gaining in regional influence -- is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.
One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.
It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction. There is in fact a dominant consensus in favor of a change: American public opinion now holds that the war was a mistake; that it should not be escalated, that a regional political process should be explored; and that an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation is an essential element of the needed policy alteration and should be actively pursued. It is noteworthy that profound reservations regarding the Administration's policy have been voiced by a number of leading Republicans. One need only invoke here the expressed views of the much admired President Gerald Ford, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and several leading Republican senators, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith among others.
The urgent need today is for a strategy that seeks to create a political framework for a resolution of the problems posed both by the US occupation of Iraq and by the ensuing civil and sectarian conflict. Ending the occupation and shaping a regional security dialogue should be the mutually reinforcing goals of such a strategy, but both goals will take time and require a genuinely serious U.S. commitment.
The quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq should involve four steps:
1. The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time.
Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony. Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.
2. The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.
It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders -- including those who do not reside within "the Green Zone" -- in a serious discussion regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond "the Green Zone" can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi regime, characterized by the Bush administration as "representative of the Iraqi people," defines itself largely by its physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as "the Green Zone."
3. The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding regional stability.
The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq's neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region's security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive -- and mainly sloganeering -- U.S. diplomacy.
A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S., could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region's stability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider dialogue.
4. Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.
The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel's enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state. Only an external and activist intervention can promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional hegemony.
After World War II, the United States prevailed in the defense of democracy in Europe because it successfully pursued a long-term political strategy of uniting its friends and dividing its enemies, of soberly deterring aggression without initiating hostilities, all the while also exploring the possibility of negotiated arrangements. Today, America's global leadership is being tested in the Middle East. A similarly wise strategy of genuinely constructive political engagement is now urgently needed.
It is also time for the Congress to assert itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.207.65 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Private life?
How about his private life? Many other articles contain references to wife, children, home town, religion, interests, etc. Ran9876 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Find a reputable published source that can be cited. Personal information is the most sensitive type of information, and ought to have the highest standards. See WP:BLP.—Perceval 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Manichaean Paranoia
RE quote from main article:
- "[President George W. Bush] has a vision which can be described with two other words: Manichaean paranoia ... the notion that he is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil, that in that setting, the fact that we are morally superior justifies us committing immoral acts. And that is a very dangerous posture for the country that is the number one global power. ... The fact is he squandered our credibility, our legitimacy, and even respect for our power." The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, March 14, 2007.
Use of this term betrays Brzezinski's misunderstanding of the situation. Our fear is not an unreasoning fear (paranoia) or Manichaean (the idea that one's moral superiority justifies one in committing immoral acts). Since when is proactive self defense against a potential nuclear holocaust or nuclear blackmail immoral? Perhaps we could say that we are less morally inferior.
Europeans have already lost their right to free speech and in particular, political free speech when they cannot criticize Islamists in print or cartoon without fear of terrorist reprisal. They may find they have lost their right to self defense as well, when the time for that arrives. Tobyw 12:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infoboxes
There is no Wikipedia article policy to put small infoboxes to the right of text that say "For more information on...see..." This is rather distracting and defeats the purpose of wikilinking in the main text.
I think that the infoboxes should be removed.--Mcattell 22:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quotations
The list of quotations has grown excessively long. We should make sure they are all in Wikiquotes and then remove all of them or perhaps leave a few of the most famous/important. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Political endorsements
What is the Wikipedia policy on reporting political endorsements? I ask this because I know that articles for prominent figures that have endorsed candidates do have those endorsements, such as [Madeleine Albright]'s article:
- She has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for the President of the United States and supports her campaign for the White House. Albright has been a close personal friend of Sen. Clinton and serves as her top informal advisor on foreign policy matters.
However, I noticed that this section was removed from this article:
- Brzezinski announced on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt" that he was supporting Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois for president. (see[13]).
It was removed by Milkbreath with the following rationale: "removed political ad from "Public life"--not on a par with other items"
What I'm wondering is how the content from Albright's article passes but the content from Brzezinski doesn't. Both of them have clearly endorsed their respective candidates. I don't see how including that information constitutes a political ad unless it is in the form that one apparent Obama supporter originally added near the front of the article:
- On Aug 24th, 2007, Brzezinski threw his support behind Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, saying the Illinois senator has a better global grasp than his chief rival, Hillary Clinton.
- Obama ``recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world, Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.
- ``Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand, he said. ``He has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.
- Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. ``Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president, Brzezinski said.
- Clinton's foreign-policy approach is ``very conventional, Brzezinski said. ``I don't think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.
- ``There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs, he added. ``And Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America's relationship with the world.
Obviously, Milkbreath was correct to remove this, because it is a political ad, but it is not clear that the section removed from Public life was. I think that it would be good to discuss this. Alethiareg 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, it's Milkbreath. The first undo had been put in by an unlogged-in user and was, as you say, an obvious transgression. The second, similar, more subtle one came later that same day and was put in by a certain Deuscapturus. I looked at his user pages, and this was the only edit he had ever made. I decided that it was the same person trying to slip a political endorsement past us, so I whacked it, too. I stand by that, and I'll do it again if anybody tries that again. I have no idea about the Albright thing, but I'll go look at it now, and I might remove it, too.
- I'm surprised that the brief explanation accompanying the undo was insufficient. Here is the section as it stands:
-
- "Public life
- Brzezinski is a past member of the board of directors of Amnesty International, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Atlantic Council, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
-
- He was formerly a director of the Trilateral Commission (see[1]), now serving only on the executive committee, and was formerly a boardmember of Freedom House.
-
- He is currently a trustee and counselor for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a board member for the American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus (see [2]), on the advisory board of America Abroad Media (see [3]), and on the advisory board of Partnership for a Secure America (see[4])."
- And here is what Deuscapturus put in:
-
- "Brzezinski announced on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt" that he was supporting Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois for president. (see[5])."
- This factiod was incongruous with the others, at the very least. Start a new section called "Brzenzinski's endorsements of Democratic candidates for the upcoming presidential conventions and elections", and put that single item in there. See if that flies. --Milkbreath 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Me, again. I got to wondering whether there was a Wikipedia policy on political boosterism as such, and the closest thing to that I could find was "What Wikipedia is not." It is not a soapbox, evidently:
- "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not:
-
- Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]
- Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete."
- It seems I followed this policy without knowing it. The pertinent part is "put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective." As for the entry on the Albright page, I left it there after reading it in situ because the writer ties Albright's endorsement to her ongoing involvement with Clinton the distaff. This does put it in a reasonable perspective. I don't like it much, and I still think it is the work of a Clinton campaigner, but I must assume good faith like the good Wikipedian I try ever so hard to be. --Milkbreath 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] There are Russian claims suggesting that Brzezinski is a Russophobe
And these are serious enough to warrant their inclusion under a section called criticism. This article also lacks some rather disturbing facts on the former secretary of state -- including his involvement in the "Peace in the Caucasus" organization that attempts to shift the blame from the actual perpetrators of events like Beslan to the Russian government. Zbig also opposes congressional recognition of the Armenian genocide -- rendering any "neutrality" he may bring to the Caucasus lacking in credibility. The lack of a criticism section in this piece makes it less useful than it could be. Jackkalpakian 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)--Jackkalpakian 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
Is it possible to update his picture? He's alive and the last time I saw him on T.V., he actually looked better than in this High School yearbook depiction. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- AFAIK that's his White House picture. If you can find a free image please do add it.—Perceval 01:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Policy on Afghanistan
It suggests in the Afghanistan section that Brzezinski and Carter supported the Mujahedeen in reaction to the Soviet incursion. This is not true, and in soviet war in afghanistan article, it states this. The US support for the Mujahedeen began on July 3, 1978. There is a quote from Brzezinski regarding this fact. The relevant text from the article is as follows:
- Like many other anti-communist movements at that time, the rebels quickly garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1978, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.
Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:
We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.[18]
There is a problem, however, as the source #18 does not seem to work. Either the server is busted, or the page is restricted. Can we find some more sources to back this up for the improvement of both articles? I'm gonna keep my eye out for more evidence. Thanks.72.78.23.18 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- This was in Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
- The url for a translation to English is http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
- cooperative research has quite a bit including this on Zbigniew Brzezinski
Wmb1957 (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

