Category: America

Obama Adviser Brzezinski’s Off-the-record Speech to British Elites

Written by William F. Jasper

Friday, 21 November 2008 13:31

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a senior adviser to President-elect Barack Obama on matters of national security and foreign policy, was the featured speaker at Chatham House in London on November 17, 2008. The title of his lecture was “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President.” Although Chatham House events are known to attract “the great and the good” of England’s political, financial, and academic elites — as well as many of its top media representatives — there has been virtually no word as to what Brzezinski had to say in any of the world’s press.

Type “Brzezinski” and “Chatham” into your Internet search engines and you will come up with … virtually zilch, nada, nothing.

The esteemed Times of London had only this to say on November 16, the day before the lecture: “Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser … will give an address tomorrow at Chatham House, the international relations think tank, in London.” No report on the event the day after — or since. Ditto for the Telegraph, the BBC, and other British media. Same for the U.S. media: no reports in the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CNS, CNN, Fox, etc.

This is but the latest example of the hermetic seal known as the “Chatham House Rule,” which states:

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

Chatham House, in St. James Square, London, is the headquarters of the powerful Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), founded in 1920 as the principal front organization of the secret Round Table network of Cecil Rhodes, famous for his fabulous wealth from Africa’s gold and diamond mines. The RIIA was founded in conjunction with its sister organization in the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is headquartered at the Pratt House in New York. Pratt House also has formally adopted the Chatham House Rule, as has the U.S. State Department (which has been dominated by CFR members for seven decades) and other U.S. agencies.

Thus, we frequently have top U.S. officials speaking privately to audiences of American and foreign elites concerning matters of great importance to the American people, but the content of those talks is off-limits to the American public. This especially should be a matter of concern if the matters these elites are discussing involve plans that will dramatically impact our society, our economy, and our political system.

Brzezinski and his friends at the RIIA and CFR assure us that nothing of the sort ever happens at these gatherings. However, I did attend one of Brzezinski’s lectures at a globalist conference, where the content certainly was disturbing. It was Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1995 State of the World Forum in San Francisco, and Brzezinski was one of the key speakers. He was frustrated that the new millennium was only five years away, but his long-sought goal of world government was still far off. “We do not have a new world order,” he told the audience, a veritable Who’s Who of world finance, business, politics, media, and academia. “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step,” Brzezinski noted. Attaining that objective, he explained, would require a gradual process of “globalization,” building the new world order “step by step, stone by stone” through “progressive regionalization.”

Through his writings — as well as his policies while President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser — Brzezinski has demonstrated that he is committed to the globalist world view of the RIIA/CFR and the Trilateral Commission (which he helped found, becoming its first director) rather than the constitutionalist view of our Founding Fathers. Rather than a sovereign, independent, constitutional republic, he is committed to a “new world order” that proposes steadily encroaching international controls and institutions, leading gradually, steadily to an America that is submerged and subsumed in a world government.

Those familiar with the writings, speeches, policies, and public records of the many public figures who attend (and speak before) these globalist gatherings understand that Brzezinski’s views on these matters are not his alone; they are shared by many (if not most) of those in attendance. They are the people who set policies and determine the course our nation will take. They prattle regularly about their commitment to “transparency” in government. Yet they themselves speak at off-the-record gatherings such as the recent Chatham House event where Brzezinski was the featured speaker.

Source: www.thenewamerican.com, 21 November 2008

[This is what Chatham House website has about the event -h]

The Whitehead Lecture: Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President

Monday 17 November 2008 18:30 to 19:30

Location

Held at Chatham House

Participants

Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski, Counselor and Trustee, Center for Strategic and International Studies; National Security Advisor to the President of the United States (1977-81)

Type: Members event

In the wake of the US election the speaker will discuss the major foreign policy issues which will confront the incoming President from the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the competitive pursuit of resources.

This event will be followed by an open reception.

Resources:

Meeting Recording
Q&A Recording

Source: www.chathamhouse.org.uk

November 24, 2008
2025: The End of US Dominance

• US intelligence: ‘We can no longer call shots alone’
• European Union will be ‘hobbled giant’ by 2025
• Triumph of western democracy not certain

The country Obama inherits, the report warns, will no longer be able to 'call the shots' alone in an increasingly multipolar world.

The United States‘ leading intelligence organisation has warned that the world is entering an increasingly unstable and unpredictable period in which the advance of western-style democracy is no longer assured, and some states are in danger of being “taken over and run by criminal networks”.

The global trends review, produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) every four years, represents sobering reading in Barack Obama‘s intray as he prepares to take office in January. The country he inherits, the report warns, will no longer be able to “call the shots” alone, as its power over an increasingly multipolar world begins to wane.

Looking ahead to 2025, the NIC (which coordinates analysis from all the US intelligence agencies), foresees a fragmented world, where conflict over scarce resources is on the rise, poorly contained by “ramshackle” international institutions, while nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East, and even nuclear conflict grow more likely.

“Global Trends 2025: A World Transformed” warns that the spread of western democratic capitalism cannot be taken for granted, as it was by George Bush and America’s neoconservatives.

“No single outcome seems preordained: the Western model of economic liberalism, democracy and secularism, for example, which many assumed to be inevitable, may lose its lustre – at least in the medium term,” the report warns.

It adds: “Today wealth is moving not just from West to East but is concentrating more under state control,” giving the examples of China and Russia.

“In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, the state’s role in the economy may be gaining more appeal throughout the world.”

At the same time, the US will become “less dominant” in the world – no longer the unrivalled superpower it has been since the end of the Cold War, but a “first among equals” in a more fluid and evenly balanced world, making the unilateralism of the Bush era no longer tenable.

The report predicts that over the next two decades “the multiplicity of influential actors and distrust of vast power means less room for the US to call the shots without the support of strong partnerships.”

It is a conclusion that meshes with president elect Obama’s stated preference for multilateralism, but the NIC findings suggest that as the years go by it could be harder for Washington to put together “coalitions of the willing” to pursue its agenda.

International organisations, like the UN, seem ill-prepared to fill the vacuum left by receding American power, at a time of multiple potential crises driven by climate change the increasing scarcity of resources like oil, food and water. Those institutions “appear incapable of rising to the challenges without concerted efforts from their leaders” it says.

In an unusually graphic illustration of a possible future, the report presents an imaginary “presidential diary entry” from October 1, 2020, that recounts a devastating hurricane, fuelled by global warming, hitting New York in the middle of the UN’s annual general assembly.

“I guess we had it coming, but it was a rude shock,” the unnamed president writes. “Some of the scenes were like the stuff from the World War II newsreels, only this time it was not Europe but Manhattan. Those images of the US aircraft carriers and transport ships evacuating thousands in the wake of the flooding still stick in my mind.”

As he flies off for an improvised UN reception on board an aircraft carrier, the imaginary future president admits: “The cumulation of disasters, permafrost melting, lower agricultural yields, growing health problems, and the like are taking a terrible toll, much greater than we anticipated 20 years ago.”

The last time the NIC published its quadrennial glimpse into the future was December 2004. President Bush had just been re-elected and was preparing his triumphal second inauguration that was to mark the high-water mark for neoconservatism. That report matched the mood of the times.

It was called Mapping the Global Future, and looked forward as far as 2020 when it projected “continued US dominance, positing that most major powers have forsaken the idea of balancing the US”.

That confidence is entirely lacking from this far more sober assessment. Also gone is the belief that oil and gas supplies “in the ground” were “sufficient to meet global demand”. The new report views a transition to cleaner fuels as inevitable. It is just the speed that is in question.

The NIC believes it is most likely that technology will lag behind the depletion of oil and gas reserves. A sudden transition, however, will bring problems of its own, creating instability in the Gulf and Russia.

While emerging economies like China, India and Brazil are likely to grow in influence at America’s expense, the same cannot be said of the European Union. The NIC appears relatively certain the EU will be “losing clout” by 2025. Internal bickering and a “democracy gap” separating Brussels from European voters will leave the EU “a hobbled giant”, unable to translate its economic clout into global influence.

Disaster diary

An imaginary diary entry written by a future US president, produced to illustrate a climate-change disaster:

Those images of US aircraft carriers evacuating thousands in the wake of flooding stick in my mind. Why must the hurricane season coincide with the UN general assembly in New York?

It’s bad enough that this had to happen; it was doubly embarrassing that half the world’s leaders were here to witness it. I guess the problem is we had counted on this not happening, at least not yet.

• Read the full National Intelligence Council global trends review (pdf)

Guardian

November 21, 2008
LECTURE- Rebiya Kadeer, Human Rights in Xinjiang, MSU, East Lansing, Nov. 20

Talk Announcement:

Human Rights in Xinjiang and the Plight of Uyghurs

A talk by Rebiya Kadeer, president of the World Uyghur Congress and a
Nobel Peace Prize candidate

Time: 3:30 pm
Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008
Place: 201 International Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Sponsored by the Michigan State University (MSU)
Center for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies
and the Muslim Studies Program

For more information contact:
Timur Kocaoglu, office phone: 517-884-2169
E-mail: [email protected]

November 20, 2008
The Sarah Palin affair: World should breathe a sigh of relief

By Ferruh Demirmen

Anyone who thought that the U.S. 2008 Republican National Convention held in Saint Paul, Minnesota last September would be a dull event, got a big jolt of surprise when the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin walked onto the stage and delivered a rousing speech to a frenzied crowd. With gusto, a shrilly voice and an ever-present smile, amid catch phrases such as pit bull, lipstick, and hockey mom, she charmed and galvanized the Republican base – who had hardly heard of her, let alone know her.

It was the start of a political soap opera that lasted until the elections on November 4. It was quite entertaining to watch.

But beneath it all, lay the frightening possibility that this newly discovered political cheer leader, coming from nowhere, as it were, could one day be the President the United States, in effect the leader of the free world. After all, the Presidential candidate Senator John McCain was 72 years old, and if he won the race and died or became incapacitated while in office, Palin was next in line to assume the presidency.

The fact that the elections, as they turned out, removed the possibility of Palin becoming the President, is something the world should feel very relieved about.

Who was Sarah Palin? A 45-year old governor of Alaska (population 670,000), ex-mayor of Wasilla (pop. 6,700), one-time runner-up for Miss Alaska, nicknamed “Sarah Barracuda,” with 5 children, married to a husband she calls “First Dude,” an ultra- conservative Republican, in fact an evangelist, and a shopaholic with a keen eye for expensive clothes and jewelry she could not afford. She was a moose hunter and a lifetime member of NRA (National Rifle Association).

She talked lavishly of love of country and family values (never mind that her unmarried teenage daughter was 5 months pregnant), who had put her life in “God’s hand,” called Iraq war “God’s plan,” the Alaska gas pipeline “God’s will,” and the eventuality of her moving to a higher office “God’s calling.”

All this foreshadowed the possibility that another anti-science, anti-progress, anti-environment president with a faith-based agenda could soon occupy the White House. It would be quite a trip from igloo to White House.

Amid slogans “Drill baby, drill,” she talked of “energy independence” ad nauseam as though she is the all-time visionary on energy. A compulsive talker, she had a habit of giving long-winded, often irrelevant answers to questions from the media. When things did not go her way, she blamed the media, and post-election, called McCain aides “jerks.”

What was most striking about her utterances were that they contained lots of sound bites but little substance.

Such idiosyncrasies are not too unusual for politicians, even for those running for high office. Politicians do not always come from the cream of the crowd. But there was something uniquely special about Governor Palin: She had no foreign policy experience, and this did not seem to bother her. Her scant knowledge of the world made President George W. Bush look like a guru in international relations.

Palin was utterly unprepared to be Vice President, let alone President. She had never met a head of state, and she barely left her native Alaska. First time she got a passport was in 2007 when she visited US troops (Alaskan National Guard) in Kuwait and Germany. Her spokesperson said that she also visited Ireland. It was later discovered that the Ireland “trip” was a short refueling stop at the Shannon airport on return from Germany.

To boost her foreign policy credentials, Palin cited Alaska’s proximity to Canada and Russia. During a televised interview on CBS, she told a bewildered Katie Couric: “We have trade missions back and forth. We — we do — it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where — where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border.”

It was a shocking performannce.

To repair the damage, McCain’s staff gave her crash courses on foreign affairs and arranged a whirlwind tour of New York City and the UN to meet Henry Kissinger and a few world leaders. There were plenty of photo-ops. Incredulously, Kissinger endorsed her candidacy for the VP position. But her image did not recover.

Lawrence Eagleburger, an ex-Secretary of State who strongly endorsed McCain’s candidacy, when asked during a radio interview whether Palin was prepared to assume presidency, his spontaneous response was: “Of course not.” It was a frank and bleak assessment. Realizing that he was talking about McCain’s running mate, Eagleburger subsequently qualified his assessment.

Rumors, which she denied, circulated toward the end of the campaign that Palin thought Africa was a country, not a continent. Someone suggested jokingly that she move to southern France so she can gaze southward and learn about Africa.

In every humor there is an element of truth.

Only McCain, a maverick himself, knows why, after meeting her only once, chose Palin as his Vice-Presidential mate. One would think that picking a VP running mate would require thorough vetting. Evidently what he though he needed was a cheer leader. McCain never admitted that he had made a big mistake.

Now that the presidential race is over, the world can breathe a sigh of relief that Sarah Palin will not be one heartbeat away from the presidency. The consequences of a wayward or dangerous U.S. foreign policy and its impact on world peace under her leadership, if it were to be, are discomforting to imagine. Considering her huge ego and high ambition, of course, Palin may return to the national stage in 2012 with a vengeance. Still, that is four years from now, and a lot can happen during that time.

But imagine for a moment, if the McCain-Palin ticket had won and by some accident Palin had moved to the White House in 2010, the following tete-a-tete conversation on world affairs taking place between Palin-the-President and Vladimir Putin, by that time the president of Russia again:

Putin: “Madam President, we in Russia took matters very seriously when two years ago the U.S. encouraged Georgia to send military troops to …”

Palin, interrupting: “No, Mr. President, Georgia would never do that. O.K., Georgia fought in our Civil War, hmm, in 18 …, well, whatever …, but that is all over now. Georgia now is a very peace-loving state in our great nation. I have never visited Georgia, but I know they grow delicious peaches there, and my First Dude and I sometimes have peach pie a-la-mode after moose chili. Also, …”

Putin, interrupting: “Madam President, when I said Georgia, I meant The Caucuses.”

Palin: “Well, of course, caucuses. We have no problem with caucuses. When the Republican Iowa caucuses were held in January 2008, you know I was not included in the selection process, but, like, God wanted me to serve my country and asked me to plow through the campaign, and … God knows, we never wanted to make trouble for Russia, you are our neighbor to our great state of Alaska.”

Putin: “Madam President, I was also going to raise our concern about the missile issue, but…”

Palin, interrupting, with a big smile: “Let’s talk about missiles, I mean, auw, mistletoes, at Christmas.”

[email protected]

November 19, 2008
Turkey’s diplomatic offensive: no time for second thoughts

By The Daily Star

Iran’s expression of open-mindedness to Turkish mediation between itself and the United States is the latest evidence of Ankara’s increasing indispensability, at least for those who prefer negotiated solutions over imposed remedies for the Middle East’s many quandaries. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been especially active in recent months, parlaying improvements in Turkey’s relations with Syria to broker contacts between that country and Israel, for instance, and working behind the scenes to help defuse tensions in Lebanon this past May. These endeavors have been acutely helpful given the poor state of ties between the West and Syria, which until the past few years had positioned itself a bridge between Iran and France. With Damascus only now emerging from isolation imposed since 2005, Turkey’s role has been essential, and Erdogan has not limited it to the Middle East: He has also sought to make Turkey a fulcrum for the development of cooperation in the Caucasus.

The strategy is not without risks: Every project Ankara adopts stretches its diplomatic resources and creates expectations. The potential payoffs, however, are enormous: Apart from the general shared benefits to be derived from greater stability in its neighborhood, Turkey also stands to reap considerable revenues from pipelines crossing its territory from areas previously seen as untouchables because of their instability and/or poor relationships with other partners. This is not to mention all the goodwill that the Turks stand to generate by helping to end conflicts among its neighbors or between some of them and outside powers.

Turkey’s conspicuous raising of its public profile means that its prestige is invested, and Erdogan has taken something of a personal gamble by doing what many hope US President-elect Barack Obama will do when he takes office in January: He has de-emphasized interactions with some of Turkey’s traditional partners and turned away from some of the policy priorities pursued by successive governments before his. His own reputation is therefore in play, and by extension that of his party – which has not been without determined enemies at home.

Given all of the foregoing, this is no time for second thoughts. Turkey needs to undertake even more of the active diplomacy that Erdogan has overseen if it is to meet the expectations it has created at home and abroad. Overall, no country is better-equipped to serve as a moderator in a “dialogue of civilizations” that is more necessary than ever. And if Obama fulfills even part of his promise as an agent for change, Erdogan might even have an enthusiastic colleague in the White House.

#

November 18, 2008
ERDOGAN VISITS THE UNITED STATES: ECONOMY AND RELATIONS WITH OBAMA ON THE AGENDA

By Saban Kardas

Monday, November 17, 2008

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited the United States to attend the G-20 Summit, where he joined the leaders of developed and industrializing nations to discuss the global financial crisis. In addition to his participation in the summit activities, Erdogan held bilateral meetings with several world leaders.

In his public statements throughout the trip, Erdogan underlined the importance of international cooperation in fighting the global crisis. Having emphasized the experience that Turkey had gathered from its own economic recovery programs as a result of the devastating crises of the 1990s and early-2000s, Erdogan maintained that his country represented a hope and a model for those countries seeking a way out of the current crisis (www.akparti.org.tr, November 13; Yeni Safak, November 16).

These inflated statements aside, how the AKP government will cope with the global financial crisis and whether it will seek help from the IMF had been matters of debate (EDM, October 31). Since the AKP came to power in 2002, reducing Turkey’s dependence on the IMF has been one of the government’s primary economic goals. The AKP has been arguing that Turkey could overcome the current crisis without significant support from the international community. Since the previous stand-by agreement with the IMF expired in May, Turkey has been resisting another arrangement with the IMF because of the strict fiscal conditions it would impose (New York Times, November 7).

During the G-20 Summit Erdogan met with Managing Director of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn on November 14, and their teams had additional talks on November 15. Erdogan also met the President of the World Bank Robert Zoellick. The World Bank is expected to increase credits to Turkey to support various projects dealing with small and medium-sized enterprises and renewable energy (www.cnnturk.com; Anatolian Agency, November 15).

The statements coming from both sides following the meeting between Erdogan and Strauss-Kahn indicate that Turkey might be reversing its stubborn position on IMF aid. Both parties stressed that Turkey would maintain cooperation with the IMF in the future. Economic sources speculated that a new stand-by agreement worth $15 to $20 billion might be signed soon, although differences of opinion remain about the extent and kind of IMF aid to Turkey (www.tgrthaber.com.tr, November 16; Today’s Zaman, November 17). Experts believe that the decision, albeit late, to start negotiations with the IMF is a step in the right direction (Referans, November 17).

Erdogan also gave two public talks, in which he outlined the parameters of the new activism in Turkish foreign policy and Turkey’s strategic partnership with the United States, as well as developments in domestic politics. On November 13 Erdogan spoke at a conference at Columbia University, entitled “Turkey’s Role in Shaping the Future” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, November 14). On November 14 Erdogan discussedTurkish foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. During these addresses, he congratulated U.S. President-elect Barack Obama and emphasized that Turkey was ready to work with the new administration, provided that it was sensitive to Turkey’s priorities.

On relations with Armenia, Erdogan repeated Turkey’s position that the issue must be dealt with by the parties concerned through channels of dialogue already established. He warned the incoming administration not to let ethnic lobbies dictate American policy and spoil bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States (Hurriyet Daily News, November 17).

On the issue of nuclear proliferation and Iran, Erdogan highlighted Turkey’s new-found role as peace broker and criticized U.S.-led efforts against Tehran. Earlier in the week, the New York Times reported that Erdogan had offered to mediate between Iran and the incoming Obama administration (New York Times, November 11). During his talk at the Brookings Institution, Erdogan said that given the trust Turkey had built up with Iran, it was better positioned than the EU’s troika to facilitate talks with Tehran. Some of his remarks on this issue were, however, more controversial. Erdogan maintained that trying to force Iran to drop its nuclear program while other countries maintained nuclear arsenals was no ground for reducing tension. He instead urged the countries pressuring Iran to eliminate such weapons themselves, which would be a better basis for a comprehensive solution (www.cnnturk.com, November 15). Erdogan’s call for “total nuclear disarmament” has been criticized as a fundamental deviation from Turkey’s official position (Milliyet, November 15).

On the issue of Iraq, Erdogan emphasized Turkey’s positive contributions to the reconstruction efforts there. He criticized Obama for setting a clear exit date, however. He expressed concerns about a premature American withdrawal, arguing that Iraq’s infrastructure had not matured enough. (Cihan Haber Ajansi, November 14). U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesman Robert Wood criticized Erdogan’s assessment as overly pessimistic (Washington Times, November 15).

There were questions about whether Erdogan would meet Obama during the trip; but because Obama has decided not to meet foreign leaders before his inauguration, Erdogan searched out people who were likely to shape Obama’s policies. In a separate meeting during his visit, Erdogan met with Obama’s advisers Madeline Albright, Jim Leach, and Philip Gordon (Yeni Safak, November 15). Some Turkish observers believe that the choice of the Brookings Institute as the venue of Erdogan’s speech in Washington, D.C., was also part of Turkey’s attempts to influence the incoming administration. Veteran journalist Cengiz Candar noted that despite its non-partisan position, Brookings was regarded as a pro-Democrat organization and many Brookings specialists, such as Philip Gordon, who were familiar with Turkey may end up working in the new administration (Referans, November 15; Today’s Zaman, November 17). Another senior analyst, Semih Idiz, however, argued that Erdogan’s controversial statements on Iran might ironically rock the boat, just as Erdogan was seeking to build bridges (Milliyet, November 17).

Only time will tell whether “think-tank diplomacy” will put Turkish-American relations on the right track. In any case, given Erdogan’s critical position on Obama’s declared policies, it will be interesting to see how the new administration will manage relations with Turkey.

November 17, 2008