Choice of world domination or global leadership. Zbigniew Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski.

"Choice: world domination or global leadership”, 2004.

The work of one of the most prominent American political scientists of our time, Z. Brzezinski, is devoted to the problem of self-determination of the United States in the modern world. The dilemma is in the title.
The book was written in 2004 and since then the author has changed his point of view on some positions.

Brzezinski has long been an odious figure in world political science, largely due to the creation of his global strategy of anti-communism and the theory of the technotronic era. He is highly regarded in the States and hated in the territory. former Union. He was even labeled as a person who “quarreled” the West with the Soviets and was credited with almost a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, in my opinion, those who are sure that the CIA and ideologues like Brzezinski were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet empire greatly overestimate the abilities of both. There was no need to break up a system that was already barely breathing. And if the secret services and political scientists, like Brzezinski, had a hand in this process, then their merit in this case is not great. But that is not the point and the book is about other problems.

Brzezinski poses before the world, and before the United States in the first place, a serious question - on what basis should America conduct its foreign policy and how should it ensure its own security and the security of the whole world. Yes, yes, you heard right, Brzezinski seriously believes that this moment The United States is precisely the power that ensures security and stability throughout the world. Moreover, given the role of the world's guarantor of stability, the United States has reason to seek greater security for itself than any other country in the world. No matter how crazy and absurd this idea may seem, Mr. Brzezinski very confidently and consistently substantiates his main thesis.

Indeed, it is hard to argue with the fact that at the moment America is the strongest power in the world. In almost every sense. In addition, Brzezinski believes, the United States is a vivid and illustrative example of the embodiment of democracy in our world. And it is precisely the prosperity and purely positive image of the New World that causes a feeling of envy in some part of the rest of the world, sometimes turning into hostility and even outright anti-Americanism. And this, according to Brzezinski, can become global problem for America. Especially considering the fact that last years The states have become the "guide" of democracy throughout the world.

For Brzezinski, the world today is a bomb with a scorched fuse. It is clear that the wick is located in the Middle East and the main task now is to put out this wick. True, we must pay tribute, according to the author, this should be made the softest of all possible ways. But the political scientist does not exclude the “hot” method of resolving the problem, therefore, according to Brzezinski, military power becomes the main evaluative category of influence of any power in the world. And the build-up of this power becomes an assessment of the potential influence of a power in the world. Thus, Brzezinski cannot part with the good old days of the Cold War, when the development of the military-industrial complex was justified by the “red threat”; it's just that one of the players has changed in this bipolar system today. The most interesting thing is that Brzezinski himself is partially aware of the fact that in the modern world the United States does not have a personalized enemy, all his reasoning revolves around theoretical and potential, sometimes ephemeral threats from an imaginary enemy, whether it be a pseudo-nuclear Iran, a fundamentalist Iraq or an unstable North Korea also striving to become nuclear power. By the way, as a Russophobe, Brzezinski does not take seriously (even purely theoretically) the threat from Russia, which he reduces in his calculations to a country with a status similar to that of Germany and Japan after the defeat in World War II. However, apart from Brzezinski's obviously haughty tone and his own national feelings, it can be noted that, for the most part, his analysis of the state of Russia is not far from true position of things.

Thus, Brzezinski, in his reasoning, surrounding America (mostly far-fetched) with all sorts of enemies and ill-wishers, comes to the conclusion that the United States is now in a state of vulnerability (and, of course, he cites the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack as proof of his position) , and this vulnerability must be urgently neutralized by any possible means.

However, in the end, Brzezinski, nevertheless, comes to the conclusion that for America, cooperation with the European Union, and later with China, is simply vital. For hegemony on the rights of the strong will inevitably weaken the United States, as it will require much greater costs, and besides, it will lead to a decline in America's prestige and the development of anti-American sentiments. The European Union, according to the author, despite its economic viability, is weak in the military sense and in the event of a conflict with the Middle East (why on earth, you ask?), In this sense, it is dependent on the United States. China, despite its rapid development, is still an unstable country, largely due to class inequality and heavy dependence on the American consumer market. So, according to Brzezinski, the convergence of these players on the world stage is inevitable if we want to maintain stability around the world. Of course, the United States has a key role to play in this multilateral cooperation, but, according to the political scientist, the States should be more of a mentor and older brother than an overseer and exploiter.

In all this, it is not difficult to see signs of paranoia, however, the European public has not taken Brzezinski seriously for a long time. But in vain. The fact is that behind many frankly demagogistic calculations, Brzezinski has very sober thoughts. And the assignment of Brzezinski to America such a special role in the world is explained, as it turned out later, by the banal (but healthy) patriotism of the author. If you follow Brzezinski's latest publications and read his interviews, it becomes obvious that today he is one of the most zealous critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Brzezinski emphasizes the fact that America, being, in his opinion, the "guide" of democracy in the world, itself begins to lose one after another the signs of a democratic society. The paranoia and fear instilled by the authorities with the help of the media become the cause of the destabilization of society, and the demonization of the Muslim world leads to a distorted perception of the global situation in the eyes of ordinary Americans in the spirit of "the struggle between good and evil." And the film industry plays, according to Brzezinski, an important role here. Moreover, the absence of any kind of personalization of this very “evil” allows one to interfere almost arbitrarily in the affairs of other states, veiling such interference with high-flown rhetoric and demagoguery. According to Brzezinski, the personal interests of individual political players are beginning to prevail over the interests of not only the American people, but also the interests of the world. Brzezinski now resembles a person who is simply ashamed of his state, in which he believed so strongly that he was ready to infringe on, and sometimes even openly humiliate other states and nations in his works and theories. He is still desperately trying to point out ways to correct America, but the problem is that in Europe they do not tolerate him, and in the States they are now considered an outdated warrior of the Carter era, whose speeches are like a broken record. Having so successfully served the authorities in the 70s and 90s, now he has become only a hindrance, because the entire power of his intellect has now fallen upon those who are in power.

One of the most remarkable chapters in the book is the chapter on the problems of globalization. This is perhaps the best (I have read) vision of what constitutes the process of globalization. Brzezinski, on the one hand, sharply criticizes the anti-globalists, showing their strategic blindness, on the other hand, he notes the “asymmetry” of the globalization process, side effects and the contradictions of which are becoming more and more pronounced. From the point of view of Brzezinski, globalization in itself is neither good nor bad, it is just a tool in shaping the face of the modern world and, in his opinion, in no case should abuses be allowed on the part of those who implement neoliberal reforms, proclaiming the principles of the free market and their use of these principles for selfish purposes, but at the same time one cannot be led by hysterical supporters of anti-globalism who do not offer any alternative concept of political and economic order in their criticism. Brzezinski was one of the first to point out that globalization is becoming a new ideology, admitting that this ideology filled the void left by the collapse of the Soviet system and replaced the ideology of anti-communism.
The result of the book is the author's conclusion that world stability will ultimately be the result of close interaction between the United States, the European Union, China, Japan, followed by the involvement of India, Russia and Asian countries in this process. Perhaps, with such a compromise conclusion, Brzezinski is trying to soften his initial tough and straightforward position.
It is very fashionable to criticize Brzezinski in our country, it is even considered good form, they say, criticizing Brzezinski means a patriot. But, as a rule, our critics of the American political scientist become victims of their own hurt sense of national pride, and this is a weak basis for constructive criticism. When reading Brzezinski, it is worth filtering out his exaggerations, grandiloquence, sometimes even arrogance and trying to discern behind all this a thoughtful analysis of the geopolitical situation in the world. And even though most of Brzezinski's predictions are unlikely to come true, getting to know his point of view can be useful.

In general, the book left a good impression. Especially the second part, where Brzezinski acts more like a sociologist. The fact is that, in my opinion, as a political scientist Brzezinski has exhausted himself, he is like those soldiers who returned from Vietnam and continue to “fight”, despite the fact that the war is over. He still sees enemies and traitors around, he clearly lacks that “hot” world, when two systems were ready to devour each other, moreover, he was on the side of a stronger player. But on the other hand, Brzezinski begins to understand that the power of the United States is weakening and the image of the country is falling sharply. From a “hero” of the Cold War period, America is turning into a “bandit” of the 21st century with imperial manners. But, I think, Mr. Brzezinski's most depressing thing is the indisputable fact that on both sides of the Atlantic no one is heeding his calls anymore. Brzezinski became that “outstanding figure of such and such a period”, which is sometimes quoted, published from time to time, but no one reads it anymore. Except for idiots like me, of course)

THE CHOICE:
GLOBAL DOMINATION
OR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP
ZBIGNIEW
BRZEZINSKI
BASIC
AT

BOOKS
A Member of the Perseus Books Group New York
ZBIGNIEW
BRZHEZINSKY
CHOICE
WORLD DOMINATION
or
GLOBAL LEADERSHIP
MOSCOW "INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS"
2005
UDC 327 BBK 66.4 (0) B58
Published under agreement with the Alexander Korzhenevsky Agency
(Russia)
Brzezinski 36.
B58 Choice. global domination or global leadership / Per. from English. - M.: Intern. relations, 2005. - 288 p. -
ISBN 5-7133-1196-1
A recognized classic of modern political science, the author of The Grand Chessboard, in his new book, develops the idea of ​​the global role of
The United States as the only superpower capable of becoming a guarantor of stability and security for the rest of the world.
And yet this is another Brzezinski who drew serious and far-reaching conclusions after September 11, 2001.
His focus is alternatives
American hegemony: domination based on strength or leadership based on consent. And the author resolutely chooses leadership, paradoxically combining hegemony and democracy as two levers for leading the world.
After analyzing the capabilities of all the major players on the world stage, Brzezinski comes to the conclusion that the United States remains today

the only power capable of keeping the world from chaos.
UDC 327 BBK 66.4(0)
© 2004 by Zbigniew Brzezinski © Translated from English: E.A. Narochnitskaya
(Part I), Yu.N. Kobyakov (part II), 2004
© Preparation for publication and registration of the publishing house "International
ISBN 5-7133-1196-1 relations", 2005
Table of contents
Foreword ................................................................ ....................... 7
Part
I.
American hegemony and global security .............................................................. ............................................. 13 1. Dilemmas of Lost National Security 19
End of sovereign security.............................. 19

National
power
and
international
pro-
confrontation................................................................ 31
Definition of a new threat.................................................. 41 2. Dilemmas of the New Global Disorder... .......... 62
strength of weakness............................................................ 65
The Troubled World of Islam.......................................... 70
Quicksand of hegemony.......................................... 85
Shared Responsibility Strategy......................... 97 3. Dilemmas of managing alliances .............................. 117
global core.......................................................... 122
Metastability East Asia .................... 144
Revenge of Eurasia?......................................................... 166
Part II. American hegemony and the common good 175 4. Dilemmas of globalization .................................................. ...... 184
The natural doctrine of global hegemony.... 186
The Purpose of Counter-Symbolism............................................. 196
A world without borders, but not for people........................... 211 5. Dilemmas of Hegemonic Democracy .................................. ... 229

America and the Global Cultural Seduction.......... 230
Multiculturalism and strategic
cohesion............................................................... 241
Hegemony and Democracy........................................... 251
Conclusion and conclusions: world domination or leadership .............................................................. ............................... 268
Thanks................................................................. .................... 286
Foreword
My main thesis about America's role in the world is simple: American power - the decisive factor in securing the country's national sovereignty - is today the highest guarantee of global stability, while American society stimulates the development of global social trends that erode traditional state sovereignty. The strength of America and the driving forces of its social development in interaction could contribute to the gradual creation of a peaceful community based on common interests. When used incorrectly and colliding with each other, these principles are capable of plunging the world into a state of chaos, and
Turn America into a besieged fortress.
At the dawn of the 21st century, American power has reached an unprecedented level, as evidenced by the global reach of military capabilities.
America and the key importance of its economic viability to the well-being of the world economy, the innovative effect of the technological dynamism of the United States and the world-wide appeal of the diverse and often unpretentious American mass culture. All this gives
America has an unparalleled political weight on a global scale.
For better or worse, it is America that now determines the direction of the movement of mankind, and it does not foresee a rival.
Europe, perhaps, can compete with the United States in the economic field, but it will take a long time before it reaches

the degree of unity that would allow her to enter into political competition with the American colossus. Japan, which at one time was predicted to be the next superpower, has gone the distance. China, for all its economic successes, is likely to remain a relatively poor country for at least two generations, and in the meantime serious political complications may lie in wait. Russia is no longer a participant in the race. In short, America does not have and will not soon have an equal counterbalance in the world.
Thus, there is no real alternative to the triumph of American hegemony and the role of US power as an indispensable component global security. At the same time, under the influence of American democracy - and the example of American achievements - economic, cultural and technological changes are taking place everywhere, contributing to the formation of global interconnections both across and across national borders. These changes can undermine the very stability that American power is designed to protect, and even incite hostility towards the United States.
As a result, America is faced with an extraordinary paradox: it is the first and only truly global superpower, while Americans are increasingly concerned about the threats coming from much weaker enemies. The fact that America wields unparalleled global political influence makes it the object of envy, resentment, and sometimes burning hatred. Moreover, these antagonistic sentiments can not only be exploited, but fueled by America's traditional rivals, even if they themselves are quite prudent not to risk a direct confrontation with her. And that risk is real enough for America's security.
Does it follow that America is entitled to claim greater security than others? nation states? Her

leaders - as managers in whose hands the national power is, and as representatives of a democratic society - must strive for a carefully balanced balance between the two roles. Relying solely on multilateral cooperation in a world where threats to national and ultimately global security are undeniably growing, creating a potential danger to all of humanity, can turn into strategic lethargy. On the contrary, an emphasis primarily on the independent use of sovereign power, especially when combined with a self-serving identification of new threats, may result in self-isolation, progressive national paranoia and increasing vulnerability against the background of the widespread spread of the virus of anti-Americanism.
America, succumbed to anxiety and obsessed with its own security interests, would very likely have expected isolation in the midst of a hostile world. And if, in search of security for herself alone, she happened to lose self-control, then the land of free people would be threatened with transformation into a garrison state, thoroughly saturated with the spirit of a besieged fortress. Meanwhile, the end of the Cold War coincided with the widest dissemination of technical knowledge and capabilities to make weapons mass destruction, not only among states, but also among political organizations with terrorist intent.
American society bravely held out in a daunting situation
"two scorpions in one pot" when the United States and the Soviet
The Union held each other back with potentially devastating nuclear arsenals, but found it harder to keep cool in the face of pervasive violence, recurring acts of terrorism and weapons proliferation mass destruction. Americans feel that in this politically ambiguous, sometimes ambiguous and often confusing environment of political unpredictability lies a danger to

America, and precisely because it is the dominant force on the planet.
Unlike the powers that once held hegemony, America operates in a world where temporal and spatial ties are becoming ever closer. Imperial powers of the past, such as Great Britain in the 19th century,
10
China at various stages of its history spanning several millennia, Rome for five centuries, and many others, have been relatively inaccessible to outside threats. The world in which they dominated was divided into separate parts that did not communicate with each other. The parameters of distance and time opened up room for maneuver and served as a guarantee of the security of the territory of the hegemonic states. In contrast, America, perhaps, has unprecedented power on a global scale, but on the other hand, the degree of security of its own territory is unprecedentedly small. The need to live in a state of insecurity seems to be becoming chronic.
The key question, therefore, is whether
America pursue a wise, responsible, and effective foreign policy—a policy that avoids the fallacies of state of siege psychology while at the same time being consistent with the country's historically new status as the world's supreme power. The search for a formula for a wise foreign policy must begin with the realization that "globalization" at its core means global interdependence.
Interdependence does not guarantee equal status or even equal security for all countries. But it suggests that no country is completely immune from the consequences of the scientific and technological revolution, which has greatly expanded the ability of man to use violence and at the same time strengthened the bonds that bind humanity ever closer together.
Ultimately, the cardinal political issue facing

America, sounds like this: "Hegemony in the name of what?" Will the country strive to build a new world system based on shared interests, or will it use its sovereign global power mainly to strengthen its own security?
The following pages are devoted to what I consider to be the main questions that need to be answered in a strategically comprehensive manner, namely:
11
What are the main dangers threatening America?
Does America, given its dominant status, have a right to a greater degree of security than other countries?
How should America counter the potentially deadly threats that are increasingly coming from weaker foes rather than strong rivals?
Is America able to constructively manage its long-term relationship with the Islamic world of 1 billion
200 million people, many of whom increasingly see America as a sworn enemy?
can America decisively contribute to the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the presence of the clashing but legitimate claims of the two peoples to the same land? what is required to achieve political stability in the turbulent zone of the new World Balkans, stretching along the southern tip of central Eurasia?
whether America is able to forge a genuine partnership with Europe, given, on the one hand, the slow pace of political unification
Europe, and on the other hand, an obvious increase in its economic power?

Is it possible to involve Russia, which is no longer a rival
America, into an American-led Atlantic structure?
What should be America's role in Far East, given Japan's continued but reluctant reliance on
United States and the increase in its military power, as well as the strengthening
China?
How likely is it that globalization will produce a coherent counter-doctrine or counter-alliance against
America?
12
Are demographic and migration processes becoming new sources of threats to global stability?
Is American culture compatible with imperial responsibility?
How should America respond to a new deepening of inequality between people, which may be accelerated dramatically by the ongoing scientific and technological revolution and become even more pronounced under the influence of globalization?
whether American democracy is compatible with a role that is hegemony, no matter how carefully this hegemony is disguised; how will the security imperatives inherent in this special role affect the traditional civil rights of Americans?
So, this book is part prediction and part - a set of recommendations. The following statement is taken as a starting point: the recently launched revolution in advanced technologies, primarily in the field of communications, favors the gradual emergence of a global community based on increasingly recognized common interests - a community centered on
America. But the potentially not excluded self-isolation of the only superpower is capable of plunging the world into the abyss of growing anarchy,

especially destructive against the backdrop of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Since America - given its controversial role in the world - is destined to be the catalyst for either global community or global chaos, Americans have a unique historical responsibility for which of these two paths humanity will take. We have to make a choice between domination of the world and leadership in it.
June 30, 2003
PART I
American hegemony and global security
America's unique position in the world hierarchy is now widely recognized. The initial surprise and even anger with which the open recognition of America's primacy was met abroad gave way to more restrained - although still marked by resentment - attempts to curb, limit, divert or ridicule its hegemony.
1
. Even the Russians, who, for nostalgic reasons, are the least likely to recognize the extent of American power and influence, have agreed that for some time the United States will remain the dominant player in world affairs.
2
. When America was hit by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the British, led by Prime Minister Tony
Blair gained authority in the eyes of Washington by immediately joining the Americans in declaring war against international terrorism. Much of the world has followed suit, including countries that have previously suffered the pain of terrorist attacks, with little American sympathy. The “we are all Americans” declarations heard around the world were not just expressions of sincere empathy, they also became timely assurances of political loyalty.

13 14
To the modern world may dislike American superiority: he may be distrustful of it, resent it, and at times even plot against it. However, it is beyond the power of the rest of the world to directly challenge America's supremacy in a practical way. There have been sporadic attempts at resistance over the past decade, but they have all failed. The Chinese and Russians have flirted with the idea of ​​a strategic partnership focused on the formation of a "multipolar world" - a concept whose true meaning is easily deciphered by the word "anti-hegemony". Little could come of this, given Russia's relative weakness compared to
China and the pragmatism of Chinese leaders, who are well aware that at the moment China is most in need of foreign capital and technology. Beijing would have to count on neither if its relations with the United States acquired an antagonistic tinge. In the final year of the 20th century, Europeans, and especially the French, proclaimed with pomp that Europe would soon acquire "autonomous global security capabilities." But, as the war in Afghanistan was not slow to show, this promise was akin to the once-famous Soviet assurance of the historic victory of communism, “seen on the horizon,” that is, on an imaginary line that recedes inexorably as it approaches it.
History is a chronicle of change, a reminder that everything comes to an end. But she also suggests that some things are granted a long life, and their disappearance does not mean the rebirth of previous realities. So it will be with America's global dominance today. One day it, too, will begin to decline, perhaps later than some people would like, but sooner than they think,

without hesitation, many Americans. What will replace him? - that's the key question. The sudden end of American hegemony would no doubt plunge the world into chaos, in which international anarchy would be accompanied
15 explosions of violence and destruction on a truly grandiose scale.
A similar effect, only extended over time, would have been the unmanageable gradual decline of US dominance. But a gradual and controlled redistribution of power could lead to the formation of the structure of a global community based on common interests and having its own supranational mechanisms, which would increasingly be assigned some special security functions that traditionally belong to nation states.
In any case, the eventual end of American hegemony will not entail the restoration of a multipolar balance between the great powers we know that have ruled world affairs for the past two centuries. It will not be crowned with accession on the spot
United States of another hegemon with similar political, military, economic, scientific, technological and socio-cultural global superiority. The well-known major powers of the last century are too tired or weak to handle the role played by the United States today. It is noteworthy that starting from
In 1880, in a hierarchical table of world powers (compiled on the basis of a cumulative assessment of their economic potential, military budgets and advantages, population, etc.), which changed at intervals of twenty years, the top five lines were occupied by only seven states: the United
States, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Japan and China.
However, only the United States was undeniably deserving of inclusion in the top five in every 20-year period, and in 2002 the gap between

the state that occupies the highest position -

In the frantic debates about the modern political order of the world, the name of the author of this book is mentioned repeatedly - both by supporters of the global hegemony of the United States, and by opponents of the superpower, which imagined itself to be a kind of global superman of the Hollywood type, acting on the principle of "what I want, then I turn back."

"Brzezinski" has long become a kind of negative political brand, a kind of red rag, at the sight of which a certain part of the people's eyes are covered with a hazy veil of hatred for the United States. So why exactly "Brzezinski"? Now there is an opportunity to really understand this issue, since A new book this extraordinary political strategist, former assistant to the president of the United States for national security (in the Carter administration) and author of the famous anti-communism strategy in the 70s. Everyone constantly refers to Brzezinski, mentioning him in place and out of place. Well, he deserved it...

Presumably, Brzezinski was aware that the main recipients of his book live in the United States. After all, who outside the world hegemon will like that he is suddenly announced as his new master and ordered to obey and sit still? Yes, very few people! Brzezinski actually declares that all other countries are in politically"Third World", which does not have the ability to influence anything.

Russia - "left the race" (the famous expression of Brzezinski), Europe - like laughter ..., Japan - ran out of steam, China - is poor, which means that it is in no way suitable for the role of a hegemon-rival. AT last case the author, perhaps, rather, reassures his reader, who is concerned that whatever thing you take in the house, everything is made in China. "Poor" - not quite convincingly said. "Poor" is why he is especially dangerous with his Chinese appetites, a booming economy (under the leadership of Brzezinski-forgot-which-party?) and a not-weak army.

Be that as it may, Brzezinski puts forward his next thesis: "American power - a decisive factor in ensuring the country's national sovereignty - is today the highest guarantee of global stability, while American society stimulates the development of such global social trends that erode traditional state sovereignty."

That is, the author sees the danger: America unwittingly makes enemies for itself. But, of course, she does not want to turn into a "besieged fortress." Therefore, Brzezinski opts for "global leadership" rather than "world domination." In any case, he believes that America has no alternatives: whether you like it or not, you will have to "hegemonize".

Book provided by Polaris. Polaris stores are located:

• Shopping center Alfa (Brivības gatve 372)
• st. Gertrudes 7
• st. Perses 13
• st. Dzirnavu 102
• Shopping center Dole (Maskavas 357, 2nd floor)
• Shopping center Talava (Sakharova 21)
• Shopping center Origo (Statiyas laukums 2, 1st floor)

GLOBAL DOMINATION

OR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

A Member of the Perseus Books Group New York

ZBIGNIEW

BRZHEZINSKY

CHOICE

WORLD DOMINATION

or

GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

MOSCOW "INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS"

UDC 327 BBK 66.4 (0) B58

Published under agreement with the Alexander Korzhenevsky Agency (Russia)

Brzezinski 36.

B58 Choice. Global domination or global

leadership / Per. from English. - M.: Intern. relations, 2005. - 288 p. -

ISBN 5-7133-1196-1

A recognized classic of modern political science, the author of The Grand Chessboard, in his new book, develops the idea of ​​the global role of the United States as the only superpower capable of becoming a guarantor of stability and security for the rest of the world.

And yet this is another Brzezinski who drew serious and far-reaching conclusions after September 11, 2001.

His focus is alternatives American hegemony: domination based on strength or leadership based on consent. And the author resolutely chooses leadership, paradoxically combining hegemony and democracy as two levers for leading the world.

After analyzing the capabilities of all the major players on the world stage, Brzezinski comes to the conclusion that the United States remains today the only power capable of keeping the world from chaos.

UDC 327 BBK 66.4(0)

© 2004 by Zbigniew Brzezinski © Translated from English: E.A. Narochnitskaya (part I), Yu.N. Kobyakov (part II), 2004

© Preparation for publication and registration of the publishing house "International ISBN 5-7133-1196-1 relations", 2005

Foreword ................................................................ ....................... 7

Part I. American hegemony and global security.................................................................. ............................... 13

1. Dilemmas of Lost National Security 19

End of sovereign security.............................. 19

National power and international confrontation................................................................ 31

Definition of a new threat........................................ 41

2. Dilemmas of the New Global Disorder....................... 62

strength of weakness............................................................ 65

The Troubled World of Islam.......................................... 70

Quicksand of hegemony.......................................... 85

Shared Responsibility Strategy......... 97

3. Alliance management dilemmas............................................... 117

global core.......................................................... 122

Metastability of East Asia.................... 144

Revenge of Eurasia?......................................................... 166

Part II. American hegemony and the common good 175

4. Dilemmas of globalization............................................... 184

The natural doctrine of global hegemony.... 186

The Purpose of Counter-Symbolism............................................. 196

A world without borders, but not for people........................... 211

5. Dilemmas of Hegemonic Democracy ............................. 229

America and the Global Cultural Seduction.......... 230

Multiculturalism and Strategic Cohesion............................................................... 241

Hegemony and Democracy........................................... 251

Conclusion and conclusions: world domination or

leadership................................................. ....................... 268

Thanks................................................................. .................... 286

Foreword

My main thesis about America's role in the world is simple: American power - the decisive factor in securing the country's national sovereignty - is today the highest guarantee of global stability, while American society stimulates the development of global social trends that erode traditional state sovereignty. The strength of America and the driving forces of its social development in interaction could contribute to the gradual creation of a peaceful community based on common interests. If misused and collided with each other, these principles can plunge the world into a state of chaos, and turn America into a besieged fortress.

At the dawn of the 21st century, American power has reached an unprecedented level, as evidenced by the global reach of America's military capabilities and the key importance of its economic viability to the well-being of the world economy, the innovative effect of US technological dynamism, and the global appeal of the diverse and often unpretentious American popular culture. All this gives America an unparalleled political weight on a global scale. For better or worse, it is America that now determines the direction of the movement of mankind, and it does not foresee a rival.

Europe may be able to compete with the United States in the economic field, but it will be a long time before it reaches the degree of unity that would allow it to enter into a political competition.

with the American colossus. Japan, which at one time was predicted to be the next superpower, has gone the distance. China, for all its economic successes, is likely to remain a relatively poor country for at least two generations, and in the meantime it could face serious political complications. Russia is no longer a participant in the race. In short, America does not have and will not soon have an equal counterbalance in the world.

Thus, there is no real alternative to the triumph of American hegemony and the role of US power as an indispensable component of global security. At the same time, under the influence of American democracy - and the example of American achievements - economic, cultural and technological changes are taking place everywhere, facilitating the formation of global interconnections, both across and across national borders. These changes can undermine the very stability that American power is designed to protect, and even incite hostility towards the United States.

As a result, America is faced with an extraordinary paradox: it is the first and only truly global superpower, while Americans are increasingly concerned about the threats coming from much weaker enemies. The fact that America wields unparalleled global political influence makes it the object of envy, resentment, and sometimes burning hatred. Moreover, these antagonistic sentiments can not only be exploited, but fueled by America's traditional rivals, even if they themselves are quite prudent not to risk a direct confrontation with her. And that risk is real enough for America's security.

Does it follow that America has the right to claim greater security than other nation-states? Its leaders - as administrators in whose hands the national power is, and as representatives of a democratic society - must strive for a carefully balanced balance between

two roles. Relying exclusively on multilateral cooperation in a world where threats to national and ultimately global security are undeniably growing, creating a potential danger to all of humanity, can turn into strategic lethargy. On the contrary, an emphasis primarily on the independent use of sovereign power, especially when combined with a self-serving identification of new threats, may result in self-isolation, progressive national paranoia and increasing vulnerability against the background of the widespread spread of the virus of anti-Americanism.

America, succumbed to anxiety and obsessed with the interests of its own security, would very likely expect to be isolated in a hostile world. And if, in search of security for herself alone, she happened to lose self-control, then the land of free people would be threatened with transformation into a garrison state, thoroughly saturated with the spirit of a besieged fortress. Meanwhile, the end of the Cold War coincided with the widest dissemination of the technical knowledge and capabilities to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, not only among states, but also among political organizations with terrorist aspirations.

American society bravely held out in the daunting situation of "two scorpions in one pot" when the United States and Soviet Union deterred each other with potentially devastating nuclear arsenals, but it proved harder to keep his cool in the face of pervasive violence, recurring acts of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Americans feel that in this politically ambiguous, sometimes ambiguous, and often confusing environment of political unpredictability, America is in danger, precisely because it is the dominant power on the planet.

Unlike the powers that had hegemony before, America operates in a world where temporal and spatial ties are becoming ever closer. Imperial powers of the past, such as Great Britain in the 19th century,

China at various stages of its history spanning several millennia, Rome for five centuries, and many others, have been relatively inaccessible to outside threats. The world in which they dominated was divided into separate parts that did not communicate with each other. The parameters of distance and time opened up room for maneuver and served as a guarantee of the security of the territory of the hegemonic states. In contrast, America, perhaps, has unprecedented power on a global scale, but on the other hand, the degree of security of its own territory is unprecedentedly low. The need to live in a state of insecurity seems to be becoming chronic.

The key question, therefore, is whether America can pursue a wise, responsible, and effective foreign policy—a policy that avoids the fallacies of state of siege psychology while at the same time befitting the country's historically new status as the world's supreme power. The search for a formula for a wise foreign policy must begin with the realization that "globalization" at its core means global interdependence. Interdependence does not guarantee equal status or even equal security for all countries. But it suggests that no country is completely immune from the consequences of the scientific and technological revolution, which has greatly expanded the ability of man to use violence and at the same time strengthened the bonds that bind humanity ever closer together.

Ultimately, the cardinal political question facing America is: "Hegemony for what?" Will the country strive to build a new world system based on shared interests, or will it use its sovereign global power mainly to strengthen its own security?

The following pages are devoted to what I consider to be the main questions that need to be answered in a strategically comprehensive manner, namely:

What are the main dangers threatening America?

Does America, given its dominant status, have a right to a greater degree of security than other countries?

How should America counter the potentially deadly threats that are increasingly coming from weak enemies rather than strong rivals?

Is America able to constructively manage its long-term relationship with the Islamic world of 1.2 billion people, many of whom increasingly see America as a sworn enemy?

Can America decisively contribute to the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the presence of the clashing but legitimate claims of the two peoples to the same land?

What is required to achieve political stability in the troubled zone of the new Global Balkans, stretching along the southern tip of central Eurasia?

Is America capable of establishing a genuine partnership with Europe, given, on the one hand, the slow pace of the political unification of Europe, and, on the other, the obvious increase in its economic power?

Is it possible to draw Russia, which is no longer America's rival, into an American-led Atlantic structure?

What should be America's role in the Far East, given Japan's continued but reluctant reliance on the United States and increasing military power, as well as the rise of China?

How likely is it that globalization will produce a coherent counter-doctrine or counter-alliance against America?

Are demographic and migration processes becoming new sources of threats to global stability?

Is American culture compatible with imperial responsibility?

How should America respond to a new deepening of inequality between people, which may be accelerated dramatically by the ongoing scientific and technological revolution and become even more pronounced under the influence of globalization?

Is American democracy compatible with a role that is hegemony, no matter how carefully that hegemony is disguised; how will the security imperatives inherent in this special role affect the traditional civil rights of Americans?

So, this book is part prediction and part - a set of recommendations. The following statement is taken as a starting point: the recent revolution in advanced technologies, primarily in the field of communications, favors the gradual emergence of a global community based on increasingly recognized common interests - a community centered on America. But the potentially not excluded self-isolation of the only superpower is capable of plunging the world into the abyss of growing anarchy, especially destructive against the backdrop of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Since America - given its controversial role in the world - is destined to be the catalyst for either global community or global chaos, Americans have a unique historical responsibility for which of these two paths humanity will take. We have to make a choice between domination of the world and leadership in it.

PART I

American hegemony and global security

America's unique position in the world hierarchy is now widely recognized. The initial surprise and even anger with which the open recognition of America's primacy was met abroad gave way to more restrained - although still marked by resentment - attempts to curb, limit, divert or ridicule its hegemony 1 . Even the Russians, who, for nostalgic reasons, are the least inclined to recognize the extent of American power and influence, have agreed that for some time the United States will remain the dominant player in world affairs 2 . When America was hit by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the British, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, gained credibility in the eyes of Washington by immediately joining the Americans in declaring war against international terrorism. Much of the world has followed suit, including countries that have previously suffered the pain of terrorist attacks, with little American sympathy. The “we are all Americans” declarations heard around the world were not just expressions of sincere empathy, they also became timely assurances of political loyalty.

The modern world may not like American supremacy: it may be distrustful of it, resent it, and at times even plot against it. However, it is beyond the power of the rest of the world to directly challenge America's supremacy in a practical way. There have been isolated attempts at resistance over the past decade, but they have all failed. The Chinese and Russians have flirted with the idea of ​​a strategic partnership focused on the formation of a "multipolar world" - a concept whose true meaning is easily deciphered by the word "anti-hegemony". Little could come of this, given Russia's relative weakness relative to China and the pragmatism of Chinese leaders, who are well aware that at the moment China is most in need of foreign capital and technology. Beijing would have to count on neither if its relations with the United States acquired an antagonistic tinge. In the final year of the 20th century, Europeans, and especially the French, proclaimed with pomp that Europe would soon acquire "autonomous global security capabilities." But, as the war in Afghanistan was not slow to show, this promise was akin to the once-famous Soviet assurance of the historic victory of communism, “seen on the horizon,” that is, on an imaginary line that recedes inexorably as it approaches it.

History is a chronicle of change, a reminder that everything comes to an end. But she also suggests that some things are granted a long life, and their disappearance does not mean the rebirth of previous realities. So it will be with America's global dominance today. One day it, too, will begin to decline, perhaps later than some people would like, but sooner than many Americans, without hesitation, believe. What will replace him? - that's the key question. The sudden end of American hegemony would no doubt plunge the world into chaos, in which international anarchy would be accompanied

explosions of violence and destruction on a truly grandiose scale. A similar effect, only extended over time, would have been the unmanageable gradual decline of US dominance. But a gradual and controlled redistribution of power could lead to the formation of the structure of a global community based on common interests and having its own supranational mechanisms, which would increasingly be assigned some special security functions that traditionally belong to nation states.

In any case, the eventual end of American hegemony will not entail the restoration of a multipolar balance between the great powers we know that have ruled world affairs for the past two centuries. It will not be crowned with the accession of another hegemon in place of the United States, which has a similar political, military, economic, scientific, technical and socio-cultural global superiority. The well-known major powers of the last century are too tired or weak to handle the role played by the United States today. It is noteworthy that since 1880, in the hierarchical table of world powers (compiled on the basis of a cumulative assessment of their economic potential, military budgets and advantages, population, etc.), which changed at intervals of twenty years, the top five lines were occupied by only seven states : United States, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Japan and China. However, only the United States was undeniably deserving of inclusion in the top five in every 20-year period, and in 2002 the gap between the top-ranked state was -

(~~*

the United States - and the rest of the world was much larger than ever before 3 .

The former great European powers - Great Britain, Germany and France - are too weak to bear the brunt of the fight for hegemony. It is unlikely that in the next two decades European Union achieve that degree of political unity without which

the peoples of Europe will never find the will to compete with the United States in the military-political arena. Russia is no longer an imperial power, and the main challenge for it is the task of socio-economic revival, failing which it will be forced to cede its Far Eastern territories to China. Japan's population is aging economic development slowed down; the view typical of the 1980s that promised Japan to become the next “superstate” looks like historical irony today. China, even if it manages to maintain high rates of economic growth and not lose domestic political stability (both are doubtful), will become at best a regional power, the potential of which will continue to be limited by the poverty of the population, archaic infrastructure and the absence of a universally attractive image of this country abroad. All this applies to India, whose difficulties are, moreover, aggravated by the uncertainty of the long-term prospects for her national unity.

Even a coalition of all these countries - highly unlikely given their history of mutual conflict and mutually exclusive territorial claims - would lack the cohesion, strength, and energy to either push America off its pedestal or maintain global stability. Be that as it may, if America were tried to be thrown off the throne, some of the leading states would lend a shoulder to it. Indeed, at the first tangible signs of the decline of American power, we might well have seen hasty attempts to consolidate American leadership. But most importantly, even the general dissatisfaction with American hegemony is powerless to muffle the clashes of interests of various states. In the event of America's decline, the most acute contradictions could ignite the fire of regional violence, which, in the context of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, is fraught with dire consequences.

All of the above leads to a twofold conclusion: in the coming two decades, American power will be an indispensable pillar of global stability, and a fundamental challenge to US power can only arise from within: either if American democracy itself rejects the role of power, or if America mismanages its global influence. American society, for all the rather obvious narrowness of its intellectual and cultural interests, firmly supported the long-term global opposition to the threat of totalitarian communism, and today it is determined to fight against international terrorism. As long as this involvement in world affairs continues, America will play the role of a global stabilizer. But if the anti-terrorist mission loses its meaning - whether because terrorism disappears, or because Americans become tired or lose their sense of common purpose - America's global role will quickly come to an end.

The abuse of its power by the US is also capable of undermining its global role and calling into question its legitimacy. Behavior perceived as arbitrary by the world could lead to America's progressive isolation and deprive it, if not of its self-defense capability, then of its ability to use its power to engage other countries in a common effort to create a more secure international environment.

The public at large understands that the new security threat so dramatically exposed by 9/11 has hung over America for years to come. The wealth of the country and the dynamism of its economy make a defense budget of 3-4% of GDP relatively acceptable: this burden is much lighter than what happened during the Cold War, not to mention the Second World War. At the same time, in the process of globalization, which contributes to the interweaving of American society with the rest of the world, America's national security is becoming less and less separable from issues of the general well-being of mankind.

Choice: World domination or global leadership

Thank you for downloading the book from the free e-library http://filosoff.org/ Happy reading! Brzezinski Zbigniew. Choice: World domination or global leadership. Preface. My main thesis about America's role in the world is simple: American power - the decisive factor in securing the country's national sovereignty - is today the highest guarantee of global stability, while American society stimulates the development of global social trends that erode traditional state sovereignty. The strength of America and the driving forces of its social development in interaction could contribute to the gradual creation of a peaceful community based on common interests. If misused and collided with each other, these principles can plunge the world into a state of chaos, and turn America into a besieged fortress. At the dawn of the 21st century, American power has reached an unprecedented level, as evidenced by the global reach of America's military capabilities and the key importance of its economic viability to the well-being of the world economy, the innovative effect of US technological dynamism, and the global appeal of the diverse and often unpretentious American popular culture. All this gives America an unparalleled political weight on a global scale. For better or worse, it is America that now determines the direction of the movement of mankind, and it does not foresee a rival. Europe may be able to compete with the United States on the economic front, but it will be a long time before it reaches the degree of unity that would allow it to enter into political competition with the American colossus. Japan, which at one time was predicted to be the next superpower, has gone the distance. China, for all its economic successes, is likely to remain a relatively poor country for at least two generations, and in the meantime it could face serious political complications. Russia is no longer a participant in the race. In short, America does not have and will not soon have an equal counterbalance in the world. Thus, there is no real alternative to the triumph of American hegemony and the role of US power as an indispensable component of global security. At the same time, under the influence of American democracy - and the example of American achievements - economic, cultural and technological changes are taking place everywhere, facilitating the formation of global interconnections, both across and across national borders. These changes can undermine the very stability that American power is designed to protect, and even incite hostility towards the United States. As a result, America is faced with an extraordinary paradox: it is the first and only truly global superpower, while Americans are increasingly concerned about the threats coming from much weaker enemies. The fact that America wields unparalleled global political influence makes it the object of envy, resentment, and sometimes burning hatred. Moreover, these antagonistic sentiments can not only be exploited, but fueled by America's traditional rivals, even if they themselves are quite prudent not to risk a direct confrontation with her. And that risk is real enough for America's security. Does it follow that America has the right to claim greater security than other nation-states? Its leaders - as governors in whose hands the national power is, and as representatives of a democratic society - must strive for a carefully balanced balance between the two roles. Relying exclusively on multilateral cooperation in a world where threats to national and ultimately global security are undeniably growing, creating a potential danger to all of humanity, can turn into strategic lethargy. On the contrary, an emphasis primarily on the independent use of sovereign power, especially when combined with a self-serving identification of new threats, may result in self-isolation, progressive national paranoia and increasing vulnerability against the background of the widespread spread of the virus of anti-Americanism. America, succumbed to anxiety and obsessed with its own security interests, would very likely have expected isolation in the midst of a hostile world. And if, in search of security for herself alone, she should happen to lose self-control, then the land of free people would be threatened with transformation into a garrison state, thoroughly imbued with the spirit of a besieged fortress. Meanwhile, the end of the Cold War coincided with the widest dissemination of the technical knowledge and capabilities to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, not only among states, but also among political organizations with terrorist aspirations. American society bravely held its own in the daunting “two scorpions in one pot” situation in which the United States and the Soviet Union deterred each other with potentially devastating nuclear arsenals, but found it harder to keep cool in the face of pervasive violence, repeated acts of terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Americans feel that in this politically ambiguous, sometimes ambiguous and often confusing environment of political unpredictability lies a danger to America, precisely because it is the dominant power on the planet. Unlike the powers that had hegemony before, America operates in a world where temporal and spatial ties are becoming ever closer. The imperial powers of the past, such as Great Britain in the 19th century, China at various points in its history spanning several millennia, Rome for five centuries, and many others, were relatively immune to outside threats. The world in which they dominated was divided into separate parts that did not communicate with each other. The parameters of distance and time opened up room for maneuver and served as a guarantee of the security of the territory of the hegemonic states. In contrast, America, perhaps, has unprecedented power on a global scale, but on the other hand, the degree of security of its own territory is unprecedentedly small. The need to live in a state of insecurity seems to be becoming chronic. The key question, therefore, is whether America can pursue a wise, responsible, and effective foreign policy—a policy that avoids the fallacies of state of siege psychology while at the same time befitting the country's historically new status as the world's supreme power. The search for a formula for a wise foreign policy must begin with the realization that "globalization" at its core means global interdependence. Interdependence does not guarantee equal status or even equal security for all countries. But it suggests that no country is completely immune from the consequences of the scientific and technological revolution, which has greatly expanded the ability of man to use violence and at the same time strengthened the bonds that bind humanity ever closer together. Ultimately, the cardinal political question facing America is: "Hegemony for what?" Will the country strive to build a new world system based on shared interests, or will it use its sovereign global power mainly to strengthen its own security? The following pages are devoted to what I consider to be the main questions that need to be answered strategically in a comprehensive way, namely: 11 What are the main dangers threatening America? Does America, given its dominant status, have a right to a greater degree of security than other countries? How should America counter the potentially deadly threats that are increasingly coming from weaker foes rather than strong rivals? Is America able to constructively manage its long-term relationship with the Islamic world of 1.2 billion people, many of whom increasingly see America as a sworn enemy? can America decisively contribute to the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the presence of the clashing but legitimate claims of the two peoples to the same land? . What is required to achieve political stability in the troubled zone of the new Global Balkans, stretching along the southern tip of central Eurasia? Is America capable of establishing a true partnership with Europe, given, on the one hand, the slow pace of political unification of Europe, and, on the other hand, the obvious increase in its economic power? Is it possible to draw Russia, which is no longer America's rival, into an American-led Atlantic structure? what should be America's role in the Far East, given Japan's continued but reluctant reliance on the United States and its growing military power, as well as the rise of China? How likely is it that globalization will produce a coherent counter-doctrine or counter-alliance against America? 12 Are demographic and migration processes becoming new sources of threats to global stability? Is American culture compatible with imperial responsibility? How should America respond to the new deepening of inequality between people, which could be accelerated dramatically by the ongoing scientific and technological revolution and become even more pronounced by the impact of globalization? whether American democracy is compatible with a role that is hegemony, no matter how carefully this hegemony is disguised; how will the security imperatives inherent in this special role affect the traditional civil rights of Americans? So, this book is part prediction and part - a set of recommendations. The following statement is taken as a starting point: the recent revolution in advanced technologies, primarily in the field of communications, favors the gradual emergence of a global community based on increasingly recognized common interests - a community with America at its center. But the potentially not excluded self-isolation of the only superpower is capable of plunging the world into the abyss of growing anarchy, especially destructive against the backdrop of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Since America - given its controversial role in the world - is destined to be the catalyst for either global community or global chaos, Americans have a unique historical responsibility for which of these two paths humanity will take. We have to make a choice between domination of the world and leadership in it. June 30, 2003 PART I American Hegemony and Global Security America's unique position in the world hierarchy is now widely recognized. The initial surprise and even anger with which the open recognition of America's primacy was met abroad gave way to more restrained - though still marked by resentment - attempts to curb, limit, divert or ridicule its hegemony. Even the Russians, who, for nostalgic reasons, are the least likely to acknowledge the extent of American power and influence, have agreed that for some time the United States will remain the dominant player in world affairs. When America was hit by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the British, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, gained credibility in the eyes of Washington by immediately joining the Americans in declaring war on international terrorism. Much of the world has followed suit, including countries that have previously suffered the pain of terrorist attacks, with little American sympathy. The “we are all Americans” declarations heard around the world were not just expressions of sincere empathy, they also became timely assurances of political loyalty. 13 14 The modern world may not like American superiority: it may be distrustful of it, resent it, and at times even plot against it. However, it is beyond the power of the rest of the world to directly challenge America's supremacy in a practical way. There have been isolated attempts at resistance over the past decade, but they have all failed. The Chinese and Russians have flirted with the idea of ​​a strategic partnership focused on the formation of a "multipolar world" - a concept whose true meaning is easily deciphered by the word "anti-hegemony". Little could come of this, given Russia's relative weakness relative to China and the pragmatism of Chinese leaders, who are well aware that China's greatest need at the moment is foreign capital and technology. Beijing would have to count on neither if its relations with the United States acquired an antagonistic tinge. In the final year of the 20th century, Europeans, and especially the French, proclaimed with pomp that Europe would soon acquire "autonomous global security capabilities." But, as the war in Afghanistan was not slow to show, this promise was akin to the once-famous Soviet assurance of the historic victory of communism, “seen on the horizon,” that is, on an imaginary line that recedes inexorably as it approaches it. History is a chronicle of change, a reminder that everything comes to an end. But she also suggests that some things are granted a long life, and their disappearance does not mean the rebirth of previous realities. So it will be with America's global dominance today. One day it, too, will begin to decline, perhaps later than some people would like, but sooner than many Americans, without hesitation, believe. What will replace him? - that's the key question. The sudden end of American hegemony would no doubt plunge the world into chaos, into