Crucial moment

In spite of a tight minute-by-minute working schedule, Zbigniew Brzezinsky, a one-time national security advisor to President Carter and now a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, found time to grant an interview to The Day. This American political scientist is also professor of US foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University’s Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, an advisory board member of Freedom House and the Trilateral Commission (US—Europe—Japan), and a board member of the Polish-American Freedom Foundation and the Polish-American Enterprise Fund.

In an exclusive interview to The Day Dr. Brzezinski speaks on the US foreign-policy priorities and the foreign-policy makers in the Obama administration.

“FROM EASTERN EGYPT TO WESTERN INDIA”

Mr. Brzezinski, what positive and negative legacy in the US foreign policy has George Bush Jr. left behind? For example, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a recent press conference in Brussels that the admission of nine Central and Eastern European countries to NATO can be considered a positive achievement of Bush’s foreign policy.

“Yes, it is true. As far as a desire to create a stable and secure Europe is concerned, this was a useful contribution. The signing of the US–Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership and a similar US–Georgia charter in the last days of the Bush administration was also conducive to stability. In this sense, it is a positive legacy.

“But the problem is that the positive effect was undermined by the negative consequences of the US position in the world. President Bush’s initiatives generally worsened the US position in the world. If you think that European security depends to some extent on NATO and if someone assumes that the independence of Ukraine or Georgia depends to some extent on the closeness of relations with the United States, then I must say that the beneficial effect of Secretary of State Rice’s or President Bush’s special initiatives was weakened, washed out, and undermined by the overall legacy that he left behind.”

Speaking of the new President Barack Obama, what priorities is he going to set in the US foreign policy?

“Judging by the specific, not general, changes in the attitude and atmosphere, which he has already expressed to some extent in his inaugural speech, the answer is: focusing his attention on the part of the world that extends from Eastern Egypt to Western India. This is this region that the US should devote its attention to and pursue its interests in. The US is facing serious geopolitical challenges there. So Obama will have to offer a different approach in the next few weeks.”

“RECONSIDERING THE OVERALL US APPROACH TO THE WORLD”

And who will be forming the approach? There have been of a lot of publications in the last while, including some by the Brookings Institution, which advise the president on a wide range of questions — from the improvement of the US image to the schedule of his international visits.

“First of all, one should understand that all the so-called think tanks in Washington have prepared advice packages for President Obama. You can fill a room with them. But there are very slim chances that he will fully read at least one of these packages. To sum it up, any plan that specified, six or twelve months ago, what Obama was to do is an exercise in writing science fiction, not strategy. The events that have occurred in the past six to twelve months showed that one should give those recommendations a second thought.

The crucial moment is in reconsidering the overall US approach to the world. Now the president will have to reformulate the approach to policies in the part of the world where the US is most actively, heavily, and potentially most dangerously involved.”

The Middle East?

“This is what I mean. From Eastern Egypt to Western India. But it is not only the Middle East. There is also Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

Mr. Brzezinski, you said in an interview that Hillary Clinton could be a successful secretary of state if strategic guidance was provided from the center—the White House. And who is going to guide Ms. Clinton?

“First of all, it is quite clear that Obama will be shaping the overall policy. And Ms. Clinton is aware of this. She possesses political common sense. Secondly, he has the National Security Advisor Jim Jones, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and a general of the Marine Corps, an elite US force. If a coordinated policy is to be pursued, it will be strategically formed in and carried out by the White House, which means Obama and Jones.”

“I DO NOT THINK THAT EXPANSION SHOULD STOP”

Do you think Obama will agree to the Brookings Institution’s proposals that the deployment of the US anti-missile system in Europe and NATO’s eastward expansion be suspended?

“I do not think that the expansion should stop. The administration now believes that the expansion is somewhat less probable because of certain facts that concern the potential candidates. Uncertainty over the August 2008 events in Georgia has somewhat complicated Tbilisi’s chances of joining NATO faster, no matter how desirable it may be. The fact that fewer than 40 percent of Ukraine’s population support the country’s accession to NATO does not make it easier to become a member of the alliance—not to mention the self-destructive political struggle in Ukraine’s top echelons, which considerably complicates the Western line of argumentation that the top leadership of Ukraine is a serious partner of the West. The reason why such countries as Poland or the Czech Republic quickly joined NATO is that the bid of these countries’ leaders—Walesa and Havel, respectively—for membership had the complete support of the populace. It was therefore easy for these countries to enlist the political support of NATO member states, as far as their accession to the alliance was concerned.”

THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP CHARTER AND THE MAP

Mr. Brzezinski, as you remember, last year it was the question of Ukraine being given the Membership Action Plan, not being admitted to NATO. The Ukrainian government hoped this would speed up the country’s movement towards NATO.

“The Strategic Partnership Charter signed later last year by the US and Ukraine provides everything that the MAP would have provided.”

But this must be insufficient to get the support that Article 5 of the Washington Treaty provides.

“The MAP does not call for Article 5 either. The question is that Ukraine should stop behaving like a child. It should behave like an adult. How can Ukraine be given Article 5 if a mere 36 to 38 percent of the population want to be in NATO? And Ukraine’s top democratic leaders, who were elected just because they were democratic and wished to lead Ukraine to the West, are spending most of their energy to fight each other. Everybody is doing their best in public to undermine each other. Meanwhile, Yanukovych is looking on and rubbing his hands, while Putin is roaring with laughter.”

How is the Obama administration going to build its relations with Russia? You noted after the Georgia conflict that the independence of the post-Soviet countries was at risk.

“I think the current administration should develop relations with Russia in a way that guarantees that Ukraine will be gradually and steadily moving towards and maintaining closer relations with the West. The charter signed in Washington clearly shows US support for the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. But, in a good analysis, a 46-million-strong country should be able to define its position in the world on its own and do this on a democratic basis. The problem is that Ukraine’s democratic majority, which came to power several years ago as the result of a democratic triumph, is helpless and personally disjointed. Moreover, this paves the way for foreign interference, intrigues, corruption, and bribery. To some extent, all this reminds me, a Polish-born American, of 17th-century Poland, when Polish magnates—an equivalent of Ukrainian oligarchs—and the political elite of that era were all objects of external manipulation, bribery, and corruption, which resulted in the loss of independence.”

“THERE MUST BE A CLEAR-CUT DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN UKRAINE”

What do you think the Obama administration would like the Ukrainian government to do in order to give Ukraine greater support in its aspiration to join the European and Euro-Atlantic organizations?

“First of all, there must be a clear-cut democratic leadership in the country instead of the strange and difficult-to-understand things that we can see on television screens — when Ukrainian members of parliament are engaged in fighting rather than in serious governing. The president and the prime minister stood side by side when they were being elected. But they showed utter inability to work together. If they cannot work together, the Ukrainian people should decide that it is perhaps time for a new generation of leaders to come. But it is not up to Obama and Americans to decide and it is not up to me to advise. I think Ukraine is a serious country. So it is high time its leadership behaved as that of a serious country. One political leader is publicly approving the operation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, on the Georgian territory, which creates a juridical precedent for doing the same in the Crimea. Meanwhile, the other two figures are desperately attempting to destroy each other.

“Incidentally, I would like to recall John Kennedy’s famous dictum: don’t ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country. Do not ask us in the West what we can do for you, ask what you must first do for yourselves. Only then will you be treated as a serious country.”

Mr. Brzezinski, how would you describe the current relations between the US and Ukraine? Are they allies or friends?

“I think ‘partners,’ and maybe some others, would be a good word. Under the existing circumstances the relations cannot be defined very precisely. But this does not depend on us. This also depends on the other sides. And it should be very clear what they want.”

Would the US like Ukraine to send a military force to Afghanistan?

“Your country once sent troops to Iraq. If it sends a military force to Afghanistan, I am sure this will be met with approval. I am a critic of our policy on Afghanistan. I think that we need more of a political, rather than purely military, approach. But a military approach is also needed. I can imagine the circumstances when additional foreign military presence will be welcomed. But, on the other hand, I am also aware that Ukrainians had no other choice but to do and die when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. I do not think Ukraine will be enthused with sending troops to Afghanistan. I am very well aware of this.”

“PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE UKRAINE IN NATO”

Maybe, this could somehow help Ukraine join NATO faster? At any rate, this is the opinion of some experts because the other NATO countries are not exactly eager to enlarge their military contingents in Afghanistan.

“There should be no illusions. You cannot quickly join NATO unless public opinion supports this step. And it will not provide this kind of support as long as your leadership keeps doing nothing to effect a constructive change in public opinion. President Yushchenko is saying good words about NATO. Prime Minister Tymoshenko is also saying positive things about the alliance. But, at the same time, they are neutralizing each other. This, no doubt, reduces their influence on transforming the Ukrainian population’s attitude to NATO. But I am a realist and a democrat, and I will say that this will not happen until the public comes out in support of the alliance membership.”

Speaking of integration into Europe, do you think the EU is doing enough to draw Ukraine closer, which, in your words, would facilitate its stability?

“There are standards to be met by every country that wishes to join the EU. I mean effective governance, effective legislation, transparency, and an all-out anti-corruption approach. And you can answer yourselves to what extent Ukraine is meeting these standards.”

EUROPEAN STANDARDS AND EU SIGNALS TO UKRAINE

Mr. Brzezinsky, I would like to opine that if the EU gave Ukraine a prospect of membership, this could further prompt us to carry out reforms and combat corruption.

“The European Union cannot give you this kind of prospect or a promise to start negotiations before you fulfill certain preconditions that every EU country has fulfilled. There really is a negative reaction in the EU to the membership of Bulgaria and, to some extent, Romania. This was partially caused by the feeling that the EU had been sufficiently insistent and clear that these countries should comply not only with the preconditions but also with the 32 articles that were negotiated and later—after accession—implemented.

“Until Ukraine shows that it can meet European standards, the EU will, naturally, have a lack of enthusiasm. At the same time, the European Union is trying to signal that, historically, culturally and geographically, it regards Ukraine as a European country and would like to help Ukraine become its member one day. But, again, this is a question to Ukraine about what it is prepared to do.”

Yevhen Kaminsky, head of a department at the Institute of World Economics and International Relations, suggested in a commentary to The Day that the Obama administration would favor strengthening the commercial, economic, and investment factors in the US–Ukraine relations so that Russia relaxed its economic and energy-related leverage it is using to politically subjugate Ukraine. Does this forecast look realistic, given the recent gas bust-up between Ukraine and Russia?

“First of all, I would like to say that, in my opinion, Russia suffered a political defeat in its recent confrontation with Ukraine. On the economic level, the result was more or less the same. But, in reality, the main aim of the Russian maneuver was not to wrest more money from Ukraine but to try and force the EU to join Russia in condemning Ukraine. In other words, the goal was to cause a major rift between Ukraine and the EU. But Russia lost. Most of EU people are putting more blame on Russia than on Ukraine. And if you look at the future in a broader sense, more responsible people in the US and the EU are looking on Ukraine as a future member of the European Union. But ‘in the future’ does not mean that this will occur next year. It may take even more than 10 years. Exactly when this will occur depends 80 or even more percent on Ukraine, not on the EU. The European Union is not a club that is seeking new members but a club that countries want to belong to. This means Ukraine should do many things it has not yet done.”

But still, Mr. Brzezinski, what can you say about increasing the commercial, economic, and investment cooperation between Ukraine and the US?

“This requires more transparency and rule of law as well as greater emphasis on complying with international standards. It is good that Ukraine is now a WTO member. This is a good step forward. But whoever lives in Ukraine knows the real rule-of-law situation better than I do. This is a problem. There is so much skepticism now about Ukraine’s economic prospects. This was partly caused by the existing policies. Look at the difference between Poland and Ukraine in this respect. Poland is also suffering from the financial and economic crisis. But please compare the situations with the national currency’s rate and the prospects of economic growth or unemployment. And the reason is not that the EU forced Poland to do something but that Poles have been pursuing a more sound policy. Look at the difficulties in some other EU countries, such as the Baltic States, Bulgaria, etc. The EU is a very multifaceted community rather than a single model in which everybody is doing, suffering, or achieving success in the same way.”

ON THE DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE POLITICAL ELITE AND ON THE YOUNGER GENERATION

Do you see that the current Ukrainian leadership is aware of what is to be done to avoid losing economic prospects?

“I am beginning to be more worried than I was before. I admire Ukraine very much and I have always wanted it to be independent. I was very happy, in the deep sense of this word, when Ukraine became independent because I thought that it deserved to be independent. Its people have suffered a lot. There is no reason why it should be subjugated to an imperial system.

“However, what has happened in the past three years has disappointed me very much. In particular, this applies to the behavior of the political elite. I have a feeling that the younger generation, the under-40s, are starting to become entirely different. I hope we will not have to wait too long for them to assume responsibility for their country. They deeply impress me by being much more pro-European and knowing very well what it means to be a modern, more perfect, and transparent democracy.

“Your mass media are better now. I am more optimistic in the long term and more worried in the short term. It seems to me that if a great, politically all-absorbing financial crisis prevails in the world and everybody focuses their attention on themselves only, everything may happen in the regions, where there are hungry and strong neighbors who are nurturing nostalgic imperialist ideas.”

But you do not think that Ukraine will be part of Russia, do you?

“This depends on the Ukrainian people. Indeed. If the Ukrainian people are convinced that independence is more important than anything else, then even a strong neighbor will be unable to do anything. Ukrainians are good fighters. They should strengthen their hearts and feel that independence is a way to achieve their personal dreams and to fully satisfy their sense of identity. In this case, Ukraine will be safe. But this should emanate from inside of them. This is something no one else can do for Ukrainians.”