WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2007-12-03 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
[This was sent to me by a Rhodesian who was in the Police Special Branch. Jan]
Subject: Extract from Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book – US foreign policy and some of its serious shortcomings
Below are some extracts from Brzezinski’s recently released book titled Second Chance – contents doesn’t really surprise me all that much but I still consider it all an eye opener and rather disturbing! Explains why there has been zero interest in Zimbabwe or Southern Africa. Seems from what Brzezinski says that “US foreign policy is for sale.”
From: Page 194 – The Foreign Policy Process
The structural handicaps that infringe on America's capacity to formulate and sustain a long-term commitment to global leadership are partially rooted in the unique circumstances of America's birth as a nation. But they are also the result of systematic degeneration prompted by the impact of modern communications and money on American politics.
The American constitutional system, with its separation of powers, was an act of genius. It created an unsurpassed design for protecting individual freedom while providing for a cross-checking process of national decision making. This complex arrangement was sheltered by America's geographic isolation and the resulting absence of any proximate security threat. More than 250 years later, superpower America is now massively intertwined with the world and preponderant within it. Yet its leaders – sensitive to changing domestic moods but often slow to grasp changing global realities – are inclined to formulate policies of worldwide impact largely in response to domestic stimuli. That contributes to the widespread (and not unjustified) view around the world that parochial America projects its own preoccupations, latest slogans, and special interests onto the global arena. Worldwide scepticism about the U.S. announcement of a “war on terror” is but the latest reflection of this tendency.
The absence of any institutionalized mechanism engaging both the executive and the legislative branches in global panning compounds the problem. Neither the executive branch nor the legislative has any formal process for taking a long range look at the global future and consulting about needed policies. The executive branch is notoriously weak in coordinated planning, and efforts to locate such planning in the National Security Council have resulted in long term interests being subordinated to the short-term. The legislative branch focuses almost exclusively on immediate domestic concerns.
Moreover, the executive and legislative branches, jealous of their traditional prerogatives, do not collaborate to formulate a national grand strategy. The presidential State of the Union address could have evolved into a serious consultation with the Congress. Instead, it has become largely an annual spectacle of patriotic slogans, partisan gymnastics tabulated by the number of standing ovations, and the introduction of various “heroes” seated next to the First Lady. Congressional hearings are hardly better. Their central goal is to expose the recent failings, real or otherwise, of the executive branch.
A useful corrective would be to establish some regular executive-legislative consultative planning mechanism for foreign policy, supported by a combined staff. Since its central mission would be to do long-term planning and its central role would be to promote substantive consultations between the President and the congressional leadership, the result need not threaten the separation of powers. It would supplant the president's executive prerogatives because it would not be a decision making body. But a periodic in-depth joint global policy review with pertinent congressional leaders would crystallize a more widely sense of direction.
Greater coherence in national policy also calls for correcting the widespread impression, not only at home but increasingly abroad, that some aspects of US foreign policy are for sale. The growing role of foreign policy lobbies in Washington is both the cause and that perception and a reflection of it. Though lobbies representing large voting constituencies with strong foreign attachments have long been part of the legislative process, the nature of their influence, the focus of their efforts, and their composition have changed, compounding the structural handicaps of US global policy making.
In the past, ethnic lobbies with a foreign policy interest tended to derive their influence from the voting loyalty of their allegedly numerous constituents. Whether it be the Irish-American lobby or the Polish-American lobby, US politicians – especially presidential candidates – took their aroused feeling seriously. FDR, during sensitive World War II negotiations with Stalin over Poland's place in postwar Europe, at one point even explicitly justified his unwillingness to formally confirm the concessions he had orally promised to the Soviet dictator by arguing that doing so might anger Polish American voters on the eve of the 1944 presidential elections.
In more recent times, the capacity to raise and target electoral campaign funds has become a more important source of influence for foreign policy lobbies than their claimed voting strength. Increased dependence on costly and almost permanent campaigning is the root cause of this trend. This explains the growing role of highly motivated Israeli-American, Cuban-American, Greek-American, Armenian-American lobbies and others, all highly effective in mobilizing financial support for their particular causes.
Given the visible success of the foregoing, it is only a question of time before a Hindu-American, Chinese-American, or Russian-American lobby also deploys substantial resources to influence congressional legislation. The Russian press, for example, has candidly speculated on the potential advantages for Russia of a well oiled Russian-American foreign policy lobby, capable of hiring lobbying firms, sponsoring research institutes, and engaging in various other promotional activities designed to advance Russian interests.
The effectiveness of such lobbies is reflected in the growing prevalence of congressional legislation deliberately limiting the executive branch's foreign policy choices. Early examples were the 1974 arms embargo against Turkey, favored by the Greek lobby, and the Jackson-Vanik Act imposing trade restrictions on the Soviet Union unless Jewish emigration was liberalized. Recently this kind of legislation has grown more frequently…goes on to cite 20-30 examples.
The American social model
In mutually compounding ways, material self indulgence, persistent social shortcomings, and public ignorance about the world increase the difficulty the American democracy faces in formulating a globally appealing platform for effective world leadership. Americans must recognize that their patterns of consumption will soon collide head-on with increasingly impatient egalitarian aspirations. Whether through the exploitation of natural resources, excessive energy consumption, indifference to global ecology, or the exorbitant size of houses for the well-to-do, indulgent self-gratification at home conveys indifference to the persisting deprivations of much of the world. (Just try and imagine a world in which 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians consume as much energy per capita as Americans do.) That reality the American public has yet to assimilate.
Given that America is a genuine democracy, its ability to pursue a constructive global policy has to be derived ultimately from a well informed public. Yet the citizens of the world's only superpower, which ultimately makes its decisions on the basis of popular will, are abysmally ignorant about the world. The vast majority of the American people have little knowledge of world history or geography. Neither print nor television news offers much in the way of corrective, and public education is particularly weak in the two disciplines mentioned above. Only about 1% of American students study abroad, and most have not even the vaguest sense of where other nations are. A study by the National Geographic Society in 2002 found that 85 percent of young Americans could not locate Iraq or Afghanistan on the map, 60 percent could not find Great Britain……
Public ignorance, easily reinforced by fear, creates unfavorable conditions for any serious discussion of what America needs to do in order to play a constructive role in the world.