Archivblog: richard-heider.de © 2002-2012

These are my public notes about the speech by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered Friday, October 14, 2011 in Normandy, France upon receipt of the de Tocqueville Prize prize where he addresses the current development in wealth distribution and some geopolitical issues.

An oversimplification of Russia’s role

I am not going to adress the 1%/99% issue. It is a good perspective to talk about the american self interest gone wrong. What stroke me as outdated are Mr. Brzezinski’s views of the geopolitical situation.

Start with Russia:

“It is now clear that Russia’s destiny is no longer the exercise of control over “half of the world.”

Looking at the current development of BRIC and the SCO that is a bit oversimplified. Russia has regained influence dramatically over the last few years. They really worked out how to use their gas supplies and other resources as leverage. Russia just completed a very important gas deal with China and are still the major force in central Asia.

The power cartel scenario

But I guess the real danger is the underlying assumption that there always has to be one national world power, or two rivaling once. How about the scenario, that actually a cartel of powers could be the main force behind the global development in the future. BRIC would have the potential to be that power. Sure, as of today there are some important steps missing, but imagine BRIC coming up with a supranational reserve currency and convincing some key countries to start trading oil and other important resources with it. The ‘scales’ would tip over night.

“[...] Russia’s eventual closer engagement with the West. That may not happen under a President Putin, but the internal preconditions for democratic evolution in Russia are growing and, in my view, will eventually preponderate.”

Putin tried to get closer to the west for many years. The west gave him a cold shoulder. Now that Russia is pursuing ‘the asian alternative’ Putin is received as not being pro-west!? I guess the problem rather lies in the west, specially the USA, never really ending the cold war, even though the enemy was gone.

Same with Turkey. They tried with a lot of effort to get a roadmap to enter the EU. The EU, specially Germany would not permit that. Now that the Turks gain global influence on their own, with the arab spring playing in their direction and with Turkey prospering economically we suddenly see them as part of the west!? I guess the reaction of one turkish minister to the last EU report about Turkey describes it well: “Maybe in a few years we write a report [about the EU]“.

Overestimating the west

And here IMHO is the major mistake in most western political analysis:

“While of less immediate consequence for Europe, America’s longer-term role in the rising new East can be equally important”

The big error is to assume the west would still matter in a “no way around us” matter. But the USA and EU doesn’t. Asia has gained enough momentum do go by it’s own. So we have to understand it is not up to the USA/EU to give direction, it is about still being useful in this new geopolitical construct. Don’t get me wrong: I believe that especially China has a large interest in giving the USA and Europe a seat at the table. Their money reserves are one reason, why they really would want to prefer a ‘migration path’ for the west. The still valuable technological input and the importance of the west as a market are other reasons. But to think the west still has a veto might prove to be erroneous.

He is right about the potential of conflict.

“[...] and China, as well as seek to mitigate the growing rivalry between China and India.”

However Brzezinski has a point about the potential of conflict, however fails to mention the demographic factor. The biggest issue here is the fact, that together they have a deficit of est. 150 million women. Statistically this means you can have at least 150 million men killed in war without even noticing it in the demographics of the following generation. I don’t know if it will be this “rivalry” but there is potential for violent conflict, because if you don’t have one, you have 150 million frustrated men without the slightest chance of marriage.

This response was triggered by a Facebook post.