Europeans question US approach to Terrorism by ABC News: Correspondents Report 5:18pm 24th Nov, 2003   23 November , 2003     ABC News. Reporter: John Shovelan    HAMISH ROBERTSON: During his visit to London last week, President George W. Bush must have been hoping for a kinder view of his foreign policy and his determination to fight the war on terror.But there was little evidence that he got what he was after. Indeed, key lines in his speech to a select group of guests were met with stony silence, underlining the difficulty many in Europe have had with President's Bush's approach.    Zbigniew Brzezinski is a former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter. He says that the fundamental problem Europe has with the President is his simplistic definition of terrorism. And he told our correspondent John Shovelan that that scepticism has been hardened by the flawed intelligence the United States used as a justification for going to war in Iraq.    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think there is a developing debate in America whether the issue of terrorism is enough, as the core definition of America's global role, or whether the problem of terrorism has to be seen in a wider context, both historical and political.    JOHN SHOVELAN: You suggested that the war on terrorism reflects a narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy for a superpower. Could you explain that?    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: To me, it 's quite evident that the problems of the world and the turbulence that is not only manifest currently, but is likely to intensify, cannot be subsumed by the single word “terrorism”.    Terrorism is one manifestation of a much wider and deeper problem that we all confront. It stems from a variety of sources – political resentments, fanaticism, fundamentalism, social injustice, ethnic conflict, historical animosities, social contradictions, last but not least, poverty. All of these together cannot be reduced to the word “terrorism”.    JOHN SHOVELAN: By simplifying it to just terrorism, what does that do then in attempting to combat all those different elements that go together to bring about terrorism?    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, I'm afraid it pushes the United States into a kind of reactionary posture, in some ways reminiscent of what was happening in 19th Century Europe when there was a grand alliance, so to speak, against democratisation and social reform, in which radicalism was viewed as somehow or other almost an equivalent to terrorism. And the result of that was in fact the rise of anarchism, terrorist activities and so forth.    And we have to be very careful not to replicate that experience, especially now that the United States is globally preponderant. It has been traditionally the source of much of global idealism about human rights and democracy. And these concerns should motivate America, and not preoccupation with a single aspect of that rather complex reality, and one which is then increasingly driven by fear, anxiety, panic even, sometimes.    JOHN SHOVELAN: You're talking there about America's foreign policy perhaps being driven by panic?    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: American sort of pronouncements being driven by panic. Fortunately not all of American foreign policy is driven by it. But if American acquires the image of a country totally preoccupied only with its security, and focussed almost exclusively on the word “terrorism”, then I'm afraid the global image of America, and global willingness to support America will go down.    JOHN SHOVELAN: Today, in London, President Bush talked about the evil being in plain sight. What impact does it have in using those quasi-religious or almost theological terms?    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It makes it very difficult to find consensus, particularly in a continent which has experienced terrorism over many decades and knows that it is a complicated phenomenon which cannot be reduced to a rather simplistic, theological formulation. Look at the European reactions. Look at the public opinion polls. Look at European leaders. Look at European newspapers. Look at European actions, or failure to take actions. I think the evidence is simply massive.    JOHN SHOVELAN: Recently you wrote a piece that referred to the word of the US President, the fact that 40 years ago the word of US President was good enough to get Charles de Gaulle to agree to support the US President in whatever may come out of the Cuban missile crisis. He said he didn't need to see the photographs. You seem to be suggesting the word of this President is not as highly regarded. Is that the case?    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: What I said was factually correct, namely that the word of the President in 1962 was taken as a given, that it is the truth. Today, I think there's more scepticism. This is simply a fact. It makes it much more difficult to exercise the leadership that the United States should be exercising. The intelligence failure involving the decision to go to war in Iraq has certainly contributed to that.    JOHN SHOVELAN: What do you think President Bush could get out of this week's visit to the United Kingdom to perhaps change that scepticism?    ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, a single visit is not going to change a broad mood which develops over a period of time. So it will take time to alter it. But I'm quite confident that over time, if we improve our intelligence and if we are more careful in our public assertions, then I think greater trust will come back Visit the related web page
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item