[Media-watch] FW: Zbigniew Brzezinski

[david Miller]

Try writing to Paxman: jeremy.paxman at bbc.co.uk or Newsnight: Newsnight at bbc.co.uk

----------
From: david Miller <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:40:01 +0000
To: <jeremy.paxman at bbc.co.uk>
Subject: Zbigniew Brzezinski

Dear Jeremy,

I watched you interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski last night with amazement.  Here is a man who is not known as a peacenik and who was instrumental in the disasterous involvement of the US in Afghanistan from 1978 onwards.  In the interview last night he handed you an absolute gift of a statement that the UK government proposals at the UN are a cynical and transparent attempt to legitimise war:

'When I look at the 6 points, 2 of them strike me as utterly frivolous... The first one that Saddam has to appear on television and speak in Arabic and so forth.  That¹s clearly designed to humiliate and to provoke a negative reaction.  And the second one which is that he has to promise to destroy mobile production facilities for biological weapons.  Something that he denies having.  Something that the Inspectors have not located and something which neither the UK nor the US have produced any evidence that they exist.'

This kind of statement from a pro-war US official does suggest that much of the UK government action is at best carried out in bad faith.  Yet with an open goal  you immediately challenged  your interviewee from the UK government perspective saying that it was a very serious allegation (which is true) and that he didn't have any evidence for it (I include a transcript below).  Normally, and without making any comment on Newsnight's routine coverage, I would expect a journalist of your standing to leap on this.  A statement like this could and should be put to all UK ministers today by BBC journalists.  But instead it has now vanished into the memory hole as one more decontextualised piece of information, which could be used to explain why so many people are opposed to war.

You cannot fail to be aware that the US and UK governments have issued a string of statements about the alleged weapons held by the iraqi's which have turned out to be false (such as the non story of the satellite photos disclosed by Colin Powell, the 'fabrication' (according to the UN)  of the evidence issued by British intelligence on nuclear purchasing, the evidence that 100% of nuclear capacity and 90-95% of chemical ad biological weapons have been destroyed).  Yet, the sceptical case on this and on the necessity for war is not consistently put to UK government ministers.  For the sake of balance, surely it would be appropriate to put these kinds of challenges more consistently and effectively to UK ministers?  One view on this whole episode is that the issue of WMD is a charade largely constructed by propaganda.  I would not expect the BBC to endorse such a view, but it should at least be a view which is properly aired.

In the last few days or hours before war, there is still a chance to press UK ministers properly on these questions.

Please try.

Best wishes

David Miller


,

Newsnight 12/03/03 ­ Jeremy Paxman Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser to the American Government


JP:  When you look back to September 11th, you look back even to Resolution 1441 and you see how much support the US and her allies had then.  How¹s it been squandered?

ZB:  I think it¹s been squandered largely because United States but also the United Kingdom increasingly gave the impression that the real interest is not disarmament but regime change.  I think that undercut the support that initially was given to 1441 and I must say as one who has been advocating for 4 weeks now a specific bill of particulars with benchmarks and deadlines, I¹m troubled to see the latest British version of that approach, because that approach has the potential in it of reunifying the UN and of opposing collective action on Saddam if her doesn¹t comply.  But it will only work if the benchmarks, the deadlines, the specific requests are serious and not frivolous.  If they are not merely designed to elicit either a negative response from Saddam or are susceptible to being unilaterally interpreted as not being met by Saddam.

JP:  Are you saying Š..

ZB:  (interrupting)  When I look at the 6 points, 2 of them strike me as utterly frivolous.

JP:  Which ones?

ZB:  The first one that Saddam has to appear on television and speak in Arabic and so forth.  That¹s clearly designed to humiliate and to provoke a negative reaction.  And the second one which is that he has to promise to destroy mobile production facilities for biological weapons.  Something that he denies having.  Something that the Inspectors have not located and something which neither the UK nor the US have produced any evidence that they exist.

JP:  This is a very seriousŠ..

ZB:  (continues) So it¹s hard to say that this is really designed to resolve the problem.  I think it is designed essentially to legitimate action.

JP:  That is a very serious accusation to make against a government which claims that it is acting in good faith and has specifically said today that there are no Œtraps¹ as it put it, in these requirements.  You don¹t have any evidence for it.

ZB:  Yes, the evidence is in the reading.  I am reading from The New York Times version of this proposal and I¹m also reacting to what I just heard on your own broadcast.

JP:  So you¹re sayingŠ.

ZB:  I think the first and the fifth Š.

JP:  You¹re saying the British Government really does not wish to see any kind of meaningful second resolution.  It wishes simply to proceed immediately to war.

ZB:  To have some sort of legitimacy for that war by this current device and I think that is frankly counterproductive because I think there is a chance that we could get unanimity for cohesive, collective action and that is clearly the best outcome for everybody concerned if Saddam defies.  But going to war alone, largely just the US and the UK, has calamitous implications for the international system, for the Alliance, for the UN itself.

JP:  In your judgement is this even the right issue on which to go to war?

ZB:  I think ultimately it is the right issue namely that Iraq has been in violation of UN Resolutions.  It does not pose an immediate threat, an imminent threat and therefore an imminent military reaction is not, in my view necessary.  But pressure and ultimate use of collective force to obligate Iraq to comply with UN Resolutions is, I think fully justified.

JP:  What do you think history will make of Messrs Bush and Blair?

ZB:  I think, of course it will depend ultimately on what happens and history will not end either with a set back or with success but probably something in between will in fact transpire.  But the immediate damage for the next few years to what I have just mentioned; the alliance, the legitimacy of Western leadership, the standing of America in the world, not to speak of consequences in the area and for the UN itself, is going to be rather negative.

JP:  In that case, why are they taking the gamble?

ZB:  Because they are obviously persuaded for a variety of reasons that they should do so.  This is a matter of judgement.  My judgement is that this is rash, it¹s premature, it¹s unnecessary and there are still other ways of trying to resolve the problem.

JP: Zbigniew Brzezinski thank-you very much for joining us.