The Zbig Flaw

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your story on Zbigniew Brzezinski's Harvard speech of Feb. 19 gives the impression, perhaps unintentionally, that he offered a reasonable case for the current Carter doctrine on foreign policy and received no disagreement. This is an incorrect and dangerous impression.

The audience seemed intimidated by the weight of authority and the presence of the Secret Service, but did break out into loud laughter when host Samuel Huntington stated that the purpose of the lecture series was to promote international harmony and peace. Those questioners who were allowed to speak made rather timid objections, but one did manage to question the wisdom of supporting repressive dictatorships in opposing Communism. In his answer, Brzezinski exposed a crucial flaw in his theory: he stated that it does not really matter what happens to the people of Pakistan, as long as the structure of anti-Communist alliances is strong.

Of course, the main reason this structure has always been weaker than its architects claimed, is that it has been accompanied by just such a disdain for the welfare of the huddled masses in the Third World. We can see the result in Iran, when some of those masses have learned their true situation and risen up in selfawareness. Mr. Carter in his news conference dimissed CIA intervention in Iran in 1953 as "ancient history" which need not be discussed. Actually it is the root of the current hostage crisis, however outrageous the seizure of those hostages is in itself.

Mr. Carter entered office auspiciously ignorant of foreign policy, and we can only assume Brzezinski's advice produced such evasion. It follows a pattern of ignoring all root causes which would embarrass the U.S., but delving deep into the writings of Marx and Engels in order to reach negative conclusions about any Soviet moves, straining to ignore any defensive motives they may have. Soviet troops never waged war beyond their borders without a rational defensive purpose--which is not, of course, to imply a moral right--until their Afghanistan foray; therefore it would be logical to inquire whether some defensive purpose might not be involved here too. Frequent American outcries for military action to protect Persian Gulf oil, heard since 1973 and escalated with the hostage crisis, might constitute the real impetus for this ostensible aggression. Even if not, U.S. aggressive moves have been frequent.

But such admissions of American guilt or provocation, even the much more destructive episode in Viet Nam or Nixon's tilt toward Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh in 1971, are not part of Brzezinski's scheme. Nor does he take into account widespread American economic imperialism, often depriving Third World peasants even of the very soil under their feet (see Food First,) by Lappe and Collins). All evil is from the Soviet camp, he argues. Therefore he will not apologize to Iran even for the sake of 50 American lives; and when I asked him why not, after his talk, he cited "national pride" as the reason. Zbigniew Brzezinski is indeed a threat to world peace, and to the sanctity of individual lives, of whatever nationality. John E. Chappell, Jr. '54