Zbigniew Brzezinski talks to John Seigenthaler

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, told Al Jazeera America that he was “totally perplexed when President Obama announced sometime in late 2011 that (Syrian President Bashar al-) Assad has to go,” adding, “It wasn't clear to me why should we be dictating his departure.”

In an interview with Al Jazeera America’s John Seigenthaler, he also spoke about a potential nuclear deal with Iran, and about Egypt — another regional hot spot where Brzezinski hopes the United States can avoid miscalculations. “I suspect, much to everyone’s regret, which I share, that this democratic experiment in Egypt never found traction.” 

Brzezinski was also asked if the former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden is a traitor for allegedly leaking NSA surveillance secrets. “Objectively yes, whatever his motives have been,” he replied.

John Seigenthaler: Let me start by asking you what you think the biggest challenge is that the Obama administration faces when it comes to foreign policy.          

Zbigniew Brzezinski: The biggest challenge is inherent in the novel global condition in which we find ourselves. Until a few years ago, the United States was the preeminent power in the world, clearly undisputed — maybe not quite the hegemon that we once almost became after the fall of the Soviet Union, but clearly a country that could, in effect, impose its will very significantly on a lot of events.

Let me go through some of the hot spots in the world and get your opinion. Let's start with Syria. What do you think the U.S. policy should be with regard to Syria?  

You know, I think that we are now closer to what our policy ought to be than we were roughly two years ago. I was totally perplexed when President Obama announced sometime in late 2011 that Assad has to go. First of all, it wasn't clear to me why should we be dictating his departure, and I didn't see in Syria anything like the Arab Spring in Egypt or elsewhere. It was more a matter of an externally supported sectarian war — I repeat, sectarian. Not democratic but sectarian — Sunnis against Shiites. And I also didn't sense that when the president said that, that Assad has to go, that there was anything behind those words. And as a result I think our policy contributed to greater chaos in Syria, then to the appearance on the scene of groups very hostile to us, as well as some groups friendly to us that oppose Assad but who are the weakest among all of the opposition groupings. So it became a policy that, in my judgment, was self-defeating, and I'm glad that we're now on a path in which perhaps we can work this out by a negotiating process in which, in addition to our friends the Europeans, the Russians will also be involved, and perhaps, up to a point, the Chinese, and perhaps we'll even talk a little bit about it with the Iranians. And that's, I think, the right way to go.

To Iran — another hot spot — and the possibility of warming relations between the United States and Iran. First of all, do you believe that that's what's happening?

Egypt. Secretary Kerry has stopped over in Egypt to conduct talks —didn't mention the name of the Muslim Brotherhood while he was there. Does that suggest that the United States really only supports those that are in power?        

Well, I suspect, much to everyone's regret, which I share, that this democratic experiment in Egypt never took traction, never found traction. It was a kind of explosive reaction to a great many internal frustrations, which were not channeled in some sort of purposeful direction, but increasingly became part and parcel of something that smacked overwhelmingly of anarchy. And I think in those circumstances, it's probably better if a country of 80 million people is under some degree of authoritarian control than an open fighting field for emotions, conflicts, aspirations producing collectively a massive self-destructive anarchy.       

Even if the military, the government, is beating protesters in the streets every day, or every other day?

Look, if you're asking me, you know, do I applaud beating people on the streets every day, I would say no, I do not, and probably you don't, either. But sitting in Washington, what is better from our point of view, and what is better for the stability of the region? A country of 80 million people being thrown into total anarchy, turmoil, various manifestations of a chaotic civil war and also a lot of religious effervescence, or is it some form of authoritarianism that contributes, in time, to some degree of stability and to intelligent evolution toward democracy? Look at Turkey, for example. Turkey is a democracy. Maybe not a perfect one, but it certainly is a democracy.

I want to talk about the recent leaks regarding Edward Snowden of the NSA and some of the revelations regarding the U.S. spying on its allies. What's been your reaction to that?

What's new? That's my reaction.       

I mean, the argument has been the U.S., everybody does it, everybody spies on a friend.     

Well, is it true?

I don't know. Is it?    

Of course it is. Now, look. It became symbolized by Mrs. Merkel. That's a problem. But what people overlook is that when the eavesdropping on her started, she was not a national leader. She was an emerging leader from East Germany, a novel person, but not at the top. What must have happened is, there was nothing particularly interesting in what they were hearing and nothing ever filtered to the top. I can't imagine the president or the secretary of state being given some transcript of something that she was saying on her private phone and then saying —          

You can't imagine that. But did the president know that they were listening in on her private phone?         

I suspect they didn't because there wasn't anything interesting, and ...           

But wouldn't the president be upset if they were listening in on his private phone?

Of course he would be. He would be. And I'm sure she was, and I'm sure that's authentic, but my point is, it really wasn't a big deal. It's unfortunate, but it really wasn't intentionally designed to listen to the conversations of the German chancellor.      

So, really, the question is, does the U.S. really need to give up certain liberties in order to protect itself from terrorists?          

I doubt that civil liberties in any significant fashion have been compromised. I doubt that all of that is so useful, and I certainly am conscious of the fact that it has done damage to our relationship with some key countries.    

There's something else to be, however, noted here. It bothers me that an operation of this complexity and this size has resulted in a process which I don't think is effectively monitored from the top down and subject to effective discipline. I mean, look at Mr. Snowden. He was dealing with highly classified issues beyond just top secret — some compartmentalized information. He was processed not by any of our security agencies, but a private firm. Apparently, in the most casual of fashions, without even a personal interview, he was certified as qualified to have top secret. I think here were some doubts about his personality and his history. That was not noted. When he began to show intense interest in some highly specialized intelligence activities, no one paid attention to that. Why is he trying to get in there? And then he absconds with four computers full of this stuff, goes first to China and then to Russia — hardly the places to which a missionary for democracy would be heading.

A traitor?

Well, objectively, yes — whatever his motives may have been. But why go to Russia and to China with the stuff? Has he been living on the moon for the last 20, 30 years? 

Has he done serious damage to the U.S.?   

Possibly, yes — especially the stuff that has not been fully discussed, which is what he was trying to get access to. How much access did he get? And I'm just amazed, honestly amazed, and I have said this publicly, that no heads have rolled. I mean, this is a major internal malfunction in terms of discipline, control, supervision and consequent decisions.  

Let me ask you a couple personal questions if I might. You're 85 years old?          

That's what I'm told.           

The youngest 85 I've met.      

Want to play tennis? 

I'd love to. How do you keep the passion going for the work that you do?       

Because I love the work I do. I try to understand, however ineptly, what's happening in the world and trying to draw some conclusions from that regarding what ought to be done. I do believe in America, and I think America, for all its imperfections, still has more to offer to humanity than other significant societies. But it can't do that if it's not intelligently self-directed, and I do worry that our discussions about foreign policy are increasingly superficial, unfocused, and our public, which, through Congress, ultimately has the decisive word on what we can do, is woefully uninformed about international affairs.

Your father was a Polish diplomat, and you grew up witnessing the aggression of the Soviet Union and of Hitler. How did that shape your views?  

It made me very conscious of the vulnerability of the human condition. Absolutely. Those were the days in which everything was at stake. When I was a child, my father was a consul general of Poland in Germany, and we were witnesses to the beginnings of the Holocaust — not quite yet lethal, but in terms of arrest of Jews, persecution of Jews. My father was giving Polish passports illegally to German Jews. Then he served in the Soviet Union. Then came the war, the war for democracy, but a war which ended with the world divided into a democratic camp and a totalitarian camp. And then those two camps engaged in a competition which could have broken out at any moment through nuclear weapons.

When I was in the White House, we knew that if we had a war with the Soviet Union, within a few hours about 85 million people would be dead, and that's a reality under which we operated.

Two of your children have been involved in some ways in foreign affairs, international politics.

Yes, one is a Republican who's interested in foreign affairs — in particular, security problems. The other one, also a boy, is a Democrat and a diplomat right now.

And then your daughter Mika is a journalist and has been the co-host of a very successful program on MSNBC.         

Yes, in which sometimes I appear, and she always says, "And now my dad."

What's it like to be now known as Mika Brzezinski's father?         

Well, it's funny. It's amusing. It's ego-gratifying, but it's kind of fun, basically.      

Well, she's kind of upstaged her old man, right?     

Well, if you consider TV to be the best way to do it, that's certainly true.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's interview has been condensed and edited.