Talk:Zbigniew Brzezinski/Archive 2

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zbigniew Brzezinski/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is a red-pencil special. The content is good. The writing is rather poor with misspellings of some past-tense verbs (I noticed "led" spelled as "lead," for instance), and groups of words that don't amount to complete sentences. P0M 16:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 11:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Biography needs more information about Brzezinski's ethnic background, religion being the most important one. He was from the area of the Pale of Settlement. The Radio Free Europe information is an example of globalution i.e. outside born revolution that is part of United States' foreign policy even today, connected to Brzezinski participated organizations promoting fundamental global capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancing Mickey Mouse (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit

Someone needs to go through this article and give it a consistant tense. I think that past tense would appropriate for an article mainly concerned with historical events.

B- The content is good but the writer appears to have started learning the writing the style of Frank Lloyd Wright.

Agreed; I tagged it for cleanup with a focus on copyediting. Looking at it, someone may want to streamline the talk, too. Lightwiki 00:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Early Years

Hi. What does "posted" mean? There are several entries using the term "posted." I am associating it with the military as in "posted" or stationed but I don't know if anyone else is having problems understanding what is meant by it. Is it meant to refer to "lived" or "moved"? Thanks. Stevenmitchell 06:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It refers to his father, who was posted to various countries as a diplomat, and presumably took his family with him.—Perceval 03:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Quality of writing is poor

The content of this article seems to be good, but it has been written by people who do not always make complete sentences, who spell the past tense of "lead" as "lead" (like the metal) instead of "led," etc.

This article would be a good project for somebody with lots of time and patience to go through it like a good high school English grammar teacher. P0M 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The use of "realist" is rather biased, assuming that hawkish views are correct and dovish views are overly idealistic. To call Kissinger a realist is about as accurate as calling him an idealogue. Neither word has any meaning or merit without backing and support. (1 May 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.144.39.188 (talk • contribs).

==External Links==

• [1] Photos of Zbigniew Brzezinski inspecting Osama bin Laden's dragunov rifle while at a terrorist training camp.

There is no scintilla of evidence that that rifle belonged to bin Laden.

I agree, there's no indication whatsoever that the person pictured is Osama, moreover the person pictured doesn't even look like Osama--thames 00:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the contention that ZB supported "terrorist" training camps. There is no proof given in the article. -- Zoe

24.68.108.109, please provide proof of your accusations. -- Zoe

The claim is reasonably plausible, but I too would like to see a source. I have the Spiegel archive which contains the issue (45/2001) that reproduces the small photo, and the caption (translated) reads: "US security advisor Brzezinski: Russians went into Afghani trap. - At the Pakistan-Afghanistan border." No word about bin Laden, and even the web page above only mentions this in passing. The other guy in the photo could be bin Laden, I dunno. I found no email address on the website above to ask for details. If we can confirm the claim, I'd actually support putting the picture in the article under fair use, but as one of many photos demonstrating US support of fundamentalists it's not particularly interesting. --Eloquence

I have decided to remove the link http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/1990s/grandchessboard1997.html because it contained material that asserted that ZB was part of some global conspiracy to impose a world dictatorship. Check the link yoruself. Neilinoz

I've added actual textual support for Brzezinski's relationship to the Afghani 'freedom fighters' as Reagan would later call them.--thames 00:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had a quick run-through the article, and I believe it needs to be cleaned up, especially the claims which are not verified, like "regarded by some as the democrats alternative to Kissinger". Things like that, without source, should really be purged from an article. It degrades the quality of wikipedia if source material is not added. 80.108.103.172 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Normalization

In fact, "normalization" of relations usually refers to the Carter/Brzezinski efforts, while "opening" or "establishment" of relations refers to Nixon/Kissinger's initiatives. Relations were not normalized under Nixon/Kissinger, they were only opened. It was under Carter/Brzezinski that relations assumed a normal diplomatic channel and character. Google searches for "Nixon normalized China" and "Carter normalized China" illustrate that the latter is in more common usage, as it has three times as many hits. —thames 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

the search is not useful without exact phrases. carter+"normalized relations"+china gets 699 while nixon+"normalized relations"+China gets 662. this suggests that "normalization" is an ambiguous term that can refer to either case. "establishment of official relations" is most clearly (note the word "official") refers to the establishment of relations in 1979.--Jiang 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Official" is the more ambiguous term, since it's not a proper diplomatic term. "Normalized relations" has a known diplomatic definition. What occured in 1979 was a normalization of relations. What Nixon/Kissinger did was not. "Offical" relations does not have an exact meaning in international relations parlance. —thames 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a State Department document of remarks by Sec. State Albright referring to 1979 as the date of normalization [2]. —thames 02:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

do you have any sources to back up what you mean by "international relations parlance" and "proper diplomatic term"? do you have a textbook that defines this?

As a simple google search demonstrates, "normalization" is frequently used to refer to the actions of Nixon in 1972. (This does not exclude it from being used to refer to 1979, but since it is being used for both, we should avoid to term.) I don't see how it can be disputed that what happened in 1979 was the establishment of official diplomatic relations. This is certaintly the usage of the Chinese press and government February 27, 2002 is the 30th anniversary of the normalization of relations between China and the United States. "30 times more than in 1979, when China and the United States established official diplomatic relations" On January 1, 1979, the United States established official diplomatic relations with China, formally recognizing the government of the PRC--Jiang 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

evidence of the term being used by authoritive sources: [3]--Jiang 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jiang, if you read your sources you will see that normalization occurred in 1979 not 1972. The first link you provide says that in 1972 "both nations pledged to work toward full normalization of diplomatic relations" while "On December 16, 1978, the 30-year abnormal situation between the two countries came to an end". If you do searches for "official diplomatic relations" and "normalized relations" at Google Scholar you will see that there are five times as many references to normalized relations as there are to official diplomatic relations. Furthermore, in all cases, the normalization of relations between the U.S. and China are said to occur in 1979. It could not be more clear. —thames 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

there is still no evidence here that "official diplomatic relations" is improper wording.

The first link stated "February 27, 2002 is the 30th anniversary of the normalization of relations between China and the United States" 30 years before February 27, 2002 was February 27, 1972, not 1979. The quote "both nations pledged to work toward full normalization of diplomatic relations" implied normalization to be a long standing process lasting from 1972 to 1979. This is also implied in the Shanghai Communique. This would mean that to state 1979 as the date of the normalization of relations (as is done here) would be misleading. The other links I provided were meant to illustrate the use of "official diplomatic relations" and make no reference to "normalization".

a search on google scholar of "official relations"+China+"United States" gets 315 results while "normalized relations"+China+"United States" gets 215 results.--Jiang 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

When Brzezinski was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom it was for "the normalization of U.S.-Chinese relations" ...**(Link removed. See edit summary)... Look at this Foreign Affairs article [4]: it states that Nixon/Kissinger could not complete normalization, that it was Carter/Brzezinski that achieved the normalization of relations. "Official relations" are not mentioned in the text of the presential speech award, nor are they mentioned in the Foreign Affairs article precis. The Brzezinski article should read that he was responsible for the normalization of relations, while the Nixon/Kissinger article should say that they opened relations or that they began the normalization process. —thames 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

the reason given for removing "official diplomatic relations" given above was that it is "not a proper diplomatic term". So far, no evidence has been given to suggest this. On the contrary, I have provided evidence to show that this phrase is in widespread use.

just because the Presidential Medal of Freedom citation and a particular Foreign Affairs article uses "normalization" does nothing to prove or imply that "official diplomatic relations" cannot be used to describe what was established in 1979. Just because these two specific texts do not use the phrase does not mean that the phrase is wrong or improper. It implies nothing.

Furthermore, the Foreign Affairs article states, "but even the architect of America's opening to the world's most populous communist power had to leave full normalization of U.S.-Chinese ties to his heirs." The insertion of the word "full" again implies that the normalization was a process spanning the period 1972 to 1979. This is made more explicit further in the text where it characterizes 1979 as the "final step" and the "final difficult step" in the process. If the Brzezinski article reads that he (alone) was responsible for the normalization of relations, then Wikipedia will contradict Foreign Affairs which gives him credit for the "final step" and not the beginning and middle steps implied by the insertion of the phrase "final step" in the article. --Jiang 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason for removing "official diplomatic relations" was that the wording was incorrect, and far more ambiguous than the original wording of "normalized relations". If you wish to make the point that Carter/Brzezinski did the last step, then insert that point rather than changing the wording to an ill-defined poor substitute. Put in the article text in the China section that Nixon/Kissinger were responsible for the dramatic opening of relations, while Carter/Brzezinski were responsible for consolidating that initiative in finally normalizing relations.—thames 02:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence on this talk page to suggest that "official diplomatic relations" is "incorrect" or "ambiguous". Therefore, I see no reason for removing it. Please back up the claim with links and citations. How is "official diplomatic relations" "incorrect" and "far more ambiguous" than "normalized relations"? I am not convinced here.

The use of "official diplomatic relations" is more succinct than trying to state "the full normalization of relations." Moreover, the latter usage seems (to me) to be more ambiguous because it doesn't automatically imply diplomatic recognition. Until then, the American ambassador to China was posted to Taipei meaning that the U.S. did not recognize the PRC as a sovereign state. It wasn't just about normalized relations: it was about recognition of the PRC's legitimacy. --Jiang 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: you are the one who removed the "normalization" wording, inserting "official diplomatic relations". However, the wording "normalization" is what is used by diplomats to describe what occurred, as can be seen in the wording of Brzezinski's Presidential Medal of Freedom award text, the Foreign Affairs article, Madeline Albright's speech, and every bio of Brzezinski available on the internet. In fact, normalization of relations does imply full diplomatic recognition. When relations were normalized the ambassador was posted to the PRC and recalled from Taipei. There's nothing ambiguous about that. Before that time, relations had not been normalized. The normalization was achieved under Carter/Brzezinski, and this article should state that. "Official diplomatic relations" is an inelegant substitute which could mean a number of things--we certainly had diplomatic relations with the PRC between Nixon's opening and normalization which were officially sanctioned by both sides--however relations were not normalized. Your change to the wording was inaccurate and unwarranted. —thames 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

you keep repeating that "official diplomatic relations" is improper wording, but I see no links to websites or published sources to suggest this. Do you have a link to back up your claims? The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations certainly uses the term "diplomatic relations". No one is calling the period before 1979 to be "established diplomatic relations" so I really don't see how it is ambiguous. Do you have evidence of people calling the relations between 1972 to 1979 to be "official diplomatic relations"? This link from the PRC embassy repeats "establishment of diplomatic relations" over and over again, mentions Brzezinski several times, to mean the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1979. The document signed between the two governments is called the "Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations". There are countless more links on official websites and published sources that use "establishment of diplomatic relations" exactly as I meant it. Is this not enough justification for the term? Are you to call the Joint Communiqué of 1979 to be inaccurate too?

i believe "establishment of diplomatic relations" is simply a more specific and accurate term to pinpoint what happened in 1979, as opposed to what happened over the course of the 1970s in a two step process (for most countries, it is a one step process).--Jiang 19:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read the text of the Joint Communiqué you will find the final bullet point says quite plainly: "Both believe that normalization of Sino-American relations is not only in the interest of the Chinese and American peoples but also contributes to the cause of peace in Asia and the world." That's what the Communiqué achieved: the normalization of relations. The Chinese source you cite specifically refers to the events of 1978-79 as normalization, and in fact does so three times, using the phrase "the normalization of Sino-U.S. relations", and once more using the term "normalize". The complete term "Official diplomatic relations" appears in neither of the sources you cite. —thames 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, this Carter Center document [5] specifically refers to the event in 1979 as the normalization of relations. —thames 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of contention here is whether "official diplomatic relations" is 1) improper/inaccurate and 2) ambiguous. You don't need to show me that "normalization of relations" can be used to describe the events terminating in 1979. I conceded that point long ago, in my second post to this page. I would like you to prove that "official diplomatic relations" is 1) improper/inaccurate and 2) ambiguous to justify not using the term.

If you read the text of the Joint Communiqué more closely, you will see that prior to the lited points, it states that these points "reaffirm the principles agreed on by the two sides in the Shanghai Communique and emphasize once again..." (emphasis added). The 1979 Communiqué doesn't do any more to state that normalization has been achieved than the 1972 Communiqué. Both simply affirm that normalization is a good idea. It does not state "normalization has been achieved" (or something to that effect). And while Jimmy Carter would like to take all the credit for normalization ("when I normalized relations with China"), the previous links you and I have listed show that credit is not usually given solely to Mr. Carter. To give him all the credit would be POV.

The links have been provided show that "official diplomatic relations" is in common and widespread use, even in official contexts, and is neither 1) improper/inaccurate nor 2) ambiguous. Unless there is evidence provided to the contrary, I see no reason for not using the phrase. If you prefer to slice out the word "official" from "official diplomatic relations" to be in line with the 1979 Joint Communiqué, that is fine with me too. "Official" is simply there for emphasis.--Jiang 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "official diplomatic relations" is improper because it is not the most commonly used phrase by authoritative sources, such as: the communique itself, brzezinski's bios, president carter, madeline albright, Foreign Affairs, etc. "Normalized relations" is the term that they use. You say that your terminology change is due to POV issues: that Carter/Brzezinski cannot claim credit for the entire process of normalization. That's fine. As I said above, if you wish to make that point, add a sentence or two in the appropriate places explaining that the process had its genesis with Nixon/Kissinger "opening" China, and that normalization was achieved later by Carter/Brzezinski. Don't make a terminology change which does not actually help the reader in understanding this point, and moreover is a term which is not used either by the principal documents or by the principal participants in the events of 1979/79.—thames 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "official diplomatic relations" is certainly used commonly by authoritative sources and I don't see how "normalization" is more common. It is used (as the variant "establishment of diplomatic relations") in the "Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations", in the Joint Communique of 1982 ("between the two countries on establishing diplomatic relations"), by the the PRC government ("US President George Bush...who had served under President Ford from 1974-1976 as the chief liaison officer from the US to the People's Republic of China before the establishment of diplomatic relations"). it has been used in congressional resolutions such as Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 19 ("The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China in December 1978 simultaneously issued a joint communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, wherein the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China agreed to recognize each other and to establish diplomatic relations as of January 1, 1979"), by the CIA World factbook ("With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979..."), the US state dept ("With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979"), Bill Clinton ("As we mark the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China").

The use "diplomatic relations" instead of "normalized relations" to makes it clear to the reader that the change was one of diplomatic recognition - the official recognition of the PRC as a legitimate state. "Normalization" makes no such implication (regarding the switch in diplomatic recognition) and is unprecise because it occurred over the course of the decade. The establishment of diplomatic relations was a precise event that was the work of Carter/Brzezinski. This is an article on Brzezinski, no Sino-American relations in the 1970s. Why not use a shorter term/explanation when there is nothing wrong with it? I don't see anything wrong with it.--Jiang 09:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Normalization did not recognize the PRC as a legitimate state. Normalization acknowledged that the PRC was the legitimate government of the state of China. The United States never stopped recognition of the state of China, but it did switch recognition from the Nationalist government to the Communist government. Its relations with the PRC were "diplomatic relations" before 1979, but they were not normalized. That's why saying that 1979 achieved the establishment of diplomatic relations misleads the reader, and why normalization of relations is the more precise term. As before, if you want to make the point that the process of achieving normalized relations was begun with Nixon/Kissinger opening China by all means add that to the article. But the achievement of normalization occurred under Carter/Brzezinski: that's the language that they use to describe the event, that's the language in the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award, and that's the language in the Joint Communique itself. —thames 23:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Brzezinski's address

Brzezinski's address is well known and has been published on the internet by Fairfax County numerous times--as early as 2002:

http://www.fairfax.va.us/pcom/calendar/CalendarJan02.pdf

The information regarding the easement negotiations has been published in the Washington Post and should be included.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801133.html

Your link is broken, but I think this is what you are referring to. However, we have a Presumption in favor of privacy, which is official Wikipedia policy. I think that putting his exact address in the encyclopedia is a violation of privacy, and adds little or no value to the article. Whether the information is available elsewhere is immaterial to whether it should be placed here. However, I will add a link and a sentence regarding the land dispute to the article.—thames 21:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Flag Event

prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/060207falseflag.htm Brzezinski Suggests False Flag Event Could Kick-Start Iran War]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.21.232.236 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Although some could construe Brzezinski as talking of a false flag (ie the bit about an attack in the US blamed on Iran), I feel that for inclusion of that kind of analysis of his words, someone better than Alex Jones/Prison Planet is needed. Zbigniewwho (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Private life?

How about his private life? Many other articles contain references to wife, children, home town, religion, interests, etc. Ran9876 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Find a reputable published source that can be cited. Personal information is the most sensitive type of information, and ought to have the highest standards. See WP:BLP.—Perceval 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)