Debating "Appeasement"
This is an interesting article going through the history of the concept, "appeasement."
As anyone familiar with international relations and foreign policy well understands, appeasement has become the ultimate dirty word in any discourse regarding diplomacy. The notorious "Munich Agreement" that sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler has been ahaunting specter that has informed policymakers ever since.
This piece is quite nuanced. It argues, and I think persuasively, that appeasement is not known except in retrospect. While Hitler is the perpetual image along with Neville Chamberlain's infamous "peace in our time" comment, it could be argued that not every adversary, much less every diplomatic interlocutor, has the same unlimited ambitions as Hitler.
In other words, Hitler could be seen as an anomaly rather than the standard by which to judge other cases.
Obviously, I am not for "appeasement" and support an even more robust military posture than we already have for a multitude of reasons. That said, I do not think every diplomatic "deal" is ipso facto appeasement. Very few leaders are in a position to push and succeed in the way Hitler did.
It seems to me we need to examine the history and geopolitical circumstances surrounding each negotiating partner. Those like Hitler who have a history of practically never telling the truth must be warily eyed. Meanwhile, those negotiating from a position of weakness can be viewed as possibly more favorable if geopolitical considerations are reviewed in their totality.
Diplomacy works on a case by case basis and fails similarly. Appeasement in one case can be eminently reasonable and appropriate in others depending on each case's unique circumstances. We can neither say we refuse to negotiate (as former President Bush too often did), nor can we embrace the fetish of negotiation as an end in itself as it often seems our current President does.
Hitler and Munich is instructive, but even as profound a lesson as that should not be viewed as the only possible lesson one should learn.
As anyone familiar with international relations and foreign policy well understands, appeasement has become the ultimate dirty word in any discourse regarding diplomacy. The notorious "Munich Agreement" that sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler has been ahaunting specter that has informed policymakers ever since.
This piece is quite nuanced. It argues, and I think persuasively, that appeasement is not known except in retrospect. While Hitler is the perpetual image along with Neville Chamberlain's infamous "peace in our time" comment, it could be argued that not every adversary, much less every diplomatic interlocutor, has the same unlimited ambitions as Hitler.
In other words, Hitler could be seen as an anomaly rather than the standard by which to judge other cases.
Obviously, I am not for "appeasement" and support an even more robust military posture than we already have for a multitude of reasons. That said, I do not think every diplomatic "deal" is ipso facto appeasement. Very few leaders are in a position to push and succeed in the way Hitler did.
It seems to me we need to examine the history and geopolitical circumstances surrounding each negotiating partner. Those like Hitler who have a history of practically never telling the truth must be warily eyed. Meanwhile, those negotiating from a position of weakness can be viewed as possibly more favorable if geopolitical considerations are reviewed in their totality.
Diplomacy works on a case by case basis and fails similarly. Appeasement in one case can be eminently reasonable and appropriate in others depending on each case's unique circumstances. We can neither say we refuse to negotiate (as former President Bush too often did), nor can we embrace the fetish of negotiation as an end in itself as it often seems our current President does.
Hitler and Munich is instructive, but even as profound a lesson as that should not be viewed as the only possible lesson one should learn.
Comments