Peace Without Appeasement: How to Stand Up to Violent Regimes

Hi Everyone,

Since my mammoth post last March in which I laid out some ideas on how to create peace, the tpoic has been on my mind a lot. I have been thinking about it in conjunction with North Korea, the Middle East, particularly Iran. How to lay the groundwork for peace and stability in such a chaotic world? Well, I've been thinking, and yesterday, I came back to an old video clip I saw a while back.

The youtube clip comes from a May 2008 episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews. Then-President Bush had just implied, in an appearance in Israel, that then-Senator Obama's promise that he would meet with the enemies, principly Iran, without preconditions, was tantamount to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War II. Los Angeles talk radio host Kevin James went on Hardball to reinforce this point of view, and when Matthews started playing hardball, James struck out.

In the clip, James states that he wished the President (Bush) had been more direct in calling out the man who would become his successor. James began talking indirectly about how Obama's plans were dangerous for Israel and the US, and that he was an appeaser. Matthews then pressed James with a simple, but poignant question "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong?" James continued with his line about appeasement and all the rest, but Matthews wouldn't let him get away. He kept asking, again and again "What did he do?"(If you watch the video, you'll see he asks at least 23 times) Finally, James just said "I don't know what [Bush] was referring to." This was probably one of Matthews' finest moments. I probably would have done the thing a little differently, but Matthews' point is right on the money.

What James and Matthews were referring to, what Chamberlain did wrong, was the Munich Agreement. When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain traveled to Munich to meet with Hitler. He then signed an agreement allowing Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, I think it was called, in September 1938. Chamberlain promised the agreement would bring "Peace in our time." Well, we all know how that worked out. Hitler violated the agreement, and when the Germans invaded Poland, everyone realized the only way to stop them was to fight.

The point here is that what Chamberlain did wrong was not talk to the enemy. What he did wrong was allow Hitler to grab up all the territory, on hopes that the problem would go away if they let Germany get what it asked for. This strategy of avoiding the issue does not work with any issue, whether personal or international. Regimes need to be confronted. This is the mistake that Chamberlain and others made, which eventually made the most violent war in history inevitable.

It is also important to realize that confrontation is not just about military might. This is the philosophy that fuels the tyrant. Confronting the issue also involves diplomacy. Diplomacy is different than just caving into demands. Tough diplomacy entails talking to hostile countries, offering deals, but also consequences. One strong point is knowing where the person is coming from. Matthews later elaborated to Rachel Maddow that perhaps if more of the leaders at the time had heard about Mein Kampf, they would have known who they were dealing with.

Matthews also talked about how these slogans, like "cut-and-run," "appeaser," are used irresponsibly to drown out criticism. The process and history of this warrants a post in its own right, but let's just look at this appeasement line. All negotiation with hostile powers is not appeasement; ceding territory for the sake of placating those powers are. They talk about "dealing from a position of strength." But it is possible to deal from a position of strength while acknowledging fault on both sides. Indeed, it seems to me that this is what is required to deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. Thankfully, this seems to be the strategy that President Obama is now implementing.

For all those people who think any talks or deals with hostile forces is appeasement, think of this. What about Richard Nixon? More importantly, what about Ronald Reagan? Did they not talk to the leaders of hostile nations? Nixon had his success with China, and more memorably, Reagan had his success with the Soviet Union. One of the things that people remember about President Reagan was that he was "a statesman." Doesn't being a staesman require talking to hostile leaders? Funnily enough, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, at the time, was extremely concerned about Reagan's engagement of Gorbachev and the USSR. He, too, likened it to Chamberlain's appeasement.

So why is this important. Two, well, several, reasons: Iran, North Korea, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan. All of these places are hostile territories, and they will all have to be dealt with with a strong diplomatic approach. Thankfully, it seems one of the President's strong points is comunication. Whether dealing with skeptical voters, critics, or audiences in the Middle East, he has shown talent for communicating seldom seen in anyone. Say what you will about his policies, who can doubt his intelligence when it comes to communication skills? So, going forward, we must not be afraid of dealing in messages of strength and perception. History has shown that strong diplomacy, not appeasement, works.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.