Appeasement

Main Entry: ap·pease Pronunciation: a-'pEz Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): ap·peased; ap·peas·ing Etymology: Middle English appesen, from Middle French apaisier, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace -- more at PEACE Date: 14th century

1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : CALM

2 : to cause to subside : ALLAY

3 : PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

synonym see PACIFY

- ap·peas·able /-'pE-z&-b&l/ adjective

- ap·pease·ment /-'pEz-m&nt/ noun

- ap·peas·er noun

Appeasement is a sure-fire way to have larger, more dangerous problems in the long term. North Korea and Iraq are prime examples of why appeasement is a failed policy that should have been eliminated from foreign policy discussions years ago.

Appeasement as a foreign relations doctrine has been around for quite a long time. In the 20th Century, all you had to do was look at Chamberlain returning from a Munich meeting with Hitler to know appeasement when you saw it.

Todays appeasers are no different. They begin with the admirable goal of preventing wars and bloodshed. They end with the actual sounds of gunfire because the policy does not work. It never has. All it does is postpone the inevitable war and create a much larger conflict because the side being appeased senses and exploits the perceived weaknesses in the appeasers.

It is quite strange that such a doctrine would continue to stick around, even after it has been discredited on the international stage time and time again.

One way that appeasement works is through the use of concessions and negotiation to forestall or prevent conflict. Negotations and concessions will often include monetary compensation (loan forgiveness, oil supplies in return for nonproliferation of nuclear materials, sales of oil on worldwide markets in return for weapons inspections required under UN Resolutions, etc.).

Negotiations, by themselves, is not appeasement. One could pursue negotiations with another country and create a situation whereby both sides get what they need, without losing sight of the core principles to which both hold.

However, countries that appease (and those that continue to believe in appeasement) believe that countries can be bought off. The calculus used by the country being 'bought off' is not just to obtain concessions or to stall military action. It is to see just how far it can push a given country before they give in.

Furthermore, the incentives created by being 'bought off' only serve to encourage others to blackmail or create situations by which they can be bought off as well. This is one reason that countries generally declare that they will not negotiate with terrorists - they know that by doing so, they create legitimacy in the terrorists' actions and will not prevent future attacks.

Go To Page: 1 2