appeasement

Archive for Tag “appeasement”

Ayn Rand Institute’s warnings on the dangers of appeasement

Friday, September 14, 2012 by

Here we go again: More bloody violence from the Middle East, more angry threats from Islamists, more appeasing whimpers from the White House and the State Department—it’s like a movie on an endless loop, one that we’re condemned to watch over and over.

Except that we have a choice. There’s a way out of this theater of horrors—a way to win this supposedly unwinnable war—and the Ayn Rand Institute has been talking about it for many years now. In articles, op-eds, lectures, panel discussions, blog posts, letters to the editor, and press releases, we’ve been warning about how Western appeasement of Islamist aggression encourages further aggression.

Take a look at the list I’ve compiled, at the end of this post. It’s a track record of consistent commentary that explains current events overseas and offers practical, principled solutions. With the recent spike in attention to Ayn Rand’s ideas on domestic issues, fueled by vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s admiration for some of her writings, perhaps there’s now a better opportunity for the Institute’s message on appeasement in foreign policy to gain a hearing.

What is that message? It’s indicated in an early passage from the 2009 book by the Institute’s foreign policy fellow Elan Journo, Winning the Unwinnable War:

          Facing the Islamist onslaught, our policymakers aimed, at most, to manage crises with range-of-the-moment remedies—heedless of the genesis of a given crisis and the future consequences of today’s solution. Running through the varying policy responses of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton there is an unvarying motif. . . . Our leaders failed to recognize that war had been launched against us and that the enemy is Islamic totalitarianism. This cognitive failure rendered Washington impotent to defeat the enemy. Owing to myopic policy responses, our leaders managed only to appease and encourage the enemy’s aggression.

And no, the long-standing policy of appeasement didn’t stop with Bill Clinton. Here’s a passage from “Obama Whitewashes Iran” (op-ed, 2009):

Obama’s appeasing diplomacy re-enacts the disastrous policy of the past. Our policymakers evaded Iran’s character as an enemy, and by rewarding its aggression with bribes and conciliation, they encouraged a spiral of further attacks.

No, Bush was no exception to this trend. After 9/11 his administration invited Iran—the leading sponsor of Islamist terrorism—to join an anti-terrorism coalition (!). Talk of an axis of evil was quickly abandoned, and Washington backed the European scheme to bribe Iran to halt its nuclear program.

Our continuing appeasement of Islamist aggression has clear implications for America’s near future. If Washington declines to change its policies, we can expect (1) government intimidation and censorship of those who expose Islam’s evils, for the sake of appeasing Muslim sensibilities; (2) failure to protect American citizens, at home and abroad, against fatwas and other violent Islamist reprisals, and (3) more deaths of American soldiers, and more military expenditures, stemming from increased entanglement in the Middle East.

The Institute’s commentaries on this issue deserve to become part of the ongoing debate over Mideast foreign policy. Here are just a few:

1989 (re-released in 2006): Religious Terrorism vs. Free Speech (op-ed on the fatwa against Salman Rushdie)

1997: Iraq: The Wrong War (op-ed)

1998: Fanning the Flames of Terrorism (op-ed)

2001: “Peace” Process: Israel’s Path to Suicide (op-ed)

2001: End States Who Sponsor Terrorism (op-ed, published as a full page ad in the New York Times; an earlier version was published as an ad in the Washington Post)

2001: The Immorality of a “Compassionate War” on Terrorism (op-ed)

2002: America Is NOT Winning the War (article)

2003: 9/11—Two Years Later: Why America Is Still Losing the War (video lecture)

2003: America vs. Americans (video lecture)

2003: The Timid War on Terrorism (op-ed)

2004: The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America (book)

2005: “Muslim Opinion” Be Damned (op-ed)

2005: Neoconservatives vs. America: A Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11 (video lecture)

2006: The U.S.-Israeli Suicide Pact (op-ed)

2006: Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons (video panel discussion)

2006: The Fear To Speak Comes to America’s Shores (op-ed)

2006: America’s Foreign Policy: Self-Interest vs. Self-Sacrifice (video lecture)

2006: The Cartoon Jihad: Free Speech in the Balance (op-ed)

2006: The Twilight of Freedom of Speech (op-ed)

2006: Why We Are Losing Hearts and Minds (op-ed)

2007: The Road to 9/11: How America’s Selfless Policies Unleashed the Jihadists (video lecture)

2007: Totalitarian Islam’s Threat to the West (video panel discussion)

2007: The “Forward Strategy” for Failure (article)

2007: Washington’s Make-Believe Policy on Iran (op-ed)

2009: Iran’s fist, clenched tighter (blog post)

2009: Obama Whitewashes Iran (op-ed)

2009: Surrender in book on Mohammad cartoons (blog post)

2009: Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism (book)

2010: South Park and self-censorship (blog post)

2010: Draw Mohammad, risk your life? (blog post)

Tags: , , ,

Posted in Foreign Policy

Send a comment to the author

Quiz: Can you spot a pattern in U.S. policy on North Korea?

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 by

Can you connect the dots? Can you put your finger on an elusive pattern? And when I say elusive, I mean, really hard to detect? Up for the challenge? Have a look at the following developments in U.S. policy toward the nuclear-armed North Korea, described with the help of New York Times headlines. Let me know if you can spot a pattern.

Act I.
1993: North Korea, Fighting Inspection, Renounces Nuclear Arms Treaty
1994: U.S. and North Korea Sign Pact to End Nuclear Dispute :
“[As part of the deal] an international consortium will replace North Korea’s current graphite nuclear reactors with new light-water reactors…. The United States also agreed to low-level diplomatic ties with North Korea.”

Act II.
1998: North Korea Fires Missile Over Japanese territory
2002: North Korea Says It Has a Program on Nuclear Arms
2005: North Korea Says It Will Abandon Nuclear Effort:
“[As part of the deal, foreign powers] said they would provide aid, diplomatic assurances and security guarantees and consider North Korea’s demands for a light-water nuclear reactor.”

Act III.
2006: North Koreans Say They Tested Nuclear Device
2006: North Korea Will Resume Nuclear Talks [with West]
2007: In Shift, Accord on North Korea Seems to Be Set:
“[As part of the deal] the oil and aid for North Korea would be provided by South Korea, China and the United States.”

Act IV
2009: North Korea Claims to Conduct 2nd Nuclear Test
2010: North Koreans Unveil Vast New Plant for Nuclear Use
2012: North Korea Agrees to Curb Nuclear Work; U.S. Offers Aid:
“[As part of the deal, the U.S.] pledged in exchange to ship tons of food aid to the isolated, impoverished nation.”

Act V
Can you project what might happen next? Here are my thoughts, from a few years back. In a nutshell: Appease, Embolden. Repeat.

Tags: ,

Posted in Foreign Policy

Send a comment to the author

Obama’s upcoming speech in Cairo

Monday, June 1, 2009 by

This week, on June 4th, Barack Obama will give a highly anticipated speech in Cairo. The intended audience is the Islamic world. It’s bizarre that he feels compelled to do so, and unseemly that he chose Egypt (a quasi-friendly dictatorship) as the venue. Presumably this high-profile speech is meant to underline that Obama is serious about his policy of outreach to the Muslim world. And by that I mean the repeated pledges of goodwill and the administration’s commitment to diplomatic engagement. Remember his offer of an outstretched arm to Iran, if it agrees to “unclench” its fist? Remember the trial balloon re negotiating with “moderate” elements of the Taliban?

But does anybody buy this stuff? Well, sad to say, many in the United States feel this is the only way forward. And of course this policy is a godsend to Iran and the Islamist movement generally; they stand to gain from Washington’s appeasement. Yet it is interesting to me that there have been some pointed demurrals — from commentators writing for Arabic publications.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

Posted in Foreign Policy

Send a comment to the author

The Talibanization of Pakistan?

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 by

What might Pakistan look like in the years to come? The nuclear-armed country may well look a lot like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Sounds like hyperbole? Consider the trend now unfolding in Pakistan: the national government struck a so-called peace agreement with Islamist kingpins in the North. In return for promising to end jihadist attacks within Pakistan, the Islamists were given the power to enforce sharia (Islamic law) in the Swat Valley. The Pakistani government recently signed this agreement into law. But as a Washington Post subhead puts it, “After Reaching Deal in North, Islamists Aim to Install Religious Law Nationwide.”

Several months back, when the deal was announced, I suggested that it was an outright surrender. Instead of living up to its stated goal of opposing the Islamists, by defeating them militarily, Islamabad has opted for the losing policy of appeasement — a policy that can only strengthen the jihadists. One concerned observer, a prof at Quaid-i-Azam university, told the Post that “The [national] government made a big mistake to give these guys legal cover for their agenda.”

It’s far worse than that. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

Posted in Foreign Policy

Send a comment to the author

Ending the scourge of piracy?

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 by

In a dramatic rescue operation carried out by U.S. Navy Seals, Capt. Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama was freed from Somali pirates. The Seals performed admirably and under challenging conditions.

But has the operation made us safe by teaching the pirates a lesson? Apparently not. Even as the Maersk Alabama episode came to an end, there’s news of a pirate attack on another American-flagged ship, the Liberty Sun. Given the belligerence of some of the Somali pirates after the release of Capt. Phillips (one of them threatened that “In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying.”), there’s reason to expect further attacks.

So why have the pirates not been deterred?

Because we have emboldened them for years through an entrenched policy of passivity and accommodation — and the freeing of Capt. Phillips was unfortunately just one, halting step in a better direction.

Our typical policy was evident even in the recent rescue. Once four of the pirates had taken the captain hostage in a lifeboat, Americans did not retaliate with force. Instead, an enormously powerful U.S. Navy destroyer simply followed along in their wake and drone aircraft kept watch from the skies. The strategy was “negotiation” — that is, appeasement. There was talk of getting some Somali clan on the mainland to use its leverage with this gang, in order to secure Capt. Phillips’s release. Trained FBI negotiators were consulted. One of the pirates came aboard the Navy destroyer to negotiate the ransom. It was only when the three other pirates seemed to be particularly menacing toward Phillips that the Seals shot them dead. What’s striking here is how far down the road of appeasement we were willing to go. That willingness to capitulate is — sad to say — a common feature of U.S. policy.

The result? Part of it can be seen in the attitude of some of the pirates.

“We are safe and we are not afraid of the Americans,” one of the pirates, who was not identified by name, told Reuters by satellite phone, speaking on behalf of the men holding Capt. Richard Phillips on the lifeboat. “We will defend ourselves if attacked,” he added.[Emphasis added]

That’s precisely what some of them have done following the rescue of Capt. Phillips.

What we need — in response to piracy as well as other  foreign threats — is an across-the-board reversal in U.S. policy.  That process must begin by putting American interests first, and doing so proudly and consistently across time and different contexts. Our government’s sole purpose is to protect our lives and freedom and property — and that certainly includes from the threat of piracy on the waves.

When it became clear (more than a year ago) that the waters off the coast of Somalia are a playground for pirates, the minimum that Washington should have done is to lay down an ultimatum to the pirates to leave Americans alone or else — and live up to it.

The substance of that warning: if any American vessel is captured by pirates, we will use military force to destroy every last pirate base in Somalia (and any neighboring African country). No country that harbors pirates can demand that its sovereignty be respected. When such a threat of retaliation is made fully credible, it can be sufficient to deter would-be aggressors. If any dare test us, then we must unapologetically respond with force.

Not just occasionally, when negotiations go south — but on principle.

When America has once again earned a reputation as a power that none dare cross, we won’t have to worry about pirates.

Tags: ,

Posted in Foreign Policy

Send a comment to the author

Hope and change on Middle East policy?

Monday, March 9, 2009 by

The other day I gave a talk at U.C. Berkeley on American policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. One of the major episodes I discussed is the so called Peace Process of the 1990s, a widely supported but ruinous scheme predicated on the idea of Israel surrendering land in exchange for peace with the Arabs. During the Q&A, someone asked what I thought about the Obama administration’s seemingly new approach. 

A genuinely new approach would incorporate lessons learned from the disasters of the past. Obama’s team appears intent on reenacting those disasters.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

Posted in Foreign Policy

Send a comment to the author

Iran’s clenched fist – update

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 by

Elan Journo has just released an op-ed expanding on the analysis in his post from last week. The article explains how President Obama’s “appeasing diplomacy re-enacts the disastrous policy of the past.”

And as if to prove Elan’s point, news emerged today that Obama may be willing to forego plans for an American missile defense system in Northern Europe if the Russians agree to exert their influence over Iran and encourage the latter to forego its pursuit of nuclear power. (!)

Tags: ,

Posted in Foreign Policy

Send a comment to the author

Iran’s clenched fist

Thursday, February 26, 2009 by

Obama has been sending out all kinds of feelers in hopes of bringing Iran to the negotiating table. One that generated a lot buzz was his comment, in a high-profile interview, that “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” But Obama and the many other supporters of so-called diplomacy pretend–and would have us believe–that Iran’s fist is “clenched” only metaphorically.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

Posted in Foreign Policy

Send a comment to the author