20 May 2008
The Foreign Policy Debate
Terrorists do not crave legitimacy and international acceptability, as stated by John R. Bolton in his OpEd article, “Bring On the Foreign Policy Debate” in the May 19, 2008, Wall Street Journal—just the opposite. They are, in fact, nihilists and bringing them to the negotiation table would begin to co-opt them into the circle of world order that we seek to defend.
Mr. Bolton sets up a false dichotomy between those who favor negotiations for the resolution of international disputes 99% of the time and those who “polyannishly” favor them all the time. In fact, constant dedication to the utility of negotiations does not exclude or delay the use of other tactics.
What made Chamberlain’s agreement with Nazi Germany a failed policy of appeasement was conducting those negotiations without removing the blinders from his eyes. Talking to the enemy should always be done with no delusions. Worse yet, we should not be deluded into believing that stiffing the enemy will accomplish more than feed our own pride. On the contrary, we cannot ignore the possibility that something beneficial to both sides may result even from negotiations that are adamantly opposed by political rivals.
Terrorists do not crave legitimacy and international acceptability, as stated by John R. Bolton in his OpEd article, “Bring On the Foreign Policy Debate” in the May 19, 2008, Wall Street Journal—just the opposite. They are, in fact, nihilists and bringing them to the negotiation table would begin to co-opt them into the circle of world order that we seek to defend.
Mr. Bolton sets up a false dichotomy between those who favor negotiations for the resolution of international disputes 99% of the time and those who “polyannishly” favor them all the time. In fact, constant dedication to the utility of negotiations does not exclude or delay the use of other tactics.
What made Chamberlain’s agreement with Nazi Germany a failed policy of appeasement was conducting those negotiations without removing the blinders from his eyes. Talking to the enemy should always be done with no delusions. Worse yet, we should not be deluded into believing that stiffing the enemy will accomplish more than feed our own pride. On the contrary, we cannot ignore the possibility that something beneficial to both sides may result even from negotiations that are adamantly opposed by political rivals.
Comments:
Post a Comment
