Appeasement in International Politics
Neville Chamberlain's failure to appease Hitler in 1938 produced a seminal lesson in modern diplomacy: concessions to aggressive states invite only more aggression. In this thoughtful reconsideration, Rock argues that little evidence supports this view. Indeed, appeasement can reduce tensions and modify the demands of the aggressor. The book's insights are drawn from a range of episodes, from British appeasement of the United States at the turn of the century to Anglo-American accommodation of the Soviet Union during World War II to American engagement with North Korea under Bush and Clinton. The book offers unsurprising but sensible recommendations, including a policy approach of mixing deterrence with engagement. Simple conclusions do not emerge, although the author does show that the character and motivations of the unsatisfied state matter most in determining success or failure. Rock also does not dispute that Chamberlain's policy was doomed. But he makes the point that other aggressive states, such as North Korea, seem to have more limited ambitions than Nazi Germany -- and are therefore more easily manipulated by inducements.
Related
The basic assumptions of U.S. policy toward the Gulf demand rethinking. The Pentagon pays up to $60 billion a year to protect the import of $30 billion worth of oil that would flow anyway. Playing the role of regional hegemon ties America to troubled regimes and leaves it out on a limb, while allies sit back. Washington must hedge against inevitable political change in the region by spreading the burden and the say, reversing arms proliferation, and encouraging the Gulf states to come up with some security of their own.
The brutality in Kosovo, East Timor, and Rwanda has fed the conventional wisdom that tribal and nationalist fighting is raging out of control. It is not. Since the early 1990s, the number of new ethnic wars has dropped sharply and many old ones have been settled. The world has found a new way to manage secessionism and nationalist passions: granting autonomy, devolving and sharing state power, and recognizing group rights. Ethnic warfare's heyday may belong to the last century.
Under Charles de Gaulle, French foreign policy as seen from Washington had a "nuisance value" at a time when France's domestic choices were much more in tune with those of her allies and neighbors. Under François Mitterrand, the radical nature of the domestic changes in France (e.g., nationalization of major industries and banks, decentralization of the administration of the country) have virtually changed French foreign policy into a reassuring value. At a time when pacifism is sweeping Northern Europe, and the Federal Republic of Germany in particular, France, with her firmness vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, her nuclear striking force, her strong defense budget and weak pacifist movement, seems an oasis of continuity.
