[ad_1]
President Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday in Helsinki. At a joint press conference, Trump appeared to support Russia's stance that she did not interfere with the US presidential elections. Trump also blamed the United States for the deteriorating relationship.
This caused a rapid bipartisan indignation. Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona called the remarks "shameful" and said "no previous president has ever stunned abject before a tyrant". Republican Senator Ben Sasse said that he was "disgusted".
Democrats have gone further. Former CIA director John Brennan wrote: "It was nothing but treason. Not only were Trump's comments foolish, but he is entirely in Putin's pocket. "
Another charge brought to Trump carries a particular historical weight: that Trump soothes Russia.Representative Lloyd Doggett worried more about" the unknown appeasement in private. "Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee went on to tweet that "This was nothing more than the @potus agreement with the Russian autocrat."
The appeasement n & # 39; Is not a new charge in the history of the US-Soviet / Russian summits. What Trump does is not appeasement, though. On the contrary, this could be even more problematic – both for US foreign policy goals and the liberal order that has governed international politics since the end of the Second World War.
Appeasement is a common accusation
US leaders met with their Soviet rivals. At almost every meeting, the president was accused of appeasement.
Dwight Eisenhower explicitly rejected the appeasement strategy. He declared to the public in 1959 that "the course of appeasement is not only dishonorable, it is the most dangerous that we can pursue."
But when Eisenhower invited the Soviet prime minister Nikita Khrushchev to visit the United States in 1959, appeasement. Conservative author William Buckley Jr. delivered a speech in which he declared: "That he should get orthodox diplomatic recognition, not four years after shocking the story itself by the brutalities of Budapest; months after shooting down an unarmed American plane; only a few weeks since he shouted his intention to demolish the west; only a few days after publishing in an American magazine its undiluted resolution to enslave the citizens of free Berlin … Will not he come back to Moscow convinced that he heard – of his own ear – the death rattle of the west. Richard Nixon went to a summit in Moscow in 1972, he was also accused of appeasement. United States Representative John Ashbrook wrote, "The total history of man indicates that we can rely very little on treaties or written documents. This is especially true when agreements are with nations or powers that have aggressive plans. Hitler had plans. Chamberlain in Munich has only served to lull the free world to reality. Communists have plans. SALT will simply lower our guard, perhaps fatally. "
Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafy was even more direct, saying," Civilized people do not dine with murderers and criminals. "
Democrats were not immune or faced with similar charges." Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democratic senator from Washington, criticized Jimmy Carter's summit with the Soviets in 1979, declaring that "to conclude a treaty that favors the Soviets like this on the ground we will be in a worse position without it, it is appeasement in its purest form." . . . All this strangely reminds Britain in the 1930s … The failure to face the reality today, as the failure to do so then – that is the mark of appeasement. "
Even Ronald Reagan was called appeasing." When Reagan held a summit in 1987 with Mikhail Gorbachev, Howard Philips, the leader of the Conservative caucus, announced an "anti-appeasement" group designed to attack Reagan, calling him "Idiot useful for Soviet propaganda" and "weak man."
The appeasement of appeasement is generally hollow
The analogy with the "leniency" Adolph Hitler 's appeasement by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 rests on the idea that if you make concessions to an abuser, the aggressor becomes more aggressive. However, political scientists have questioned the value of the analogy. Appeasement can be helpful in gaining time to confront adversaries or produce future cooperative behavior.
Indeed, pushed to the extreme, criticism of appeasement could prevent any concession in a negotiation with an enemy because any concession could then make the enemy more aggressive. . But there is ample historical evidence that the Cold War negotiations helped manage the crises between adversaries while preventing a global war.
Trump's strategy may be much worse
confusing the term appeasement with other more salient charges.
If the summit was only a political spectacle, it is different from appeasement as it does not involve making substantial concessions on the territory or weapons. Earlier criticism – particularly of presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter – described how their negotiations had led the United States to adopt a lower strategic position. In Helsinki, there seems to be no agreement. If the summit was only political theater, it was not a traditional appeasement strategy.
[What Trump and Putin want from their historic summit]
In fact, critics at Trump's location imply that he is engaging in a far more dangerous strategy than appeasement. No other president blamed the United States for the sharpened state of a relationship, as Trump did when he tweeted: "Our relationship with Russia does not seem to be a problem. has never been worse thanks to many years of US stupidity and stupidity! "[19659022NootherpresidenthasbeenaccusedofbeingappeasedforpersonalpurposeswhenReptancyPelosiadeclaredhisperformance"provesthatRussiansdosomethingaboutthepersonallyfinanciallypoliticalpresident"
the outcry requires changing historical analogies. Trump's critics do not just blame him for making bad policies. They argue that he is closer to a Manchu candidate, controlled by Russia. These fees are different but can be even more serious than appeasement. After all, no one believed that Hitler had damning videos about Neville Chamberlain
Eric Grynaviski is an associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University. His most recent book is America's Middlemen: Power at the Edge of the Empire . He explores how unusual characters, such as traders, missionaries, and slaves, have helped shape American history, tribes, and rebels.
[ad_2]
Source link
