Why appeasement is always wrong
September 3, 2004


The old verities of international diplomacy are no answer to the new threat to civilisation, writes Tony Parkinson.

More than 100 schoolchildren in southern Russia are seized at gunpoint on the first day back from summer holidays. Teachers and parents die trying to protect them.

Eleven Nepalese workers in Iraq are lined up and shot in cold blood. A 12th is beheaded, purely for show.

Sixteen bus passengers in southern Israel are blasted to death by suicide bombers. Explosions at a Moscow subway station kill 10 workers. Another 90 lives are lost when terrorists force two Russian passenger jets from the skies.

In almost any other time in modern history, a week of atrocities such as this would have stunned the world.

Yet, today, as the third anniversary of September 11 approaches, it is no longer a shock to see Islamist extremists carrying out these depraved assaults. Many thousands of innocent civilians have already died. Sadly, there will probably be many thousands more.

But maybe, just maybe, the excruciating horror of watching seven-year-olds monstered by fanatics with bombs strapped to their bodies will prompt more people in free societies to grapple with the true awfulness of this phenomenon - and to confront the reality that muddling through with the old verities of international diplomacy is no answer to the threat.

A vicious narrative built on themes of mass murder and subjugation has taken hold in parts of the Arab and Islamic worlds. At its most extreme, it deems that any who live outside this totalitarian creed are worthless in the eyes of God, and therefore to be counted as legitimate targets in war.

How else could it be that Russian school kids would fall prey to this hateful ideology. Or impoverished Nepalese workers seeking reconstruction jobs in Iraq. Or, for that matter, two French journalists.

Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot were taken hostage on a road outside Baghdad on Saturday night by a group calling itself the Islamic Army of Iraq. Their lives are in jeopardy not because of any crimes against the Muslim world; they were kidnapped because of the nationality stamped in their passport.

The blackmail demand from the terrorists to the French Government has no direct link to events in Iraq. Publicly, the kidnappers said the survival of the journalists depended on President Jacques Chirac revoking a French law banning Muslim headscarves in public schools.

All of France is distraught - and angry. This was not how it was meant to be. It is a bitter lesson for the French - indeed, for all of us - because it represents incontrovertible proof that there is no buying immunity from the war on terror.

Chirac flew to a Black Sea resort for urgent talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Here's the paradox: of the three leaders who formed the core of international opposition to US policy on Iraq, two have hostage crises on their hands.

Meanwhile, the Arab League has called for the journalists' release. So, too, Yasser Arafat.

But did France really want or need Hamas in its corner?

Consider the stomach-turning symbolism: on the same day two of its suicide terrorists blew up 16 Israeli civilians in Beersheba, Hamas issues a plea for clemency on behalf of the French journalists, saying they deserved special dispensation in return for France's "honourable" anti-war stance on Iraq.

No democracy should have to jump through these hoops to keep innocent people alive. No self-respecting Western government should endure the humiliation of having bloodstained hands signing a statement of solidarity.

From the 1970s, when the phenomenon of state-sponsored terror, kidnappings and hijackings first began to surface in the Middle East, Western policy was heavily addicted to the notion of preserving stability at all costs - as if maintaining a squalid status quo was in itself a guarantee of security.

One legacy of that policy has been a seething cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance and social ruin in the Arab and Islamic worlds, where governments deflect responsibility for their own incompetence and lack of popular legitimacy by making the West a scapegoat. Another has been the emergence of megalomaniacs like Saddam Hussein.

Saddam risked the annihilation of his regime because he believed the US-led allies would back down to international pressure. He lost that bet.

Similarly, it appears Osama bin Laden expected the September 11 attacks on America would bring a collapse of morale in the US, and the swift descent of the West into defeatism and despair. This remains the crucial test of will.

The aim of the Islamists is to brutalise and polarise, and their assaults on free societies are not going to stop. They are intoxicated by a belief that their readiness to kill and be killed gives them huge leverage over the rest of mankind.

They have to be confronted and defeated. This much is certain: appeasement was never going to do it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, if you look at the poll results half way down this page : CNN POLL

...it becomes clear that Americans dont feel this way across the board.

Feel free to share your thoughts.

BTT now with the article included.

Poll added - since no one was responding now all you have to do is click

I'd say talk with them, to buy time, then drop the hammer on them.

Lie - pretend to give in to demands - then kill them

The Official NoName Rules Of Negotiation. Note---Rules are non negotiable. Would you prefer-------- Choose one or more. 1--- Napalm 2--- Convention HE's 3--- Strategic Nukes in the 5 to 10MT range You may now duck and cover your head. Do not look up. AMF...!

Some insurgent armies can be negotiated with. However for religious fanatics, negotiation legitimizes them and will fail in the long term. Giving in to their demands will eventually cost more lives than it saves.

No.  Really think about your answer for a minute.  If my wife, MarianLibrarian, were taken hostage by Moooslims, I would be behind only one option.  Release her immediately, or die.  If she's killed in the assault, that's the way the cookie crumbles.  I expect her to do the same for me.

Negotiation should be minimal. Make whatever effort can be made to try and help the hostages, but be darn sure to kill ALL the terrorists if the hostages are harmed.

The Brittish SAS raid should be our model.

NO.........just eliminate

Quoted: Negotiation should be minimal. Make whatever effort can be made to try and help the hostages, but be darn sure to kill ALL the terrorists if the hostages are harmed.

+1

No, never, under no circumstances. Do it once, you doom yourself to do it over and over.

Fortunately Russia hasn't been pussified by the politically correct liberals like we have and like that CNN poll supports.  

They will lie, cheat and stall just long enough to get everything set up for an ass stomping.  Then it will all be over.  I'm sure they will lose some hostages like they did last time but if they start negotiating and giving into their demands they will end up losing a lot more people in the long run.

Are you crazy?

These savages only understand death.

Maybe talk to them long enough to get your best ass-kickers in position. Then kill them. Kill the people who helped them. Kill their families. If they requested the release of some prisoners, kill them instead. If anyone escapes, hunt them down and kill them, for as long as it takes.