A Policy to Seek Peace - But at What Cost?

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Apr 14, 2010 at 12:10

What does anyone think the policy prescriptions for peace should be in a world full of hatreds and antipathies towards those who would pursue peace and not political rivalry? How is peace measured when the weights to measure peace are faulted and corrupted by the powers that seek to control governments for personal gain? Let us look at two of the more volatile situations, the one of our more pointed discussion, and one that has corollary implications: Ahmadinejad's Iran and Kim's Korea.

Ever since the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini from France in the seventies, Iran in the hands of the Iranian Islamic Revolution has been following a course of totalitarian overtones to broaden their grasp on a world they see as ripe for an Islamic change. We have seen, in fact, the very fabric of several European societies move in such direction in acquiesence to Islam, for many reasons, not the least of which as a result of colonial influences left behind from European imperialism. While similar things can be found here in America, in Europe the influence is greater, that from the time of the Middle Ages to these contemporary scenes, this colonialism has butted up against the counterpart Muslim influences as more recently exampled by, say, the Ottoman Empire.

World War 1 changed all of that for these modern times. The whole complexion of the quasi-political intervention in the Middle East managed to make for a more complex situation in trying to relate to Islam, which many will concede is more powerful and dangerous now than when it was 'just the Turks.' World peace has suffered greatly as a result.

Advancing past World War 2 and into the seventies, Iran has moved from its former regimes leading to the shah, an erstwhile friend or foe of whomever was the convenient ally of the time, continuing later to an entity that at the same time, could be a formidable force in the region, and yet is crippled with an ideologically imbalanced view of how the world should function, and now has a leadership trying to impose a will upon others with that very worldview and mindset.

In several time zones to the east, another regime has made itself felt, whose rationale for its political strategy is founded in a completely different ideology, yet there are undertones linked to a common cause with Iran; that is North Korea. In their common antipathy for the things of the west, theirs is an uneasy alliance in which is perpetrated a further imbalance of reasoning that seeks to prevent the world from ever achieving that elusive state of being, world peace. So, the question, how does one develop a policy, or put into place several policies that can meet the challenges of stated intentions of powers like Iran and North Korea (if we might be allowed to focus briefly on these two-though definitely not the only issues facing the United States of America and the world at large).

First, under their current mindset, they cannot be ameliorated; neither can they be placated or ignored. In times past, there were arguments for and against 'regime change,' which it has been seen, time and time again, to be a failed policy that produces more problems than it solves, and usually involves subliminal issues of quasi political intervention of suspect influences. Plainly, it does not work in most, if not all circumstances.

Having dispensed with trying a change in the politics from outside, what are the chances of an internal 'revolution,' whether actively or quietly sought after. In both of those instances, we have seen the efforts of the oppressed trying to achieve just that, yet falling to the blooded ground under the oppression these regimes need to keep their hold on the power they covet.

Next is developing a posture that must recognize these entities exist, for whatever reason, and that they must be contained to a sphere that keeps them from spreading the hatred for peace against which they are so obviously opposed. In this we see a division of the world political scene, for even in acknowledging issues of the antagonism that Iran and North Korea present, not all other powers in the global realm are aligned in the idea of keeping them in check; and one wonders why (even if rhetorically thinking)?

No one nation can set itself in an opposing posture against the imposition of the malicious intentions that are presented by these two nations. They have both openly and covertly instigated and manipulated actions against regional neighbors, with threats of escalation in response to reactions to their efforts, all under the thinly –veiled attempts to make themselves known to the world in deference to the insatiable appetite for power. How does one understand the rationale of other nations faced with the same instability that could easily matriculate into another world wide clash and open hostilities, unless one understands that the recalcitrant mentality masks similar mentalities? How does one develop a policy to that?

All rhetoric aside, were the political fate of this country left to the devices of this reader's mindset, a wholesale change in the country's defensive posture is required, and in a radical way. I'll not detail it, but let it be sufficient to say that resources are being spent in the wrong locations and the underlying mechanism that is selling a set of goods to the American military would need to be altered to achieve certain differences in the way we defend ourselves and our allies. Further, our true allies need to be reassured in our commitments to our common good against all comers.

Let Iran and North Korea take their first shot, making sure they have not been 'provoked' in an inordinate situation of their making, then respond in appropriate measure. If this country cannot handle that situation in a thoughtful and carefully handled manner, then there is something really very wrong in this country that would have us react like any other rogue nation wanting to make its mark in the world. We should be bigger than that, and in that, it remains to be seen if we are still that nation our founding agents set before us that can bring stability to a world bent on its own destruction.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".