7/20/09

There is not one political framework response that is well suited for any one political situation.

History has shown that appeasement and negotiation did not work with the likes of Hitler, but history

shows us that negotiation – and in a sense “appeasement” - has worked with such political enemies as

the Soviet Union (Foreign Policy). No one political situation should attempted to be resolved with a

text book response and a political situation should never be addressed with only one interpretive

framework response in mind. In the sense that in successful negotiations nations come together

multilaterally so should a diplomat bring ideologies together from all sides of the political community

to address the issue.

In political systems with authoritarian governances which are often dominated by dogmatic and

nonnegotiable leaders I feel that the only effective response would be a statist interpretive framework

centered around mainly economic pressures but complemented by equal political pressures. In

historical context the Nazi regime of Germany would not have, and in fact did not, respond in a

acceptable and desired fashion to a cosmopolitan response framework. Neither would the cosmopolitan

response framework have worked well in ending the aggression of North Korea upon South Korea.

Certain regimes have polluted ideologies on which they are based and through which they function.

They will only take negotiations as though they were appeasements and worsen the political situations

as exemplified through the North Koreans's ability to uphold agreements just long enough to get what

they want only then to abruptly reverse all diplomatic progress.

Not all political systems operate on polluted ideologies and therefore the preferred method of

cosmopolitan interpretive framework can successfully be applied. In such situations the foreign policy

of the United States toward that nation should be reviewed. Indeed if the foreign policy of the United

State with other nations across the globe were reviewed many of the political confrontations could be

resolved. Such changes in foreign policies to be more beneficial to all parties should be quickly made

but no efforts should be make to actively engage without request to solve issues such as “poverty,
inequality, and discontent” within the borders of another sovereign nation (Shimko 324). Actively

engaging without request to solve issues within a border imposes the authority of the United States

upon that nation and thus would effectively usurp the authority of that government upon its people.

Actions which would preferably make the discontented party completely economically dependent

upon stable sovereign states without terrorist or otherwise self-destructive polices would create a

political situation where the state which one time sponsored terrorism would have not desire or need to

sponsor such actives since they would no longer be in their interest (Shimko 53). Communist China is

probably the greatest success story of such policies, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the

availability of trade with the U.S. China – a one time political enemy – is now economically dependent

upon democratic states of the west and has since become less authoritarian than before.

Combating terrorism in states which harbor and endorse such action should be spear headed

with statist interpretive framework but there should also be a constant availability of free commerce

between the two parties if the terrorist supporting state changes policies against terrorism. In statist

interpretive framework responses there restrictions should not be lifted when that political system

agrees with the party enacting such restrictions and neither should the paralleling discourse be centered

around such. A disagreement in political ideologies and practices always creates new knowledge in

what the best manner of governance is. Instead the restrictions and discourse should be centered only

around ensuring that the party endorsing terrorist ceases those activities. When the terrorist party of the

discussions ceases such destructive activities a more cosmopolitan response should follow in order to

establish a working and stable peace among the parties. Only in cases where no sovereign power exists

should one sovereign state begin with a cosmopolitan response that actively addresses the root causes

of terrorism within foreign borders, this is the job of each sovereign state and political pressure should

be employed to force that internal political structure to carry out its political responsibilities.

NS
 Works Cited

"Foreign Policy: Is Negotiation "Appeasement?"." 30 May 2008. The Week. 20 Jul 2009

Shimko, Keith. International Relations: Perspectives and Controversies. 2nd. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works

3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-

nc-nd/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco,

California, 94105, USA.