Appeasement Impacts

Appeasement destroys US credibility encourages belligerents to go against US policy

Rock 2k (Stephen, professor of political science at Vassar College, Appeasement in International Politics, page 4, http://books.google.com/books?id=leyuMoeeBgwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r& cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false ) It does so in either (or both) of two ways. First, by ceding strategically valuable territory or abandoning certain of its defenses, the appeaser allows the military balance to shift in favor of the potential aggressor, eroding the formers deterrent capacity. This might be called the material effect" of appeasement. Thus, for example, the abandonment of formidable Czech defenses in 1938 at Munich and the loss of the Czech Army in March of 1939 shifted the military balance toward Germany and rendered her attack on Poland more likely to succeed. Second, and much more critical, is what one can term the psychological effect" of appeasement. Specifically, it is argued that appeasement gravely weakens the credibility of deterrent threats. Once it has received inducements, the adversary refuses to accept the possibility that the government of the conciliatory state will later stand firm. It thus advances new and more far-reaching demands. When the government of the appeasing state responds to these demands by issuing a deterrent threat, it is not believed. Ultimately, deterrence fails, and the appeasing state must go to war if it wishes to defend its interests. The real tragedy of Munich, from this perspective, was not that Anglo-French concessions failed to satisfy Hitler in September of 1938 although that was bad enough but that they encouraged him to attack Poland a year later, in blatant disregard of warnings from London and Paris that they would intervene.

US appeasement leads to global aggression

Chapin and Hanson 9 (Bernard and Victor David, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Change, Weakness, Disaster, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/change-weakness-disaster-obama-answers-fromvictor-davis-hanson/) BC: Are we currently sending a message of weakness to our foes and allies? Can anything good result from President Obamas marked submissiveness before the world? Dr. Hanson: Obama is one bow and one apology away from a circus. The world can understand a kowtow gaffe to some Saudi royals, but not as part of a deliberate pattern. Ditto the mea culpas. Much of diplomacy rests on public perceptions, however trivial. We are now in a great waiting game, as regional hegemons, wishing to redraw the existing landscape whether China, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc. are just waiting to see whos going to be the first to try Obama and whether Obama really will be as tenuous as they expect. If he slips once, it will be 1979 redux, when we saw the rise of radical Islam, the Iranian hostage mess, the communist inroads in Central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, etc. BC: With what country then Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc. do you believe his global repositioning will cause the most damage? Dr. Hanson: I think all three. I would expect, in the next three years, Iran to get the bomb and begin to threaten ever so insidiously its Gulf neighborhood; Venezuela will probably cook up some scheme to do a punitive border raid into Colombia to apprise South America that U.S. friendship and values are liabilities; and Russia will continue its energy bullying of Eastern Europe, while insidiously pressuring autonomous former republics to get back in line with some sort of new Russian

autocratic commonwealth. Theres an outside shot that North Korea might do something really stupid near the 38th parallel and China will ratchet up the pressure on Taiwan. Indias borders with both Pakistan and China will heat up. I think we got off the back of the tiger and now no one quite knows whom it will bite or when.

Appeasement leads to a loss of credibility with allies and foes leads to Sino-Indo-Pak conflict Coes 11 (Ben, former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush, September 30, The Disease of a Weak President, http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/30/the-disease-of-a-weak-president/
The disease of a weak president usually begins with the Achilles heel all politicians are born with the desire to be popular. It leads to pandering to different audiences, people and countries and creates a sloppy, incoherent set of policies. Ironically, it ultimately results in that very politician losing the trust and respect of friends and foes alike. In the case of Israel, those of us who are strong supporters can at least take comfort in the knowledge that Tel Aviv will do whatever is necessary to protect itself from potential threats from its unfriendly neighbors. While it would be preferable for the Israelis to be able to count on the United States, in both word and deed, the fact is right now they stand alone. Obama and his foreign policy team have undercut the Israelis in a multitude of ways. Despite this, I wouldnt bet against the soldiers of Shin Bet, Shayetet 13 and the Israeli Defense Forces. But Obamas weakness could in other places have implications far, far worse than anything that might ultimately occur in Israel. The triangular plot of land that connects Pakistan, India and China is held together with much more fragility and is built upon a truly foreboding foundation of religious hatreds, radicalism, resource envy and nuclear weapons. If you can only worry about preventing one foreign policy disaster, worry about this one. Here are a few unsettling facts to think about: First, Pakistan and India have fought three wars since the British de-colonized and left the region in 1947. All three wars occurred before the two countries had nuclear weapons. Both countries now possess hundreds of nuclear weapons, enough to wipe each other off the map many times over. Second, Pakistan is 97% Muslim. It is a question of when not if Pakistan elects a radical Islamist in the mold of Ayatollah Khomeini as its president. Make no mistake, it will happen, and when it does the world will have a far greater concern than Ali Khamenei or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a single nuclear device. Third, China sits at the northern border of both India and Pakistan. China is strategically aligned with Pakistan. Most concerning, China covets Indias natural resources. Over the years, it has slowly inched its way into the northern tier of India-controlled Kashmir Territory, appropriating land and resources and drawing little notice from the outside world. In my book, Coup DEtat, I consider this tinderbox of colliding forces in Pakistan, India and China as a thriller writer. But thriller writers have the luxury of solving problems by imagining solutions on the page. In my book, when Pakistan elects a radical Islamist who then starts a war with India and introduces nuclear weapons to the theater, America steps in and removes the Pakistani leader through a coup dtat. I wish it was that simple. The more complicated and difficult truth is that we, as Americans, must take sides. We must be willing to be unpopular in certain places. Most important, we must be ready and willing to threaten our military might on behalf of our allies. And our allies are Israel and India. There are many threats out there Islamic radicalism, Chinese technology espionage, global debt and half a dozen other things that smarter people than me are no doubt worrying about. But the single greatest threat to America is none of these. The single greatest threat facing America and our allies is a weak U.S. president. It doesnt have to be this way. President Obama could if he chose develop a backbone and lead. Alternatively, America could elect a new president. It has to be one or the other. The status quo is simply not an option.

Credibility is key to remind allies of their stake in the status quo

Mitchell and Grygiel 11, Writers for the American Interest A. Wess Mitchell & Jakub Grygiel The Vulnerability of Peripherieshttp(://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=923) This work also needs to have both proximate and more distant goals. The proximate goal should be to visibly drive up the costs of revisionism in ways that remind allies and rivals of their stake in the international status quo. We must convince rising powers that opportunistic, low-cost revisionism is not an option. The only realistic way to do that is to show that it still pays to be a friend of the United States. Future versions of the National Security Strategy should explicitly affirm Americas relations with all its allies in general, and the continuation of the strategic paradigm of support for vulnerable allies in particular, as a priority for U.S. global policy in the 21st century. This may seem like mere semantics, but friends and foes closely read documents of this kind as a barometer of American intentions. The distant goal must be to restore the credibility of U.S. security patronagethe bedrock of successful statecrafteven as the United States enters into an era of new budgetary constraints. The United States should make selective and robust additions to U.S. conventional deterrents in key regions. Nervous allies in all three hingepoints have tended to want from the United States a combination of theater missile defense, military maneuvers, and a naval or land military presence. While the security dynamics and defense requirements of allies vary greatly, this combination has emerged as the basic reassurance package to effectively reinforce regional deterrents.

Cuba Links
U.S support for democracy should not be a subject of negotiation with Cuba we have been too nice to them Rubin 11 Jennifer Rubin, colunmist for The Washington Post, October 18, 2011, Obamas Cuba Appeasement
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-cuba-appeasement/2011/03/29/gIQAjuL2tL_blog.html Last week, the newly confirmed undersecretary of state, Wendy Sherman, let it be known that the United States was considering a potential prisoner swap with Cuba to free imprisoned American Alan Gross. The Daily Caller reported: The spy swap was set in motion by former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who traveled to Cuba last month to seek Grosss release. He told Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez that the Obama administration would be willing to consider the release of a convicted Cuban spy, Rene Gonzales along with other concessions. Hernandez is serving two life sentences for sending information to Havana which enabled Cuba to shoot down two Miami-based civilian aircraft with warplanes in 1996. All four Americans on board were killed. The victims were members of the Brothers to the Rescue humanitarian organization At the State Department briefing the spokeswoman left just enough wiggle room in her denials to make clear that some sort of discussions were underway. The blowback was swift. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) put out a statement that read: Its deplorable that the U.S. government offered several unilateral concessions to the Castro regime in exchange for the release of a man who was wrongfully jailed in the first place. Rather than easing sanctions in response to hostage taking, the U.S. should put more punitive measures on the Castro regime. Until Secretary Clinton answers for this, the nomination of Roberta Jacobson to be the next assistant secretary of state for the western hemisphere will be in question. The chairwoman of the foreign affairs committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was equally irate: According to news reports, the Administration attempted to barter for the freedom of wrongly imprisoned U.S. citizen Alan Gross by offering to return Rene Gonzalez, a convicted Cuban spy who was involved in the murder of innocent American citizens. If true, such a swap would

demonstrate the outrageous willingness of the Administration to engage with the regime in Havana, which is designated by the U.S. as a state-sponsor of terrorism. Regrettably, this comes as no surprise as this
Administration has never met a dictatorship with which it didnt try to engage. It seems that a rogue regime cannot undertake a deed so dastardly that the Obama Administration would abandon engagement, even while talking tough with reporters. Cuba is a state-sponsor of terrorism. We should not be trying to barter with them. We must demand the unconditional release of Gross, not engage in a quid-pro-quo with tyrants. As bad as a prisoner exchange would have been, the administration actions didnt stop there. The Associated Press reported, The Gross -Gonzalez swap was raised by former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, as well as by senior U.S. officials in a series of meetings with Cuban officials. Richardson traveled to Cuba last month seeking Gross release. He also told Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez that the U.S. would be willing to consider other areas of interest to Cuba. Among them was removing Cuba from the U.S. list of

state sponsors of terrorism; reducing spending on Cuban democracy promotion programs like the one that led to the hiring of Gross; authorizing U.S. companies to help Cuba clean up oil spills from planned offshore drilling; improving postal exchanges; ending a program that makes it easier for Cuban medical personnel to move to
the United States; and licensing the French company Pernod Ricard to sell Havana Club rum in the United S tates. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams explained, It is especially offensive that we were willing to negotiate

over support for democracy in Cuba, for that would mean that the unjust imprisonment of Gross had given the Castro dictatorship a significant victory. The implications for those engaged in similar democracy promotion
activities elsewhere are clear: local regimes would think that imprisoning an American might be a terrific way to get into a negotiation about ending such activities. Every American administration faces tough choices in these situations, but the Obama administration has made a great mistake here. Our support for democracy should not be a subject of negotiation with the Castro regime.The administrations conduct is all the more galling given the behavior of the Castro regime. Our

willingness to relax sanctions was not greeted with goodwill gestures, let alone systemic reforms. To the

contrary, this was the setting for Grosss imprisonment. So naturally the administration orders up more of the same. Throughout his tenure, President Obama has failed to comprehend the cost-benefit analysis that despotic regimes undertake. He has offered armfuls of goodies and promised quietude on human rights; the despots behavior has worsened. There is simply no downside for rogue regimes to take their shots at the United States. Whether it is Cuba or Iran, the administration reverts to engagement mode when its engagement efforts are met with aggression and/or domestic oppression. Try to murder a diplomat on U.S. soil? Well sit
down and chat. Grab an American contractor and try him in a kangaroo court? Well trade prisoners and talk about relaxing mor e sanctions. Invade Georgia, imprison political opponents and interfere with att empts to restart the peace process? Well put the screws on our democratic ally to get you into World Trade Organization. The response of these thuggish regimes is entirely predictable and, from their perspective, completely logical. What is inexplicable is the Obama administrations

willingness to throw gifts to tyrants in the expectation they will reciprocate in kind.

Appeasing nations like Cuba will only end in international conflict Martinez 6-27 Guillermo Martinez, columnist for El Sentinel, June 27, 2013, Appeasement doesnt work, so Obama
must be tough http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-06-27/news/fl-gmcol-oped0627-20130627_1_president-obama-moscowairport-guillermo-martinez

Former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain is best known for his attempts at preventing World War II by appeasing Adolf Hitler. Appeasement didn't work then, and it won't work now. Not to say that
recent American presidents George W. Bush and Barrack Obama have had a policy of appeasement precisely. But both, and particularly Obama in recent years, has preached, talked, how he intends to improve relations with rival nations by approaching them and establishing better relations. Wish it were that easy. President Obama has had a rash of problems both foreign and domestic, which have brought down his popularity and prevented him from influencing Congress. The star that shined on him during his first term has lost its glow. Now he speaks but few in the world listen. The president has tried to improve relations with China, Russia, Cuba and many other nations that are outright enemies of the United States or rivals for influence. His efforts at talking himself into civilized relations with these and other countries have failed the way in a similar fashion to what happened to Chamberlain.

Obamas policy appeals to Castro and ignores the oppressed Cuban people Diaz-Balart 12 Mario Diaz-Balart, U.S Representative from the 25th district of Florida, August 21, 2012, Obama Has
Policy of Appeasement Toward Castro Regime http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/08/21/mario -diaz-balart-obamahas-pursued-policy-appeasement-toward-castro-regime/ In July, Hugo Chavez commented on the United States presidential election, saying that he thought Barack Obama was deep down a good guy. Earlier this summer, Mariela Castro, daughter of titular Cuban dictator Raul Castro, who taunts Cubas brave pro-democracy activists as despicable parasites, also praised President Obama after his administration allowed her to enter the United States to give a series of lectures and tour various U.S. cities. These compliments and the fact that they were not disavowed by the White House come as no surprise, given President Obamas appeasing stance regarding anti -American totalitarian regimes. Since he took office in January 2009, President Obama has pursued a policy of appeasement

toward the totalitarian Cuban dictatorship. Despite the Castro brothers harboring of international terrorists and their increasingly relentless oppression of the Cuban people, President Obama weakened U.S. sanctions and has increased the flow of dollars to the dictatorship. In response, the Castro brothers amped up their repression of the Cuban people and imprisoned American humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross for the crime of taking humanitarian aide to Cubas small Jewish community. Clearly, President Obama is not concerned about the threat posed by the Cuban dictatorship, nor has he manifested genuine solidarity with the pro-democracy aspirations of the Cuban people. The Cuban people are protesting in the streets and demanding freedom. But rather than supporting the growing, courageous pro-democracy movement,

President Obama instead has chosen to appease their oppressors.

While President Obama claims that his policies aim to assist the oppressed Cuban people, his actions betray that he is not on their side. You
cannot credibly claim to care about the oppressed while working out side deals with their oppressors and welcoming the oppressors elite into the United States with open arms. And you cannot claim to support political prisoners while increasing the flow of dollars to their jailers. The failures of the Obama administration in Cuba are not an isolated foreign policy failure. Around the world, President Obama has taken an approach of appeasement when it comes to some of our most virulent enemies. In addition to Cuba, from Iran to Syria to Venezuela, President Obama has shown an unwillingness

to stand firm when anti American forces threaten our interests, and his weakness has emboldened Americas enemies. If we are going to reassert our position in the world, we need a change at the top.