Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
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
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
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,