Some would say that the UN's response to the U.S.'s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq could be viewed as a type of appeasement of American imperialism.

Who would say that? The Taliban in Afganistan had supported the 9/11 attack on America, and sheltered the attackers. So how could the UN be appeasing the victims of the attack when the victims retaliated?

The obvious example would be North Korea, or wasn't there something about the food for oil UN thing and Iraq? I really don't remember.

The U.S.'s intervention in Afghanistan, like the intervention in Iraq, has not been supported by the international community. Bush wasn't able to get the UN Security Council to authorize military action in Afghanistan. Even though the UN didn't approve of the intervention, however, it also didn't oppose America too strongly. This was partly because of the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks. It was also because, as a practical matter, there wasn't much the UN could do to stop the intervention. The case is even clearer with the Iraq War.

I personally do not oppose the interventions in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but I can understand why people from other countries view the interventions as a form of imperialism; and it makes perfect sense to say that the international community's reaction has been one of appeasement.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 02:50 AM ----------


North Korea would be a decent example of a strategy of appeasement, but it lacks the element of imperialism.

The fact that someone views an action as appeasement, and the fact that we can understand why they do, in no way shows that the action is one of appeasement. Those people may just be wrong. They may consider the Afghanistan action as appeasement because they just dislike America. I can understand that easily. But that does not mean they are right. Munich was a clear case (the paradigm case) of appeasement. The UN's behavior was not.

The fact that someone does not view a particular course of action as appeasement doesn't mean that the course of action wasn't in fact one of appeasement. That person may simply be mistaken. I can understand why you hold your position, but I think it's wrong.

Appeasement can take on many different forms, and it's to be expected that strategies of appeasement will look different under varying geopolitical circumstances. The fact that current events don't form a strict analogy with Nazi Germany isn't very surprising.

I would also point out that my answer spoke of both Afghanistan and Iraq. These military interventions, and the UN's responses to them, should be viewed together.

But I would have thought that the response of the UN to the invasion of Iraq was anything but appeasement of the US. It did not sanction the invasion as the US asked it to do. What else could the UN have done? Attack two (Britain too) of its charter members?

I'm going to avoid the Afghanistan/Iraq topic -- I don't want to start another battle royale that runs everyone except me and one or two others off the thread. I'll just say that if anyone really believes the U.S. wasn't bullying Afghanistan and Iraq for a UNOCAL pipeline route and a sweet oil deal, respectively, send me a private mail and I'll be happy to discuss/debate the issue with you. I will say no more here about that.

Any examples of modern day appeasement to a type of imperialism?

I have a hunch this is a homework question, or at least something that is going to be asked in class.

I disagree with VideCor about the status of the USA; being an Imperial Organisation doesn't mean you need to have an Emperor. A nation organised as a merchant-economy under a plutocraty formed the basis for many empires.

Smaller independent polis founded colonies to provide food, slaves and precious metals. Things did change, but oil, cheap labour and food & water still are imported in the USA. Western allies help in Afganistan, pumped trillions in the banking system and are urged to buy new jets to help the US defense industry.

Are american veterans still supported to go to university after their duty is done? Maybe it's wiser to sent your youth first to school, and afterwards to war. Or Canada...

I have a hunch this is a homework question, or at least something that is going to be asked in class.

I completely agree with you that an Imperial power does not need to have an emperor. However, the foundation of an imperial power necessarily entails that a foreign power hold political sovereignty over another political society.

Basically, if I were to say that the United States (say Washington DC) were the central nexus for political decisions of, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, then an imperial moniker could be given.

As far as western allies pumping money into Afghanistan (and Iraq) and being urged to buy new jets from the US defense industry, unfortunately, Europe is not a major player in that field. Sales with Europe pales in comparison to the business done with Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

That it would be wiser to send the youth to school first and war second, that seems a little biased and misinformed. Many college graduates enter the armed forces after college to pay for it and make a career out of it. In fact, one cannot enter the military without at least a high school equivalency. And many skills taught to enlisted personnel make them very competitive out in the private sector.