George,

There is so much emotion, so much fear and so much jingoism surrounding the topic of peace negotiations that I thought I would present some perspectives based on history and political science.

Wars start when a country or a group of people 1) thinks it can obtain land, riches and/or domination or 2) is living under conditions that are intolerable. The first cause I will label “aggrandizement” and the second, “self determination.” For example, WWII came about primarily because Germany and Japan sought aggrandizement but in German’s case, there was a strong element of self determination as well since the Germans felt humiliated by their treatment after WWI. The American Revolutionary War, the IRA’s revolt in North Ireland, the VietNamese fight for independence from France, the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina are just a very few examples of the wars fought because people were living in conditions that they felt were intolerable.

Wars end when one of three things happen: 1) unconditional surrender,
2) one side is annihilated, or 3) there is a negotiated peace.

I can think of only one instance of unconditional surrender in the past century: Germany in WWII. (Peace with Japan was negotiated.) There have been only two “victory” days, VE day and VJ day, in over fifty years. We no longer fight “world” wars with super powers where total defeat of one side is necessary. We now fight for limited objectives such as stopping the aggression of a single nation. (Korea and Desert Storm are examples.) Once the (limited) objective of repelling aggression is achieved, a peace agreement is negotiated with the aggressor. The aggressor nation does not surrender unconditionally nor is it occupied.

Another reason why unconditional surrender no longer happens in modern times is because, in many conflicts, the style of warfare has changed substantially. Conventional means of fighting – uniformed armies, battlefields, front lines, etc. – where a clear winner finally emerges have been replaced by a different style of warfare. Many wars today involve non-uniformed fighters who suddenly ambush and then disappear.

There are no battlefields, no clear signs of progress. Citizens can be walled off into protected enclaves, but the enemy remains outside.

There is no end to death and disruption. Talk of “victory” is nonsense, unless you want to round up all potential insurgents and either imprison them, execute them or send them to reservations. Anyone suspected of harboring insurgents is also considered fair game. This is the kind of war we faced in Viet Nam, and are now facing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are never-ending conflicts where a relatively few insurgents can keep it going and their ranks can be maintained by new recruits who have no hope of a better life and who want to resist oppressors. Surrender does not happen.

Before we dismiss annihilation as an unthinkable option, don’t forget that we essentially annihilated the American Indians when they tried to hold on to their lands. And then we had a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction during most of the last half of the 20th century. And a candidate for president of the United States recently said that she would “totally obliterate” Iran if it attack Israel. Annihilation is always on the table as a means of bringing a conflict to an end.

If you find annihilation unacceptable, then that leaves negotiation as the only way to end modern warfare. Negotiations involve talking with an enemy no matter how “evil” or how many atrocities the enemy has committed. Both sides in any war have much blood on their hands and to exclude those who have blood on their hands is to exclude both sides in a negotiation.

The enemy may have used unconventional terrorist methods rather than conventional terrorist methods. What do I mean by that? Let me first define “terrorism.” It is a surprise attack on civilians – an attack which has no warning, gives no time for civilians to run or seek effective shelter. An example of an unconventional (non-military) terrorist method would be explosives carried into a crowded restaurant by a suicide bomber. A conventional (military) terrorist method would be a plane suddenly bombing from 30,000 feet; or a Tomahawk missile fired from a distant ship. All methods of killing in a war are atrocities. War is hell. Civilians get targeted or become “collateral damage.” All kinds of means are used to kill soldiers and civilians.

The only way to end war – to end hell on earth – is to negotiate with the enemy. To rule out negotiating with people who use terrorist tactics is to rule out negotiation – to rule out ending a war. To label enemies as “terrorists” and refuse to talk to them means that you do not care if war continues.

Without negotiations the wars of this century would have gone on and on.

We negotiated with North Korea to end that war, Kissinger negotiated with the Viet Cong to end that war, American mediators were highly instrumental in ending the North Ireland and Bosnian horrors. Jimmy Carter helped negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt. Americans are a people who believe in peace and have readily engaged in negotiation – up until recently anyway.

Part of any negotiation is to lay the concerns and grievances of the parties on the table and try to find ways to resolve them. A prerequisite is that all parties are considered equal and are treated with respect. If one party thinks that its side is totally “correct”, just and righteous and the other side is “evil,” negotiations are not possible. And certainly one side cannot expect the other side to surrender its weapons or denounce violence before there is a peace agreement. Unilateral disarmament can never be expected of anyone. And one side cannot expect the other to agree to its positions on major issues before bargaining even begins.

Appeasement

Ideally, we would try to find a way to stop a war before it even begins.

This requires negotiation – preemptive negotiation, if you will. To assume that any American negotiator would be as naïve as Neville Chamberlain is nonsense. We have learned a lot since the 1930’s.

World War III never happened, largely due to two things: U.S. and NATO’s armed might and negotiations with the USSR. The USSR knew that if it tried a frontal invasion of Europe, it would meet strong, unified resistance. Through negotiations we achieved the end to nuclear testing in the atmosphere, and even that arch conservative, Ronald Reagan, negotiated with the “Evil Empire” to reduce the number of nuclear missiles. Peace comes through strength, but also through patient negotiation.

Neville Chamberlain should never have agreed to let Hitler have a piece of Czechoslovakia – that was appeasement. In negotiating with Iran, we must draw certain lines in the sand such as no nuclear weapons. But Iran must be assured of its right to self determination. If it wants to generate electricity with nuclear power, then it should be allowed to do so (assuming they agree to inspection to ensure that nuclear material is not converted for use in nuclear weapons.) One of the major grievances of the people in the Middle East is the domination and lack of respect shown by the West over several centuries. For example, in the 1950’s the United States installed our choice of leader (the Shah) in Iran.

Their current leadership is a result of revolt against that domination.

We must understand that history when we negotiate with them. Ordering them around – telling them what they can and cannot do – only exacerbates the grievance.

(Incidentally, just as there were no WMD’s in Iraq, the Army has not been able to produce clear evidence that any weapons being used against our troops in Iraq have come from Iran.)

We may disagree very strongly with some of the things President Ahmadinejad says, especially about Israel. But do we really expect politics to be a tea party where everyone says the “proper” things and you cannot come to our party if you say disagreeable things about our friends? Let’s grow up.

If we expect Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, we must also see to it that the Middle East is a nuclear free zone. Israel cannot be the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons. No one in the Middle East, whether they live in Israel or Iran or Syria or Jordan or Lebanon or Saudi Arabia should live under the fear of a nuclear attack.

Our foreign policy must be fair and balanced. We must, as Jimmy Carter was, be an honest broker in the Middle East. Tilting heavily toward Israel means that we cannot be a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Without a mediator – without negotiations among all parties in the conflict – the war that has gone on in Israel since 1945 will go on and on.

David RePass (Electronic mail, May 18, 2008)