Forcing Peace

Forcing Peace

America is heavily invested in the stability of the international community. If the world’s peacefulness didn’t impact America, frankly, the US government wouldn’t be involved in worldwide conflicts. Because the search for American safety often leads to US participation in the affairs of other nations, the US has taken up an almost formulaic strategy of imposing peace on world powers. During the Cold War, the US attempted to create a peaceful situation in Korea by using military force, but instead brought about one of the most volatile stalemates of all time along the 38th parallel, where any amount of sparks could reignite the conflict. In Israel, American diplomacy efforts have tried to force peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. However, similarly to the reason there is conflict in that area of the world in the first place- the complete disregard for social and tribal boarders after World War One by the allies- Americans, who, as a whole, do not understand the ethnic divides in the Middle East, cannot hope to force a simple solution as a one-size fits all promise of peace and democracy, nor can they just ‘send in the troops’ to battle out Israel’s problems.
Today, Korean diplomacy efforts are more dangerous than ever. The recent ship-bombing incident may have set back North and South Korean relations years, and the US has few options if peace is a goal for Americans in Korea. Military action didn’t work the first time in Korea, and it won’t work if tried again. The UN could employ economic sanctions against North Korea, but that would require the compliance of the Chinese, who have- if not a complete supportive stance- a vested economic interest in North Korea. While it may be completely unwise for the American government to just allow the nations to work it out on their own, perhaps a second look needs to be taken at how the US helps forge peace. Currently, there is no diplomacy between North and South Korea- or North Korea and nearly any other nation, for that matter. The US’s priority should be resuming talks directly with the North Korean government, not getting the UN to send out nuclear sanctions the Korean government ignores. Peace may be far off in Korea, but it is achievable. America cannot simply force the North Korean government into a peaceful situation, they have to be willing to work for it as well, and their willingness can be incentivized by economic sanctions, but only with the support of the Chinese.
The same is true in Israel. No matter how many times the US attempts to spark peace talks between the Israel and Palestinian people, no true peace is achieved. The atmosphere in the area has only worsened over the last few years, and, somehow, America must gain the support of both parties if the US wishes to be the leader in peace talks. Once again, the use of military- either by the US or Israel- only hurt the situation: peace is not something that an army can shoot into people.
Military force is often the US’s go-to answer. While it can be highly helpful as a final solution, military action is not usually best for building a path to peace. Partial military missions, like counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, can be a step in the right direction. The same is true for peace talk in Israel and sanctions in North Korea. Not every problem can be answered with military force.

Read more »

Conflicting Goals

Conflicting Goals

“We must be wary of the steel vise in which many governments are slowly crushing civil society and the human spirit,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Georgia recently. As the United States has begun to engage more with Russia following the capture of the twelve accused Russian spies, eastern European nations have grown wary of the double-talk coming from the Administration about Russian actions. On June 24, President Obama met with Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev in a 'hamburger summit' which the Georgian government took as a bad sign of relations to come.

Georgia, whose poor relations with Russia have been marked by the Russian occupation of Georgian territory, hopes to rely on the United States' sphere of influence-type control in the area to push back against Russian involvement. Georgia is still involved in regular skirmishes with Russian forces along the borders.
The double-edged rhetoric coming out of the Administration in terms of Russia is unfortunately similar to that used when discussing issues like Israel. While the US has always taken a shyly pro-Israel stance, American politicians are always quick to condemn any Israeli violence. However, any condemnation on the part of Americans means absolutely nothing unless it is echoed in talks with Israel and unless action is taken.
The same is true for Russia. While Americans may be hesitant to criticize Russia due to the long history of volatile relations, perhaps simply telling Georgians that the US is sympathetic is not enough. If the US wishes to continue to refer to itself as a beacon for human rights worldwide, then some actual standing up for human rights may be necessary. It is possible to both be allies with Russia and Israel while taking realistic action to suport Georgia or the Palestinians. Unfortunately, today the US says they do both, but leaves the struggling people of Georgia and the non-existant state of Palestine behind.
There is no 'quick fix' for standing up for human rights while being allied with nations who don't always do the same. But there is a middle ground that could be reached by America when it takes the role of the more impartial supporter of people in general as opposed to the agenda of a single country.


Pool photo by Irakli Gedenidze via the New York Times

Read more »