NIKKEI Asia - March 2, 2025
|
Donald Trump's bargaining with Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine by forcing Kyiv to concede its occupied lands and deny its ambition to join NATO, is closer to appeasement than clever dealmaking. History teaches us that "land for peace" deals generally do not end well, argues Rahman Yaacob.
The 1938 Munich Agreement allowed Hitler to annex the Sudetenland, a region of Czechoslovakia with a large ethnic German population, in exchange for a promise of no further expansion. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain proclaimed that he had brought "peace for our time." But this ultimately led to the Nazis marching into Czechoslovakia in March 1939, and the outbreak of World War II. Similarly, Richard Nixon's 1973 "peace with honor" deal in Vietnam resulted in the fall of Saigon just two years later.
If Washington could reach a "grand bargain" with Moscow and disregard Ukrainian and the broader European interests, it could also reach a consensus with Beijing to advance Washington's interests, with repercussions on the territorial integrity of Taiwan. If China threatens or occupies Taiwan-held islands near the mainland, it is likely Trump will apply "land for peace deals" over Taiwan instead of coming to the island's defense.
Events in Czechoslovakia and Vietnam highlight a significant point. A "land for peace" deal with belligerent states does not stop a conflict. For belligerent states such as Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia, any concession the international community makes to them will be theirs forever, while they consider any compromise they would make only temporary. Peace, therefore, is not sustainable.
You can read all our Opinion pieces here. |
No comments:
Post a Comment