Appeasement? Absolutely Not!

From the Macquarie dictionary:

Appease, v.t., 1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, or content; 2. to satisfy; 3. to accede to a belligerent demands of a country, government, etc by a sacrifice of justice – appeasement, appeaser, noun

This word, either its verb or noun form, has been tossed around by some in relation to the Iraqi insurgency. Keeping it simple, let's consider the verb form. You bet your bottom dollar they don't mean the 1st or 2nd meaning, which leaves us the 3rd, namely "to accede to a belligerent demands of a country, government, etc by a sacrifice of justice."

Some considered Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler as the worst example of sacrificing justice to accede to a tyrant. Others disagreed, arguing that Chamberlain bought much needed time for an unprepared Britain to organise herself for war.

Be that as it may, do I agree to appeasement? My answer is a resounding 'Absolutely Not!' because that would be cowardly, and succumbing to bullies.

Take Vietnam for example. After the Vietnamese had shrugged off the French colonial yoke, the USA stepped in with the brazen nerve to dictate to the Vietnamese what sort of government they might have. In fact, the Americans were financing the French to continue their colonial war against the Viet Minh, but the French wisely recognised that staying in Vietnam was a no-win situation, and left that area for good.

The Geneva Accords 1954 called for an independent Vietnam following a general election in 1956. Democratic practice or not, the Americans refused to permit the elections to take place in the south because its preferred government lacked the popularity to win (hmmm, the USA seems to be always backing unpopular dictators). The Americans would only promote democracy and freedom when these were to its favour or interest.

They thought they could intimidate the Vietnamese. Exactly like Bush’s fabrications for invading Iraq, the American Administration then, under Lyndon B Johnson, fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, to justify war against North Vietnam.

The American lies of 1964 have been repeated in 2003, by Bush’s lies.

Did the Vietnamese appease the powerful USA? Did they capitulate? Absolutely not!

The rest is history. A poor third-world nation of 70 million taught the most powerful nation on earth, with a population 4 times larger, a severe lesson in national resilience, non-negotiability on sovereignty, and an uncompromising stand against appeasement. The Vietnamese lost more than 1.1 million of its combat troops and another 3 million civilians against the American loss of around 55,000.

But the Vietnamese sent the intruder home and reunited their country.

Their example has inspired many people around the world, particular the smaller third world nations. Many of you may not be aware but countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and many others have actually trained their troops on the Viet Congs’ fighting style and modus operandi - just in case 'someone' - you know who - decides to come pounding down our doors.

Then in Afghanistan the Mujahedin did the same thing to the USSR. There was to be no appeasement.

Today, we see the Palestinians and the Iraqis as two examples of people refusing to appease the bullies and intruders of their lands.

I hope those Malaysians who cried no appeasement would now be pleased to see that there isn't any, nor will there be.