WHEN HAS DIALOGUE EVER DEFEATED EVIL?

Iconoclast ^ | unk | William Grim

[Chancellor Palpatine]

WHEN HAS DIALOGUE EVER DEFEATED EVIL?

by William Grim, Iconoclast Contributing Editor

You see it on the news almost every evening. It might be an aging hippie, a disaffected college student majoring in "undecided," or an Episcopal bishop overwrought by a lifetime of denying the divinity of Christ. They stand before the camera and generally accuse President Bush, in his prosecution of the War on Terror, of being (1) a war criminal, (2) beholden to "big oil," (3) systematically destroying the Constitution of the United States, or (4) some combination of (1), (2) and (3). Then they almost always end their diatribes by stating that terrorism will not be stopped by military action, but by "engaging in dialogue."

It sounds very nice. Talking is very often a pleasant activity and it sure beats marching through the desert in 120 degree heat carrying 75 pounds of equipment in your backpack.

In fact, talking is essential to conducting business, perpetuating human relationships, and healing the psychic and spiritual wounds that are part and parcel of existence. Very few people really doubt the importance of dialogue between business associates, husbands and wives, or within the therapist/patient or priest/penitent relationship.

But is dialogue effective in dealing with evil? First of all, let us define evil. Simply put, evil is a conscious and rational commitment to the breaking of moral law by one who knows the difference between right and wrong. The evil person generally conceals his evil actions because he is aware that they flaunt centuries of accumulated human taboos. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse-Tung were evil. The bulk of their crimes were committed not in the public eye, but in dark prisons or remote locations like Auschwitz or the jungles of Cambodia.

The man running naked through the streets brandishing a knife menacingly at a cat whom he believes to be a demon is insane, not evil. He is unaware that his behavior breaks moral laws or normative bounds, and he acts within full view of the public.

Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, however, are evil.

Now let me repeat the question. Is dialogue effective in dealing with evil?

Well, let's look at the historical record of just the twentieth century for the answer:

June 4, 1989 -- In the midst of negotiations and dialogue with student protesters seeking democracy, the government of Communist China begins a ruthless military suppression of the peaceful protest.

April 2, 1982 -- Although it has been planning the Falklands War for several years, the Argentine government is in the midst of negotiations with Britain when it begins the invasion of the British territory.

January 17, 1973 -- After years of negotiations and dialogue, the United States, South Vietnam, the Vietcong and North Vietnam sign the Paris Peace Accord. The North Vietnamese government agrees to the following statement in the treaty: "The South Vietnamese people's right to self-determination is sacred, inalienable, and shall be respected by all countries." The North Vietnamese invade South Vietnam on December 26, 1974.

July 1968 -- Alexander Dubcek and Leonid Brezhnev engage in four days of dialogue about Dubcek's reforms in Czechoslovakia. Dubcek agrees to concessions. The Soviet Army occupies Prague on August 20, 1968.

April 19, 1961 -- In an ongoing series of communications, Soviet Leader Khruschev informs President Kennedy that the Soviet Union "does not seek any advantages or privileges in Cuba." One year later Khruschev makes the decision to put Soviet missiles in Cuba, and the Berlin Wall is built -- the latter action violating agreements stemming back to the end of World War II.

October 31, 1956 -- During the Hungarian Revolution, the Soviet Government states: "The Soviet Government is prepared to enter into the appropriate negotiations with the government of the Hungarian People's Republic and other members of the Warsaw Treaty on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary." On November 4, 1956 the Soviets launched a military attack on Hungary and quickly crushed the Revolution.

June 25, 1950 -- Following three years of UN-sponsored negotiations and dialogue, North Korea, with the support of the Soviet Union and China, attacks South Korea.

February 1945 -- After much dialogue with Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta Conference, Stalin agrees to a "broadly democratic" government for Poland after the conclusion of the war. Not long after, Polish democracy is squelched by the Soviets until the disintegration of the Soviet Empire.

December 7, 1941 -- In the midst of negotiations (and an earnest dialogue) to resolve the political crisis in the Pacific region, the Empire of Japan commits a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

September 30, 1938 -- Concluding three different attempts at negotiation and dialogue, British Prime Minister Chamberlain, along with Hitler, Mussolini and French Premier Daladier, sign the Munich Pact, thereby ceding effective control of Czechoslovakia to the Germans. Hitler claims that this is the last of his territorial demands. Germany then stages a sneak attack on Poland on September 1, 1939, which starts World War II in Europe.

September 1935 -- In the midst of negotiations between Italy and Ethiopia, Mussolini orders the invasion of Ethiopia. Haile Selassie appeals in vain to the League of Nations for assistance.

1928 -- After much dialogue among international powers, the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlaws war as a component of national policy. Germany and Japan are signatories to this accord.

So the question now is: When has dialogue ever defeated evil? Why is it that the proponents of "engaging in dialogue" never give one concrete example of its success? It is because no such examples exist?

Let's get realistic. We cannot negotiate away the cancer of Islamic terrorism. We cannot talk our way out of the evil that confronts us. We must destroy it utterly through the judicious use of our military might.

Peace conferences and treaties mean nothing to our enemies. Indeed, even the Prophet Mohammed himself signed a ten-year peace treaty with the Koreish, an enemy tribe. But after two years into the treaty, Mohammed's military position improved, and he invaded and slaughtered the Koreishites. Significantly, the abrogation of the treaty with the Koreishites is often mentioned by Yassir Arafat and other Muslim leaders as a model for Islamic "diplomacy."

Again, I ask the question: When has dialogue ever defeated evil?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Good stuff

[stylin19a]

Ghandi brought the British empire to it's knees...figuratively speaking.

[Support Free Republic]

Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Only because there was a core f decency in the British. If they were colonized by Nazi Germany, do you think the result would be similar, or would Ghandi have wound up taking a dirt nap?

[uncbob]

Ghandi brought the British empire to it's knees...figuratively speaking.

Gandi wasn't confronting evil in the British

[wimpycat]

Depending on how inherently intelligent the evil person is, dialogue can defeat evil, but only when your side of the dialogue is backed up by a significant, credible threat of force. But even then, you can't actually defeat evil through dialogue, only contain or draw boundaries around it.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The Cold War is an example of your corollary.

[Kudsman]

I dont know who said it, but it is definetly true that "Evil festers when good men do nothing". Commies (I include secular socialists in this group) always talk peace but act warlike. To not meet force with force is suicide.

[stylin19a]

It doesn't fit the author's definition of "evil" however,
I suppose the Indians looked at the British occupation as evil, at the time.

[Kevin Curry]

Good point. Try using passive civil disobedience on an ogre such as Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein, or Mao, or Castro. It'll get you dead or imprisoned--nothing more. Ghandi had success with the British, American blacks had success in the civil rights moverment, because they were not confronting to-the-core-evil authoritarian regimes. They were discoursing with democratic governments of limited and balanced powers.

[Kevin Curry]

I suppose the Indians looked at the British occupation as evil, at the time.

I suppose it's a shame they couldn't have spent five decades under Stalin or Saddam so they could learn the true nature of evil. They would have judged the British Raj gloriously easy and clement by comparison.

[r9etb]

but only when your side of the dialogue is backed up by a significant, credible threat of force.

In other words, no. It is the threat of force, not the dialogue, that does the trick.

The problem with "dialogue" is that both parties have to agree on what is right and wrong. Dialogue succeeds only when one side agrees that its position is wrong, and that the other party's position is right.

But if we grant that one of the parties is "Evil," then clearly the concepts of "right and wrong" are not even in play -- to be "evil" is explicitly to defy those concepts. A dialogue based on "right and wrong" simply cannot form a valid basis for negotiation.

Successful negotiations are only possible if both sides agree to the terms. Experience shows that "evil" either rots away from the inside, or must be forced into submission. Thus, the grounds for "negotiation" are either containment (which requires the threat of force), or actual use of force.

[Kudsman]

Ghandi had success with the British, American blacks had success in the civil rights moverment, because they were not confronting to-the-core-evil authoritarian regimes. They were discoursing with democratic governments of limited and balanced powers.

You can include American women and the suffrage movement.

[lilylangtree]

Need to ask France, Germany and Russia this question.

[Dog Gone]

You should email this story to the Pope.

[Kudsman]

Need to ask France

No we dont they just surrender anyway.

[Turbo Pig]

syylin19a - "Ghandi brought the British empire to it's knees...figuratively speaking. "

It should be pointed out that even Ghandi, the man who every appeasnik points to, admitted that when peaceful means fail, force must be used. This is why he eventually gave tactit support to the British war effort against Nazi Germany and Japan.

[Orangedog]

I guess the fans of "opening a dialogue" believe that you can talk a madman or dictator to death.

[r9etb]

Ghandi had success with the British, American blacks had success in the civil rights moverment, because they were not confronting to-the-core-evil authoritarian regimes.

A thornier question is whether "to-the-core evil" is a necessary precondition for the failure of dialogue. For example, could American slavery have been ended via dialogue, as it was in Britain, Europe, and the Northern U.S.?

I do not believe that the Southern slave-holders were "to-the-core evil," but I also do not believe that slavery would have ended without the Civil War.

Although slavery is an evil institution, the South in general, and slave-holders in particular, were clearly not all "evil to the core." They were instead unshakeable on the terms of what constituted "right and wrong" in that particular instance. In their view, it was basically a trade between their own financial well-being, and the liberty of "inferior beings."

In theory there may have been a chance -- over a course of decades or centuries -- for dialogue to work. But I doubt it. It's easy to rationalize a lot when you choose money over God.