The Treaty Trap
by Ronald Reagan
“Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” Thomas Hobbes
International peace treaties are like many other things liberals cherish; they are beautiful in theory, useless in practice, and a dangerous trap to anyone who puts faith in them. An accurate knowledge of the history of treaties would undermine the belief in them that leftist professors are trying to promote, so college profs (and the textbooks they write) tend not to cover the subject very well.
The leftist culture of most college history faculties requires professors to cover up a lot of politically embarrassing data, and the history of international peace treaties is just one example of that. Positive examples of the results of peace treaties are hard to come by, and negative ones abound, so professors who want to indoctrinate their students are forced to suppress a lot of actual history while claiming to teach history.
- What’s in it for Me?
The history of international relations tells us that nations, like individuals, tend to do whatever they think is in their best interest. This includes decisions to engage in, or refrain from, acts of war. As John Jay said in 1787, “Nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it.”1
Ronald Reagan said effectively the same thing nearly two hundred years later: “Despite the ceremony and dignity with which men sign and have signed treaties back through history, most treaties are broken the first time it interferes with the national interest of either of the signatories.”
This is particularly true of undemocratic nations, where the lives of soldiers have little value to the people who make the decisions. When a totalitarian government wants to attack another country, the only factors that bear much consideration are the relative strengths of the two nations. Pieces of paper with signatures on them mean very little.
In 1939, for example, National Socialist dictator Adolf Hitler signed a non-aggression treaty with Communist dictator Josef Stalin. The treaty stipulated that Germany and the Soviet Union would not attack each other as they went about their business of attacking and conquering smaller European nations like Finland and Poland. Two years later Germany invaded the Soviet-held part of Poland, an action that would result in the deaths of some twenty million Soviets and nearly as many Germans.
Hitler’s decision to violate the treaty had nothing to do with the treaty itself, which was a mere piece of paper. The decision was based solely on Hitler’s expectation of success. (Germany was powerful enough to invade the Soviet Union because Hitler had already violated the arms limitations clauses of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles; another example of Hitler putting his nation’s interests ahead of any loyalty to a signed treaty.)
Paris Treaty “Protects” South Viet Nam
- The Beat Goes On ...
- Peace in the Real World ...
- Why It Matters ...
International peace treaties are like many other things liberals cherish; they are beautiful in theory, useless in practice, and a dangerous trap to anyone who puts faith in them. An accurate knowledge of the history of treaties would undermine the belief in them that leftist professors are trying to promote, so college profs (and the textbooks they write) tend not to cover the subject very well.
The leftist culture of most college history faculties requires professors to cover up a lot of politically embarrassing data, and the history of international peace treaties is just one example of that. Positive examples of the results of peace treaties are hard to come by, and negative ones abound, so professors who want to indoctrinate their students are forced to suppress a lot of actual history while claiming to teach history.
- What’s in it for Me?
The history of international relations tells us that nations, like individuals, tend to do whatever they think is in their best interest. This includes decisions to engage in, or refrain from, acts of war. As John Jay said in 1787, “Nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it.”1
Ronald Reagan said effectively the same thing nearly two hundred years later: “Despite the ceremony and dignity with which men sign and have signed treaties back through history, most treaties are broken the first time it interferes with the national interest of either of the signatories.”
This is particularly true of undemocratic nations, where the lives of soldiers have little value to the people who make the decisions. When a totalitarian government wants to attack another country, the only factors that bear much consideration are the relative strengths of the two nations. Pieces of paper with signatures on them mean very little.
In 1939, for example, National Socialist dictator Adolf Hitler signed a non-aggression treaty with Communist dictator Josef Stalin. The treaty stipulated that Germany and the Soviet Union would not attack each other as they went about their business of attacking and conquering smaller European nations like Finland and Poland. Two years later Germany invaded the Soviet-held part of Poland, an action that would result in the deaths of some twenty million Soviets and nearly as many Germans.
Hitler’s decision to violate the treaty had nothing to do with the treaty itself, which was a mere piece of paper. The decision was based solely on Hitler’s expectation of success. (Germany was powerful enough to invade the Soviet Union because Hitler had already violated the arms limitations clauses of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles; another example of Hitler putting his nation’s interests ahead of any loyalty to a signed treaty.)
Paris Treaty “Protects” South Viet Nam
- The Beat Goes On ...
- Peace in the Real World ...
- Why It Matters ...
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario