There are many proponents and opponents of the policy of appeasement but personally, I am somewhere in the middle of the two extreme views with a more tilt towards aggressiveness. I think it depends upon the situation whether you want to adopt appeasement or not and the history shows that it works well in some cases and doesn’t work at all in others. I will take you back into the history just to make you understand and give you an overview of how the appeasement strategy has led to the solution of conflicts in many regions and has to lead to a massive bloodshed in others.
This article in no means conveys that I am favoring a certain ideology rather it puts forward food for thinking keeping in view the historical facts and figures. The Umayyad Caliphate is considered one of the most brutal caliphates in the Islamic history with the exception of one person, Umar Bin Abdul Aziz. Umar Bin Abdul Aziz changed the traditions of the Caliphate by adopting much more softer policy towards the subjects and his opponents. He even invited his erstwhile enemies, Shias, and Kharijis, to the dialogue table and addressed their grievances. His reign is not only considered the peak of the Umayyad Caliphate but is also considered a role model for all the rulers. His appeasement policy worked well and led to peace, harmony and economic prosperity to such a level that there was no poor in the kingdom. Similarly, the appeasement policy of the British Government towards the Irish Republican Army paid well in the form of peace and tranquility.
The above examples show how the appeasement policy worked well for Umar Bin Abdul Aziz and British but it does in no way mean that it has worked well in all situations.
One of the classical examples in which the appeasement policy has not worked at all is the scenario before the Second World War. The then British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, tried a lot to appease Adolf Hitler and even gave in to his demand of giving German-majority areas of Czech Republic to Germany against the rules of Treaty of Versailles but it did not work at all. The appeasement policy resulted in the emergence of Hitler as an even stronger leader and he began to subdue his other neighbors. The confrontation finally resulted in a full-scale war and the killings of millions and millions of innocent people.
Another example I would like to quote is the local militancy in our area before 5 years ago. As a fallout of the American war in Afghanistan, a militant movement gained momentum and within a few years, it became quite influential due to the lack of active aggressive policy from the government. The bloody war between militants and the state of Pakistan resulted in the killing of more than 100,000 citizens and 10,000 Armymen. The wave of militancy came to an end when security forces launched pre-emptive airstrikes and ground operation against their sanctuaries.
The appeasement policy can have positive or negative effects depending on the situation, both on political and personal fronts but one thing is for sure we should try to create amicable scenarios for peace, prosperity, development and economic uplift of the common citizens because these are common citizens which are affected the most in such cases.