Yes, but "safety" or "peace" is not always desirable. MLK himself said it best:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/whe...A short snippet:
> The next day after Autherine was dismissed the paper came out with this headline: 'Things are quiet in Tuscaloosa today. There is peace on the campus of the university of Alabama.' Yes things were quiet in Tuscaloosa. yes there was peace on the campus, but it was peace at a great price. It was peace that had been purchased at the exorbitant price of an inept trustee board succoming to the whims and carprices of a vicious mob. It was peace that had been purchased at the price of allowing mobocracy to reign supreme over democracy. It was peace that had been purchased at the price of the capitulating to the forces of darkness. This is the type of peace that all men of goodwill hate. It is the type of peace that is obnoxious. It is the type of peace that stinks in the nostrils of the almighty God.
Of course, you could either view this sentiment as trivially applying to international politics or so different as to be a category error. But it's enough of an opening to suggest that these loaded terms are not as easily transferrable to ethical context as invested parties might want you to believe. It is difficult for folks to place their values firmly before external pressures when a country is much less empathizable with than an obviously abused person, but I think americans would be surprised at how giving a little might invite a larger revelation about their role in the world stage than desired by the powers that be.