12 September 2013
Putin Cautions USA
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html
Op-Ed Contributor
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly
to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do
so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against
each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated
the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United
Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever
happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war
and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent
the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United
Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability
of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations,
which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential
countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security
Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong
opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders,
including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation,
potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike
would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine
multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and
North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order
out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between
government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions
of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and
extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State
Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This
internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition,
is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants
from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern.
Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria?
After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens
us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians
to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting
the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations
Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s
complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international
relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must
follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force
is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council.
Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would
constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason
to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces,
to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding
with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack
— this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign
countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s
long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see
America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force,
cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with
us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and
no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya
is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens
killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq
and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian
casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes
are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then
you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of
countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if
you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need
to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized
diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days.
The United States, Russia and all members of the international community
must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place
its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction.
Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this
as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia
on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to
at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and
steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in
international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared
success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing
trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on
Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American
exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what
makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is
extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional,
whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich
and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their
way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when
we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created
us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment