A PLEA FOR CAUTION FROM RUSSIA

WHAT PUTIN HAS TO SAY TO AMERICANS ABOUT SYRIA

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

New York Times

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 multi-religious 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, fuelled 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. 
 .

ED Noor: How can anyone not see the arrogance, the sneer, the teleprompter reading on the face of this war mongering puppet?

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 non-proliferation, 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.

Vladimir Putin, peacenik.

ED Noor: Later the same day, the NYT put out the following hit piece commentary on Putin’s plea.

PUTIN URGES 'CAUTION' IN SYRIA,

BASHES U.S. 'EXCEPTIONALISM' IN TIMES OP-ED [UPDATED]

By Margaret Hartmann

September 11, 2013

New York Times

It was reported on Wednesday that the Russian plan for disarming Syria emerged out of more than a year of discussions between President Obama and Vladimir Putin ~ not just serendipitous bumbling by John Kerry ~ but regardless, the international enthusiasm for a potential way to make Bashar al-Assad stop gassing his people without dropping U.S. bombs gave Russia more power on the world stage than it’s had in years, maybe even decades. 

Now, with negotiations on the deal set to start in Geneva tomorrow, Putin is trying to boost his position even further with a New York Times op-ed. In a piece titled "A Plea for Caution from Russia," Putin casts himself as a level-headed peacemaker, declaring, "We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement."

Without any acknowledgement that Russia has repeatedly used its Security Council veto to block efforts by the international community to rein in Assad, Putin starts by chiding President Obama for attempting to circumvent the United Nations. 

"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," Putin writes. "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."

Putin goes on to argue against an attack on Syria, saying it would increase violence, destabilize the Middle East, and "unleash a new wave of terrorism." He repeats his claim that the opposition forces are not as moderate as the United States has suggested, and accuses the rebels of carrying out the attack on August 21 (though multiple nations have concluded that they weren't responsible, and U.N. inspectors have reportedly found a "wealth" of evidence pointing to Assad). 

ED Noor: Remember this is the New York Times. They do have a party line to enforce upon the gullible.

"No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria," Putin writes. "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."

Pointing to the ongoing unrest in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, Putin says:

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.”

After thoroughly bashing the United States, Putin finally mentions four paragraphs from the end that he's happy the U.S. is working with Russia on the plan to disarm Assad. Then he closes with one more dig:

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.

A long column criticizing President Obama is an odd way to kick off negotiations, but it's not like John Kerry is going to cancel his trip to Geneva because Putin said the U.S. isn't as special as it thinks it is in The Times.

Update:  Indeed, the White House says it's not even mad. An Obama administration official told CNN:

"That’s all irrelevant ... He put this proposal forward and he’s now invested in it. That’s good. That’s the best possible reaction. He’s fully invested in Syria’s CW disarmament and that’s potentially better than a military strike ~ which would deter and degrade but wouldn’t get rid of all the chemical weapons. He now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver."