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 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.
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.
- John C.
- Central Valley California
Aside from the obviously specious claim that it was the rebels who used the gas, much of this post is thought provoking and has a tone of reasonableness that I find disturbing to my prejudices. What a crazy world we are living in when Russia sounds more sane and responsible than our own government on a serious international crisis. It's as if I have blundered into some bizarre parallel universe.
Any moment now Rod Serling is going to walk into my living room and announce that I have just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.
Any moment now Rod Serling is going to walk into my living room and announce that I have just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.
- jfx
- Chicago
Well written. I appreciate hearing Putin's thoughts directly, and hopefully his open letter to the US can be reciprocated, allowing Obama to directly address the Russian people on important topics.
Putin's claim that the originators of the gas attack likely were Syrian rebels requires the same evidence of proof as Obama's claim the attack was made by the Syrian government. "Trust me, I know" isn't sufficient. However, if he is right, that may increase the chance of US military action, because if the Syrian government has lost control of their enormous chemical weapons stockpile that arguably is a direct threat to US national security.
Putin's claim that the originators of the gas attack likely were Syrian rebels requires the same evidence of proof as Obama's claim the attack was made by the Syrian government. "Trust me, I know" isn't sufficient. However, if he is right, that may increase the chance of US military action, because if the Syrian government has lost control of their enormous chemical weapons stockpile that arguably is a direct threat to US national security.
- Jordan
- Long Island
International diplomacy is certainly preferable to military intervention. I applaud President Putin for bringing the conversation to a higher level. Additionally, the proposed solution is far more likely to yield real results that any limited military strike would. If the real objective in this situation is Chemical Weapon Stockpiles, then certainly it is more sensible to dismantle and destroy the stockpiles under the scrutiny of organized international verification, then to vainly attempt to deter and degrade the Syrian Government's military capability with the vague hope that "they won't do it again."
Again, Bravo President Putin.
Again, Bravo President Putin.
- Mike
- Carlsbad, CA
"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."
This statement alone makes me ignore this opinion piece. Isn't this from the same country that unilaterally decided to invade the independent country of Georgia? Is your advice "Do as I say, not as I do?", Mr. Putin?
This statement alone makes me ignore this opinion piece. Isn't this from the same country that unilaterally decided to invade the independent country of Georgia? Is your advice "Do as I say, not as I do?", Mr. Putin?
- Sarah
- Arlington, VA
Finally a powerful foreign leader has the guts to point out the hubris of a country that constantly not only calls itself 'exceptional', but is populated by a majority never having set foot in another country in their life considering it 'the greatest country in the world'.
Except for the statement of Mr. Putin still blaming the so-called rebels for the chemical attack on Syrian civilians, his op-ed reveals a deep understanding of the decades old conflicts in the middle east, and the fact that those very conflicts can not and never will be resolved by brute force from afar.
Except for the statement of Mr. Putin still blaming the so-called rebels for the chemical attack on Syrian civilians, his op-ed reveals a deep understanding of the decades old conflicts in the middle east, and the fact that those very conflicts can not and never will be resolved by brute force from afar.
- Chris McMorrow
- Waltham, Mass.
I wish I could feel that Mr. Putin was being sincere here. If nothing else, he has a fabulous writer.
But at my age, having grown up during the Cold War and witnessed all sorts of tricks, lies, distortions, and manipulations by the old Soviet Regime, I just have some doubts. As an ex-KBG agent, Mr. Putin may not be my age, but he was trained in the old Soviet culture.
I think the main thing that really strikes me here is how myopic the US can be to its image around the world. We pay lip service to the idea that certain actions will "surely win us more enmity around the world," but we usually go on our merry way trying to get our way.
So, the benefit of Mr. Putin's assessment here--even if contrived, manipulative, and written to lecture this country, in and of itself a pretty arrogant act--is how based in realpolitik it is.
But--and this is a very big but--I'm not sure that Russia is in any position to lecture anyone right now, given its long history of isolationism, paranoia, and curbs on basic freedoms inside its borders.
I think it will be interesting for all of us to save this article, and our posts, and see how they stack up against events as they unfold over the next 6 months. We will either be pleasantly surprised, or just surprised as how gullible we really were.
But at my age, having grown up during the Cold War and witnessed all sorts of tricks, lies, distortions, and manipulations by the old Soviet Regime, I just have some doubts. As an ex-KBG agent, Mr. Putin may not be my age, but he was trained in the old Soviet culture.
I think the main thing that really strikes me here is how myopic the US can be to its image around the world. We pay lip service to the idea that certain actions will "surely win us more enmity around the world," but we usually go on our merry way trying to get our way.
So, the benefit of Mr. Putin's assessment here--even if contrived, manipulative, and written to lecture this country, in and of itself a pretty arrogant act--is how based in realpolitik it is.
But--and this is a very big but--I'm not sure that Russia is in any position to lecture anyone right now, given its long history of isolationism, paranoia, and curbs on basic freedoms inside its borders.
I think it will be interesting for all of us to save this article, and our posts, and see how they stack up against events as they unfold over the next 6 months. We will either be pleasantly surprised, or just surprised as how gullible we really were.
- George
- San Jose, CA
Mr Putin makes many points, some I disagree, some I agree. But all are perfectly valid concerns. I commend Mr Putin for contributing to the discussion.
Mr Putin's main concern is the issue of who's responsible for the recent chemical attack. Mr Obama admits the issue remains in dispute, but believes there is substantial evidence the Syrian government is responsible. Mr Putin believes it may in fact be the Rebels who are responsible. It would be hard to disagree that this is the key issue and deserves full "due process" resolution.
US constitutional law might offer some help here. It requires in a dispute such as this, where a crime may have been committed, for the accuser (Mr Obama in this case) to provide all evidence pertinent to the crime be made available to the accused (Mr Assad, presumably in this case represented by Mr Putin). "All evidence" , meaning that which supports the accuser's claims, and also that which supports the accused claims -- the so-called exculpatory evidence. Mr Obama should immediately provide this evidence to Mr Putin.
US law rules of evidence also require that testimony or claims be of first person origin. No third person testimony -- so-called "hearsay" evidence -- is allowed. Mr Obama should comply, and offer evidence only which can be supported by first person testimony. With names attached.
Mr Putin's main concern is the issue of who's responsible for the recent chemical attack. Mr Obama admits the issue remains in dispute, but believes there is substantial evidence the Syrian government is responsible. Mr Putin believes it may in fact be the Rebels who are responsible. It would be hard to disagree that this is the key issue and deserves full "due process" resolution.
US constitutional law might offer some help here. It requires in a dispute such as this, where a crime may have been committed, for the accuser (Mr Obama in this case) to provide all evidence pertinent to the crime be made available to the accused (Mr Assad, presumably in this case represented by Mr Putin). "All evidence" , meaning that which supports the accuser's claims, and also that which supports the accused claims -- the so-called exculpatory evidence. Mr Obama should immediately provide this evidence to Mr Putin.
US law rules of evidence also require that testimony or claims be of first person origin. No third person testimony -- so-called "hearsay" evidence -- is allowed. Mr Obama should comply, and offer evidence only which can be supported by first person testimony. With names attached.
- Bill in Tennessee
- Knoxvillle TN
With all due respect to Mr. Putin (and I am saddened to say that my respect for Putin exceeds that of my respect for Obama right now), what the phrase "American exceptionalism" means is not that our people are special and exceptional...not at all. Our founders knew that men are not angels... thus they instituted a Constitution and a way of self-governance that was unlike any other on earth at that time, a representative republic that had no king, no caste system, no aristocracy, but all men equal under the law and having natural rights granted, not by government, but by our creator. Such rights, not coming from government but being endowed by our creator, were therefor "inalienable"... they could not be rescinded by government because they do not come from government. This, in my opinion, is the source of American exceptionalism; not that our people are superior but that our way of self-governance and equality under the law is superior.
Nations that choose to model themselves after the American experiment also are exceptional, the relationship between the governed and those who govern has now been raised to a new, exceptional level. Mr. Putin, I hope your own nation can one day rise to the level of self-governance that was put forth in Philadelphia, July 4, 1776. Future generations will then speak of Russian exceptionalism.
Yes, the article is well-written and some reasons he presents should be considered in the debate, but don't criticize the US on principles you yourself violate excruciatingly. As an American, I feel no greater trust in Russia.
Nations that choose to model themselves after the American experiment also are exceptional, the relationship between the governed and those who govern has now been raised to a new, exceptional level. Mr. Putin, I hope your own nation can one day rise to the level of self-governance that was put forth in Philadelphia, July 4, 1776. Future generations will then speak of Russian exceptionalism.
- J Young
- Seattle
Am I the only one who finds it strange that Putin asserts the rebels were responsible for the chemical attacks at the same time he suggests that the Syrian government turn over its chemical weapons arsenal? Kind of a head-scratcher. As is the fact that so many commenters express gratitude for his counsel and seem utterly unaware of the hypocrisy entailed in his lecturing the US on equality and the rule of international law.
Are we completely post-history these days? Even recent history? For goodness' sake, this man represses his own people and arms international conflicts on a regular basis, apparently without compunctions. To take his words at face value is inane. He is clearly playing (and preying) on American fears and on our vast naivete regarding world affairs. Make no mistake, this solution serves his ends. The fact that it may serve ours as well does not make him a friend.
Are we completely post-history these days? Even recent history? For goodness' sake, this man represses his own people and arms international conflicts on a regular basis, apparently without compunctions. To take his words at face value is inane. He is clearly playing (and preying) on American fears and on our vast naivete regarding world affairs. Make no mistake, this solution serves his ends. The fact that it may serve ours as well does not make him a friend.
- Dylan Morrissey
- CA
While not all of Putin's reasoning is null, the abhorrent hypocrisy of several of his statements completely destroy any of the validity of his attempt at appealing to the American people.
I do not believe that the limited military strikes that have been called for are the right course of action for the US to take (the situation in Syria is much too complicated for that simplicity), yet in criticizing Obama, Putin completely disregards the fact that his actions have done nothing better to uphold the integrity of the UN as a body to uphold international peace and security. Whether Putin wants to admit it or not, Syria has grossly violated a core piece of the 1925 Geneva Protocol--be careful in questioning the US on wanting to uphold international peacekeeping principles when you have armed the Assad regime and ignored its obvious use of chemical weapons. Furthermore, Putin feebly ends his argument with words "we must not forget that God created us equal." In all aspects, this statement is ridiculous. "We?" Can Putin really refer to himself and Americans collectively as "we" when he bars Americans from adopting Russian children? Does he truly believe that "God created us equal" when he actively promotes the persecution of gays?
I do not believe that the limited military strikes that have been called for are the right course of action for the US to take (the situation in Syria is much too complicated for that simplicity), yet in criticizing Obama, Putin completely disregards the fact that his actions have done nothing better to uphold the integrity of the UN as a body to uphold international peace and security. Whether Putin wants to admit it or not, Syria has grossly violated a core piece of the 1925 Geneva Protocol--be careful in questioning the US on wanting to uphold international peacekeeping principles when you have armed the Assad regime and ignored its obvious use of chemical weapons. Furthermore, Putin feebly ends his argument with words "we must not forget that God created us equal." In all aspects, this statement is ridiculous. "We?" Can Putin really refer to himself and Americans collectively as "we" when he bars Americans from adopting Russian children? Does he truly believe that "God created us equal" when he actively promotes the persecution of gays?
- David Voss
- Richmond, VA
I'm sickened by the fact that we live in a time when a foreign leader has the ear of the American people. Our President is so weak that the American people would actually consider reading an Op-Ed from Putin and take it for face value. In the absence of leadership, someone will fill the void. Putin is trying to do just that. The sad thing is, the really said thing, is that many Americans will agree with his final paragraph. That we are not exceptional - we are just equal to everyone else. This is exactly what Obama has been trying to instill in us since Day 1. For us not to be outraged is a sign that our society now believes there is nothing great about the United States. This is our lot on 9/11/13 just 12 years after we were attacked.
For those of you who have not given up on the United States, I stand with you. We are the greatest country in the world because of people like you and I who will not give up on God, country, family, and the opportunity to create something with our lives that transcends our existence. Stay strong brothers and sisters! We will win this war.
For those of you who have not given up on the United States, I stand with you. We are the greatest country in the world because of people like you and I who will not give up on God, country, family, and the opportunity to create something with our lives that transcends our existence. Stay strong brothers and sisters! We will win this war.
- Dmitry Mikheyev
- Moscow, Russia
In full disclosure, I am Russian American, who has no reason to love the KGB and has all reasons to love America. I spent 6 years in GULAG and then was granted political asylum in America. But to me, this ’s stance on Syria makes more sense that anything else I heard from American political-military-industrial-media elite. I admit meeting very smart KGB guys even when they were interrogating me. Putin is obviously one of the most gifted and intelligent world leaders of our time. But of course great brain power can be very dangerous in the wrong hands, right? So what motives him?
Having lived in Moscow for 15 years I am confident that after decades of Communism Russia is obsessed with catching up with the West in technology and living standards. So Russia needs peaceful and stable international environment.
In contrast, the US is a crusading whose global ambition is to "civilize and modernize” the world according to its own image. Putin captured the fundamental paradox of American democracy: Can liberty, democracy and happiness be imposed on others by bombs and destruction?
America should help Russia facilitate solution to the Syrian crisis through negotiations and compromises. America has to learn to live with complexities of the real world. The black-and-white thinking leads to endless wars with others. Such policy will inevitably result in self-destruction.
Having lived in Moscow for 15 years I am confident that after decades of Communism Russia is obsessed with catching up with the West in technology and living standards. So Russia needs peaceful and stable international environment.
In contrast, the US is a crusading whose global ambition is to "civilize and modernize” the world according to its own image. Putin captured the fundamental paradox of American democracy: Can liberty, democracy and happiness be imposed on others by bombs and destruction?
America should help Russia facilitate solution to the Syrian crisis through negotiations and compromises. America has to learn to live with complexities of the real world. The black-and-white thinking leads to endless wars with others. Such policy will inevitably result in self-destruction.
- September1940
- Stamford CT
I am shocked that, after reading President Putin's opinion, I feel that he is correct. The Russian President, an ex-KGB agent, a man who has led his county on some of their own missions of destruction, suddenly delivers a message which strikes a chord in me. Why, I wonder, am I reacting this way?
I think it is because, despite the hypocrisies in President Putin's writing, he makes sense - simple, common sense. He appears to cut through all the fog and word-spinning we are used to hearing from politicians - certainly from our own President - and gets to the kernel of the matter.
Force has, indeed, proven pointless. Where are we after the optimism of the so-called "Arab spring?" We still are confronting lunatic fringe elements who are propelling their societies into chaos, in the name of religion. We are constantly at war and finding it too easy to take international law into our own hands; acting unilaterally and, unfortunately, being perceived as the world's bully.
I pray that our President finds the same portion of common sense and manages to get himself under control - his bellicose and nonsensical speeches notwithstanding.
Thousands of people in Syria have been killed prior to the alleged chemical attack. Why did we/the world not respond to their deaths? A dead person is a dead person.
It doesn't matter who offers the olive branch or what it looks like - we must accept President Putin's well-reasoned approach to fending off a rush to military action.
I think it is because, despite the hypocrisies in President Putin's writing, he makes sense - simple, common sense. He appears to cut through all the fog and word-spinning we are used to hearing from politicians - certainly from our own President - and gets to the kernel of the matter.
Force has, indeed, proven pointless. Where are we after the optimism of the so-called "Arab spring?" We still are confronting lunatic fringe elements who are propelling their societies into chaos, in the name of religion. We are constantly at war and finding it too easy to take international law into our own hands; acting unilaterally and, unfortunately, being perceived as the world's bully.
I pray that our President finds the same portion of common sense and manages to get himself under control - his bellicose and nonsensical speeches notwithstanding.
Thousands of people in Syria have been killed prior to the alleged chemical attack. Why did we/the world not respond to their deaths? A dead person is a dead person.
It doesn't matter who offers the olive branch or what it looks like - we must accept President Putin's well-reasoned approach to fending off a rush to military action.
MYSELF: "By their fruits ye shall know them." Western Christianity, Western democracy, the American Constitution of self-governance and equality under the law that makes the US so exceptional, are all so very nice in theory but the centuries of violence and aggression, the imperialist ways and continuing hegemony, lets all three down so very, very badly. Be less coercive, boastful and fervent in furthering these 'exceptional' ideas as you call them and you may make fewer enemies in the lands you invade/intervene in. You may even be content to help people more than to wage war on them.
No comments:
Post a Comment