While there are some parts that I
may disagree with in Putin’s recent piece in the New York Times, his message is
one that most Americans will agree with.
(New York Times) – 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, 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.
- See more at: http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/12/message-putin-american-people/#sthash.g2APIg7s.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment