What's sad is that I totally agree with the President of Russia and totally DISAGREE with the President of the United States.
A potential US strike on Syria is fraught with dangerous consequences
Vladimir Putin
September 12, 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.
in Murfreesboro, Tenn., reports the city police department acquired its
own MRAP in August, prompting City Councilman Toby Gilley to reassure
concerned citizens at a council meeting that it will be used to
confront, “threats from armed gunmen.”
