A Plea for Caution From Russia
By
VLADIMIR V.
PUTIN*
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.
Hakuna maoni:
Chapisha Maoni