Message for Andrew and Rubato

[Gob]

Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to Andrew and Rubato 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 organisation — 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 authorisation.

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 destabilise 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 organisations. 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-defence 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 civilised 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.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/americ ... z2eisNylhb

[Lord Jim]

I was actually going to post that a little later with the subject line, "Balls The Size Of Kremlin Minarets..."

I managed to fight my way through that revolting, cynical drivel in The Times this morning, and have heard a lot of commentary about it since...

Ridicule and/or disgust seems to be the reaction across the political spectrum...

Imagine...

A lecture from Vladimir Putin on democratic values and the virtue of peaceful solutions....

Great green gobets up I throw...

Next I guess we can have a lecture from the Rev. Phelps on tolerance and brotherly love...

[Guinevere]

I barfed up my breakfast this morning, the ridiculous hypocrite. The WaPo did a nice paragraph by paragraph analysis of the op-ed:

(please click on the link, sorry for the length, because the analysis is shown in bold and the formatting doesn't show up when I cut and paste -- definitely worth the read).


WASS link fixed by Daisy

[Sue U]

Putin is a hypocrite, and it is surely distasteful to be lectured to by a hypocrite. Which is one reason many nations in the world find it distasteful to be lectured to by the United States.

Nevertheless, as Guin's WaPo link actually points out, Putin is not wrong in most of the arguments he makes. It is foolish to reject out of hand everything he says merely because it is Putin who says it -- particularly because Russia is an indispensable party in the Syria matter, as well as in many other issues around the globe, regardless of whether it may or may not still be a "superpower." At the very least, pragmatism would dictate a very measured response, as it is best to take advantage of whatever practical opportunities might be presented in the coming days irrespective of the accompanying rhetoric.

[Joe Guy]

I agree with Sue.

If you don't like the message, pretend Ronald Reagan said it.

[Big RR]

Indeed Sue; you said it better than I could.

[Lord Jim]

It was obvious to me when I read Putin's screed the first time that part of his message was carefully tailored to appeal to elements within the American Left by hitting on negative beliefs about the US that they share...

Judging from some of the reaction, (including a couple of posts in this thread) he seems to some extent to have succeeded...

In it's structure and approach, (and it's shameless mendacity and cynicism) Putin's piece in The Times reminds me a lot of Hitler's speech to the Reichstag in 1939, (shortly before the invasion of Poland) responding to criticisms from FDR...(in fact, last night I went back and re-read it; here's the link: http://nsl-server.com/Buecher/Fremde-Sp ... ext%29.pdf it's 38 pages long)

In that speech, (probably the best he ever gave; if you took it completely out of the context of the actual record, and accepted it on face value, it might seem quite persuasive...just like the Putin article) Hitler first portrays himself as a great peacemaker, and then later very cleverly goes on to catalog a list of supposed wrong doings and bad international behavior on the part of the US and the UK in an effort to deny them the moral high ground and make the case "who are you folks to judge me?"

A world in which only societies with unblemished records of moral conduct can hold can any other regimes to account no matter what they do is certainly not a world I would ever want to live in. That is a prescription for nothing but the triumph of barbarism.

[Joe Guy]

[Gob]

Syria's chemical weapons must be destroyed or removed by mid-2014, under an agreement between the US and Russia.

US Secretary of State John Kerry outlined a framework document under which Syria must hand over a full list of its stockpile within a week.

If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution backed by the threat of sanctions or military force.

The US says the Syrian regime killed hundreds in a gas attack last month.

The government of Bashar al-Assad denies the allegations and has accused the rebels of carrying out the attack on 21 August.

Syria recently agreed to join the global Chemical Weapons Convention, and on Saturday the UN said it would come under the treaty from 14 October.

Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor, Damascus

Russia has significant leverage over the regime in Damascus, as it supplies its weapons. Perhaps more importantly, Russia has been watching President Assad's back at the United Nations. It seems likely that the Russians will already have had some sort of promise of co-operation from the Assad regime.

The timescale of work to be done is ambitious. But a logical assumption is that the chemical stockpiles and factories are in territory held by the regime. If so, it means access depends on President Assad's orders, not on the progress of the war.

The Free Syria Army, the loose coalition of armed rebels that has been hoping for Western help to fight the Assad regime, has rejected the agreement. Less than a week ago the FSA believed that the Americans were about to launch a military attack, which it hoped would tip the balance of the war its way. Now it believes that the Americans have been sidetracked.

Whether or not chemical weapons are destroyed is not the point. The FSA want the Americans to destroy the regime's military power, and the US agreement with Russia means the chances of that happening are receding.

[Lord Jim]

Here are the six important points in the U.S.-Russia jointly agreed upon six point plan:

Syria has one week to turn over a list of its complete chemical weapons arsenal. The U.S. and Russia agree the Syrian government has roughly 1,000 tons of chemical agents and materials, the BBC reports.

Syria must sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, as Bashar al-Assad has promised.

Syria's chemical weapons stockpile must be placed under international control by November.

Syria's chemical weapons stockpile and all associated materials must be destroyed by the first half of 2014.

U.N. inspectors must be given "immediate, unfettered access" to Syria's chemical weapons sites by November. There are allegedly over 50 sites that hold chemical weapons in Syria.

The U.N. will help with logistical support and will enforce penalties under Chapter VII, which allows sanctions or military force, should Syria fail to comply with these guidelines. (The U.S. retains the right to use military force; Russia still doesn't think it's a good idea.)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2 ... lem/69412/

Personally I think this is a terrible deal, which the Syrians will in no way shape or form adhere to, and that achieves nothing but to prolong the life of the Assad regime while giving him a pass for his crimes...

The good news is that it could fall apart as soon as next week, and that the US retains the right to use force.

[Gob]

The good news is that it could fall apart as soon as next week, and that the US retains the right to use force.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Lord Jim]

When the problem is a nail, it's foolhardy to try to use any other type of tool...

You can whack it with a powder puff all day long, at the end of the day you'll still need the hammer...

[Big RR]

[quote][A world in which only societies with unblemished records of moral conduct can hold can any other regimes to account no matter what they do is certainly not a world I would ever want to live in. That is a prescription for nothing but the triumph of barbarism./quote]

I fully agree with you on that point, Jim; indeed, no post here (or even Putin from what I read) has demanded "unblemished records of moral conduct". Indeed, all I am saying is that it is impossible for a single nation(even the US) to claim a moral high ground when one has repeatedly embraced immorality, especially the same immorality; not a simple blemish on an otherwise unblemished record, but the same conduct. I have, however, repeatedly said the international community can join together to enforce their conventions and laws.

[Andrew D]

Okay. I have read the entire "message to me".

It is hard to know where to begin, so I will begin by taking the various points, such as they are, seriatim.

But before that, it bears pointing out that Putin's tractate is essentially directed toward one thing: "Please do not bomb our client state."

Anyway ...

The United Nations' founders understood that decision affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by the 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.

Veto by any one permanent member of the UN was a terrible mistake. It has hamstrung the UN for decades.

"The stability of international relations"? Where was the UN in the Rwanda-Burundi genocide? Cleaning up the mess, sure. But preventing it from happening in the first place? The UN was nowhere.

And what about the millions slaughtered in the war which we commonly refer to as having taken place in the Congo? What did the UN do to put a stop to that? Squat.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage.

And what was the "real leverage" that the League of Nations lacked? US military power.

This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

Flat wrong. This is possible because the UN is impotent. And it is impotent largely because nations such as Russia prefer coddling their client states over maintaining international order.

The potential strike [a parade of horribles]. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Newsflash: When it comes to armed conflict, there is no "system of international law and order". That supposed system did nothing to stem the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi. It has done nothing to stop the war in the Congo -- a war which only Pollyanas believe has actually ended.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country.

Irrelevant. The US should not intervene in Syria's civil war. (I am pretty confident that I said so rather emphatically.) The US should have, and still should, obliterate a regime which has violated an international norm whose violation should brook no contradiction.

And this

This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition ....

would be risible if the matter were not so serious. How about Russia stop supplying its foreign weapons to support the murderous Assad regime?

We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I am growing tired. I will get to the rest of the crap in Putin's piece if and when I have the energy and the inclination.

[Gob]

The chemical weapons issue seems to have been resolved without the USA bombing the shit out of a city full of civilians from a distance. Your warmongering was not needed nor wanted Andrew.

[Andrew D]

As everyone who has read my postings knows, I have not advocated the US's getting involved in Syria's civil war. But some here persist in refusing to understand the distinction between punitive action and involvement.

Okay. Persist as long as you like.

[Andrew D]

Anyway ...

Resolved?

Where are Assad's chemical weapons?

Who has overseen their destruction?

Where is the evidence that they have actually been destroyed?

What action has been taken that will deter -- or, at least, has some reasonable chance of deterring -- Assad and others from using chemical weapons against civilians some other day?

Newsflash: "Oh, sorry, I won't do that again (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, snicker, snicker)" is not a deterrent.

[Gob]

Progress is being made. Would you prefer it if cvilians to be bombed from a distance just to satisfy your bloodlust Andrew? It's easy to demand mass killings from the safety if your comfirtsble middle class American home Andrew, after all, no one expects you to do the killing you demand.

[Andrew D]

Progress is being made.

We should believe that when we see it, and not sooner. Thus far, all we see is backtracking by the "international community" and smug smirking by Assad.

Would you prefer it if cvilians to be bombed from a distance ....

I would prefer that no civilians be murdered.

There appears to be no way of ensuring that in Syria.

If you have a suggestion of some way to stop all killing of all civilians in Syria, I am all ears. (Or, on the net, all eyes.)

But what is happening now appears to be nothing but letting Assad get away with an international crime of the highest order, allowing thousands -- tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? millions? -- of people to be slaughtered by a regime that loves killing innocent people.

Please explain how that is a good thing.

[Gob]

What crime? It's not been show if it was the rebels or Assad , who breifly used a chemical weapons. There certainly has been nothing proved which justifies the dropping of bombs on urban areas by an uninvolved foreign nation.