Plea for Caution From Russia
What
Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 484 Comments
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.
A
version of this op-ed appears in print on September 12, 2013, on page A31 of
the New York edition with the headline: A Plea for Caution From