Vladimir Putin
Prime Minister of the Russian Federation (1999-2000, and 2008-2012);
President of the Russian Federation (2000-2008, and 2012 to the
present).
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.
Comments
Post a Comment