What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

---

September 11, 2013

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.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

 

http://nyti.ms/15lcB4C

---

September 6, 2013

Obama Stymied in Bid to Rally World Leaders on Syria Strike

By PETER BAKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS

STRELNA, Russia — President Obama ran into an impasse on Friday in his bid to rally international backing for a military strike on Syria as world leaders wrapped up a summit meeting here remaining deeply divided over the right response to what the Americans have called the deadliest nerve gas attack in decades.

After a dinner debate that lasted into the early morning hours of Friday, Mr. Obama emerged with a few supporters but no consensus, as other leaders urged him not to attack without United Nations permission, which is not forthcoming. Instead, the president had to resign himself to generalized statements of concern over the use of chemical weapons.

The failure to forge a stronger coalition here in the face of opposition from the Russian host, President Vladimir V. Putin, raised the risks even further for Mr. Obama as he headed home to lobby Congress to give him the backing his international peers would not. It also left Mr. Obama in the awkward position of defending his right to take action largely alone if necessary after campaigning against what he portrayed as the unilateralist foreign policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama acknowledged that he had a "hard sell" with Congress and announced that he would deliver a televised address to the nation Tuesday evening from the White House.

"Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can use W.M.D. and not pay a consequence," he said at a news conference, using the initials for weapons of mass destruction. "And that's not a world we want to live in."

But much of the world, at least as represented at the Group of 20 meeting here in this St. Petersburg suburb, did not favor Mr. Obama's proposed course of action. Mr. Putin said a majority of the leaders joined him in opposing a military strike independent of United Nations approval, including those from Argentina, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy and South Africa.

Citing remarks by Jacob Zuma, the South African president, Mr. Putin said: " 'Small countries in today's world in general are feeling increasingly vulnerable and unprotected. There is an impression any superpower at any moment at its discretion may use force.' And he's right."

The only countries that supported Mr. Obama's plan, the Russian leader said, were Canada, France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all nations that were on Mr. Obama's side when he arrived here on Thursday.

Trying to counter the impression of isolation, the White House arranged for a joint statement including those allies as well as Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Spain and South Korea condemning the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of the Syrian capital, Damascus, which according to American intelligence agencies, killed more than 1,400 people.

"We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated," the statement said. "Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable." Still, the statement did not explicitly endorse military action.

But Mr. Putin pointed to a statement issued by Pope Francis on Thursday opposing military strikes and cited polls showing that the citizens of most countries, including the United States, also did not favor an American-led strike. "I can assure you — and the latest polls say this as well — the overwhelming majority of the populations in these countries is on our side," he said, his voice rising combatively.

Even as Mr. Putin ardently argued against an American-led intervention, Russia's Navy continued preparations in the event of an attack. It has already dispatched at least four warships to the Mediterranean Sea, including three that passed through the Bosporus on Thursday, two landing ships and a destroyer.

Russian news agencies on Friday reported that additional ships would join the armada, but not until later in September. Mr. Putin's chief of staff, Sergei B. Ivanov, told reporters that the landing vessels were being sent in case it was necessary to evacuate Russian citizens from Syria.

Russia's deputy defense minister, Anatoly I. Antonov, said on Thursday that the ships would not intervene against American and other NATO warships that have also assembled in the region. "We don't intend, either directly or indirectly, to take part in a possible regional conflict," he said, according to the Web site of the Ministry of Defense.

Speaking with reporters as he was about to end his three-day overseas trip, Mr. Obama repeatedly refused to say whether he would abide by the Congressional vote he asked for authorizing the use of force against Syria if lawmakers say no.

"You're not getting any direct response," he said. But Antony Blinken, his principal deputy national security adviser, told NPR that while the president maintains that he has the authority to act regardless of Congress, "it's neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him."

The Syria dispute came to dominate the G-20 meeting and underscored the difficulty Mr. Obama has faced with Mr. Putin in recent months. After Russia gave temporary asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor who disclosed secret American surveillance programs, Mr. Obama canceled a separate one-on-one meeting with Mr. Putin in Moscow.

But the two ended up talking on the sideline of the group session on Friday, mainly about their disagreement over Syria. Mr. Obama said Mr. Snowden's case did not really come up. "It was a candid and constructive conversation, which characterizes my relationship with him," Mr. Obama said.

For his part, Mr. Putin said the two leaders agreed to disagree during a friendly encounter on Thursday that lasted more than 20 minutes.

"We hear each other and understand the arguments," he said. "We simply don't agree with them. I don't agree with his arguments and he doesn't agree with mine, but we hear and try to analyze."

He added that they did agree that Syria ultimately needed a political settlement, and delegated the question to Russia's foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Secretary of State John Kerry. In May, the two officials announced an effort to begin negotiations for a settlement in Syria, to be held in Geneva, but that effort has since stalled and now seems further away than ever.

The president said he appreciated that Mr. Putin had allowed a full airing of views about Syria at the dinner on Thursday. By several accounts, it was a vigorous discussion in which Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin in effect were competing for support. Mr. Obama emerged having changed no one's mind about military force, but most of the leaders at least agreed with his assessment that the government of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, was responsible for the attack, something Mr. Putin has dismissed as "utter nonsense."

"I've been encouraged by my discussions with my fellow leaders this week," Mr. Obama said Friday. "There is a growing recognition that the world cannot stand idly by."

But he acknowledged the deep reservations over the use of force and said he reminded the leaders at the dinner that he had opposed Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003. "I was elected to end wars, not start them," Mr. Obama said he told them. "I'm not itching for military action."

In addition to the talk with Mr. Putin, Mr. Obama held more formal meetings with the leaders of Brazil, China, France, Japan and Mexico. His session with President François Hollande of France was his one meeting with an unalloyed supporter of military action against Syria. "Doing nothing would mean impunity," Mr. Hollande told reporters, "and there would be a risk of repeating, so we must take responsibility."

Mr. Hollande has called forcefully for intervention and spoken with certitude about Mr. Assad's responsibility for the chemical attack. France has no intention of intervening without an international coalition, however, and Mr. Hollande has been obliged to await the Congressional vote before taking action of any kind. On Friday, he announced that France would also await the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors who visited the site of the Aug. 21 attack. Their reports are not expected for at least two weeks.

"We're now going to wait for the decision by Congress," Mr. Hollande said Friday, "then the inspectors' report. And in light of these elements, I will, here again, have to take decisions."

Mr. Hollande offered no explanation for his decision to await the United Nations findings, but French lawmakers have in recent days increasingly called for him to do so.

The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, tried to dissuade Mr. Obama from the use of force during their talk on Friday, said Benjamin J. Rhodes, deputy national security adviser. "We've obviously had a difference with China on this issue," he said.

President Obama's conversations with President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil and President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico were intended to smooth over consternation in both countries about reports, based on Mr. Snowden's leaks, that the National Security Agency eavesdropped on both leaders' telephone calls, e-mails and text messages.

Ms. Rousseff told reporters afterward that Mr. Obama promised an investigation, but she held out the possibility that she might cancel a trip to Washington scheduled for next month. Mr. Peña Nieto told BBC that he also got a promise of an inquiry into the allegations and that Mr. Obama committed "to impose corresponding sanctions" if they were true.

While White House officials said that tension did not influence the Syria debate, neither leader backed military action.

Mr. Obama also made a point before leaving town of meeting with nine Russian activists to show support for groups and individuals who have come under pressure from Mr. Putin's government. Among them was a leader from a gay rights group, raising an issue that has grown especially sensitive in Europe and the United States since Russia outlawed pro-gay "propaganda" this summer.

But Mr. Obama had no critical words for Mr. Putin or his government during his comments in front of news cameras, instead focusing on his own history as a community organizer and offering general statements about the value of free press, independent opposition and civil society.

Mr. Obama was scheduled to land back in Washington on Friday night as he braced for what advisers consider one of the most critical Congressional debates of his presidency.

"I knew this was going to be a heavy lift," he said. "I was under no illusions when I embarked on this path. But I think it's the right thing to do. I think it's good for our democracy. We will be more effective if we are unified going forward."

Scott Sayare contributed reporting from Paris.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print

Found at last! After searching for 10 years, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have finally been found – in Syria!

Found at last! After searching for 10 years, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have finally been found – in Syria!

 

 

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer120.html

Robert Fisk

Friday 30 August 2013

Iran, not Syria, is the West's real target

Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West

Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all yet have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind's oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria. 

They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable.

Iran is Israel's enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America's enemy. So fire the missiles at Iran's only Arab ally.

There is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing. But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America's ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we had nightmares over.

And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America's enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf. And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.

And I suppose it's worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982, in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London – it was Saddam's mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn't matter now – America merely called for both sides to exercise "restraint". And when, a few months before that invasion, Hafez al-Assad – father of Bashar – sent his brother up to Hama to wipe out thousands of Muslim Brotherhood rebels, nobody muttered a word of condemnation. "Hama Rules" is how my old mate Tom Friedman cynically styled this bloodbath.

Anyway, there's a different Brotherhood around these days – and Obama couldn't even bring himself to say "boo" when their elected president got deposed.

But hold on. Didn't Iraq – when it was "our" ally against Iran – also use gas on the Iranian army? It did. I saw the Ypres-like wounded of this foul attack by Saddam – US officers, I should add, toured the battlefield later and reported back to Washington – and we didn't care a tinker's curse about it. Thousands of Iranian soldiers in the 1980-88 war were poisoned to death by this vile weapon.

I travelled back to Tehran overnight on a train of military wounded and actually smelled the stuff, opening the windows in the corridors to release the stench of the gas. These young men had wounds upon wounds – quite literally. They had horrible sores wherein floated even more painful sores that were close to indescribable. Yet when the soldiers were sent to Western hospitals for treatment, we journos called these wounded – after evidence from the UN infinitely more convincing than what we're likely to get from outside Damascus – "alleged" gas victims.

 So what in heaven's name are we doing? After countless thousands have died in Syria's awesome tragedy, suddenly – now, after months and years of prevarication – we are getting upset about a few hundred deaths. Terrible. Unconscionable. Yes, that is true. But we should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But why now? 

I suspect I know the reason. I think that Bashar al-Assad's ruthless army might just be winning against the rebels whom we secretly arm. With the assistance of the Lebanese Hezbollah – Iran's ally in Lebanon – the Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may be in the process of breaking them north of Homs. Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West.

 And while we're on the subject of war, what happened to those magnificent Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that John Kerry was boasting about? While we express our anguish at the hideous gassings in Syria, the land of Palestine continues to be gobbled up. Israel's Likudist policy – to negotiate for peace until there is no Palestine left – continues apace, which is why King Abdullah of Jordan's nightmare (a much more potent one than the "weapons of mass destruction" we dreamed up in 2003) grows larger: that "Palestine" will be in Jordan, not in Palestine.

 But if we are to believe the nonsense coming out of Washington, London, Paris and the rest of the "civilised" world, it's only a matter of time before our swift and avenging sword smiteth the Damascenes. To observe the leadership of the rest of the Arab world applauding this destruction is perhaps the most painful historical experience for the region to endure. And the most shameful. Save for the fact that we will be attacking Shia Muslims and their allies to the handclapping of Sunni Muslims. And that's what civil war is made of.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html?origin=internalSearch