|
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
President Putin on Syria
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 4447 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.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
President of Iran speaks in Washington Post Op-ed
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s Washington Post op-ed, annotated
Iran's new President Hassan Rouhani waves after swearing in at the parliament, in Tehran, Iran. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)
Recently inaugurated President of Iran Hassan Rouhani published an op-ed in The Washington Post today. It's yet another of many gestures of goodwill Rouhani has made toward the United States, with which he advocates seeking detente, since taking office in August. It's also an interesting bit of public diplomacy, revealing as much for what Rouhani says as how he says it -- not to mention what he leaves out.
Below, as we did with Russian President Vladimir Putin's op-ed, is a line-for-line annotation, elaborating at some points and, at others, translating into more candid language. Rouhani's writing is set off in italics and bold; my notes are in plain text.
Three months ago, my platform of “prudence and hope” gained a broad, popular mandate. Iranians embraced my approach to domestic and international affairs because they saw it as long overdue. I’m committed to fulfilling my promises to my people, including my pledge to engage in constructive interaction with the world.
True enough. Rouhani ran on repairing Iran's international standing and on fixing the economy, as well as social reforms. But he clearly sees much of his agenda as hinged on detente with the West.
The world has changed. International politics is no longer a zero-sum game but a multi-dimensional arena where cooperation and competition often occur simultaneously. Gone is the age of blood feuds. World leaders are expected to lead in turning threats into opportunities.
Translation: Let's not pretend we're about to become best friends overnight. The United States and Iran disagree on plenty. But Iran's decades of anti-Western resistance aren't working for us anymore, and you in the United States seem to have come around to coexisting with the Islamic Republic instead of toppling it.
The international community faces many challenges in this new world — terrorism, extremism, foreign military interference, drug trafficking, cybercrime and cultural encroachment — all within a framework that has emphasized hard power and the use of brute force.
The inclusion of "cultural encroachment" and "foreign military interference" is a clear nod to Iranian concerns about the West. Maybe this is an earnest concern for Rouhani or maybe it's included to please conservatives back in Tehran. Either way, this is a list of issues that resonates more with Iranian issues than American, though there's certainly overlap.
We must pay attention to the complexities of the issues at hand to solve them. Enter my definition of constructive engagement. In a world where global politics is no longer a zero-sum game, it is — or should be — counterintuitive to pursue one’s interests without considering the interests of others.
Translation: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is gone from office. So is George W. Bush. Let's talk.
A constructive approach to diplomacy doesn’t mean relinquishing one’s rights. It means engaging with one’s counterparts, on the basis of equal footing and mutual respect, to address shared concerns and achieve shared objectives. In other words, win-win outcomes are not just favorable but also achievable. A zero-sum, Cold War mentality leads to everyone’s loss.
This touches on two of Iran's core complaints about the West, which go back even further than sanctions: a sense that Iran is not respected by the West and a fear that the West seeks the country's Cold War-style destruction. Iran basically wants the United States to acknowledge that the Islamic Republic is a legitimate country that it won't try to overthrow.
Sadly, unilateralism often continues to overshadow constructive approaches. Security is pursued at the expense of the insecurity of others, with disastrous consequences. More than a decade and two wars after 9/11, al-Qaeda and other militant extremists continue to wreak havoc.
Translation: Dear America, please stop invading countries. You are making terrorism worse.
Syria, a jewel of civilization, has become the scene of heartbreaking violence, including chemical weapons attacks, which we strongly condemn.
Iran, like Russia, actively supports Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian civil war. So it's significant that Rouhani does not blame the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack on Western-backed rebels, which is Russia's position. He doesn't blame it on Assad, either; he's not going to pull the rug out from under his close ally in the Western press. But declining to cover for Assad is significant.
In Iraq, 10 years after the American-led invasion, dozens still lose their lives to violence every day. Afghanistan endures similar, endemic bloodshed.
The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism. I say all because nobody is immune to extremist-fueled violence, even though it might rage thousands of miles away. Americans woke up to this reality 12 years ago.
He's reiterating that the United States shouldn't attack Middle Eastern countries and that doing so worsens extremism, which also threatens Iran. This is probably as much about convincing the Obama administration not to strike Syria as it is about Iran.
My approach to foreign policy seeks to resolve these issues by addressing their underlying causes. We must work together to end the unhealthy rivalries and interferences that fuel violence and drive us apart. We must also pay attention to the issue of identity as a key driver of tension in, and beyond, the Middle East.
At their core, the vicious battles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are over the nature of those countries’ identities and their consequent roles in our region and the world. The centrality of identity extends to the case of our peaceful nuclear energy program. To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world. Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.
This is consistent with Iran's long-standing insistence that a nuclear program is a national right. Iran views itself as a great nation and an advanced society. Enriching uranium is a way of proving this to the world, and to itself. Western opposition to Iranian enrichment is thus seen as opposition to Iranian greatness itself. His message to the United States here is that Iran's desire for a nuclear program is peaceful in nature, but it's also deeply ingrained in Iranian identity and thus non-negotiable.
I am committed to confronting our common challenges via a two-pronged approach.
First, we must join hands to constructively work toward national dialogue, whether in Syria or Bahrain. We must create an atmosphere where peoples of the region can decide their own fates.
This is a little jab at the United States. Many Americans might not immediately see what Rouhani is doing by placing Syria and Bahrain side-by-side. While the two countries' conflicts are very, very different, they also have some similarities. Bahrain, a close U.S. military ally, has seen pro-democracy protests since 2011. But the authoritarian government, in part with implicit U.S. support, has cracked down repeatedly on protesters. By mentioning Bahrain alongside Syria, perhaps Rouhani is saying that, if Iran is part of the problem of oppressed Middle East democracy movements, then so is the United States.
As part of this, I announce my government’s readiness to help facilitate dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition.
This is the one major policy announcement in the op-ed. But it's also status quo; Iran has long advocated talks between the Assad regime and the rebels. In action, though, Tehran has given Assad such overwhelming military support that it's seemed single-mindedly focused on helping him to win the war outright. Outside the confines of this op-ed, it's not clear that Iran is changing policy on Syria.
Second, we must address the broader, overarching injustices and rivalries that fuel violence and tensions. A key aspect of my commitment to constructive interaction entails a sincere effort to engage with neighbors and other nations to identify and secure win-win solutions.
We and our international counterparts have spent a lot of time — perhaps too much time — discussing what we don’t want rather than what we do want. This is not unique to Iran’s international relations. In a climate where much of foreign policy is a direct function of domestic politics, focusing on what one doesn’t want is an easy way out of difficult conundrums for many world leaders. Expressing what one does want requires more courage.
This section is very promising. Rouhani is subtly drawing attention to the fact that both American and Iranian politics include hard-liners who oppose detente, and that for the two countries to end decades of enmity would require not just international diplomacy but domestic political change as well. It's good news that Rouhani sees this, for two reasons. First, he will have to take on the hard-liners in his own government to see detente through. And, second, he will have to be prepared for the possibility that some members of the U.S. government may attempt to undermine peace; it's helpful if he's aware that such people don't necessarily act on behalf of the entire United States.
After 10 years of back-and-forth, what all sides don’t want in relation to our nuclear file is clear. The same dynamic is evident in the rival approaches to Syria.
Translation: Yes, we see the red lines.
This approach can be useful for efforts to prevent cold conflicts from turning hot. But to move beyond impasses, whether in relation to Syria, my country’s nuclear program or its relations with the United States, we need to aim higher. Rather than focusing on how to prevent things from getting worse, we need to think — and talk — about how to make things better. To do that, we all need to muster the courage to start conveying what we want — clearly, concisely and sincerely — and to back it up with the political will to take necessary action. This is the essence of my approach to constructive interaction.
Translation: I don't think it's enough for us to sit around and hope that a breakthrough will just happen on its own, or that the United States will hand us everything we want on a silver platter. We're ready to start making compromises and concessions, but you guys have to do the same. And that means clarifying what we will and won't accept.
President Obama made a first step on this when he sent a letter to Rouhani clarifying that the United States is ready to cut a nuclear deal with Tehran so long as it can certify any enrichment is purely peaceful -- which implies that the United States will accept a peaceful program.
As I depart for New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, I urge my counterparts to seize the opportunity presented by Iran’s recent election. I urge them to make the most of the mandate for prudent engagement that my people have given me and to respond genuinely to my government’s efforts to engage in constructive dialogue. Most of all, I urge them to look beyond the pines and be brave enough to tell me what they see — if not for their national interests, then for the sake of their legacies, and our children and future generations.
Translation: This is your big chance, America. Better take it while you can.
White woman suspected of leading Islamists in Kenyan Mall Mass Murder
'White Widow' Samantha Lewthwaite
One British newspaper revealed that the “White Widow” was actually leading it and had been witnessed in a veil, “shouting instructions in Arabic”. It did not say why she should be using that language to a group who spoke Somali and, many of them, seemingly, English. Kenyan officials pointed out that the fighters were all men, although some of them had gone into Westgate pretending to be women, dressed in niqabs.
Later, however, Kenya's Foreign Minister, Amina Mohamed, contradicted this by telling US television that a British woman experienced in terrorist activities was involved in the siege, fuelling the speculation surrounding Lewthwaite.
In an interview with PBS she said: "From the information that we have, two or three Americans (were involved) and I think, so far, I have heard of one Brit... a woman ... and I think she has done this many times before."
Kenyan soldiers officers at the stand-off in Nairobi Lewthwaite, 29, who grew up in Aylesbury, is not known to the law-enforcement agencies as a combatant. She is, however, seen as a facilitator and is wanted in connection with a plot to blow up a shopping centre and hotels in Mombasa two years ago. She is believed still to be engaged in clandestine activity.
UK security sources said they could not rule out that she had been involved, although it was likely to be behind the scenes. A tweet, purportedly from al-Shabaab, announced she had taken part, but its provenance could not be verified.An associate of Lewthwaite, Habib Ghani, a UK citizen from Hounslow in west London, is reported to have been shot dead along with Omar Hammami, an American from Alabama with a Syrian mother, in an al-Shabaab internal feud earlier this month.
Ghani, of Pakistani and Kenyan extraction, went on the run after Kenyan police arrested another Briton, Jermaine Grant, in Mombasa over alleged possession of explosives.
Smoke rises over the mall yesterday The largest group of foreign fighters is said to have come from various parts of the US including the states of Kansas, Maine, and Illinois, and the city of Minneapolis. According to evidence before the US Congress, a number of mosques in the cities of Minneapolis and St Paul were running recruitment programmes and sending volunteers to fight in Somalia.
The FBI is said to have launched an investigation into the American connection in the attack, but questions will be asked as to why Western intelligence agencies failed to track the gathering of international jihadists in Nairobi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
