*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<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>.
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<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/russiaandtheformersovietunion/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>
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<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per>,
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.– In The New York Times*



[image: []]








_______________________________________________
<br/>
English mailing list
English@...
<br/>
<br/>
To unsubscribe, send an email to: ENGLISH-leave@...

Attachments

text.html (text/html) 9.4 kB