Putin the Peacemaker?

by Gerard Emershaw

On September 11, The New York Times published an op-ed from Russian President Vladimir Putin entitled “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” In this editorial, Putin urges President Obama not to attack Syria. Has the Russian dictator and former KGB agent become a peacemaker? Probably not, but his words do deserve consideration.

Putin says:

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.

Putin gives voice to the many possibilities for blowback that military strikes against Syria by the United States would create. In many ways the Syrian Civil War is a microcosm of the violent tensions in the Muslim World. The war pits Assad’s Alawites—a branch of Shia—against the Sunni rebels. The Muslim world at present can be viewed as a tense religionist rivalry between the Shia Iranians and the Sunni Saudis. With the importance of Middle East oil to the world economy, the worst possible scenario would be a wider regional sectarian war involving Shiite and Sunni factions. The potential fall of the Shiite Syrian government could make Iran nervous, as it would be losing one of its few allies. A nervous Iran is far more likely to continue its nuclear weapons program in earnest. More turmoil in the Middle East will definitely make solving Israeli-Palestinian issues more difficult.

Unlike President Obama, who tried to characterize the radical Jihadist Syrian rebels as “moderates” who wanted peace and democracy, Putin does not attempt to characterize his ally Assad as the Thomas Jefferson of Syria:

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.

At no point did President Obama discuss the tensions in Syria between Alawites and Sunnis. Clearly, unlike his predecessor in the White House, President Obama knows the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Does President Obama consider that to be unimportant? Or is it a nuance that he believes the American public is not intelligent enough to grasp? Unlike President Obama, President Putin is also willing to address the elephant in the room—the al Qaeda affiliated Jihadists fighting on the side of the rebels. Calling Jihadists “moderates” does not make them so. Putin is correct about the dangers that Jihadist mercenaries represent. These are the individuals who become agitators, insurgents, and terrorists. Putin is right to be afraid of them. Russians do not want to become targets for terrorists any more than Americans do.

Putin continues:

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.

The Butcher of Grozny pretending to be a peacenik might be funny, but after a good laugh, his words need to be considered. Putin clearly cares little or nothing about international law. He certainly had no concern for international law when he was killing Chechens or Georgians. Putin is obviously protecting Russia’s ally Syria. Russia has long enjoyed strong relations with Syria. Russia's only Mediterranean military base is in Syria. Russia's exports to Syria are worth over $1 billion per year, and its investments in Syria are worth over $20 billion. But why is it okay for the United States to staunchly support its allies, right or wrong, but not okay for Russia to do the same? Of course, supporting tyrants in nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain is immoral for the United States, but clearly no more immoral than Putin supporting Assad. With the fall of Russia’s ally Qaddafi in Libya, it is easy to understand why Putin might feel uneasy. With the NATO alliance getting closer to the Russian border, and allies falling left and right, Russia naturally feels threatened.

Putin is correct in stating that an American attack against Syria would be illegal under international law. Since Russia opposes an attack on Syria, Russia would veto such a decision by the UN Security Council. This would leave self defense as the only other possible justification. Syria has not attacked the United States, and President Obama acknowledges that Syria poses no military threat to the United States. 

Putin denies President Obama’s claim that it is a certainty that Assad used chemical weapons:

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.

There has indeed been no confirmation of Assad being responsible. It is just as likely at this point that the attack was perpetrated by Jihadist rebels, perhaps as a false flag. Indeed, multiple sources have allegedly told RT that militants are planning to launch a chemical attack on Israel from government-controlled territories as a “provocation.” While this must be taken with a grain of salt, it is obvious that rebel Jihadists pose as big if not bigger threat to Israel than Assad’s government does.  

Sounding oddly like an American non-interventionist, Putin contends that recent American military actions have been failures and that any American attack on Syria will lead to civilian casualties:

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.

It is strange that Putin can see the parallels between Iraq and Syria yet President Obama cannot. Is this the same President Obama who reflexively blames anything and everything on President George W. Bush? Why would he want to follow in President Bush’s footsteps?

Putin urges: “We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.” When the tyrant is urging peace and the Nobel Peace Prize winner is urging war, all bets are off. If Putin can indeed encourage Assad to give up Syria’s chemical weapons, then he will make himself a favorite to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Fox News is reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have reached a framework for an agreement on securing Syria's chemical weapons. 

Putin concludes with a zinger:

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.

The idea of “American exceptionalism” has been dangerous. It has given rise to evils such as Manifest Destiny. When the United States was at its greatest, it was a humble beacon of peace. When you are exceptional, you do not need to tell everyone that you are. If and when the United States returns to its non-interventionist roots and promotes peace and freedom by example, it will again be exceptional. Right now, it is far from such exceptionalism.