Editorial-September 14, 2013
Russia’s President Vladimir V. Putin has earned the plaudits of a global constituency of not only liberals but a much wider spectrum with what he said in an article in the op-ed (opinion and editorial) page of the New York Times on Wednesday. He made a plea for caution as America and some of its allies were preparing for a military adventure in Syria, remembering that just as much as his country and the U.S. had stood against each other during the cold war, they had also once been allies who had together defeated the Nazis. The establishing of the United Nations immediately after World War II was to prevent such devastation ever again occurring with the founders of the UN convincing the world that decisions affecting war and peace, with the effects of war given modern weaponry hurting (or even wiping out) mankind more so now than it could have then, must only happen by consensus.
It is well known that the UN Security Council, with its permanent members enjoying the right of veto, is not as effective in preserving world peace as had been originally hoped. There will be no dispute on Putin’s contention that nobody would want the UN to suffer the same fate as the League of Nations which collapsed because it ``lacked real leverage.’’ But, as he has said, this could happen if influential countries bypass the UN and take military action without Security Council authorization. This happened in Iraq over non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that Saddam Hussein was alleged to possess and Libya whose people had a better life under Gaddaffi, however tyrannical, than they do today after their so-called ``liberation.’’ Just a few days ago, it looked as though we were yet again on the brink over Syria but as an Indian commentator said a couple of days ago in Kolkata’s The Statesman, there’s been a quiet retreat after the sound and the fury.
Seema Mustafa, Consulting Editor of that newspaper has given the credit to the good sense of the people of the U.S., UK and several NATO allies for averting, even momentarily, ``yet another disaster.’’ It was unlikely that President Obama would have won the Congressional approval he intended seeking for a military strike on Syria according to most analysts. Hence there was good reason for his desire ``to give diplomacy a chance.’’ There is no doubt that chemical weapons had been used in Syria with both sides in the civil war pointing their fingers at each other. Thanks to Putin’s initiative, Assad is firmly on record saying his government will hand over stocks of such weapons it holds to international control. This, he says, is because of Russia and not on account of U.S. pressure. Whatever the rhetoric, the formula for which Putin must again get the credit, reduces the risk of a conflagration that seemed imminent days ago. For this the whole world must breathe a sigh of relief. We must also not forget that yet unnamed western suppliers, with licenses from their government, had exported the makings of chemical weapons to Syria.
While there has been much Yankee bashing in recent days, and Obama now has lost much of the shine he acquired becoming the first black President of the United States, we must applaud the US for being one of the few countries of the world, perhaps the only country, where a highly respected newspaper would give the platform of its columns to enable the President of Russia to speak to the American people and their leaders. It is unlikely if not impossible that this could have happened in Russia had Obama sought such an opportunity. In countries like ours such action would surely have been deemed unpatriotic or even treacherous, a word much favoured in attacking those holding opposing viewpoints. But the U.S. is a country that has long held a free press as sacrosanct and the New York Times as a publication that prides itself on giving its readers ``all the news that is fit to print.’’ We do not know whether Putin sought the platform he has used or it was offered to him. However that be, the fact that it was made available has indeed been fortunate for the whole world.
The Russian president has in his well focused article said what followers of the global scene are very well aware of – that military intervention in internal conflicts of foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. ``Is it in America’s long term interest? Putin has asked. ``I doubt it,’’ was his own reply. ``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.’ As Putin has cogently put, force has proved ineffective and pointless with Afghanistan reeling and no pointer on what would happen when international forces withdraw from that country. Libya is divided into tribes and clans and the civil war continues in Iraq with dozens killed every day. ``In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes,’’ he has said.
The Statesman got it right. A great game is undoubtedly been played out in West Asia. Even though the threat, at least for the moment, is passed, the writer is convinced that ``Washington will keep revisiting the region with the only strategy it in knows: violence. Diplomacy and peace is only for the West, or for countries like Russia and China that can hold their own. The rest of the world is a `colony’ to be exploited, whipped and attacked at will.’’
Sad, but true.
