Warning from Russia

A Plea for Caution From Russia

What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

Published: September 11, 2013 2363 Comments

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• SAVE
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• 

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.

Enlarge This Image

Oliver Munday

Related

• U.N. Rights Panel Cites Evidence of War Crimes by Both Sides in Syria (September 12, 2013)

Related in Opinion

• Room for Debate: Can Syria's Chemical Arsenal Be Destroyed?(September 11, 2013)

Related in Opinion

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

• Post a Comment »
• Read All Comments (2320) »

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.

160,000 Russian Troops near the Syrian border, two Russian destroyers, aircraft carrier, Chinese Missile-armed Destroyers are all staring down the US Navy in the Mediterranean.

It's World War III, or for Cowboys, Shootout at the OK Corral.  It's not "pleading".  editor

A version of this op-ed appears in print on

Progressive Whip Explains Why Pres. Obama Must Get Congress OK

Obama's best option on Syria is to listen to Congress

I credit the president for heeding calls for Congress to debate Syria. Now, I hope he hears our alternatives to military action

• Share202
• 
• inShare0
• Email

• 
• • Barbara Lee
  • theguardian.com, Tuesday 10 September 2013 07.45 EDT
  • Jump to comments (130)

Barack Obama listens intently during the G20 meeting of world leaders. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

As Congress reconvenes this week, one issue is at the forefront of our minds: Syria.

The world community has compelling evidence that the Bashar al-Assadregime used chemical weapons against its own people. This is deplorable and unacceptable, and he and others responsible must be held accountable under the law; we must respond. But I reject the view that a military response will be effective or appropriate.

Last week, 60 House members joined me in a letter calling for the president to submit this matter for congressional debate. Congress has the constitutional authority to take the nation to war, and I commend President Obama for heading that and other calls to abide by the US constitution's separation of powers. We will have a robust and serious debate about any response; and we will weigh the probable and dangerous consequences of a military strike.

Military action, including targeted bombing, risks losing more lives and increasing the bloodshed. It could undermine our national security, and that of close allies, by triggering broad retaliation and escalation of the conflict in the region. The danger of the violence escalating in Syria and in the region is high; we cannot put out a fire by adding gasoline to the flames.

Strikes against Syrian military targets not only have the risk of direct civilian casualties – sometimes, in war, callously called "collateral damage" – but will not deter the Assad regime from its continued assault against his own people. Many experts agree that these strikes would do more harm than good, and could lead the US deeper and deeper into the complex Syrian civil war, which 60% of Americans oppose. The path forward is clear: we must support forceful diplomacy, not military force.

We have alternatives. While these alternatives may not offer an easy solution or a "silver bullet", they ultimately may prove more effective in addressing this issue and, importantly, in sending a clear signal that leaders may not act against international law with impunity.

We've got to engage in forceful diplomacy to mobilize the community of nations to demand legal action against Syrian leaders for their horrific violation of international law. We must mobilize the international community to work to advance a negotiated settlement of the political conflict within Syria, which has led to these international crimes and threatens the peace and stability of the region.

While we work towards a negotiated settlement, I agree with the European Union that we should wait for the United Nations weapons inspectors to release their report. There are several other options that we should be pursing, such as: working with the United Nations and the international community to seek multilateral sanctions; investigate and prosecute for crimes against humanity; and engage the International Criminal Court.

All the signers of the Chemical Weapons Convention could be called for their input on how to move forward. We could pursue an international agreement that can compel Syria to allow humanitarian aid to make its way to the hundreds of thousands civilians, maybe millions, who need it.

Furthermore, we could work with the international community to establish a Syrian war crimes tribunal. And we should pressure all internal and external parties to engage in the Geneva process of negotiation, along with the Arab League of States and the Organization for Islamic Co-operation.

These options, and others, will be laid out in a resolution that I will introduce as the debate in Congress begins. The perceived difficulties of non-military options should not mean that the United States and the international community should abandon hope of bringing perpetrators to justice or pressuring the Assad regime and all actors to accept a negotiated political solution.

Not only is this the right thing to do, but the American people are demanding it.

Secret Syrian Intel Strangles Debate in Congress

Grayson in the NY Times on Syria Intel: “Trust, But Verify”

Inbox

x

Team Grayson via bounce.exacttarget.com	4:50 PM (15 hours ago)
to me

On Syria, "Trust, but Verify" This op-ed written by Congressman Alan Grayson appeared in The New York Times today. Read it, share it with your friends and family, and join more than 75,000 others who oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria by signing on at DontAttackSyria.com. WASHINGTON - THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I'm not allowed to tell you what's in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion. On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was "no." The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, "social media" postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached - not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn't possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.) Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote in support of its plan to attack Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public. In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles. We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed. Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided. And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I haven't heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don't expect one. Compare this lack of transparency with the administration's treatment of the Benghazi attack. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to her credit, made every single relevant classified e-mail, cable and intelligence report available to every member of Congress. (I know this, because I read them all.)Secretary Clinton had nothing to hide. Her successor, John Kerry, has said repeatedly that this administration isn't trying to manipulate the intelligence reports the way that the Bush administration did to rationalize its invasion of Iraq. But by refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: "Trust, but verify." The danger of the administration's approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report "doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report." The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, "it was clear that 'the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.'" I don't know who is right, the administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack, I need to know. And so does the American public. We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The "security state" is drowning in its own phlegm. My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I'm not the only one who feels that way. Alan Grayson, a Democratic representative from Florida, is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

BRITISH OK Police State

THE BIRTH OF A POLICE STATE: UK POLICE TO BE GRANTED SWEEPING NEW POWERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

71 Votes

 

The UK Government is about to pass legislation which will make any behaviour perceived to potentially ‘cause nuisance or annoyance’ a criminal offence. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill also grants local authorities, police and even private security firms sweeping powers to bar citizens from assembling lawfully in public spaces.  Those who refuse orders under the new rules will face arrest, fines and even prison time.

The Ever Increasing Powers

 
Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)the government has invented and legislated for a litany of such orders covering everything from dog poo to drug addiction, including but not limited to: Control Orders; Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Orders; Intervention Orders; Crack House Closure Orders; Premise Closure Orders; Brothel Closure Orders; Gang Related Violence Injunctions; Designated Public Place Orders; Special Interim Management Orders; Gating Orders; Dog Control Orders; Letter Clearing Notices;  Noise Abatement Orders; Graffiti/Defacement Removal Notices; Directions to Leave and Dispersal Orders.
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which passed the committee stage of its progress through the House of Commons on Monday 15^th July, purports to simplify this legacy of New Labour’s legislative promiscuity.  In reality, it creates a series of wildly ambiguous, generic orders which grant officers of the state and private sector even greater powers to issue tougher sentences, with fewer checks and balances to protect citizens.

Being Annoying is now Illegal

 
The Bill introduces Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNAS) to replace ABSO’S. Almost no one will be sad to say goodbye to ASBO’s.  The orders, designed to allow police to tackle anti-social behaviour, simply became a means of criminalising youthful indiscretion – and eventually a means of criminalising anything people found annoying.  Some of the bizarre abuses of this power include:

• Stuart Hunt of Loch Ness brought to court 100 times since 2007 for breaching an ASBO preventing him from laughing, staring or slow hand clapping.
• Homeless, alcoholic and mentally ill Michael Gilligan given a 99 year ASBO rather than the welfare support that might have made a difference
• A profoundly deaf 17 year old girl given an ASBO and a jail sentence for spitting in the street
• A 13 year old banned from using the word ‘grass’ in England or Wales
• Manchester Council applied an ASBO to prevent a mobile soup kitchen from feeding the homeless
• Councils placing ASBOs on homeless people resulting in prison sentences for begging ‘earnestly and humbly’
• An 87 year old man was given an ASBO threatening a prison sentence if he was sarcastic to his neighbours. 

The ASBO has allowed the line between criminal behaviour and annoying behaviour to become hopelessly blurred – and the IPNAs will only serve to increase the problem.  We have seen the abuses permitted under ASBO legislation, the test for which included wording to the effect that ASBOs could only be issued where an actual act of ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ had occurred.  IPNAs have a much weaker test, applicable where on the ‘balance of probabilities’ a person has or might engage in behaviour ‘capable of causing annoyance’ to another person. How many times a day could this legislation apply to any of us? Eating with our mouths open, talking too loudly into our phones in a public space, walking too slowly or quickly or belching without saying ‘pardon me’.  All of this may very well cause annoyance – but soon it might well also be illegal.
The orders can be issued to anyone aged 10 or over (and we all know how well 10 year olds are at being annoying), and there is no limit on how long an IPNA can be applied to a person for.  A person could receive an IPNA aged 10 and retain it their entire life.
Whereas an ASBO could only desist the subject from certain actions, the IPNA includes ‘positive obligations’ (p10).  This means the subject of an IPNA can be found in breach not simply for doingthings they have been banned from doing, but from not doing things that the IPNA states they must.  This makes an IPNA much closer to probation and other post-conviction arrangements than a civil order.
An IPNA can be applied for by Local Authorities, police, some transport bodies and some NHS authorities.
The consequences of breaching an IPNA are serious.  The breaching of an IPNA has been added to the conditions for securing possession of a home – meaning a 10 year old child breaching their IPNA could result in the entire family being evicted from their council house. Breaching the orders can also result in jail time for anyone over 14.
Even the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), giving evidence on the proposals, argued that this could lead to further criminalisation of children and called on the government to think again.
But the plans move along unaltered.

 Kiss Goodbye to Freedom of Assembly

 
Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs), and new Dispersal Orders will replace Designated Public Space Orders, Dog Control Orders, Gating Orders and a host of other orders intended to keep aggressive drunken people, or drug dealers or dog poo off of our streets.  But it is plain that the target for these laws is no longer the person peddling illegal drugs, but the people sharing politically challenging ideas.
These new powers present the most significant threat to lawful assembly and protest in modern history.
Public Space Protection Orders
PSPOs will be granted where ‘activities carried on or likely to be carried on in a public place will have or have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality’ (p21).  They can be used to restrict an activity or require people to perform an activity in a certain way.  They require substantially less consultation than current alcohol free zones or dog control zones and rather than applying to everyone, they can be applied to specific groups of people (the homeless, the unemployed, racial/religious groups etc.) – opening the door for discrimination.  These rules could see homeless people or young people lawfully excluded from public spaces.
PSPOs are subject to ‘on the spot’ fines, rather than attendance at a Magistrates Court, reducing the scrutiny and checks on police power.
These orders are also by no means short term.  They can be applied for up to three years, and continued for another three years at the end of their term.
The orders have been heavily challenged by Liberty and The Manifesto Club on the basis that they will seriously infringe upon people’s freedom to assemble, associate and protest.  The Ramblers(the walking charity) have also given written evidence to the government raising their fears about the further appropriation of public highways, by ways and footpaths under the PSPO powers.
Dispersal Orders
Under the current Direction to Leave powers, anyone over 10 years of age can be asked to disperse from a ‘locality’ and stay dispersed for a period not exceeding 48 hours.  Current Dispersal Orders mean a Police Superintendent (or an officer with specific written authority from the SI) candisperse groups of two or more people in areas where there has been ‘persistent anti-social behaviour’ or take home any young person under the age of 16 who is in a dispersal zone between 9pm and 6am.  Anyone failing to comply with a Dispersal Order faces a fine of up to £2,500 or up tothree months in prison.
Downing Street clearly do not feel this is tough enough.
The new Dispersal Powers mean police constables and even Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) can issue dispersal orders if they think a group of two or more persons mightharass, alarm or distress others in the vicinity (p16).  The PCSO or constable can specify how long the person/group must remain out of the designated area, and by which route they must leave, and also confiscate any items of their property which they deem anti-social.  Failure to comply with any element of these orders results in a fine of up to £5,000 or three months in prison.  The new legislation also fails to define ‘locality’ – meaning a person could be excluded from a city, a county or even a whole country (p17).  In fact, York couldn’t even wait for the new legislation to pass and isalready implementing the powers.
These new laws effectively end freedom of assembly in England and Wales, as any lawful assembly can be instantly redefined as illegal on the spot by some part time PCSO, people’s personal possessions can be confiscated, and anyone who dares to challenge the process will end up in jail.

What will it Take?

One could be forgiven for despairingly enquiring ‘what will it take for the slumbering British public to awake to the fact that the legal and physical infrastructure of a police state is being built around them?’  
Many believe they have rights to protest, assemble and associate that they lost a decade ago, simply because they have never actually attempted to claim them.   They remain imaginary rights, never cashed in.  As someone who has found themselves arrested, locked up and later cleared by a court twice in recent years for peaceful protest (see 1st and 2nd arrests) – I discovered for myself how much things had changed while I wasn’t looking.  So without getting everyone to attend a protest and get arrested, we rely on communicating the changes to those who might not experience them directly.
But while the BBC, our main broadcaster, has devoted its resources to stick a correspondent up the arse of anyone with the faintest connection to the Royal Baby – no such resources have been devoted to informing on the curtailing of our most basic freedoms. Defenders of the BBC may argue they are there to cover the news, not make it – this is an outright lie.
The Media create stories as well as cover them, many people glean what is important from how much it is being talked about on the news and in the papers.  Imagine if journalists were door-stepping David Cameron, human rights campaigners and police authorities all day every day asking what on earth was going to happen with our human rights? If 19 pages of today’s Sun (news)paper wasn’t talking about the Royal Baby but our eroded civil liberties?  Things would look very, very different.
In the meantime, it’s up to all of us with an interest to shout it from the roof tops.  We have a hell of a fight on our hands here, and most folks still don’t even know it.
SIGN THE PETITION TO OPPOSE THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE