International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Putin's Letter To The American People
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o ... from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0
Published: Sep 11, 2013
Author: Vladamir V. Putin
Post Date: 2013-09-11 22:24:46 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 25768
Comments: 42
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.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#1. To: All (#0)
I agree with much of what he says here. I don't agree that we need UN approval to declare war. Our congress does that.
The UN Charter does not say that. A nation can declare war, or make war if it is attacked, with no declaration and with no permission needed from the UN to act in self-defence. Using force against a member state that has not attacked the U.S. is an act of aggression. Being the aggressor, throwing the first punch, violates international law. UN Charter 2-4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." UN Charter 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." G.A. Res. 3314, U.N. GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 31, at 142, U.N. Doc. A/9631 (1974) Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.... Article 2 The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity. Article 3 Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provision of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof; (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State; (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State; (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein. Article 4 The acts enumerated above are not exhaustive and the Security Council may determine that other acts constitute aggression under the provisions of the Charter. Article 5 1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression. 2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility. 3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
Our constitution doesn't recognize international law. We can have treaties with individual nations. But it doesn't have the authority under the "limited" powers that you mentioned elsewhere to join an organization that usurps the states rights. The constitution clearly gives the congress the right to declare war. Even if we are the aggressors and wrong. The UN wasn't even presented as a treaty.
Actually, it does by specific reference at Article I, Section 8, Clause 10: "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations." Black's Law Dictionary, 6 Ed. defines Law of Nation with "See International Law." Law of Nations is the archaic term and is interchangeable with the modern term. International Law. Yes. The does not usurp our authority. Accepting UN definitions is voluntary. If we wish to leave the UN, nothing is stopping us. The president has taken the nation to war or, to use the modern effective term, armed conflict, with and without a declaration of war or congressional or UN consent. In cases where we are the aggressor, the UN can and has passed a resolution condemn the United States for its action as the aggressor nation. A specific example would be the invasion of Grenada. The treaty to establish the UN was ratified by the Senate 89-2 and signed by President Truman. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cun/cun.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40299.html By Andrew Glass | 7/28/10 4:37 AM EDT On this day in 1945, as World War II drew to a close, the Senate ratified the United Nations Charter by 89-2. Its approval signaled a sea change in U.S. involvement in world affairs. In 1919, following World War I, President Woodrow Wilson had sought Senate approval of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the charter that Wilson envisioned and largely fashioned. However, to Wilson’s disappointment, growing isolationism and partisan politics killed chances of U.S. participation in the league. President Harry S. Truman voiced delight with the Senate’s U.N. vote. “The action of the Senate,” Truman said, “substantially advances the cause of world peace.” Joseph Grew, acting secretary of state, also lauded the Senate’s action, noting that “millions of men, women and children have died because nations took to the naked sword instead of the conference table to settle their differences.” Fifty of the original 51 U.N. member nations had signed the treaty at the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center on June 26. Poland, the remaining original member, was not represented, a harbinger of the Cold War. (The Poles signed later.) The treaty came into force on Oct. 24, 1945, after being ratified by the then five permanent members of the Security Council: Britain, the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union and the United States.
It violates the states constitutions. It violates article V I believe it is. The states didn't have lawful senators when the UN was "ratified". So the States lost their suffrage.
I think you are referring to election of U.S. Senators by the State legislatures being replaced by direct vote. That was accomplished by constitutional amendment 17 in 1913. One may question the wisdom of it, but I don't see how it is unlawful.
It wasn't lawfully ratified. Just like the income tax. Just because the court says something doesn't make it constitutional. Also the real 13th amendment is still in force lawfully. Several of the people who voted for this bill are not even real citizens via disqualification from the 13th amendment. If we had honest people in the courts we never would have had the UN. It is usurpation and the destruction of our constitutional Republic which I love.
#26. To: All (#25)
You are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion plus absolute documented proof would not change the effectiveness of the amendment and you could not get your evidence considered in court, regardless of how absolute it is. Once the ratification is certified by the Secretary of State, the only way to change the status is another amendment. No, but it makes it effective law until overturned. Abortion is legal. I can't find that in the Constitution but I can in Roe v. Wade, vaguely emanating from a penumbra someplace. A state law to ban abortion will simply be struck down as unconstitutional. Only SCOTUS could change the interpretation. The people could amend the Constitution and do what they like. Once upon a time... and they all lived happily ever after.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
I don't agree that we need UN approval to declare war. Our congress does that.
Article 1
#4. To: nolu chan (#3)
Using force against a member state that has not attacked the U.S. is an act of aggression. Being the aggressor, throwing the first punch, violates international law.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#4)
Our constitution doesn't recognize international law.
We can have treaties with individual nations.
But it doesn't have the authority under the "limited" powers that you mentioned elsewhere to join an organization that usurps the states rights.
The constitution clearly gives the congress the right to declare war. Even if we are the aggressors and wrong.
The UN wasn't even presented as a treaty.
The United Nations Charter is the constituting instrument of the Organization, setting out the rights and obligations of Member States, and establishing the United Nations organs and procedures. An international treaty, the Charter codifies the major principles of international relations, from sovereign equality of States to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.
Senate Ratifies United Nations Charter, July 28, 1945
#13. To: nolu chan (#11)
The does not usurp our authority. Accepting UN definitions is voluntary. If we wish to leave the UN, nothing is stopping us.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#13)
The states didn't have lawful senators when the UN was "ratified".
#25. To: nolu chan (#21)
but I don't see how it is unlawful.
Replies to Comment # 25. 
#31. To: A K A Stone (#25)
It wasn't lawfully ratified. Just like the income tax.
Just because the court says something doesn't make it constitutional.
Also the real 13th amendment is still in force lawfully.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]