On Putin's Plea

On 11 September, Russian president Vladimir Putin appealed to Americans via an Op-Ed in The New York Times. The article was entitled “A Plea for Caution From Russia: What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria.” First, I must note that it’s highly uncommon for a president of another country to be published in The New York Times, so this is rather cool, to say the least.

I read the article, and I agreed with what Putin said. In fact, I don’t think I disagreed with anything in the article.

Putin reminded us that the United Nations was established after World War II “to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.”

“The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus,” Putin continued, “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.”

I have a copy of the Charter of the United Nations, all 55 pages of it (24 of those pages are signatures). The United Nations is a great entity; and I, as well as Putin, don’t want to see it disintegrate. The League of Nations, the UN’s predecessor, collapsed because it didn’t hold much power or leverage. Putin said that the UN would also fall if influential countries bypass the entity and take military action without Security Council authorization.

Putin asserts that the United States’ potential strike against Syria, despite strong opposition from several countries and major leaders, would be detrimental in several ways. The United States would be responsible for killing civilians (whom the strikes are meant to protect), potentially disseminating the conflict beyond Syrian borders, increasing violence, opening the door for a “new wave of terrorism,” sabotaging the “multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” and further destabilizing the Middle East and North Africa. The potential strike could also “throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.”

And I agree.

So many disastrous results could happen if the United States strikes against Syria. The Middle East is already a tense, irritable area. I think it would behoove the United States to avoid further irritation. There is no need to add to the pandemonium. We might even fall into another war, and I think Americans are tired of war. And even if we weren’t, I believe that fighting for peace via war is ineffective. Afghanistan is weak. Libya is in disarray. The Iraqi Civil War continues. Why would the United States want to make another mess? More importantly, like Putin said, international law is being threatened. For that reason alone, the United States should, even more heavily, consider approaching this Syrian problem peacefully.

Russia, Syria’s sponsor if you will, has been advocating for a peaceful dialogue with Syria. “We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.” Protecting international law should be a top priority for the United States, too, shouldn’t it?

Putin went on to say that “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.“

So the United States is on the verge of breaking international law… again. Is that not what Putin said would cause the fall of the United Nations? Influential countries, like the United States, bypassing the United Nations and taking military action without Security Council authorization?

If Syria or even Russia, a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council, tried to strike another country, the United States would be the first to point its finger; but when the United States acts against the rule of the law, it’s “okay” and is perceived as a “right” the United States has alone. Why? The United States has an opportunity to lead through the international law system, follow the rules, and build a strengthened international legal order that protects and promotes the United States and others’ interests. But instead, the United States dubbed itself the world’s police and acts as a nation above the law.

Perhaps the country should stop militarily meddling in other countries’ internal affairs. Perhaps the country should rid itself of its self-dubbed title of World’s Police. Perhaps the country should further help the United Nations in its effort to return to “civilized diplomatic and political settlement.”

Putin concluded by saying, “I carefully studied his [President Obama’s] address to the nation on Tuesday [10 September]. 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.”

Yes. Yes to everything in that last paragraph.

For those who may be unfamiliar, American Exceptionalism is the idea that United States is qualitatively different from other nations. There are three key themes, according to historian Williams E. Weeks, associated with this idea of American Exceptionalism (and Manifest Destiny): 1) The virtue of the American people and their institutions; 2) The mission to spread said institutions and subsequently recreate the world in the image of the United States; and 3) The destiny, under God, to accomplish this work.

Maybe that’s why the United States breaks international law: because it is “exceptional,” apparently. Because God is apparently on its side. But is it fair to limit God to only the United States? Is it fair to say “God bless America and no place else” (the last four words of the sentence are implied, thanks to Americans’ “exceptionalism”)? No. It’s not fair. It’s also not safe. Friends, allies, and enemies could fear the United States and form alliances as a counterweight to its so-called “exceptionalism.”

The United States should not be above the law. Though it may be bigger than some, it is not better than other nations. The United States is not exceptional. “When we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.” So God bless America and everywhere else. And God bless the soliciting of the United States’ caution in light of the current Syria problem.

P.S. Let me be clear: I, in no way, am a fan of Vladimir Putin. I simply thought he was on point on this.