Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"For years, they have demonized Putin rather than analyze what he actually says..."
Ya think?
Syria: Alternative to War
A diplomatic solution is possible.
By claiming for weeks that doing nothing is the only alternative to a limited military response to the Assad regimes reported use of chemical weapons in Syriaplainly stated, an illegal American war against a nation that has not threatened the United Statesthe Obama administration has continued Washingtons postCold War disdain for diplomatic solutions to international crises. It has done so in the same triumphalist, America-as-indispensable-nation spirit that inspired the Clinton administrations bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and the Bush White Houses disastrous war in Iraq, both carried out without a UN mandate and over Russias protests.
But the Russian foreign ministers September 9 proposal to put Assads chemical weapons under international control makes clear that a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis is eminently possible. President Obama called the initiative potentially positive, while Washingtons powerful pro-war and anti-Russian lobbies rejected it, as usual, as bogus and very bad news. In fact, the best approach has always involved both the UN Security Council and Moscow. Until now, the Obama administration has refused to pursue this path on the grounds that Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom it has repeatedly denigrated, would use Russias veto to block any military actionin effect, dismissing diplomacy before it is even tried.
....
Influential segments of the US political-media establishment will vehemently object to any central role for Russia. For years, they have demonized Putin rather than analyze what he actually says about international developments. But given his longstanding argument that aggressive American policies have been fostering dangerous instability and jihadism in the Middle East, not democracy, there have been good reasons all along to think Putin would be receptive to this kind of diplomatic approach to the Syrian crisis. After the September 9 proposal made by his foreign minister, there can hardly be any doubt. (If nothing else, Putins insistence on a peaceful resolution should be tested.)
Certainly, the advantages of US-Russian cooperation would be enormous, possibly a turning point in international relations. The United States would avoid a military action that is likely to kill many more innocent Syrians without eliminating Assads chemical weapons capacity; again inflame Muslim and Arab opinion against America; undercut recently empowered moderates in Iran; do nothing to end Syrias civil war, possibly making a negotiated settlement even less likely; create yet another US precedent of unsanctioned wars for others to imitate; and further the perilous drift toward a renewed cold war between Washington and Moscow. Instead, their joint diplomatic effort at the UN could restore the necessity and legitimacy of the Security Council; revive the US-Russian plan for a Geneva peace conference on Syria; repair the needlessly damaged relationship between Obama and Putin; and lead to fuller cooperation in the fight against international terrorism and in other dangerous conflicts that lie ahead.
This opportunity for a nonmilitary resolution of the crisis must not be lost. It is a major test for both American and Russian leaders, especially President Obama, who once called for a new era of American diplomacy but has yet to act on that promise.
http://www.thenation.com/article/176133/syria-alternative-war#
A diplomatic solution is possible.
By claiming for weeks that doing nothing is the only alternative to a limited military response to the Assad regimes reported use of chemical weapons in Syriaplainly stated, an illegal American war against a nation that has not threatened the United Statesthe Obama administration has continued Washingtons postCold War disdain for diplomatic solutions to international crises. It has done so in the same triumphalist, America-as-indispensable-nation spirit that inspired the Clinton administrations bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and the Bush White Houses disastrous war in Iraq, both carried out without a UN mandate and over Russias protests.
But the Russian foreign ministers September 9 proposal to put Assads chemical weapons under international control makes clear that a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis is eminently possible. President Obama called the initiative potentially positive, while Washingtons powerful pro-war and anti-Russian lobbies rejected it, as usual, as bogus and very bad news. In fact, the best approach has always involved both the UN Security Council and Moscow. Until now, the Obama administration has refused to pursue this path on the grounds that Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom it has repeatedly denigrated, would use Russias veto to block any military actionin effect, dismissing diplomacy before it is even tried.
....
Influential segments of the US political-media establishment will vehemently object to any central role for Russia. For years, they have demonized Putin rather than analyze what he actually says about international developments. But given his longstanding argument that aggressive American policies have been fostering dangerous instability and jihadism in the Middle East, not democracy, there have been good reasons all along to think Putin would be receptive to this kind of diplomatic approach to the Syrian crisis. After the September 9 proposal made by his foreign minister, there can hardly be any doubt. (If nothing else, Putins insistence on a peaceful resolution should be tested.)
Certainly, the advantages of US-Russian cooperation would be enormous, possibly a turning point in international relations. The United States would avoid a military action that is likely to kill many more innocent Syrians without eliminating Assads chemical weapons capacity; again inflame Muslim and Arab opinion against America; undercut recently empowered moderates in Iran; do nothing to end Syrias civil war, possibly making a negotiated settlement even less likely; create yet another US precedent of unsanctioned wars for others to imitate; and further the perilous drift toward a renewed cold war between Washington and Moscow. Instead, their joint diplomatic effort at the UN could restore the necessity and legitimacy of the Security Council; revive the US-Russian plan for a Geneva peace conference on Syria; repair the needlessly damaged relationship between Obama and Putin; and lead to fuller cooperation in the fight against international terrorism and in other dangerous conflicts that lie ahead.
This opportunity for a nonmilitary resolution of the crisis must not be lost. It is a major test for both American and Russian leaders, especially President Obama, who once called for a new era of American diplomacy but has yet to act on that promise.
http://www.thenation.com/article/176133/syria-alternative-war#
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 630 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post