Mobile version Today: 12.02.2016 Last update 07:56 | Select date
home sitemap write a letter facebook twitter
Add to favourites RSS

About us
    Why Washington Fears Britain Quitting EU  
    European Political Influence Operations Are «Made in USA»  
    US Now Overtly at War Against Russia  
Are Americans Too Insouciant to Survive?
Saudis Goad Obama to Invade Syria
all articles
ISIS suffers heavy casualties in failed Deir Ezzor operation...

Syria & refugee crisis top agenda at Munich Security Сonference...

Syrian Army continues to advance towards Raqqa: Tal Madakhah captured...

Obama’s ASEAN Summit Signals Move to 'More Overtly Hostile' China Policy...

Russian Patriarch arrives in Cuba to meet Pontiff, discuss Middle East crisis...

NATO boosts Eastern Europe force & drills, ignoring Russia’s calls...

Russia submits revised claims for extending Arctic shelf to UN...

Syrian Kurds liberate strategic airbase, several villages in N Syria...

IMF may cut aid to Ukraine over corruption...

Hezbollah, Syrian capture Kafr Naya in northern Aleppo...

Yemeni forces target military bases in Saudi Arabia...

34 IS militants killed in air strikes, shelling in Iraq...

Iran Intends to Conduct Business in Euros, Yuan, but Not in Dollars...

ISIS leaders remain in close contact with Ankara – Lavrov...

American F-15s to join 1st Finland drill over ‘increased Russian activity’...

all news


back print

Putin’s Finest Hour on the World Stage

Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR | 07.09.2013 | 17:12 Comments: 1

The United States ended up badly isolated at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg on the Syrian question. The best American claim is that the gathering was split down the middle – «fifty - fifty» but the cold reality is that there were no takers among the world leaders for the US’ proposed military operations against Syria other than Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France. 

Where does this leave President Barack Obama in the fateful days or weeks ahead? 

Obama’s press conference at the G20 on Friday evening offers some signposts. Obama spoke in a somber tone throughout, which conspicuously lacked passionate affirmations or assertive thought processes that he is wont to as a gifted politician and intellectual. Having said that, Obama stuck to his guns, as it were, hanging on to his trodden path on the issues involved. But then, he wasn’t without introspection, either, groping for ideas. 

The tone toward Russia was notably conciliatory, which reflected the acute awareness that on the Syrian question, it is Moscow that is in a convincing leadership role rather than Washington… Obama was, conceivably, aware of the press conference of Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier on Friday afternoon where the Russian leader asserted something unheard of in modern diplomatic history since the Bolshevik Revolution a century ago by saying, «according to public opinion surveys, the overwhelming majority of their [western] populations are on our [Russian] side and are against waging hostilities». 

Indeed, Putin made it clear that Russia wouldn’t be idly watching an aggression against Syria – «Will we [Russia] be helping Syria? Yes we will. We are helping now. We are supplying arms and providing economic cooperation. I hope we will further expand humanitarian cooperation, including humanitarian aid and support for the civilian population». Things couldn’t have been stated more plainly. 

Of course, this was not about Syria alone. Putin was also proclaiming to the world audience that in the five years or so since he famously bemoaned that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a «geopolitical disaster,» Russia has risen as a great power. Without doubt, G20 summit at St. Petersburg becomes a watershed event in the functioning of the international system. A two-decade old slice of world politics is breaking away, characterized by «unipolar predicament» borne out of triumphalist notions. 

Now, Obama’s press conference showed that the president seems to understand this, because he kept emphasizing that the US needs to act on Syria in the name of «credibility». Obama didn’t explain why a military strike against Syria would make the terrible situation in that country any better. The fact of the matter is that the US has very little idea. His focus was on America and the risk of eroding American power in the world. It was dictated more by concerns over America’s reputation and less about what the US actually hopes to accomplish. Obama lamely argued for a foreign policy involving the use of lethal force that was more about America’s identity, its image abroad and internal or external pressures. 

His only stimulating argument was that leadership involved taking tough decisions even when they could be unpopular. He cited Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to participate in World War II and Bill Clinton’s on Kosovo. Indeed, this is a controversial thought. Neither Vietnam nor Afghanistan and Iraq were «unpopular» wars when they began. Clearly, wars have a habit of mutating. Secondly, the analogy of World War II or Kosovo aren’t quite in order because in Syria, what is disconcerting is, as the distinguished American diplomat Ryan Crocker (who also served as ambassador to Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan) put it, «Our [America’s] biggest problem is ignorance; we’re pretty ignorant about Syria». 

Besides, sometimes it happens that it is even more of a leadership quality to say ‘No’ to wars even if they may appear ‘popular’. The following are excerpts of an opinion piece in Washington Post earlier in the week authored by a retired general in the US Army and a former commandant of the US Army War College Robert H. Scales: 

«Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower’s advice». 

Obama’s main problem is that he has come under pressure from the Republican Right as a «weak» president and he feels the political need to demonstrate that’s not the case. His current predicament, on the other hand, is that some of these very same detractors have changed sides and are identifying with the popular opinion. In short, Syria is an issue of American domestic politics. Obama said, «there may be certain members of the Congress who say we’ve got to do even more, or claim to have previously criticized me for not hitting [Syrian president Bashar] Assad and now are saying they’re going to vote no, and you’ll have to ask them exactly how they square that circle».

Nonetheless, Obama refused to reveal whether he’d go ahead with the military operation against Syria notwithstanding a negative vote by Congress. He’d rather be seen as on course while robustly canvassing the support from Congressmen and preparing for a nation-wide television address on Tuesday. 

The big question is what next. Indeed, what happens if there is a ‘Nay’ from the Congress? This is where two things Obama said assume significance. One, his characterization of his exchange with Putin as «a candid and constructive conversation» and the friendly tone in which he referred to the Russian president cannot but be noted. Obama sidestepped the glaring US-Russian differences over Syria to underscore that «we both agree that the underlying conflict can only be resolved through a political transition as envisioned by the Geneva I and Geneva II process. And so we need to move forward together… it remains important for us to work together to try to urge all parties in the conflict to try to resolve it». 

In a manner of speaking, he was also addressing Putin (as much as the American people) when he repeatedly held out the assurance regarding «a limited, proportional strike… not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair…» Equally, Obama signaled, «My military assured me that we could act today, tomorrow, a month from now…» 

This is where Obama’s admission that he still keeps an «open» mind merits careful attention. Asked pointedly towards the end of Obama’s press conference whether he could consider new ideas that could «enhance international sense of security for Syria but delay military action», he replied as follows: 

«I am listening to all thee ideas. And some of them are constructive. And I’m listening to ideas in Congress, and I’m listening to ideas here. But I want to repeat here: My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons. I want that enforcement to be real. I want it to be serious. 

«If there are tools that we can use to ensure that, obviously my preference would be, again, to act internationally in a serious way and to make sure that Mr. Assad gets the message. I’m not itching for military action… I have a well-deserved reputation for taking very seriously and soberly the idea of military engagement. So we will look at these ideas. So far, at least, I have not seen ideas presented that as a practical manner I think would do the job… 

«But I want to emphasize that we continue to consult with our international partners. I’m listening to Congress… And if there are good ideas that are worth pursuing then I’m going to be open to it». 

To be sure, Putin has made a profound contribution to world peace and international security by skillfully navigating the G20 event to a forceful moment in marshaling the international opinion on Syria, which has apparently compelled Obama to open his mind to new ideas that can serve American concerns with regard to Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles but without having to unleash the dogs of war for that purpose. 

Putin disclosed that he and Obama «agreed on some possible scenarios designed to settle this crisis peacefully» and the two foreign ministers «will be in touch in the near future to discuss this very sensitive issue». 

Of course, there is no surety that a US-led military attack can be averted in the coming days or weeks. The point is, Obama is also under immense pressure from his Persian Gulf allies and Turkey. But the pendulum may have shown signs of bestirring movement – tentatively and not yet obvious to the naked eye – toward dialogue and negotiations. If the tentative dynamic gathers momentum – and, the probability of that happening cannot be ruled out – then, this will come to be noted as the finest hour in Putin’s contribution as a statesman on the world stage.

Tags: G20 Middle East Russia Syria US Obama

Rating: 4.8 (38)      Your rating: 1 2 3 4 5     
Send by e-mail

To add a comment, Login or Register

US Targets Russia and China with North Korea Pretext

The North Korean state is routinely mocked in the West for engaging in hyperbole and bombast. Ironically, the Western reaction to its latest satellite launch is a carnival of knee-jerk hysteria and hyperbole. But all the bluster has conveniently given Washington an opportunity to proceed with its global missile shield plans. That is far more destabilizing to international security than any alleged North Korean violation...

Aeroflot AFISMA African Union Africom AIIB AIPAC Al Qaeda Al Shabaab Al-Jazeera ALBA Amnesty International Anonymous Ansar Allah APEC Arab League ASEAN ATAKA Atomstroyexport Bank for International Settlements Bank of America Barclays Basel Committee BBC Bilderberg Club Black Bloc BlackRock Blackwater BND Boco Haram BP BRICS CARICOM CELAC Center for Responsive Politics CEPAL Chatham House Chevron CIA CICA CIS Citigroup CNN Committee of 147 Committee of 300 Council of Europe Council on Foreign Relations Crescent Crescent Petroleum CSTO Customs Union CyberBerkut DARPA Davos DEA Defense Intelligence Agency Democratic Party DIA Dragon Family E.ON Eager Lion ECOWAS EDA ELNET Enbridge Pipelines ETA EU EULEX EurAsEc Eurasian Union European Commission European Court of Human Rights European Union Exxon Mobil Facebook FAO FARC FATAH FBI FDA Federal Reserve FIFA Financial Action Task Force Financial Stability Board Fitch FIVE EYES Franklin Templeton Freedom House FRS FSB FTA FUEN G-4 G20 G7 G8 GATA Gazprom GCHQ GECF Gladio Glonass Goldman Sachs Google Green Group Greenpeace GUAM Guardian Gulf Cooperation Council Hague Tribunal HAMAS Heritage Foundation Hezbollah Hizb ut-Tahrir Hollywood HSBC Human Rights Watch IAAF IAEA IEA IHRC IMF International Criminal Court Interpol IOC ISAF Islamic jihad Islamic Revolution Guards Corps ITERA Jamestown Jobbik JP Morgan Jundullah KFOR KLA Ku Klux Klan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Lord’s Resistance Army Lukoil Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mercosur Microsoft Missile defense Missile Defense Agency Monsanto Moody's Morgan Stanley Mossad Most-Favoured Nation Mujahedin-e Khalq Muslim Brotherhood Nabucco NAFTA Naftogaz NASA Nation of Islam National Security Agency NATO NDAA NDI NED Non-aligned Movement NORAD Nord Stream NORTHCOM Northern Distribution Network NSA OECD Oerlikon OIC OPCW OPEC Open Government Partnership Organization of American States OSCE OTW movement OUN / UPA PACE PACOM Pan-Europa movement Pegida Pentagon PJAK PKK Podemos POLISARIO PRISM PYD Red Cross Renova Republican Party Rosatom Roscosmos Rosneft Rosoboronexport Ruhrgas RusAl RWE SABSA Scientology Shanghai Cooperation Organization Shell Siemens South Stream Southern Command Standard & Poor's Statoil Strategic Nuclear Forces Stratfor SWF SWIFT Syrian National Council SYRIZA Taliban Tamarod TANAP TAPI TeleSur TiSA TNK-BP Total Trans-Pacific Partnership Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Transneft Turkish Stream Twitter UN UN International Court UNASUR UNESCO UNICEF USAID Valdai Club Visegrad Group Volkswagen Wall Street Westinghouse WHO Wikileaks World Bank WTO Yukos “Mass Atrocity Response Operations”

Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal



© Strategic Culture Foundation


Main Politics History&Culture Archive Authors Popular
  Economics Columns About Contact

Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR

Former career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. Devoted much of his 3-decade long career to the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran desks in the Ministry of External Affairs and in assignments on the territory of the former Soviet Union.  After leaving the diplomatic service, took to writing and contribute to The Asia Times, The Hindu and Deccan Herald. Lives in New Delhi.

all articles