09.シリア攻撃でプーチンとオバマが延期打ち合わせ

オバマが行動を止めた時にプーチンは中央に出る。

バシャー.アル.アサドとウラジミール.V.プーチンの写真がダマスカスのロシア大使館の外に外に3月に展示されていた。

2013/9/11 著者ステーブン.リー.メイアー

モスクワ発 ウラジミール.V.プーチンはオバマ大統領に対して多くの面を持って来た：或る時はパートナー、もっと多くは刺激を、上手く逃げたエドワード.J.スノードンや、政権の外務政策のゴールであるモスクワでの首脳会談の開催をオバマが先週キャンセルし多くを提供出来なかった”教室の後ろで退屈している子供”の接待者。

しかしながら、突然にプーチンはシリア危機でなされるべき事を推進する世界のリーダーとしてオバマ氏を凌駕しました。

彼は可能性を提供し、まだかなり不確実だが、代わりに 彼はアメリカの軍国主義を批判し、ソ連の崩壊以来なおざりにされて来たこの地域でのロシアの権益を重ねて主張した。

状況は未だ再び変化していないが、プーチン氏は幾つかの目標を達成しているように見える、大きくはワシントンの出費。

彼は外交的な生命線を彼の長い間のシリアの友、遠い昔でなく権力を失う危険が有って オバマに二回も政権を降りろと言われた、アサド大統領と結んでいます。

彼はロシアも拒否権を持っている国連安全保障理事会の進行において、オバマ氏のアメリカの一方的な優先の主張を停止してきました。

より一般的に、ロシアは少なくとも今日迄シリアの紛争中身において自身の重要性作って来た、それは、プーチン氏がその地域のイスラムの不安に火をつければ、ロシア自身の反抗的なイスラム地域でさえも、管理をやり損なうことになると主張してきたので。

彼はオバマ氏をもしペンタゴンがシリアの計算出来る化学兵器の在庫を確保する時間が見積もれるなら、モスクワは多くの次の年に於いて重要なパートナーだと囲み込んで来た。

=====まだ翻訳中です

＝＝＝以下 英語原文です＝＝＝＝

As Obama Pauses Action, Putin Takes Center Stage

Pictures of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir V. Putin were displayed in March outside the Russian Embassy in Damascus, Syria.

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

Published: September 11, 2013 479 Comments

MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin has been many things to President Obama: a partner at times, an irritant more often, the host of the elusive Edward J. Snowden and “the bored kid in the back of the classroom” who offered so little on the administration’s foreign policy goals that Mr. Obama canceled plans to hold a summit meeting in Moscow last week.

Yet suddenly Mr. Putin has eclipsed Mr. Obama as the world leader driving the agenda in the Syria crisis. He is offering a potential, if still highly uncertain, alternative to what he has vocally criticized as America’s militarism and reasserted Russian interests in a region where it had been marginalized since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Although circumstances could shift yet again, Mr. Putin appears to have achieved several objectives, largely at Washington’s expense. He has handed a diplomatic lifeline to his longtime ally in Syria, President Bashar al-Assad, who not long ago appeared at risk of losing power and who President Obama twice said must step down. He has stopped Mr. Obama from going around the United Nations Security Council, where Russia holds a veto, to assert American priorities unilaterally.

More generally, Russia has at least for now made itself indispensable in containing the conflict in Syria, which Mr. Putin has argued could ignite Islamic unrest around the region, even as far as Russia’s own restive Muslim regions, if it is mismanaged. He has boxed Mr. Obama into treating Moscow as an essential partner for much of the next year, if Pentagon estimates of the time it will take to secure Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile are accurate.

“Putin probably had his best day as president in years yesterday,” Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, said in a conference call on Wednesday, “and I suspect he’s enjoying himself right now.”

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times released on Wednesday, Mr. Putin laid down a strong challenge to Mr. Obama’s vision of how to address the turmoil, arguing that a military strike risked “spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders” and would violate international law, undermining postwar stability.

“It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States,” Mr. Putin wrote. “Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it.”

When Mr. Putin returned to the presidency a year ago, he moved aggressively to stamp out a growing protest movement and silence competing and independent voices. He shored up his position at home but, as his government promoted nationalism with a hostile edge, passed antigay legislation, locked up illegal immigrants in a city camp, kept providing arms to the Syrian government and ultimately gave refuge to the leaker Mr. Snowden, Mr. Putin was increasingly seen in the West as a calloused, out-of-touch modern-day czar.

Now he appears to be relishing a role as a statesman. His spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said in an interview that the Russian president was not seeking “ownership of the initiative,” but wanted only to promote a political solution to head off a wider military conflict in the Middle East.

“It’s only the beginning of the road,” Mr. Peskov said, “but it’s a very important beginning.”

To get started, Mr. Putin sent his foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, to Geneva on Thursday to meet with Secretary of State John Kerry, in hopes of hammering out the myriad logistical details of putting a sprawling network of chemical sites under international control in the middle of a deadly civil war.

Even that step was another indication of just how much the circumstances have changed in such a short time. Only a week ago, Mr. Putin was accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to Congress about the presence of militants allied with Al Qaeda in Syria. “He’s lying,” he said in televised remarks. “And he knows he’s lying. It’s sad.”

On Wednesday, when Russia submitted a package of proposals to the Americans and others ahead of that meeting in Geneva, Mr. Peskov again used the opportunity to try to paint Russia as the peacemaker to the United States’ war maker. Mr. Peskov declined to release details of the plan, other than to say Russia’s most important condition was that Syria’s willingness to give up its weapons could only be tested if the United States refrained from the retaliation Mr. Obama has threatened. “Any strike will make this impossible,” Mr. Peskov said.

(Page 2 of 2)

From the start of the war two and a half years ago, Russia has been Syria’s strongest backer, using its veto repeatedly to block any meaningful action at the Security Council. While Russia has ties to the country dating to the Soviet era, including its only naval base left outside of the former Soviet republics, Mr. Putin’s primary goal is not preserving Mr. Assad’s government — despite arms sales that account for billions of dollars — as much as thwarting what he considers to be unbridled American power to topple governments it opposes.

Mr. Putin’s defense of Syria, including continuing assertions that the rebels, not government forces, had used chemical weapons, has at times made him seem intent on opposing the United States regardless of any contrary facts or evidence. Russia has long had the support of China at the Security Council, but Mr. Putin had won support for his position by exploiting the divisions that appeared between the United States and its allies. That was especially true after Britain’s Parliament refused to endorse military action, a step Mr. Putin described as mature.

He also slyly voiced encouragement when leaders of Russia’s Parliament suggested they go to the United States to lobby Congress to vote against the authorization Mr. Obama sought — something he himself would deride as unacceptable interference if the table were reversed.

Mr. Putin’s palpable hostility to what he views as the supersized influence of the United States around the world explains much of the anti-American sentiment that he and his supporters have stoked since he returned as president last year after serving four years as prime minister under his anointed successor, Dmitri A. Medvedev. It was under Mr. Medvedev that Russia abstained in a Security Council vote to authorize the NATO intervention in Libya that ultimately toppled that country’s dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Mr. Putin has made it clear that he would not repeat what most here consider a mistake that unleashed a wave of extremism that has spread across the region.

For now, Mr. Putin succeeded in forcing the international debate over Syria back to the Security Council, where Russia’s veto gives it a voice in any international response. With Russia’s relations with Europe increasingly strained over economic pressure and political issues, the Security Council gives Russia a voice in shaping geopolitics.

At the same time, Mr. Putin carries the risk of Russia again having to veto any security resolution that would back up the international control over Syria’s weapons with the threat of force, as France proposed.

Not surprisingly, given the Kremlin’s control over most media here, Mr. Putin’s 11th-hour gambit was nonetheless widely applauded. “The Russian president has become a hero in the world these days,” the newscast of NTV began on Wednesday night before going on to note that Mr. Putin should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize if he averted the American strike.

There was also satisfaction that it was Mr. Putin who gave an American president whom he clearly distrusts a way out of a political and diplomatic crisis of his own making. Aleksei K. Pushkov, the chairman of the lower house of Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, wrote on Twitter that Mr. Obama should gratefully grab Russia’s proposal with “both hands.”

“It gives him a chance not to start another war, not to lose in the Congress and not to become the second Bush,” Mr. Pushkov said.

=====END=====

reader picks comments

    • Socrates
    • Downtown Verona NJ
  1. Who cares if the untrustworthy Putin gets credit for helping to avert an American military strike.
  2. World diplomacy is not a teenage popularity contest even though the media inexplicably frame it that way.
  3. Diplomacy is about solving problems.
  4. The negative framing of Obama juxtaposed with the hero-framing of Putin by the New York Times on this real humanitarian problem in Syria is the height of infantilism.
    • NUB
    • Toledo
  1. NYT Pick
  2. Hats off to Putin's speechwriters and translators.
  3. It's preposterous, of course, that someone who rolled tanks over Georgia and Chechnya, jails political rivals, and persecutes social protestors feels free to lecture others on non-intervention and the rule of law, while lying about who murders children.
  4. In any good propoganda, a kernel of truth helps deliver the message. Here, that truth is that nothing has worked in the Middle East. The petering out of the Arab Spring, Iraq, Afganistan, Beirut - we have spent blood and treasure for precious little difference in the end. The fact is, you cannot bomb people into modernity; you cannot bomb Islamic fundamentalism out of existence; you cannot bomb democratic ideals into a culture.
    • Mima
    • heartsny
  1. Give credit where credit is due. And that would be to President Obama for trying to do what is best and right....for the people of the United States by potentially staying out of another military action, for the people of Syria for getting chemical weapons out of the country, and for the world by a little piece of attaining world peace by not using military force. It also would be to Mr. Putin for doing his part to potentially inhibit further untoward aggression which would be even more harmful to many.
  2. A good leader is not afraid of whose idea works best, whose dream is the most creative, what opinions of others are important. A good leader is not threatened by an idea that it not his own. A good leader is not afraid of someone else's idea if it is sound, and does not try to pull it off as if it were his own idea. A good leader is one who is able to collect those ideals from whomever or wherever they come from, sort them out, and go forward to make the best decision at the time.
  3. Thank you to Mr. Putin for putting forth the effort for a more attainable, peaceful solution - and thank-you President Obama for the patience to approach this situation with pause and not being bothered about who came up with what solution. The end game is what is important. .
  4. Pause in this case is far from criticism by reasonable people.
    • wisconsin
    • rhode island
  1. In other words Putin is saying and doing all of what we should have been doing and saying for the last 60 years. Which would have kept us out of all the fruitless, murderous, useless and foolhardy wars we've been in from Vietnam to Iraq. In other words, we should have grown up a long time ago. Hard to do, what with influential interests like, among others, a complacent and easily led populace, AIPAC and a enormously bloated military/industrial complex.
    • Mike Livingston
    • Cheltenham Pa
  1. "Putin eclipsed Obama." Not exactly. Russia is reacting to Obama's initiative and would have no role at all if Obama had not given him one.
    • Tom
    • New York
  1. Obama is not "power hungry." I expect he doesn't care if Putin takes center stage. Obama has a big heart and a generous spirit... he genuinely wants this world to be a better place for all. If we had more leaders like him, this world would be an AMAZING place.
    • Sweetbetsy
    • Norfolk
  1. Putin eclipsed Obama. So what? Obama is probably quite pleased with this outcome. I am. Even silly Secretary Kerry is undoubtedly please. Win-Win-Win situation, for the politicians and the people.
    • sandy
    • NJ
  1. NYT Pick
  2. It is disappointing but perhaps not surprising to see and read so many sneering comments about Mr. Putin's efforts in Syria and his op-ed today in the NYT - comments by many democratic and republican politicians and our TV and print media that seek to trivialize efforts to head off more American military assaults and "give peace a chance."
  3. The majority of the American public does NOT want any more needless US military strikes and has developed a loathing for the same bunch of deceitful politicians and media that have caused more US military bombardments on other nations than all other nations in the world combined.
  4. Mr. Putin has held up a mirror to us in a respectful manner and a little humility on our part may not be such a bad thing.
    • Maria Rodriguez
    • Texas
  1. So I get a headline that says that the U.S. CIA has started to send weapons to the Syrian rebels. At the same time, we are asking the regime to give up it's chemical weapons to avoid some sort of "surgical" strike. Hmmm. This war, like all wars, are a joke on humanity. Polticians cannot make peace, Their occupation is to manipulate power. Only the people of every country can make peace by refusing to fall for this ever ridiculous monster called war.
    • jlitvin
    • Chicago
  1. I don't think anyone believes that Putin is the good guy in this. The hypocrisy and lying are stunning. After all, he supplied most of chemicals to Assad, denied they existed and that Assad was behind the massacre. I think he was the one to "blink".
    • Mark Caponigro
    • NYC
  1. Putin is absolutely right: A huge moral problem for the world is indeed US militarism, and the excessive reliance by Americans, both policy-makers and many citizens, on violence as the acceptable, even praiseworthy way to solve problems. In fact, opposition to such militarism is one of the true pro-life causes. (Which we can imagine is why Pope Francis has spoken meaningfully also on the US threat of military action.)
  2. Unfortunately, as right as Putin is, he doesn't understand why he is right. He presents himself as a promoter of peace, international law and the legitimacy of international instutions such as the UN, but in fact he is just playing a game of power struggle. True lovers of peace, and true defenders of human rights, must be wise enough to keep him at a distance.
    • pjd
    • Westford
    • Verified
  1. Mr. Putin's publicity stunt is a cynical poke in the eye for perceived American interference in Russia's domestic affairs.
  2. If Mr. Putin really cared about the slaughter of civilians in Syria, his government would have joined international efforts at the UN to intercede for the refugees and the innocent civilians being killed by Assad's military. Instead, his government obstinately blocks any attempt at resolution -- probably driven by the prospect of future arms sales.
    • dipconsult
    • france
  1. NYT Pick
  2. Putin's NYT oped is excellent (doubtless largely prepared by Lavrov and his Ministry of Foreign Affairs - to whom Putin now seems to be listening). Of course it leaves out Russia's arming of the Assad government and dubiously blames the opposition for the chemical attacks. But, inter alia, it notably points out that an American attack could likely undermine the Israel/Palestine negotiations in which Obama and Kerry have invested so heavily, and the vital opening to Iran now we have President Rouhani.
  3. What is missing is that this initiative over Syria's chemical weapons, as the UN Secretary General points out, at last provides an opportunity to 'do something about Syria' without the use of force.
  4. Of course the chemical weapons matter must be followed up despite its complexity and inevitable delay. But that is of secondary importance right now to getting all the concerned countries without delay to work together to put maximum pressure on 'their' parties to wind down the civil war.
  5. It is rare in international affairs that all parties have the same real national interest, namely such a winding down the war. But the US, Europe, Russia, Iran, Iraq,Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the other Arab countries - and even Israel - all want that. (China will follow Russia).
  6. The US and Russia could lead the way to such a major round of diplomacy, to be endorsed by the UN and/or a Conference. Or perhaps Europe could.
    • Kurt
    • NY
    • Verified
  1. NYT Pick
  2. Russia is not now moving to contain the situation in Syria but rather is attaining its long-held foreign policy objective there to preserve the Assad regime. And it will do so with complete unconcern for Washington's concerns because the gross incompetence of the Obama White House has removed us from the equation.
  3. Seems to me that at least part of the problem was that Washington did not take Russia's concerns into consideration before this at all, seeing it as simply opposition to be gotten around. Had it approached the situation with the attitude that Assad is a long-time Russian client and recognized Russia's interests in preserving that, we might have been able to work with them to achieve some amelioration of the conflict.
  4. Instead we sought to freeze them out because we are just so sure in our own moral righteousness (yet without corresponding moral resolve to act decisively and pay the price for doing so). And, as a result we suffered an embarrassing policy defeat, made all the worse by the most incredible incompetence and indecisiveness displayed by an American administration since Jimmy Carter (come to think of it, this time it's worse than that).
  5. As our power relative to the world declines, we are going to have to make compromises with some ugly factions in the world. And if we continue to base our policy on some moral principles for which we will not fight, this embarrassment will not be the last or worst.
  6. In Putin's Op-Ed piece in Wednesday's NYT, some good points are made, specifically: "We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement." I think that Mr Putin has pointed to the war in Iraq as a mistake which most likely most of the world agrees with. I don't particularly care how a resolution is reached in Syria to end the use of chemical weapons or finally to end the civil war which is a humanitarian tragedy. Whether it is Mr Kerry suggesting in an off-hand remark, taken up by the Russians, to demand that the Syrians give up their chemical weapons, or whatever, I think that the most important thing is that the war end. The destruction of chemical weapons is a start. It seems to me that the Russians have a lot to lose if this doesn't work. Again, it is not only Mr Putin pointing to the use of force on the part of the United States as a bad policy, but many of the American people who have lost friends and relatives in Iraq agree with him. And what might be wrong with Mr Putin and President Obama cooperating on a solution?
    • Robert Weller
    • Denver
  1. Far more likely is that Obama's threat of strikes forced Putin to blink. No doubt he knew the CIA weapons would start pouring in any day.
  2. Clumsy as we are right now, I am encouraged by this action. Putin needs us, too. He is besieged by Islamist radicals on his borders and is pro-Assad because of economic benefits and keeping radicals at bay, et al. He is a clever man albeit an ideologue. Russia has a foot in both East and West, and we should provide a small opening for its western affiliations.
  3. Just as we have with China, finding bits of common ground is essential to peace and world prosperity.That's not to say we have to accept the Syrian state as it is right now, but haven't we learned that jihadists play us for fools?
  4. My own hope is little by little America turns the corner on smash-em solutions and joins other nations in realizing give and take is not cowardice. Keeping a watchful eye but collaborate, is appropriate for now.
  5. I don't think President Obama has capitulated. As someone else said, he is quite bright and knows how to play three level chess.
    • Glorynine
    • NYC
  1. NYT Pick
  2. An exceptional country would be one that, at least, is aware of the nausea that is induced abroad when it describes itself as such.
  3. What would make the United States a truly exceptional country, and this is something Obama realizes deep down, is when it becomes an example of tolerance and humility. When it becomes a nation with the inherent modesty that stems from universal tolerance of diverse cultures, diverse opinions, diverse religions, diverse languages, diverse relationships, and one that follows the golden rule.
  4. Most importantly, a truly exceptional country would be one that attempts to become part of the world community of nations even while demonstrating what it believes to be the best mode of governance; not by brash arrogance, but by quiet example. Obama's inclusion of the word "exceptional" in his speech was not genuine, and one could feel that he had to force himself to say it. It is not what he believes, nor should it be.
  5. As soon as a nation of tolerance views itself as inherently exceptional it has isolated itself, it has become unwelcoming, and it has induced discomfort or even hatred abroad. It has become anything but exceptional. I love this country, but I do not think that exceptionalism is inherent. It takes work, and the U.S., clearly, has work to do.
    • Clear Headed
    • Canada
  1. “Putin is a homophobic autocrat who doesn't even cloak his dictatorial bent and ambitions. He is an icy cold, ruthless former KGB chief who in his heart of hearts would not only love to, but is steadily taking Russia back to its demogogic past. He is eliminating freedom of the press. Elections in Russia are a joke.He is persecuting gays and jailing his critics and opponents.
  2. As someone living outside of the US, I have no illusions about America. It is far from perfect. however to watch Americans naively praise this ruthless former KGB sociopath, who sanctioned the slaughter of Chechnians, Afghans, Syrians and others; who supports tinpot dictators, and who could care less about his own people, is the height of shortsighted naivety, bordering on political ignorance.
  3. He is nothing but an arrogant, ignorant "Rasputin" trying to pull the wool over gullible American eyes, many of whose fanatical hatred of Obama blinds them to the subtle manipulations of truly amoral leaders.”
    • Franklin Schenk
    • Fort Worth, Texas
  1. I find it very interesting that so many right wing Republicans hate president Obama so much that they will side with Putin on this issue. While I will agree that Putin is no fool, neither is president Obama or SOS Kerry. The actual problem is that too many Americans have very little knowledge of the situation in Syria. Lack of knowledge however does not stop them from expressing their opinion. Yes, we have freedom of speech, but please make it intelligent.
    • quix
    • Pelham NY
  1. Our president courageously tilted at the windmill of genocidal atrocities and broke down the doors for some movement on the part of the butchers. Whether the audience sees the ruthless Putin heroically extending an olive branch or the spindly knight of the woeful countenance protecting righteous ideals, is irrelevant if human life is saved. Still, I am ashamed that my fellow Americans are using this as an opportunity to degrade the nobility of Obama's threat of force given the long history of UN inertia and relentless diplomatic attempts to stop the suffering.
    • Retired Teacher
    • Hopewell, NJ
  1. It's ironic that, after all the other GWB messes Obama inherited, we now have the residual war weariness because we were lied and tricked into the war in Iraq.
    • Tom Graves
    • Tokyo
  1. NYT Pick
  2. Maybe - just maybe - Putin is right. Perhaps he is not out to "thwart" US initiatives, but has real concern about the potential for chaos that US unilateral miltary intervention could bring.
  3. And why must the US President always be seen to be "taking ownership" and "leading" anyway? Syria is the world's problem, not that of the US alone. Why not let someone else drive the car occasionally? The US just might save lives and huge amounts of money (though the miltary / industrial complex won't be happy about that).
  4. This article is typical of a mentality which assumes that US dominance of every international issue is automatic and right, i.e. rooted in the doctrine - again rightly condemned by Putin - of American "exceptionalism". Americans should stride the globe, blowing away anyone they disagree with. The UN, founded in large part by earlier generations of Americans (who really understood the horrors of war), is viewed with arrogant disdain, as is the leader of any other nation who dares to disagree with us.
    • Thinker
    • Northern California
  1. NYT Pick
  2. I’m somewhere between puzzled and amazed – but in any case skeptical of motives.
  3. Many people complain that the Russia/Kerry proposal won’t work because Assad might “cheat.”
  4. Suppose the US had bombed Assad into submission and he’d agreed to do everything we asked. Wouldn’t we have demanded exactly what is now being proposed – no more, no less: declare all CWs, turn them over to international control, submit to intrusive inspections? Wouldn’t the risk of “cheating” exist, just as much as it will under this proposal? If so, why not get there by agreement, rather than by bombing?
  5. It’s hard not to doubt that the decision to bomb Syria was really motivated by a desire to eliminate chemical weapons. Possibly it was to turn the tide of the war (McCain, Graham), possibly to send Iran a message that the US is willing to bomb Iran if it doesn’t behave as the US and Israel demand (AIPAC). Who knows? Whatever the reason, this outpouring of skepticism over possible “cheating” strongly suggests the decision to bomb Syria had little or nothing to do with chemical weapons.
    • yossarian.lives
    • India
  1. I'm afraid the Americans have been living in this echo chamber hearing that they are the most free etc. convinced that all other are stupid evil and immoral.
  2. Its like frogs living in water thats getting hotter but the frog doesnt know whats happening to it.
  3. The treatment of manning, assange snowden - the guantanomo bay continuing embarassment, torture and renditions around the world - bargram abu graib prisons in egypt syria etc. the electronic snoopings all indicate its the US thats becoming less free, less tolerant and a little crazy about its exceptionnalism.
  4. Nietche has said - take care that while you fight monsters - you do not turn into one - for long as you look into the abyss - the abyss also looks into you.