(draft)
Dear Mr. President,
Your recent article published by the New York Times received
much attention internationally and within the U.S., its targeted audience. It is a bit refreshing to see a political leader speak to the public.
Typical of American journalism and political dysfunction, much of attention
focuses on the last paragraph of the article. You know the one, about American
exceptionalism. And since this is where
the attention is, let me deal with that last.
Let me start by saying I am confused as
to what the violence in Syria aims to accomplish. You say it is a "conflict between
government and opposition in a multireligious country”, but then say “Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting
there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an
issue of our deep concern”. So, this is
not a strictly internal conflict. It would seem naïve to think other countries do
not have a stake in this conflict and/or the outcome. International actors are
involved, not just mercenaries and not just the United States. Events in Syria
can, probably will, affect the international community no matter which side
triumphs, if that is an appropriate term. In the 21st century, no
internal conflict is strictly internal. Word gets out, influence spreads,
interests shift and the world is involved, directly or indirectly.
So what do Syrians want? This
civil war has raged so long and so violently that the opposition’s goal is
foggy to us, and possibly to themselves. Nevertheless, a key component of their
goal seems to be the removal from power of the Assad regime. Questions abound
as to what would happen next if that does happen, or even if it does not. What
happens when peace avails, no matter how long from now that may be? You
mentioned there was not clear opposition and terrorist groups comprise some
part of the anit-Assad movement. What happens if these forces seek retribution
on Russia for incorporating a diplomatic pause or, hopefully, resolution? How would Russia respond to terrorist plots against
it planned outside of Russia? This
presents a slippery slope.
Let me touch upon the rule of law,
which is crucial, but to follow it strictly because it “is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not”
is an important point. I am sure many people would disagree: Jews of 1930s/40s
Europe, African slaves of the Americas, or Cambodians in the late 1970s. People
have a right to oppose laws that are bad, wrong, counterproductive, impediments,
or just plain evil (all of which are subjective, which strengthens the
complexities). Only dictators impose Absolute Rule of laws. Whether the laws of and within Syria are any
of these is not up to us to decide, though it is apparent that people of Syria
have. Whether good or bad, human actions do not fit neatly into written laws,
religious or otherwise.
Perhaps this highlights
a difference between Russia and the U.S. that underlies the lack of
communication between them, much to our dismay.
For the most part, we tend to ponder the role
of law, while in Russia the rule of
law is, apparently, paramount. Gun control in the U.S. is a hot debate (although
it shouldn't be “debated”) and laws respective to this are interpreted,
challenged, altered, vetoed and re-written seemingly monthly. We have laws
backed by reason; it is not uncommon for unreasonable or outdated laws to be ignored or removed (e.g.
honking a car horn as you enter town to warn the horses). Unfortunately, Reason
seems to be on vacation lately and extreme, almost fanatical, positions spring
up in America on just about all issues. I see this in the international community as well,
perhaps emboldened by U.S. unilateralism, or through international apathy. But the
key issue remains: authority has no power unless it is vetted.
The use of
chemical weapons violates international law—but so, too, would attacking a sovereign
nation without provocation or U.N. Security Council approval. A conundrum no matter who actually release
the chemical weapons, which is probably close to impossible to prove. Ignoring their use because of this
possibility is easy; dealing with it is much more difficult. Thankfully, Russia interjected in the predicament
involving Syria and chemical weapons. A needed
pause, and hopefully a peaceful advantage is within reach. This should include open dialogue, as you
espouse, with the international community, including Syria. Yet the international community does not have
a monopoly on dialogue. Syrian internal dialogue is needed, as I am sure the
government and opposition have disagreements. Realization of this dialogue is
slim, but with great effort and commitment, it can be done.
The United
Nations was set up to assist in international peace, if not harmony. Yet it was
built upon the ashes of World War II as you noted, but the world is much
different now. Yes, international communication and bipartisanship is still
important, but so, too, is internal violence: War is still war, it knows no
boundaries. You agree, at least to a point. I urge you, and others, to use the auspices
and spirit of the U.N. to help resolve the Syrian conflict. Yes, it is an
internal matter. It is also true that it is not merely internal. Perhaps it is
time to have another look at international laws, the role of the U.N., the responsibility
of nations, and the influence of militaries, all of which rely upon the Reason,
Compassion and Education of human beings.
Ok, now to the last paragraph. You are right about Exceptionalism; it can be
dangerous. We can go back to 1930s Europe again to highlight this fact. As for
the average American, exceptionalism is less common that it used to be. There
is nothing exceptional about endless bickering, embraced ignorance or endless
finger pointing. The American public has, for the most part, lost its way. There
was hope that the Age of Information would bring people, communities and
nations together, no matter how different they, or their policies, may be. Sadly, this has not turned out to be the
case. Not yet anyway. We continue to slack on responsibility, empathy and
listening.
You are also wrong. America has flaws, true, just like any
other country. Where America is
exceptional resides in what America is built upon. It is the most culturally,
racially and religiously diverse nation in the world, and we do not fight…much.
While it is human nature is to focus on differences, Americans tend to (but not
always, to be sure) find similarities among them and with others. Not only do
we abhor human rights violations, even our own, but we strive to do something
about it, which is not always easy, popular or internationally legal. The
responsibility America puts upon itself is burdensome, but we carry on,
insisting on Peace, Liberty and Freedom.
Sometimes our leaders (political and religious) prey upon such capacity
and lead us astray. It takes effort to bring back our Founding Fathers’
resilience and wisdom, but we insist on it. Their ideals and principles shape
our society. As such, our impulse, our gut reaction, is to, at least, question authoritarian
offenses, and to fight atrocities.
Effectiveness of air strikes, not the motivation, against Syria is the
main impediment. This is the core of
America, and that is exceptional.
No comments:
Post a Comment