An appeal coming from Russia

Our relationship has gone through different stages. We were against each other during the Cold War. But we were also allies, and together we defeated the Nazis. At that time, a universal international organization was created – the United Nations – to prevent another devastation like that from happening again.

The founders of the United Nations understood that decisions concerning war and peace should only be made by consensus, and it was with the consent of the United States that the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council was included in the Charter of the United Nations. The profound wisdom of this decision underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the UN to suffer the same fate as the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real power. This is possible if influential countries, deviating from the United Nations [rules], carry out military actions without authorization from the Security Council.

A potential US attack against Syria, despite opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the Pope, would result in more innocent victims and an escalation that could potentially spread the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. An attack would intensify the violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. This could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could unbalance the entire system of international law and order.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between the government and the opposition within a multi-religious nation. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Al-Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes fighting against the government. The United States Department of State has designated the Al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which fight alongside the [Syrian] opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

The mercenaries from Arab countries, the hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia fighting there are a cause for deep concern. Shouldn't they return to our countries with the experience gained in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, the extremists went to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated for peaceful dialogue that allows Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to utilize the UN Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to prevent international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it, whether we like it or not. According to international law, force is only permitted in cases of self-defense or by decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the UN Charter and constitutes an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe that it was not used by the Syrian army, but rather by opposition forces, to provoke an intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who remain loyal to the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack – this time against Israel – cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military interventions in the internal conflicts of foreign countries have become commonplace in the United States. Are they in the long-term interest of the United States? I doubt it. Millions of people worldwide increasingly see the United States not as a model of democracy, but as a country that relies solely on brute force, forging coalitions under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."

But force has proven ineffective and useless. Afghanistan is derailing, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw from the country. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. The civil war continues in Iraq, with mountains of deaths every day. In the United States, many draw analogies between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government wants to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the attacks are or how sophisticated the weapons are, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the attacks are supposed to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you can't rely on international law, then you must find other means to guarantee your security. That's why a growing number of nations are seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It's a matter of logic: nobody will mess with someone who has the bomb in their arsenal. We are deluded by the talk of the need to strengthen non-proliferation when, in reality, non-proliferation is being eroded.
We need to stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized, diplomatic, and political agreements.

A new opportunity to avoid action arose a few days ago. The United States, Russia, and all members of the international community should seize upon the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by President Obama's statements, the United States sees this possibility as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president's interest in dialogue with Russia and Syria. We must work together to keep that hope alive, as we agreed at the G8 meeting in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, in June, and bring the discussion back to the negotiating table.

Avoiding the use of force against Syria will improve the atmosphere for international business and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and will open doors for cooperation and other crucial matters.

My work and personal relationship with President Obama are marked by growing trust. I carefully analyzed his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would like to disagree with what he said about American exceptionalism, when he declared that the country's politics are "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to consider themselves exceptional, whatever the intention.

There are large and small countries, rich and poor, with long-standing democratic traditions and those still seeking their path toward democracy. Their policies also differ. We are all different, but when we ask for God's blessings, we must remember that He created us all as equals.

(Unofficial translation by Baby Siqueira Abrão)