Don’t React Emotionally to President Putin

 

 

 

Vincent J. Curtis


12 September 2013

 

Russian President Vladimir V. Putin released an Op-Ed piece published in the New York Times on September 11, 2013, that has created an uproar.  At the end of the piece, President Putin seemed to call into question American exceptionalism.  This mistaken interpretation of what he said has raised the hackles of some supposedly serious experts in foreign policy such as Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  The punditocracy are in a similar state of emotional distress.

 

It would be wrong of serious foreign policy analysts to react emotionally to what Putin said and seemed to say.  They should instead be looking for insights provided by this most serious practitioner of the diplomatic arts.

 

Let us take at face value the claim that Putin actually called into question American exceptionalism.  This would be no different than what President Obama said himself!

 

On April 4, 2009, in Strasbourg, France, in response to a question put to him by Mr. Ed Luce of the Financial Times, President Obama said,

 

            “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism….”

 

If Putin called into question American exceptionalism he would have said nothing more than what President Obama apparently believes: that there is nothing exceptional about American exceptionalism.  At worst, this interpretation of what Putin said amounts to a dig at President Obama, whom Putin has completely out-maneuvered on the matter of Syria and chemical weapons.

 

However, this is not what he said.  What Putin actually did was to call into question the wisdom of relying upon the premise of exceptionalism as a basis for making foreign policy decisions.  That is food for thought, not a basis for an emotional reaction.

 

The argument by which Putin justifies his advice is a non sequitor, however.  After talking about countries large and small, rich and poor, democratic and non-democratic, he says,

 

            “We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessing, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

 

The statement is a non sequitor because in the eyes of God, each individual human being is equal, while previously Putin was referred to countries and in this line he refers to individuals.

 

Putin is undoubtedly aware that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are full of the concept of the equality of individuals before and under the law, and that this principle of equality was justified because of the belief that we are all equal before God.

 

This may be what Putin thinks is a clever dig before a world-wide audience at the contradictions of American political philosophy: that all men are created equal and yet America is the greatest country in the world.

 

The reason why his statement is a non sequitor is the difference between millions of individuals on the one hand, and a society and a country on the other.  This difference explains why the society and country made up of these three hundred million individuals who collectively comprise the greatest country in the world, while those three hundred million who live in some province in China do not.  Thus the seeming contradiction between the equality of the individual and the inequality of country and society is resolved.

 

What serious observers ought to take from this argument that President Putin makes are that he is a close observer of America, and of the political power of Christian beliefs and consequently of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia.  Putin, in his public remarks, has often hinted that he is a Christian believer.  As a former KGB agent, Putin may not be a believer, but it apparently is important to him that he seem to be.  Dealing with Putin then on his home turf, it would be important to frame public positions on the principles of Christian belief.

 

The rest of Putin’s Op-Ed also provides food for serious thought.  In the first place, it reads as being sensible, reasonable, and sincere.  It may stick in the craw of people to think that a reasonable sounding argument from President Putin would be sincere, but the important take away is that a lot of people around the world who are not emotionally invested in America will think it sounds reasonable and sensible.  If America wants to rally the world behind a policy in Syria contrary to Russian wishes, President Obama is going to have to be a lot better in putting his case.  So far, on Syria, he has looked like a slow-footed puncher, while Putin looks like Mohammed Ali in his prime.

-30-

 

 

Syria and the RCN

 

 

Vincent J. Curtis


5 September 2013

 

As this is being written, the United States Congress is debating whether or not to authorize President Barack Obama to launch cruise missile strikes against Syria.  In the eastern Mediterranean Sea, six U.S. Navy destroyers lurk below the horizon of the Syrian shore, bearing several hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles and awaiting a presidential order.  In the Red Sea, south of the Suez Canal, the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz stands ready to protect those destroyers and add its striking power to the barrage of cruise missiles, if necessary.

 

What has the Royal Canadian Navy got to do with this?

 

At the moment, nothing.  Readers may recall that I have been pushing for the RCN to be equipped with a capital ship - specifically a kind of modern battleship.  Instead of a program of sixteen new frigates of four thousand tonnes displacement, we should instead order twelve new frigates of four thousand tonnes and one ship of sixteen thousand tonnes.  A ship of that size could not only carry a vertical launch system for Tomahawk cruise missiles of 2,500 kilometer range, but also pack six twelve-inch guns in two turrets for provision of naval gunfire at ranges of up to forty kilometers.  Nuclear power would provide the ship with unlimited range, making capable of sailing all around the world without needing to put into port or refuel.

 

One of these ships would provide all the firepower that the fleet of U.S. destroyers has, in addition to the formidable capacity to wreck targets precisely that lie at or close to shore.

 

Isn’t that kind of dangerous, giving the Canadian government such naval power?

 

Isn’t that the point of having military power in the first place – to be really powerful and capable?

 

Before he found out how few friends he really has in this world, President Obama asked a number of prominent allies for political cover, er, I mean, military assistance.  He asked Britain and France for the assistance of their naval assets.  Canada was able to say that we do not have the naval or military capacity to help out in any way.  We could not have used this excuse, however, if we possessed a battleship of the type described.  We would have to have come up with some other excuse not to participate in Obama’s scheme.

 

The British showed the way.  They actually held a debate in the House of Commons on the matter, and held an unwhipped vote.  The Members actually got to vote with their heart, their guts, their consciences, and with the wishes of their electorate.  The British House denied the government the authority to strike at Syria.  What a scathingly novel thing – to hold a vote!

 

The Americans are organizing a vote in Congress.  It is certainly a spectacle to watch President Obama and the senior poobahs of the Democratic party twist the arms of the most dovish, anti-war members of their party so that they will put party above principle.  People who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, who are best known for their anti-war stand – like Secretary of State John Kerry – are going to push for a military strike so that President Obama is not made to look weak and foolish.  Perhaps no one will notice.  And even if the Republican controlled House of Representatives denied Obama the authority to attack Syria, President Obama claims the right to attack without Congressional authorization; which begs the question of why ask Congress in the first place?

 

If Canada had the naval power in the form of a nuclear-powered battleship to attack Syria, would it not complicate our relations with the United States if we said, “no, we will not participate”?

 

Last time I checked, Canada was a parliamentary democracy with a House of Commons that voted to limit our participation in Afghanistan to 2011 and 2014 timelines.  The British demonstrated the real power of representative government after their Commons voted against war: suddenly Obama’s rush to war was stricken.  The American public were forced to confront the fact that even close allies were truly opposed to this adventure.  Canada stayed out of Vietnam despite American pressure on the grounds that the Commons would not support the government.  A Canadian vote against war in our House of Commons today would also demonstrate to Americans - who do cherish democracy – our true beliefs, and would excuse the government from improvidently supplying Canadian naval power in a matter not in our interest.

 

On the other hand, having such naval power means that we can rely on our own strong right arm to vindicate principles that we think require it.

-30-