My page about Russia is incomplete, but it is under construction. I have named it the “Art and Music of Russia,” but we have also discussed, briefly, the history of Russia. Posts on the history of Russia will be listed separately. I also wrote posts on Sergei Diaghilev‘s Ballets Russes. For the time being, I am not separating these posts from the “Music of Russia.” Igor Stravinsky, Sergey Prokoviev and other composers wrote the music for the ballets. Diaghilev’s ballets were produced by a team, including artists, one of whom was Pablo Picasso. The musician featured below is Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, one of “The Five” who wrote operas and music based on folktales.
I believe that Vladimir Putin started the war in Ukraine almost single-handedly. However, many Russians support him, and soldiers obey orders. I suspect he is opposed by countries that formerly comprised the USSR. Sadly, a 96-year-old Holocaust survivor was killed in Kharkiv,
So, we will have a page on Russia. Although most of the posts recorded on that page are about artists and composers, one cannot avoid referring to Russian history.
Not so long ago, we explored the music of Russia. Modest Mussorgsky (1839-1881) was the leader of The Five. The Five were composers who attempted to write music that was distinctly Russian. Mussorgsky had befriended architect and artist Viktor Hartmann who died of an aneurysm when he was 39. It was a shock for Mussorgsky. According to critic Vladimir Stasov, Viktor Hartmann gave two pictures to Mussorgsky, one of which was a sketch of the “Great Gate of Kiev.” The two pictures inspired Modest Mussorgsky, who composed Pictures at an Exhibition, a suite of ten pieces for the piano divided by promenades and written in 1874. The tenth and final piece of the suite is based on Hartmann’s the “Great Gate of Kiev.” (Kiev is Kyiv)
Pictures at an Exhibition is Modest Mussorgsky’s most famous composition. We seldom hear the piano suite because it must be performed by a virtuoso pianist. Remember that the ringing of bells is a characteristic of the music of Russia and Ukraine.
Vladimir Stasov’s portrait by Ilya Repin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with Saint Petersburg governor at the Kremlin (Image: SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images)
Hartmann’s Kyiv is now being destroyed by Vladimir Putin; I cannot believe what I am seeing. This is madness on the part of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and if I could close the sky over Ukraine, I would. Vladimir Putin is the architect of this massacre. The flying zone is an open gate because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, which, ironically, gives Putin the freedom to destroy a country. As for the United States, it is burying Manifest Destiny.
It could be that Putin remembers times that will never return. Russia was once so large that it was called “toutes les Russies,” all the Russias.
At what cost will Ukraine survive this insane invasion?
I will soon post an article about La Fontaine’s Preface to his first collection (Recueil) of Fables. He uses The Fox and the Goat as an example, hence the picture above. The Goat should be in the well, not the Fox. The Fox and the Goat were on friendly terms, and both entered the well to quench their thirst. The Fox climbed out of the well using the Goat’s shoulders and horns. He then preached and left without helping the Goat, his companion, escape.
The War in Ukraine
But that Fox is Vladimir Putin who invaded Ukraine for reasons that cannot justify the deaths of Ukrainians and their flight out of their country to escape. Putin’s army is also destroying public and private quarters. It could be that we are seeing the natural face of Vladimir Putin, but something may have gone very wrong. I doubt very much that he will win this war. He is also silencing Russian citizens who oppose the war. He has too few, if any, supporters. We cannot afford a Third World War,
—ooo—
Illness
It has been a long illness, but I have started to feel better. The pain is less severe, so I will attempt to return to normal activities.
I do not regret being vaccinated against Covid, but I could not have imagined how painful and disabling Pericarditis could be. I am now medicated, but I have not been prescribed a pain killer, except briefly, in Magog. Moreover, this illness is in its 5th month, so I suspect Pericarditis will recur.
I have been in Magog for a week but will return to Sherbrooke on 17th March 2022. Sherbrooke is home, and work must be done to my bathroom. I was asked to remove the old whirlpool bathtub because it could leak. Replacing the whirlpool tub was extremely expensive. Moreover, I must fight the Domino effect. The faucets are different; a hand shower is included. The tub surround was wood, which will not do unless the wood is treated. I considered buying an oval shower rod. But my idea was not popular. I should also replace the large vanity, the shower, and everything else, to match the tub. I must resist.
We are about to read the Preface to Jean de La Fontaine’s first collection of fables. The first collection (Recueil) consisted of six books published in 1668. The second collection, five books, was published ten years later, in 1678. In 1793, La Fontaine published his third collection, one book. He was born in 1621 and died in 1695, shortly after his third collection was published.
The apparently incoherent Preface validates Milo Winter’s illustration. Unfortunately, I have not found a picture of The Fox and the Goat by Félix Lorioux.
Milo Winter illustrated the Æsop for Children. In both Æsop’s fable and La Fontaine’s The Fox and the Goat (III.5), the Fox climbs out of the well using the shoulders and horns of the Goat. Therefore, the Goat should be inside the well.
The Æsopic moral of the fable is the ell knows: “Look before you leap.” La Fontaine’s is « En toute chose il faut considérer la fin. » (“In every matter we should mind the end.”)
The election of Donald Trump into the presidency of the United States stood to elevate Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, it has been determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a cyber attack that increased Mr Trump’s chance of winning the American election. In my opinion, we may never know the precise result of the 2016 election. Russia should not have interfered in the American election.
After meddling was confirmed, I saw a photograph of US President Obama revealing considerable sadness. However, in his final conference of the year, the outgoing President stated that “he would not weigh in on whether Russian hacking actually swayed the election.” “Weighing in” may not be judicious. However, the President promised “methodical” retaliation.
News of the hacking were very disturbing. No nation should interfere in an election taking place in another country. It is a major assault on democracy. There is, of course, an internationally community and supranational legislation. The United Nations is a supranational community and would that every country respected its Declaration of Human Rights. We are also answerable to an international court. But it is for the citizens of the United States to choose their president, without interference from Russia or any other country.
Mr Putin should not have meddled in the American election and Mr Trump cannot say that the “end justified the means.” The wording is Machiavellian, but interfering in an American election, the means, is undemocratic. Mr Trump has stated that he would not accept defeat, but United States residents elect their various representatives. The Electoral College met yesterday, 19 December 2016. Their decision is that Mr Trump will remain President-elect of the United States. Therefore, it may be best to look upon the entire kerfuffle, the campaign, the election and the meddling, with some detachment.
Although Mr Putin meddled in the American election, my neighbours to the south will still buy their groceries where they usually do. Daily life will not change. However, Republicans are not pleased. President-elect Donald J. Trump may be given less elbow room by fellow Republicans.
Mr Trump plans to visit with Mr Putin after his inauguration. As expected The New Yorker‘s satirist, Andy Borowitz, has announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin would sing and Mr. Trump’s inauguration. I wonder if Mr Borowitz knowns that in French chantage (le, noun) means blackmail and faire chanter means to blackmail. The Fox makes the Crow drop the cheese by telling him that he is a good singer and that he would like to hear him sing. The Crow (le corbeau) sings and Reynard catches the cheese. (See RELATED ARTICLES.)
Mr Putin will not change the United States. However, Americans should remember that Vladimir Putin announced that the Canadian Arctic belonged to Russia. Mr Putin may also attempt to claim Alaska. Mr Putin interfered, but did so out of self-interest. He may have viewed Mr Trump as a lesser opponent than Mrs Clinton. Americans should make sure Russia does not start drilling in Alaska. If Mr Trump builds walls, the border he should protect is the American Arctic.
Global Warming
President-elect Donald J. Trump does not “believe in” global warming. Global warming is a fact. No American President has the right to kill the planet.
Endorsements
Mr Trump’s election does not bode well. The President-elect was endorsed by the National Rifle Association, whose members stand in the way of stricter gun-control, and by the Ku Klux Klan, who are white supremacists and nativist. Shame on him! It will be a white United States.
Problematical Areas
Social programmes
The Middle East
My main concern is the possible repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Americans pay their taxes and should be protected.
As for the Middle East, rumour has it that Mr Trump will join Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Putin in their attempt to crush Daesh (Isil). What about the Syrian Civil War? Eleven million Syrians—Muslims, mostly but also Christians, have had to flee Syria not only because of Isil, or terrorism, but also because of President Bashar al-Assad’s autocratic régime. President Assad’s forces have killed thousands of Syrians and have resorted to the use of chemical weapons.
With all due respect to the Electoral College, Mr Trump is unfit to deal with the conflict in the Middle East.
Conclusion
It all began with the Migrant Crisis. The result of the British referendum, Brexit, which took place on 23 June 2016, inaugurated a wave of nativism. It weakened the European Union. Nativism then swept across several countries, including the United States. Mr Trump’s promise to prevent Muslims from entering the United States is nativistic and populist. The President-elect’s decision to build a wall separating the United States is also nativistic and populist. In short, the American election was a Russian-assisted, populist, and undemocratic Republican victory.
I expect to post one or two articles before Christmas, but would like to wish you a very merry Christmas at this time.
Love to everyone♥
—ooo—
A Christmas Special with Luciano Pavarotti (1978)
at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Montréal, joined by a boys choir, Les Petits Chanteurs du Mont-Royal, and an adult choir, Les Disciples de Massenet
conductor: Franz-Paul Decker
President-elect Donald Trump has stated that American elections were rigged. Although there could be truth to this statement, it is a generalization.
Yet Mrs Hillary Clinton suspects that the investigation into her emails jeopardized her bid for the Presidency of the United States. I believe it did. I have read that she had been somewhat careless in handling classified material, but the FBI had not found criminal wrongdoing at the close of its first investigation. However, reopening the investigation suggested wrongdoing. Nothing more was needed to eliminate Mrs Clinton and open the way for a tragedy.
Therefore, one could say that there was obstructionism, but obstructionism of a kind that cannot be pinned down entirely on people at the top, such as FBI Director James Comey. The court of public opinion is ruthless. It undid Mrs Clinton. Unless there were errors in calculating the votes, which does not seem to be the case, Americans voted Donald Trump into office. And he was elected by a populist United States, not its élite, which is somewhat ironical. As a billionaire, Donald Trump is probably one of the wealthy Americans who hide their tax dollar, which tends to put him on the very same level as the establishment, or part of the establishment.
It could also be that Americans wanted a change. Mrs Clinton had been in Washington for many years, which was both an advantage and a disadvantage. She was the experienced nominee, but she had already spent two terms in office as the wife of former President Bill Clinton. In the eyes of ordinary and not-so ordinary people, a husband and wife are one and the same person.
Consequently, contrary to Pascal’s Wager, a large number of Americans chose “infinite” losses rather than “limited” losses. One may argue that four years is a finite period of time. Mathematically, four years are four years. However, there are other yardsticks. The events of these four years may be defining and irreversible. As President Obama pointed out, if a person loses self-control twittering, will it be safe to trust him with the nuclear code? The results would be limitless.
In short, taking a risk, i.e. voting for Mr Trump, was a perilous choice and, therefore, not a choice. He is the laughing-stock of the world.
Detail ofElihu Vedder‘smuralGovernment(1896), in theLibrary of Congress. The title figure bears a tablet inscribed with Lincoln’s famous phrase. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
America’s Credibility
There will be consequences. On 8 November 2016, the credibility the United States had gained during Barack Obama’s presidency was shaken by an amnesia-stricken and reckless American electorate. During his term as President of the United States, Mr Trump is likely to be what he was before his election: sexist, racist, lewd, brash, narcissistic, xenophobic, an unbearable misogynist, etc.
As well, Donald Trump is a nativist and his natives are white Americans. We know that he is married to Melania who is not an American by birth but is somewhat trans-cultural given her former occupation as supermodel. She was one of the tall and very slender ladies flying from runway to runway. They “appear,” as does Donald Trump.
The fact remains that when and if Donald Trump attends summits, the American discourse will no longer have the logic and fluency it did under President Obama. But, as President, Mr Trump may not attend summits.
Had Mr Trump not been elected, he might have appointed himself President of the United States and would have been a usurper. Mrs Clinton was not a perfect candidate. It appears she had some baggage, but she was more experienced which made her a safer choice. She was not likely to deprive Americans of social programmes. These programmes are not charity. Americans pay for them through their tax dollar.
Consider that, theoretically, it is now “open season” on Mexicans, Muslims, people of colour, persons of a different sexual orientation or women, and various dissenters. Mr Trump’s presidency promises to be authoritarian.
He is in favour of the death-penalty and he will penalize women whose life was threatened by a pregnancy that had to be terminated. I hope he will seek the advice of doctors in this respect. Doctors cannot let a woman die because she is pregnant. Doctors performing abortions will also be penalized. It is as though Mr Trump did not know that abortions and birth-control are different issues. When abortions were decriminalized in Canada, doctors could, at long last, intervene if the health and life of their patient was at risk. Their only option had been a hysterectomy. Is a woman’s life so unimportant that she should be left to suffer and die if a pregnancy threatens her health and her life ?
The United States should be as Abraham Lincoln defined it in the Gettysburg Address: a democracy. Mr Trump, whose bid for the presidency was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan, militant racists, is a clear and present danger. He may also allow the bearing of guns in mid-town Manhattan.
Let us look at the bigger picture. The European Union has been weakened because of Brexit and with Donald Trump steering the USA, the leader of France’s Front National, nativist Marine Le Pen, feels emboldened. Under President-elect Donald J. Trump, I believe Russia stands to become a greater power, perhaps the main power. By electing Mr Trump to the presidency of the United States, Americans may have elevated Russian President Vladimir Putin to a more commanding position. Americans may, in fact, have changed the balance of power.
Mr Trump is the President-elect and this is his honeymoon period. Moreover, hope springs eternal… We have to think that all will be well. It is a matter of survival, but the campaign tends to indicate that all is not and will not be well. I fear the aftermath of Mr Trump’s election to the presidency. It may lead to purges in the United States and a degree of erosion in Canada’s social programmes, if he slashes into Obamacare.
I opposed Mr Trump’s election for reasons which I believe were very good reasons. I will continue to oppose him if I see danger and abuse. But he may surprise us. He’s no longer a nominee and he is not a usurper. He is the President-elect of the United States. We’ll have to wait and see.
Love to everyone♥
“Beautiful Dreamer” Stephen Foster
Jonathan Guyot Smith & Stephen Sasloe
I started writing a post concerning US President Barack Obama‘s demotion as most powerful man in the world. He has been replaced by Russian President Vladimir Putin (b. 7 October 1952). But I stumbled upon Alexis de Tocqueville‘s De la démocratie en Amérique, Democracy in America,[i]and could not stop reading. Tocqueville was 25 when he travelled to North America. His two-volume (1835 and 1840) Democracy in America is a surprisingly mature work for so young an individual. Tocqueville also wrote on the Bas-Canada (Lower Canada). That book, if it is a book, I have to read and will.
Forbes
According to Forbes, American President Barack Obama (b. August 4, 1961) is no longer the most powerful man in the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken his place. In my opinion, President Obama does not mind ranking below Russian President Putin, but it is not a good sign. It seems that the debt-ceiling crisis may have harmed the President. However, it also harmed his country.
During the debt-ceiling crisis, Mr Boehner, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, looked almost as powerful as the President of the United States, but not smarter. Mr Boehner used the wrong weapon. One does not make raising the debt ceiling conditional upon the President not implementing the Affordable Care Act. The debt ceiling had to be raised. It therefore seems silly on the part of Mr Boehner to have used raising the debt ceiling to fight the Affordable Care Act. In fact, intellectually, Mr Boehner was outranked by President Obama. However, I doubt that intellect and moral superiority carry weight in Washington.
Photo : Illustration Tiffet
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) regarderait le prochain Sommet sur l’enseignement supérieur en nous rappelant que, « s’il y a des peuples qui se laissent arracher des mains la lumière, il y en a d’autres qui l’étouffent eux-mêmes sous leurs pieds ».
Le Devoir
le 4 novembre 2013
Montréal
In his two-volume Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville (29 July 1805 – 16 April 1859) noted that
“[m]ore than just imploding any traces of old-world aristocracy, ordinary Americans also refused to defer to those possessing, as Tocqueville put it, superior talent and intelligence. These natural elites could not enjoy much share in political power as a result. Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, mediocrity. Those who possessed true virtue and talent would be left with limited choices.” (See Alexis de Tocqueville, Wikipedia.)
Arrogance & Selfishness
Could Mr Boehner’s sixteen-day siege be a sign of the mediocrity Tocqueville noted? Congress turned a deaf ear to Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. She warned America’s lawmakers that “they risk[ed] pushing [the] world into a recession.” It would be my opinion that Congress should have paid attention to her warning. Not doing so was arrogance on the part of Mr Boehner and extremist Republicans, and it led to losses.
Moreover, Mr Boehner’s goal was to keep as much money as possible in the pockets of his wealthy constituents and, perhaps, in his own pockets. That was not edifying. It could be that the wealthy spend millions avoiding to pay their fair share of taxes. They are showing an irresponsible form of individualism, not to mention abysmal ignorance concerning nationhood. To a certain extent, we are our brother’s keeper and should therefore pay our taxes.
It appears, moreover, that the US will lose its AAA credit rating on Standard & Poor’s rating scale. (See the Huffington Post.) It was downgraded after the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis and this could happen again. In the end, Congress approved a raise in the debt ceiling. In other words, the US did not default on its obligations. However, this last debt-ceiling crisis revealed what seems a large flaw in the system. One pays one’s debts and one raises the debt ceiling if it’s too low. Besides, because of President G. W. Bush’s recklessness, the US owes China a fortune. So the debt is huge. These are not comforting circumstances. I suspect nevertheless that, once again, President Obama will be blamed.
An Executive Order
President Obama could, perhaps, have issued an executive order, but it may be that he did not want to do so until he had exhausted other options. It may also be that he and his administration could not act unilaterally. Moreover, he has faced systematic obstructionism, from day one, and keeps being made into a scapegoat. So he may have wanted the people’s elected representatives to make that particular decision and face the consequences.
So there were repercussions to this long confrontation. President Obama both won and didn’t win. It was a Pyrrhic victory because the crisis revealed a crude society, what Tocqueville termed “mediocrity” in America. Extremist Republicans may wish to hide their rich constituents’ money, but are doing so quite literally at any cost: 24 billion $. It makes no sense.
“There are now two great nations in the world, which starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans… Each seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world.”
It seems he was able to read into the future.
Le Devoir
Coincidentally, Tocqueville is featured in today’s Devoir, a Quebec newspaper, its finest.
I will not post the article I intended to post. The above sums up what I wanted to say. The United States is harming itself and may be losing its status as superpower. However, there is a little more to write on the “Manifest Destiny” and “American Exceptionalism.” For instance, the “Manifest Destiny” is not entirely American. Nationalism is, to a large extent, a product of 19th century Europe. In fact, it’s also a romantic concept.
Why chemical weapons are taboo, by Professor Richard Price
UBC (University of British Columbia, Canada) professor Richard Price, author of a history of chemical weapons, discusses why they’re considered so heinous with The Sunday Edition. Host Michael Enright.
On 21 August 2013, Syria allows the wanton killing of 1,429 Syrians, including more than 400 children, using a chemical weapon: sarin. Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.
2) The international community and the US are outraged. Syria “warns” that “after a strike, you can expect anything.”
By and large, United States citizens oppose a military strike on Syria. Military action, however narrow and targeted, is dangerous: “after a strike, you can expect anything.”
3) An agreement to put Assad’s chemical weapons under international control is reached. A dangerous strike would not be necessary.(9 September 2013)
US Secretary of State John Kerry makes an “off-the-cuff” remark. If Syria puts its chemical weapons under International Control, the matter is resolved. President Putin calls on President Bashar al-Assad to put his chemical weapons under international control and destroy them. Bashar al-Assad agrees to put his chemical weapons under international control.
4) Putin publishes a warning in The New York Times.(12 September 2013)
On 12 September 2013, Putin uses The New York Times to warn the US that it cannot break the law, the law being a decision not to strike by the United Nations’ Security Council. However, the Assad regime has acted criminally. Does one even vote under such circumstances?
5) However, it is the Assad regime that broke not only the law, but international law. Bashar al-Assad is now a suspected criminal and could be arrested. There is an International Court at The Hague, in the Netherlands. Let us return to 21 August 2013.
On 21 August 2013, forces under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad‘s command gassed to death 1,429 Syrian citizens using a weapon of mass destruction: a chemical weapon. Assad broke the law and Russia is backing Assad. Therefore, how can Russian President Vladimir Putin ask Americans to respect the law?
6) An Agreement has been reached, but Assad is trying to back out.
US President Barack Obama has respected the law. The US is nearly finished pulling out of the Middle East. Since 2008, President Obama and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have done everything in their power to respect the sovereignty of the various countries of the Middle East. Current US Secretary of State John Kerry is also doing all he can to respect the sovereignty of the countries of the Middle East.
C) A Larger Threat
1. Danger: If the world allows President Bashar al-Assad to use chemical weapons, one can expect further attacks by chemical weapons.
2. Danger: In the event of a strike on the part of the United States leading a coalition, “one can expect anything.”
3. Danger: Russian President Vladimir Putin is Syria’s ally. The Syrian crisis does not begin and end in Syria. What if after a strike, Russia becomes the United States’ foe ?
4. Danger: Iran
President Obama has exchanged letters with Iranian president
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24102915
Obama’s Middle East dilemma, by Dr Marwan Al Kabalan
http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&pageid=606&catid=21
Conclusion
I still think it would be prudent on the part of the United States to insist that Assad put his chemical weapons under international supervision, at which point they will be destroyed, as he agreed to do. I have yet to exclude provocation on the part of the Assad regime. It could be that 1,429 Syrian citizens were gassed to death so the United States would feel motivated to intervene. Throughout the history of mankind, nations have killed their own people and made it seem the work of an enemy, thereby inviting hostility.
However, I still believe a strike can be avoided. There is an Agreement, and the entire world knows there is. Moreover, I am adding a new element: criminality. If there has been a crime against humanity and there is an identified suspect, what role should the Security Council play?
On Thursday, I went to Montreal to share lunch with a friend of many years. She had come from Ottawa and I, from Sherbrooke. Our friendship dates back to the year I studied in Montreal. We did, of course, discuss the weather and spent an hour or so shopping. But we then found a café and simply talked. We discussed Pauline Marois, the current “separatist” premier of Quebec. I told my friend that a few months ago Pauline Marois had hired someone to identify the wrongs currently inflicted on Quebec by Ottawa. My comment put an end to that part of the conversation. We laughed. However, I have since read that Pauline Marois and Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, “may have just buried” separatism.
We went on to speak about Syria. We were both delighted that an “off-the-cuff” remark by US Secretary of StateJohn Kerry (born 11 November 1943) had led Russian President Vladimir Putin (born 7 October 1952) to call on President Bashar al-Assad (born 11 September 1965) to put his chemical weapons under international control and to destroy them. There is an end to this intervention, which is its main but very real virtue. President Bashar al-Assad has warned that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961) has been described as “ambivalent” by CNN’s Gloria Borger. Given the events of the 2000s: two wars, a huge debt, not to mention the loss of life and limbs, one can understand why President Obama is a reticent warrior. Had there been a strike on Syria, the US would have led an international coalition and no one would have entered Syria, a sovereign country. Yet, a strike is dangerous. President Assad has warned that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
The use of chemical weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, is prohibited under international law. Yet, on 21 August 2013, the Assad regime allowed 1,429 Syrians, including more than 400 children to be gassed to death. Can the international community simply stand by? Assad committed a crime and may have done so to draw the United States into a conflict with Syria and, possibly, with Russia. I would prefer to dismiss the idea of a setup, but I suspect political wranglings on a larger rather than smaller scale.
Despite its debt, the United States remains a “superpower” and it has a formidable arsenal. But it is a weary superpower and, by and large, US citizens oppose any action that could lead to yet another war. Consequently, President Obama had been seeking the support of Congress and that of his nation before entering into a military engagement: a strike. But there has now been an agreement. Russia has called on Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control and to destroy them and Syria has agreed to do as President Putin proposed. So why is President Putin entertaining the thought of a possible strike?
The Security Council
Russian President Vladimir Putin is indeed urging the US to “‘obey’ international law and not strike Syria without the approval of the United Nations.” On Thursday, 12 September 2013, he in fact “used the editorial pages of the New York Times to make his own personal address to the American people.” How very noble, but confusing! Again, hasn’t Russian President Vladimir Putin persuaded Syrian President Assad to put his chemical weapons under international supervision and to destroy them?
As I wrote in my last post, Syria on my Mind, the UN may serve rather than hinder Assad’s regime. If the Security Council votes in favour of a strike, Russia can veto that decision. Moreover, China is one of the five nations that may veto “punitive” — I do not like that word — action against Syria. The US owes China a fortune.
I may be wrong, but I sense a motivation on the part of Russia to make itself a superpower intent on obstructing another or other superpower(s). Therefore, it may be prudent on the part of the United States to concentrate on making sure Syria puts its chemical weapons under international supervision and destroys them, as President Assad has agreed to do. I believe it would be wise on the part of the United States to insist that Assad keep his word or forever be mocked for lying to the world.
In other words, it would be my opinion that the US may be well-advised to pare the problem down to its smallest, yet enormous and central, component: the use of chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. It just could be that Secretary of State John Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark can be used as an off-the-hook opportunity.
The Shoe is on the other foot
On my way home, I kept thinking that it was hugely arrogant of President Assad to be warning the international community that “after a strike, one can expect anything.” The shoe is on the other foot. President Bashar al-Assad has violated an international law by using chemical weapons to kill indiscriminately 1,429 citizens of his country. It therefore seems that it is now the international community’s turn to tell President Assad that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
Conclusion
Yet, as I wrote above, I believe that an intervention on the part of the United States should be limited to insisting that President Assad keep his word and put his chemical weapons under international supervision, ensuring they are destroyed. As I have noted above, Secretary of State John Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark and Assad’s compliance just may take the United States “off the hook.” John Kerry’s suggestion — that President Assad put his chemical weapons under international control — targets the offense, i.e. the use of a weapon of mass destruction, which, in my opinion, makes it an appropriate response. Not only does such an intervention have a foreseeable end, but it also addresses Assad’s warning that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
_________________________
[i] Olga Khokhlova, a Ballets Russes ballerina, married Pablo Picasso in 1918 and is the mother of his son Paulo. The marriage was not a happy one. The two separated in 1935, but Picasso would not consent to a divorce as Olga was entitled to one half of his wealth. Olga died in 1955.
—ooo—
Frédéric Chopin (1 March 1810 – 17 October 1849)
Nocturne No. 11 in G Minor, Op. 371
pianist: unidentified
© Micheline Walker
14 September 2013
Micheline's Blog 