Russians Say Anti-U.S. Attack in Libya Vindicates Their Position

By ELLEN BARRY
NYT | September 12, 2012

MOSCOW — Upon learning of the violent death of the United States ambassador to Libya on Wednesday, many Russians responded with variations on “I told you so.”

Russia has long argued that the West should not support popular uprisings against dictatorships in the Middle East lest Islamic fundamentalism take hold. Vladimir V. Putin, then serving as prime minister, was especially enraged last fall after an angry crowd killed his ally, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, an event he later condemned as a “repulsive, disgusting” scene.

Since then, Russia has blocked Western initiatives to force Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, from power despite a bloody crackdown on the opposition. Russians’ responses to the storming of the American Consulate in Benghazi underlined the deep policy divide. A prime-time news report pointedly juxtaposed images of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s death with Colonel Qaddafi’s, pointing at their similarities, then cut to footage of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reacting to the Libyan leader’s death with a cursory “wow.”

Mikhail V. Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of Russia’s Parliament, said that passions had been stoked by the uprisings and that they “splash out in the form of terrorist acts or massacres of nonbelievers or an attack on embassies and consulates.”

“The frequency of these outbursts, unfortunately, has been growing since the ‘Arab Spring’ brought to power political groups of Islamic orientation, either open or indirect,” Mr. Margelov said, in comments to the Interfax news agency. A telegram from Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov to Mrs. Clinton condemned the attack as a crime, and said “it confirms once again the necessity of combining the forces of our countries and the whole international community to fight with the evil of terrorism.”

But many commentators were far less diplomatic, especially on social media. The first commentaries on Twitter were bitingly sarcastic — “The democratized residents of Libya thanked the staff of the American Embassy for its support,” one read. Another read, “This is what you call exporting democracy, it seems. America gives Libya a revolution, and Libyans, in return, kill the ambassador.” Aleksei K. Pushkov, the head of Russia’s parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote via Twitter: “Under Qaddafi they didn’t kill diplomats. Obama and Clinton are in shock? What did they expect – ‘Democracy?’ Even bigger surprises await them in Syria.”

Yevgeny Y. Satanovsky, president of the Institute of the Middle East in Moscow, said American leaders should not expect “one word of sympathy” from their Russian counterparts.

“It is a tragedy to the family of the poor ambassador, but his blood is on the hands of Hillary Clinton personally and Barack Obama personally,” Mr. Satanovsky said. He said Russian warnings against intervention in the Middle East came from the bitter experience of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

“You are the Soviet Union now, guys, and you pay the price,” he said. “You are trying to distribute democracy the way we tried to distribute socialism. You do it the Western way. They hate both.” He said dictators were preferable to the constellation of armed forces that emerges when they are unseated.

“They lynched Qaddafi — do you really think they will be thankful to you?” he said. “They use stupid white people from a big rich and stupid country which they really hate.”

Russia’s case against American involvement in the Middle East dates from the post-Sept. 11 campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it has been at the forefront of Russian discourse for at least a year, since Mr. Putin broke out of his role as prime minister and delivered a passionate criticism of the NATO bombing campaign in Libya, leaving the clear impression that he — unlike his predecessor — would have used Russia’s power in the United Nations to stop it.

Mr. Putin has dug his heels in on the issue of Syria, frustrating Western hopes that he could persuade Mr. Assad to leave his post voluntarily. Fyodor Lukyanov, a respected analyst and editor of Russia in Global Affairs, said violence like Tuesday’s had been at the heart of Russia’s warnings. He said Russia had formulated a “post-Communist position: If you try to impose anything on others, as the Soviet Union tried to do, the result will be the opposite, and disastrous.”

“This killing is just strengthening the views which are already quite widespread — that the Western approach to the Arab Spring is basically wrong,” Mr. Lukyanov said.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 17, 2012

A Sept. 13 article on Russians’ response to the killing of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens misstated the title of Mikhail V. Margelov. He is not a deputy minister of foreign affairs, but chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Federation Council, Russia’s upper house of Parliament.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/europe/russians-say-anti-american-attack-in-libya-vindicates-their-position.html

 

Vladimir Putin’s comments on events in Libya
President of Russia
September 13, 2012, 19:30 Sochi

Vladimir Putin answered a journalist’s question concerning the events at the US Consulate in Benghazi.

* * *

QUESTION: Yesterday, the US ambassador to Libya was killed. Do you know about this terrorist act and what is your opinion on it?

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Of course I know about it. And there can only be one opinion: we condemn this crime and express our condolences to the families of the victims.

Killing a person is a terrible crime, but in this case, we are talking about the killing of diplomats – individuals who are protected by international conventions, whose lives and health are protected by international law. If somebody does not accept this, that means those people are not merely positioning themselves outside the law, but also outside modern civilisation.

In recent years, we have had many differences in opinion with our American partners specifically on the ways of resolving problems in troubled countries. We share the principles of democracy and freedom, and agree that many regions throughout the world have numerous political regimes that do not follow these standards.

The difference in approaches between ourselves and our American partners lies however in the fact that we believe these types of problems should be resolved through difficult but nevertheless peaceful negotiations and lead to positive, long-term-oriented results, to ensure the positive development of those nations and the safe coexistence of all faiths, religious groups and ethnic groups in those countries. This is a difficult, painstaking process that requires patience and professionalism.

We do not support any armed groups that attempt to resolve internal problems through force because we usually can not clearly understand the ultimate goals of those individuals and hence we always have a disturbing feeling that if such armed groups get support from abroad, the situation can end up in an absolute deadlock. We never know the end goals of these “freedom fighters” and we are concerned that the region could descend into chaos which, indeed, is what is already happening.

In this regard, I would like to draw the attention of the heads of new governments, the heads of the states that have undergone major changes, to the fact that they also must not forget about their personal responsibility for what is happening in their countries.

Finally, we all must be extremely delicate and careful about religious feelings – the religious feelings of followers of various faiths. This requirement applies to all people whether they are adepts of Islam, Christianity, or any other confessions, because if a state does not react swiftly and rigidly to provocations against religious feelings, then the offended, insulted and humiliated individuals will take it upon themselves to defend their views and interests, and at times, this takes on absolutely unacceptable forms and they may use unacceptable methods.

Finally, I really expect that this tragedy – this certainly is a tragedy, one that, I want to stress, concerns all of us, as we and our Western partners, including US partners, are combating terrorism together – I really expect that this tragedy will motivate us all to intensify our joint – I should emphasise the word joint – struggle against extremism and terrorist threats.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/4411

Advertisements

Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s