Obama vs. Putin at the U.N.

[KoKo]

Obama vs. Putin at the U.N.
Uploaded on Sep 28, 2015

Paul Jay and Vijay Prashad discuss President Obama and President Putin's UN address on their strategies for fighting the Islamic State. - September 28, 2015

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS and LINK to FULL AT:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14797

Bio

Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History and Professor of International Studies at Trinity College. He is the author of sixteen books, including The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013), Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK, 2012), (co-edited with Paul Amar) Dispatches from the Arab Spring (2013), and No Free Left: The Futures of Indian Communism (Leftward Press, 2015). Vijay's latest book is Letters to Palestine: Writers Respond to War and Occupation. Vijay is the chief editor at Leftward Press, and writes regularly for The Hindu, Frontline, Jadaliyya, Counterpunch, Himal and Bol.

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.In New York at the United Nations on Monday morning various leaders of the world spoke. We're going to focus mostly in this session on President Obama and President Putin. They both spoke about various things, but perhaps the most important thing they spoke of was the conflict in Syria. First, here's President Obama.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people that is not just a matter of one nation's internal affairs. It brings human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent, and enslaves women, that's not a single nation's national security problem. That is an assault on all our humanity. But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in Syria.Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo. Let's remember how this started. Assad reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that in turn created the environment for the current strife. And so Assad and his allies can't simply pacify the broad majority of a population who have been brutalized by chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing.Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL. But realism also requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader. And an inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild.

JAY: Now joining us from Northampton, Massachusetts is Vijay Prashad. He's the George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History, professor of international studies at Trinity College. His latest book is Letters to Palestine: Writers Respond to War and Occupation. Thanks for joining us again, Vijay.

VIJAY PRASHAD: My pleasure.JAY: So what do you make about President Obama's comments? We can kind of sort of take them in order. He at the beginning feels a need to justify the sovereignty argument. What did you make of--did he justify it?

PRASHAD: Well, you know, there was something very tired about Mr. Obama's statements about Syria. You know, he could have been saying or making the same comments in 2012. it's almost as if there's been no change, no shift on the ground between 2012 and 2015. Except when he says that he is ready now to work with Russia and Iran. That's the real takeaway from his speech. Everything else is pretty much trying to hold on to the American narrative, which suggests that the main culprit in Syria is Bashar al-Assad. The fact of the matter is that if Mr. Assad was something in 2012, he is something quite different in 2015. So the phrase Assad must go in 2012 no longer makes sense in 2015.So the real significant shift, or the new part of Mr. Obama's statement, is when he said that the United States is now willing to work with Iran and with Russia on the Syrian question.

JAY: Right. And we can get into that a little further. But I thought it was interesting that he talks about the justification for American involvement now is Assad slaughtering tens of thousands of people. And of course, Assad has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. But most of that slaughter--certainly not all, but most of it came about because of intervention in Syria by outside powers. And most of those outside powers are allies of the United States and direct--I should say indirect U.S. involvement itself, in terms of funding all kinds of Islamic groups to try to overthrow Assad, which widened this war way beyond repression of some kind of civilian unrest or uprising

.PRASHAD: Well, sovereignty is a very complicated idea in the present era. You know, this notion comes to us from the Treaty of Westphalia, the idea that each state must be given its due respect in the world order, and that only the governments of that state should be able to determine the procedures, the policies, et cetera, within that state. In our times, when climate change unites the world, when economic policy impacts countries despite the policies of their own managers, when war spills over across borders, it's very hard to sustain the argument for a Westphalian type of sovereignty. Today Premier Xi of China spoke again about the importance of state sovereignty.But if you look at the Syrian conflict the idea of sovereignty was dissolved a very long time ago.

I mean, when Mr. Assad decided to globalize the Syrian economy in the 19--in the 2000s, it drew in Turkish capital, which essentially helped displace very large numbers of people from small, productive activities. When the drought hit Syria in 2006, and for the last eight seasons has continued, this is the longest drought that Syria has suffered. That displaced a million people at least from their homes. This is long before the civil conflict begins in 2011.So the idea of sovereignty of a state I think has slightly been overtaken by the kind of global pressures. The issue is whether you can place the enormity of Syria's crisis on the head of one man or not. That's what it comes down to. But the rest is--.

JAY: But hang on. The issue of sovereignty here, there was a--in terms of outside powers interfering in the civil unrest in Syria, I mean, that was an affront to the sovereignty of Syrians, clearly exaggerated the problem there. I mean, there was--there were, if I understand it correctly, relatively peaceful uprisings to begin with. Assad cracked down on them. There would have been a fight between the people that opposed Assad and otherwise. But when the Saudis, the Turks, the Americans and others start pouring money in to fund opposition groups, clearly that's not an acceptable violation of sovereignty, is it?

MUCH MORE TRANSCRIPT AT...

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14797

[JDPriestly]

1. President Obama's hands, at least those he shows in public, are tied by the internal,

ridiculous internal problem of Republican stupidity about foreign affairs.
There may be a big difference between what is said in public and what is said behind closed doors. Obviously, ISIS presents a big problem. But Turkey is our ally as are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. So we have to be very careful when it comes to offending our allies, but we also need to get rid of ISIS.

We are in a difficult position and we have made some stupid and serious mistakes with regard to Syria.

That is my opinion.

[truth2power]

2. Putin's statements are factually correct...

as Mr. Prashad so states, and I concur.

Obama? "trying to hold onto the American narrative" per Mr. Prashad. and that's being charitable, IMO.

What angers me most about all this is the colossal, obscene arrogance of Washington, thinking it can decree to various countries around the world that their duly elected leader "has to go". Who do we think we are?? Oh, that's right, we're EXCEPTIONAL!!

Makes me want to