 |
| Medvedev talking to CNN in Davos |
The Kremlin’s staunch
support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is fading.
The White House’s
comatose stance on Syria will be dragging out.
These are my perceptions
of the two positions as expressed in the past 48 hours by Russian Prime
Minister Dmitry Medvedev in Davos and U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington.
Medvedev’s interview
was aired Sunday on CNN's Fareed Zakaria
GPS.
Obama spoke separately
to the New Republic magazine and on CBS 60 Minutes.
Transcripts of the Qs
& As on Syria in all three interviews follow.
ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about Syria.
MEDVEDEV (through
translator): Why not.
ZAKARIA: You have said that you, (that) Russia wants to be neutral in
the conflict. You're not supporting the Assad regime, but the reality is that
the Russian army has trained the Syrian army. There are long ties there, and
you have influence with the Syrian government. Very few countries have it. If you believe -- what I'm trying to understand is that it is not in
Russia's interest for this conflict to go on, for it to become one in which
more and more militant Islamic forces participate and Jihadist groups form.
After all, it is directly to your south and could move into Dagestan,
Ingushetia, and Chechnya. So, why would you not, from a purely Russian national
interest point of view, try to get the Assad regime to understand that it must
find a compromise and that Assad must step down?
MEDVEDEV (through
translator): Let us discuss. From the outset, the Russian Federation was not an
exclusive ally of Syria or President Assad. We had good relations with his
father and him, but he had much closer allies among the European states.
We never said that our
goal was to preserve the current political regime or making sure that President
Assad stays in power. That decision has to be made by the Syrian people.
The Syrians are a
multi-ethnic and multi-religious people. Thus, we need to have all present at
the negotiating table -- Sunnis, Shia, Alawites, Jews, Christians. Only this
way could you have a genuine national dialogue.
If you exclude someone,
then the civil war will continue, and the war that is already under way. And in
it, in my view, both sides are responsible -- the Syrian authorities and the
opposition, which, by the way, is largely represented by Islamic radicals.
ZAKARIA: But why doesn't Russia try to broker some such agreement?
Why don't you take the lead?
MEDVEDEV (through
translator): I personally called Assad a few times and said you need to start reforms;
you need to sit down at the negotiating table. I repeat one more time. In my
view, unfortunately, the Syrian authorities turned out not to be ready for
this.
ZAKARIA: Can Assad survive?
MEDVEDEV (through
translator): I think that with every day, with every week, with every month,
the chances of him surviving are becoming less and less. But, once again, it
should be decided by the Syrian people -- not by Russia, not by the U.S., not by
any other country. The most important thing right now is to support the process
of national reconciliation.
ZAKARIA: But you agree with me, what is happening in Syria -- the
current situation -- is bad for Russia, because it is becoming more and more
Islamic, it is becoming more Jihadist. And you will say -- we are 8,000 miles
away in the United States. You will face this in your backyard. So, it is an
urgency for you to do something.
MEDVEDEV (through
translator): It's hard for me to disagree with you. But I believe the situation
is so troublesome for everyone because the representatives of radical Jihad
will not only penetrate into Russia, they (also) travel to Europe, and they try
to infiltrate the U.S. So, this situation is bad for everyone.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF CHRIS HUGHES: The last question is about
Syria. I wonder if you can speak about how you personally, morally, wrestle
with the ongoing violence there.
OBAMA: Every
morning, I have what's called the PDB—presidential daily briefing—and our
intelligence and national security teams come in here and they essentially
brief me on the events of the previous day. And very rarely is there good news.
And a big chunk of my day
is occupied by news of war, terrorism, clashes, violence done to innocents. And
what I have to constantly wrestle with is where and when can the United States
intervene or act in ways that advance our national interest, advance our
security, and speak to our highest ideals and sense of common humanity.
And as I wrestle with
those decisions, I am more mindful probably than most of not only our
incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations.
In a situation like Syria,
I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation? Would a military
intervention have an impact? How would it affect our ability to support troops
who are still in Afghanistan? What would be the aftermath of our involvement on
the ground? Could it trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical
weapons? What offers the best prospect of a stable post-Assad regime? And how
do I weigh tens of thousands who've been killed in Syria versus the tens of
thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?
Those
are not simple questions. And you process them as best you can. You make the
decisions you think balance all these equities, and you hope that, at the end
of your presidency, you can look back and say, I made more right calls than not
and that I saved lives where I could, and that America, as best it could in a
difficult, dangerous world, was, net, a force for good.
 |
| Obama and Clinton on CBS 60 Minutes |
STEVE KROFT: The
biggest criticism of this team in the U.S. foreign policy from your political
opposition has been what they say is an abdication of the United States on the
world stage, sort of a reluctance to become involved in another entanglement,
an unwillingness or what seems/appears to be an unwillingness to gauge big
issues. Syria, for example.
OBAMA: Yeah, well--
KROFT: I mean, that--
OBAMA: Well, Muammar
Qaddafi probably does not agree with that assessment, or at least if he was
around, he wouldn't agree with that assessment. Obviously, you know, we helped
to put together and lay the groundwork for liberating Libya. You know, when it
comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you
might have seen a different outcome there. But also understanding
that we do nobody a service when we leap before we look. Where we, you know,
take on things without having thought through all the consequences of it. And
Syria's a classic example of where our involvement, we want to make sure that
not only does it enhance U.S. security, but also that it is doing right by the
people of Syria and neighbors like Israel that are going to be profoundly
affected by it.
And so it's true
sometimes that we don't just shoot from the hip.
CLINTON: We live not
only in a dangerous, but an incredibly complicated world right now with many
different forces at work, both state-based and non-state, technology, and
communications. And, you know, I'm older than the president. I don't want to
surprise anybody by saying that.
OBAMA: But not by much.
CLINTON: But, you know,
I remember, you know, some of the speeches of Eisenhower as a young girl, you
know? You've got to be careful. You have to be thoughtful. You can't rush in, especially
now, where it's more complex than it's been in decades. So yes, are there what
we call wicked problems like Syria, which is the one you named? Absolutely. And
we are on the side of American values. We're on the side of freedom. We're on
the side of the aspirations of all people -- to have a better life, have the
opportunities that we are fortunate to have here. But it's not always easy to
perceive exactly what must be done in order to get to that outcome. So you
know, I certainly am grateful for the president's steady hand and hard
questions and thoughtful analysis as to what we should and shouldn't do.
OBAMA:
You know, there are transitions and transformations taking place all around the
world. We are not going to be able to control every aspect of every transition
and transformation. Sometimes they're going to go sideways. Sometimes, you
know, there'll be unintended consequences. And
our job is to, number one, look after America's security and national interest.
But number two, find where are those opportunities where our intervention, our
engagement can really make a difference -- and to be opportunistic about that.
And that's something that I think Hillary has done consistently. I think the
team at the State Department's done consistently. And that's what I intend to
continue to do over the next four years.
