September 3, 2013 | Forbes

Next on Syria: Leading From Russia?

Having failed to obtain a United Nations resolution on Syria, or assemble a robust coalition of the willing, or provide the American public with any clear strategy surrounding his plans for a limited strike, President Obama is no longer leading from behind. Instead, he’ll soon be leading from Russia– where later this week, following a day in Sweden, he plans to attend an economic summit of the Group of 20, Thursday and Friday in St. Petersburg.

It’s hard to figure which aspect of this trip is worse: the timing, or the venue. Obama has just organized quite a cliffhanger back home: fingering the Assad regime for using chemical weapons; ordering American warships into position to attack; and then, on Saturday, abruptly hitting pause and asking lawmakers to vote on the use of force when Congress returns from recess on Sept. 9. This leaves an interval in which, as America’s Commander-in-Chief, he should be using every minute to map out, explain and clarify both to Congress and the American people how his plans for a limited strike in Syria fit into a broader American strategy for dealing not only with Syria, but with Syria’s tyrannical or terrorist cohorts in an increasingly dangerous world.

Decamping to Russia at this fraught hour is an act that in itself suggests either a strange idea of strategy and leadership, or none at all. While no one has accused the Russians of having a direct hand in the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, Russia maintains a naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartous, and is a longtime major arms supplier to Syria’s President Bashar Assad, selling billions worth of weapons to the Syrian regime in recent years alone. Russian backing and weapons for Assad have played a big part in the carnage in which, since the revolt against Assad broke out in early 2011, more than 100,000 people have died (mostly due to conventional weapons).

On the international stage, President Vladimir Putin has been the leading figure running diplomatic interference for Assad. After the White House laid out its case on Friday that Assad on August 21 had used chemical weapons on a large scale, Putin dismissed the claims as “utter nonsense.” In further remarks, he taunted Obama that as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate he should refrain from any attack that might hurt Syrian civilians. At the United Nations, Russia, along with China, has repeatedly used its veto power at the SecurityCouncil to block action against the Syrian regime.

Nor does Putin’s hostility toward U.S. interests by any stretch stop with Syria. Last month, spurning Obama’s pleas, Russia granted asylum to fugitive former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, wanted for leaking NSA secrets. That followed weeks in which, while Snowden was believed to be hiding out in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport, Putin mocked U.S. authorities. Rather than turning over Snowden, he offered up such absurdities as the statement that Snowden would be allowed to stay in Russia on condition that “He must stop his work aimed at harming our American partners, as strange as that sounds coming from my lips.” It appears U.S. authorities are still trying to plumb the depths of the intelligence trove the Russians may have acquired at the expense of Putin’s “American partners.”

Russia’s asylum for Snowden briefly raised doubts in Washington about whether Obama should attend the G-20 summit now looming Sept. 5-6 in St. Petersburg. Obama’s compromise decision was to go, but to skip any bilateral meetings with Putin.

That half-measure may not save Obama from an awkward time at the summit. Russia holds the presidency of the G-20 for 2013, and as host of the occasion Putin may well enjoy the bully pulpit. The G-20 includes France, which is backing Obama on Syria. But the G-20 also includes China, Russia’s partner in running interference for Syria at the U.N. Security Council, and a major business partner of the Assad regime’s most intimate ally, Iran.

Nor will Obama be going to this economic summit with a clear course of action on Syria in his pocket. Is the idea to assemble a coalition of the willing on the sidelines of the Putin-hosted talks about sustainable global growth? What can Obama reliably promise right now on Syria? By his own decision, he is awaiting a congressional vote that will not take place till after he returns from the G-20. By all accounts, Congress now has a deluge of questions. The warships are waiting, the American public is wondering and the clock is ticking. It’s not too late for Obama to cancel his trip. Is this really a debate the president should be fielding while he sups as Putin’s guest in Russia?

Claudia Rosett is journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and heads its Investigative Reporting Project.

Issues:

International Organizations Russia Syria