| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Russia and China Reconsidered |
| 2006-07-12 |
| By Tony Blankley Russia and China seem to have the United States -- at least publicly-- flummoxed. In recent days, President Bush has praised China as "a good partner to have at the table with us" regarding North Korean negotiations. This week, he has cited his "good friendship" with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yesterday, Bush praised Putin for his "helpful role" in diplomacy on the same day it was revealed that the Russian government forced Russian radio stations to stop broadcasting news from Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. And, since 2001, Bush has talked about America's "strategic partnership" with Russia. It is true that often diplomacy requires a statesman to insincerely publicly express friendship with nations that are well understood not to be friends. Such public diplomatic utterances become of concern only if they betoken an actual assessment of the nations' relationships. In the cases of China and Russia, there is evidence that our government still sees them as partners in a dangerous world. We all should wish that they were partners -- or could be in the future. I am not in the camp that sees either of those great powers as inevitable enemies. And we should constantly direct our foreign policy toward gaining as amicable relations as possible with each of them (while, of course, being ever vigilant and prepared to deal with their hostility as it may emerge). But it is becoming increasingly suggestive that currently it would be a miscalculation to premise our actions on the assumption that either Russia or China view themselves as our partners in any meaningful use of that word. Regarding the North Korean missile controversy, China would appear to be opposing our aims. While China told us before the missile launches that they were pressing North Korea not to launch, North Korea's non-compliance would suggest that China did not really insist. After all, China can turn on and off the energy and food spigot to impoverished North Korea. While one cannot be sure of these things, the better judgment is that China is perfectly happy to have their ward, North Korea, continue to show up American impotence. Each time we make and then withdraw various deadlines, American diplomatic credibility is reduced worldwide. (As we pointed out last week in a Washington Times editorial.) Whether it pleases China to let this humiliation continue, or whether China finally enforces its mandate on North Korea (perhaps in exchange for an American concession to China on some unrelated economic or foreign policy matter), the conclusion must be accepted that China is not "our good partner to have at the table." The sad fact is that America currently is not able to stop North Korea short of military action -- which at this moment would be an act of wanton recklessness on our part. It is true that we have been and continue to be squeezing North Korea semi-covertly through economic, naval and other means -- which may over time coerce North Korea to more acceptable behavior. But such factors will not be determinative in the current missile controversy. Thus our government looks increasingly foolish and pathetic as we plead to "our partner," China, to bail the world out. Rather, we should start, and then ratchet up, our public criticism of China for not being a responsible member of the international community. They should pay an international price for their irresponsibility. With their Olympics coming up, they may even give a damn for a while. With Russia, the story is a longer and sadder one. After the fall of Soviet Russia, there were high hopes in the West that Russia would become what it had never quite been: a part of the West. And after Sept. 11, 2001, there seemed a genuine opportunity to unite with Russia in common cause against our mutual mortal threat: radical Islam. But whether due to high-handed American foreign policy and annoying demands for American-style democracy in Russia, or whether out of Russia's historic otherness, it is now quite clear that Putin's Russia is ably crafting an independent stance. Those who thought Russia would ever become our junior partner in the western alliance were probably never realistic. When I was last in Russia, before Christmas last year, meeting with leading politicians, academics and media people to discuss my book on Islam and the clash of civilizations, the central point made by almost all my interlocutors was that Russia was its own civilization -- not part of the West. Across the partisan and ideological Russian spectrum, their deep Russian pride -- and their fury at what they saw as America's exploitation of their temporary weakness after the fall of the Soviet regime -- made it clear to me that Russia intended to chart a fully independent course. Ironically, the high oil prices caused in part by the Middle East turmoil has made it possible for Russia to finance such an independent foreign policy. This doesn't make Russia our enemy. But it requires us to recalibrate our expectation that Russia will behave like a partner in seeing their own interest advanced by advancing our common international interests. We may well have common ventures with Russia, but they will be hammered out on a case by case basis -- not as friends or enemies -- but dispassionately as two independent peoples who do not see a common path to a common future. It would be dangerous to be in a world without partners. But it would be more dangerous to see friendship where none exists. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #9 Russia is still still pissed-off about our interference in the Ukraine, Georgia, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria issues. Putin wants to put the Soviet Union back together so bad he can't stand it. So now we get a little payback for that. As for NKor, I don't believe there will be an attack from us. We will simply help our allies, Japan,Skor,India,Australia, and Taiwan build their armies with technology and cooperation. A backbreaking,nerve racking game of chess to be sure, but the only one that has a reasonable outlook. Utter annihilation of NKOR is not really something that would be charactaristic of us. Unless he starts throwing around WMD's, then all bets are off. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-07-12 20:37 |
| #8 Assume the ChiComs and Russkies will oppose us diplomatically on every relevant issue. Next? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-07-12 17:33 |
| #7 "Why is it in their interest to destabilize Nork?" The options on North Korea are limited. If anyone has the chance to change the governments in North Korea without destabalizing it China is the one. An invite to Kim to visit China, a word to a top general while he's out of town. Coup's happen. The other option is the collapse of North Korea, the eventual reunification of Korea (with nukes) and a remilitarized Japan. Given the two options China would be idiotic not to attempt a coup, work to unifying the Koreas on their terms so that it becomes a client state (the young in South Korea already buy the propoganda) or at least a neutral, non-nuclear, state. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-07-12 15:38 |
| #6 Their ego/history wouldn't allow it. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-07-12 12:55 |
| #5 Russia can only look at envy towards Germany and Japan. They at least got to be reconstituted by the US after they lost their wars to it and they still have American occupation troops keeping the peace 60 years later. Russia's big mistake was not to ask to be occupied and reconstituted by the US in 1991. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-12 09:59 |
| #4 "Rusland bleibt Rusland" (Russia remains Russia) -- an old German saying. No matter how much Russia might be tempered with its very new experiment with democracy, both it and China have a tremendous amount of historical baggage that will never free them from their unpleasant behavior. This ingrained breeding goes right over the heads of the internationalist intellectuals, who believe that if they just have enough committee meetings and dedicated bureaucrats, then pigs shall soar aloft with the seagulls. But the bottom line is that it just isn't natural. Russia and China will retain their essential character, even if it destroys them, as it well might. But theirs has never been a way of partnership. It is unnatural to them. They might embrace it momentarily, but soon it becomes intolerable, and they revert to xenophobia and isolationism. In its own way and right, the US is the same with asserting its prerogatives. But the US has the double advantage of not having an ancient history, nor having only a single ethnic or cultural background. Thus the US never fully partners, nor does it become fully isolationist any more. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-12 09:55 |
| #3 Disagreement here. What is this assumption that Russia and China will carry our water. Nations have permanent interests, not permanenet allies. China is not the problem, North Korea is. China may not have much more leverage on Korea than we, It's just not as transparent. We could as easily quarantine NKor as China could cut off the trains. But if China destabilizes Norkland, the starving millions head to China for a meal. Why is it in their interest to destabilize Nork? Likewise Russia doesn't have its act together. That's news? That doesn't make them an enemy, or even a player. I can't believe Blankley ever took the "partner" BS to heart. He knows how long partnerships last. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-12 09:54 |
| #2 They're competitors desperately searching for some sort of international Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the means to enforce it. The UN and behind the scenes trading and bartering is the best they can come up with. The alternative [gasp] would be to offer a better service or product. Unfortunately, such an item is an anathema to their being. |
| Posted by: Chereper Whush1804 2006-07-12 09:43 |
| #1 Yep, What he said! |
| Posted by: DanNY 2006-07-12 06:34 |