Problems in US–Russia Relations due to Putin’s Return Are Good for China

Russia is currently carrying out a presidential election that is completely devoid of any suspense. According to a Phoenix Media report on Mar. 4, Putin’s votes had already passed 66 percent, ensuring that his return as president is about to become reality.

As someone who believes in the value of democracy, and who supports the democratic process of any country, I have always had deep concerns over Putin’s return. Although this election was allegedly carried out under a democratic system, in reality it is a mockery of the entire democratic process, and one that leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of those who truly cherish and treasure democracy.

The reason that democracies all have limited terms for their elected leaders is because the designers of the system all knew that even if an outstanding and capable person were to take office, it would be impossible to guarantee that he or she would always remain an excellent ruler. More importantly, the foundation of democracies is based on an understanding of the “evil nature” of humans: that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The longer a ruler is in charge, the more power he possesses. The chances that the ruler will be enticed increase, meaning that the potential for corruption or abuse of power also rises. Even more important is the fact that if a ruler’s hold on office lasts long enough, his power may grow so strong that he is actually able to overthrow the democratic system itself. By serving multiple terms, a president can amend the constitution to allow himself to become a lifelong ruler. History has never been short of these types of precedents; Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is just such an example.

Putin stepped down as president in 2008 and served for four years as prime minister, allowing him to avoid reproach for serving three consecutive terms. But, as everyone knows, there was virtually no difference between him and the president during Putin’s four years as prime minister. Initially, people had hoped that Medvedev and Putin would have a run-off for president, but it turns out that the two of them had reached a tacit agreement (either through Medvedev’s willingness or by being forced). Medvedev was nothing more than a pawn for Putin to use to allow him to evade laws limiting presidents to only two consecutive terms. Furthermore, Putin also used Medvedev to change the constitution, so that the term of the president was extended from four years to six years. Due to these changes, and the assumption that he again serves consecutive terms, Putin’s retaking of office in 2012 will allow him to serve until 2024. Counting from his first term as president in 2000, Putin’s overall rule of Russia will be a quarter of a century long, and this is assuming that he does not change the constitution again. If Putin decides to change the constitutional rules regarding the number of consecutive terms a president can serve, his rule over Russia will only depend on his health status! Would this type of Russia still be a democratic one?

Some will say that no matter what, this decision should belong to the Russian people. That might be the case. But Hitler’s rise to power was the choice of the German people as well. Those who are taking shortcuts are the ones who cannot see into the distance. However, as an observer who can possibly see quite clearly what is happening, how can one not bring attention to the danger ahead?

However, as a Chinese person, especially as a Chinese person who researches and studies international affairs, I cannot help but point out that Putin’s election is also beneficial to China. It will help improve China’s unfavorable status in the games between superpowers.

The reason is because present-day America, in all its global supremacy, is facing the tough choice of deciding who is its greatest enemy and/or threat: China or Russia? Although America is very strong and powerful, it could not bear pitting itself against two of the world’s strongest countries. Right after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. did not make its plan regarding this issue clear. On the one hand, President Clinton was trying to cozy up to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. On the other hand, Clinton was trying to establish a constructive strategic partnership with China. But since the Cold War had just ended, and the American-led NATO was still busy trying to occupy the strategic spaces that had just opened up, America’s strategic conflicts with Russia were far greater than those with China.

During George W. Bush’s term, although he was a bit antagonistic toward China upon coming into office, Bush quickly improved relations with China due to concerns stemming from the need to fight terrorism. Bush even went so far as to brand himself a “friend of the Chinese people” at a time when he bid farewell to the best period for Sino-U.S. relations. However, regarding Russia, Bush held no favorable opinions. This was due to the fact that America’s strategic focus was on the Middle East, an area in which Russia has a deep interest. As a result, the conflicts between Russia and the U.S. were again greater than those between China and the U.S. Once again, Sino-U.S. relations continued to be better than Russia-U.S. relations.

The arrival of Obama brought some changes. Obama focused on China’s economic potential and was fully aware that it was China, not Russia or terrorism, that was the biggest threat to the U.S. As a result, after taking power, Obama carried out a strategic move to the East, which was in reality a redeployment of forces to the Asia-Pacific region, to contain China. Regarding Russia, Obama declared that he wanted to reset Russia-U.S. relations. Suddenly, conflicts in Sino-U.S. relations were greater than those found in Russia-U.S. relations.

However, Putin’s return as president will perhaps change this situation. One reason is that Americans have simply never really liked Putin, but found Medvedev, who appeared much more liberal, endearing. The second reason is that Putin’s popularity is not what it once was. Moreover, the effects of Putin’s long-term use of economic gains to earn political support are beginning to diminish, meaning that he may very likely use a policy of appearing defiant against foreign powers as a means to consolidate his position. Russia has never quite fit in with the West and has always been a bit antagonistic to the U.S. and Europe. Russia is unable to truly merge into the U.S.-led Western world and, therefore, is bound to clash with the U.S. on almost every issue. Adding to this is the fact that the situation in the Middle East has slipped into a stalemate, due to the crises in places like Syria and Iran. These developments will hamper America’s shift to the East. As a result, U.S.-Russian conflicts may gradually begin to appear. This, of course, is beneficial to China. Not only will the U.S. not be able to methodically set up obstacles to China’s path, but Russia, in an attempt to handle the West, will seek more help from China. Originally, this writer believed that, because of Obama’s shift to the East, China’s strategic international era would prematurely come to an end. However, if the aforementioned events do occur, China’s period of strategic opportunity can perhaps be extended.

Of course, the window of opportunity will not always be there. China’s ability to rise smoothly ultimately depends on curing its “chronic illnesses” in internal affairs, especially our lack of democratic “vitamins” and “medicine.” At this time, we should be taking note of how Russia is throwing away the bottle of democratic “pills” and is choosing to ignore its own need for “vitamins.” The reality is that Russia never really took its “medicine” but, instead, is content to incorrectly believe that it is not “sick” or that the “medicine” is no good. Nothing could be further from the truth!