The Reemergence of the Iron Curtain
While the Bush administration has lost its ability to assert itself internationally, the void in cohesive diplomatic power combined with fluctuating energy markets has created the opportunity for problematic relationships to develop outside of the Western spheres. China, a country high on energy demand and human rights abuse, and Russia, supplier of ever more tainted and corrupt oil, have become important trading partners. With the United States and Great Britain’s involvement in Iraq, NATO’s deployment in Afghanistan, and the short-term reliance on Russian gas in continental Europe, China and Russia have built a viable economic partnership as both continually support undemocratic and rogue states. While this has not manifested into a full-fledged political partnership, both China and Russia are increasingly agreeing on international issues that demand multilateral efforts.
In the first three months of 2006, bilateral trade between Russia and China exceeded $12 billion or up 53% year-on-year, and “it is only a beginning,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said during the SCO meeting June 15-16. “We have discussed military-technical cooperation — the volumes are very large, worth billions of dollars — and we intend to sustain these volumes”. On the sidelines of the high-profile bilateral summit meetings at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) sessions, Russian and Chinese officials reiterated earlier pledges to develop trade and investment cooperation (Sergei Blagov, Jamestown Foundation). The foundation of the agreements have been China’s energy demand and the Russian ability to supply crude oil, with neither having issues with one another’s pocked human rights record. The economic agreements are strengthened by similar aspirations towards Iran and North Korea, with the West desperately seeking each diplomatic support.
On the question of Russia, concerns of autocracy, bullying of NGO’s and political opposition, and the movement away from democracy and free enterprise have been shelved by the reality of energy demands and the hosting of the G-8 conference in St. Petersburg As Pavel Baev of the Jamestown Foundation enumerates, “The main topic President Putin, in his capacity as chairman, has put forward for joint consideration is energy security — and this seemingly uncontroversial headline has evolved into an explosive and bitterly contested proposition. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Russia defines its energy security interests in such a way that would maximize the political dividends derived from the fact that it is by far the largest producer of energy in the world” and that “In the last public events before the summit Putin has exuded a confidence that no unpleasant questions about Russia’s retreat from democracy will spoil the meticulously planned schedule of photo-ops, small talk, and long toasts. Meeting with the participants of a broad international forum of NGOs in Moscow, he asserted that the G-8 had neither the time nor the intention to discuss human rights.” Energy security, the trump card in international affairs currently, has been used by the Russians to evade all conversations about internal reform and forced the West to create more lenience in comprises with Putin on international efforts.
While Dick Cheney has been critical of Russian interference in former Soviet republics, Mr. Bush looks to take a more muted voice into the G-8 conferences. This extends to European countries as well, with the inability to broker a deal with Iran over nuclear ambitions a continual topic that will debilitate the conversation with Putin: “and for now a deal on Iran’s nuclear aspirations still remains within that category of “possible.” For European leaders it also makes perfect political sense not to irritate the extra-sensitive host. Everybody will be on their best behavior — but it is quite possible that the club of politically super-correct leaders will fall victim to this “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” ritual.”
In the Washington Post, Fred Hiatt notes what is really remarkable about the G-8 conference, “is that Putin has become a leader and an emblem of an active movement to combat the spread of democracy.” China and Russia do not only support anti-democratic regimes throughout the world, but actively support them. Hiatt speaks of the latest example, “last week of how the Kremlin has eliminated Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts from most Russian radio stations without formally banning the programming — instead harassing, insinuating and threatening to revoke licenses — provides a good example.”, and the mimicking and importing of anti-democratic practices in other nations, “And the rebounding dictators are learning from each other. In January, Putin signed legislation regulating nongovernmental organizations that will give 30,000 bureaucrats the option of revoking the registration of any troublesome group. Now Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe are pushing similar legislation. China reportedly sent researchers to Uzbekistan and other former Soviet states to compare notes on democracy countermeasures; meanwhile, Belarus’ dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, “reportedly acquired China’s latest internet monitoring and control technology while in Beijing in December 2005,” NED reported.” China and Russia, with the West unable to react, have had a free hand at reasserting their prominence within their spheres of influence and building political allies across the globe.
While the efforts of China and Russia have not been formalized beyond economics and trade, the increased cooperation of the two states means a new shift in the diplomatic arena. Russia, the closet partner in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and China, the man behind the North Korean and Sudanese curtain, have been viewed as the key partners to restoring order to these hot button issues. And for that exact reason, anti-democratic efforts facilitated by Russia and China have not been checked as diplomatic and economic reality trump political ideals.
