Which Is A Better Ally, Russia Or China?

Gordon G. Chang

The answer is neither.

In Moscow this week, President Obama scored two major accomplishments. He agreed to a framework for making deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals of both countries and obtained Russia's permission to use its airspace for resupplying our forces in Afghanistan. According to one report, the trip was hailed by the Russians as "groundbreaking."

These are the headlines. But what is the back story?

The back story involves the nation that was not present in the Moscow discussions: China. China, in the days of Mao Zedong, saw the Soviet Union as its great adversary. Now it calls the Russian Federation a "strategic partner."

The partnership between Moscow and Beijing may be informal still, but this decade the two capitals have worked hard to strengthen ties. In 2001, the world's two largest authoritarian states signaled the end of the Sino-Soviet split by inking a comprehensive treaty.

The State Department, at the time, dismissed the pact as a mere expression of friendship--what else could American diplomats say in the circumstances?--but it looked like the beginning of a long-term alliance. In any event, China and Russia have been busy in recent years establishing military ties, reinvigorating trade and settling border disputes.

And why shouldn't they? Both nations are deeply suspicious of the West. They see themselves as rising powers. They want to reorder the international system. They share many friends. They identify the same adversary.

And which adversary might that be? In recent years, Vladimir Putin has been calling America "Comrade Wolf." China's diplomats are more discreet, but Beijing is full of policy analysts who are not. "China is not America's ally and never will be," noted a prominent academic a few years ago, voicing a common sentiment in the Chinese capital.

President George W. Bush hoped his personal brand of diplomacy with Putin would create a partnership between their two nations, but that effort failed. Russia, during the Bush years, ramped up its support for Iran's nuclear weapons program, invaded small Georgia and tried to destabilize the young democracy of Ukraine. And as Putin undermined his own country's fragile institutions by eliminating opponents, gagging the media and reorganizing the government, he added one more irritant in Moscow's relations with the world's most powerful democracy.

As Claudia Rosett pointed out on Thursday, we can't hit the "reset button" with an autocratic Russia, no matter how hard we try. But history is repeating itself. We now have in Washington another administration with a coldly realistic brand of foreign policy. Like Nixon, Obama sees the importance of separating the Russians from the Chinese. And if there is any justification for the president's foray into Moscow, marked by lofty language and gestures of friendship, it is the hope that we can get the Kremlin to help contain Beijing.

Is that possible? For one thing, Moscow is particularly vulnerable. The World Bank, which normally produces optimistic forecasts, estimates that this year Russia's gross domestic product will contract by 7.9% this year. Last year, by way of contrast, its economy grew by 5.6%.

As energy prices continue their general decline, there is little hope for Russian recovery in the near term. The mercantilist Chinese are willing to trade with the Russians, but they are not willing to develop a mutually beneficial economic relationship. The Kremlin, at this moment, needs a friend.

But can that friend be America? The past, we know, shows that the United States can only temporarily accommodate Russian authoritarianism in its various forms. Obama's outreach might achieve some small successes, but, if we learned anything from Bush's engagement of the Kremlin, the new president is likely to fail in the long term.

Does that mean we are doomed to see a lasting alliance between the Dragon and the Bear? No.

For one thing, even as fraternal communists, they were often trading barbs and sometimes gunfire. Today, each giant has reasons for avoiding a full embrace of the other. Both need foreign markets, so each of them believes that its links with the West are more valuable than its relations with the other. Moreover, both of them are increasingly arrogant, assertive and self-centered, and what makes these countries such difficult partners for America and Europe also makes them uncertain friends for each other.

And in some aspects Moscow and Beijing are even adversaries. They compete for influence in Central Asia and, worse, Iran. As they vie for Tehran's affections, they end up supporting the theocracy and thereby make solutions to Middle East problems remote. The Russians are especially concerned the Chinese will spill over their common border and inhabit their depopulated lands, and the Kremlin is alarmed about arming Beijing, a past and potential adversary, with its front-line planes, destroyers and submarines.

So the Russians and the Chinese deserve each other. In the long run, it's best for America to avoid tarnishing its ideals with attempts to appease the Bear--or seek the friendship of the Dragon. There's a much better strategy for Washington, and we can describe it in one word: India.

If we learned anything in the 20th century, it is that nothing is more powerful than a coalition of democracies; no alliances more enduring than those of like-minded liberal states. So it's time to discard notions that we need any authoritarian regime. India, the planet's most populous democracy, will eventually pass China in the world's demography rankings to claim the top spot.

So, President Obama, of course you don't want to poke Putin in the eye, but there's no need for you to curry favor with the dour autocrat either. Let me introduce you to Prime Minister Singh.

Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.