Globalist Perspective >
Global Diplomacy Bush and Putin as Leaders: The Ties That Bind
By Jonathan A. Becker | Friday, July 14, 2006
Despite on-going criticism about Russia's democratic deficit, relations between the United States and Russia continue to be at historical highs. What does this reveal about the notoriously strong relationship between George Bush and Vladimir Putin? Jonathan Becker argues that the Bush-Putin relationship goes deeper than a mere friendship.
President Bush departs to St. Petersburg for the G8 meetings, much discussion is focused on his host, Vladimir Putin, If the war on terror is the policy that drives and unites Presidents Putin and Bush, a commitment to the supremacy of the executive branch gives them a shared approach to governance. in the light of the deteriorating state of freedoms in Russia and U.S.-Russian tensions over issues such as Iran's nuclear program and the establishment of Western-leaning governments in Georgia and Ukraine.
Some have called for Mr. Bush to cancel his trip, or at least to upbraid his increasingly authoritarian colleague.
However, those hoping for President Bush to launch a new Cold War are likely to be disappointed. U.S.-Russian relations are built on the foundation of strong presidential relations. It is unlikely that anything will loosen the special ties that bind Messrs. Bush and Putin.
A special friendship
There is ample evidence of a robust Bush-Putin friendship. Beyond his famous remarks about, "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul," Bush has repeatedly referred to Putin as his "good friend." Even after Putin opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he declared "I love him, believe it or not."
Bush's love of Putin is not unrequited. Putin was the first foreign leader to speak to the president after the 9/11 attacks. He also broke diplomatic protocol by all but endorsing Bush's reelection in 2004.
Similar leadership styles
He claimed that a Bush defeat "could lead to America and Russia are undergoing a convergence of sorts. However, rather than Russia adopting liberal democracy, the United States may be moving closer to a Russian notion of managed democracy. the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world." He also supported Mr. Bush's policy in Iraq by asserting, much to everyone's surprise - including his staff's - that Russian intelligence services possessed information that proved that Saddam Hussein's regime had planned attacks on U.S. soil.
So what makes the relationship work so well? The answer lies not only in some broad notion of friendship, but in more enduring bonds that are derived from a surprisingly similar leadership style, a common sense of purpose - and a comparable approach to governance.
Presidents Bush and Putin have leadership styles that emphasize strength and decisiveness. Both talk tough and like to show their macho sides.
Talking tough
Putin, then an unknown new prime minister, effectively introduced himself to the nation by declaring vulgarly that Russian forces would kill Chechen terrorists "in the outhouse." When Russian diplomats were recently killed in Iraq, he did not mince words, stating that Russian special forces would "find and kill" those responsible.
George W. Bush has demonstrated similar bravado, indicating that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," and issuing a now infamous challenge to the Iraqi insurgency to "bring it on."
Fighting terror
Each had his "Top Gun" moment before an adoring national press. Bush "helped" fly an S-3B Viking to the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to make a speech declaring the "end" to major military combat in Iraq. Three years earlier, and less than a month before his first presidential election, then acting President Putin co-piloted an Su-27 from Krasnodar to Grozny, the capital of Chechnya.
Both presidents are identified with the fight against terror - and their leadership credentials are inextricably intertwined with that fight.
The media images of the two presidents, resplendent in their flight suits, are remarkably similar. Both leaders are extremely secretive and rely on inner circles to guide them. Both demand total loyalty and can be brutal to those who cross them. Both are also inclined to attack the news media, which they see as irritants at best.
If there is one issue that unites George Bush and Vladimir Putin it is their commitment to fight terrorism. Both presidents are identified with the fight against terror - and their leadership credentials are inextricably intertwined with that fight. Their respective wars on terror also drive their self-images as leaders with a transcendent purpose.
Historical missions
A new war in Chechnya helped Vladimir Putin vault from being just another in a long line of Boris Yeltsin's prime ministers - the fifth in 18 months - to becoming Russia's second president. He has called the war in Chechnya his "historical mission," and has steadfastly refused any compromise with Chechen rebels.
The "war on terror" transformed Mr. Bush from a vacation-loving meanderer who had lost focus into a "war president." He has expressed a belief that he was chosen by the grace of God to be the leader of the United States at the time of 9/11, and his conduct of the war reflects that certitude.
He has tended so far to rely far more on the beliefs of ideologues than the views of seasoned experts or the facts on the ground.
A uniting and dividing force
If the war on terror is the policy that drives and unites Presidents Putin and Bush, a commitment to the supremacy of the executive branch gives them a shared approach to governance.
Each had his "Top Gun" moment before an adoring national press. Bush "helped" fly an S-3B Viking, and President Putin co-piloted an Su-27.
Three terms sum up Putin's governing principles: "managed democracy," "dictatorship of the law," and the "vertikal" (vertical power). Taken together, they mean that Putin has taken the Yeltsin-era constitution, which already places inordinate authority in the presidency, to an extreme.
Managed democracy implies significant limits on political freedoms, including state control over all major national television stations and the use of administrative resources to ensure Putin's re-election and the election of a loyal parliament.
Selective application
It has also meant that substantial limits have been placed on civil society, including onerous registration requirements for non-governmental organizations that could challenge the government.
Dictatorship of law essentially boils down to the selective application of legal principles, often the tax code, to eliminate potential rivals, particularly businessmen who interfere with politics. It has ensured that the likes of Vladimir Gusinsky and Mikhail Khodorkovsky have been, respectively, exiled and jailed - and that the state has stripped them of their media and energy assets.
Centralization of power
The vertikal has seen the further centralization of power through the emasculation of Russia's system of federalism. The most significant change occurred after the Beslan tragedy in which hundreds of So what makes the relationship work so well? The answer lies not only in some broad notion of friendship, but in a surprisingly similar leadership style. schoolchildren were killed, when Putin implemented a "reform" to ensure that henceforth governors would no longer be popularly elected - but named by Moscow.
To top things off, governor after governor then appeared on state-run television to stress how wise the decision was to ensure that they no longer be elected by the people.
The idea that Bush's commitment to executive supremacy is solely derived from the demands of the war on terror - an argument made in light of the scandals of Camp Gitmo, the violations of the Geneva accords and the NSA wiretap scandal - is belied by his reliance, since the start of his administration, on the hitherto obscure notion of the "unitary executive."
Vertical governance
This is Bush's version of vertikal for the federal government with the executive at the top of the pyramid, and the separation of powers essentially obliterated.
The unitary executive holds that that the executive - not the legislative - branch defines the intent of laws and can control and limit Congressional oversight over executive actions. Executive primacy is assured through presidential signing statements that accompany bills put into law.
Towards a managed democracy?
The actions of the Bush Administration point to a great irony. Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, America and Russia Both leaders are extremely secretive and rely on inner circles to guide them. Both demand total loyalty and can be brutal to those who cross them. are undergoing a form of convergence of sorts.
However, rather than Russia adopting liberal democracy and a market economy, as so many had predicted, the United States may be moving closer to a more traditionally Russian notion of managed democracy, in which executive authority reigns and the rights of citizens take a back seat to the needs of the state.
The American system still has a long way to go to match Russia's managed democracy, but if Mr. Bush's policies go unchecked, the United States might one day catch up with the country of his kindred spirit.