Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> LawPundit

Legal Commentary

: LawPundit

U.S. President Bush Comments on the Upcoming Russian Presidential Election

By Andis Kaulins

In the February 28, 2008 Press Conference of the President of the United States, U.S. President George W. Bush had the following to say about the Russian Presidential Election which takes place tomorrow, March 2, 2008:

"Q Sir, I'd like to ask you about Russia. The Democratic candidates, when asked about the new Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, didn't appear to know a great deal about him. I wonder what you can say about him, how much power you think he's really got, with Putin still in the picture? And critics would say you badly misjudged Vladimir Putin. So what would be your cautionary tale to your successor about the threat Russia poses, and how to deal with this new leader?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know much about Medvedev either. And what will be interesting to see is who comes to the -- who represents Russia at the G8, for example. It will be interesting to see -- it will help, I think, give some insight as to how Russia intends to conduct foreign policy after Vladimir Putin's presidency. And I can't answer the question yet.

I can say that it's in our interests to continue to have relations with Russia. For example, on proliferation matters, it's in our interest to be able to make sure that materials that could cause great harm aren't proliferated. It's in our interest to work together on Iran. As I said I think in this room the last time I was here, I appreciated the fact that Vladimir Putin told the Iranians that they will provide -- they, Russia -- will provide enriched uranium to run the Bushehr power plant, thereby negating the need for the Iranians to enrich in the first place. I thought that was a constructive suggestion, and we need to be in a position to be able to work with Russia on Iran.

There's a lot of areas where -- yesterday, for example, with the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, I talked about a missile defense system in Europe, but I believe it's in our interests to try to figure out a way for the Russians to understand the system is not aimed at them, but aimed at the real threats of the 21st century, which could be a launch from a violent regime -- a launch of a weapon of mass destruction.

So there's areas, David, where we need to cooperate and -- let me finish -- and so it's -- I'm going to try to leave it so whoever my successor is will be able to have a relationship with whoever is running foreign policy in Russia. It's in the country's interest. That doesn't mean we have to agree all the time. I mean, obviously we didn't agree on Kosovo. There will be other areas where we don't agree. And yet it is in the interest of the country to have a relationship, leader to leader, and hopefully beyond that.

Q But first of all, are you suggesting, or are you worried that, in fact, Medvedev is a puppet for Vladimir Putin? And --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I wouldn't say that. That's your conclusion, not mine.

Q No, I'm asking the question about whether you're concerned. But isn't there something you took away that you can offer to your successor about how it's risky in the process of sizing up your Russian counterpart? Don't you think that you learned something from your time with Putin?

THE PRESIDENT: Here's what I learned -- here's what I learned: I learned that it's important to establish personal relations with leaders even though you may not agree with them -- certain leaders. I'm not going to have a personal relationship with Kim Jong-il, and our relationships are such that that's impossible.

But U.S.-Russian relations are important. It's important for stability. It's important for our relations in Europe. And therefore my advice is to establish a personal relationship with whoever is in charge of foreign policy in Russia. It's in our country's interest to do so.

Now, it makes it easier, by the way, when there's a trustworthy relationship, to be able to disagree and yet maintain common interests in other areas. And so we've had our disagreements. As you know, Putin is a straightforward, pretty tough character when it comes to his interests. Well, so am I. And we've had some head-butts, diplomatic head-butts. You might remember the trip to Slovakia. I think you were there at the famous press conference. But -- and yet, in spite of that, our differences of opinion, we still have got a cordial enough relationship to be able to deal with common threats and opportunities. And that's going to be important for the next President to maintain."

Frankly, we find those comments by Bush to be eminently sensible.

Our own opinion in fact is that Bush is an underrated President who took over the reigns in the White House at an inopportune time for Presidential popularity in that he was promptly faced with 9/11 and with the worldwide menace of advancing terrorism not just in the USA but also in Russia.

Take a look at the daily news items posted here to see the vast scope of the problem of world violence and unrest that leaders of nations have to face and deal with effectively -- and this difficult and often thankless task will fall equally to Obama, Clinton or McCain, regardless of who is elected in the US Presidential Election later this year. Also the coming US President will have to have an effective policy against terrorism, regardless of political party, and there are no magic formulas available.

It is always easy to say by hindsight what could have been done better, and many errors have surely been made, for which there have also been many successes, but we find it is always paramount to ask of critics: If YOU had carried the actual weight of responsibility of insuring the security of America AND the world in the wake of 9/11, as would have been your job as the U.S. President, what actions would you have taken, and what guarantee would the citizens have had for their security from your actions? We often ask this question of Bush critics, and frankly, we have not yet heard a satisfactory reply.

The way of peace is always best, but not if the opponent sticks to war.

As far as Russia is concerned, see the comprehensive analyses about Russia by Dmitri Trenin at the website of the Carnegie Moscow Center, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which also features an article by Mark Medish on A George Washington Monument, Putin Style, who writes about the Putin-Medvedev tandem government:

"The most obvious question is the constitutional division of powers. Putin has been at pains to remind people that the prime minister is ?the highest executive power in the country.? Putin protests too much. The president has the discretion to dismiss a prime minister?as Putin did twice. It is the president who is commander in chief and sits in the mighty Kremlin. Thus, Putin is gambling that his supreme authority is portable outside the fortress walls. Furious efforts are reportedly under way to divide the spoils and lock key personnel into a matrix of appointments that will ensure the warring factions are satisfied and Putin controls the levers of power. But this scramble only highlights the underlying weakness of the Russian political system: Institutions are weak, patronage is king, and legitimacy runs thin."

Full post as published by LawPundit on March 01, 2008 (boomark / email).