THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: S4159]

• [Begin insert]

He recently had an article in the New York Times, commenting on the things that we ought to be doing in Russia. It is the best article like that I have seen from anyone. It is practical and yet it understands that you have to give people dreams.

One of the most telling statements in the whole article of the comment that someone in Russia made to him: `In the 1930's, when the Soviet Union was building Stalinist Communism, thousands of Americans came to Russia to help. Now, when we're trying to build a market-oriented democracy, few Americans offer to help. Why?'

That is a question we ought to ask ourselves.

We have to respond. And the Bradley article points out practical ways of doing it.

Our colleague has made a solid contribution.

I ask to insert the Bill Bradley article into the Record at this point.

The article follows:

From the New York Times, Mar. 24, 1993

The Right Stuff for Russia

Washington: The need to clarify U.S. policy toward Russia has been heightened by the political crisis in Moscow. Our long-term interests there can be promoted by practical aid and people-to-people programs.

Boris Yeltsin's solution to the impasse between a popularly elected President and a Parliament that, under the Constitution, is the supreme organ of the state shows he believes the answer to the problems of emerging democracy is more democracy. He has cast his fate on the seas of his own waning but still significant popularity.

In an atmosphere in which individuals regularly switch opinions and sides, the U.S. should not try to intervene in Russia's day-to-day politic concerns such as: Should the Parliament impeach Mr. Yeltsin in light of the Constitutional Court's ruling yesterday that his announcement of emergency powers violated the Constitution? Should concessions be made for the support of Vice President Aleksandr Ruskoi? Russians, not Americans, will decide these problems. But Washington ought to keep open the lines of communication to all sides.

Beyond the political drama are the large issues that Russian society is debating: whether it should seek integration with the West or exist apart from the West. Whether it will focus inward on its gargantuan economic, environmental and ethnic problems or look imperially toward the former republics of the Soviet Union and beyond.

Whether free enterprise and private property will be actively promoted or barely tolerated. Whether more power should be dispersed to the oblasts and autonomous republics of the Russian Federation or exercised exclusively from Moscow.

Whether Russia should adopt a model of economic development that is economically and politically liberal or one in which, like China, it would seek Western capital, technology and markets but deny individual freedom while preserving collectivist controls.

Russia opts for the Chinese model, America and Europe could end up espousing open trade, free markets and democracy but be unable, in the 21st century, to advance our values and compete freely in a vast area from Kaliningrad to Shanghai that plays by different rules and starts from different cultural principles.

I hope President Clinton thinks about the long term. Since August 1991, America has moved at a dangerously slow pace, giving Russians who want to regard reform an opportunity to blame us for our empty promises.

To play a more constructive role, we need to see America's relationship with Russia beyond tomorrow's headlines and with emphasis on improving the lives of American and Russian citizens.

With the defeat of Communism, there is no ideological conflict between our nations. We should make it absolutely clear that we support both Russia and our own values. This means respecting the human rights of the 25 million Russians who live as minorities in the former Soviet republics, avoiding encouragement to the movements of self-determination in the 20 autonomous republics of the Russian Federation such as Checheno-Ingush and Tatarstan, and giving Russian history and culture the respect they deserve.

Such actions will make clear to all Russians that we are not anti-Russian. It was the expansionist Communist system, not Russian culture, that we opposed.

America's values and interests are served by helping Russia become a democracy with a market-oriented economy that raises its living standards, with a smaller defense establishment, with a firm commitment to guarantee individual human rights and with the acceptance of free-flowing capital, trade and ideas.

In other words, our objective should be to normalize relations with Russia and the other former Soviet republics and to bring them into the international system as full members.

Russia's main worry lies to the east, where an emerging Chinese colossus with a booming economy and a modernizing military maintains its territorial claims on Russia, and to the south, where the people of Islam, full of religious fervor and rapid birth rates, yearn for greatness. A strong U.S.-Russian relationship can reassure Russia and hedge against changes that would injure U.S. interests in Europe and Asia.

The Clinton Administration should adopt a tangible and nonbureaucratic program that has a permanent effect and not only helps Russia but also Ukraine, the Baltics, Kazakhstan and the other former republics on the road to reform.

With U.S. leadership, the West should reduce the burden of foreign debt on the economy accumulated during the Communist years by rescheduling it and promoting debt-equity swaps, replace the 17 Chernobyl-type reactors that are time bombs threatening Europe and the world with radioactive emissions, and send far more humanitarian aid (medicine, food, infant formula, syringes) for suffering pensioners and children.

In addition, the World Bank should provide insurance coverage (similar to that offered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation) to private investors in the farming and energy sectors. We need to push multilateral financing for trade in oil and gas equipment, and provide additional assistance to nuclear scientists and scientific institutes to convert from military to civilian pursuits.

We should help Russian refugees from the former Soviet republics get resettled and started in private farming by giving the green light to lending by the World Bank, and should combine help for a social safety net with radical monetary reform that could stabilize the ruble, provided that Russia caps its money supply and controls inflation.

In addition to its support for international financial institutions, this program would cost the U.S. $3 billion to $5 billion a year: between 1 and 2 percent of our defense budget.

The most important long-term consideration is to maximize the personal ties of Russians, Ukrainians, Balts, Kazakhs and others with Americans. A Russian friend in Moscow said: `In the 1930's, when the Soviet Union was building Stalinist Communism, thousands of Americans came to Russia to help. Now, when we're trying to build a market-oriented democracy, few Americans offer to help. Why?' I did not have a good answer.

We should begin a large-scale exchange program bringing tens of thousands of Russians here annually. Last year, there were nearly 50,000 Chinese in our colleges, as there has been for a decade, and 127,000 students from Taiwan, Japan, India and Singapore. There were only 1,200 Russians.

Nothing short of a large-scale sharing of ideas, people and training will accomplish our goals of economic prosperity and political security for Russia, its neighbors and ourselves.

I hope that President Clinton encourages Americans to reach out generously toward the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and the other republics. There should be 30,000 Russian high school students living with American families for a year, 10,000 Russians in small business in towns across America, 10,000 college students at our universities and thousands of former military officers learning modern banking, finance and accounting in the West.

We can help young people learn what life in a market-oriented democracy with a heart is all about. They will see America's openness, generosity and pride at work. Their experience would bring our peoples together in countless ways, creating bonds that would last a lifetime. As the Russians get ready to decide their future in the streets or, preferably, at the ballot box, we should step forward on many fronts with solid help for their country.

• [End insert]

[Page: S4160]

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display