[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    STEADY SUPPORT FOR RUSSIA: LOOKING BEYOND THE BUMPS IN THE ROAD

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am concerned by the calls that I have 
heard during the last few days for an abrupt change in United States 
policy toward Russia, including for an end to United States assistance. 
I agree that there are some disturbing sounds and images emanating from 
individuals in Russia: Provocative claims that Russia has a special 
interest in neighboring countries and nationalist cries for the unity 
of all Russians.
  The revelation that one of our senior CIA officials was spying for 
Russia is the latest bit of troublesome news. However, I believe that 
calls for us to disengage and to end our assistance program are hasty, 
counterproductive, and dangerous.
  I, like everyone else, am deeply troubled by the alleged activities 
of the CIA officer in question, including the possibility that he may 
have been responsible for the loss of lives. As I suggested to the 
Secretary of State at yesterday's Foreign Relations Committee hearing, 
however, it is naive to think that countries--even friends--do not spy 
on one another. While the United States should pursue the Ames case 
vigorously with the Russians, it would be inappropriate to retaliate by 
writing off Russia and shutting down our assistance program.
  At this delicate point in Russia's development, it is critical that 
we not lose sight of the big picture. Reformers are confronting uphill 
battles as they try to change fundamentally the way their economy and 
government operate, seek consensus on arms control issues that are of 
vital importance to the United States, and attempt to balance domestic 
concerns in making foreign policy decisions.
  Precisely because the reformers are facing challenges to their 
agendas, our continued commitment to support their reforms becomes even 
more crucial. Russia, left to its own devices, very well could become a 
loose cannon. If we want to prevent the emergence of a Russia that is 
hostile to the West, we must remain engaged.
  It is irrational to suggest that we put the brakes on a process that 
is in our national interest. At his appearance before our committee 
yesterday, Secretary of State Christopher testified that ``one of 
President Clinton's top national security priorities has been to ensure 
that the breakup of the former Soviet Union does not produce new 
nuclear states.'' He spoke of the progress we have made in this regard, 
and of our continued interest in controlling the spread of both nuclear 
and advanced conventional weapons. There are, as he reminded us, many 
challenges ahead, including the extension of the nonproliferation 
treaty in 1995, the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban, and the 
creation of a replacement regime for COCOM, all of which will require 
Russian cooperation. He outlined other areas of high priority for the 
United States--such as combatting terrorism and illegal narcotics--
where Russian engagement is crucial.

  In 1992, when the Congress passed the Freedom Support Act, we did so 
because we recognized that helping the New Independent States was in 
our national interest. This past fall, although we were facing 
difficult budgetary times, we fully funded the President's request of 
$2.5 billion in assistance for the NIS because we understood that 
reform in Russia and the other New Independent States needed our 
support during the difficult months and years ahead.
  I would argue that nothing has changed since Congress made those 
decisions: it is still in the national interest to operate programs 
with goals that include supporting privatization, the creation of a 
market for U.S. goods, democratization, and the transition from a 
defense-oriented to a civilian-based economy.
  It is important to remember that our bilateral aid program does not 
consist of cash handouts. Rather, under the Nunn-Lugar program, a major 
portion of our assistance effort, we are helping the Russians dismantle 
the very nuclear weapons which threatened us during the cold war. Under 
our technical assistance program, United States citizens are offering 
their expertise to Russian firms struggling to privatize, physicians 
modernizing health care, mayors implementing municipal reform, and 
farmers trying to improve production. United States private voluntary 
organizations, Peace Corps volunteers, and retired U.S. executives are 
among those working to support reforms at the grass roots level that 
will lay the foundation for further economic transformation. Our 
assistance package also includes programs, such as the American 
Business Centers, and the Russian American Enterprise Fund which 
directly benefit United States companies seeking to do business in 
Russia. Why on earth would we want to terminate or curtain U.S. 
involvement in and support for these activities?
  United States assistance efforts have just begun, with AID launching 
its technical assistance program a little more than a year ago. Our aid 
efforts are just starting to gain some momentum and show some 
preliminary results. But real results will only be evident over the 
long-term, and will require uninterrupted support. To cut back our 
assistance now would only ensure that our efforts to date have been a 
waste. I would strongly urge colleagues to stick by the commitment we 
have made to reform in Russia.

                          ____________________