[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         CLINTON UKRAINE POLICY

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 2, 1994

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the following article 
from the Washington Post to the attention of Congress and the American 
people. The article states, Mr. Speaker, that Clinton administration 
officials, and I quote, ``have declared repeatedly that military aid to 
Ukraine in the event of an attack by Russia is out of the question.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that this remarkable passage go into the 
Record. For quite frankly, I believe Russia and Ukraine may be headed 
for war. If this should happen, everyone will be looking for 
scapegoats. We need look no farther than this article, Mr. Speaker. The 
Clinton administration is greasing the skids for this confrontation 
with its weak, ahistorical, and incredibly inept foreign policy.
  The administration's overall foreign policy, and especially its 
policy toward Russia and Ukraine, is utterly devoid of historical 
context, ignores the role of power in world affairs, and completely 
junks basic principles of diplomacy that have been around for 
centuries.
  Recent events display clearly that Russia and Ukraine are on a 
collision course. Russian nationalists are on the offensive. They 
received the backing of a substantial portion of the Russian populace 
in the recent elections and just days ago, the criminals from the 1991 
and 1993 coups have been released from prison. Even Russian reformers, 
like President Yeltsin and Foreign Minister Kozyrev, whom most of us 
have staunchly supported in the past, are rattling the nationalist 
saber. The people of Crimea, which Russia claims, have just voted for 
independence from Ukraine. Russia has all but reabsorbed Georgia and 
Belarus. The troop withdrawals from the Baltics have been halted.
  And all of this is occurring as Ukraine lies prone, due to the 
economic illiteracy of its Communist-dominated government. It all has 
the stench of the Soviet era, Mr. Speaker, and it is very dangerous.
  But the Clinton administration is oblivious to the significance of 
all of this. In its romantic and facile drive to create a two-power 
condominium with Russia, the administration is removing any and all 
potential barriers to renewed Russian imperialism.
  In the event of Russian aggression against Ukraine, there would be 
three possible means of defending Ukraine: First, Ukraine's nuclear 
arsenal; second, direct intervention by NATO; and third, invoking the 
Reagan doctrine and arming the Ukrainians.
  Not ruling out or emasculating any of these options before the 
balloon goes up is the only way to deter Russian extremists from 
contemplating any aggressive action.
  But by badgering the Ukrainians into unilateral nuclear disarmament, 
obsequiously allowing a Russian veto of NATO expansion, and now openly 
declaring that we won't even arm Ukraine in the event of a Russian 
invasion, the Clinton administration has effectively eclipsed all three 
of these deterrents.
  What will it take to pound the lessons of history into this 
administration's head, Mr. Speaker?
  Neville Chamberlain called Czechoslovakia and Poland far off 
countries, and Hitler went on the march. Roosevelt fondly referred to 
Stalin as ``Uncle Joe,'' decided not to let Patton continue eastward, 
and the East Europeans descended into a 45-year nightmare. Dean Acheson 
declared Korea out of our sphere of influence, and Kim-il-Sung, with 
Stalin's backing, invaded the South. The United States Congress openly 
declared that we were washing our hands of Vietnam in 1973 and 1974, 
and Soviet-made North Vietnamese tanks poured into South Vietnam in 
1975. Jimmy Carter said we shouldn't fear communism, Cyrus Vance said 
that Brezhnev ``shared our aspirations,'' and the Soviets ran amok in 
the Third World and invaded Afghanistan.
  Time and again throughout history, we see that appeasement does not 
work. Time and again, we see that vacuums of power are filled, and that 
power imbalances are balanced by one side or the other. Time and again, 
we see that defensive nations must not let potential aggressors think 
they have leeway. Lines, clear lines, must be drawn.
  Despite this, this administration is pursuing a policy of appeasement 
toward Russia. It is allowing a vacuum of power to develop in Eastern 
Europe. It is consciously tilting the balance of power toward Russia. 
It has not sent a single message of disapproval of any of Russia's 
policies in the near abroad. It has not drawn any line, Mr. Speaker.
  This is a clear recipe for disaster, and it is high time this 
administration wakes up and realizes the bankruptcy of its approach to 
these issues.
  Never in history have unilateral disarmament, dollar bills and 
romantic attachments led to peace. Only a credible deterrent, a proper 
balance of power, and realistic diplomacy can do that.

            New Obstacles to the Denuclearization of Ukraine

                           (By Robert Seely)

       Kiev, Ukraine.--The repeatedly stalled nuclear disarmament 
     of Ukraine appears to be facing new obstacles in Kiev's 
     negotiations with Russia and the United States over security 
     guarantees that the former Soviet republic has demanded in 
     exchange for surrendering its inherited strategic weapons.
       Moreover, the Ukrainian parliament has failed to ratify the 
     international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a condition 
     of last month's Moscow accord. Ukraine pledged then to begin 
     dismantling its 1,800 nuclear warheads in return for large-
     scale U.S. financial aid and inviolable international 
     security guarantees--chiefly against any possible threat from 
     its giant Russian neighbor.
       Taking these factors together, analysts and diplomats here 
     say, it appears unlikely that the final form of any U.S. 
     security pledge to Ukraine will be ready by the time 
     Ukrainian leader Leonid Kravchuk meets with President Clinton 
     in Washington on Friday.
       Ukraine is trying to obtain from all five nuclear powers--
     the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China--as 
     strong a set of guarantees against potential aggression as 
     possible, but it is the assurance that U.S. prestige and 
     power will support its sovereignty that the Kiev government 
     covets most.
       U.S. diplomats have been trying to reach agreement with the 
     Kiev government over the wording of a security pledge, but 
     they have declared repeatedly that military aid to Ukraine in 
     the event of an attack by Russia is out of the question.
       Ukraine, which had been dominated by Russian czars and 
     Communist commissars for centuries before the collapse of the 
     Soviet Union in 1991, shares an 800-mile border with Russia 
     and is fearful that a resurgence of Russian imperial 
     ambitions would leave it virtually defenseless.
       Fueling these fears has been a decided turn in Russia 
     toward nationalist politics, beginning with the election to 
     parliament last December of a large bloc of jingoistic 
     politicians--led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky--who have called for 
     massive reassertion of Russian power.
       Even Russian President Boris Yeltsin and his reformist 
     foreign minister, Andrei Kozyrev, recently have spoken 
     forcefully of Moscow's right to defend Russians living in 
     former Soviet republics--statements particularly alarming in 
     Ukraine, where nearly a quarter of the 52 million citizens 
     are ethnic Russians.
       A senior Ukrainian official who has been involved in 
     negotiating the security guarantees with Moscow and 
     Washington said that the West and Russia had ``let Ukraine 
     down'' by failing to behave like genuine partners in the 
     talks. Ukraine's government expected that the document 
     ``should involve some rights'' for Ukraine should it be 
     threatened, he said.
       ``Ukraine is not a subject but an object of this document; 
     it is not a player,'' he said, adding that the Kiev 
     government wants the agreement to be ``legally binding'' and 
     not just a statement of vague principles. ``We had a last 
     chance to push ratification of [the Non-Proliferation Treaty] 
     through parliament [last] week,'' the official said. ``But 
     for that, we had to show parliament [some progress on the 
     security pledges]. We had nothing.''
       Despite assurances by Kravchuk's government and leaders of 
     the fractious Ukrainian parliament that the non-proliferation 
     pact would be ratified by March, both Ukrainian officials and 
     Western diplomats say that it now appears the treaty cannot 
     be approved by the legislature before summer.
       Further complicating the situation, analysts here say, is 
     that legislative and presidential elections scheduled for 
     this spring could produce a new leadership that is unwilling 
     to abide by the pledges and agreements undertaken by Kravchuk 
     and the current parliament and might even seek to halt the 
     denuclearization process.

                          ____________________