[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 48 (Thursday, April 28, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
        PRESIDENT RICHARD M. NIXON: AN ADDRESS ON FOREIGN POLICY

                                 ______


                         HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 28, 1994

  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, the death of President Richard M. Nixon has 
been an occasion of reminiscences by those who knew him personally. And 
among those memories, no attribute of his has been mentioned and 
honored more than his unique ability to analyze foreign affairs.
  Last year, House Republicans were privileged to be present as he made 
a tour of the horizon, as diplomats say, a wide-ranging analysis of the 
many problems now confronting Russia. Without referring to a single 
note, without a moment of hesitation or confusion, he talked about the 
complexities of Russia today and then answered questions. His talk was 
a spellbinding and unforgettable display of uncanny memory, shrewd 
insight, dispassionate analysis, and passionate love of freedom. It is 
with a great deal of pleasure, therefore, that I insert into the Record 
at this time, the remarks made by President Richard M. Nixon before the 
House Republican Conference, March 10, 1993:

   Remarks of President Richard M. Nixon Before the House Republican 
               Conference, U.S. Congress, March 10, 1993

       Thank you very much. Thank you.
       Well, I want to express my appreciation to the 
     Congressional Institute for inviting me back again to address 
     this distinguished group. I was going to say ``my 
     colleagues''; I'm a little old for that, but at least I'm 
     glad to be here with * * * 175 [Republicans] and, we hope, 
     218 next time around.
       Bob Michel was most generous in his introduction. But I 
     want to set the record clear on one point: That ad [looking 
     for a congressional challenger] was not in The Washington 
     Post.
       I also want to tell you that Bob gave me a choice this 
     morning. He said, ``If you like you can speak when you did 
     when you were President--up there--or you can speak down in 
     the well.'' And I said, ``I'm going to speak down in the 
     well. I want to be where the others have spoken.''
       And I want to be here because it allows me to put present 
     events in historical perspective: It was just 43 years ago 
     that I stood in this well, in this place, and I addressed the 
     Conference that was then in the Whole House. I had a one-hour 
     special order. (I got it myself. Newt Gingrich wasn't around 
     here then to get it for me.)
       But I remember that occasion so well: It was the only time 
     I had a special order in the four years I served in the 
     House. I reported to the House on the Alger Hiss case, the 
     case [of his] releasing secret documents to agents of the 
     Soviet Communist government. That [Floor] speech of January 
     26, 1950, had a great impact on my career. I have been known 
     ever since as a very strong, even fierce, anti-Communist.
       And I am sure that today many people would say: ``Richard 
     Nixon, down here talking about aid to Russia? What 
     happened?''
       The world has changed a great deal since then. I want to 
     address that subject but, in doing so, I'd like first to put 
     it in a political perspective. Many have said, ``Why talk 
     about foreign policy at all? Nobody cares.'' If you read the 
     polls and look at the last election, you would reach that 
     conclusion.
       In the last Gallup poll, only 4% of the American people 
     indicated that foreign policy was of major concern. When 
     President Clinton had his town meeting in Michigan, he took 
     questions for an hour from all over the country. One question 
     on foreign policy--it was about Bosnia. Today, the newspapers 
     [devote] almost exclusive attention to domestic problems, 
     hardly any to foreign policy.
       And, for example, we all remember that, during the 
     campaign, there was a famous sign in Clinton headquarters: 
     ``The economy, stupid.'' So under the circumstances, then, 
     why address foreign policy?
       Let me tell you why foreign policy is important. It's 
     important because foreign policy and domestic policy are like 
     Siamese twins: One cannot survive without the other. If the 
     democratic government of [Boris] Yeltsin collapses and is 
     replaced by a nationalist, aggressive Soviet or Communist 
     government--not a Communist government, that isn't going to 
     happen, but even a nationalist government--this would mark 
     possibly the beginning of `'Cold War Two.''
       It would have an enormous impact as far as our economy is 
     concerned. Peace would be down the tubes. We would have to 
     increase the defense budget by billions rather than decrease 
     it; any plans to reduce the deficit would be off the table. 
     So that's why the two are so closely related.
       I come now to the very critical issue that you have been 
     reading--the democratic government of Russia, whether it can 
     survive; and what our policy towards that government should 
     be. And in order to address that question, it is first 
     necessary to disabuse ourselves of two myths.
       First, you've often heard it said--and I've said it 
     myself--the Cold War is over and the West won. But that's 
     only half true. The Communists have lost the Cold War. But 
     the West has not yet won it.
       Look at what has happened in Russia. Why did they turn 
     against Communism? Because it failed to produce, for the 
     masses, the better life that it promised. But now Freedom is 
     on trial. If Freedom fails to produce a better life, they 
     will not return to Communism--but they could return to some 
     kind of authoritarian, nationalist government.
       And such a government, shorn of the baggage of the failed 
     faith of Communism, armed with nuclear weapons, could be a 
     greater threat to the forces of peace and freedom in the 
     world than was the former totalitarian Soviet government. So 
     that is what is at stake.
       The second myth to disabuse ourselves of is this: Many 
     people blithely say, ``The Russians lost the Cold War.'' 
     That's not true. The Communists lost the Cold War. The 
     American people, the American Congress, you and the others 
     that preceded you, deserve great credit, along with our 
     allies, for holding the line against Communism and turning it 
     back for 45 years.
       But the knockout blow to Communism, in its mother country 
     Russia, was rendered by democratic Russians. They overthrew 
     the Communist government. And this means that, at the present 
     time, rather than treating Russia as a defeated enemy, we 
     should treat them as an ally, and as a friend.
       And so if we can start with those two propositions we are 
     then able to address the question of what is going to happen 
     in Russia, what should happen, and what we can do about it.
       Let me give an analysis of the situation as I saw it 
     recently and compare it with what I saw just nine months ago. 
     The situation has sharply deteriorated. The economy is in 
     deplorable condition. We've got to see Russia for the 
     magnitude of the problem that it faces--as compared with 
     Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and others where freedom is 
     working extremely well. That's the good news as far as that 
     part of the world is concerned.
       But Russia is such a different country. It's a huge 
     country, as you know. There are 11 time zones. In addition, 
     there are 31 republics and provinces in Russia and all have 
     declared themselves to be basically independent within the 
     Russian government. In addition, there are 132 nationalities. 
     The hard-line Vice President said: ``Look, what works in 
     Poland is not going to work in Russia.'' That's an idea of 
     the magnitude of the [social and cultural] problem.
       Now consider the economic problem. We went through a Great 
     Depression. (I say ``we'' did, you didn't--a few of us here 
     may be that old, but I can remember it well.) It was deep and 
     shook this country to its foundations; we recovered from it 
     only after World War Two began.
       But what is happening in Russia today is much worse than 
     the Great Depression. For example, inflation in 1992 was 25% 
     a month; it's even higher today. The average Russian's living 
     standard has gone down by 50%. Some of this started before 
     Yeltsin, under Gorbachev. Russia might face hyperinflation, 
     they might face [even higher] unemployment, when the troops 
     come home from abroad. It is a very, very serious problem.
       Also remember that Russia, as compared with China and as 
     compared with the countries of Eastern Europe, had 75 years 
     of Communist brainwashing compared with 45 years in those 
     [other] countries. And that means the development in Russia, 
     among many of the people, of the idea that they may prefer 
     what they already had. They like the security which a 
     ``command government'' economy provides. And they face an 
     unprecedented rise in corruption, and an unprecedented rise 
     in crime.
       That's Russia today. And when you see all that, it is so 
     mind-boggling, you wonder how any leaders in Russia could 
     still be for reform. But they are. It's hard to know why. All 
     the leaders I spoke to--to ones on both sides, from the 
     National Salvation Front (which as you know is pro-Communist) 
     to the other end of the spectrum--and nobody wants to return 
     to Communism. There will be no return to Communism. I 
     believe that the reforms are irreversible.
       However, there is no road map: Nobody's ever gone from a 
     command economy to a free-market economy in the space of a 
     year-and-a-half. There will be detours, there will be 
     setbacks, but in the end it will prevail. That is certainly 
     the conviction that I have, after having met with those 
     leaders there.
       Now, having pointed out why this has happened, let me just 
     suggest we should look historically into why the Russians--
     who have shown a great capacity for suffering and sacrifice--
     why they are willing to go through this again, despite 
     enormous economic cost.
       Seven centuries ago, St. Thomas Aquinas said: ``If the 
     primary aim of the captain was to preserve his ship, he would 
     keep it in port forever.'' The Russians are a great and proud 
     people. And as they saw America and the West moving ahead 
     from them (and, incidentally, that was the great message for 
     them from SDI and other programs of that sort) they knew they 
     were falling hopelessly behind.
       And as a proud and great people, they were ready to leave 
     their safe, stagnant port of Communism and to go out on this 
     stormy sea toward freedom--political and economic freedom. 
     They're still willing, but time is growing short.
       And that brings us to what the positive news may be; it's 
     been obscured by all the bad news. You are probably not aware 
     of the fact that over 20% of the Russian economy is now 
     privatized. You see it all over Moscow with the small shops. 
     It is primarily a small-business operation, somewhat like 
     what happened in the U.S. during the 1980s. Thirty percent of 
     the Russian workforce today--30%--now works in private 
     enterprise. That is unprecedented.
       Another factor to keep in mind is that democracy, in its 
     broadest sense, is alive and well in Russia. I have been to 
     Russia nine times. And the [first] seven times I was in 
     Moscow, and in Russia generally, dating back to 1959, in 
     those seven times, I never met anyone who opposed the 
     government. If I asked somebody who I thought might be 
     critical, he'd just sort of close his eyes and point up to 
     the chandelier. (That's how I learned about taping.) 
     [laughter]
       Today it is hard not to find someone who will speak--in the 
     government, outside the government--and that is a hopeful 
     sign.
       Here's another very hopeful sign. In St. Petersburg, I met 
     with a private entrepreneur running a very, very successful 
     enterprise there. He has a mix of workers--some of them were 
     German, some of them were Russian. And he said the Russian 
     workers were more productive even than the German workers. 
     This gives the lie to the idea that the Russians, unlike the 
     Chinese, simply will not respond to private incentives. They 
     will.
       Remember something else about them. The Russian workforce 
     is one of the best educated in the world. Over 90% of all 
     Russian workers have graduated from high school. That's 
     higher even than the percentage in the United States. So 
     those are the possibilities as far as Russia is concerned. It 
     is there, it can be saved--but the political problems are 
     enormous.
       Now we come to a critical situation: Can Boris Yeltsin 
     survive? Some of the world leaders I've spoken to don't think 
     so. I can assure you, also, that some of the people in his 
     own country don't think so. And certainly it did not help 
     when the one in charge of aid to Russia for the past year 
     publicly predicted that Yeltsin probably wouldn't survive.
       So I want you to take, with me, a good look at this man. I 
     know how he mesmerized this House, which shows he knows how 
     to communicate even with a western audience; he showed the 
     same when he was in Canada. We know his charisma. We know 
     that he is a man who successfully led a revolution.
       We also know that, historically, those who lead good 
     revolutions are seldom good nation-builders. Nehru in India 
     is an exception. In our case we have George Washington, 
     another exception. But Sukarno in Indonesia? Good 
     revolutionary leader, disastrous nation-builder. The same 
     with Nkrumah in Ghana.
       Can Yeltsin--a good revolutionary leader who knows how to 
     destroy--can he build? And I answer, first, that he has shown 
     surprisingly good political methods and tactics. He made some 
     mistakes in dealing with the Congress. But if you think 
     George Bush had a problem with the Democratic Congress, just 
     think what problems he would have with this [Russian] 
     Congress. Yeltsin inherited it from the previous regime--from 
     Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The fact that he did not become 
     authoritarian, and is trying to compromise [with the 
     legislature], is something in his favor. So much for the 
     political games.
       What is most important for us to remember is what the man 
     stands for. He stands for what we believe. Unlike Gorbachev, 
     he believes in democratic elections. He is the first elected 
     Russian leader in a thousand years. He is one who has 
     repudiated, unlike Gorbachev, both Socialism and Communism. 
     He is flatly for private ownership, something Gorbachev would 
     never be.
       Most important, from our standpoint, he is the most pro-
     Western, and I would say pro-Amercian, Russian leader in 
     foreign policy we have ever had. And when we consider those 
     facts, it brings home this conclusion: When we look at the 
     Russian scene today, the choice really is not between Yeltsin 
     and somebody better, the choice is between Yeltsin and 
     somebody worse.
       I have met all the other potential candidates. [Although] 
     Yeltsin's popularity is not nearly as high as it was, it's 
     higher than any of the others. It's a risk for President 
     Clinton to begin to take the leadership (as he has in meeting 
     with President Mitterrand yesterday) in trying to get some 
     assistance from the Group of Seven.
       But, on the other hand, even with aid, the Yeltsin 
     democratic government may not survive. Without the assistance 
     of the West, in particular the U.S., it will not survive. So 
     we have to take the risk--because nothing great has ever been 
     achieved without great risks. And in this case we should 
     support President Clinton when he comes forward, as I'm sure 
     he will, with a program of assistance going beyond what has 
     so far been done.
       Now let us turn to what the U.S. and others can do. All the 
     Russian leaders want to know what is going to happen. I said, 
     ``Look, politically, as far as an increase in so-called 
     foreign aid, direct foreign aid, it doesn't have much of a 
     chance these days. We have economic problems, we have 
     tremendous demands on our budget and so forth. And, while the 
     Congress will support some increase, it cannot be a massive 
     increase.''
       Having said that, I also make this point. The story in this 
     morning's paper indicates that President Clinton, after 
     meeting with President Mitterrand, has agreed to ask for an 
     emergency meeting of the G7. That is a very hopeful sign; 
     I'll tell you why. Because action can and should be taken on 
     three fronts. And it should be done not just by the United 
     States--but President Clinton and the U.S. need to [provide] 
     cover [for] the other big G7 nations.
       First, Russian debt. There is $85 billion of it, mostly 
     inherited from the Gorbachev regime. That debt should be 
     rescheduled for 15 years, as President Yeltsin has requested. 
     And believe me, the bankers--and they're primarily not ours; 
     they're German, Japanese and the rest--they would be stupid 
     not to reschedule that debt. Because if Yeltsin's government 
     falls, they'll get nothing. Better to reschedule the debt. 
     Get it paid sometime in the future, and take the burden off 
     the economy now. That's something that I trust the G7 comes 
     through with.
       And then there is another factor to be considered. As you 
     are all aware, after World War Two, the U.S. was very 
     generous in assisting our former enemies, the Germans and the 
     Japanese, to recover. Now it is time for them to assume part 
     of the burden, a major part of the burden, of assisting the 
     Russians and the other former Soviet states, including those 
     of Eastern Europe, to recover from the Cold War.
       The Germans are doing their share to a certain extent 
     because of the great burden of East Germany. Japan's conduct, 
     however, is unacceptable. Here's a nation that is 
     economically very rich but they are going through a recession 
     too (2% employment, they call that a recession in Japan!). On 
     the other hand, when we look at the Japanese, they are 
     holding back on providing aid to Russia on the grounds that 
     they won't give aid unless they get back four tiny islands 
     the Russians hold as a result of World War Two. Now that just 
     doesn't make sense.
       The Japanese are a very intelligent people. But this again 
     is something that is really stupid--stupid because if the 
     Yeltsin government falls, they'll never get the islands back. 
     If the Yelstin government survives, they might. But to 
     insist they get the islands back before they provide aid--
     that might bring him down because it would look like the 
     was selling the islands to Japan. So this is something I 
     am sure will come up at the G7 meeting; I hope it does, 
     and it should be effectively handled when it does.
       We come now to the critical question--a question for 
     Members of this House, Republicans as well as Democrats: With 
     all our other responsibilities, why be concerned about this 
     issue of foreign policy, and particularly aid to Russia? I've 
     already covered that in broad strokes; let me now put in a 
     more definitive way.
       The survival of political freedom and economic freedom in 
     Russia serves the interests of peace. Russia is no longer 
     Communist, but it is still Russia. It is the only nation in 
     the world with the power to destroy the U.S.A. There is 
     nothing more important to our vital interest than a non-
     aggressive government like [that of] Boris Yelstin. And so 
     that should be a major goal of U.S. foreign policy.
       Second, Russia still has a veto in the U.N.; It also plays 
     a critical role in Iraq and the Mideast, and of course in 
     Yugoslavia. It's a very difficult role at times for them, 
     particularly with regard to the Serbs, but we need their 
     support in these areas. An anti-U.S. Russian government 
     certainly would make it much more difficult for us to handle 
     those regions.
       And then there is another reason. Many people said, quite 
     correctly, that the Soviet Communists were evil. But nobody 
     claimed they were crazy. We have to bear in mind that those 
     who are trying to get into the nuclear club, many of them, 
     are crazy. We can't be sure in any event. Therefore, it is 
     vitally important that the U.S. and Russia, the two 
     superpowers, join together to prevent nuclear proliferation. 
     So that's another good reason for us to remember that any aid 
     to Russia that enables a democratic government to survive is 
     first an investment in peace.
       Second, it's an investment in prosperity. Consider these 
     numbers. China is a third-world country. Russia's GDP is 
     seven times as great. China's trade with the US is eight 
     times as great as that of Russia's Why? Because China has an 
     economy that's over half privatized. Russia's is only one-
     fifth privatized. As Russia becomes a free-market economy, as 
     it begins to grow, as it will grow, it means billions in 
     trade and hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans.
       And then there is another point; it's a little more 
     esoteric, but I think all of you will appreciate it: The 
     survival of a government in Russia which is dedicated to, and 
     supports, political and economic freedom is in the interests 
     of freedom in the broadest sense.
       For 75 years Russia, they key state of the former Soviet 
     Union, has been trying to export Communism to the rest of 
     world. Now democratic Russia can be exporting freedom to the 
     rest of the world--if it works. I freedom works there--works 
     economically, works politically--that will be an example to 
     the other dictators of the world to go our way, because this 
     is the way.
       But if it doesn't work, if [Yeltsin and the pro-Western 
     Russians] go down, look at the message that sends to the 
     hardliners in China. In China they have economic freedom, but 
     they have no political freedom. They'll say, ``It didn't work 
     there, we're doing the right thing here.'' So those 
     interested in freedom, those interested in democracy, have 
     got to remember what happens in Russia is going to make a big 
     difference.
       A hundred years ago Marx's colleague Engels said, ``We must 
     change the world.'' Those five words inspired millions of 
     supporters of a false state for over 100 years. Now that's 
     all shattered. Today, democratic Russia, with our support, 
     can change the world.
       Let me now address a few words, if some of the older 
     Members will permit me, to the new Members of this House. 
     Naturally, I will have to reminisce--that's something that 
     happens. (Strom Thurmond did it last night, I can do it 
     today.)
       Forty-six years ago, right at this very time, Jack Kennedy 
     and I were discussing the request of President Truman to 
     provide military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey, which 
     were threatened by Communist aggression.
       Our offices were on the fifth floor of the old house office 
     building. He was about two places away from me. Boy, that was 
     the dregs in those days--they had inside plumbing, but that's 
     about all that I can remember. In any event, we got together. 
     We disagreed on most domestic issues (like the Taft-Hartley 
     bill) but we happened to agree on foreign policy.
       It was a tough vote for him because the liberal Democrats 
     in his Massachusetts district didn't want any military 
     foreign aid. I remember they sent postcards, and I got some 
     myself: ``Send food, not arms.'' The conservative Republicans 
     in my California district didn't want any foreign aid--they 
     were against all foreign aid.
       But we both voted for it, and that led us to the Marshall 
     plan and then to NATO. I remember the high excitement of that 
     time. I remember Kennedy and myself, I remember John Lodge, 
     Thurston Morton and others in the Republican 80th Congress. 
     We thought we were doing something very great. We were 
     inspired because we thought that we were contributing to the 
     defeat of an evil system--Communism--and we were right.
       This morning, I'll tell you new Members something that you 
     will find [to be] true. There are going to be times after the 
     euphoria of coming here for the first time wears off; there 
     will be times when you're fed up to here about this job: Too 
     little pay, the little time for your families, too much 
     abuse. You may wake up in the middle of the night and say, 
     ``Who has to do this?'' You may want to throw it all in. And 
     you will read in the papers that America no longer has a 
     great cause: With Communism defeated, there's nothing to 
     inspire us.
       But when you see that, and when you think that way, don't 
     you believe it. Let me tell you something: There could never 
     be a better time to be alive. There could never be a better 
     place in which to live than America. And there could never be 
     a better place in which to serve than the Congress of the 
     United States.
       Just think what we have witnessed in the last four years. 
     Eastern Europe liberated. Communism collapsing in the Soviet 
     Union. Socialism being rejected all the way from Sweden to 
     India. We ought to be celebrating victory. Yet we act as if 
     we had suffered defeat.
       Way back in 1946, that class in the 80th Congress, we had a 
     challenge, and the challenge was to meet the danger, or to 
     deal with the threat, of war. Your challenge is something 
     different. It is to deal with, to meet the promise of, peace. 
     War brings out the worst and the best of men. Peace can and 
     should bring out only the best. And you have that opportunity 
     to work toward that end.
       In describing that, however, I want to make it very clear 
     that this is not just a case of your supporting a strong 
     foreign policy, a strong defense policy--it goes beyond that. 
     Because in order to meet that challenge it is necessary for 
     us to recognize what America means to the world--and why we 
     must see that the American example is worthy of what it does 
     mean to the world.
       I was in Warsaw a few days ago. As I traveled through the 
     streets of that new city--it is new, now that it's free--I 
     thought back to a time 34 years ago, to a time which for me 
     and for my wife Pat was the most, not the biggest, but the 
     most emotional welcome we ever received, as Vice-President or 
     as President.
       I'd just had the ``kitchen debate'' with Krushchev and on 
     the way home we stopped in Warsaw on a Sunday afternoon. The 
     Communist government refused to publicize the fact that we 
     were coming. There was nothing in the papers about the parade 
     route. But it got through the Polish underground and 250,000 
     Poles turned out to welcome us; they threw hundreds of 
     bouquets and flowers into our cars. After having rocks 
     [thrown at us] in Venezuela [the prior year], believe me this 
     was something very different.
       And at times, at the intersections, they would flood the 
     motorcade and we'd have to stop. I looked into their faces, I 
     can see them even now: Some of them were singing, others were 
     crying--grown men and women with tears running down their 
     cheeks--and they were all shouting Niech zyje Ameryka, Niech 
     zyje Amerykan: ``Long live America, long live the American!''
       Thirty years passed before Warsaw and Poland became free. 
     Today, it's a different city, full of the color of the life 
     and music of freedom. That would not have happened had it not 
     been for America. That would not have happened had it 
     not been for our example. And we must not fail to meet our 
     opportunity to continue to be an example to others that 
     may be seeking that path.
       What can you do about it? Help America be seen for what it 
     really is--a great and a good country. Whatever you can do to 
     see that the American economy continues to be and becomes 
     even more productive, whatever you can do to see that all 
     Americans have an opportunity for better housing, for better 
     health care, for all of the things that make life more 
     livable, whatever you can do to clean up our cities and our 
     countryside from drugs and crime.
       [In short,] whatever you can do to make America a better 
     place in which to live, that serves the cause of peace and 
     freedom in the world.
       And so I wish you well as you meet these challenges. You 
     are fortunate to be here--and I speak now not just to the 
     freshmen but to all of you--and to have this kind of a 
     challenge.
       I can sum up best what America's role in the world should 
     be by going back 185 years to a British Prime Minister's 
     statement. After Nelson's great victory at Trafalgar, William 
     Pitt was toasted as the savior of Europe. One hundred years 
     later, Lord Curzon would describe Pitt's response as being 
     one of the three great masterpieces of English eloquence. 
     Listen to his words:
       ``I return you many thanks for the honor you have done me. 
     But Europe will not be saved by any single man. England has 
     saved herself by her exertions, and will, I trust, save 
     Europe by her example.''
       Today the world is not going to be saved by any single 
     nation. But America can save herself by her exertions and 
     can, by our example, save the cause of peace and freedom in 
     the world.

                          ____________________