[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    WHAT IS RUSSIA UP TO IN LATVIA?

                                 ______


                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 10, 1994

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, when analyzing Russian policies these days, 
one often has to decide whether disarray or conspiracy lies behind 
particular events. A good illustration is a remarkable decree published 
in the Russian press on April 6, in which President Yeltsin agreed to a 
proposal by the Ministry of Defense and the Foreign Ministry to create 
30 military bases in other CIS countries and in Latvia, which is not a 
CIS state. After Latvia protested, Russian officials and President 
Yeltsin's spokesman claimed the reference to Latvia was a 
misunderstanding, a ``technical mistake,'' and that Russia had no plans 
to build bases in Latvia.
  What might explain this statement and the subsequent backtracking? 
Maybe one hand simply doesn't know what the other hand is doing in 
Moscow. It could be that the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry and 
the presidential apparatus simply don't coordinate their policies. If 
so, however, we ought to be concerned about the extent of disarray in 
the government of a nuclear superpower with which we are negotiating 
about many issues and to which we are offering financial and technical 
assistance.
  But there are more ominous hypotheses, which raise concerns about 
Moscow's attitude towards its neighbors. The statement could have 
reflected the actual intentions of the Russian Government to maintain 
bases in Latvia; or, it might have been an attempt to intimidate Latvia 
during the negotiations about Russian troop withdrawals and the status 
of retired Russian military officers in Latvia; or, it may have been a 
rogue operation by someone outside the chain of civilian and military 
command to exacerbate already tense Russo-Latvian relations; or, it 
might have been a trial balloon, to test Western readiness to protest 
Moscow's designs on Latvia's sovereignty.
  Disarray or conspiracy? It's hard to say, Mr. Speaker. But neither 
scenario is particularly reassuring for us, not to speak of concerns 
evoked in Latvia.
  As it happened, on April 20, President Yeltsin issued a statement 
which pledged that Russia had no plans to create any military bases on 
Latvian territory. And I am pleased to report that on April 30, 
President Yeltsin and Latvia's President Ulmanis did indeed sign the 
agreement requiring withdrawal of Russian forces from Latvia by August 
31 of this year, though Russia will lease the radar station at Skrunda 
for 4 years, as previously agreed.
  There is opposition to this agreement in Latvia, and parliamentary 
ratification could be a problem. But at least we will know if there is 
discord over this issue between the executive and legislative branches 
in Riga, and ultimately, we will know what Latvia's position is on the 
troop withdrawals. Unfortunately, that's more than we often can say 
about Moscow's position. I hope that the President Yeltsin's April 20 
statement puts this particular matter to rest, that Russian troops will 
depart by August 31, and that official Russian agencies will no longer 
issued statements about Latvia that have to be hastily retracted.

                          ____________________