[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E80-E81]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AMERICA NEEDS A NEW RUSSIAN POLICY

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 24, 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the departures of Andrei Kozyrev, Anatoly 
Chubais, and Sergei Filatov from the Yeltsin administration and the 
appointment of a Brezhnev-era hard-liner to be foreign minister should 
be the final wake-up call for the Clinton administration.
  These reformers have been all but powerless for a long time, but 
their presence has allowed the administration to claim that Russia is 
on the right track and that any criticism of Russian policy would 
embolden the hard-liners. We see now that the hard-liners were 
emboldened long ago and are now in complete control.
  For over 2 years, Russia has been engaged in a myriad of activities 
that range from the legal to the illegal to the morally repugnant, but 
all of which are contrary to United States national interests. These 
include Chechnya, nuclear dealings with Iran and Cuba, intimidation and 
subversion of nearly every former Soviet State, violations of numerous 
arms-control agreements, and strategic nuclear modernization, among 
many others.
  All of this has been met by the Clinton administration with silence, 
arms control concessions, and a steady flow of U.S. taxpayer dollars. 
In other words, appeasement. True to its unvarnished record in history, 
appeasement has failed again. It is time for a new approach.
  A more realistic policy toward Russia would involve several things: 
First, we must stop the mindless policy of giving foreign aid to 
Russia, especially its government. At this very moment, the Clinton 
administration and the IMF are preparing a $9 billion infusion into the 
Russian treasury. In addition to fostering complacency among economic 
policymakers in Russia, our aid, especially multilateral loans and 
Nunn-Lugar, has been subsidizing the dangerous activities listed above.
  Second, we should give immediate and concrete assurances to 
qualifying countries in central Europe that they will become full 
members of NATO in the nearest possible future. With Primakov as 
Foreign Minister, there can be no doubt that Russia will attempt at 
least to ``Finlandize'' the former Warsaw Pact countries. It is silly 
to oppose NATO expansion with talk of drawing lines in Europe. There 
already is a line, and because of it, stability has been fostered in 
those countries west of it. Quite frankly, the farther east that line 
is, the better. Furthermore, the virtual military reabsorption of 
Belarus by Russia has resulted in the stationing of Russian border 
troops on the Polish border. They have already moved the line--to the 
west.
  Third, it is high time we start to resist Russian policy in the near 
abroad and the Third World. For over 2 years, Russia has been 
methodically sapping the sovereignty of its neighbors, and is clearly 
moving toward reestablishing some sort of Russian-dominated union. 
Using classic Soviet-style divide and rule tactics, Russia has helped 
topple the democratic government of Azerbaijan, brought Georgia to 
heel, and pushed Armenia to allow Russian bases on its soil. Russia 
continues its illegal occupation of Moldova, routinely violates 
Lithuanian territory, and has threatened annexation of the Baltic 
States. This uncivilized behavior is not only outrageous, it is 
potentially highly destabilizing to Europe. The same can be said about 
Russia's renewed affinity for some of the world's worst rogue regimes, 
such as Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Iraq. We must make it plain to the 
Russians that their membership in Western organizations is directly 
linked to their international behavior. Right now, they don't make the 
grade.
  Fourth, we must extricate ourselves from our slavish devotion to arms 
control. To the Clinton administration, what this means is that any 
agreement is a good agreement, Russian violations of existing 
agreements are to be hushed up, and protecting American citizens from 
ballistic missiles is bad. Thus, recent and clear Russian violations of 
the Biological Weapons Convention, CFE and START I and many others, 
have been excused. The administration's only response has been a rash 
drive to ratify the flawed START II and a stubborn insistence on 
unilateral adherence to the ridiculous ABM treaty, from which we can 
walk away legally anytime.
  Mr. Speaker, the key issue is not whether Russia has 3,500 or 10,000 
nuclear warheads. What is in our interest and what will ensure the 
security of our European friends is a Russia that behaves in civilized 
fashion internationally. So far, not a thing the Clinton administration 
has done has goaded Russia in this direction. Indeed, the 
administration has tolerated and even condoned, as in Chechnya, 
uncivilized and dangerous Russian behavior.
  The past 3 years of behaving as though we feel guilty that we won the 
cold war have 

[[Page E81]]
yielded us a Russia that thinks and acts much like the old Soviet 
Union. Unfortunately, we can have little hope that the Clinton 
administration will meet this challenge with a reorientation of its 
Russia policy because this would be to admit that Ronald Reagan got it 
right on the cold war. After all, Strobe Talbott wrote in 1990 that the 
cold war doves were right all along, and he has been trying to prove 
this bizarre conclusion ever since.
  Some of these naive policies can be overturned by us in Congress, Mr. 
Speaker, and I am hopeful we will. For instance, we can cut off aid, 
and I would urge support for my legislation, H.R. 519, that would do 
exactly that. We can back-burner START II, and I would urge the Senate 
to do that. And we can force the President to withdraw from the ABM 
Treaty, and I would urge everyone to cosponsor our colleague Martin 
Hoke's excellent bill, H.R. 2483, which would do exactly that.
  The rest, alas, will have to wait for January 1997, when, hopefully, 
we will have a more clear-eyed team in the White House.

                          ____________________