    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book I)]
    [April 21, 1996]
    [Pages 610-616]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 610]]

    The President's News Conference With President Boris Yeltsin of Russia
    in Moscow
    April 21, 1996

    Russia-U.S. Relations

        President Yeltsin. Dear members of the press, ladies and gentlemen,
    our discussion with the President of the United States of America lasted
    sufficiently long, about 5 hours, and in substance became the
    continuation of the discussions that were started within the G-7, issues
    which we discussed within the 8, and today's meeting also to a great
    extent coincided. First of all, this was security; regional stability
    was also discussed in the bilats.
        I think that today's discussion gave a rather large contribution to
    the successes of the G-7 in Moscow in the security area--discussions of
    a whole series of issues on nuclear security and how to move ahead on
    START II, to strengthen the ABM Treaty of 1972. We now have rather good
    schedules on what Russia has to do, what the United States has to do by
    October of this year.
        We've reached progress on European security as well. In May, we have
    an important meeting which should be dedicated to reviewing the CFE
    Treaty and forces in Europe. We agreed to work in this area and to
    concentrate more in the future on the wording of the treaty itself.
    You'll probably have questions at this.
        Our two countries as cosponsors of the Middle East peace process we
    discussed in great detail. We discussed the situation in Israel and
    Lebanon. They were discussed also at the meeting of the 8 and now the
    ministers of foreign affairs of our countries are continuing talk. We're
    constantly in touch with them, and today we summarized a bit on some of
    the decisions reached.
        Russia and the United States play a key role in the settlement in
    Bosnia. Our peacekeeping troop units are working very well. We have to
    reinvigorate this and aim it at nonmilitary aspects of the settlement,
    such as holding elections, providing for human rights, and rebuilding
    the destroyed areas.
        I want to especially underscore here the fact that the elections do
    not interfere with the long-term cooperation between our two countries.
    I mean, our Presidential elections do not stand in the way. Our policies
    allow us to speak about various issues and we have a practice now and a
    tradition with Bill to hold normal, regular meetings whenever we meet,
    and whenever we make comments to each other and react to each other's
    statements. This is as any family would have it. There are sometimes
    comments made to each other--these issues at least have no ideological
    nature whatsoever. The United States and Russia are great powers. It's
    not just for us to get involved with big global issues, but we look out
    for our own interests.
        In today's meeting, we have defined more carefully our policies, our
    tasks. We have established on the basis of equality--we've added the
    words ``on the basis of equality'' in our cooperation, which is in
    consistence with the interest of our two countries. And in the majority
    of cases, the lion's share of cases, others support both us and the
    United States in all of this. Our partners all have interest and see
    interest in the positive development of U.S.-Russia relations. They view
    our relationship as a factor which promotes international cooperation.
    This is very good.
        Next week, I'm going to China. There, I plan to touch upon many of
    the issues which we discussed yesterday and today in Moscow. I'm
    counting on understanding from the Chinese.
        I want to say that I'm very pleased with my discussion with the
    President of the United States, and I hope that Bill will also express
    his points of view, how he assesses our meeting today.
        Thank you, Bill.
        President Clinton. Thank you very much, President Yeltsin.
        Ladies and gentlemen, just a few years ago the mere fact of a
    meeting between the American and Russian Presidents was news. But this
    is my 3rd trip to Moscow as President and my 10th meeting with President
    Yeltsin. So now the news is no longer that we are meeting, but instead
    what we're meeting about and what is being done for the benefit of our
    people.
        After this meeting there is much to report. First, let me thank
    President Yeltsin for initiating and then hosting yesterday's nuclear
    summit. It is fitting that this summit was held in Mos-

    [[Page 611]]

    cow. For 3 years, the President and I have worked together in trying to
    make the world a safer place by reducing the nuclear threat that all our
    citizens face. Because of those efforts, Russian and American missiles
    are no longer pointed at each other's cities or citizens. We've both
    made deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals by putting START I into force.
    And we'll make even deeper cuts when the Duma ratifies START II.
        We've worked with Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan to dismantle
    nuclear weapons on their land. And yesterday, with other world leaders,
    we took important steps to make nuclear materials more secure so they
    don't fall into the wrong hands, to make the civilian use of nuclear
    power safer, and to strongly support the passage of a comprehensive test
    ban treaty this year.
        The United States and Russia are also working together to promote
    peace in the world's most troubled regions. The President and I reviewed
    the situation in Bosnia, where our troops are serving side by side to
    help its people rebuild their land and their lives.
        As cosponsors of the Middle East peace process, we discussed the
    terrible outbreak of violence in Lebanon and northern Israel. We agree
    on the need to secure a cease-fire to stop the violence, and as all of
    you know, our foreign ministers are both in the region as we speak. The
    best way to prevent violence from returning is to continue implementing
    the agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and to
    secure a comprehensive peace in the region that includes Lebanon and
    Syria.
        The political and the security partnership between our nations is
    strengthened by our growing commercial ties. We've worked hard to take
    down the old barriers to trade and to investment. Thanks to President
    Yeltsin's leadership, 60 percent of Russia's economy is now in the hands
    of its people, not the state. Inflation has been cut; democracy is
    taking hold. Since 1993, trade between the United States and Russia is
    up 65 percent. And the U.S. is now the largest foreign investor in this
    great nation. That's helping to create more good jobs and new
    opportunities in both our countries.
        The President and I also discussed areas in which we have
    differences, as he mentioned. The flank issue of the Conventional Forces
    in Europe Treaty is one of them. But we are working hard to find a
    solution to that that is acceptable to all parties prior to the review
    conference in May, and I can say with confidence that we did move closer
    to that goal today.
        We also made important progress in distinguishing between
    antiballistic missile systems that are limited by the ABM Treaty and
    theater missile defenses which are not. As a result, we'll send our
    negotiators back to Geneva next month with the aim of concluding an
    initial demarcation agreement this June.
        From St. Petersburg to Moscow, these last 3 days have allowed me and
    our entire American delegation to see the richness of Russia's past, the
    achievements of its present, and the promise of its future. I want the
    Russian people to know how much the American people support Russia's
    commitment to democracy and to reform. We've learned from our history
    that building a thriving democracy is not easy or automatic, but Russia
    is making dramatic progress, as evidenced by the Duma elections last
    December and the coming Presidential elections this June.
        This is a time of real possibility and opportunity to make our
    people more prosperous and more secure. The United States wants a
    strong, stable, and open Russia, to work with us as equal partners in
    seizing those opportunities and turning the challenges of a new era in
    the common solutions.
        Thank you.
        President Yeltsin. Thank you. Please, questions.

    U.S. and Russian Elections

        Q. A question to both Presidents: To what extent do the elections in
    Russia and the United States in November define the U.S.-Russian
    relation today? Thank you.
        President Clinton. Who will go first? I'll go first. Well, I think
    all elections have consequences, and so the relationship will be defined
    obviously by these elections in important ways. The United States
    supports the direction that Russia has taken in building a vibrant and
    open democracy and in moving toward an economic reform which would put
    more of the economy in the hands of the people. And we now see, after
    some very difficult years, some real progress being made. And we look
    forward to being a good partner in that effort, as well as in making our
    countries more secure and ending the nuclear threats and in finding ways
    to work together to solve other problems around the world.

    [[Page 612]]

        Two great nations like ours have a lot of common interests for the
    future, and I would hope no matter what happens we'll be able to pursue
    that. But I don't think we should be under any illusion that people run
    for office on platforms that they intend to implement and, therefore,
    all elections involve choices and have consequences. And so the people
    of Russia and the people of the United States will have to come to grips
    with that and make their own judgments, as great democracies do.
        President Yeltsin. I, too, would like to answer since the question
    was to both Presidents. I have to say that with every meeting with the
    President of the United States, our relations improve. Not a single
    meeting has yet been empty. It always has given us not only to our
    countries, to our peoples, but all of us some sort of a positive.
        Undoubtedly, also, yesterday's meeting of the 8 has given a lot, and
    today's meeting with the President, since the meetings touched upon a
    large variety of issues and problems, bilateral, international in nature
    where issues came together, coincided, et cetera.
        But I just wanted to tell those who in the press and in the media
    have already tried to tally up the score and say, ``Well, they
    especially really contrived this whole meeting in Moscow in order to
    help the President of Russia, President Yeltsin''--that's not so. This
    was planned a long time ago; way back in Halifax we had statements to
    this effect. And no questions which have to do with any kind of mutual
    obligations or tie-ins to the elections both here or in November in the
    United States--we did not have any tie-ins, any mutual obligations to
    each other, especially material or financial. We gave no assurances, any
    deals. We were here open, honest. So don't suspect here--suspect us in
    any way, a meeting such as the 8 or a meeting of two Presidents of two
    great nations.
        Q. In Sharm al-Sheikh it was reported that you told President
    Yeltsin that you would support his reelection bid with positive U.S.
    policies, and that you asked him for help with clearing up some negative
    issues such as the poultry dispute. Was there a--did you talk about
    politics today? I mean, what were your political discussions? And how do
    you both think that a meeting like this helps you with voters?
        President Clinton. First of all, let me clear up the report from
    Sharm al-Sheikh. What I said in Sharm al-Sheikh and what I believe is
    that the best politics is to do the right thing and advance the interest
    of our people. I did bring up that trade dispute, just as I have brought
    up a dozen or more trade disputes with other leaders all around the
    world. That's a big part of my job now, and I think I did the right
    thing.
        Today at our luncheon, the President gave me a brief overview of
    what he thought--quite brief--was the present lay of the land with the
    elections coming up and again said that he was trying to do his job,
    that he wanted to do his job. And I told him I thought that producing
    concrete results for the people by doing your job was the best thing to
    do politically. So that's the--which is essentially what I also said
    when we talked at Sharm al-Sheikh.
        Whether these things have any benefit or not, who knows? You know,
    most of our people are--most democracies all over the world are people
    preoccupied with problems at home, somewhat skeptical about foreign
    policy. But I can tell you this: Because of this nuclear summit the
    people of Russia and the people of the United States are going to have a
    more secure future. And that's what's important. And because of the
    meeting we had today, we're much closer to resolving a couple of very
    important issues that relate to our ability again to make the world a
    safer place: the CFE Treaty, the demarcation between antiballistic
    missile systems and theater missile defenses, and a number of other
    areas in which we need to cooperate for the safety and for the future of
    our people.
        So it seems to me that that's what we ought to look at. Have we done
    the right thing or not? Are people going to be better off or not? Are
    they going to be safer or not? Is the future going to be brighter or
    not? That is how I think that we would both wish to be judged. And I
    think it's a great mistake to put too much of a political spin on this
    since typically, at least, foreign policy does not play that big a role
    in voting patterns. But it's very, very important to how people live and
    what kind of future we have.
        President Yeltsin. I agree with President Clinton that the
    discussion was on the go constantly, during the breaks. And just as
    before, we said we have to have an equivalent partnership of the two
    countries. We have to support this relationship and help each other, all
    the Presidents, just like we support each other as countries, as people.
    And this is only natural. Now, as

    [[Page 613]]

    far as any specific issues having to do with campaigns and helping each
    other in campaigns in specifics, there was none.
        Now, the second part of the question, Bill didn't touch upon the
    second part--I don't know, maybe he or I can maybe respond and say that
    the production of fowl which came from the United States was--there was
    one batch that was stopped and held up by our health service. After that
    we quickly got together. We set up a commission; let the Gore-
    Chernomyrdin commission figure it out, get into the details in the
    poultry question. And they did and they were convinced that, yes, there
    was some violations. Those violations were taken care of, and now trade
    once again has been reestablished and it's back to normal.

    Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty

        Q. You've already spoken about European security. Can you tell us a
    little more in detail specifically what the CFE Treaty--how it was
    touched upon, and the limitations on the flanks, please, if you would?
        President Yeltsin. The question of European security has a lot of
    aspects, including NATO. So I don't think that we've got to lay all of
    these issues out to you at this very moment and how they relate to the
    central question, but more specifically and in detail we discussed the
    issues of the limitations on the flanks, since this really has to do
    with our direct interests on the Caucasus and in the northwest of our
    country near Kaliningrad.
        But the way it turned out was that in Germany when we were moving
    our forces back to Russia, the closest way to go was to Kaliningrad. And
    so we saturated Kaliningrad with our troops and forces and equipment,
    and the whole oblast--really a lot of saturation--and went beyond the
    limits that were provided for in the CFE Treaty itself.
        Also another situation here is the Caucasus because, as you know,
    what we have there, because of the situation in Chechnya--right now it's
    not bad, so what we're doing is implementing my plan on finding a
    settlement in the Chechnya problem. And things are going according to
    plan the way it's been approved. Nonetheless, there is a concentration
    of conventional forces, tanks and things; in some cases it varies from
    what the CFE Treaty may be calling for.
        So President Clinton, at my request, very carefully reviewed with
    his advisers and specialists, and they went and decided that temporarily
    we would be given the opportunity to, within the overall framework of
    the overall total numbers, to do some movement of forces on the
    territory. Of course, the conference in May is going to finally decide
    that. But they expressed their opinion, and once again, this issue has
    been discussed. There was one question to us that we move from one site
    a part of our equipment. We didn't argue; we're going to move it. And in
    short, there really is no question for discussion remaining. We hope
    that around May 15, when the conference is held, this treaty is going to
    be adjusted somewhat and everything will be fine.

    Chechnya

        Q. President Yeltsin, you just mentioned that things were going
    according to plan in Chechnya. But there are other reports that
    hostilities there continue and human rights groups are complaining still
    about the behavior of Russian forces. I wonder, for President Clinton,
    what do you say to those who believe that the United States has not been
    firm enough, hasn't been critical enough, and that even now the
    criticism is muted specifically because the United States is anxious to
    see President Yeltsin reelected?
        And for President Yeltsin, what would you say to those who believe
    that your call for a cease-fire was motivated largely by short-term
    political interests?
        President Yeltsin. In your question you made a couple of errors
    right off the bat. First of all, you said that the United States is
    seeking the reelection of President Yeltsin. I have different data.
    Second, military actions in the Chechnya region are not going on. No
    military operations are being carried out from March 31. It's another
    matter--some bands are still running around. Out of 22 regions of
    Chechnya, 19 of them have signed agreements. In three, there are still--
    the bosses there are still the bands; they're still in charge. And in
    fact, it's true they are making life difficult for a lot of people.
        But I repeat again, there are no military operations now underway. A
    state commission has been set up headed by Chernomyrdin; contact has
    been established with Dudayev through intermediaries. The intermediaries
    we have,

    [[Page 614]]

    Shaimiev, Orlov--we have people like that, King Hassan II, the King of
    Morocco, who have agreed to act in the role of intermediaries and to
    talk to Dudayev, to influence him from the point of view of negotiations
    only on one question that he is not in agreement with, in other words,
    that the Chechen Republic from our point of view--and this is an
    absolute--must be and will remain within Russia.
        President Clinton. Let me make two brief points. First of all, I
    think the record will reflect that the United States has consistently
    supported a political solution to the Chechnya crisis and offered its
    support for that. And when President Yeltsin made his announcement on
    March 31st, we supported that.
        You say that there are some who say we should have been more openly
    critical. I think it depends upon your first premise; do you believe
    that Chechnya is a part of Russia or not? I would remind you that we
    once had a Civil War in our country in which we lost on a per-capita
    basis far more people than we lost in any of the wars of the 20th
    century over the proposition that Abraham Lincoln gave his life for,
    that no State had a right to withdraw from our Union.
        And so the United States has taken the position that Chechnya is a
    part of Russia, but that in the end, a free country has to have a free
    association, so there would have to be something beyond the fighting,
    there would have to be a diplomatic solution. That's what we have done.
        But we realize this is a very difficult problem. And we have--
    President Yeltsin said today in our private meeting he wanted a
    diplomatic solution. He specifically asked me to do a thing or two that
    he thought might be helpful to him in securing a peaceful resolution of
    this and an end to the fighting and a real reconciliation between the
    people of Chechnya and the rest of Russia. So I intend to do what he
    requested in that regard, and I will continue to try to advocate an end
    to the violence and do what the United States can to support a
    resolution of this.

    Russia-U.S. Relations

        Q. As a whole, how do you assess the progress in the field of
    security, including the issue of ABM? And how is this going to affect
    the future of equal partnership between Russia and the United States?
        President Yeltsin. The word ``equal'' or ``on an equivalent
    basis''--when we first signed the first treaty we weren't around, that
    word wasn't around. And it occurred later, because we saw some sort of
    discrimination practiced against Russia. And that's why the word
    ``equal'' or ``on an equal basis in all respects''--that's what
    appeared.
        Now, as far as security, we discussed in detail these issues. And in
    general, of course, for some time we're not going to be forcing the
    widening of NATO at our request. President Clinton promised this and
    somehow to influence his colleagues.
        I believe that, in fact, it will be thus for a while. Then gradually
    maybe we ourselves will find, together with NATO, a relationship, maybe
    to come up with an agreement that, let's say, no country will be allowed
    to enter NATO, let's say, without Russia's agreement, and then maybe
    only through a consensus will be NATO changing. In other words, there is
    a variety of solutions for this problem, but we yet have to work on
    this.
        We talked about it in detail, but, look, we're not going to be
    sitting here giving you everything exactly in detail what we did for 5
    hours. We're going to have a 5-hour press conference then.
        President Clinton. A brief comment on the two issues President
    Yeltsin mentioned. The United States has within it some people who have
    had questions about the ABM Treaty to which we're a signatory. I believe
    the United States should keep its treaty commitments. I think if we
    expect Russia to keep its treaty commitments, we have to keep ours. Not
    so long ago I vetoed a defense bill passed in the Congress because I
    thought it would have put us out of compliance with the ABM Treaty.
        What we have to do now, because the ABM Treaty does not prohibit the
    development of theater missile defenses, is to define clearly what the
    lines between the two are, both regular velocity and high velocity
    theater missile defense. We made real progress here in doing that. And
    I'm convinced that if we do this in an open way that has a lot of
    integrity, that requires--where no one can question our commitment to
    the ABM Treaty, I think we'll all be just fine on this, and I think it
    will work out very well.
        With regard to NATO, our differences are well-known, but I think
    it's also worth pointing

    [[Page 615]]

    out that as with other aspects of this relationship, they have been
    clear and open, there have been no surprises, and from my point of view
    there have been no changes.
        I will say again: My goal is for a democratic, undivided Europe. The
    world has been caused a lot of trouble in the last 1,000 years
    repeatedly because of the divisions of Europe, number one. Number two,
    my goal is to see the United States and Russia over the long run develop
    a strong, equal partnership of two great democracies, freedom-loving
    countries that define their greatness in terms of their values and their
    example and the achievements of their people and not the domination of
    other nations. And I believe that we will find a way to work that out
    that's consistent with the position I've taken on NATO.
        And so I feel--I believe that as this thing goes along we'll find
    answers to that. And so my position hasn't changed about NATO, but I do
    not in any way, shape, or form mean any threat to the security of the
    long-term legitimate interests of Russia there. And the more important
    thing is--by the way, practical thing--is the progress we have made here
    with the ABM theater missile defense issue. That's a very significant
    advance for both countries in resolving a real, as opposed to an
    imagined, security problem.
        President Yeltsin. One minute, I didn't respond to part three of
    that second question on the ABM.
        The thing is that, really, we did have at one time differences when
    the U.S. side began to develop its own system beyond the ABM. And we
    expressed our surprise at this. And when Bill Clinton became President
    we agreed solidly that we are going to abide by the ABM Treaty. And for
    all this time, all the times we've met, we've had never any doubts, and
    we've had never any claims or questions to each other or any doubts that
    this treaty is in any way going to be changed or modified or changes
    introduced or anything like that.
        It's another matter now that, as Bill Clinton said, that we've got
    to, simply from the technical point of view, have that demarcation
    between strategic and theater nuclear systems. But that's being carried
    out now by our specialists and experts, U.S. experts. And that will be
    fulfilled to not the detriment of either the United States or the
    Russian Federation.

    Russian Elections

        Q. The two Presidents: Both of you today have talked very
    optimistically and hopefully about U.S. and Russian relations. But again
    to return to the elections, if the Communists were to win in this
    election, do you believe that this close relationship can continue? And
    particularly to Mr. Yeltsin, do you believe your Communist opponents are
    in fact a different kind of Communists than the ones whom you helped put
    out of power and the party that you once walked out of?
        President Yeltsin. I have nothing to think here on this score.
    There's nothing to think about because I am sure that I will be
    victorious.
        President Clinton. Well, my answer's irrelevant. [Laughter]
        Should we take one more? Do you want to take one more?
        President Yeltsin. One more question. One more question each--you
    and I, each side, one more question.

    Nuclear Testing

        Q. Boris Nikolayevich, a question to you: Have you discussed the
    issue of banning nuclear testing, and is there any difference of opinion
    on nuclear testing?
        President Yeltsin. Yes, this issue was discussed yesterday at the
    meeting of the 8, since the topic was, after all, nuclear security, and
    everything there, practically speaking, starts with nuclear materials
    and testing. So when we talked about testing, banning testing yesterday,
    I will say that we had a very, very loyal discussion, a pleasant talk.
    All, to the very last one, agreed that this year we've got to sign the
    treaty on banning and testing in any size of tests forever and forever.
        But not all nuclear states participated at yesterday's meeting of
    the 8. Now, with the others we're going to have to do a little work,
    especially with China. Well, that's why we, the leaders of the states,
    and that's where members of the 8 which decide these big political
    issues and other issues in order to somehow move forward and make
    progress on these big issues and to reach agreements and to prepare
    accords with other states. And we're going to be attempting to do that.
    I have got the conviction that we are going to find an agreement and,
    after all, I think we will be able to sign this year.
        President Clinton. I'll just make a brief supplemental remark there.
    We have all agreed to

    [[Page 616]]

    go with the so-called Australian language, which is a strict zero-yield
    comprehensive test ban treaty. That is the only kind of treaty that can
    give the people of the world the certainty that they really are seeing
    the end of the nuclear age of the big weapons.
        Some other countries want to kind of leave a big crack in the door
    for so-called peaceful tests or experimentation. And we all believe that
    we just have to try to persuade them to our way of thinking. I think the
    biggest and most important issue now is trying to persuade the Chinese
    to adopt the position that we have adopted. And I suggested on behalf of
    the 8 that we ask President Yeltsin to take this issue up on his trip to
    China. He agreed to do that, and the rest of us agreed to do our best as
    well to support that and try to persuade the Chinese that this is the
    right course for the future. And I have every hope that we can succeed.

    Assistance to Russia

        Q. Mr. President, the U.S. assistance to Russia after communism fell
    has been a fraction of what the Marshall plan did for Europe to help
    rebuild Europe after World War II. With many Russians questioning
    whether capitalism and democracy have really made their lives better, do
    you feel that the West has missed a historic chance to help Russia? And
    if you're reelected next year and there's a new Congress, do you foresee
    anything more ambitious in the future?
        President Clinton. Well, first of all, the short answer to your
    question is no, I don't think that the West has missed an historic
    chance. The present Congress I think has underestimated the impact that
    a relatively small amount of investment assistance in other countries
    can have, not just in Russia but in other places in the world. And so I
    think that's a mistake. I think not paying our U.N. dues is a mistake,
    not investing in the International Development Association is a mistake.
        But let me ask you--you compared this to the Marshall plan. There
    are some things that are quite different. For one thing, we are now the
    largest--the United States is the largest private investor in Russia,
    and the flow of private investment is much broader and quicker than it
    was at the end of World War II. For another thing, the United States has
    strongly supported the multi-billion-dollar aid package coming out of
    the international financial institutions, which were not available to do
    those things, again, as a part of the Marshall plan on anything like
    this scale. Thirdly, even though our assistance to Russia has dropped in
    the last couple of years, the Nunn-Lugar funds are still helping the
    denuclearization movement, and funds that I asked the Congress to adopt
    in the '93-94 timeframe, those funds have by no means all been used up.
    That is, they're still awaiting specific projects. So money has been
    appropriated for investment here that can still be invested here as the
    projects come on line.
        So our commitment to the economic revitalization of Russia is very
    strong. And I would point out that I believe Russia has privatized a
    higher percentage of its economy than any of the other countries of the
    former Soviet Union. And the economic problems that Russia has endured
    began before the Soviet Union disappeared. And we see the economy coming
    back now, and I think that things are going in the right direction.
        I do believe that the United States and the rest of the advanced
    economies should continue their commitment to investment and to support
    democracy and economic reform. I don't think we should let up. But I
    think it's a mistake to say that a historic opportunity has been missed,
    because a great deal has been done.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 121st news conference began at 2:42 p.m. in the
    Executive Office Building at the Kremlin. President Yeltsin spoke in
    Russian, and his remarks were translated by an interpreter. In his
    remarks, President Yeltsin referred to Prime Minister Viktor
    Chernomyrdin of Russia, President Jawhar Dudayev of Chechnya, and
    President Mintimer Shaimiev of Tatarstan.