Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, April 6, 1993 TAG: 9304060387
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
TO RUSSIA WITH AID, NOT CHARITY
ON THE EVE of President Clinton's summit meeting with Boris Yeltsin, a poll last week indicated that 80 percent of Americans are against increasing overall aid to Russia. As polls have shown for some time now, Americans' dominant concern - and the issue that put Bill Clinton in the White House - is the domestic economy.So why has Clinton embarked on an impassioned campaign for more assistance to Russia?
Because, as the president noted in a speech to newspaper editors in Annapolis last week, the fate of Russian reform will directly affect both America's security and its economic health.
The outcome of Russians' struggle to build a free society isn't guaranteed. They are, after all, trying to accomplish three revolutions simultaneously - navigating from totalitarianism to democracy, from a centralized-command economy to a free market, from an empire to a nation state.
These transitions, while incomplete, undermine each other. Political paralysis blocks resolute economic action. Disastrous economic conditions aggravate ethnic and national strife, and encourage demagogues who call for the empire's restoration.
In light of these circumstances, it is of course reasonable to argue about the effectiveness of varying kinds of aid. But it should be clear beyond question that, where Russia's fate is concerned, America's foreign and domestic interests converge.
Surely, after sacrificing so many trillions of dollars to prosecute the Cold War, Americans can understand that domestic consequences will flow from whether we face a struggling democracy in Moscow or a vicious dictatorship still bristling with nuclear weapons.
Surely, after experiencing the different aftermaths of World War I and World War II - in one case, isolationism for America and punishment for the war's losers; in the other case, international leadership for America and help with rebuilding devastated economies - Americans can recognize the folly of the former sort of policies and the merits of latter.
So the issue comes down to effectiveness. Of course Russia's fate will be decided by Russians; no one should harbor illusions about that. And aid's effectiveness shouldn't be gauged by dollar amount.
Emphasizing aid can backfire if it hurts Russian pride. And if Yeltsin can't get control of inflation (it surpassed 2,000 percent last year) any assistance will have been wasted. More significant than direct aid, in any case, might be efforts to promote trade by reducing barriers to Russian exports.
Even so, it would be tragic if Russia's reformers failed for lack of support from abroad. The $1.6 billion U.S. aid package announced Sunday in Vancouver gives at least some measure of support, and is properly focused on efforts to create more private ownership throughout Russia.
Clinton has begun a campaign to enlist leaders of the other major democracies in an effort to help keep Russia's reform movement alive. Americans, as well, should back the effort. It serves the national interest.