DATE=12/2/1999
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=WHO LOST RUSSIA?
NUMBER=5-44889
BYLINE=ANDRE DE NESNERA
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
/// Eds: This is the first in an eight-part series on
Russia. Among the issues to be raised: Western
policies toward Moscow, I-M-F loans, President Boris
Yeltsin's legacy and NATO-Russian relations. ///
INTRO: Russian parliamentary elections are just days
away (December 19th) and V-O-A former Moscow
Correspondent Andre de Nesnera begins an eight-part
series on Russia, reviewing various issues affecting
the Russian domestic scene and Moscow's relations with
the West. His first report examines Western policies
toward Russia.
TEXT: There is a growing debate among certain
American academics, politicians and experts centered
around the question of "Who lost Russia?" (Opt-not
voiced) The question - reminiscent of the 1950's
debate about "Who lost China," received widespread
attention here, following an article in "The New York
Times" several months ago. (End Opt) That debate has
gained momentum as reports from Moscow talk of
corruption scandals, money laundering schemes and
possible diversion of international funds involving
high-placed Russian officials. Those involved in the
debate also question whether American policies -
including pressing for radical economic reforms - were
appropriate for conditions in post-Soviet Russia.
A former American diplomat who was based in Moscow,
Wayne Merry, espouses the view of those experts who
say Russia was not ours to lose. He says a more valid
question would be to what extent American policies and
programs may have contributed to making things better
or worse in Russia - and what can be learned for the
future.
/// MERRY ACT ///
One of the real blind spots of American policy
toward Russia was the people who made many of
the financial and monetarist policies really had
no understanding of just how badly damaged a
social, political and economic entity Russia was
coming out of the Soviet period. I lived in the
place for six years. And even I am frequently
just agog at how much damage the Soviet system
had done to the ecology, to the health of the
people, to their rationality, to the economy, to
the ability of the society and political
institutions even to function, let alone to
function well.
/// END ACT ///
Mr. Merry says since the demise of the Soviet Union in
1991, there has been a desire in Washington government
circles for quick results that would lead Russia down
the paths of radical economic reform and democracy.
Many experts say the "Who lost Russia" debate focuses
essentially on economic and financial matters where
one can persuasively argue not enough progress has
been made. They say the current discussions seem to
ignore the political and social arenas, where
significant strides have been achieved.
Jack Matlock was the last U-S ambassador to the Soviet
Union. He says since the fall of communism in 1991,
Russia has had several free elections - and the
upcoming parliamentary and presidential polls will
continue that trend. He says other major signs of
progress include no press censorship and the fact that
Russians can travel virtually anywhere they want.
/// MATLOCK ACT ///
And I could go on and on and on as compared with
the 70 years of communism which created
conditions that made it impossible to move
directly to what Westerners would think of as a
fully developed democracy overnight. It is going
to take time. And I have held for a long time -
since the Soviet period - that it would take
about two generations. I still hold to that and
I think it is rather ridiculous to debate "Who
lost Russia" when we never had it. And we could
not control the outcome in any event.
/// END ACT ///
Mr. Matlock says any debate about Russia must take
into account more than its economic setbacks.
Another expert - Mike McFaul from the "Carnegie
Institute" - says he believes Russia will not go back
to communism. And that - he says - is another sign of
success.
/// McFAUL ACT ///
This (Russia) is a radically different place
today than it was ten years ago. Russia has and
the Russian people have endured the greatest
revolutionary transformation, probably in the
history of the modern world, rivaled only by
their own experience with the Bolshevik
revolution or the French revolution. And that -
just seven years into this transition - the
basic arrows on all the big issues are pointing
in the right direction, is a major achievement.
/// END ACT ///
Many experts say the "Who lost Russia" debate is based
on the premise that Western policies can radically
affect what happens in Russia. They say the tone of
the question indicates a certain amount of arrogance:
if Russia does not follow Western advice, then it is -
- "lost."
These experts also say Russian policy-makers must
share some of the blame for the current economic
problems in their country. But analysts say these
same policy-makers can find solutions - not
necessarily by copying the West. (Signed)
NEB/ADEN/KL
02-Dec-1999 14:15 PM EDT (02-Dec-1999 1915 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
