DATE=12/2/1999
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=RUSSIA / YELTSIN / WEST
NUMBER=5-44894
BYLINE=ANDRE DE NESNERA
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
// Eds: This is the sixth in an eight-part series on
Russia. Issues raised in the series include the role
of the I-M-F, corruption, Russian-NATO relations and
Boris Yeltsin's legacy. //
INTRO: Many experts and analysts here in the United
States are reassessing the West's policies toward
Russia in the light of continuing economic problems
there. In this sixth of eight reports on Russia,
former V-O-A Moscow correspondent Andre de Nesnera
looks at whether the West has placed too much trust in
Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
TEXT: The news from Russia this past year was not
particularly bright. Allegations of corruption and
money-laundering scandals involving high-level Russian
officials made headlines. Questions were then raised
about whether some of the diverted money may have
included funds from international lending
institutions. That generated criticism from some
quarters about the West's overall policies toward
Russia and debates whether there should be a
reassessment of those policies.
Since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the West
has been trying to help Russia in the difficult
transition from communism to democracy - and from a
centralized economy to one governed by market forces.
In the debate over the West's policies toward Moscow,
many ask whether Western countries - led by the United
States - were too close to Russian President Boris
Yeltsin: supporting him no matter what.
Mike McFaul - a Russia expert with the Carnegie
Institution - says Washington made two critical
mistakes: backing President Yeltsin in 1993 in his
fight with lawmakers which ended with the bombing of
the Parliament building. And tacitly supporting him
during the 1994-96 war in Chechnya.
/// McFAUL ACT ///
That said, I also think it is very easy in
retrospect to say: "Well, we were too close to
Yeltsin." The fact of the matter is that Yeltsin
is the elected leader of the country in Russia
and therefore our elected leader of our country
has to deal with Boris Yeltsin. Think of the
opposite: if President Clinton went to Moscow
and didn't meet with Mr. Yeltsin, but only met
with (Communist Party leader) Gennady Zyuganov.
How would the Russian people feel and how would
the American people feel? It seems to me there
is a certain obligation on behalf of world
leaders to deal with each other, especially if
they are popularly elected leaders.
/// END ACT ///
Many experts agree with that view. But some also say
Washington became too enamored of President Yeltsin.
One of them is Candoleeza Rice - former national
Security Council member and senior foreign policy
adviser to presidential hopeful George Bush.
/// RICE ACT ///
Yeltsin is the Russian President and you have to
go through the Russian President. I think the
problem has been that really only since the
election of 1996 - I would not make this
argument earlier - we became so closely
associated with Boris Yeltsin that his agenda
became our agenda, that whatever he said - we
said, that whatever he wanted to certify - we
certified. And I think that was a mistake,
because the Yeltsin government after 1996 has
been less representative, it has been less
capable and competent. You have had musical
chairs, revolving door prime ministers. And the
gulf - the divide - between the Russians and
their president in the Kremlin has been growing.
And unfortunately for us, because we are so
associated with Yeltsin, the gulf between
America and the Russian people has been growing
too.
/// END ACT ///
Many analysts believe the United States has lost
credibility in the eyes of many Russians by staunchly
supporting President Yeltsin.
Paula Dobriansky - from the "Council on Foreign
Relations" - says there was virtually no attempt to
seek possible political alternatives to the Russian
leader.
/// DOBRIANSKY ACT ///
Yeltsin, of course, is President. Officially we
must deal with him and we should deal with him.
But at the same time, I think we needed a more
vibrant effort at developing relationships,
particularly with those up and coming leaders -
younger leaders - leaders who are not in Moscow,
but some who are in the periphery.
/// END ACT ///
Experts say as Russia moves more and more away from
its Soviet past - and as regions attempt to gain more
power from Moscow - provincial leaders will become
more important. It is essential, analysts say, for
Western policymakers to develop relations with those
potential political stars - and not only focus on
politicians based in Moscow. (Signed)
NEB/ADEN/KL
02-Dec-1999 14:20 PM EDT (02-Dec-1999 1920 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
