We Can't Walk Away From Russia
Charles Krauthammer rebukes the Clinton administration for supporting market-oriented reform in Russia {"It's Their Economy, Stupid," op-ed, Feb. 9}. Some valid questions may indeed be raised about the design and efficiency of our aid program for Russia. Certainly, the rhetoric of "shock therapy," "irreversible change" and "strategic partnership," originally used to sell Russian reform to the American public was naively romantic. But Krauthammer's proposal to disengage U.S. assistance is misguided.</br></br>Russia is not Cuba or North Korea. A starvation strategy of noncooperation cannot possibly work with Russia. It is too important strategically and has too many nuclear warheads. Active, constructive engagement with Russia is the only responsible option. It is also the best way to address Krauthammer's warning that Russia will follow China's nakedly authoritarian path.</br></br>Engagement must be recognized for what it is. It is not a magic wand. Nor is it a marriage vow. Understood correctly, it should be a strategy of pragmatic cooperation based on expanding spheres of mutual interest.</br></br>Foreign aid to the post-Communist countries, including Russia, has been a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is a bag of tactical interventions and subventions -- know-how and cash -- to promote desirable political and economic developments. Admittedly, there is more art than science to foreign aid, but over the years we have also learned what does and does not work. For example, trying to "buy" elections usually backfires. Trying to impose textbook political and economic models on non-textbook conditions is unwise. Pushing radical reform while ignoring its social consequences (such as unemployment) also is a bad idea, especially if the unemployed get to vote.</br></br>Krauthammer argues that it is simply not in our national interest to help the Russians with their economic travails. Yeltsin, the butcher of Chechnya, has turned out to be a bad guy, so why support him? On the other hand, should Yeltsin lose in next June's presidential election -- a distinct possibility -- it would be better for us if his likely neo-communist successor, Gennady Zyuganov, faced a crippled economy.