home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View.iso
/
txt
/
fpb
/
fpb0592.002
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-05-02
|
12KB
|
223 lines
<text>
<title>
UN Peacekeeping and Aid to Russia
</title>
<article>
<hdr>
Foreign Policy Bulletin, May/June 1992
U.N. Peacekeeping And Aid To Russia. Speech by Senator
Claiborne Pell, March 12, 1992
</hdr>
<body>
<p>Speech by Senator Claiborne Pell, Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, March 12, 1992
</p>
<p> Mr. President, in the great sweep of history there are only
rare times to make truly revolutionary changes: 1815, 1919, and
1945 were such times. Then leaders truly had the opportunity to
remake the world. However, such opportunities lasted only a
short period of time. Having been shaken up by war or
revolution, international affairs soon settled into new
patterns. The patterns set in 1815 lasted 99 years, ending in
the First World War. The architects of the peace at Versailles
were less successful, largely because the United States opted
out of the ambitious peace we ourselves proposed, and the world
dissolved into a Second World War just 20 years later. The
patterns set in 1945--patterns which evolved into a Cold War
between adversarial superpowers and which either by luck or the
grace of God avoided mutual destruction--lasted 44 years.
</p>
<p> We are now blessed by another opportunity to remake the
world, an opportunity few of us thought we would have in our
lifetimes. Extraordinary circumstances have brought down the
Berlin Wall, ended the division of Europe, freed the countries
of Eastern Europe and the Baltics, terminated the Warsaw Pact,
abolished communism in Europe, and dissolved the Soviet Union
itself. Most extraordinary, these events were the product of
almost entirely peaceful change. Unlike our predecessors in
1815, 1919, and 1945, we are not remaking a world destroyed by
years of total war.
</p>
<p> In 1919 the failure of American leadership helped produce a
Second World War in just 20 years. We should not delude
ourselves about the consequences of a similar failure to lead.
</p>
<p>Importance of a Democratic Russia
</p>
<p> Russia, a country that still commands the military resources
to destroy the world, has transformed itself from a
totalitarian dictatorship to a fledgling democracy. For the
first time in its thousand year history, Russia has a firmly
established leader democratically chosen by the Russian people.
And that President has told us that his country does not merely
want to be a partner of the United States but instead would like
to be thought of as an ally. He has gone so far as to propose
Russian membership in NATO, and with luck we may in a few years
be able to speak not of the three permanent Western powers on
the United Nations Security Council, but of four such powers.
</p>
<p> But we cannot assume that democracy will succeed in Russia
and that Russia will be our ally with no effort whatsoever on
our part. As the experience of Weimar Germany in the 1930s so
graphically demonstrated, democracy cannot thrive and indeed
may not survive in the face of economic ruination. Communism
has devastated Russia and the other countries that were once
part of the Soviet Union. Helping people long oppressed by
communism is not merely an act of altruism; it is an act of
fundamental national self-interest.
</p>
<p> It is a widely remarked fact that in modern history there
has never been a war between two democratic nations. Democratic
Russia can be our ally; a dictatorial Russia can never be a
partner or even a friend. The success of democracy in Russia
will vastly reduce the security threat, including the nuclear
threat to the United States. With democratic Russia as an ally,
we can develop a strategy for other potential threats to our
national security such as the situation that existed last year
in the Persian Gulf.
</p>
<p> If democracy in Russia fails, we might well again be
vulnerable to a military threat and a nuclear threat from
Russia. With democratic Russia as a friend, nasty regional
adversaries such as Iraq, Iran, and Libya can be dealt with
effectively. With authoritarian Russia as an adversary even tiny
Grenada is considered a threat to the United States worthy of
the sacrifice of the lives of our young service people.
</p>
<p>The Marshall Plan and Aid to Russia
</p>
<p> In 1948 the United States recognized that an infusion of
cash could make an enormous difference in the political
evolution of Western Europe. In the four years of the Marshall
Plan we spent $80 billion, in 1990 dollars, to set those
war-ravaged countries on their feet. The money we gave Western
Europe was without doubt the best investment we made in our
national security in the whole Cold War period. Imagine how
different the world would be if we had adopted the isolationist
course of 1919 after World War II, if we had insisted only on
looking after our own people and forgotten the people of Western
Europe. Without the Marshall Plan it is likely that much, if not
all, of Western Europe would have gone Communist. The military
burden of defending the United States would have been even
greater than it was in the divided Europe of the Cold War. And
we would have been a far less prosperous nation, for the
economic success of Europe directly contributed to economic
growth in our own country.
</p>
<p> As we contemplate the extraordinary opportunity that exists
in Russia, we must choose between the policy of 1919 and the
policy of 1948. We can do nothing and hope for the best. But if
so, we had better prepare for the worst, and preparing for the
worst will cost us a lot more than an aggressive policy of
assisting democratic Russia.
</p>
<p> Let us not delude ourselves. Assisting Russia is a major
undertaking. Russia is an enormous land with some 150 million
people. So far our much publicized humanitarian airlift has
provided enough to feed Moscow for one day. The President has
proposed $320 million a year to vanquish communism in Russia;
just three-fifths of the amount the Reagan Administration spent
in 1985 to fight communism in the tiny country of El Salvador.
And Russia, if I may remind my colleagues, is closer to our
shores than El Salvador.
</p>
<p> On the other hand, the benefits of aiding Russia are vast.
We will be able to make large savings on our military budget,
savings that will far exceed, even on an annual basis, the
amount of assistance we need to provide Russia. Further, as
Russia recovers from seventy years of communism it will become
an important trading partner and its economic growth will
contribute to our own prosperity much as the earlier recoveries
in Western Europe benefitted us in the 1950s.
</p>
<p> Aiding Russia will not be as expensive as the Marshall Plan.
When the United States put up $20 billion a year to Western
Europe we were the only country in the world capable of putting
up such money. With the end of World War II we were, at least
economically speaking, the only power left standing. Today,
there are other nations able to assist Russia, and indeed, the
countries of the European Community and Japan are probably
financially better able to provide assistance. U.S. cash is
needed but perhaps at only 10-20 percent of our Marshall Plan
commitments, that is to say between $2 and $4 billion a year.
Europe, Japan, and the wealthy Arab OPEC States, who really owe
us after the Gulf War, can certainly come up with most of the
cash. But such assistance will not be forthcoming without U.S.
leadership. Leadership is the burden of being the world's last
superpower, and so far such leadership has been woefully
lacking.
</p>
<p> The Administration has shown a stunning lack of vision in
its approach to aid to Russia and other countries of the former
Soviet Union. President Nixon has rightly described President
Bush's proposals as "pathetically inadequate." But the
Congress, too, has shown a decided lack of leadership and vision
in responding to the new world order.
</p>
<p>Funding U.N. Peacekeeping
</p>
<p> The new cooperative relationship between the United States
and Russia has enabled us to resolve an astonishing array of