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
.