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
.