NEWS ANALYSIS : Yeltsin Aid Bid Gains; It’s Now Up to Bush

In two days of strenuous diplomacy, capped by a passionate, triumphant speech to Congress, Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin made visible progress in winning support for the economic aid that his democratic revolution needs to survive.

But if Yeltsin succeeded in moving the ball forward, it is now up to President Bush to get it across the goal line.

And that will be a demanding test for Bush in an unkind election year which has so far exposed more of his political weaknesses than strengths--and which has made Congress even more recalcitrant than usual about approving money for foreign aid.

On the breeze-blown steps of the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon, members of Congress were unanimous in their professional admiration for Yeltsin’s political pitch. “One of the finest speeches I’ve ever heard,” said Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-Mass.), who has been subjected to fine oratory since birth.

But they were also unanimous, more or less, in their cool assessments of the still-shaky prospects for Bush’s bill requesting authorization of a $24-billion multinational aid program to help Yeltsin succeed. “It was a little less than 50-50 yesterday,” House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) estimated cautiously. “It’s better than 50-50 today.”

California Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), chairman of the House Republican Conference, observed, “We have a chance to pass the aid now, but it could easily get bogged down. A ship like this can pass into the fog very quickly. . . . If we wait two or three weeks, we may not be able to do it. Right now is when the President’s people ought to be spending some energy on this.”

Yeltsin did his part by delivering more than rhetoric. His decision to accede to the American demand that Russia eliminate all of its big land-based multiple-warhead nuclear missiles--a welcome surprise to most arms control experts--came with a forthright explanation that he could no longer afford the arms race: Trying to maintain atomic parity with the United States, he said, “has put half of us below the poverty line.”

The Russian leader did not demand an economic quid pro quo for his disarmament moves--but he linked the two issues nonetheless.

If his reforms collapse, Yeltsin warned at the White House, “this will mean the collapse not only of Russia, but the collapse of the United States as well--because it will mean trillions of dollars for the arms race.”

And Bush reciprocated with a new and stronger pledge to deliver the economic aid he has been promising for almost three months.

“There is some sentiment here that we should concentrate all our efforts in terms of spending domestically,” the President said. “It’s a little strange out there, and things work differently in an election year. But . . . I am confident that we can lay the politics aside and get this passed.

“We’ve made a commitment and we’re going to go forward with it,” he said.

Bush and Secretary of State James A. Baker III both believe deeply that getting aid to Russia is their top priority in foreign and defense policy, aides say.

“It isn’t going to matter what missile numbers you have if Yeltsin doesn’t succeed in his democratic reforms . . . and is succeeded by someone hostile,” observed Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense.

But Bush and Baker are caught in a dilemma. The President’s political advisers have warned that if Bush wins approval for the aid only narrowly, over protests of conservative Republicans in the House, he may lose support among conservative voters who dislike foreign aid; if, on the other hand, he loses his campaign’s proudest claim--that he is a proven world leader who can secure a new peace--he is suddenly vulnerable to attack from rivals Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.

“This summit shows that the Bush Administration still isn’t ready for the post-Cold War world,” charged Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy adviser to Clinton. “We owe Boris Yeltsin more than this. If he doesn’t succeed, we’re going to look back at this period with real regret for all the things we didn’t do.”

To pass the aid bill, members of Congress said, Bush must spend some time convincing conservative Republicans that the program is fiscally responsible--and reassuring liberal Democrats that they will not be vulnerable to GOP attacks for supporting foreign aid, if they lend him their votes, too.

“The Administration needs to get to work on this,” said conservative Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach). So far, he added, “the State Department has been behind the curve.”

Cox says he wants changes in the Administration’s bill to ensure more careful management of the $24 billion in multinational aid, about $4 billion of which would come from American contributions to the International Monetary Fund and similar institutions.

“It is certainly within our rights to ask . . . how the money would be spent,” he said. “It’s just too big to give carte blanche to the international institutions.”

On the other side of the aisle, Kennedy said that Democrats cannot afford to supply their votes unless conservative Republicans do, too. “I’m sorry it comes down to that kind of issue,” he said. “It shouldn’t be that way. But there’s a long list of congressmen and senators who have lost races because they supported foreign aid.”

Bush has held back from a full effort to twist Republican arms in the House, but officials said that in the wake of Yeltsin’s success, the White House is planning a renewed campaign for the aid.

Democratic leaders said they want to act first on domestic programs. Even in the Senate, where a sizable majority appears ready to approve Russian aid, Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) said he has not decided when to bring up the legislation.

In the House, a showdown may be weeks off as Democratic leaders seek to continue bargaining with the Bush Administration over a billion-dollar urban aid package, scheduled for a vote in the House today, and an extension of unemployment benefits that the President has warned he may kill with a veto.

The chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Boston’s Raymond Flynn, complained that American cities might get more attention from President Bush if their leaders came to the White House “disguised as the mayors of Moscow and Kiev.”

How U.S. Would Help Russia Recover

The aid package pushed by Boris Yeltsin in Washington on Wednesday is part of a larger global effort. Here is a look at the plan:

At stake: The U.S. contribution to a package of humanitarian and technical aid and credits to Russia. Dubbed the Freedom Support Act, the U.S. share is part of a $24-billion international program.

Status: Pending in both the House and Senate.

Outlook: Lawmakers have been wary of voting new foreign aid in an election year when voters are more worried about the U.S. economy.

Current aid to former Soviet Union: The United States has provided $4.85 billion worth of credits for purchase of American wheat, corn, soybeans and other crops, most of it in loans.

How U.S. Would Help

Overall U.S. contribution to Russia: $4-5 billion

U.S. aid to other former Soviet republics: $1.6 billion

Total U.S. package: $5.5-6.6 billion

U.S. Aid Worldwide

Here are the top recipients of U.S. aid over the past 10 years. Dollar figures are the total amount of aid from 1982-91: Israel: $29.9 billion Egypt: $23.2 billion Turkey: $6.8 billion Pakistan: $5.4 billion El Salvador: $4 billion Greece: $3.6 billion Philippines: $3.5 billion Spain: $1.9 billion Honduras: $1.9 billion Bangladesh: $1.7 billion India: $1.7 billion Sudan: $1.5 billion Source: Congressional Research Office