In Washington, a Feeling of Concern--but Not Crisis--About Yeltsin

On the day after Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin precipitated the gravest crisis of his country’s young democracy, Washington’s judgment Sunday was that the Russian leader had little choice but to seize emergency power--and that President Clinton had no alternative but to support him.

What was characterized by Yeltsin’s Moscow opposition as an outright coup--or coup attempt--was interpreted inside and outside the Clinton Administration as a bold attempt to nurture Russian democracy and continue the quest for a free-market economy.

Analysts said that the days ahead are fraught with hazards for both leaders. For the Clinton Administration, the advice from both Democratic and Republican officials was to stay the course and perhaps stiffen its support of Yeltsin.

But in the nation’s capital, with spring in the air, there was no hint of a crisis.

The President was on a trip to Little Rock to visit his father-in-law, Hugh Rodham, who suffered a stroke Friday. No one from the National Security Council staff went along, but a White House spokesman said Clinton had twice conferred by telephone with National Security Adviser Anthony Lake.

Secretary of State Warren Christopher was at his seventh-floor office at the State Department working on a foreign policy speech to be delivered to the World Affairs Council in Chicago--perhaps giving the first detailed Administration reaction to Yeltsin’s bold move. Christopher also conferred with Strobe Talbot, a presidential adviser and ambassador-designate to the former Soviet republics.

An NSC official said that there were no high-level contacts between Washington and Moscow on Sunday, although U.S. Embassy officials in Moscow were in close touch with top Russian aides.

The official, who asked not to be identified, said that Washington is monitoring the situation in Moscow, “but there are Russian internal developments and we’re not commenting on or prejudging events. Events are unfolding, but plans for the summit are going on as per usual.”

The official said that as a result of the constitutional crisis in Moscow, there has been increased communication with U.S. allies about the Clinton-Yeltsin summit, scheduled for April 3-4 in Vancouver, Canada, and an anticipated meeting of the major industrial nations later in April to design an aid program for Russia.

Pentagon officials said they have no indication that Russian ground forces are maneuvering to intervene in the politically fragile situation. Neither Defense Secretary Les Aspin nor Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by the White House to contact military counterparts in Russia, several Pentagon officials said.

But long-established relationships between senior U.S. military leaders and their Russian counterparts could prove to be a key communications link if indications of Russian military movement emerge, Pentagon officials said. Last month, Col. Gen. Vladimir Semyenov, the commander of Russia’s ground forces, toured U.S. military installations and met with Pentagon leaders.

Conceding that Yeltsin had taken a high-stakes risk in his power struggle with the old guard in Russia’s Parliament, the Congress of People’s Deputies, and in its smaller legislature, the Supreme Soviet, voices from across Washington’s political Establishment endorsed Clinton’s support for the Russian leader.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) not only approved Clinton’s going ahead with his planned summit with Yeltsin but also suggested that the President go to Moscow rather than meet the Russian in Canada, as now planned.

“My view is that if we’re going to support Yeltsin, it’s got to be more than statements,” Dole said in an interview on the Cable News Network’s “Newsmaker Sunday.” “We need to do something. We need to indicate that he is the only duly elected leader, elected by all the people in Russia. And that’s not true, of course, of the members of Parliament.”

Advice in a similar vein came from Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), who said that now is an opportune moment for the United States to move on several fronts to shore up Russian democracy.

Specifically, he said on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Washington should press for “massive exchange programs,” act on the cleanup of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, take initiatives to reduce Russia’s foreign debt burden, promote energy and agriculture investment and encourage demilitarization.

But what made Yeltsin and Russia Washington’s most urgent foreign policy concern were the perils.

Although public demonstrations were reasonably orderly in Moscow on Sunday, Administration officials were concerned that outbreaks of civil disorder could be a trigger for military involvement.

There were equally obvious and equally daunting possibilities of Yeltsin losing the referendum he wants to hold April 25 or that dispirited Russians might stay away from voting places in such numbers that the vote would be meaningless.

And there was concern that Russian turmoil could so arouse concern in republics such as Ukraine that still-unratified arms-control agreements with the United States would unravel.

As it did in the first hours after Yeltsin’s bid to take personal control of the country, the Clinton Administration--no doubt remembering how the George Bush Administration stuck with then-Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev as Yeltsin came to power--carefully couched its support.

“I think what we have to keep in mind is what is the long-term issue here,” Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said on ABC’s “This Week with David Brinkley.” “And the long-term issue is trying to get a democratically elected government across the board in place, democratic processes going and free-market principles.”

Times staff writers John Broder and Melissa Healy contributed to this report.