Sabotaging Reform in Russia : U.S. foes of aid should remember that vital American interests are at stake

Had the Russian government been able last month to reassert its control swiftly and with a minimum of force and destruction over the break- away ethnic enclave of Chechnya, then the whole matter by now would probably have been pretty much forgotten and those who worry about the future of Russia’s reforms would today be more at ease.

But of course the effort to end Chechnyan separatism did not move speedily or efficiently. Instead what Washington from the beginning correctly saw as an internal matter has escalated to become a sore point in Moscow’s relations with Washington. Among other things now threatened in that relationship is the aid program for Russia, continuation of which remains very much in American interests.

The Clinton Administration, high officials say, intends to propose “substantial” new aid for Russia and other former Soviet republics in its 1996 budget. It also says it strongly supports a new International Monetary Fund loan to Russia of more than $9 billion, negotiations on which began this week. But even before the Chechnya war erupted, congressional Republicans, led by Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, were viewing aid to Russia as a target to be assaulted rather than as a component of foreign policy to be preserved. The Chechnya mess means that Secretary of State Warren Christopher and his associates are going to have to work all the harder to persuade Congress of the rightness of that policy.

The case for Russian aid rests on the simple proposition that it benefits the United States. Much of the aid goes for projects to denuclearize the Russian arsenal. A lot goes for technical help to encourage the country’s transition to a market economy. All this is in keeping with the policy of strongly supporting the process of political and economic change. That there have been setbacks in that process is obvious. But those disappointments can’t justify the foolishness of taking actions that would sabotage the reform impulse in Russia and so bolster the reactionary opponents of change. Congress should take careful note of long-term U.S. interests when it considers aid for Russia.