Invitation to Russia Creates Clinton Dilemma

It may sound like merely a matter of history and ceremony, but it is providing President Clinton with one of the touchiest foreign-policy decisions of the year--whether to travel to Moscow in May and stand beside Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin to commemorate World War II’s end in Europe.

Yeltsin’s invitation to Clinton for May 9 ceremonies marking the Allied victory over Nazi Germany has forced the President and his top advisers to make agonizing choices.

If Clinton does not go, some U.S. officials worry that ordinary Russians may be deeply offended that the United States is slighting Russia’s valiant role in World War II, in which an estimated 20 million Russians died.

Yet other U.S. officials fear that, if Clinton goes, Russians may perceive the trip as a new sign of American support for Yeltsin and his unpopular policies.

The dilemma over the Moscow trip underscores the extent to which the Clinton Administration has been confronted throughout this year with awkward questions that arise from 50th anniversaries of the end of World War II.

Still down the road are the August and September anniversaries of the dropping of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and of Japan’s formal surrender to the Allies.

The Hiroshima anniversary has already sparked disputes in recent months over a Smithsonian Institution exhibit of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the bomb, and over a now-abandoned U.S. postage stamp that showed a mushroom-shaped cloud.

Earlier this month, Japanese officials told reporters that they had been assured that the Administration will not use the term “V-J Day” in August and September ceremonies commemorating Japan’s 1945 surrender. Japanese officials think this time-honored phrase, which stands for “Victory over Japan,” unfairly singles out Japan because the end of World War II in Europe is called “V-E Day” and does not mention Germany by name.

Administration officials, perhaps worried about a backlash from American veterans’ groups, are now carefully insisting that no commitments have been made to Japan about abandoning “V-J Day”--though they themselves avoid using that term.

“There’s been no decision on any specific nomenclature, so there’s no specific rule” on the phrase “V-J Day,” Winston Lord, assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the Pacific, told a press briefing last week.

The Administration is similarly trying to defuse emotional sensitivities over whether Clinton attends the Moscow ceremonies. Yeltsin invited Clinton to them last year, but Administration officials have repeatedly put off a final decision.

“We just need a little bit more time,” Secretary of State Warren Christopher said at a Geneva news conference Jan. 17. Almost two months later, there is still no final word. Administration officials say a decision could come any day now.

In recent weeks, Administration officials have portrayed the problem as one of logistics. If Clinton goes to Moscow, they say, he might have to stop in other European capitals as well, since Britain and France have their own celebrations planned. Making such a swing might keep the President out of Washington for an entire week.

They have also tried to downplay the importance of the May 9 ceremonies by suggesting that the President might visit Moscow for a summit later this spring, a session that would be less public and less emotionally charged.

But U.S. officials privately acknowledged that much of the debate within the Administration is over the significance of the May 9 event itself: Would Clinton’s participation be seen in Russia as a symbol of the United States’ enduring ties to the Russian people, or merely of the Administration’s recent support for Yeltsin?

One U.S. official recently observed that the Administration runs risks, whether Clinton attends or not. “There are dangers either way,” he said. “Suppose he goes. Yeltsin would like to use this to regain popularity inside Russia and to put the nationalist mantle around himself. Do we reinforce the populist impression (in Russia) that the United States is so wedded to Yeltsin that it doesn’t see anyone else?”

On Capitol Hill, conservative Republicans have urged Clinton to stay away from the Moscow celebrations, arguing his attendance might show that Yeltsin will pay no price for the continuing war in Chechnya or for Russia’s plans to sell nuclear reactors to Iran. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) has threatened to denounce Clinton on the Senate floor if he accepts Yeltsin’s invitation.

But, according to a senior State Department official, even some of Yeltsin’s democratic critics--such as Grigory A. Yavlinsky, the leading Russian reformer who recently visited Washington--have warned that the Administration should not underestimate the importance of the Moscow ceremonies to Russians.

“For the (Russian) democrats, it (Clinton’s participation) would convey the message that we are not going to stand for fascist-type things in the future,” said this official.

Clinton’s decision is further complicated by the continuing uncertainties in Washington about the political future of Russia and Yeltsin. “I don’t subscribe to the theory that Yeltsin is a spent force,” one U.S. official said. “He isn’t behaving like a lame duck.”

Yet one senior Administration official, Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph Nye, said in an interview last week that Russia is in “a period of enormous social change that is justifiably called a Second Russian Revolution. . . . In revolutionary situations, we have to be careful of predictions.”