Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
U.S. Department of State 93/05/27 Address at H.H. Humphrey Inst. Of Public Affairs re Russia Office of the Spokesman Address by Secretary of State Warren Christopher at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota May 27, 1993 U.S. Support for Russian Reform: An Investment in America's Security Fritz Mondale suggested that I come here today, and I am delighted to be back in the Upper Midwest. Scranton, North Dakota, where I grew up, was much too small to have a daily paper, and I depended upon the Minneapolis Tribune, which was brought only one day late on the Milwaukee railroad. I grew up on Gopher football, and probably could still name some of the members of the 1935 team. In those Depression years, I learned that politics should be about helping people. Through my life and in my career, no single state has produced more caring politicians than Minnesota--notable among them Fritz Mondale. Fritz Mondale is a man I have been proud to work with and stand by for nearly thirty years. We worked together to advance justice at home and human rights abroad. In the Carter Administration, we worked together to win approval of the Panama Canal Treaties and the Taiwan Relations Act, two of the signature endeavors of the Carter Administration. We also worked together on behalf of Southeast Asian refugees and against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In recent years, in private life, Fritz Mondale has worked to promote democracy and human rights around the world as Chairman of the National Democratic Institute. Wherever he has gone, Fritz has shown America's most decent face to the world, and reminded Americans of our most inspiring values. I am especially pleased to be speaking to you today at a great state university that honors the memory of Hubert Humphrey. His achievements on the domestic front were so imaginative and so important--from civil rights to Medicare--that we sometimes forget the lasting contribution he made in the field of international affairs. Like many of his contemporaries, Hubert Humphrey knew what he was against: communism and repression. But like few others, he was also just as passionate about what he stood for and what America ought to stand for in the world: peace and freedom. He knew where America should go--and as much as anyone of his generation, he knew how to get there. The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; the Peace Corps and the Food for Peace program: these are all part of Hubert's legacy. Hubert's ideas made the world better, by bringing out the best in America. This is one in a series of speeches I will be giving around the United States. I want to make sure that foreign policy isn't foreign to the American people. At the State Department, we have a desk for virtually every foreign country: a China desk; a Brazil desk; a Russia desk. As Secretary of State, I am determined that we will also have an American desk--and that I will sit behind it. My principal mission is to advance the vital interests and values of the citizens of the United States. That's my job. I want to help American businesses succeed in the global economy. That is why I visited Honeywell earlier today to discuss their investments in Russia. It was an inspiring visit to a very great company. I want to underscore our unshakable commitment to human rights. That is why I am visiting later today the Center for Victims of Torture here in Minneapolis. And I want America to make essential investments in our national security. That is why I have come here to talk to you about America's policy toward Russia. No relationship is more important to the long- term security of the United States than our strategic relationship with Russia. Today's students are the first generation of Americans to have come of age in the post-Cold War era. It is your generation that will define America's destiny in the next century. It is your generation that will decide to what purpose America's leadership and power will be put. Today, I want to talk about our new opportunity to make a new democratic world. As we meet, the people of Russia are struggling heroically to build a free society and a market economy. If they succeed, the payoffs for America promise to be profound: in the reduced threat of nuclear war; in lower defense budgets; and in the vast new markets that can fuel global prosperity and create jobs for Americans. But if reform fails, and if Russia reverts to dictatorship or collapses into anarchy, the consequences would be appalling. The shadow of nuclear confrontation could return. Our "peace dividend" would be cancelled. Cooperation in foreign policy would vanish. And the worldwide movement toward democracy would suffer a devastating setback. America faces a choice. Either we do all we can now to help Russia's reformers succeed--or we stand aside, take our chances, and just watch events unfold. If we stand aside, we will forfeit a rare chance to shape a more peaceful world. Some believe that with the end of the Cold War, America ought to step back from the world stage. What a disservice that would be to all Americans, especially to young Americans. You deserve the same chance my generation had to fulfill America's unique destiny to promote freedom and democracy around the world. Some say that our nation is on a course of decline, that we can no longer afford to lead. It is true that the United States faces many challenges today unlike any in the nation's history. But to me, that means we must be more engaged internationally, not less; more ardent in our promotion of democracy, not less; more inspired in our leadership, not less. America must lead because the need for American leadership is undiminished. We are a blessed and a powerful nation. We must shoulder the responsibility of world leadership. We stand prepared to act decisively to protect our interests wherever and whenever necessary. When it is necessary, we will act unilaterally to protect our interests. Where collective responses are appropriate, we will lead in mobilizing such collective responses. But let me make it clear today. Make no mistake: The United States will lead. At two other points in this century, America faced a choice similar to the one we face today. The first defining moment for American leadership came in 1918 in the aftermath of World War I. After that terrible conflict, Europe lay devastated and demoralized. Empires that had stood for centuries collapsed overnight. Violent revolution and revenge erupted. Amid the chaos, the world looked to the United States for the strength and moral vision to ensure a lasting peace. That was the dream of President Wilson. He was a visionary in his grasp of a profound truth of this bloody century: American leadership is the linchpin of a more just international system. But Wilson's plan to join the League of Nations was defeated in Congress. Instead of deciding to lead, the United States chose to retreat. For America and the world, the consequences were tragic. Within a decade, the storm clouds gathered. Hitler became Germany's chancellor, and, six years later, Germany marched into Czechoslovakia. A militarist Japan invaded Manchuria. Fascist Italy conquered Ethiopia. And the systematic persecution and destruction of Europe's Jews commenced. All the while, America reclined in isolationism. Then the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor shattered a false peace. And nearly 300,000 Americans gave their lives on the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific to help win World War II. Then came the second defining moment for American leadership. Americans saw European democracies teetering on the edge, economies lying in ruin, communist dictatorships consolidating their hold in Eastern Europe, the Iron Curtain descending, and a Cold War chilling the new peace. Once again, the world looked to America's strength and moral force to build peace from the ruins of war. But this time, America responded positively. It took principled presidential leadership--and bipartisan statesmanship--to win congressional approval and lasting public support. Fortunately, we were blessed with leaders--Truman, Marshall, Acheson, Vandenberg--who had learned the bitter lessons of 1918. Together, Democrats and Republicans put the pillars of peace and security in place--at Bretton Woods, with the Marshall Plan, and through NATO. And those pillars still stood as the Berlin Wall fell. Put simply, Communism was defeated. Freedom was defended. Our values triumphed. In the late 1940s, I had returned from service in the Pacific during the Second World War and was attending law school. I remember the atmosphere when, as Averell Harriman once said, most Americans wanted nothing more than to "go to the movies and drink a Coke." Yet when the American people saw what was at stake, they exercised their common sense. They accepted the necessity for American leadership of the post-war world. They understood it was right, it was necessary, and it was in America's interest. We spent literally trillions of dollars to deter the communist threat. And we put the lives of our finest young Americans on the line to preserve freedom. The sacrifices were great, but the payoffs were even greater. My generation enjoyed security and unparalleled prosperity. And we helped to turn our former wartime adversaries--Germany and Japan--into peacetime allies and leading partners in the democratic community. Certainly, there are differences between the situations we faced after two world wars and the situation today. But there are also important parallels that ought to guide us. We must recognize the need for American leadership; the need for bipartisanship in our foreign policy; the need to make investments now to avoid far larger expenditures and a much more dangerous world later; the need to talk sense to the American people. Even as we make the tough choices at home to put our economy in order, we must extend a hand of cooperation to the peoples of the former Soviet Union, not out of charity, but out of responsibility to ourselves--to secure our own interests and to defend our own values. Helping democracy succeed in Russia is probably the wisest--and least expensive- -investment that we can make today in America's security. A democratic Russia creates a new global political landscape. Today, Russia is showing a willingness to work with the United States and other nations to prevent the spread of the conflict in Bosnia and to exert pressure for a political outcome. Our new relationship with Russia gives us the chance to work together on the world's problems, and to carry out preventive diplomacy and solve conflicts. The need for American action is reinforced by the results of Russia's April 25 referendum. In a great expression of democratic faith, the Russian people reaffirmed their commitment to political and economic reform. While the experts insisted that Russians had grown cynical about democracy and apathetic toward politics, nearly two-thirds of voters came to the polls. Even more remarkable was the outcome of the referendum itself. After almost 18 months of painful economic reforms, a strong majority of the Russian people expressed their support for President Yeltsin and for more reform. And they did so with the backing of President Clinton, whose support of Yeltsin and reform in Russia has been strong and unflinching. President Clinton is determined to meet the challenge of leadership--to tip the global balance in favor of free-dom. This is why he has led America into an alliance with Russian reform. Working closely with Russia's democrats and our Western allies, the President has developed a two-part strategy to support the new Russian revolution: First, a focused program of US initiatives to help the development of Russian democracy and free enterprise; second, a large- scale package of measures to support a transformation of the Russian economy, a package jointly sponsored by the world's major industrial democracies and major financial institutions. President Clinton is delivering on the commitments that he made to President Yeltsin at Vancouver in early April--commitments that were important to the outcome of the referendum. He pledged concessional loans for agricultural products. Very soon, Russia will sign a $700 million Food for Progress concessional loan agreement, an agreement that will provide aid for Russia. That will also help wheat, corn, and soybean farmers here in the Midwest. He pledged support for privatization in Russia. US teams are now in Russia helping establish capital markets, including a fledgling stock market, and an Enterprise Fund to invest in start-up small businesses in Russia. He pledged support for student exchange programs as part of a Democracy Corps. More than 2,000 Russian students will come to America in the coming weeks as part of "Democracy Summer." Other parts of the Vancouver program are also moving ahead. We are working to revive Russia's energy sector--to provide hard currency for Russia--and lessen US dependence on Persian Gulf oil. We are also helping to resettle recently demobilized Russian soldiers. That action will support the withdrawal of Russian troops from neighboring countries. President Clinton's initiative is guided by several basic principles. First, we want to deliver quick and tangible benefits to the Russian people. If the faith demonstrated in last month's referendum is to be sustained, they must see that they are the beneficiaries of reform and not its unintentional victims. And if Americans are to support this initiative, we must--and we will--make sure that the aid is not just well-intentioned but also well-spent. A congressional delegation, led by House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, recently saw first-hand how the United States is helping to make privatization work in Russia. They observed auction centers in Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod both funded by USAID and operated by Price Water-house, to carry out the sale of state-run enterprises. Second, we need to assist Russia's conversion to a market economy. Ultimately, increased interaction with the world economy--far more than aid--will transform Russia. For its part, Russia needs to establish the necessary legal and political conditions to attract foreign trade and investment--which we hope will include businesses that will create American jobs. For our part, President Clinton has ordered a full review of Cold War laws and regulations. They were meant to restrict trade with a communist Soviet Union, but they now only impede our relations with a democratic Russia. To the maximum extent possible, consistent with America's interests, US markets should be open to competitive Russian products. Similarly, Americans should be allowed to export our goods and technology to Russia. Third, we want to dramatically expand efforts to send American business and trade union leaders, farmers, and community organizers to Russia. We want to increase contact and cooperation between our armed forces and the Russian military. We want to bring tens of thousands of Russians to the United States, where they can experience the sights, sounds, and practices of a thriving democracy and a market economy. Our exchange programs will place a special emphasis on the younger generation of Russians and Americans. I hope each of you consider taking part at some point. Fourth, our assistance to Russia must also reinforce US security. This approach means helping Russia and its neighbors dismantle their dangerous nuclear arsenals. This is simply the best security that our money can buy. Fifth and finally, our assistance efforts must not take place in isolation, but must be part of a larger partnership between Russia and the international community. That is why President Clinton's strategy to support Russia's democracy is tied to a larger-scale multilateral initiative with our principal industrial partners around the world. This multilateral program was announced last month in Tokyo at an extraordinary meeting of foreign and finance ministers from the seven major industrialized countries and Russia. At that meeting, Russia's representatives outlined a bold new plan to control Russia's money supply, to cut its budget deficits, and to undertake even more fundamental economic reform. In response to such actions, the world's leading democracies--working through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank--announced their readiness to provide Russia with financial support. Fifteen billion dollars of Russia's foreign debt has recently been rescheduled. The multilateral package announced at Tokyo amounts to more than $28 billion to help Russia stabilize its currency, finance critical imports, and divest itself of inefficient state enterprises. The disbursement of these resources will be closely linked to Russia's progress in economic reform. In contrast to previous assistance efforts, the Tokyo program sets realistic standards for Russian performance. We plan to match Russia's progress with a prompt infusion of resources that will reinforce reform and will benefit Russian people at the grass-roots level. At the G-7 meeting in Tokyo in April, the United States committed to going beyond the pledges made in Vancouver. We put forth a $1.8 billion additional proposal to build upon our efforts in support of reform. I am pleased that just yesterday, the funding for that proposal was approved by the House subcommittee that oversees these matters, chaired very effectively by Congressman Dave Obey from your neighboring state of Wisconsin. And I am also pleased that the package drew strong bipartisan support. We have made important progress since Vancouver. I am confident that we will sustain that progress until the July summit meeting in Tokyo, when we hope for another burst of enthusiasm and commitment to support free markets and democracy in Russia. Our closest allies clearly recognize that helping Russia is in their interest, too. Canada, Germany, Japan, and Britain have each announced substantial new aid packages during the last two months. We hope that by the July summit in Tokyo, we will be able to announce agreement with our allies on the creation of a new special privatization fund. We will work closely in this effort with Japan and Germany. And we hope that Japan fully recognizes the leading role it can play not only in Tokyo this summer, but thereafter in helping deliver the kind of total package that will secure Russia's place in the community of democratic nations. I think that all of us in Washington realize that asking American taxpayers to help support Russia is not easy, especially when we face important challenges here at home. But I disagree with those who think it's wrong or politically unwise to ask the American people to support a program that is so clearly in our interests. That's why we are asking--and that's why we're asking now. I urge you to support the President's plan to help Russia's democracy succeed. I am convinced that this investment in Russia's democracy is essential to America's future security. I am especially asking the young people here today to make your choice. I am not among those who think that your generation is disengaged, or cynical, or apathetic about what happens in the world around you. Don't let those critics sell you short. I believe you deserve more credit, and I ask you today to help prove me right. I ask you to tell your parents, your peers, your representatives in Congress, that you understand the vital link between the success of Russian democracy and America's long-term security. You understand that freedom abroad means opportunity in America. You understand that assistance to our friends in Russia is insurance against having enemies in Russia. If we do not act today, your generation may inherit an America of few choices and many burdens. You may inherit an America of lost opportunities. We may never build a national service program. We may never fully fund Head Start for poor children. We may never be able to afford the technologies we need to clean up our environment. Unless we help Russian democracy now, we will pay the price. And my responsibility, together with you, is not to let that happen. We have come so far. We have spent so much. We have earned the promise of a safer, freer, and better world. To retreat now would be to walk away from nearly a half century of American leadership, sacrifice, and commitment. Our purpose over the last half century was to arrive right where we are today: to be able to ask the American people to form a partnership with Russia because it is in America's most fundamental interest. That is why we ask--and that is why we are confident that the Congress and the American people will respond affirmatively when we make this request to measure up to our mutual responsibilities. (###)