```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6302-S6303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           THE MOSCOW SUMMIT

  Mr. PELL. Madam President, today President Clinton is joining 
President Mitterrand, Prime Minister Major, Chancellor Kohl, and 
President Yeltsin in Moscow to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 
end of World War II. That is as it should be. Together, after all, the 
United States, France, Britain, and the Soviet Union rid the world of 
the Nazi menace.
  The anniversary of Allied triumph over the Nazis carries great 
significance for us all. For the Russian people, who lost more than 20 
million of their fellow citizens during the war, this commemoration is 
particularly meaningful.
  Now that the cold war is over, the allies have the opportunity to 
stand together again--this time to build a new Europe--democratic, 
whole, and free. The gathering of the five leaders in Moscow today 
should be seen as a commitment to that goal.
  We have an enormous stake in Russia. United States engagement with 
Russia since the breakup of the Soviet Union has yielded significant 
results--particularly with regard to the reduction of weapons of mass 
destruction and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Europe. It is in 
the U.S. national interest to see that this process proceeds. Russian 
reformers offer the best prospect for continued progress on the issues 
that really count for the United States. Accordingly, we should be 
doing what we can to bolster Russia's democrats.
  President Clinton has come under fire for going to Moscow at a time 
when Russia is pursuing some policies to which the United States is 
opposed. I believe this criticism is short-sighted and for the most 
part, politically motivated. Some of the same people who are 
criticizing the President for going to Moscow are also demanding that 
the administration deliver a tough message to Moscow about its behavior 
in Chechnya, its proposed sale of a nuclear reactor to Iran, and its 
views about NATO expansion. What better way to deliver the message than 
to go to Moscow and do it personally?
  By going to Moscow, President Clinton is demonstrating to Russian 
leaders the benefits of continued engagement with the West. If he had 
decided to cancel his trip, President Clinton would be missing an 
opportunity to tell President Yeltsin and other Russian leaders--face 
to face--where he believes Russian policy is on the wrong track.
  That being said, we should not have any illusions about our ability 
to change Russian policy overnight. We must be realistic. Russian 
leaders, like their counterparts worldwide are political creatures. 
With parliamentary elections looming at the end of this year, and 
Presidential elections scheduled for 1996, few Russian politicians want 
to be perceived as buckling to Western pressure. Russian nationalists, 
whose influence is regrettably on the 
 [[Page S6303]]  rise, would be quick to brand them traitors.
  It is therefore highly unlikely that President Clinton will return to 
Washington with a long list of Russian concessions. Those who are 
demanding--or even predicting--that he will do so are setting up the 
administration for failure. We can and should expect, however, 
President Clinton to discuss our differences candidly and 
constructively, and to lay the ground work for United States-Russian 
accommodation on key issues like arms control, the Iran nuclear deal, 
Chechnya, and European security.
  The hallmark of a successful summit is not to solve all of the 
world's problems or even to resolve all of the bilateral issues between 
two countries. President Clinton's trip to Moscow is part of an ongoing 
process between Russia and the United States. We should be realistic 
about our expectations.

                          ____________________
```