By any reasonable standard of judgment, this week's summit meeting between President Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin must be accounted a smashing success.
Though Yeltsin is the one making by far the most headlines with some startling breakthroughs and disclosures, Bush deserves credit for persistently exerting the pressure that led to the achievements in the direction of more candor and less international tension.Regardless of who gets the credit, consider the important history that was made this week in connection with the Washington, D.C., summit:
First, seeking approval of U.S. participation in a $24 billion Western aid package for his struggling country, Yeltsin became the first Russian leader ever invited to address Congress.
Second, by agreeing on the most sweeping arms reductions since the dawn of the nuclear age, Yeltsin and Bush opened a new era in international relations that could eventually eliminate the danger of nuclear Armageddon.
Third, historic candor was demonstrated by Yeltsin's startling disclosure that Americans captured from the Vietnam or Korean wars may still be held in Russian labor camps.
So startling, in fact, was the disclosure on the prisoners of war that it nearly overshadowed the breakthrough toward de-escalating the nuclear arms race. Not only the public but even some members of Congress are over-reacting by insisting that aid to Moscow be held up until the question of whether or not Russia is holding American POWs can be clarified.
But withholding aid would amount to penalizing Moscow for its new-found frankness. Instead, the way to encourage more such candor is to reward it. Besides, helping Russia stay on its present course toward more freedom and less aggression is clearly in America's own interest.
Though Yeltsin told Congress this week that communism is dead, its permanent demise cannot be taken for granted. The switch in Russia toward more free enterprise has exacerbated food shortages, increased prices and contributed to unemployment. Eventually, such economic dislocations should pass. But it still is not certain that the Russian people will accept the hardships that go with the switch to a new economic system. Foreign aid to ease the pain should be considered an investment in freedom and peace.
Certainly the new arms pact constitutes a big step toward peace. The U.S.-Russian pledge to destroy two-thirds of their strategic nuclear weapons within a decade is more than just another acknowledgment that the Cold War is over. Rather, it means the two nations are giving up efforts to achieve nuclear superiority over each other. Though each side would still be left with about 3,000 strategic weapons, the cuts are deemed big enough to eliminate the likelihood that it would pay to launch a pre-emptive first strike. Eventually, Washington could start treating Russia not as the superpower the Soviet Union once was but as a militarily powerful though economically weak under-developed nation.
Like Russia's switch to free enterprise, its dismantling of its military machinery can't be taken for granted. Military de-escalation is bound to add to the financial woes of a Russia already in economic crisis. Eventually, the money saved by cutting the military can be used to make life better for Russian consumers. But the transition is bound to be difficult and fragile.
Despite the potential pitfalls, still other problems need to be resolved. One of these problems involves the large numbers of Russian troops that still need to be withdrawn from the new countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. Moscow could also use encouragement and expert advice on adopting laws on property ownership, privatization and bankruptcy, removing regulatory restraints on individual initiative, and getting harvested crops to market before they rot.
The challenge now for the United States and Russia is to avoid the temptation to just rest on the monumental achievements of this week's summit and to keep moving ahead.