If you agree with Dr. Krasnow's comments (or disagree?), please contact Dr. Krasnow through the email link on the homepage so that your voice will also be heard. As a number of JRL subscribers endorsed the Open Letter to President Bill Clinton and other US government officials (Albright, Rubin, Berger, Gore, Dennis Hastert, and Trent Lott), it is my duty to report on the responses I received since the Letter was mailed to the above addressees on March 24. Here is one from the National Security Council: Dear Dr. Krasnow: Thank you for your letter to Mr. Berger regarding Russia's economic transition. I have been asked to respond on his behalf. I agree that the United States has as much at stake today in Russia overcoming the challenges of transition as we did in checking its expansion during the Cold War. In this spirit, we remain committed to support Russian reform to the fullest extent possible. It is vital to remember that success in Russian economic reform will depend first and foremost on Russian commitment and political will. The Russian government must pursue assiduously sound economic policies in order to ensure the effective use of Russia's vast resources and of any external assistance. Regarding your concerns over our role in aiding Russian economic reform, the United States has worked closely with Russia since its initiation of market and democratic reforms in 1991. We have provided humanitarian aid, encouraged foreign investment in large and small enterprises, supported the independent media, and provided incentives to keep Russia's nuclear weapons and expertise falling into the wrong hands. Serious, dedicated individuals from U.S. public and private organizations will continue to address these problems from every level. While there are no easy solutions to Russia's economic problems, we are committed to provide support where it is in both the Russian and U.S. national interest. Sincerely, Carlos Pascual, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs" >From The Secretary of State I received the following message : "Thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts and concerns. I value your opinion and will take it and the views of all Americans into account. President Clinton and I are committed to making the world a better place for all Americans and all people. With your support and encouragement we can achieve this goal together." Signed: Madeleine Albright . What conclusions shall we draw from these responses and non-responses? As the initiator and the author of the Open Letter, I conclude : 1. By failing to address the key demands of the Letter--that current U.S. policy toward Russia should be replaced by a new one, "letting Russians, nor our State or Treasury Departments,decide what constitutes reform in Russia," the Executive branch spurned all of the signatories, including a number of specialists in Russian Studies and economics . Timed to coincide with the Gore-Primakov meeting in Washington, the air war against Yugoslavia has bombed out the central demand of the Letter: the need for a speedy revision of the entire U.S. policy toward Russia. Had the U.S. government followed recommendations contained in the letter, that tragic, dangerous and misbegotten war could have been averted . 2. By failing even to acknowledge the receipt of the Letter, the U.S. Legistative branch, the Republican House and Senate leaders, failed in their oversight duty as they fail to lead the nation out of the quagmire of the Balkan war . While the two evasive official responses are superficially conciliatory, they are also obfuscatory. The recent actions of U.S. government are exactly the opposite of what we have recommended in the Letter . Instead of welcoming Primakov as a Prime Minister with the strongest popular mandate and thus capable of carrying out a mutually agreeable program of reforms, the U.S. government did everything to undercut his standing. It openly snubbed him by timing the bombing with his visit in Washington. To all the injuries visited upon Russia via IMF's dogmatic economic "diktat," the U.S.government added the insult of starting the war against Russia's historical ally on the day of Primakov's arrival.It infuriated all Russians, including pro-Western "reformers. " Instead of encouraging Primakov's subsequent mediating effort in Belgrade, this Administration turned a deaf ear to him . True, it allowed the IMF to release the loan we insisted upon, but only to placate the intensity of anti-American protests that the war in Yugoslavia unleashed in Russia. Symbolically, the day Primakov was fired by the erratic Russian president was the day when Larry Summers, the chief patron of Chubais and other "young reformers" in Russia, was promoted to replace Robert Rubin (whose reply we are still awaiting) as the Secretary of the Treasury. Does it mean that we got stuck with the failed Russia policy as we got stuck with the failed Balkan policy? Are we to expect now more U.S. bombardment of Russia with disastropus macroeconomic advice? The way I read the above responses, the U.S. military misadventure in Yugoslavia is not only the greatest obstacle to better U.S.-Russia relations, but is a piece of the same cloth, namely, a new conception of U.S. world hegemony and the NATO as a self-appointed policeman of the world. That's why, in addition to the Open Letter, we have posted, on our website www.raga.org, a petition to Bill Clinton to stop that war. What do you think? W. George Krasnow, President Russian American Goodwill Association wgkrasnow@rcn.org www.raga.org >>> The End of my Report to JRL Subscribers and those who endorsed the Open Letter<<<