Russia Must Not Be Rewarded with US Taxpayers Dollars for Selling China Missiles Designed to Kill American Sailors

(Washington, D.C.): A House-Senate
conference committee is expected today to
consider a provision of the House-passed
FY1998 foreign assistance authorization
bill that should enjoy the support of every
legislator: A two-year
prohibition on U.S. foreign aid to Russia
if the Kremlin executes a pending sale of
SS-N-22 “Sunburn” anti-ship
missiles to China.

The reason such a forceful response is
warranted lies in the nature of the
SS-N-22. This sea-skimming
missile was developed by the Soviet Union
specifically to destroy U.S.
aircraft carriers and the AEGIS ships
that provide air defense for their battle
groups. It flies supersonically
at altitudes of just 23 feet, enabling it
to evade even advanced anti-aircraft and
-missile defenses. With its powerful
high-explosive conventional warhead, this
missile could enable the Chinese People’s
Liberation Army to devastate American
ships, killing untold numbers of sailors.
It even could help Beijing to deny the
United States the ability to maintain a
necessary presence and power projection
capability in East Asian waters.

In the course of debate on the House
floor, an influential cosponsor of this
initiative, House Rules Committee
Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-NY),
powerfully rebutted suggestions that the
SS-N-22 would represent no threat to U.S.
strategic interests:

“…If I heard the last
speaker correctly, he said that
the sale of this kind of missile,
the SS-N-22, poses no threat to
American strategic concerns….Let
me just say this. Remember the
U.S.S. Stark. Ask any of the 37
dead sailors that were killed by
a missile just like this.

“…Any Member around here
who is concerned about missile
proliferation should support this
[amendment]. I want my colleagues
to make no mistake about it. China
wants these missiles to
intimidate and possibly sink
American ships or kill American
sailors.

“America is engaged in an
extraordinary act of generosity,
giving American taxpayers’
dollars [to Russia], and — in
spite of repeated anti-American
Russian activities like this too
numerous to mention — the
Clinton administration has opted
to maintain an uninterrupted flow
of taxpayer money to Russia.

“This time, the
Russians have gone too far in
selling this kind of deadly
weapon to the Chinese,
and if our aid cannot induce the
Russian government to refrain
from making this kind of a sale
which is such a direct threat to
American citizens, we obviously
are getting nowhere.”
(Emphasis added)

‘See No Evil’

Incredibly, the Clinton Administration
is opposed to the proposal offered by
Reps. Solomon and Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA). It regards
the transfer of hundreds of millions of
American tax-dollars to the Kremlin as an
indispensable lubricant in U.S.-Russian
relations and resists every effort to
ensure that such transfers are not, as a
practical matter, turning into rewards
for Moscow’s conduct that is inimical to
American interests.

The Administration’s muscle in this
regard was evident on 24 June, when —
together with congressional allies like
Reps. Ron Dellums (D-CA) and John Spratt
(D-SC) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) —
it prevailed upon 11 Members of Congress
(including five Republicans) to reverse
the vote they had cast for the
Rohrabacher-Solomon amendment the day
before in connection with the FY1998
defense authorization act.

The Larger Problem of U.S.
Aid to Russia

The argument for withholding the funds
in question is all the greater since, as
J. Michael Waller of the American Foreign
Policy Council has tenaciously argued, the
United States cannot confidently monitor
what happens to this American largesse
once it reaches Russia. In fact,
there is significant evidence that U.S.
resources are being used to prop up
Russia’s decaying military industrial
complex and develop the very weapons that
Moscow is increasingly selling abroad.
Dr. Waller cites a cable from the U.S.
Embassy in Moscow as reporting that
“the Kremlin’s strategy is to
channel Western aid ‘to a small number of
key technology-rich research and design
institutes,’ most of which will remain
state-owned and few of which are going
out of the military business. ⁽¹⁾

In a recent New York Times
Magazine article ⁽²⁾
Russian opposition leader Gigory
Yavlinksy, argued that Western financial
assistance was being wasted in Russia.
Yavlinksy claims that:

“The brief period of liberal
Government, under Prime Minister
Yegor Gaidar, ended in May 1992.
When he was replaced some months
later by Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russia
regressed to a replica of the old
Soviet system, with different
titles. The bureaucracy, the
absence of civil society, the
existence of the old Soviet
monopolies all created obstacles
for people who wanted to live
differently or start their own
businesses.

“I know that an enormous
investment of time and money has
been spent by the [American]
government, by the private
sector, by foundations and
universities in promoting the
myth that Russia has achieved
democracy. It would take
great courage to admit that
the taxpayers’ money was
wasted. But it is always
better to be honest.”
(Emphasis added.)

Not only is the Russian political system
ill-equipped to allocate U.S. assistance
effectively to non-military sectors, it
appears ill-disposed to do so. Worse yet,
by allowing foreign assistance to prop up
Russia’s “old Soviet
monopolies,” the U.S. is undermining
its own efforts to encourage systemic
market reforms.

The Bottom Line

The case for the Senate to recede to
the House on the Rohrabacher-Solomon
amendment was eloquently summarized
during the House debate by Rep. Duncan
Hunter (R-CA):

“In light of the money that
we are giving the Soviet Union,
the hundreds of millions of
dollars, is it [unreasonable] for
us to ask them at the same time
to refrain from giving a very
effective ship-killing capability
to China? I think, in light of
the enormous dollars we have
given them, this is a reasonable
request to make to the
Russians.”

If the Russians continue to ignore that
request with respect to the SS-N-22, the
Center for Security Policy believes the
United States has no choice but to stop
what amount to its foreign aid subsidies
of the Russian military-industrial
complex responsible for this outrageous
sale to China.

– 30 –

1. See “Time
to De-Fund Russia’s Military
Modernization” which appeared in Wall
Street Journal Europe 2-3 June 1995
edition.

2. See “How
The World Sees Us — Power;
Shortsighted” which appeared in New
York Times Magazine 8 June 1997
edition.