Clinton's 'Morally Ambiguous' Moscow Trip
BY choosing to travel next month to Moscow but not to London to celebrate the end of World War II, President Clinton has chosen a ''morally ambiguous'' and ''historically evasive'' course, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser told reporters yesterday.
''Not to go to London but to go to Moscow is morally ambiguous, historically evasive, politically counterproductive, and sends a signal to the Europeans that our policy is Russia-first and not Europe-first,'' Zbigniew Brzezinski said at a Monitor breakfast.
Mr. Brzezinski says the moral ambiguity stems from the fact that unlike Britain, which stood alone for democracy against fascism, Russia was an ''accomplice'' of Hitler during the first two years of the war. Stalin fought Hitler, with whom he signed a notorious pact in 1939, only after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.
''The British stood alone when no one was with them, and they fought for democracy,'' says Brzezinski. ''Stalin was not fighting Democracy; he was fighting for himself.''
The former Carter aide says there is a danger that the ceremonies commemorating the end of the war will stimulate nostalgia for Stalinism in Russia ''because it will remind the Russians of the days when Russia was a co-equal power.''
Says Brzezinski: ''I don't think that's helpful to Russian democracy.''
Mr. Clinton's trip also sends the wrong signal to Russia in the midst of its bloody crackdown on Chechen separatists, Brzezinski said. US Secretary of State Warren Christopher said last February that Clinton would not go to Moscow until the Chechen issue was ''constructively resolved.''
''He's going, so I assume the interpretation of 'constructive resolution' means that quite a few Chechens have been killed in the meantime.
''His visit to Moscow, in effect, means that the outside world does not care about the Chechens.''