home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
042693
/
0426unk.000
< prev
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
87 lines
<text id=93TT1558>
<title>
Apr. 26, 1993: The Political Interest
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
Apr. 26, 1993 The Truth about Dinosaurs
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
The Political Interest,Page 38
Tap Israel to Help Russia
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Michael Kramer
</p>
<p> This just in: Supporting freedom doesn't come free. Bill
Clinton wants more money for Russia--$1.8 billion in new funds
beyond the $1.6 billion the President promised Boris Yeltsin in
Vancouver. Where's the money going to come from?
</p>
<p> Mostly from Congress, via an emergency appropriation,
White House officials predict. But selling the idea of new
foreign aid is the political equivalent of root canal. Luckily,
however, an alternative exists, a reallocation of the $15
billion the U.S. sends abroad each year--funds still
disaccording to a formula established when the old world order
flourished.
</p>
<p> Trouble is, redirecting a substantial amount of foreign
aid would require slicing Israel's annual $3 billion stipend,
which strikes most elected officials as a prescription for
political suicide. "It's not an option we're considering," Al
Gore says flatly. "But it should be," says a White House aide,
who hints that the Administration is "considering how and when
we might step on the third rail" of foreign assistance.
Jerusalem's take "may be safe this year, but that's it. Israel's
going to have to take a hit sometime soon."
</p>
<p> He's right, and here's why. Aid to Israel comes in two
forms. Of the $1.8 billion in military assistance, about 70%
must be spent on U.S.-made equipment and weapons. "That's
untouchable," says a senior State Department official. "It
creates jobs in the U.S., which in case you haven't noticed is
what the Clinton Administration is supposed to be all about."
The remaining $1.2 billion in economic aid is harder to justify
now that Israel is flush. Foreign investment is flowing in, the
growth rate is a phenomenal 6%, and the $10 billion in loan
guarantees finally granted by George Bush last year has
permitted Israel to borrow from private banks at favorable
rates. The country is doing so well that the government has
asked the Israel Bonds Organization to curtail sales; the loan
guarantees are a much better way to raise capital.
</p>
<p> In public, Israel's leaders remain apoplectic about a
decline in U.S. aid. Privately, though, some Israeli politicians
are dying to be asked to do their bit for the new world order.
"We could take a shot and gain a lot of goodwill," says one,
"but it all depends on the peace process."
</p>
<p> So he's saying peace would make cutting aid to Israel
easier, right? Wrong. It's just the opposite. "Consider the
northern front," explains Ze'ev Chafets, an Israeli journalist
who served as spokesman for the late Prime Minister Menachem
Begin. "If we give the Golan Heights back to Syria, we'll have
to build expensive new defenses close by." Never mind that
Israel could finance such projects itself; the post-peace game
would be played differently. "If peace happens," says Chafets,
"we'll be looking for more American money, not less--just like
we got from Jimmy Carter after we made peace with Egypt."
</p>
<p> Three years ago, Senate Republican leader Bob Dole bravely
suggested reducing Israel's aid: "Can't we convince our friends...it is in their interest too to help insure against a
failure of new democracies and free-market economies?" No one
even tried. "Dole was right," says a Clinton adviser, "and the
argument's going to be made again now that we want new money for
Yeltsin. The question is whether we'll have the guts to make the
case ourselves or whether we'll piggyback on Congress"--assuming, of course, that Congress prefers the third rail to
root canal.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>