WHILE A LOUSY SALES JOB, RUSSIAN AID IMPORTANT

In between President Clinton's "summit" with Russian President Boris Yeltsin last weekend and next week's meeting of the Group of Seven major industrialized democracies to talk about further aid to Russia, two things happened in the former Soviet Union that symbolize the importance of helping that struggling nation.

On Tuesday, a vat containing uranium exploded at a secret nuclear fuel plant in Siberia, contaminating a still-undetermined area of land and endangering the people who live there. And on Wednesday, the price of gasoline throughout Russia was doubled, sparking renewed protests against the free-market reforms led by Yeltsin.

Both events are not unusual in today's Russia. While Tuesday's accident does not compare to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, it is the worst in a series of Russian nuclear accidents that have taken place in the past year. And the danger of nuclear accidents will only grow unless Russia reverses its economic tailspin. Equipment is aging, and nuclear plants lack the funds to update their equipment.

Meanwhile, the gas hike is becoming old hat in Russia, too. Inflation, while not at the 50-60 percent per-month level it was earlier in the year, is running around 30 percent per month today. Much of the reason for this instability is the political battle raging between Yeltsin and his opponents. But in the specific case of gas inflation there's another reason: the Russian oil industry, for all its potential, is near the point of collapse. Production has dropped sharply, and about 30,000 wells are standing idle.

At the summit, President Clinton unveiled a plan to assist the Russians with such problems, as well as others. We believe his plan is a prudent one.

It is prudent because it circumvents the former-communist-dominated bureaucracy and infuses money directly into specific-need areas. For example, Clinton's $1 billion plan includes a technical assistance program to help repair and improve Russia's dilapidated natural gas and oil industry.

Clinton's plan is also well-directed in empowering private enterprise. In marked contrast to his plans for the U.S. economy, Clinton directs money through an enterprise fund to private Russian entrepreneurs to help them set up their own businesses. He has also outlined an initiative to provide funds to the Russian government to help it sell off factories to the private sector.

Not all is perfect about Clinton's plan. For one, he's doing a lousy job of selling it to the United States public.

There are many reasons why assisting Russia now profits us in the long run. But Clinton's claim that buying Russia's friendship is a lot cheaper than arming the U.S. to cope with the consequences of allowing Russia to once again become a deadly enemy is not particularly persuasive nor accurate. U.S. aid by itself can do little for Russia, and, indeed, not all Russians want it. Nor does it do much for world stability; witness the former Yugoslavia or the carnage in Georgia. In fact, such rhetoric from Clinton is dangerous because it pretends he is devising an effective alternative to the U.S. defense budget, which he is not.

Clinton is also failing in talking to the American public before he makes a foreign initiative. More and more, it seems he is reacting to international events and improvising, rather than deliberating on such important topics openly. Perhaps this is the result of a fear that Ross Perot will demagogue him about focusing on foreign policy like he demagogued George Bush.

Next week Russia will again be in the headlines as G-7 leaders discuss what else the West should do for Russia. There is, indeed, much more needed. But now is the time for Europe and Japan to renew their efforts, and Clinton to start selling his foreign policy plans to the American public ahead of time instead of after.