Death of an empire

THE DISINTEGRATION of the former Soviet Empire is now an accomplished fact, as the country continues its plunge into economic disaster. Yet amid this debacle, three events have occurred that may mark the beginning of a turnaround. They are: the Russian Republic's takeover of the financial and administrative institutions of the moribund Soviet state; the Ukraine's vote for independence (and the Bush Administration's surprisingly forthright response to it); and the formation of a new voluntary commonwealth of independent republics.

With the Russian takeover of the Soviet state (its assets and, alas, its enormous debts), the loci of political power, administrative accountability, good policy sense, and democratic legitimacy have all come together, finally, for the first time. This is a precondition for future recovery, though no guarantee of it. There is a chance now to get a grip on the printing of rubles and liquidate the obstructive operations of the old apparatus. Boris Yeltsin has boldly stepped into the vacuum of leadership and seized, not really power (because that he had), but responsibility. In this endeavor, more power to him.

Someday, Russian dominance of the domains of the former Soviet Empire may well be a worry. As the inheritor of that vast economic and military potential, Russia still needs the counterweight of an American presence in Western Europe to ensure a stable balance of power on the Continent. But today's problem is different; this problem is the spread of misery and chaos that could both spill over into neighboring regions and undermine the democratic experiment that is the best hope of a decent outcome. The restoration of policy coherence and economic reform is an enterprise that warrants Western support. Yeltsin has announced a radical market reform and a timetable. Now these people deserve a more forthcoming response from the West, where previously all of Gorbachev's evasions and Harvard's grand bargains" did not.

Now Ukraine. President Bush got it right this time, letting the Ukrainians know even before the referendum on December 1 that he would welcome their independence and move toward recognition. Naturally there were squeals from Gorbachev, and even some grumbling from the Russians. But the criticism the President has received for going too fast was odd, coming from many who had deplored his tardiness in the past-in recognizing the Baltics, for example.

He should stick to his decision. The Ukrainian vote for independence was a foregone conclusion, even if the 80 per cent figure and the high support from the Russian-speaking minority were surprises. President Bush was right to get ahead of the curve.

The U.S. is now in a better position to exert some positive influence. The world has an interest in ensuring coherent command and control over Soviet nuclear weapons; the West has a right to tie economic aid to a sensible accord on economic arrangements, especially on liberal trading relations. The new voluntary commonwealth launched on December 8 by Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia is a big step toward these ends. The statesmanship shown so far by Yeltsin and the Ukrainian leader Kravchuk is a vindication of President Bush's action--and yet another proof of Gorbachev's pathetic irrelevance.

COPYRIGHT 1991 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning