![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a_kleberGet Serious About Helping Russia Go Straight; George Soros. International Herald Tribune. Paris: Jan 6, 1994. pg. 4, [2 Edition]
Vladimir Zhirinovsky's strong showing in the Russian parliamentary elections last month constitutes a serious security threat to the world.
Mr. Zhirinovsky has modeled himself on Hitler. The conditions that drove voters to support him are similar to those that prevailed in Weimar Germany, only worse: economic disintegration, inflation, inequality, a breakdown of order and morality, and a profound sense of national injury.
The administration of President Boris Yeltsin is more inept and impotent than the Weimar Republic was. The army voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Zhirinovsky.
Admittedly, special factors favored him. Reformers were divided and moderate nationalists were excluded from the ballot, leaving him as the only nationalist choice. Nonetheless, the elections turned him from a marginal figure into a credible contender for power.
Barring an unexpected improvement in the performance of the Yeltsin administration, Mr. Zhirinovsky stands a good chance of becoming the next president. He has cast himself as an unpredictable madman who could blackmail the world with nuclear weapons. He will be as insatiable as Hitler, with no means of staying in power but oppression and conquest.
If the analogy with Hitler is uncomfortable, it should shock the civilized world into action. There is a simple way to prevent Mr. Zhirinovsky from coming to power: improve the performance of the present government.
This would require a profound change in Western attitudes. We must recognize that the collapse of the Soviet system has plunged the region into a crisis that endangers peace and stability far beyond its borders. We cannot protect our security by strengthening our defenses; we can do so only by exerting a constructive influence within the region.
We must help Russia and the other former Soviet republics make the transition to democratic, market-oriented, open societies, because they cannot do it on their own; and we must help them build legal and security structures to preserve peace.
At next week's NATO summit, the Clinton administration is to propose what it calls a Partnership for Peace, extending a hand to some East European states. The steps proposed - joint exercises for peacekeeping, crisis management, search and rescue missions, disaster relief - are totally inadequate, but the basic idea is good. It needs to be expanded into a genuine partnership with a strong component of economic assistance.
The military and security aspects could be entrusted to NATO, but the economic, legal and political aspects would require the creation of a task force under the aegis of the Group of Seven or the Group of 24 countries, which are currently providing aid to Eastern Europe. The task force would need a unified command.
It should be recognized that economic assistance to the former Soviet Union has, so far, been an unmitigated failure. It need not be so. My foundations have developed a formula that works: It consists of finding a trustworthy partner, retaining the purse strings but working for the benefit of recipients, not of the donors.
It has worked in the International Science Foundation, which is distributing $100 million to natural science and has benefited 30,000 scientists in the former Soviet Union; in the Privatization Training Institute, established in partnership with the Ministry of Privatization; and in the Transformation of the Humanities - a joint project with the Education Ministry to replace Marxism-Leninism in schools.
After the Russian elections, many voices urged a slowdown in economic reform. The opposite is the right policy. A social safety net is an integral part of an advanced market economy, but Russia cannot afford one on its own. That is why international assistance is indispensable. Balance-of-payment support from the International Monetary Fund could be delivered in the form of social security payments.
Similarly, NATO exercises could provide hard-currency employment to Russian officers. In this way, large and important segments of the population would have something to lose if Mr. Zhirinovsky came to power.
I have been predicting the emergence of nationalistic dictatorships since 1990, but I did not anticipate Mr. Zhirinovsky's electoral success. It happened sooner than I expected, and it fulfills my worst fears. I considered the threat so serious that I have spent or committed $1 billion of my personal fortune for the promotion of what I call open society.
Do the open societies of the world care about their way of life? Are they willing to make any effort to promote it? There is not much time left for action. President Bill Clinton's forthcoming trip to the NATO summit, to Prague and to Moscow is probably the last chance successfully to initiate radically different policy toward the former Soviet empire.
The writer, an international financier, contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky's strong showing in the Russian parliamentary elections last month constitutes a serious security threat to the world.
Mr. Zhirinovsky has modeled himself on Hitler. The conditions that drove voters to support him are similar to those that prevailed in Weimar Germany, only worse: economic disintegration, inflation, inequality, a breakdown of order and morality, and a profound sense of national injury.
The administration of President Boris Yeltsin is more inept and impotent than the Weimar Republic was. The army voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Zhirinovsky.
Admittedly, special factors favored him. Reformers were divided and moderate nationalists were excluded from the ballot, leaving him as the only nationalist choice. Nonetheless, the elections turned him from a marginal figure into a credible contender for power.
Barring an unexpected improvement in the performance of the Yeltsin administration, Mr. Zhirinovsky stands a good chance of becoming the next president. He has cast himself as an unpredictable madman who could blackmail the world with nuclear weapons. He will be as insatiable as Hitler, with no means of staying in power but oppression and conquest.
If the analogy with Hitler is uncomfortable, it should shock the civilized world into action. There is a simple way to prevent Mr. Zhirinovsky from coming to power: improve the performance of the present government.
This would require a profound change in Western attitudes. We must recognize that the collapse of the Soviet system has plunged the region into a crisis that endangers peace and stability far beyond its borders. We cannot protect our security by strengthening our defenses; we can do so only by exerting a constructive influence within the region.
We must help Russia and the other former Soviet republics make the transition to democratic, market-oriented, open societies, because they cannot do it on their own; and we must help them build legal and security structures to preserve peace.
At next week's NATO summit, the Clinton administration is to propose what it calls a Partnership for Peace, extending a hand to some East European states. The steps proposed - joint exercises for peacekeeping, crisis management, search and rescue missions, disaster relief - are totally inadequate, but the basic idea is good. It needs to be expanded into a genuine partnership with a strong component of economic assistance.
The military and security aspects could be entrusted to NATO, but the economic, legal and political aspects would require the creation of a task force under the aegis of the Group of Seven or the Group of 24 countries, which are currently providing aid to Eastern Europe. The task force would need a unified command.
It should be recognized that economic assistance to the former Soviet Union has, so far, been an unmitigated failure. It need not be so. My foundations have developed a formula that works: It consists of finding a trustworthy partner, retaining the purse strings but working for the benefit of recipients, not of the donors.
It has worked in the International Science Foundation, which is distributing $100 million to natural science and has benefited 30,000 scientists in the former Soviet Union; in the Privatization Training Institute, established in partnership with the Ministry of Privatization; and in the Transformation of the Humanities - a joint project with the Education Ministry to replace Marxism-Leninism in schools.
After the Russian elections, many voices urged a slowdown in economic reform. The opposite is the right policy. A social safety net is an integral part of an advanced market economy, but Russia cannot afford one on its own. That is why international assistance is indispensable. Balance-of-payment support from the International Monetary Fund could be delivered in the form of social security payments.
Similarly, NATO exercises could provide hard-currency employment to Russian officers. In this way, large and important segments of the population would have something to lose if Mr. Zhirinovsky came to power.
I have been predicting the emergence of nationalistic dictatorships since 1990, but I did not anticipate Mr. Zhirinovsky's electoral success. It happened sooner than I expected, and it fulfills my worst fears. I considered the threat so serious that I have spent or committed $1 billion of my personal fortune for the promotion of what I call open society.
Do the open societies of the world care about their way of life? Are they willing to make any effort to promote it? There is not much time left for action. President Bill Clinton's forthcoming trip to the NATO summit, to Prague and to Moscow is probably the last chance successfully to initiate radically different policy toward the former Soviet empire.
The writer, an international financier, contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.
