In a National Tailspin, the Soviet Union Must Fill the Power Vacuum : Reform: Leaders try to link a fragmenting union. But Western aid is key, and that depends on a central government.

The end of Communist authority in the Soviet Union has left a gigantic power vacuum. How that vacuum is filled will be the crucial issue of this decade. With the exception of the Baltic states, there is almost no historical experience with democracy and free enterprise. In fact, events unfolding in most of the republics today give an ominous indication of authoritarianism and economic disintegration.

The great hope rests with the progressive reformers who have emerged from the political struggle of the past six years. To succeed in establishing a new “Union of Sovereign States” and a market economy, they urgently require major help from the United States and the other industrial democracies. Without this, there is probability of terrible depression, disintegration and political repression.

The collapse of the communist center has unleashed forces of nationalism. Thirteen of the 15 republics have declared independence. The three Baltic states have already left the union. Georgia, Armenia and Moldova have declared their intention to secede. On Dec. 1, a referendum will be held in the Ukraine, the second most populous and productive republic, to vote for a new president and to decide whether to leave the union. Leonid Kravchuk, a former conservative Communist who is now a rabid nationalist, is favored to win. He says the Ukraine must become a separate nation.

In Georgia, President Zviad Gamsakhurdia has become a virtual dictator five months after being elected with 87% of the popular vote. His repressive policies have resulted in civil strife and bloodshed. In Tadzhikistan, conservative Communists ousted the acting president and declared a state of emergency because he had ordered a suspension of communist activities. The explosive struggle between Azerbaijan and Armenia continues.

The problems of nationalism and political disintegration are more than matched by the collapse of the Soviet economy--now functioning only because of the black market. Because it is illegal, much of it is controlled by criminal overlords; and because the ruble is virtually worthless, most of the black market is barter. Productivity is declining about 10% a year. If the military-industrial complex--about a quarter of the Soviet gross national product--is dismantled, there will be huge unemployment. A major reason why Soviet armed forces have not returned home from eastern Germany and Eastern Europe is lack of housing.

Unfortunately, one of the few sources of hard-currency earnings remaining for the Soviets is about $12-billion worth of arms sold each year to the Third World. A poor grain harvest and inadequate transportation and distribution systems virtually ensure severe food shortages in the cities this winter.

The best hope for dealing with the horrendous problems facing the Soviet people is the creation of a union of sovereign states with a new central government based on the principles on democracy. The process has been launched with the formation of an extremely fragile interim government consisting of a state council--the executive arm--chaired by President Mikhail S. Gorbachev and the presidents of the 10 member republics; a new Supreme Soviet--the legislative arm--with members selected by the republics, and an inter-republic economic committee to coordinate the national economy.

This week the new Supreme Soviet has its first session. Its task is drafting the constitution, to establish the new union and its government. Fortunately, much of the work was completed during planning for the “nine-plus-one” treaty. The constitution will establish the provisions for a nationwide election of the new union’s first president. In about two weeks, a new draft treaty of economic union will be released. It is hoped that all 15 republics, including the Baltic states, will participate because their economic dependence makes it mutually advantageous.

As now conceived, the central government and the legislature would represent the union of states in foreign affairs, defense, interstate commerce and banking, nuclear energy and environmental protection. Obviously, it will be almost impossible to preserve a union and create a new central democracy if the current frenzy of nationalism prevails.

Several republics are now talking about creating their own armies, foreign ministries and currencies. The Russian republic already has a foreign minister. However, as the details of the new democracy are worked out, perhaps the passion for separatism will decline. After all, the main reason for the hatred of the Kremlin was that it was run by an unrepresentative, corrupt, incompetent communist bureaucracy.

The United States and its allies would prefer some form of union represented by a central government. When Secretary of State James A. Baker III was in Moscow, he said it would be difficult for the United States to provide significant economic aid without a central decision-making body to enforce laws and business contracts.

There are obvious security advantages in having a central government responsible for the command and control of all Soviet nuclear weapons. The same is true for disarmament. The Soviet economy cannot recover until the society has been demilitarized and most arms production converted to consumer production.

Gorbachev has now put together a senior advisory committee of the best of the reform politicians: Alexander N. Yakovlev, the co-founder of perestroika ; former Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze; Anatoly A. Sobchak, the mayor of St. Peters burg; Gavril Popov, the mayor of Moscow, and six other liberal leaders, including Vadim V. Bakatin, the man chosen to reorganize the KGB.

These men--along with Boris N. Yeltsin, president of Russia, and Nursaltan A. Nazarbayev, president of Kazakhstan--offer hope for a successful transition to democracy. Gorbachev and Yeltsin are no longer in a power struggle. Together, they might persuade the Ukraine to join the new union, at least the economic union--especially if the Ukraine is given the representation its size and population merit.

However, none of these leaders, no matter how progressive, knows how to turn around the economy. They talk about the market and free enterprise, but don’t really know what those terms mean. They have no experience and need help.

Of course, there will be help this winter with food and medical supplies--but what is needed is reconstruction of the entire Soviet economy. The United States and the other industrial democracies should immediately form a commission to plan a program for recovery with the Soviet leaders. Senior representatives of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Development Bank should participate.

Priorities would be restoration of the vital oil and gas production, a new banking and monetary system, conversion of military production to consumer production and technical assistance and management know-how for transforming the systems of manufacturing, agriculture, marketing and tourism. Most of this should be carried out by private enterprise and private investment, supported by government loan guarantees. Perhaps most important will be several thousand Western businessmen who could provide the needed technical assistance and entrepreneurial expertise.

All this will take time and cost money--probably $40 billion a year, of which the U.S. share might be $15 billion. This is a small amount in relation to the $270 billion U.S. defense budget--half of which is still defending against the Soviet Union. If the United States and the other industrial democracies invest a modest amount now to rescue the Soviet peoples, the long-term benefit would result in savings to U.S. taxpayers of several hundred billions of defense dollars. Action could ensure the emergence of democracy; failure to act will almost certainly mean another repressive, threatening regime in the Kremlin.