PERSPECTIVE ON THE AID SUMMIT : Where to Find a Quick $6 Billion : Why keep spending on Cold War programs like Radio Free Europe, now that our former enemy is our friend in need?

When Old Mother Hubbard went to her cupboard, her dog was probably hoping for more than a display of concern. This week, leaders from 60 nations will gather in Washington at President Bush’s invitation to coordinate humanitarian relief to the republics of the former Soviet Union. Unless the United States and other industrial nations search their cupboards more thoroughly, there will be no international effort to coordinate, and the republics will likely remain as hungry as the dog in the nursery rhyme.

Across the former Soviet Union, cupboards are bare and winter is deepening its grip. When the people of the republics stood up to the tanks in August, the West cheered and exhorted them on to free markets. But as the harsh realities of free prices and failed production begin to bite, the people found they had been stranded in the cold.

The United States has extended agricultural credits and approved $100 million to assist distribution of relief, but the bulk of assistance so far has come from the Germans. They plan to make it clear that Washington needs to back up its expressions of sympathy with increased material support.

Unfortunately, this historic opportunity to help a former enemy comes at a time of growing domestic malaise. We don’t have to look across the ocean to find empty cupboards and people left out in the cold.

Are great needs at home and great needs at abroad irreconcilable?

Not necessarily. The demise of the Soviet Union created new demands for American help, but it also eliminated the primary justification for much U.S. budgetary spending. The Cold War has ended, but our budget is still fighting it. Phasing out Cold War programs from both the defense and foreign-aid budgets could free significant funds for pressing needs at home and abroad.

The Administration has begun to cut the defense budget, and has proposed an additional $50-billion reduction over five years. Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell has called for cutting $100 billion, and many analyses suggest that even greater cuts could be made without jeopardizing national security.

Most of what we save must go to meeting domestic needs and reducing the deficit, but some funds might logically be applied to maintaining stability in the republics. Having spent $12 trillion (in 1992 dollars) since World War II to destroy them as enemies, we should be able to spare a tiny fraction of that to feed them as friends.

Secretary of State James A. Baker III has said that the only source for additional funds for the republics would be cuts in assistance to developing nations: “There is no other choice.”

There are other choices, of course. Some of them present a wonderful opportunity to help new friends by getting rid of programs that made sense only when they were enemies.

We continue to give foreign aid for the rights to maintain bases in Portugal, Greece and Turkey (the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo took care of the Philippines). These arrangements cost U.S. taxpayers $1.5 billion a year. The threat that justified these bases no longer exists. These “rent” payments should be eliminated. If the United States desires a continued presence in these countries, the costs should be funded under a multilateral defense arrangement.

Overall, 30% of the foreign-aid budget is military assistance. Military expenditures belong in the defense budget. If the programs are worthwhile, let them compete with other defense expenditures. Savings: $3.3 billion annually.

Another prime candidate for cuts is broadcasting aimed at the former Soviet Bloc. Radio Free Europe has done its job: Eastern Europe is free. (Ted Turner is doing them one better, anyway.) Ending broadcasting activities for Eastern Europe would save $1.3 billion over five years.

Despite the ravages of seven decades of Marxism, the republics have the foundations for future growth--abundant resources, an educated populace and an industrial base. Support for the republics is in the United States’ interest, as are measures to bring them into the global economy. Huge markets for U.S. products would open up once the economies got on their feet--assuming we have gotten our foot in the door. The strong German presence in the former Soviet Bloc is not entirely altruistic. The republics will remember their friends when they settle down to business.

International lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are best equipped for assisting the republics with long-term economic restructuring. The United States has advocated IMF and World Bank membership for republics that demonstrate commitment to economic reform, but has yet to authorize funds for a 50% capital increase that would help the IMF to undertake these new activities, even though it would involve no net budgetary outlays.

Communism has been discredited in the former Soviet republics, but democracy and free markets have not yet triumphed. America’s “cupboards” aren’t empty, but they do need some serious cleaning (and we can’t wait for spring). Restructuring our defense and foreign-aid spending in response to the Soviet Union’s demise would allow us to take better care of our own and to throw our friends more than a bone.