Question mark over Soviet spin-offs
IN the past six weeks the rapid changes which have unfolded in the Soviet Union after the failed coup by conservative hardliners have stunned the world.
In a welcome irony, the 74-year-old totalitarian regime set up by the Communist party has brought itself undone.
While the dissolution of the Communist party, promises of a free press and the new power of the Soviet Union’s constituent republics mean government can once again start being answerable to the people, those events have not solved the Soviet Union’s problems.
Over the next couple of years the worst scenario could see many of the Soviet Union’s republics riven by inter-ethnic conflicts of civil war proportions.
Even in a best case scenario, the transition to a market economy and democratic govern
ment in a nation of almost 300 million people is going to be difficult. Social dislocation and unrest amongst those thrown out of work will be inevitable.
So what could those history-making events hold for the Pacific Islands?
In strategic terms many people have been worried by the uncertainty over just who has their finger on the button which could ignite the Soviet Union’s vast arsenal of nuclear weapons.
While central control was re-established within days of the failed coup attempt there are still weapons stationed in highly unstable republics.
At the same time key advisers to Boris Yeltsin, the President of the Russian republic which now effectively controls the army, are advocating cuts of up to 50 per cent in the size of the armed forces.
At this stage it appears the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands has waned, with most of them likely to be moved back on to Russian soil.
For the Pacific, the cuts to the armed Forces are likely to mean more of the Soviet Pacific fleet and its airforce being put into mothballs.
For some years now the Soviet Union has virtually tied up its Vladivostock-based Pacific Fleet.
Cuts to the armed forces are likely to lead to skeleton staffing in the East, including at the big Cam Ranh Bay base in Vietnam, which will continue to play an important role in surveillance.
In terms of regional stability it is the United States, not the USSR, which is the prime mover in the Pacific. The US plays that role not only because of its huge naval fleet, its troops stationed in the region and its nuclear arsenal, but because of the part it plays in containing Japan.
These latest events are likely to force Washington to concede that a return to the old days of the Cold War is now impossible.
Eventually that could lead to big troop withdrawals and a re-alignment of forces in Asia.
Many South East Asian countries fear a smaller US presence would lead to a rearmed Japan, an eventuality for which, with the experience of World War II still fresh in their memories, they have little enthusiasm.
On aid, Pacific leaders have already been expressing concern
that the European Community’s focus on events and new opportunities in former Soviet bloc countries in eastern Europe will lead to a loss of aid revenue and trade opportunities.
With massive amounts of aid now being promised to the Soviet Union as well, that process is only likely to be exacerbated.
Germany has already promised a huge assistance package and other key European Countries are likely to follow, perhaps accompanied by a more reluctant United States.
But United States assistance to the Soviet Union is unlikely to lead to a fall in aid revenue to the Pacific Islands. The United States is only a minor donor and its contribution is not likely to be significantly affected by help it may give the governments of the Soviet republics.
A drop in aid from Europe, a big donor,
is more of a worry as is a loss of funds from international organisations such as the World Bank. It is, however, an eventuality for which the island nations and regional bodies, such as the Forum Secretariat, have already been preparing.
Perhaps more worrying, on the aid front, is the possibility that Japan may finally resolve its dispute with the Soviet Union over the Kurile Islands.
The Kuriles, a string of cold windswept islands stretching between the northern tip ofjapan’s Hokkaido island to Soviet controlled Sakhalin Island, are claimed by both parties.
Earlier this year, when Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev visited Japan, it was mooted that a resolution of the Kurile dispute in Japan’s favour might win the Soviet Union an aid package worth a staggering $2B billion.
The Soviets reacted badly to any suggestion that it might be possible to buy them off and the package was never formally put to Gorbachev.
But the Soviet far east, including the Kuriles, is a part of the Russian Republic. With Boris Yeltsin wanting to push ahead as quickly as possible with his reforms and keen for as much aid as possible to smooth the transition, a deal over the Kuriles is no longer out of the question.
For the Pacific this could be a blow. Japan is now the region’s biggest aid donor.
If substantial sums were to go to the Soviet Union it would, very likely, mean less for other areas.
The news is not all bad, however.
Like other regions of the world the Pacific Islands will benefit from the continuing easing of Cold War tensions, and for local democracy movements the fall of the most entrenched totalitarian system provides a source of hope and inspiration.
While there may be question marks over aid, the other side of that same coin is the possibility of new trading opportunities.
With the Soviet Union unable to feed itself and awash with new aid money the Pacific Island nations might find new markets for edibles such as fish, cocoa, coffee, palm oil and coconut cream.
It will not, however, be an easy market to crack.
Already large nations like the United States, are positioning themselves to take the lion’s share of the opportunities. □