ABSTRACT
Western politicians, economists and political commentators have said and written a great deal about the need for a new ‘Marshall Plan’ to assist the transitions to the market and parliamentary democracy in Eastern Europe and have recognized that it is in the selfinterest of the West (especially Western Europe) to provide such assistance. Thus Richard Gephardt, then majority leader in the US House of Representatives, wrote after the abortive coup by Soviet hard-liners in August 1991: The United States and its allies cannot escape the consequences of economic and political collapse in the countries of the former Soviet bloc. Not only will Washington face the potential of new military threats if strife and turmoil intensify, but it will also miss the chance to create new jobs and investment in its own economy by taking advantage of expanding markets in the East… It is crucial to show the people who have fought for freedom that their courage will be rewarded’ (IHT, 1 September 1991, p. 6). On 27 December 1991 an editorial in The Independent gave expression to a similar belief in ‘virtuous circles’: ‘There can hardly be a higher interest for the West than that democracy should take root in the former Soviet bloc. If it does so, Russia will cease to pose a military threat for the first time in centuries. With the Russian lands pacified, Central Europe, too, might no longer generate the tensions and rivalries that have dragged the Continent into so many wars… Then, as market economies spread eastward and new members are drawn into the European Community, an area of huge economic potential will emerge, spreading its benefits far beyond Europe.’
