SPECT mE AT OR
The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL Telephone: 0171-405 1706; Fax 0171-242 0603
THE MARSHALL MYTH
What Russia needs is a Marshall Plan, says the consensus. But Marshall Aid was given to Western democracies which already possessed the capacity for econom- ic recovery from damage and disruption by war. Russia's damage was self-inflicted by 70 years of communism. Communist insti- tutions still dominate in spite of any democratisation and liberalisation.
Far from helping the move towards mar- kets and growth, Western economic aid to Russia has permitted much of the post- Soviet establishment to carry on in its old ways. The progress described by Mr Lam- ont in our pages this week has been in spite of such aid, not because of it. There is a parallel with Herbert Hoover's famine relief to Stalin in 1927. By providing food for his troops and police, it enabled Stalin to survive the famine caused by his mass murder of the kulaks in furtherance of col- lectivisation, which could otherwise have brought down his regime.
Western aid has enabled many appa- ratchiks to survive, and profit, in post-com- munist Russia. The first precondition for de-Sovietising the economy is the de-collec- tivisation of agriculture, restoration of fam- ily farms and free trade in produce: in short, reinstatement of reforms instituted by Alexander II and consummated by the early 20th-century reformer Stolypin. Until this is done, Russian agriculture will remain in the depressed state inflicted by Stalin in the Twenties. But since the post-Soviet establishment has been loath to relinquish its rural power-base, Mr Yeltsin has shirked the necessary reforms. Agriculture remains unable to supply the towns with food, leather and textile raw materials and pro- vide a market for a consumer-goods indus- try. Money borrowed for economic devel- opment has gone on importing food, shoes and clothing, where it has not be siphoned off into Swiss banks and US real estate.
The sums needed to make an impact on the sick man of Eurasia remain far beyond the capacity of the West which could, for all we know, be itself in the throes of crisis. The best features of our own society were not imposed by fiat but emerged sponta- neously. Yet we cannot always agree what they are or how they can be safeguarded and extended. If we offer Britain as a
model, which Britain? That of Margaret Thatcher, which set out to de-socialise in face of opposition from within her own ranks, from the establishment and much of industry? Or that of Blair-Brown, whose future is in doubt if the British economy goes to the bad?
Our ability to help Russia escape from her post-Soviet condition, if such an ability ever existed, is exhausted. Outstanding loans are as unlikely to be recovered as loans to the Tsarist government; further help would be throwing good money after bad. It is idle to make aid conditional on further freeing of Russian markets. Until Russia's rulers want to do this themselves for its own sake, all market-reform mea- sures will remain spurious. The Russians will have to work out their own salvation.
Providence is a strange beast. Only ten weeks after the death of Sir David English, chairman of Associated Newspapers, its proprietor, Lord Rothermere, has died, snatched as quickly and as unexpectedly. Both men had built up Associated Newspa- pers from a struggling group into one of the most profitable newspaper businesses in the land. The sales of the Daily Mail whose transformation into a tabloid Lord Rothermere and Sir David had overseen in 1971 — stand higher than ever, as do its profits. At the zenith of success, with money pouring into the coffers, the two chief architects are removed within a few weeks.
It is tempting to think that their deaths may mark the high-water mark of the Mail and its sister newspaper, as well as of the less buoyant Evening Standard, and that henceforward all may be decline and decay. So it might be. Lord Rothermere's son, Jonathan, is young and relatively inexperi- enced and not quite ready to step into his father's shoes. Who knows how he will fare? Paul Dacre, recently appointed editor-in- chief of Associated Newspapers, and for six years a successful editor of the Daily Mail, may be the best bulwark against decline. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that still more power will flow into his hands as the result of Lord Rothermere's death.
And this will have consequences not just for the Mail group but for the Labour gov- ernment and the country. In the benign autumn of his life Lord Rothermere had crossed to the Labour benches in the House of Lords and pronounced himself a convinced European. Mr Dacre is, by con- trast, a principled anti-European and no convert to New Labour. He is his own man, but while Lord Rothermere lived the Mail was inclined to be a little more indulgent towards Mr Blair than it might otherwise be, while the degree of its opposition in the forthcoming battle over European Mone- tary Union remained uncertain. Now there is no doubt where the paper will line up. With the death of Lord Rothermere, as of Sir David English, Mr Blair has lost a valuable ally.
Previous page
