An open hand, outstretched to a fallen adversary, may be the surest sign that a battle is truly over. Last week brought just such a sign as the Soviet government issued a dignified -- but desperate -- request for help, and an American President responded solicitously. George Bush's decision to help sustain the Soviet Union through the hard winter ahead reflected as much politics as pity, but what made it easy was that both sides had so much to gain.
For the first time in the postwar era, the Soviet government now puts its needs -- and its fears -- ahead of its pride. During three days of talks in Houston and Washington, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze admitted that the Soviet Union required food, medicine and loans to survive a winter of shortages unparalleled since the end of World War II. In response, President Bush overturned 16 years of trade policy and agreed to back loans worth up to $1 billion. He also offered emergency medical aid and proposed that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank provide experts to reinvent the Soviet economy before what is left of it collapses entirely.
The President's action occurred in a climate of unprecedented warmth between the two countries. Gone are the days when high-level U.S. and Soviet officials met twice a year; last week's visit in Houston was the 23rd meeting between Secretary of State James Baker and Shevardnadze, who managed in their whirlwind consultations to cover everything from Angola and Afghanistan to arms control and the Persian Gulf crisis. During the final Rose Garden ceremony on an unseasonably warm December afternoon, President Bush announced that he would travel to Moscow in mid-February for a fourth summit with Gorbachev, with the hope of signing a START treaty reducing the superpowers' arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons.
With so much progress on so many fronts, it was easy to see the offer of aid as a reward for good behavior. Both Baker and Bush were at pains to deny any quid pro quo, especially for Soviet cooperation in the gulf crisis. "None of the measures today are in any sense a payback," Baker insisted, thereby fueling suspicion in the act of disputing it. There was no denying that Soviet cooperation has been essential in keeping the pressure on Iraq -- by voting for sanctions, supporting the United Nations resolution permitting the use of force, and last week delaying a U.N. vote endorsing a Middle East peace conference, which the U.S. opposes.
To be sure, the Soviet-American rapprochement began long before the invasion of Kuwait. "Obviously, our ability to cooperate in the gulf is part of an overall understanding with the Soviets," says a top U.S. official. "If we weren't getting cooperation, it would have a bearing on a whole range of issues." By drawing back the Iron Curtain without bloodshed, undertaking democratic reform at home and supporting a number of U.S. policies abroad, Gorbachev has created a sort of personality cult in Western diplomatic circles. American officials claim to support policies, not politicians, but in private there is widespread fear that current Soviet policies may be inextricably linked to the current embattled Soviet leader.