WORLD What Soviet life is like I have received communica- tions from various Tribune read- ers who urge me, in nice ways, to take a break from chasing the big foreign policy stories and get down to writing about what life is like in the Soviet Union. After just two months here, this seems to me a little premature. What I can do, however, is share some preliminary observations, as long as readers understand that is what they are — impressions, not conclusions. Like most Canadians, my mind’s eye has been conditioned to expect drabness, uniformity and monotony in the Soviet Union.. What startles me still is the architectural variety, the riot of colors and the anarchy of Mos- cow streets. People ‘are all ex- tremely well-dressed, yes, by middle class Canadian standards, and turn themselves out with in- dividual style and flair. The riot of colors and the anarchy of Moscow streets. I will not bore you at this point with recitations of prices and cost-of-living computations. Let me just note, for now, that I spent - about 110 roubles ($220) last month on my own living ex- penses. That includes rent for my apartment, utilities, transporta- tion, groceries, some restaurant meals and incidentals. (The aver- age Soviet salary is just under 200 roubles. Of course, I bought no clothing or other consumer wares, which are relatively ex- pensive, and I have no family to support). : Before coming here to live I was warned that I would have to face formidable line-ups, agoniz- ing shortages and, should I be lucky enough to buy something, contemptible quality. It is true that the proliferation of consumer goods that we are ac- customed to in Canada simply does not exist here. On the other hand, staple products like meat, fish, fowl, milk products, eggs, vegetables, preserves, juices of all kinds and soft drinks are sur- From Moscow Fred Weir CG, Fashion in Moscow: people turn themselves out with individual style and flair. prisingly plentiful. Though they are not so elaborately packaged as Canadian food products, they are on the whole fresher, purer and more natural ... and in- credibly cheap. I had been told that fresh fruits and vegetables would disappear in the autumn, never to be seen again till summer. Yet here it is mid-December, and the state-run fruit store around the corner still has large racks of carrots, onions, beets, potatoes, greens and cab- bage. Also apples, pomegranates oranges, lemons, grapefruit and small but tasty mandarines from Cuba. It is probably accurate to say that Soviet people line up for things more frequently than Canadians do. The shops here can get quite crowded during peak hours (this is not an entirely alien experience to us: think of your local supermarket on a Friday evening), but I have yet to see a long queue for any basic item of food or clothing. As a rule, Soviets line up for special things like theatre tickets, imported goods or luxury products, not for everyday things. This is not to say that there are no obvious shortcomings in the system. However, in this respect Soviet officials seem to be their own worst critics. Several have been at pains to explain to me the many problems they face, and have pointed out some that I can- not perceive for myself, such as the fact that while I have seen the situation in Moscow and Lenin- Staple packaged they are on the whole fresher and more natural. = ne ae ens % products are surprisingly plentiful. Though not elaborately _ 18 PACIFIC TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 17, 1986 grad up close, several other Soviet centres are less well pro- visioned. They also note that im- proving the distribution system is a major. focus of the current five-year plan, and that many new measures, such as state quality control boards and consumer feed-back mechanisms are al- ready being implemented. Most of all, I have been struck by the astonishing kindness of people. Like most large cities Moscow is, on the surface, cold and hard. People bustle about with purposeful steps and im- passive faces. But that fagade can evaporate instantly when they realize that you are a stranger. I have had a grocery store clerk spend. almost an hour over an English-Russian dictionary, help- ing me to assemble the ingre- dients for a planned dinner party. I have been wordlessly handed a five kopeck coin by a Muscovite who noticed that I had gone down into the subway without any change to pay the fare. I have been specially shown through Leningrad’s famous Peter and Paul cathedral after There are line-ups but I have yet to see a queue for any basic item. closing time by the policewoman on guard — she had immediately sympathized when told that I was leaving town that night and didn’t know when I'd get a chance to return. I have spent an afternoon in a Moscow restaurant with a vacationing construction worker from Siberia, a chance acquaint- ance who, with a bottle of wine, his bad French and my bad Rus- sian, did more to help me appre- ciate the color and complexity of this vast land than a thousand press conferences could do. Such are my impressions, raw and unpolished. I will certainly take up many of these themes soon, in a more scientific way. Meanwhile, I hope to keep hear- ing from Tribune readers. From Berlin Gerry van Houten Close ties bind the right | All European countries have been critical of Reagan’s per- 1 formance at Reykjavik. But not for the same reasons. a One camp, whose loudest voices are Denmark and Greece, | includes most of the NATO states. They are disappointed and — disturbed that Reagan used his Star Wars program to prevent F achievement of an historic comprehensive arms control agree- — ment. The other camp is led by West Germany and Britain. They participate in SDI and oppose the ‘‘near agreement’’ at Reyk- — javik. They fear any such agreement will lead to a ‘‘decoupling’”’ |) of U.S. and European interests. SDI, Pershing-2 and Cruise |) missiles are seen as a counter to such a decoupling. 7 Th) Oo. Gy © Eh QAa0Mmot oe Why do FRG and Britain take this view even though it vastly | 7 increases the danger of nuclear war? In the movie Reds, John |} Reed, played by Warren Beatty is asked why World War One | broke out in Europe. He answers: ‘‘Profits’’. Both the FRG and Britain are run by neo-conservative governments with close ties to their military-industrial com-_ plexes. Maintaining a high level of international tension ensures a — high demand for arms of all kinds — conventional and nuclear, |) thus ensuring superprofits for the arms monopolies. : : But this by itself does not explain why Thatcher and Kohl are so concerned about the U.S. decoupling from Europe. They are also concerned that their own monopolies will lose the profit they have made in recent years at the expense of the U.S., their main economic rival. The U.S. decline In reviewing the state of international trade, GATT predicte that in 1987 the U.S. would cease to be the world’s number on exporter in dollar terms for the first time since World War Two. West Germany is expected to take first place with Japan com ing a close third to a second place U.S. This year has been a hig point of a trend which accelerated during the Reagan years which non-U.S. corporations have not only taken over U.S markets from U.S. monopolies, but have taken over a number of — giant U.S. firms as well. West German firms have been in the forefront of this trend although they are by no means alone. In addition, the rapid fall of the U.S. dollar has facilitatedthos¢ take-overs and yet has done very little to help rectify the U.S trade deficit. : Normally, when a currency declines, it is supposed to hel increase exports by making them cheaper abroad. Conversely, when a currency’s value increases, such as t r West German mark has in relation to the U.S dollar, then e ported products become more expensive and harder to sell ont international market. Yet it is clear that the devaluation of t U.S. dollar has had a negligible effect on increasing U.S. export and slowing down imports. The fundamental reason for the U.S.’s decline is its mass expenditure of capital, resources and intellectual skills on unrestrained arms race, not least of which is Star Wars. By pouring investment dollars into the military sphere, U.S. has failed to renew the productive capacity of its civil sectors which are outdated and uncompetitive. The U.S. Com merce Department conceded the latter point in an article pu? lished in the Nov. 8 Economist, a London big-business magazi n€ The civilian sphere is so captial-starved it cannot compete WIP other countries even when the dollar declines. ; In this context, Bonn’s and London’s willingness to back U- militarism becomes clear. Bonn’s Ulterior Motive Bonn and London want the U.S. to waste its capital inv ments on the arms race. As long as the U.S. expends money arms, it will be unable to modernize its productive capa’ When Thatcher and Kohl criticized Reagan coming too clos€ an agreement at Reykjavik, it was because they knew that if when a comprehensive arms control agreement is reached, © U.S. will redirect its huge capital resources from the military t0” civilian sphere. The resulting renewal of U.S. civilian produ capacity would once more make U.S. products competitive © the international market thus inhibiting West European Japanese profits.