World Sargin and Kutlu returning to Ankara, Turkey. Release of Turkish CP leaders demanded Demand has been raised around the world for the immediate release from prison of Turkish Communist leaders Nihat Sargin and Haydar Kutlu who have been held by the regime since their return to the coun- try from exile last year. Sargin, general secretary of the Workers’ Party of Turkey, and Kutlu, general secretary of the Communist Party, announced last November that they intended to return home from exile to establish a united Communist Party. Their intention, the two parties declared in a joint statement, was to “support Turkey with its process of democratization” and to establish the newly united party under conditions of legality. Accompanied by British MPs and the media, the two landed in Ankara Nov. 16 — but were promptly arres- ted. Imprisoned following their arrest, they were held in isolation for 20 days before they were able to gain access to lawyers (who were also detained). A statement issued by the two par- ties Dec. 5, 1987, noted that Sargin and Kutlu had accused their captors of torturing them while they were being held in isolation. “The two political leaders have been questioned by the police and by the prosecutor in total isolation for 20 days. They have shouted to the jour- nalists and to their advocates who had assembled in front of the State Secur- ity Court that they have been tor- tured,” the statement said. It also warned that the court intended to hold the two men without bail, pending their trials at which they are expected to face lengthy prison terms. “The central committees of the CPT and the WPT demand the immediate end to all practices against Nihat Sargin and Haydar Kutlu which are not compatible with human rights and elementary principles of justice, and the immediate release of the two general secretaries from pri- son,” the joint statement said. That demand has been echoed by various parties in Europe, as well as the European Parliament and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which stated Dec. 9 that it was “rais- ing (its) voice in defence of comrades Sargin and Kutlu and in support of demands for their release.” 66 Pacific Tribune, March 16, 1988 Soviet hearings echo debate about disarmament process MOSCOW — The next stage of disarm- ament is likely to be much tougher to win than the first, and complications are if any- thing multiplying rather than diminishing. This observation is suggested by the: recent series of hearings held by the Supreme Soviet (parliament) of the USSR to examine the pros and cons of ratifying the INF treaty. While the treaty is obviously not going to face a rocky road to ratification here, as it undoubtedly will in the U.S., a tough note of skepticism was nevertheless distinctly heard in these meetings. In opening the hearings, which were addressed over the past month by dozens of officials and more than 100 members of the public, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze himself acknowledged the existence of sharp differences. “This is a new situation,’ he said. “People have many questions and such debate in our society is to be welcomed”’. The doubts expressed in many letters to the Supreme Soviet and submissions before the hearings are clearly genuine. Indeed, it would be amazing if the Soviet public were not asking these questions, for they spring directly from the uncertainties and contra- dictions of this stage of the disarmament process. A brief summary of the concerns raised: @ Why is the USSR giving up far more (826 medium-range missiles with 1,752 warheads) than the United States (689 mis- siles and warheads)? Is that fair? @ Why, after many years of quite reason- ably insisting that British and French nuclear weapons be included in any INF agreement, has the USSR agreed to leave out of account these rapidly-growing nuclear arsenals, and count only American weapons on the other side? After all, both Britain and France are members of NATO, and both aim their weapons at the Soviet Union. © Why, if this treaty is supposed to be a step on the road to disarmament, is the NATO side already talking about “com- pensating” for the loss of INF missiles by deploying sea-launched cruise missiles and other nuclear weapons not covered by the treaty — a move that could result in more nuclear weapons in Europe than before the INF treaty was signed? @ What, in fact, will be the economic payoff of the INF treaty? © If this process does not lead to deep and equitable cuts in strategic weapons, an end to Star Wars, reductions in conven- GORBACHEV, REAGAN AT INF TREATY SIGNING . on disarmament initiatives. From Moscow Fred Weir tional forces and a ban on chemical arms, won’t Soviet security be compromised by the loss of our medium and shorter range missiles? ® Will the INF treaty be ratified by the U.S. Congress? We’ve been stuck holding the short end before. Can we trust the Americans? These nagging doubts, repeatedly voiced at the hearings, drew much fuller and more comprehensive answers from state, party and military officials than has ever been the case in any foreign policy discussion in the past. On the question of the relative number of missiles dismantled, Shevardnadze urged the public to consider the results rather than the arithmetic: “Is there anything more equal than a global double-zero?” he asked. Soviet Deputy Minister of Defence, Mar- shal Sergei Akhromeyev, added that “some of the Soviet missiles to be destroyed are obsolete, only 650 are new. The 689 Ameri- can missiles to be dismantled are all new and are all weapons that can reach Soviet territory, some within 10 minutes flight time. Soviet missiles of this class cannot reach U.S, territory. This fact should be borne in mind ... The INF treaty will not disrupt the balance between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces”. Concerning the British and French for- ces, Soviet officials admitted they had made an important concession in order to break a long-standing log jam in negotiations. “This compromise made the signing of the INF treaty possible,” noted Akhromeyev. “But we fully expect Britain and France to take part in the next stage of nuclear disarma- ment”. On the economic impact of the treaty, General Vladimir Medvedev suggested that the powerful vehicles which serve as mobile launchers for SS-20 missiles — some 50- million roubles worth of them — might be turned over to the oil and gas industry, which has several potential uses for them. The meetings also heard from Sergei Shuklin, secretary of the defence workers union, who told the hearings that a number Soviet public wants assurances that U.S. intends to reciprocate of the factories which had formerly pro-— duced components for SS-20 missiles were now switching to a variety of civilian goods, © including washing machines, refrigerators — and drilling rigs for the oil industry. | What has become clear, however, is that — many Soviets have adopted a cautious “show me” attitude, and this is not going to — make the plunge into nuclear disarmament any easier. Gnawing fears about the actions and intentions of the other side will only be allayed in life, as the disarmament process — gathers momentum and begins to prove - itself. | And the widespread feeling that the USSR has given up more, and invested | more in that process than has the United — States, is very difficult to dispute. Such reali- _ ties may make Soviet people feel more. vulnerable than ever. That is not to suggest that there is any source of stiff opposition to the treaty here. — Indeed, most surveys and the Supreme ) Soviet hearings themselves indicate that the. agreement enjoys the overwhelming sup- port of the people. But that could change if there is not visible reciprocity from the other — side. And it is abundantly clear that the Soviet public can never again be discount in any future debate. * * * Readers might ask why I’m not writing about the disturbances in Nagorno-— Karabakh. The simple truth is that hard information is very sketchy and unsatisfac- tory. What there is of it you have already read in your daily newspapers: all the rest 1s" gossip, informed comment or speculation. All indications are that a very serious — crisis has developed, not just in one region, but with Soviet nationalities policy in gen-— eral. Three trips to the Baltic region and one ~ to Armenia and Azerbaijan in the past year have left me shocked by the extent to which — nationalism remains a very strong factor, — even within the officialdom of these small republics. With perestroika and glasnost, once simmering problems are now boiling” to the surface. Though this may be a neces- sary step in striving for a new consensus, the process, as we are seeing, can be contradic- tory and destructive as well. To begin to draw an accurate picture of what is happening, and to fill it in with hard | details, will take more time. The Tribune and its readers have a very special relatio ship, and so I believe that you will under-_ stand why I am not rushing into print.