jee

~_WORLD

MOSCOW — I have been the Tribune’s person here
for only a few months, but I cannot escape the feeling
that I have witnessed more profound change than many
Correspondents do in decades. There are times when it
Seems like I can, almost literally, feel the earth shaking
beneath me.

Many of the old verities and certainties of “existing

Unmentionable are out in the open, and those who were

Toes or villains only yesterday are suddenly not what
they appeared to be at all.

Those who are on the attack, challenging the old shib-
boleths and tearing down time-honored structures are
Not the enemies of socialism. They are, in the first place,
the leaders of the party and the most passionate of com-
munists.

What they are trying to do has upset many people:
those who believe it is wrong to air socialism’s dirty
linen, or who would prefer to live in a world of forced
Simplicity, even if it is tinged with falsehood.

Others, however, have been positively energized by
the changes, and filled with new hope and enthusiasm.
_ In this process, there is no more difficult and painful
Issue than the release and return to public life of many
People who were once jailed or exiled for crimes of

‘anti-Soviet agitation.” Some 150 such people have
been freed, an equal number of cases remain under re-
view, and the law under which most of them were con-
Victed is being rewritten. There is a much larger number
of people who were punished in lesser ways, who now
find all stigma against them lifted.

The Soviet leadership has decided, apparently with
finality, that it is simply not tolerable under developed
_ socialism for a person to be jailed for expressing ideas.

(Unless they are particularly vicious ideas: anyone who
produces pornography, racist or other anti-human hate
literature, or pro-war propagandais still a candidate fora
prison term). :

In the West, a myth of biblical proportions is slowly
beginning to crumble. Numerous scholars and jour-
nalists have built their reputations upon the image of the
USSR as a society divided between a faceless, mindless,
Obedient majority, and a courageous, free-thinking
“dissident’’ few. This myth was never true, as anyone
who has been here in the past can attest, but there were
times when the stupid, arbitrary acts of self-righteous
bureaucrats did more to substantiate it than any 10,000
Volumes of anti-Soviet writings ever could have done.

A refreshing sense of perspective — which even the
q estern press corps, with its monomania for
ssient’ news cannot ignore — is begining to assert
itself,

. The Western media has invested enormous credibility
0 such figures as Andrei Sakharov —to the point, in his
Case, of creating a kind of secular saint. But without their
of persecution these visions have a tendency to
Collapse,
e I Would like to draw Tribune readers’ attention to an
ig neordinary article by Len Karpinsky in the latest
Sue of Moscow News (No. 9 — 1987). Karpinsky,
pee he rejects the description of “‘dissident’ , was
ee from the Communist Party some 10 years ago
holding “views incompatible with a CPSU member
Suffered in other ways for his outspoken criticism of

Socialism”’ are being stood upside down; subjects once .

West’s ‘dissident’ campaign
crumbling in face of
glasnost and reconstruction

Soviet cultural policy. His reappearance in the Soviet
press is in itself an eloquent comment on the rapid rear-
rangement of Soviet reality. His article, though I now
quote only a fragment of it, is directed straight at the
heart of the question, one of the deepest and most
agonizing controversies in Soviet history:

‘*A dissident is a person who adheres to some other
religion, an apostate or, in Russian, a “brasurman’ — a
word which has always been an obscenity in the vernacu-
lar. And the sculpted image of dissidents is also
‘basurmanic’ —they’re simply a bunch of spiritual aliens
who slander their own people. There’s no debating it.

‘This insular way of thinking very well suited those
who were prepared to label any Soviet citizen’s openly-
expressed criticism of the realities in social life as a
‘hostile act’. Quite often I would hear: ‘Don’t you know
into whose hands you are playing? Don’t you know
anything about the confrontation of forces in the world
— about the subversive activities of socialism’s ideolog-
ical enemies? Whom does such criticism benefit?’ In
connection with this, I too would like.to ask a few ques-
tions:

‘‘What does the Western side wish to achieve by
playing the ‘dissident card’? Is it really concerned over
the plight of dissidents? Or perhaps it is vitally interested
in instilling democracy in Soviet society? No, the ploys
of cold war activists demonstrate that they need
‘dissidents’, the multiplying of their numbers, and are
glad when such critics are muzzled. They count on there
being as little “glasnost” as possible and, therefore, as
many people as possible (i.e., dissidents’) who are per-
secuted for speaking their minds openly ...

“On the other hand didn’t we too have, here in our
own country, a certain group of influential persons who
had a vested interest in describing any criticism as
‘dissent’? This ofcourse is very convenient because then
one does not have to answer criticism ... The voice of
one’s own people at least deserves formal attention, but
the voice of an ‘alien’ needs to be firmly rebuffed and
nipped in the bud. This is not to say that the propaganda
centres abroad and some of our own high-placed officials
had some sort of an agreement on the joint utilization of
dissidents ...

‘Nor is it to say that all of those who put themselves
into conflict with some aspect or other of Soviet reality
were morally impeccable. They included overambitious
people and small individuals spoiling for a fight. There
were also some who wanted to gain notoriety at home,
expecting thus to earn a place abroad. I’m also not trying
to say that frank opponents of socialism don’t exist
today. But then, that’s a different question.

Who, then, needed to mix these two utterly different
aspects of social sentiment and substitute the image of a
foe for the image of a sincere polemicist who wishes to
discuss and argue in favor of socialism? And why did
they need to do this? As a result of this deceit, the
‘intellectual conscience’ of a socialist individual who
simply could not go against his or her convictions was
attacked. And it was this conscience that was beaten
Ups. 8
‘‘Not everybody, I think has realized that we are
moving into a changing society. This is because a state of
arrogant immobility and a ‘state of critically-realized
movement are notions diametrically opposed to each
other. The January, 1987 CPSU Central Committee ple-
nary meeting has a special significance in this sense.

‘I don’t know about others, but a meaningful political
thought always thrills me to the core. Finally, in our
time, rhetorical banalities disguised as truth are being
pushed out of public life. The political analysis of the
progress of reconstruction made at the plenary meeting
will make it possible for all our society’s vital forces to
become involved in the process of renewal. As aresult of
this, many of the personal stands that people have taken
in regard to the former state of things in our society are

changing.

Soviet proposal
welcomed in West

By GERRY VAN HOUTEN

In what has been described as a sensation, public
opinion and most governments in Europe have
welcomed the Soviet Union’s decision to end the
linkage between an agreement on the removal of
medium-range nuclear missiles from Europe and
other arms control issues such as SDI.

The West German Government issued a state-
ment expressing satisfaction with the Soviet deci-
sion less than two hours after it was made by
Gorbachev on Soviet television. The Soviet leade-
r’s speech was carried live on GDR television with
simultaneous translation. Most West Germans are
within range of GDR television.

West Germany’s peace movement is exception-
ally strong and influential. Its constant activities
against the arms race were a major factor in in-
fluencing last January’s election. The right-wing
suffered heavy losses while the political parties
supporting arms control gained strength consider-
ably in the Bundestag.

Among the ‘‘winners”’ in that election was the
Free Democratic Party, a partner in Kohl’s coali-
tion government, the FDP is led by foreign minister
Genscher. He declared that an agreement on
medium-range missiles would correspond with
Europe’s security interests and that an arms
break-through could now be achieved.

Most other European leaders greeted Gor-
bachev’s announcement positively. Belgian
foreign minister and president of the EEC Council
Leo Tindemans called the Soviet proposal “‘a
significant and positive step’’ which could open the
door to agreements in other areas of arms control.

Lord Carrington, NATO’s General-Secretary
also called the Soviet proposal ‘‘a substantial step
forward,’’ But the Thatcher government’s reaction
was much cooler. Thatcher is unwilling to do what
the Conservative British Press is doing openly —
casting doubt on the usefulness of an agreement on
medium-range missiles in Europe. Thatcher is ex-
pected to go the polls this year and is not anxious to
make peace and nuclear disarmament an issue in
the election.

The French government’s reaction was nega-
tive. It raised fears that U.S. and West European
security interests might be ‘‘decoupled.”’

At the root of the problem is the fact that Britain
and France are Western Europe’s only powers
with so-called ‘‘independent’’ nuclear armed
forces. They are afraid that an agreement between
the U.S. and the Soviet Union will encourage the
peace movements to redouble their efforts. They
are also afraid that such an agreement will make it
very hard to justify not entering into nuclear
disarmament proposals leading to the reduction of
their nuclear weapons stocks. Britain for example
is introducing the new Trident missile.

Gorbachev’s proposals were made while Paul
Nitze and the arch-reactionary Richard Perle were
on a swing through Europe for ‘‘consultations”’
with the U.S. NATO allies on the issue of the ABM
treaty signed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

European reaction, including at the government
level, has been unanimous in opposing the so-
called ‘‘broader’’ interpretation of the ABM trea-
ty.

Even France and Britain have made it known to
the Reagan administration in no uncertain terms
that they want the U.S. to adhere to the strict
interpretation of the ABM treaty. __

However, many U.S. allies are convinced that
the U.S. administration has already made up its
mind to adopt the broader interpretation and there-
fore in effect to end the last important treaty re-
straining an all-out arms race on each and in space.

The Reagan administration risks a serious
breach in the NATO alliance if it goes ahead with
the testing in space and deployment of an SDI
system. Gorbachev’s proposal to come to an
agreement on medium-range missiles in Europe
stands in sharp contrast to U.S. efforts to break all
arms control agreements.

G.H. is the Tribune’s Berlin corres; nt.

‘“*The opposition to our restructuring (if it were honest)
must turn into active participation in the practical build-
ing of the new life. Criticism directed at the old state of
affairs will become blended with the struggle to consoli-
date the changes. It’s ridiculous to waiver before an open
door. One should enter as soon as he or she hears the
invitation — ‘come in’’’.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 11, 1987 e 9