WORLD

More Soviets coming home

‘Returnees’ neither
heros nor villains

The floodgates have opened a
crack, and former Soviet citizens
who once emigrated from their
homeland, amid a storm of
recriminations, are now begin-
ning to trickle back.

Last week 50 of them arrived
from new York at Moscow’s
Sheremetyevo airport, bringing to
nearly 200 the number who have
returned in recent months. These
were selected from what Soviet
officials say are ‘‘several thou-
sand’’ applications currently
under consideration.

This new policy, which offers
significant numbers of emigres
the chance to re-integrate them-
selves into Soviet society, is one
of the most poignant and telling
examples of the new mood of
self-confidence that characterizes
the USSR under Gorbachev.
When these people left, mostly in
the 1970s and early 1980s, they
were regarded as little better than
traitors for abandoning their
motherland and their community.
All were stripped of their citizen-
ship and given no hope of ever
returning.

It may be difficult for Cana-
dians to grasp this edge of Soviet
reality. We are accustomed to liv-
ing according to a Western
““social contract’? which grants
us, in theory, full freedom of mo-
bility. Thus, one may winter on
the Riviera or freeze in an unheat-
ed room, and expect no state
intervention in either case.

‘Is This Justice?’

History and socialist develop-
ment have endowed Soviets with
a more profound sense of com-
munity interdependence. There is
a feeling that society is a single
living organism, and that when
one member leaves, he amputates
a piece of it. This may help exp-
lain the harsh choices that con-
fronted would-be emigrants in the
past. Even today, as Soviet soci-
ety works toward a more open,
sophisticated understanding of it-
self, one can find anger, bitterness
and resentment among some
people over the government’s de-
cision to permit the return of
many emigres.

A letter recently published in
the newspaper Novy Vremia cap-
tures many of these sentiments

From Moscow

Fred Weir

with unvarnished simplicity: ‘‘It’s
regrettable that they (the emigres)
believe capitalist propaganda
rather than heed sensible argu-
ments,’ wrote A. Zhovnir of
Zaporozhye. ‘‘But I feel even
worse when such people are
allowed to come back after
“seeing the light’ and deciding to
return. I can’t understand it. To
regain one’s homeland is as
impossible as to love one’s
mother after betraying her.
People who leave know what
they’re doing and here we are for-
giving them everything. Is that
your idea of justice? ...””

The scene at Sheremetyevo on
Feb. 22 reflected all of the deep
and conflicting emotions that are
inherent in this situation. At the
customs exit, a small knot of rela-
tives and friends waited. Some
clutched bouquets of flowers; all
wore tense, uncertain looks as
they strained to see beyond the
partitions.

Inside the arrivals’ lounge, the
returnees waited. Many were
clearly choked with emotion,
huddled in their seats, and refused
to respond to questions from the
media. Some answered only re-
luctantly, but said little. A few
spoke willingly, even volubly.

One of those who told his story
was Joseph Zarov, 41. A former
Leningrad taxi driver, Zarov
emigrated to the United States in
1976 in the belief, he says, that
“‘America was almost like para-
dise.”’

He got a job driving a truck in
Detroit, making $8.50 an hour. ‘‘I
didn’t live well, but I didn’t live
badly either. I had money, a
house and a car; I had tomatoes
and cucumbers in winter.

“‘What crept up on me was a
moral and spiritual emptiness.
American society was alien, and
hateful of my country. Perhaps
very ambitious people, or those
interested in climbing the ladder
can be happy in the U.S.,’’ he

R. Atamalibekov’s son came to meet his father in the airport.

8 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 4, 1987

says, “‘but I’m a driver. I had no
prospects for a future. No one
gave a damn about me there.
When I left the USSR I lost every-
thing: my country, my friends,
my pride, my culture, everything

‘Things May Work Out...’

Yuri* and Janet Mendelson
talked to the Tribune only with
great hesitation. He, it turned out,
was a mechanic from Kiev who
left for the U.S. seven years ago.
She is an American who has never
visited the USSR, and speaks vir-
tually no Russian or Ukrainian.
Life wasn’t kind to them in New
York, where Yuri worked as a
taxi driver. Also, he felt the
estrangement from his family in
Kiev with a growing intensity.

But asked about his plans, his
feelings on being back, Yuri
turned vague: ‘‘Maybe things will
work out here,”’ he says, ‘‘but if
not, maybe we’ll go back to the
States in a year or two.”’ Janet,
not burdened with the same
contradictions, showed much
more optimism. ‘‘I know every-
thing to expect, and I’m ready for
it,"’ she says. Though she didn’t
hold down ajob in New York, she
intends to get one in Kiev.

‘*Mostly what I want,’’ Janet
says, gesturing to a small boy who
is playing, apparently oblivious to
the scene around him, “‘is a better
life for our son.’’ Does she think
she’ll find it here? ‘‘Yes, I do’’,
she answers.

This may not be the story
Tribune readers were expecting,
but it needs to be stressed that
these are not particularly happy
people. The outcome of their
individual stories is by no means
clear. Many returnees, however
much they may be sympathetic
characters, may well be people
who will never fit anywhere.
Some may be honest people who
are agonizing over having to make
a searing choice for the second
time in their lives.

Those who speak, however, do
tell their experiences with a sim-
ple clarity. They are obviously au-
thentic, and relatively free of
exaggeration and self-justi-
fication. They are people who
were once deluded into believing
that prosperity and freedom can
be found beyond the rainbow and,
cynics say, they can be fooled
again.

Despite charges in the Western
media that the USSR is making
propaganda capital out of the re-
turnees, the Soviet government
has made virtually no effort to
exploit the broken lives of these
people. The press may hound
them at the airport, but then they
rush to catch their connecting
flights, or fall into the arms of
waiting relatives, in a torrent of

ae ey

The scene at Sheremetyevo reflected all of the deep and conflicting.

emotions.

tears and kisses, and they are
gone.

What is important about the
returning emigres is not what they
have to say about life in the West.
We in Canada, for instance, don’t
need to be told that our society
lacks economic justice or moral
direction. Nor do _ intelligent
Soviets need any confirmation of
this.

The real significance lies in the
society these people are returning

to. It is a society which has pain- |
fully struggled to throw off its de-
fects, and to improve itself, while
emigrants sought a better life for
themselves elsewhere.

It is a society which has grown
qualitatively, and which is now
ready to take these people back
without fear of the comparisons |
they bring with them. It is a soci-
ety which, in striving to build a
better world, is proclaiming that
there is room in it for everybody. —

Women’s movement
posing challenge
to Tories’ policies

Continued from page 6

turns such legislation against the trade union movment, which
divides men and women workers. The struggle to close the
wage gap through collective bargaining and with the full force
of the law, is accompanied by the demand for affirmative
action, for publicly funded comprehensive daycare, for full
paid maternity leave, time off to care for sick children, and the
right to choose birth or abortion. Women know very well that
equality in the workplace can only be assured when all these
demands are met.

Recently the Canadian women’s movement has been strong
enough to force yet another federal task force on child care.
While clearly another attempt to cop out, this time the minis-
ter responsible was caught in some embarrassing, but reveal-
ing public statements.

The growing strength of the women’s movement is increas-
ingly challenging the Mulroney government and in the process
revealing that it is neo-conservative, reactionary policies which
are the roadblock to further advance in the struggle for equal-
ity.

It is Tory pro-Reagan war policies which threaten Canada
with nuclear destruction. It is Tory free trade policies which,
coupled with policies of privatization and deregulation,
threaten the jobs of tens of thousands of Canadians, including
women. It is Tory policies which give companies free rein to
implement tech change with no protection for the workers,
affecting almost every sector where women workers are con-
centrated.

As the work of women’s organizations unmasks the face of
our main enemy today, it simultaneously reveals that almost
every other section of society is affected by Tory neo-
conservative policies. Women, the trade union movement, the
peace movement, farmers, senior citizens, youth, even small
business, have in common the need for a new goverment with
new policies.

_ What gain is there if daycare funding is increased and pen-
sions are cut? What gain is there if equal pay legislation is won
and universality is lost? What gain is there anywhere if nuclear
war is upon us?

The biggest gain women of Canada could make would be to
find the ways to multiply our strength by the strength of all
those Canadians who are affected by the reactionary policies
of this federal government. In the interests of the women, oF
the working people of Canada, a peoples coalition could win a
new government with new policies. This March 8th, we say
“The Tories must go!” On this International Women’s Day
the women of the world say “Forward to the year 2000 with-
out nuclear weapons.”

Nan McDonald is Women’s Director of the Communist Party
of Canada.

—<
|
|