- 10-1. Letters and Statements (6 items)
- 10-2. Documents 112-116a of the Moscow Helsinki Group
*
[1]
‘Protest to the Czechoslovak Government’
Document No. 20, Lithuanian Helsinki Group (17 November 1979):
“We are extremely saddened by the news that in Czechoslovakia you are not only persecuting those of your citizens who defend basic human rights but are even sentencing them to long prison terms …
“We strongly condemn this criminal activity and demand that you cease these persecutions and immediately release all recently convicted defenders of human rights from their places of imprisonment.“
*
[2]
Andrei Sakharov
“An Article in the Newspaper Le Figaro” (30 November 1979).
On 26 November Perret, a deputy of France’s National Assembly, visited A. Sakharov. Perret was accompanied by a journalist who did not introduce himself by name,. The visit lasted five minutes. On 29 November, The Voice of America broadcast a summary of an article by a correspondent called Le Bois in the Paris newspaper Le Figaro about the meeting with Sakharov.
Sakharov protests against the many ‘harmful absurdities’ contained in the article. He also writes:
“The world is now living through difficult times.
“The tragedy of the starving in Cambodia, the tragedy of Vietnamese refugees, the criminal folly of fanatics in Iran … Political repression in the USSR, Czechoslovakia and China is being stepped up. These are the things we want to hear and read about, and not ‘the expression in my eyes’ …”
(See the summary of Sakharov’s letters in CCE 54.23-1).
*
[3]
Andrei Sakharov
‘Answers to Questions from the Italian Journalist Laccua (21 December 1979).
[1] How do you assess the 21 December article in Pravda honouring the centenary of Stalin’s birth?
I consider that the article in Pravda is typical of the approach which has evolved over the past few years for explaining the Stalin period in our country’s history. This approach is far from scientific or historically objective, but all the same it is not a straight apologia. In carefully weighed expressions, the article attempts to present an official position which does not contradict common knowledge and points of view too badly, but at the same time as far as possible glides over the worst moments and remains silent about very much, so as not to irritate either the Stalinists or those of different viewpoints.
No full description exists of all the crimes committed in the Stalin era. The best work known to me is probably Conquest’s book The Great Terror. What is contained in the article about those crimes is no more than a half-truth or, more accurately, a half-hint. Without a doubt Stalin was one of the greatest criminals in a century of great suffering, surpassing all others in the variety of his crimes and in his hypocrisy. I agree that Stalin was a contradictory figure, but this makes his role even more dangerous for present-day man and his descendants. The attempt to justify Stalin’s crimes by pointing to the uniqueness of the situation, to class and inner-Party struggles, or to imperialist intrigues is untenable both morally and historically. On the political plane, the article sides with Stalin’s struggle against his victims — which is highly indicative of the position in which the article’s authors find themselves. AH the same, the article is more critical of Stalin than, for example, the article published on the ninetieth anniversary of his birth. Without doubt this is significant.
[2] Which features of the Stalin era still exist in the USSR?
The basic structures of society which were created in the Stalin era are still preserved.
These are, firstly, the undivided authority of the Party-State apparatus. Then — the Party-State monopoly of the economic field (in practice a system of State capitalism) and the monopoly of politics, culture and ideology. Then — the one- party system and the fictitious ‘elections without a choice’. Then — the militarization of the economy and the whole life of the country. Then — the enormous role played by the secret police — the KGB — in the State system. Then — enormous material inequality in a society with a very low general standard of living. Then — the closed nature of Soviet society: the lack of freedom of the press, of free exchange of information within the country, the severe and comprehensive censorship, isolation from information about the outside world, violation of the right to choose one’s country of residence and to have freedom to emigrate and travel. Then — the persecution of dissenters, which has again increased over the past months. Then — the camp system, with its forced labour and harsh regime, carried over from the Stalin era.
Of course, the scale of political repressions is enormously much less. The pervasive hypocrisy of our society at all levels of public life, both within the country and in the international arena, is another left-over of the Stalin era. And all this is telling tragically not only on the lives of our people, but on the whole world.
*
[4]
Felix Serebrov
“To Everybody who Wants to Come to the Olympic Games in Moscow (instead of an Invitation)”
13 December 1979
Please come to Moscow, a model communist city …
No one and nothing will spoil your peace.
There will be no noisy children to tire you — the children are being taken out of town.
There will be no discontented Muscovites to annoy you — all the malcontents are being thrown out of town.
You will be surrounded by sporty young people. These are friends. Don’t be confused: in our country they are called vigilantes. They are taught to twist people’s arms, but they will only shake your hand.
*
[5]
Valery Fefyolov, Olga Zaitseva
“The Disabled in the USSR” (December 1979).
The authors, members of the Initiative Group to Defend the Rights of the Disabled in the USSR (CCE 51.17, CCE 52.13 & CCE 53.26) address the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine and the radio-station Deutsche Welle. Describing the situation of disabled people in the USSR, they write:
“We think that the only way of getting something done for disabled people in the USSR is through publicity. We are therefore asking you to publish this letter. We would like Western society to find out what is really happening to the disabled in the USSR and to demand of the Soviet Government that it abide by the documents which it has signed. The Initiative Group can supply concrete data without delay on any of the complex of problems concerning the disabled in the USSR.“
*
[6]
Sergei Belanovsky
- ‘To the Moscow City Procuracy
- To the Moscow Division of the KGB
On 12 October Belanovsky was cautioned ‘according to the Decree’ at the Cheryomushki district Department of the Moscow KGB (CCE 54.2-1 [1]). In his statement Belanovsky writes:
“During the conversation I stated that I refused to admit that any of the materials confiscated from me contained false information, and I asked the KGB official to point out exactly which samizdat works and exactly which facts the investigation considered to be false. During the conversation the KGB official agreed that the evidence about the allegedly false nature of the materials confiscated from me might turn out to be incorrect, and it was not impossible that I would succeed in disproving it. However, the official also said that as regards the Chronicle, there exist court rulings which say that almost every issue of the journal has been libellous and that it was therefore ‘not up to him and me to sort it out’.
“I have only one comment to make on that. We all know very well that court decisions can be incorrect and unjust. Times change, and legally enforced sentences can turn out to be groundless or even criminal. I do not have proof of the incompetence of court rulings on Chronicle cases, but I doubt (or rather, I simply do not believe) that there were grounds for them. Officially the organs of investigation are perhaps not obliged to raise the issue of the competence of court judgments, but in the interests of the FULL, COMPLETE and OBJECTIVE investigation of the circumstances of a case (Article 20 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure) they could do so. They could bring out (or even publish) the records of trials and investigation materials; they could summon witnesses who had been at the trials or the convicts themselves, and undertake a number of other measures determined by law to satisfy the demands of Article 20 of the RSFSR Criminal Code. On the basis of that Article, I consider that I am within my rights in making such a request …
“I am asking you to examine the following requests and reply to the following questions:
“[1] I request you to confirm in writing that the necessity of issuing cautions according to an unpublished decree’ (or simply the need to have an unofficial chat) does not constitute legal grounds for bringing someone to you by force, and that even the DEMAND to ‘come along’ from a KGB official, let alone the threat to call the police, is illegal.
“[2] I request you to explain to me the meaning of the act of issuing a caution. Can the investigating organs bring a case on the basis of the same grounds as were given for the caution, or does the investigation have to find new evidence? If the former is true then the investigation must, when it issues a caution, present the relevant evidence and put it down on the record. If the latter is true, the act of cautioning loses its sense. I have already asked this question in my talks with KGB officials. I have not been given a clear answer, but have gathered from their statements that the fact of issuing a caution puts the investigating organs under no obligation. Is this true?
“[3] I request you to explain to the KGB officials with whom I have talked that threats and insults are in all situations intolerable methods of psychological pressure. KGB officials have not made it clear to me exactly what my insolence and demagogy consist of. I could apply the same words to them, equally aptly.
“[4] I request you to inform me of the surnames of the KGB officials who talked to me, or to give a lawful reason for your refusal. The KGB officials themselves said that ‘a caution is a serious business’, and it is unpleasant not to know who has been talking to you.
“[5] And finally, I have tried to write this statement calmly and with no superfluous harsh words. If organs of the KGB or Procuracy have any complaint to make about the text, kindly inform me of it.“
On 19 November Deputy Procurator of Moscow S. N. Chistyakov replied:
I hereby inform you that a check has been made in connection with your statement to the Moscow City Procuracy. There were grounds for the official caution issued by the organs of State Security. There were no violations of law committed by Moscow City or Moscow Region officials of the USSR KGB.
============================================
A Chronicle of Current Events 