Trials of Soviet dissidents

Press, 14 July 1978, Page 12

Trials of Soviet dissidents

Few writers of farce could have invented more ludicrous situations than those which surround the trials of two Soviet dissidents, Anatoly Shcharansky and Alexander Ginzburg. Yet, when the show trials are over, the most incredible part will still have to be acted out: two men will go to prison for long periods; one may even be executed. The Soviet Union is not the only country which has political prisoners but it appears almost to delight in flaunting its insensitivity to the cry of the individual.

Both Mr Ginzburg and Mr Shcharansky were members of groups set up to monitor Soviet progress towards the clauses in the Helsinki Agreement, which concluded the Conference on European Security and Co-operation. Mr Shcharansky faces the more serious charges of treason and espionage. President Carter of the United States has personally denied the charge that Mr Shcharansky supplied information to the Central Intelligence Agency. Those who are trying Mr Shcharansky have shown reluctance to take into account any evidence for the defence and there seems little chance that they will take any notice of what Mr Carter has said.

At least two significant strands are to be found in Western thinking about such trials. The first is that there is genuine shock and disgust that an individual can be treated in such a way. Individuals may be trampled on in the West, but the West usually comes to regard such acts with shame. Blatant mockery of the processes of justice is repugnant. The second is that the Soviet Union appears to be violating the famous Basket 3 of the Helsinki Agreement; this dealt with such matters as the right to emigrate, the right to speak

openly, and the right to communicate. If the Soviet Union can ignore agreements it has signed as recently as 1975 with such disregard for the opinion of other signatories, can the Soviet Union be trusted in anything? The West must wonder.

The actions of the Soviet Union are inexcusable, but what does it think it is doing? Is the world seeing the rise of Stalinism again? The evidence suggests otherwise. Both Mr Shcharansky and Mr Ginzburg have been open about their activities for more than two years. In Stalin’s day the merest suggestion that they might once have had a critical thought about the Soviet Union would have been sufficient cause for them to have been purged with or without a trial.

Rather than seeing a reversion to Stalinism the world may be observing the Soviet Union tackling a situation that it does not know how to deal with. The Basket 3 clauses have previously had results that have caught the Soviet Union by surprise. The Soviet Union has also been uncomfortable for some time about the emphasis given to human rights by President Carter and may be confused about the motives for what has been happening. It cannot make the imaginative leap to understand the strain of idealism which moves President Carter.

The whole State apparatus has gone into action to defend its own interests. The most merciful outcome will be that the Court will decide to send Mr Shcharansky and Mr Ginzburg abroad. That would be an individual solution, not a social one likely to be generally applied: but at least two tragedies would be mitigated.