Sakharov’s release—sign of thaw or sharp Gorbachev P.R. move

Press, 10 January 1987, Page 16

Sakharov’s release—sign of thaw or sharp Gorbachev P.R. move

The ending of Dr Sakharov’s internal exile has provoked fresh speculation about the Kremlin’s policies on human rights. XAN SMILEY, the “Daily Telegraph’s” Moscow correspondent, considers the implications of the move. ' I

The release of Dr Andrei Sakharov from a miserable isolated internal exile in Gorky is a joyful Russian Christmas present. An astoundingly brave champion of human rights, together with his no less courageous wife, Yelena Bonner, is being given back his own simple right to go home, an undaunted free man. Beyond that excellent news, however, harden questions spring up. What does the decision say about the Soviet leader, Mr Gorbachev? What does it say about the future of human rights in the Soviet Union? And, more immediate, will the Sakharovs be allowed once again to become the focus of outspoken, decent, independent thought in Moscow, where Russian intellectuals and publicity-giving foreigners will be eagerly awaiting them? The pessimists will say beware: Mr Gorbachev is a cunning manipulator of Western opinion who knows how to score cheap Brownie points by letting out of exile or prison a handful of famous people — the Sakharovs, or the Kiev poet Irina Ratushinskaya, also recently allowed to go abroad — while keeping thousands’ of equally brave but less well-known figures behind bars. Besides, the expulsion of such champions as Yuri Orlov and Anatoly Shcharansky, which often looks to Westerners like an

act of kindness, may well weaken the morale and effectiveness of those who stay behind. Those who leave sound just that much less authoritative once they have been bundled over the Iron Curtain and into the cosy slightly claustrophobic world of frustrated emigres. Mr Gorbachev would probably feel more comfortable if the Sakharovs were'thrown out of the Soviet Union. Certainly, the dissident movement that burst into life after the Helsinki accords were sighed in 1975 has beeii driven into virtual silence. Even samizdat — the so-called “self publications,” as the underground press is known — has given way to tamizdat: opposition literature which is published tam meaning “there” i.e. abroad. A tiny “group for the establishment of trust between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.” set itself up a few years ago to lure the West European “peace movement,” but its founding leadership, about ,15-strong, has been forced into exile, prison, or silence. Another bleak feature of Mr Gorbachev’s policy towards dissent is his continuing refusal to allow Jews to emigrate. Fewer than a thousand have done so this year. No less unpleasant, but a good deal less publicised, is the extraordinary Soviet refusal to allow scores of “mixed” couples

to emigrate because one half of the pair is Soviet * Last month the Russians announced that they had drawn up new Emigration rules. From next year; people wanting to go should, in theory, be told within a month whether their application is likely to succeed. Again, it was a hint that Mr Gorbachev is polishing his human-rights image. But did it alter the substance of the suspicious old Soviet policy of not letting their citizens see the world outside? Most of those Soviet citizens — Jews, mixed couples, ordinary curious intellectuals — who have beep waiting sometimes longer than 10 years to get out are unimpressed. “To hell with the new; rules,” one told me last week. “If they want to let us out they don’t have. to change the rules.” How does all this and the improvement of the Sakharovs’ lot square with Gorbachev the reformer, the new human face in the i Kremlin? What about his vaunted new glasnost. His policy of “frankness” which his official media have been hailing so loudly, and his apparent readiness; to discuss Soviet failings more openly? The main caveat is that Mr Gorbachev’s desire to reform society does not necessarily mean he wants to ease up against dissidents. He wants to

widen the range of debate but within a framework of his own design. There is a fierce argument within the Communist Party about how strict the limits should be. But nobody has argued that it might be healthy for the Soviet Union if men like Dr Sakharov'-' were freed to propagate a quite different set of values. Yet, for all the grim qualifications and the justifiable wariness of hardened Kremlin watchers looking at a stage-managed event like Dr Sakharov’s return from Gorky, there is undoubtedly a chance that Mr Gorbachev is releasing tensions and animating the Russian will to talk and argue. The Sakharovs’ improved treatment will give hope to thousands of thinking Russians who, within the confines of glasnost, are pushing and pushing to see how far they can go. A current of intellectual excitement is defin-

itely tingling through the Russian body intellectual, bruised and beaten as it has been. If the Sakharovs succeed in staying in Moscow and becoming active again, the boost for independent thinkers will be even bigger. Mr Gorbachev must know that Fur hats off to him for taking the risk. Two most important points about Mr Gorbachev’s glasnost and Russian dissidence are often missed. First the line between the fully-fledged dissident and the intellectual who has a Communist Party card-of-conveni-ence is much fuzzier than outsiders often think. Out-and-out dissidents are indeed thin on the frozen Russian ground, but there are plenty of frustrated academics, writers and artists who are itching to express themselves, and feel that Mr Gorbachev is not unsympathetic to them. So. even if head-on dissidence may not be about to burst back into life, people are beginning to think for themselves more openly. Second, there is little doubt that Mr Gorbachev is far more intellectually curious than his ossified predecessors. Of course he wants to have his ideological cake and eat it He wants more creativity but without a real challenge to the intellectual authority of his party. Those twin wishes may well be contradictory. But Mr Gorbachev and glasnost fascinate people in Moscow precisely because it is impossible to tell whether glasnost can continue to exist without getting ideologically out of control, especially if Dr Sakharov is free to ginger it up.