And yet you had some hysterical public figures who said: “I will go to North Vietnam. I will get on my knees and beg them to release our prisoners of war.” This is no longer a political act—this is masochism.
To make you understand properly what détente has meant in these forty years—friendships, stabilization of the situation, trade, etc.—I must tell you something which you have not seen or heard: how it looked from the other side. Let me give you some examples. Mere acquaintance with an American, and God forbid that you should sit with him in a café or restaurant, meant a ten-year term for suspicion of espionage.
In the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago I tell of an event which was recounted not by some insignificant arrested person but by all of the members of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. during that brief period when I was in the good graces of the regime under Khrushchev. A Soviet citizen had been in the United States and on his return said that they have wonderful roads there. The KGB arrested him and demanded a term of ten years, but the judge said: “I don’t object, but there is not enough evidence. Couldn’t you find something else against him?” So the judge was exiled to Sakhalin because he dared to argue, and they gave the other man ten years. Just imagine what “lie” he had told! And what “praise” this was of American imperialism: in America there are good roads! Ten years.
In 1945–6 many persons passed through our prison cells. They had not cooperated with Hitler, although there were some of those too. As a rule they were not guilty of anything, but simply had been in the West and had been liberated from German prison camps by the Americans. This was considered a criminal act: liberated by the Americans. It meant he has seen the good life. If he comes back he will talk about it. The most terrible thing is not what he did but what he would talk about. And all such persons got ten-year terms.
During Nixon’s last visit to Moscow your American correspondents gave their reports from the streets of Moscow: Here I am, going down a Russian street with a microphone and asking ordinary Soviet citizens: “Tell me, please, what do you think of the meeting between Nixon and Brezhnev?” And, amazingly, every last person answered: “Wonderful. I’m delighted. I’m absolutely overjoyed!”
What does this mean? If I’m going down a street in Moscow and some American comes up to me with a microphone and asks me something, then I know for certain that a member of the state security is close by, also with a microphone, and is recording everything I say. Do you think that I’m going to say something that is going to put me in prison immediately? Of course I say “It’s wonderful, I’m overjoyed.”
But what is the worth of such correspondents if they simply transfer Western methods over there without thinking things through?
For many years you helped us with Lend-Lease, but we’ve now done everything to forget this, to erase it from our minds, not to recall it if at all possible. Before I came here, I delayed my visit to Washington a little in order to take a look at some ordinary parts of America, to visit several states and simply to talk with people. I was told, and I learned this for the first time, that in every state during the war years there were Soviet-American friendship societies which collected assistance for the Soviet people—warm clothes, canned food, gifts—and sent them to the Soviet Union. Not only did we never see these things or receive them (they were distributed somewhere among the privileged circles), but no one even told us that this was being done. I only learned about it for the first time here, this month, in the United States.
Everything poisonous which could be said about the United States was said in Stalin’s day. And all of this is a heavy sediment which can be stirred up at any time. Any day the newspapers can come out with the headline BLOODTHIRSTY AMERICAN IMPERIALISM WANTS TO SEIZE CONTROL OF THE WORLD, and this poison will rise up again and many people in our country will believe and will consider you aggressors. This is how détente has been managed on our side.
The Soviet system is so closed that it is almost impossible for you to understand it from here. Your theoreticians and scholars write monographs, they try to understand and explain what is taking place there. Here are some of these naïve explanations, which cannot fail to amuse us Soviet people. It is said, for example, that the Soviet leaders have now given up their inhumane ideology. Not at all. They haven’t given it up one bit. Others say that in the Kremlin there are some on the left, some on the right; they are fighting with each other, and we have to behave in such a way so that we don’t interfere with those on the left. This is all fantasy: left, right. There is some sort of a struggle for power, of course, but they all agree on the essentials.
There also exists the following theory: that now, thanks to the growth of technology, there is a technocracy in the Soviet Union, a growing number of engineers, and the engineers are now running the economy and they, not the party, will soon determine the fate of the country. But I will tell you that the engineers will determine the fate of the country just as much as our generals will determine the fate of the army. That means zero. Everything is done the way the party demands. That is our system. Judge it for yourself.
It is a system where for forty years there have not been genuine elections, but simply a comedy, a farce. Thus, a system which has no legislative machinery. It is a system without an independent press; a system without an independent judiciary; where the people have no influence either on external or internal policy; where any thought which is different from the state’s is crushed.
And let me tell you that electronic bugging in our country is such a simple thing that it is a matter of everyday life. You had an incident in the United States where a bugging caused an uproar which lasted for a year and a half. For us it’s an everyday matter. Almost every apartment, every institution has its bug, and it doesn’t surprise us in the least—we are used to it.
It is a system where unmasked butchers of millions, like Molotov and some lesser men, have never been tried in the courts but retire on enormous pensions in the greatest comfort. It is a system where the show still goes on today and where every foreigner who wants to see the country is surrounded by several planted agents working according to a fixed scenario. It is a system where the constitution has never been adhered to for one single day; where all the decisions are reached in secrecy, among a small, irresponsible clique and are then flung down on us and on you like a bolt of lightning.
And what are the signatures of these people worth? How could one rely on their signatures in the documents of détente? You might ask your specialists now and they’ll tell you that in recent years the Soviet Union has succeeded in achieving superiority in chemical weapons and in missiles over the United States.
So what are we to conclude from that? Is détente needed or not? Not only is it needed, it is as necessary as air. It is the only way of saving the earth—instead of a world war to create détente, a true détente, and if it has already been ruined by the bad word which we use for it—“détente”—then we should find another word.
I would say that there are very few, only three, main characteristics of such a true détente.
In the first place, there would be disarmament—but a dismantling of the weapons of war as well as those of violence. We must stop using not only the kind of arms that are used to destroy one’s neighbors but also the kind that are used to oppress one’s fellow countrymen. It is hardly détente if we here can spend our time agreeably, while over there people are groaning and dying or confined in psychiatric hospitals. Doctors are making their evening rounds, injecting people with the third daily dose of drugs which destroy the brain.
The second sign of true détente, I would say, is the following: that it not be based on smiles, not on verbal concessions, but on a firm foundation. You know the words from the Bible: Build not on sand, but on rock. There has to be a guarantee that détente will not be violated overnight. For this the other party to the agreement must have its acts subject to control by public opinion, by the press, and by a freely elected parliament. And until such control e
xists there is absolutely no guarantee.
There is a third simple condition. What kind of détente is it when they employ the sort of malevolent propaganda which is proudly called “ideological warfare” in the Soviet Union? Let us not have that. If we’re going to be friends, let’s be friends; if we’re going to have détente, then let’s have détente, and an end to ideological warfare.
The Soviet Union and the Communist countries know how to conduct negotiations. For a long time they make no concessions and then they give in just a little bit. Right away there is rejoicing: “Look, they’ve made a concession; it’s time to sign.” For two years the European negotiators of thirty-five countries have painfully been negotiating and their nerves have been stretched to the breaking point; finally they gave in. A few women from the Communist countries may now marry foreigners. A few newspapermen will now be permitted to travel a little more than before. They give one one-thousandth of what natural law should provide—things which people should be able to do even before such negotiations are undertaken—and already there is joy. And here in the West we hear many voices that say: “Look, they’re making concessions; it’s time to sign.”
During these two years of negotiations, in all the countries of Eastern Europe, even in Yugoslavia and Romania, the pressure has increased, the oppression intensified. And it is precisely now that the Austrian chancellor says, “We must sign this agreement as rapidly as possible.”
What sort of an agreement will this be? The proposed agreement is the funeral of Eastern Europe. It means that Western Europe will finally, once and for all, sign away Eastern Europe, stating that it is perfectly willing to see Eastern Europe oppressed, only please don’t bother us. And the Austrian chancellor thinks that if all these countries are pushed into a mass grave, Austria, at the very edge, will somehow survive and not fall into it as well.
And we, from the whole of our life experience there, have concluded that there is only one way to withstand violence: with firmness.
You have to understand the nature of Communism. The very ideology of Communism, all of Lenin’s teachings, are that anyone who doesn’t take what’s lying in front of him is considered a fool. If you can take it, do so. If you can attack, strike. But if there’s a wall, then retreat. The Communist leaders respect only firmness and have contempt for persons who continually give in to them. Your people are now saying—and this is the last quotation I am going to give you from the statements of your leaders—“Power, without any attempt at conciliation, will lead to a world conflict.” But I would say that power with continual acquiescence is not power at all.
From our experience I can tell you that only firmness makes it possible to withstand the assaults of Communist totalitarianism. History offers many examples, and let me give you some of them. Look at little Finland in 1939, which by its own forces withstood the attack. You, in 1948, defended Berlin only by your firmness of spirit, and there was no world conflict. In Korea in 1950 you stood up to the Communists, only by your firmness, and there was no world conflict. In 1962 you forced the missiles to be removed from Cuba. Again it was only firmness, and there was no world conflict. The late Konrad Adenauer conducted firm negotiations with Khrushchev and initiated a genuine détente with Khrushchev, who started to make concessions. If he hadn’t been removed, he would have gone to Germany that winter to continue the genuine détente.
Let me remind you of the weakness of a man whose name is rarely associated with weakness—Lenin. When he came to power, Lenin, panic-stricken, gave up to Germany everything Germany demanded. Whatever they asked for. Germany took as much as it wanted and said, “Give Armenia to Turkey.” And Lenin said, “Fine.” It’s almost an unknown fact that Lenin petitioned the Kaiser to act as intermediary to persuade the Ukraine to settle a boundary between the Communists and the Ukraine. It wasn’t a question of seizing the Ukraine but only of creating this boundary.
We, the dissidents of the U.S.S.R., have no tanks, no weapons, no organization. We have nothing. Our hands are empty. We have only our hearts and what we have lived through in the half century under this system. And whenever we have found the firmness within ourselves to stand up for our rights, we have done so. It is only by firmness of spirit that we have withstood. And if I am standing here before you, it is not because of the kindness or the good will of Communism, not thanks to détente, but due to my own firmness and your firm support. They knew that I would not yield an inch, not a hair’s breadth. And when they could do nothing they themselves fell back.
This is not easy. We learned from the difficulties of our own life. And if you yourselves—any one of you—were in the same difficult situation, you would have learned the same thing. Take Vladimir Bukovsky, whose name is now almost forgotten. I don’t want to enumerate a lot of names because however many I might mention there are still more, and when we resolve the question with two or three names it is as if we forget and betray the others. Instead, we should remember figures: there are tens of thousands of political prisoners in our country and—by the calculation of British specialists—seven thousand persons are now under compulsory psychiatric treatment. For example, Vladimir Bukovsky. It was proposed to him, “All right, we’ll free you. Go to the West and shut up.” And this young man, a youth now on the verge of death, said: “No, I won’t go under those conditions. I have written about the persons you have put in insane asylums. You release them and then I’ll go to the West.” This is what I mean by that firmness of spirit to stand up against granite and tanks.
Finally, to evaluate everything that I have said to you, we need not remain on the level of practical calculations. Why did such and such a country act in such and such a way? What were they counting on? Instead, we should rise above this to the moral level and say: “In 1933 and in 1941 your leaders and the whole Western world made an unprincipled deal with totalitarianism.” We will have to pay for this; someday it will come back to haunt us. For thirty years we have been paying for it. And we’re going to pay for it in an even worse way in the future.
One cannot think only on the low level of political calculations. It is also necessary to think of what is noble, and what is honorable—not just of what is profitable. Resourceful Western legal scholars have now introduced the term “legal realism,” which they can use to obscure any moral evaluation of affairs. They say, “Recognize realities: if certain laws have been established in countries ruled by violence, these laws still must be recognized and respected.”
At the present time it is widely accepted among lawyers that law is higher than morality—law is something which is shaped and developed, whereas morality is something inchoate and amorphous. This is not the case. The opposite is true: morality is higher than law! Law is our human attempt to embody in rules a part of that moral sphere which is above us. We try to understand this morality, bring it down to earth, and present it in the form of law. Sometimes we are more successful, sometimes less. Sometimes we have a mere caricature of morality, but morality is always higher than law. This view must never be abandoned. We must acknowledge it with our hearts and souls.
In the twentieth century it is almost a joke in the Western world to use words like “good” and “evil.” They have become old-fashioned concepts, yet they are very real and genuine. These are concepts from a sphere which is above us. And instead of getting involved in base, petty, shortsighted political calculations and games we must recognize that a concentration of evil and a tremendous force of hatred is spreading throughout the world. We must stand up against it and not hasten to give, give, give, everything that it wants to swallow.
Today there are two major trends in the world. The first is the one I have just described to you, which has been going on for more than thirty years. It is a process of shortsighted concessions; a process of giving up and giving up and giving up in the hope that perhaps at some point the wolf will have eaten enough.
The second trend is one which I consider the key to everything and which, I predict, will bring all of us
our future. Under the cast-iron shell of Communism—for twenty years in the Soviet Union and for a shorter time in other Communist countries—a liberation of the human spirit is occurring. New generations are growing up, steadfast in their struggle with evil, unwilling to accept unprincipled compromises, preferring to lose everything—salary, living conditions, life itself—so as not to sacrifice conscience, unwilling to make deals with evil.
This trend has gone so far that, in the Soviet Union today, Marxism has fallen to such a low point that it has become a joke, an object of contempt. No serious person in our country today, not even university and high-school students, can talk about Marxism without a smile or a sneer. But this process of our liberation, which obviously will entail social transformations, is slower than the first one—the process of concessions. Over there, when we see these concessions we cannot understand. Why so quickly? Why so precipitously? Why yield several countries in one year?
I started by saying that you are the allies of our liberation movement in the Communist countries. I call upon you: let us think together and try to see how we can adjust the relationship between these two trends. Whenever you help the persons persecuted in the Soviet Union, you not only display magnanimity and nobility, you are not only defending them, but yourselves as well. You are defending your own future.
So let us try and see how far we can go to stop this senseless and immoral process of endless concessions to the aggressor, these slick legal arguments for giving up one country after another. Why must we hand over to Communist totalitarianism more and more technology—complex, sophisticated technology which it needs for armaments and for oppressing its own citizens? If we can at least slow down that process of concession, if not stop it altogether, and make it possible for the process of liberation to continue in the Communist countries, then ultimately these two processes will yield us our future.
Warning to the West Page 3