The Sakharov-Medvedev Debate on Détente and Human Rights from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Helsinki Accords

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Sakharov-Medvedev Debate on Détente and Human Rights from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Helsinki Accords The Sakharov-Medvedev Debate on Détente and Human Rights From the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Helsinki Accords ✣ Barbara Martin Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-pdf/23/3/138/1955783/jcws_a_01009.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 In the early 1970s, Soviet dissidents’ support of détente between the Soviet Union and the West may have appeared as a given. Andrei Sakharov, usually considered the “father” of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, had become an outspo- ken advocate of “convergence” between the two blocs with the publication in 1968 of his essay Reflections on Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Free- dom, which quickly drew worldwide attention.1 In 1970, along with the dis- sident historian Roy Medvedev and the physicist Valentin Turchin, Sakharov published an open letter to the leaders of the Communist Party of the So- viet Union (CPSU) demanding the gradual democratization of the Soviet regime.2 Medvedev further developed his program of reform along reform Com- munist lines in his essay On Socialist Democracy, published in the West in 1972.3 Both texts conveyed the idea that democratization of the Soviet Union would engender détente and thus provide the basis for lasting peace. However, neither Sakharov nor Medvedev envisaged a process of détente initiated on a narrow commercial basis, which would not be preceded by democratization of the Soviet system or make it a prerequisite for further rapprochement. The on- set of détente, which coincided with a resurgence of repression directed against Soviet dissent, therefore presented the two activists with a moral and political dilemma, which they solved in different ways. In Medvedev’s view, détente 1. Andrei Sakharov, Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom (New York: W. W. Norton, 1968). 2. Roy Medvedev, Andrei Sakharov, and Valentin Turchin, “Appeal for a Gradual Democratization,” in George Saunders, ed., Samizdat: Voices of the Soviet Opposition (New York: Monad Press, 1974), pp. 399–412. 3. Roy Medvedev, On Socialist Democracy (London: MacMillan, 1975). The Russian and French edi- tions were published in 1972. Journal of Cold War Studies Vol. 23, No. 3, Summer 2021, pp. 138–174, https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_a_01009 © 2021 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 138 The Sakharov-Medvedev Debate on Détente and Human Rights was a positive phenomenon in and of itself—a phenomenon that would ulti- mately lead to the democratization of the regime—whereas Sakharov believed that a serious rapprochement between the two blocs would be impossible un- less Western governments first extracted concessions from the Soviet Union on human rights. This article examines the two dissidents’ debate on détente and human rights in the Soviet Union. That debate, which lasted through the 1970s, was triggered by the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. In an Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-pdf/23/3/138/1955783/jcws_a_01009.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 open letter to the U.S. Congress in September 1973, Sakharov voiced sup- port of the amendment, which made the granting of Most Favored Nation status to non-market economies conditional on the liberalization of their em- igration policies.4 Two months later, Medvedev made public his opposition to Sakharov’s position and to the amendment in an article published in the West- ern press.5 What set Sakharov and Medvedev apart was not just their goals but the strategies they proposed to reach them. Should the United States demon- strate firmness on important moral questions and use its economic leverage to compel the Soviet Union to respect human rights? Or were such mea- sures counterproductive? Should one instead hope for progressive democra- tization of the Soviet system through increased contacts with the Western bloc? The different responses the two men gave to these questions reflected the differences in their approaches to political change in the Soviet Union. Whereas Sakharov, along with many Soviet dissidents, adopted the language of human rights and supported the linkage of international and domestic is- sues, Medvedev believed in systemic reform—within the framework of the CPSU’s monopoly on power—to achieve more humane Communism and fa- vored “change through rapprochement” in alliance with left-wing forces in the West. 6 The debate on the Jackson-Vanik Amendment constituted a turning point (not only in Sakharov’s trajectory but also for the Soviet human rights movement as a whole) from a belief in the progressive liberalization of So- viet society through reforms from above and détente, to a more offensive “boomerang strategy” relying on pressure exercised indirectly by the USSR’s Cold War adversaries and international organizations in order to obtain 4. Andrei Sakharov, “Open Letter to the United States Congress,” 14 September 1973, transcribed in U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, 13 December 1974, p. 39837. 5. Roy Medvedev, “Democracy and Détente,” in Political Essays (Nottingham: Spokesman Books, 1976), pp. 13–29. 6. The German formula “Wandel durch Annäherung” was used by Willy Brandt and Egon Bahr in the context of their Ostpolitik in the early 1970s. 139 Martin Soviet compliance in the field of human rights.7 This turn was made possible by a global shift in awareness of human rights violations and toward humani- tarian diplomacy, exemplified by the intense public mobilization on behalf of Soviet Jews that prompted the Jackson-Vanik Amendment’s adoption in the United States. The research presented in this article draws on Samuel Moyn’s theory about the rise of human rights as a global ideological paradigm in the 1970s.8 Unlike Moyn, who explains this rise by pointing to the failure of so- cialist utopias after 1968, I emphasize the strategic dimension of the shift. Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-pdf/23/3/138/1955783/jcws_a_01009.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 Soviet dissidents, who had initially believed that liberalization of the regime could result from reformist policies on the domestic and international scene, turned thereafter to Western political actors and groups to put pressure on Soviet leaders. Although Medvedev’s continued advocacy of détente made him a minor- ity in the dissident movement, his vision still enjoyed support in Western Eu- rope in the 1970s, particularly in socialist circles, and the proclaimed success of Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik testifies to the appeal of this approach of “bridge- building” between the East and West. Ultimately, the Helsinki Accords were a success thanks to both the process of détente that made their conclusion possible and the activism of human rights groups who called on the Soviet government to implement the Helsinki Final Act’s provisions. The promises of détente, however, could not be achieved until after a new generation of leaders had come to power in the Soviet Union. The plausibility of such a sce- nario was central to the Sakharov-Medvedev debate in the mid-1970s, but in those years a “perestroika” launched from above seemed an unlikely outcome to a generation of dissidents who had witnessed the crushing of the Prague Spring by Soviet troops in August 1968. Sakharov’s and Medvedev’s Calls for Détente On 10 July 1968 Sakharov called Medvedev and asked him to turn on the BBC. The radio was broadcasting Sakharov’s essay Reflections on Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom.9 Having initially avoided public debates, 7. Daniel C. Thomas, Boomerangs and Superpowers: The “Helsinki Network” and Human Rights in US Foreign Policy, EUI Working Papers, RSC No. 99/23, European University Institute Florence, San Domenico, 1999. 8. Samuel Moyn, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010). 9. Roi Medvedev, “Iz vospominanii ob A. D. Sakharove,” in Zhores Medvedev and Roi Medvedev, eds., Nobelevskie laureaty Rossii (Moscow: Vremia, 2015), p. 42. 140 The Sakharov-Medvedev Debate on Détente and Human Rights he had become increasingly active in the 1950s and 1960s, lobbying Nikita Khrushchev to end atmospheric testing of thermonuclear weapons and advo- cating against Trofim Lysenko’s spurious biological theories and Joseph Stalin’s rehabilitation.10 Sakharov’s friendship with Medvedev, an independent histo- rian who was conducting research on Stalinism, further opened his eyes.11 When Sakharov decided to expound his views on contemporary problems in an essay, in early 1968, Medvedev provided feedback and technical assis- tance, typing and circulating the text among his friends to collect reviews Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-pdf/23/3/138/1955783/jcws_a_01009.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 and comments.12 Sakharov reworked the text and sent it to the leader of the CPSU, Leonid Brezhnev, but earlier versions circulated broadly in samizdat and crossed the Iron Curtain. The essay was published in a Dutch newspaper on 6 June 1968 and two weeks later in The New York Times.13 The publica- tion brought Sakharov worldwide fame. In that year of student upheaval, his manifesto for world peace hit a chord, selling 18 million copies the first year. Overall, 65 editions of the essay appeared, with translations into seventeen languages.14 In the essay, Sakharov presented for the first time his ideas about world peace, détente, and the convergence of the capitalist and Communist sys- tems. As a pioneering nuclear weapons scientist, Sakharov could understand better than anyone else the destructive power of modern nuclear armaments. He argued that “enough warheads have already been accumulated to destroy mankind many times over” and that no effective defense system could be devised, and he concluded that the only solution was for humanity “to over- come its divisions.”15 In the international arena, he pointed to two sore points: 10.
Recommended publications
  • Post-Soviet Political Party Development in Russia: Obstacles to Democratic Consolidation
    POST-SOVIET POLITICAL PARTY DEVELOPMENT IN RUSSIA: OBSTACLES TO DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION Evguenia Lenkevitch Bachelor of Arts (Honours), SFU 2005 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the Department of Political Science O Evguenia Lenkevitch 2007 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY 2007 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Evguenia Lenkevitch Degree: Master of Arts, Department of Political Science Title of Thesis: Post-Soviet Political Party Development in Russia: Obstacles to Democratic Consolidation Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Lynda Erickson, Professor Department of Political Science Dr. Lenard Cohen, Professor Senior Supervisor Department of Political Science Dr. Alexander Moens, Professor Supervisor Department of Political Science Dr. llya Vinkovetsky, Assistant Professor External Examiner Department of History Date DefendedlApproved: August loth,2007 The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection (currently available to the public at the 'Institutional Repository" link of the SFU Library website <www.lib.sfu.ca> at: <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/112>) and, without changing the content, to translate the thesis/project or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work.
    [Show full text]
  • Soviet Domestic Politics and Collapse of the Outer Empire, 1989
    Soviet Domestic Politics and Collapse of the Outer Empire, 1989 FREDO ARIAS-KING n this article, I explore the role of domestic politics in precluding the inter- I vention of the Soviet army in Eastern Europe in fall 1989. A close look at the USSR’s domestic political situation as early as summer 1989 suggests that there was little, if any, intention on the part of the legislators, government, or even the Communist Party to prop up the fast-disintegrating Communist regimes in the East bloc with force. Rather, there is substantial evidence that a revolution in Eastern Europe would be welcomed in Moscow. To my knowledge, this angle has not been examined in the scholarly literature. Many of the leading authori- ties on the collapse of Eastern Europe fail to connect internal policymaking— particularly relating to the creation of legislative power in the USSR and its con- sequences—to the historic collapse of the Soviet Union’s “outer empire.” I do not argue that Soviet democratization caused the collapse of the East European regimes in 1989, but that it was the main factor that precluded an armed inter- vention to save those regimes. Only one of six major books on the revolutions of 1989, for example, even mentions the USSR Congress of People’s Deputies, and then only in passing.1 They focus instead on the USSR as a unitary player, with a reformer (Gorbachev) at the helm, surrounded by like-minded advisers advocating new political think- ing, who decided to “allow” the East Europeans to go their own way.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights and History a Challenge for Education
    edited by Rainer Huhle HUMAN RIGHTS AND HISTORY A CHALLENGE FOR EDUCATION edited by Rainer Huhle H UMAN The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention of 1948 were promulgated as an unequivocal R response to the crimes committed under National Socialism. Human rights thus served as a universal response to concrete IGHTS historical experiences of injustice, which remains valid to the present day. As such, the Universal Declaration and the Genocide Convention serve as a key link between human rights education and historical learning. AND This volume elucidates the debates surrounding the historical development of human rights after 1945. The authors exam- H ine a number of specific human rights, including the prohibition of discrimination, freedom of opinion, the right to asylum ISTORY and the prohibition of slavery and forced labor, to consider how different historical experiences and legal traditions shaped their formulation. Through the examples of Latin America and the former Soviet Union, they explore the connections · A CHALLENGE FOR EDUCATION between human rights movements and human rights education. Finally, they address current challenges in human rights education to elucidate the role of historical experience in education. ISBN-13: 978-3-9810631-9-6 © Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” Stiftung “Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft” Lindenstraße 20–25 10969 Berlin Germany Tel +49 (0) 30 25 92 97- 0 Fax +49 (0) 30 25 92 -11 [email protected] www.stiftung-evz.de Editor: Rainer Huhle Translation and Revision: Patricia Szobar Coordination: Christa Meyer Proofreading: Julia Brooks and Steffi Arendsee Typesetting and Design: dakato…design. David Sernau Printing: FATA Morgana Verlag ISBN-13: 978-3-9810631-9-6 Berlin, February 2010 Photo Credits: Cover page, left: Stèphane Hessel at the conference “Rights, that make us Human Beings” in Nuremberg, November 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Eurasian Cultural Studies: Chances and Challenges
    TOWARD EURASIAN CULTURAL STUDIES: CHANCES AND CHALLENGES PETER ROLLBERG PROFESSOR OF SLAVIC LANGUAGES, FILM STUDIES AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Abstract: This article makes the case for a greater emphasis on Eurasian cultural studies in the West. Currently in the academy, cultural studies, including film and electronic media, are now replacing the past emphasis on high literature. Additionally, the role of non-Russian peoples in the former Soviet space is gaining more attention. Ultimately, policy decisions informed by such knowledge are likely to be more accurate and effective. wo decades of post-Soviet independence in Eurasia and the corre- Tsponding sociopolitical transformations in the newly independent republics have caused a profound and likely paradigmatic shift in all academic fields studying this area, including the humanities, although this particular shift is seldom reflected upon. The two major trajectories that can be identified in recent years are the switch from a Soviet to a Eurasian paradigm1 and the move from predominantly literary to cultural studies. 1 In his Presidential Address to the 43rd Annual ASEEES Convention on 20 November 2011, Bruce Grant of NYU stated that “almost every major research center or program has added ‘Eurasia’ to its banner. Along the way, to be sure, most stumble to determine what exactly Eurasian means, and whom it is meant to embrace.” Bruce Grant. “We Are All Eurasian.” NewsNet. News of the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, vol. 52, n. 1 (January): 1-2. 248 Toward Eurasian Cultural Studies 249 The latter was not caused by the former but their almost simultaneous occurrence has complicated the situation even more.
    [Show full text]
  • Reform and Human Rights the Gorbachev Record
    100TH-CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [ 1023 REFORM AND HUMAN RIGHTS THE GORBACHEV RECORD REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE MAY 1988 Printed for the use of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1988 84-979 = For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE STENY H. HOYER, Maryland, Chairman DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona, Cochairman DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts TIMOTHY WIRTH, Colorado BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico WYCHE FOWLER, Georgia EDWARD FEIGHAN, Ohio HARRY REED, Nevada DON RITTER, Pennslyvania ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey JOHN HEINZ, Pennsylvania JACK F. KEMP, New York JAMES McCLURE, Idaho JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming EXECUTIvR BRANCH HON. RICHARD SCHIFIER, Department of State Vacancy, Department of Defense Vacancy, Department of Commerce Samuel G. Wise, Staff Director Mary Sue Hafner, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel Jane S. Fisher, Senior Staff Consultant Michael Amitay, Staff Assistant Catherine Cosman, Staff Assistant Orest Deychakiwsky, Staff Assistant Josh Dorosin, Staff Assistant John Finerty, Staff Assistant Robert Hand, Staff Assistant Gina M. Harner, Administrative Assistant Judy Ingram, Staff Assistant Jesse L. Jacobs, Staff Assistant Judi Kerns, Ofrice Manager Ronald McNamara, Staff Assistant Michael Ochs, Staff Assistant Spencer Oliver, Consultant Erika B. Schlager, Staff Assistant Thomas Warner, Pinting Clerk (11) CONTENTS Page Summary Letter of Transmittal .................... V........................................V Reform and Human Rights: The Gorbachev Record ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • E Helsinki Forum and East-West Scientific Exchange
    [E HELSINKI FORUM AND EAST-WEST SCIENTIFIC EXCHANGE JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND THE Sul COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JANUARY 31, 1980 [No. 89] (Committee on Science and Technology) ted for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on Foreign Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 421 0 WASHINGTON: 1980 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DON FUQUA, Florida, Chairman ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey JOHN W. WYDLER, New York MIKE McCORMACK, Washington LARRY WINN. JR., Kansas GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York HAMILTON FISH, JS., New York RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico TOM HARKIN, Iowa HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey JIM LLOYD, California ROBERT K. DORNAN, California JEROME A. AMBRO, New York ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania MARILYN LLOYD BOUQUARD, Tennessee EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, NeW Jersey JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan KEN KRAMER, Colorado DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania WILLIAM CARNEY, New York RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama ROBERT W. DAVIS, Michigan DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas TOBY ROTH, Wisconsin ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee DONALD LAWRENCE RITTER, WES WATKINS, Oklahoma Pennsylvania ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri BILL ROYER, California RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri DONALD J. PEASE, Ohio HOWARD WOLPE, Michigan NICHOLAS MAVROULES, Massachusetts BILL NELSON, Florida BERYL ANTHONY, JR., Arkansas STANLEY N. LUNDINE, New York ALLEN E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Observance of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the Soviet Union
    AO-A093 577 DEPARTM4ENT OF STATE WASHINGTON DC OFFICE OF EXTERNAL--ETC F/S 5/14 POLITICAL RIGHTS BY--ETCfUI 17A-A 1- 7 THE OBSERVANCE OF THE COVENANT ON CIVIL AND IUNCLASSIFIED FAR-3013 NL UflMENEMffllf INSTITUTE ON SOC& T LAW V VALERY CHALIDZE N JHE OBSERVANCE OF THE COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS BY THE SOVIET UNION. Chief Consultant- Leon Lipson Consultants: Alexander Volpin I Konstantin Simis co George Ginsburgs Translation of the basic text: George Ginsburgs Collection of examples: Ludmilla Alexeyeva Pavel Litvinov This paper is written to order of the U.S. State Department I 'Lij New York, 1980 I 6'v Was p si fr~D epar~ter! of S~ i DIMUU'RIBTI NST ENT A f4rnea nerem ccu: nc, be .!-erpre!,-j 3z rev ,nt~ Approved for pu-Uc relea ;.;CY :" > "er e <- 9, i,•"-" THE OBSERVANCE OF THE COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS BY THE SOVIET UNION Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Article 1. The Right of Self-Determination 9 Article 2. The Duty of States Party to the Covenant to 25 Respect and Ensure Human Rights Article 3. The Right of Men and Women to Equal Enjoyment 39 of all Civil and Political Rights Set Forth in the Covenant Article 4. The Right of States Party to the Present 41 Covenant to Take Measures Derogating from their obligations under the Present Covenant Article 5. Protection from Curtailment of any of the Rights 43 and Freedoms Recognized in the Present Covenant Article 6. Protection of the Right to Life 44 Article 7.
    [Show full text]
  • The Helsinki Watch Committees in the Soviet Republics
    FINAL REPORT T O NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H TITLE : The Helsinki Watch Committees i n the Soviet Republics : Implica - tions for Soviet Nationalit y Policy AUTHOR : Yaroslav Bilinsky T8nu Parmin g CONTRACTOR : University of Delawar e PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Yaroslav Bilinsk y COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 621- 9 The work leading to this report was supported in whole or in part from funds provided by the National Council for Sovie t and East European Research . Yaroslav Bilinsky (University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711, USA ) Tönu Parmin g (University of Maryland, College Park, ND 20742, USA ) HELSINKI WATCH COMMITTEES IN THE SOVIET REPUBLICS : IMPLICATIONS FOR SOVIETY NATIONALITY POLICY * Paper presented at Second World Congres s on Soviet and East European Studies , Garmisch-Partenkirchen, German Federal Republic , September 30 - October 4, 198 0 *This paper is based on the authors' longer study, The Helsinki Watch Committees in the Soviet Republics : Implications for the Sovie t Nationality Question, which was supported in whole or in part fro m funds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East Europea n Research, under Council Contract Number 621-9 . Travel to Garmisch- Partenkirchen has been--in Bilinsky's case—made possible by grant s from the American Council of Learned Societies and the University o f Delaware . The authors would like to thank their benefactors an d explicitly stress that the authors alone are responsible for th e contents of this paper . 2 Unexpectedly, within two years of the signing by the Sovie t Union, the United States, Canada, and thirty-two European states , of the long and solemn Final Act of the Conference on Security an d Cooperation in Europe in Helsinki, August l, 1975, there sprang u p as many as five groups of Soviet dissenters claiming that th e Helsinki Final Act justified their existence and activity .
    [Show full text]
  • Talking Fish: on Soviet Dissident Memoirs*
    Talking Fish: On Soviet Dissident Memoirs* Benjamin Nathans University of Pennsylvania My article may appear to be idle chatter, but for Western sovietolo- gists at any rate it has the same interest that a fish would have for an ichthyologist if it were suddenly to begin to talk. ðAndrei Amalrik, Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984? ½samizdat, 1969Þ All Soviet émigrés write ½or: make up something. Am I any worse than they are? ðAleksandr Zinoviev, Homo Sovieticus ½Lausanne, 1981Þ IfIamasked,“Did this happen?” I will reply, “No.” If I am asked, “Is this true?” Iwillsay,“Of course.” ðElena Bonner, Mothers and Daughters ½New York, 1991Þ I On July 6, 1968, at a party in Moscow celebrating the twenty-eighth birthday of Pavel Litvinov, two guests who had never met before lingered late into the night. Litvinov, a physics teacher and the grandson of Stalin’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, had recently made a name for himself as the coauthor of a samizdat text, “An Appeal to World Opinion,” thathadgarneredwideattention inside and outside the Soviet Union. He had been summoned several times by the Committee for State Security ðKGBÞ for what it called “prophylactic talks.” Many of those present at the party were, like Litvinov, connected in one way or another to the dissident movement, a loose conglomeration of Soviet citizens who had initially coalesced around the 1966 trial of the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel, seeking to defend civil rights inscribed in the Soviet constitution and * For comments on previous drafts of this article, I would like to thank the anonymous readers for the Journal of Modern History as well as Alexander Gribanov, Jochen Hell- beck, Edward Kline, Ann Komaromi, Eli Nathans, Sydney Nathans, Serguei Oushakine, Kevin M.
    [Show full text]
  • Glasnost, Perestroika and the Soviet Media Communication and Society General Editor: James Curran
    Glasnost, Perestroika and the Soviet Media Communication and Society General editor: James Curran Social Work, the Media and Public Relations Bob Franklin and Dave Murphy What News? The Market, Politics and the Local Press Bob Franklin and Dave Murphy Images of the Enemy: Reporting the New Cold War Brian McNair Pluralism, Politics and the Marketplace: The Regulation of German Broadcasting Vincent Porter and Suzanne Hasselbach Potboilers: Methods, Concepts and Case Studies in Popular Fiction Jerry Palmer Glasnost, Perestroika and the Soviet Media Brian McNair London and New York First published 1991 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006. “ To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.” Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge a division of Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc. 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 © 1991 Brian McNair All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data McNair, Brian Glasnost, perestroika and the Soviet media. – (Communication and scoiety). 1. Soviet Union. Mass media I. Title II. Series 302.230947 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data McNair, Brian Glasnost, perestroika and the Soviet media / Brian McNair.
    [Show full text]
  • Actors in a “Cheap Comedy”: Dissidents in Soviet Psychiatric Hospitals, 1968-1974
    ACTORS IN A “CHEAP COMEDY”: DISSIDENTS IN SOVIET PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS, 1968-1974 Philip B. Kiffer A thesis submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Russian and East European Studies in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Donald J. Raleigh Chad Bryant Eren Tasar ©2015 Philip B. Kiffer ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Philip B. Kiffer: Actors in a “Cheap Comedy”: Dissidents in Soviet Psychiatric Institutions, 1968-1974 (Under the direction of Donald J. Raleigh) This paper examines the Soviet government's hospitalization of political dissidents diagnosed with mental disorders between 1968 and 1974. Relying primarily on memoir accounts produced by the victims of Soviet punitive psychiatry, the purpose of this paper is to explicate the purpose, function, and effectiveness of the Soviet program of committing dissidents to psychiatric institutions. It concludes that this program served primarily to control behavior, rather than suppress ideas or counter-ideologies, embarrassing to the Soviet government. Furthermore, it suggest that in many cases committing dissidents to mental hospitals served the state as a means of negotiating with dissidents and reaching an agreement on what constitutes acceptable behavior, instead of functioning simply as a way to remove them from general society. This paper also argues that some dissidents possessed means of pressuring the state, and that the dialogue between political malcontents and government authorities was not a one sided conversation. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to use this space to thank a number of people who helped me in a variety of ways as I completed this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Glasnost| the Pandora's Box of Gorbachev's Reforms
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1999 Glasnost| The Pandora's box of Gorbachev's reforms Judy Marie Sylvest The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Sylvest, Judy Marie, "Glasnost| The Pandora's box of Gorbachev's reforms" (1999). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 2458. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2458 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY Tlie University of IVTONXANA Permission is granted by the autlior to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. ** Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature ** Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author's Signature ri a nh^ YYla LjJl£rt' Date .esmlyPYJ ?> ^ / ? ? Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. GLASNOST: THE PANDORA'S BOX OF GORBACHEV'S REFORMS by Judy Marie Sylvest B.A. The University of Montana, 1996 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana 1999 Approved by: //' Chairperson Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP34448 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]