Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Part 3 Human Rights and Human Survival INTRODUCTION EVancis [~ After hearing these accounts of monstrous violations of human rights and human freedom, we turn to the shadow of thermonuclear war and ask the question, Is there a conflict between the struggle for human rights and the search for lasting peace? Surely not. Surely a stable, peaceful world requires an absence of paranoia, it requires trust, a sharing of values that must include a universal respect for human rights. In that respect for human rights, would include the positive rights that Dr. Kates so eloquently argued for. Not only is there no contradiction between these two goals (the struggle for human rights and the search for peace), but they are inextricably bound together. One is not possible without the other, and we must fight for them both. The question is, of course, how we get from here to there. The panelists, ~ think, will address that. Dr. OrIov will speak first. Then there will be three discussants. The first should have been Professor Victor Weisskopf, who, unfortu- nately, was unable to come. ~ have his prepared manuscript and will read it. Professor Weisskopf is institute professor emeritus at MIT, has a list of honors too long to go into-and he is my father. (Laughter) Next wiD be Paul Doty, who is the MallinckroUt Professor of Biochemistry and director emeritus of the Center for Science and 61
International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Harvard University. Finally, Professor Lipman Bers is the Davies Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Columbia and visiting professor of mathematics at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He is also past chair of this committee. Our main speaker in this session is Yuri OrIov. He is a high- energy physicist. He was for a short time, long ago, at the Institute for Theoretical and Experunental Physics, in Moscow. He was fired from that institution for political reasons, went to Armenia, worked there, became a corresponding member of the Armenian Academy of Science, went back to Moscow, founded the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group in 1975, was arrested in 1977 and sentenced to seven years of hard labor followed by five years of internal exile. Last September he was released and allowed to ern~grate. The day of his release was a day of joy for ad of us. He is now a senior scientist at the Newman Laboratory, Cornell University. We welcome him here to our academy. We welcome him warmly with admiration for his courageous struggle for human rights and with the hope and belief that that struggle wiD succeed. TEE SOVIET UNION, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND NATIONAL SECURITY Yuri Orlov Dear colleagues and friends, ~ will discuss some nontrivial prow lems about the connection between human rights, especially in the USSR, and the preservation of peace. My point of view on human rights and peace was and Is based on the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Peace and security ride on the backs of three whales: disarmament, human rights, and trade. Consider the relations among democratic countries in the West. (T include Japan in that term.) The nuclear supremacy of the United States immediately after World War IT played a decisive role in establishing the current order in the Western world. But today, 40 years after that war, the United States is part of a large democratic system. Today it is hard to imagine that disagreements between Japan and the United States, or between the European Cornrnon Market and the United States, could lead to war.
Why is this true? In the first place, their mutual economic ties have become so vital for all of them that they share a stake in mutual prosperity and fear of an economic crisis in any country. (The Marxist thesis that the struggle for markets and for raw materials will inevitably lead to war among capitalist countries may have been true in the past. But it is no longer applicable, because of the intense growth of connections between their economies.) Another reason is the much more important role public opinion plays now in matters of war and peace than it did 70 or even 40 years ago, before the exchange of ideas, information, and people became as free and extensive as it is today. Today, public opinion in the United States, Europe, and Japan would be against a war in any countries in the West. We see, then, that the proliferation of intensive trade connections and the free flow of people, ideas, and information are effective safeguards for peace in the Western world. Thus, if undemocratic countries did not exist, the problem of nuclear disarmament could, ~ suspect, be easily resolved. In other words, ~ believe that the relations among democratic countries in the West offer a working model for international peace. Let me now concentrate on the Soviet system. The problem of world peace and security would be significantly reduced if the USSR were an integral part of the Western world. But neither its political nor its economic system permits it to be integrated into that system. Some in the West fee! we should concentrate only on questions of disarmament, since it is impossible or impractical for the West to influence internal development in the USSR. This is a serious argument; however, history has proved it wrong. The USSR has changed in the 70 years of its existence, and since the death of Stalin it has, in general, changed for the better. Serious reforms were introduced by Khrushchev. Maybe the most serious reform with respect to the problem under consideration is that the Soviet Union has become a somewhat less closed society, that is, less hostile to the free flow of people, information, and ideas within its borders and across them. Before that, when it was a completely closed society, it was truly impossible to influence the USSR by peaceful means. But after the society became at least a bit open, it also became susceptible in some measure to external influence. And Soviet society in the course of the last 30 years has indeed become, little by little, increasingly susceptible to Western influence.
Probably the first explicit recognition in Soviet history of that influence was the acknowledgment by Ambassador KashIev, head of the Soviet delegation to the Vienna Conference, that the existence of political prisoners in the USSR complicates the relations of the Soviet Union with the West and that this was the main reason for the future release of about 200 such prisoners (The New York Times, January 16, 1987~. The political dissidents have made Soviet society less closed by publicizing facts about the USSR and by having an active relationship with Western scientists, political officials, journalists, and human rights groups. Indeed, it has been an explicit aim of some dissident groups in the USSR to publicize information about Soviet society, so the West would exert constructive pressure on the Soviet government. Now the Soviet government has itself created a bit more openness by informing the West about events in the USSR and, recently, by granting visas to and from the USSR. Those changes came about because of the Soviet desire to look better to the West. The problem of openness in Soviet society cannot be considered purely an internal affair of the Soviet Union, because it has excep- tional importance for the question of international security. The more closed Soviet society has been, the more generally hostile it has tended to be to other countries. Thus, both as a part and as a result of the deliberate isolation of that society for many decades, we Soviet citizens have been educated as if we were members of a great underground organization encircled by a hostile world. Even as we have been pronouncing fine words about Deace. we have alwav~ meant peace among enemies. , . . ,, Soviet citizens have not and do not receive accurate information about the policies of the U. S. government and the life of American citizens. For example, they are persuaded by Soviet propaganda that if the Soviet army had not entered Afghanistan, that country wouIc] have been turned into an American military base. ~ have heard that opinion expressed in many conversations with Soviet people. They forget that before the Soviet invasion, a communist government ruled Afghanistan. (Unfortunately, newspaper readers in all countries have short memories.) (I,aughter) Openness in Soviet society is not only important for international security, it is also that aspect of human rights in the USSR which is most subject to the influence of Western society. The Soviet government at the present time is exceptionally interested in the
improvement of its image in the West and in the development of scientific and technological contacts with the West. It is certain that the KGB will try to keep these contacts under its control, as it did in the past. Now, however, the situation depends on the West as well as on the KGB. I emphasize that the USSR is now extremely interested in sci- entific contacts. That interest and the great interest of the West in security can form the basis for compromise and the development of a more open Soviet society. We must initiate a real campaign to encourage such openness, because if Soviet society were to become as open as the West, East-West tension would be substantially reduced and mutual security thereby increased. ~ would like to make a proposal to begin that campaign a proposal that the Soviet Union cannot reasonably object to. As you may know, in Europe exchange visits of school children among fannies of different countries have become common. These visits create a foundation for mutual understanding and for peaceful future relations between the countries involved. I believe we should press to have such exchange visits take place between the Soviet Union and the West. Soviet children would then, for example, be able to spend their vacations with American families and American children with Soviet families. As for the contribution to openness that can be made by Western scientists and scholars: They can help open up Soviet society in the area of academic freedom. The aim should be to end the habit of the Soviet government and the KGB of viewing scientists as instruments of foreign policy. The academic freedom of Soviet scientists and scholars is, ~ be- lieve, an issue for academics everywhere, because scholars and, per- haps especially, scientists form an international community. Thus, for example, if Americans want to invite a particular Soviet scientist to a conference here or to send an American scientist to a confer- ence there and the Soviet government does not give that scientist a visa, the Soviet authorities are indirectly violating the Americans' academic freedom as well as that of the Soviet scientists. If they persecute one of their scientists for his open expression of opinion, they are preventing Americans from sharing his ideas, and that is an indirect violation of their freedom. Scientists should have complete freedom to express their opinion and complete freedom to communicate with each other without re- gard to frontiers. Of course, academic freedom is only freedom for an
w elite, but let everyone demand openness in his own field of activity. There is no need to fear that the Soviets will refuse to enter into an agreement on scientific contacts because of American defense of academic freedom as part of human rights. Although they might try bluffing in this regard, they have much more than Americans to gain from scientific contacts. Another aspect of openness that is important for international security is a citizen's right to receive information about the military and foreign policies of his government and to criticize the actions of his government in these areas. Soviet citizens do not have this right. Openness within a country is more dependent on a govern- ment's internal policies and is less susceptible to the pressure of international public opinion than openness in relations with other countries. But there does exist one tested means of influence the defense of individuals persecuted and prosecuted for the criticism of their governments. With respect to defense of such Soviet scientists, ~ have heard the opinion that Western scientists have no justification as scientists for defending Soviet scientists who are being persecuted for criticism of their government rather than for their scientific views. Of course, a scientist does have the right to avoid all questions other than strictly scientific ones. But it is my opinion that, in the modern world, a scientist should defend his colleagues who protest the military actions of their government. That is especially true when a Western scientist takes part in activities involving Soviet scientific organizations. Then he, himself, inevitably becomes involved in politics, since the USSR views and uses such organizations as instruments of politics. By contrast with the Soviet Union, public opinion in the United States has sufficient power to force the government to cut short mil- itary actions in "local conflicts. Unfortunately, this takes time. do not know what changes in American democracy are necessary for public opinion to be able to prevent rather than limit military ac- tions. However, ~ know with certainty that, in the USSR, democratic control of military action is completely inadequate to the demands of international security. It is, indeed, virtually nonexistent. The Soviets have prosecuted their citizens who have called for trust with the United States or spoken against Soviet military ac- tions in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan or spoken out against the Soviet part in the arms race. I1ue, there is in the USSR a so-called official struggle for peace. For example, some Soviet physicians have been permitted to join International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War. However, ~ do not know of any Soviet member of that organization who has publicly criticized the nuclear arms policies of his government. ~ believe many of the Soviet members are silent because, lacking information, they believe that the United States is the sole source of the arms race. Others are silent, knowing that the Soviet government wouIc] consider any criticism an intolerable attack on its image. So the Soviet participation in the physicians' organization has made no demonstrable contribution to international peace. The only effect of Soviet participation has been on the Soviet government's image in the West (as the government intended), not on its military policies. But do Soviet military policies, in fact, deserve criticism? Of course, the Soviet government does not want a new world war. Yet it has grabbed and continues to grab and keep one country after another by military force-which, by itself, is dangerous for the future of the world. Before Afghanistan, there was Czechoslovakia in 1968 and before that, Hungary in 1956. Before that, there was the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and the division of Poland with Nazi Germany that marked the beginning of World War IT. There was also the Winter War with Finland in 1940. No, the Soviet government cannot be called peaceloving. The world will therefore benefit when the Soviet Union grants its citizens the human rights to criticize their government's military policies. In conclusion, ~ want to stress that, as a first approximation, the issue of human rights is independent of the issue of disarmament. Both issues are important for the cause of peace and international security. But to me it is plain that the democratization of the USSR in the sense that ~ have discussed earlier the inclusion of the USSR in the Western system of democracies" is a necessary condition for real peace ant] security in the world. Scientists can help achieve it. It is difficult, but possible, and it is important. A peace based on fear cannot be stable. Thank you. COMMENTS Victor We~8kopfi3 There are two obvious facts. One, human survival depends on avoiding a nuclear war between the United States and the USSR. i3At the last minute Dr. Weisskopf was unable to travel to Washington to present his comments at the symposium. They were read by Francis Low.
Two, human rights are severely curtailed in the USSR in spite of some recent improvements under Gorbachev, including the liberation of some well-known dissidents. There are two extreme positions that can be taken in response to these facts. The first states that in order to avoid the nuclear holocaust, we need much better cultural, commercial, and political relations between the superpowers. To raise the human rights issue obstructs the attainment of a better understanding and should be avoided. The second assumes that arms control or reduction of nuclear or other weapons is impossible as long as the USSR curtails human rights, since a country that does not trust its own citizens to be free is not a country that can be trusted on the international level to abide by its commitments. ~ believe both positions go too far. The first one is, to some extent, clisproved by recent events. The insistence of the West on criticizing violations of human rights has not diminished the ea- gerness of the Soviets to go on with arms control negotiations and improve relations with the West. On the contrary, it may have con- tributed to Gorbachev's recent release of a relatively large number of, but by far not all, dissidents. Probably part of the reason for these releases was the recognition that some progress in human rights may make the West more welling to improve relations. The second extreme position is based on the wrong assumption that a regime wiD change the foundations of its stability when put under pressure by other countries. Freedom to dissent, free immigra- tion, and the like are believed by the Soviet leadership to seriously weaken the power of the present regime. External military pressure can only reinforce this view. The policy "If you don't change your system, we will go on with the arms race" cannot be successful and would make nuclear war more probable in the future. Some proponents of the second extreme position also argue that a totalitarian regime cannot be trusted to abide by international agreements. This is not borne out by experience. The Soviets, by and large, did abide by past treaties, apart from a few Moor infringements, without much military significance. The right position must be a compromise between the two ex- tremes. In order to avoid war, the United States must arrive at better relations with the USSR through a mutual understanding of our problems. The security and stability of the Soviet regime is nec- essary for our own security. A regune that feels threatened is more dangerous than one that feels secure.
v" This is why we need a detente between the superpowers together with verifiable treaties preventing both sides from arriving at a sig- nificant military or political superiority. It is the right moment for detente because we have reached military parity and because both powers should be interested in a political stabilization of their rela- tions with foreign countries where they have run into considerable difficulties. The search for political understanding with the USSR should not prevent the West from publicizing and protesting human rights in- fringements. Those protests have contributed to Gorbachev's recent actions. The United States should be known all over the world as a defender of human rights. However, this is only possible if we attack with equal force the infringements of human rights in countries with totalitarian anticommunist regimes, which our government has not done so far. Criticism and protest need not exclude collaboration in other areas such as arms control, political stabilization, environmental problems, or scientific and commercial exchanges. Such colIabora- tions reduce the danger of military conflicts. Preventing war between the superpowers must have the highest priority, for there will be few victims to liberate after a nuclear war. Moreover, as Sakharov has often stressed, when U.S.-Soviet re- lations turn from collaboration to increased confrontation, the result is always an increase in human rights violations within the Soviet Union. Our present military policy, such as the deployment of MX, the placing of missiles in Europe, and the eagerness to employ SD! as early as possible must arouse fear in the USSR of a first strike and distrust in regard to our intentions of peaceful coexistence. An improvement of human rights in the Soviet Union may be possible, but only if fear and distrust can be dispelled. Then per- haps new leaders may come to power for whom thought control and oppression would be of less importance. But such a development takes much time and can only happen after a reasonably successful period of increasing collaboration between East and West, leading to an avoidance of crisis situations, to effective arms control, and to a common effort to counter other important threats to mankind in the environmental field. In short, we should uncover and protest infringements of human rights in the USSR and elsewhere. At the same time, we should negm tiate arms reductions and controls and avoid measures that increase fear on the other side. We must improve contacts and collaborative
projects, but make sure that the best and most productive people in the USSR are allowed to participate irrespective of their race, religion, or political inclination. But we should not insist upon hu- man rights unprovements as a condition for more peaceful relations. Thank you. COMMENTS Paul Doty First, ~ would like to congratulate Yuri OrIov on his paper. His perception, analysis, and thoughtful suggestions for the future, all delivered without, despite what he has been through, any rancor, are a tribute to him and to all of his breed, and ~ appreciate it very much. oecona, ~ am In a somewhat delicate position because, as 1 told Dr. Stellar when he invited me to come, I could not pass as a human rights activist, although I share their concerns and their goals. Instead, ~ think ~ am here to represent the several dozen members of the academy who, over the years, have pursued a somewhat parallel, but much less dramatic and much less heroic and much safer, course, personally, of trying to bring about a bridge between the scientists in the Soviet Union and those here and to explore in all the ways that we could between the two sides of finding a safer world ahead, depending less and less for our security upon the enormous stockpiles of weapons that we have assembled. This has taken the form within the academy of two different programs. In 1959, President Bronk initiated the exchange of scien- tists with the Soviet academy; in 1960 ~ became the first chair of the committee overseeing that program and carried on for several years. It has been a continuous operation and now bears the name of the Soviet-East European Affairs Program. Over its 27 years or so, it has been handmaiden to the exchange of several thousand scientists each way. It is not possible to evaluate how much good that has done, but it created a net pool of shared interests and knowledge of each other that ~ think cannot but be helpful in the days and years ahead. The second operation is that of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control, of which those of you who come hear words from us on the Sunday before each annual meeting. That committee, which began in 1980, had its origins in 1960 or before,
71 first with the Pugwash meetings and then with a committee operated by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and this academy during the 1960s and 1970s, in which we carried out a number of initiatives with the Soviets. . I think, for example, that even the negotiators on both sides would say that we were an important link in the chain that led to the SALT ~ agreements, as an example of our efforts. In this work, one has to deal with the people on the other side who have access to their governments or with people who are in the governments. Among this large number of Soviets that ~ have had to deal with, ~ have made many friends, despite the adherence that many of them have to government policy. On the other hand, there are other contacts that have been anything but a labor of love. ~ cannot help but remember times when, breaking bread with officials of the academy of sciences or with members of the Central Committee, that ~ was probably talking with the same people who aided in putting Yuri OrIov in the camps. This is not a very pleasant business, and when ~ come home from each trip, and ~ will go next month for my 50th trip to Moscow, ~ always think of what ~ forgot to say at the right time, whose case ~ did not bring up. So, it is a mixed bag and ~ do not wish to deny it, but it is a labor In which not only I, myself, but also many others in the academy, have put in an enormous effort. ~ think, while the results are not quantifiable and cannot be measured, we are all glad that we spent our time that way. So, I will stop there and hope that we can have this conversation with Yuri more extensively some other time. Thank you. COMMENTS Lipman Bere Ladies and gentlemen, it is late, and I will be very short. I essentially agree with most of what we have heard. In particular, I fully agree with OrIov that, in first approximation, and ~ would say even in second approximation, the struggle for nuclear disarmament and peace and the struggle for human rights are rather independent of each other. ~ want to mention briefly a few disagreements that ~ may have with all the speakers. ~ am somewhat less optimistic. I do not believe
72 that the changes in Russia, which ~ consider very important, which ~ applaud and from which ~ expect great things, that these changes were brought about by the international scientific community. We could have helped a little, but ~ do not think that a superpower changes its basic policies as a result of pressure from abroad. ~ do not think that every meeting between a Soviet scientist and an American scientist (or a Soviet school child and an American school child) by itself lessens the danger of war because it gives the citizens of the two countries the opportunity of knowing each other. Knowing each other never prevented people from going to war. World War ~ started when all European countries except for Russia were democracies. They knew each other very well. Among the most cruel wars in the history of humanity were civil wars, where the warring sides knew each other very well, indeed. ~ do not believe that the interests of peace require that we pretend that things are better than they are and avoid public mention of unpleasant facts. After all, nuclear war is to be avoided not because the Soviet government, or ours, for that matter, consists of nice guys; it is to be avoided because it will certainly lead to the destruction of our civilization and may lead to the extinction of our species. We all share the hope that nuclear weapons will never or, more precisely, never again be used. This hope ~ based on fear of these weapons, a fear which we hope is shared by those who have the power of decision. The history of the past 40 years shows that a peace based on fear is not necessarily unstable. The main contribution scientists can make to the avoidance of war may be in explaining to their own governments and to their own people how well founded this fear of nuclear weapons is. In the United States, this must include a blunt criticism of the "Star Wars" project. One word about scientific exchanges. ~ think the time has come when we may insist that the Russians adhere to certain generally accepted rules of scientific intercourse. More precisely, we may de- mand that at international scientific conferences invited speakers be permitted to come, no matter whether the authorities like them or not. This is still not being done. At the last International Congress of Mathematicians in Berkeley, about half of the invited Soviet speakers showed up. In view of Gorbachev's enlightened and courageous policy it may be the right time to say that on this we really insist.
73 Finally, ~ would like to express the gratitude and respect which we all fee! toward the small and courageous group of our Russian colleagues who started this fight for human rights and for openness many years ago, when success looked very, very far away. My friend, Valery Chalidze, a physicist and one of the founders of this movement, told me that at one time somebody there proposed a slogan, "Try to help even if you know that help is impossible." We are all in an elated mood because of what is happening in Russia, and what is happening in Argentina,~4 but let us not forget how many more people in other countries need our help, including countries where the United States should have leverage. Let us not ask whether we can help these people, let us not ask how cost effective it will be. Let us simply try to help. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS EYancis Low Let me ask members of the panel, first, if they would like to comment on what has been said. Yuri OrIov ~ have a question for Lipman. Do you think that, in general, to- talitarian societies that existed in the past and perhaps will continue to exist in the future are, as a type, impossible to change? Lipman Bers No. There was a theory that once a totalitarian let's say a communist government Is established, it is unchangeable. This was the credo of the neoconservatives. ~ never believed in it, and certainly do not believe it now after what we have seen happening in Russia. Within wan said before the adoption of the legislation exempting from prosecution those believed to have acted under orders from superior military officers.
74 Yuri Oriov It ~ the first case in Soviet history, the first official announce- ment of this type of Ambassador KashIev in Vienna at the review conference. As a person who used to live in a society of the So- viet type, ~ can attest to the fact that this the of annn~,n`~.~m~nt. . . ~. . ~. ~ . . ~_ _ A. ,¢ ~_ ~ ~ namely, that the west did have an effect and influence on the Soviet release of political prisoners, is extremely humiliating for the Soviet government. ~ can bring forth other examples to prove my point, and I will do that, though not right now. But I think it is important to recognize it for what it is. Lipman Bere Oh, ~ did not doubt that this statement was humiliating and that it is important that the statement was made. The question, as understood it, was did the statement give a full explanation of what happened, and to this ~ answered no. Joe] Lebowitz, Rutgers University ~ would~ like to emphasize some of the points that were brought out and apply them to the practical. It seems to me there were two important points brought out here that we should take away with us. First, in connection with particularly the first speaker from Chile, how important it is to pressure our own government, in the case of Chile, because that is really where the influence lies, but we can hope to change. ~ think it is absolutely essential, and also in the case of South Africa. In the case of the Soviet Union, and to some extent, also, in the case of all places in the world where oppression takes places, members of this academy, their guests, and their colleagues are invited to go, as we have already heard. to conferences and many time t.h~v an tin conferences. T' :~ ~o _ V ~ or" Is very, very crucial, it seems to me, that if they do not go to such meetings in a particular country because of human rights abuses, that they should be very clear in expressing that. If they go anyway, it is even doubly important that they make sure that they do get in contact with the victims of human rights abuses.
Even more specifically, what Professor Bers has said, we can demand from the Soviets to permit their scientists to come to con- ferences here. We certainly can demand, and should demand, that when we go to the Soviet Union and to other countries, that we may have contact with all scientists there. ~ think the committee over here, Dr. Stellar and Carol Carillon, could be very helpful to members of the academy in supplying them with information of whom to go to visit, and ~ very much hope that this is one of the consequences of this session. People will become aware of it, and if they know colleagues who are going to such places, they will take that into account. ~ should just mention one final thing, that as Professor Bers said, the situation ~ not all rosy. At the present time, there are many, many people in the Soviet Union, in particular well, there are many, many people in jails in South Africa and in jails in Chile, a terrible situation but ~ understand, even in the Soviet Union, some of the people who have been released from jail are on hunger strike in some of the intermediate centers, because it is still not settled what kinds of statements they must sign agreeing that they will behave. Also, very many long-time "refuseniks" are on hunger strikes because they are afraid that if they do not get permission to leave now, they may never get it. So, the situation is far from perfect, and we have a lot to do to improve it. Eliot Stellar May ~ just take advantage of Joel Lebowitz's comment and point out that the Committee on Human Rights does have information on dissidents and refuseniks in the Soviet Union for any of those of you who are planning to visit. Walter John, University of California, Santa Barbara ~ am addressing my friend, Lipman Bers. Lipman Bers took exception to some remarks made at the table, including suggestions, ~ believe, by Professor Orlov, so now ~ would like to take some exception to the position taken by Lipman Bers. It has to do with his judgment of the utility or absence of utility of openness or of mutual knowledge. Since he is a mathematician, perhaps ~ will put it imprecisely in mathematical terms. Certainly, openness is not a sufficient condition or mutual knowledge is not a sufficient condition for avoiding war.
76 On the other hand, particularly in the specific present situation, where the main threat to peace is the confrontation between the two superpowers, ~ think increased mutual knowledge and an increased openness are, in the long run, at least a necessary condition for eventual disarmament and a long-term solution. ~ remember a position Niels Bohr took when ~ was a nostdoc in Copenhagen. He argued that the scientists, because they are . . . · . · . .. . an International community, a community that naturally, because of their common interests, transcends national boundaries, have an obligation and an opportunity to tee in the forefront of ~tahli~hin~ that openness which he felt was needed where scientists had special qualifications. [ipman Bere . O much more broadly, but ~ did not express myself clearly. Of course, openness is very important, and everything should be done to foster it. ~ was talking about something else; the code word used to be "quiet diplomacy." Two elderly gentlemen, both distinguished in their own country, meet, show to each other the pictures of their grandchildren, point out that in each country there are militarists. We have them and you have them, and reasonable people must support each other, and "Oh yes, Sakharov wasn't careful enough and you will not do him any good by making too much fuss about it." Nothing of this is made public and then people say, "Well, we established a relationship." ~ was referring to this attitude. ~ would not say a word against openness. E-An Zen, U.S. Geological Survey ~ would like to echo the comments of the two previous question- ers. ~ think it is incumbent upon us to maintain open channels of communication, however distasteful the political institution may be in a particular country. It is up to us to help our colleagues to keep , _ ,, things open because if we do not. we do not communicate' with t.h~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ we nurr totem, and we hurt ourselves. and we no against the habit rule of open science. If we communicate with them, we also could help to keep a channel of communication open for those who are repressed. Insist of all, let us not act in such a way that we appear sanctimonious. ~v _ ~
77 Yuri Orion ~ would like to say, first of all, when you come into contact with Soviet official organizations, you are not having contact primarily with scientists, but rather with government officials. It is an illusion that you are having free communication with scientists; it is pure illusion. For example, when ~ was young and a young scientist was sent abroad, he had to agree, as a precondition for being allowed to go abroad, that he would fulfill what was essentially a spy mission. know that such problems also exist in the United States, but certainly not to the same degree. Certainly things have become a bit better in the Soviet Union as well. Nevertheless, ~ think it is important to remind you that when scientists are sent here, as a rule they represent very specific kinds of people and kinds of institutions. What ~ am saying is that contact should become more free. How do you define free contact if you invite a specific person and that person is not sent? That is not a free contact. Francis Low Professor Stellar is going to make a few final comments. Before he does, ~ think that we owe him a real vote of thanks for this wonderful afternoon, and also Carol Corillon and the staff who work with her.
CLOSING REMARKS Eliot Stellar In closing, ~ would like to invite Professor Gonzalez and Professor Mohamed to come to the podium and join Dr. OrIov. Colleagues, we all know that it takes dedication to be a human rights activist in the United States. It takes that same dedication, and more, to be a human rights- activist in Chile, South Africa, and the Soviet Union, and In many other countries around the world. But it takes tremendous personal courage and strength and conviction to fight openly for human rights in those countries. In appreciation of these brave qualities, for sharing your thoughts and concerns and hopes with us here today, ~ would like to present each of you with this engraved medallion of the academy in addition to our heartfelt thanks. Now, while you are still standing and still here, ~ can think of no better way to end this meeting than to quote from a passage about victims of oppression from the speech made by another human rights activist, Elie Weisel, when he accepted the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize: What all these victims need, above all, is to know that they are not alone, that we are not forgetting them, that when their voices are stifled, we shall lend them ours, that while their freedom depends on ours, the quality of our freedom depends on theirs. - 79