Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn: The influence on the human rights movement: historical aspect - Essay Example

Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn: The influence on the human rights movement: historical aspect Introduction The present paper will be based on the assumption that in Russian dissident movement, the greatest progress in human rights revival and protection was made not by Solzhenitsyn, but by Sakharov. Sakharov has historically done more to make the USSR the country, where the human rights would be defended and taken into account, with less radical position than that of Solzhenitsyn. Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn are viewed through the history of the human rights movement as the two figures, which at first sight seem to take similar positions and have similar goals; however, it is important to note, that these two personalities had strong disagreements between each other and in reality moved drastically different ways, using different means of influence on the world community. I think that both of them have created unique impact on the history of USSR and the history of human rights in the world – they were first to open to the world politics and general public the truth of the Soviet totalitarian regime; they were the first who, risking their lives tried to influence the inner regime, in which they lived, addressing the foreign community an asking them for assistance. However, and what I will try to prove in this work, Sakharov seems to have come closer to his goal, and the present situation in Russia partially proves this and partially owes him for the freedom which people now have in their views and expressions; being less radical he was different from Solzhenitsyn, who ultimately and probably invisibly for himself, moved to the goal of reviving the imperialism from the goal of reviving human rights. Sakharov's doctrine and his impact on the détente In his striving to protect human rights in the USSR, Sakharov displayed better understanding of the real situation and his influence on the détente in the USSR was much greater than that of Solzhenitsyn. The thesis about the continuous connection between peace, international security and human rights was the central in the system of Sakharov's views. This thesis started to be formed at the beginning of 70s, with Brezhnev – Nixon's policy of détente, and as its alternative. In July, 1973 in the well-known interview to Olle Stenholm he expressed his vague hopes and fears as for this new direction in Soviet – American relations. He was afraid that the process of rapprochement would go according to the Soviet rules without inner liberalization of the country. The aims and motives of détente are not clear until the present day. It is assumed that the American side was aiming at decreasing the level of opposition between the two countries, and save some military expenses, while the USSR was accounting for western loans, technologies and crops. These fears and hopes were later realized and made him form an alternative détente program. In his Nobel Prize lecture in 1975, Sakharov formulated the thesis: 'I am sure, that international trust, mutual understanding and disarmament and international security are impossible without the society's openness, freedom of information, convictions, publicity, freedom of trips and choice of residence'1. Sakharov's doctrine was based on the three main arguments: first of all, if the state presents the threat to its citizens, it will also present the threat to its neighbors. Second, the respect of the human rights provides the democratic control over the foreign policy of the state and military expenses, thus the society won't allow the militarization of economy in the peaceful time. The third argument of Sakharov was that following the human rights would provide the free exchange of information and ideas between the nations will foster their rapprochement, mutual mistrust decrease and decreases the probability of conflict. However, reflecting on these arguments, it is also possible to add the fourth one: human rights can (and must) become the general value for all nations and this commonality of values will decrease the possibility of ideological conflicts. According to the Sakharov's ideas, the ideology of human rights is universal. This doctrine has created a serious impact at the process of détente in the following: it was the first public Soviet doctrine on human rights; second, the détente policy has then taken into account this question, though the US authorities didn't have much opportunity to view the human rights situation inside USSR2. The influence of Sakharov on détente and the human rights movement was much more significant as he was active more than Solzhenitsyn. Being the inventor of the nuclear bomb, Sakharov as no one else has been involved into the problems of disarmament and human rights protection in USSR. Sakharov often expressed his doubts in the possibility of inner changes in USSR, and the only means of resolving these problems for him was outer western influence in the question of human rights. That's why Sakharov actively moved in this direction and was very well known to western press and community for his works in the sphere of human rights protection. In fact, and in distinction from Solzhenitsyn, he has created more realistic postulates. Through many years the main efforts of Sakharov have been directed at mobilization of western pressure on the soviet authorities in the question of human rights and especially for the protection of political repressions' victims. He repeats all the time that 'fighting for human rights is the real present day fight for peace and future of the humanity'3. One of the displays of his activity in the area of human rights was his open letter to the US Congress and his open support of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which carried special meaning for Sakharov. It was directly dependent on providing the Soviet citizens with the right to freely leave the country. Otherwise USSR would have been deprived of the trading status. Sakharov supposed the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to it to be the key concept of the open society; he also supposed that this amendment would be an important precedent, showing the desirable direction of détente development. In his open letter to the US Congress, he wrote: 'The Jackson amendment acquires greater meaning now, when the world only enters the new way of détente, and this is why is it important to go in the correct direction from the very beginning. It is the most important statement, coming far beyond the limits of the emigration issue'4. Despite the fact that the emigration issue has initially been put incorrectly, and should have been the issue of free movement for the soviet citizens, and with this amendment still being valid for Russia and thousands of its citizens leaving the county looking for better place to live, it was still a brave step, which at that time could lead Sakharov to serious consequences. He was known to have short correspondence with the President Carter, and in his letters to him he pointed that in the conditions of the world fight for human rights the Soviet Union was reluctant to establish publicity and freedom of ideas and information in the country, making repressions even stronger.5 This was another action of Sakharov on his way to the western and eastern unity in protecting human rights. Though this unity didn't take place as the scientist wanted it, but the world scientific community due to Sakharov was united to protect their soviet colleagues from inner aggression.6 Solzhenitsyn's works and his 'inactive' attempt to change the existing regime Solzhenitsyn was mainly working 'behind the curtains', and criticizing the political and human position of Sakharov didn’t undertake any serious actions. He was purposefully working in the direction of ideological imperialism. However, the difference of his views with Sakharov didn't implement, that his influence was less than that of his counterpart. In fact, the only active deed made by Solzhenitsyn was in publication of his anti-soviet works, especially the Gulag Archipelago. Solzhenitsyn was against cooperation with the West, though thinking rationally, namely the West could give USSR this valuable experience and knowledge of the human rights and the benefits of freedom. He rejected the ideals, worked out by western countries and supposed that only the inner national spirit was the most valuable for the human rights movement. He was sure that the west was also suffering from vices and stated that 'intellectual freedom won't save Russia as it has not saved the West, which has lost in all kinds of freedoms and represents the powerlessness connected with the absence of spirit'.7 Despite being more radical in his views, Solzhenitsyn, in distinction from Sakharov, didn't make any active steps, following his statements and expressions. He refused to take part in open political campaigns for the protection of exact personalities under repressions. He justified his passiveness by telling that those people had worked opposite to the regime and there was no means to save them, which could only harm not only them but other people as well.8 When at the end of 1970s Sakharov and his close friends created the Human Rights Committee, Solzhenitsyn joined it but only formally, because he never participated in its activity. The Nobel prize which Solzhenitsyn has been given as a writer, gave him wrong basis for the assumption, that this prize would prevent soviet authorities from persecuting him, but in this desire to get rid of soviet control he didn't pursue the aim of promoting the issue of human rights across the world. His ‘loudest shout’ has been made through the Gulag Archipelago publication, though its strength and meaning for the dissident movement and movement for the human rights protection now seems to be doubtful. The explosive power of this book was not in its artistic peculiarities, but in the fact that it had opened the truth about violence and terrorism since the first months of communist regime9. While Sakharov's ideas have been concentrated on the search for equal human rights through convergence and rapprochement between the West and east, and while his central idea was in the significance of the human rights for everyone, Solzhenitsyn's actions were mainly directed at proving the negativity of the communist regime, and nothing else. The book didn't direct Solzhenitsyn's adherents at the thoughts and ideas in relation to the human rights protection. Simultaneously, Solzhenitsyn in his Harvard address of 1978 was brave enough as to put critique of Enlightenment, saying that there was not higher spirit and that 'it is time for the west to defend not so much human rights as human obligations'.10 It was his expression of negligence towards Western ideas and his wish for Russia to come back to imperialism, which had existed in it in the 19th century. These expressions were not followed by any actions, which led to the thought that still Sakharov was the dissident who had created much stronger impact on the Western society, and as a consequence, on the détente process, through making them pay more attention to the questions of human rights in USSR. He was able to influence the Helsinki process and to make them include the issue of the soviet human rights into its agenda at the end of 70s.11 Sakharov's influence on the human rights movement and détente as a part of it was in the fact, that his ideas and suggestions, being milder and less radical, than those of Solzhenitsyn, were closer to reality, as asking assistance from the West was a reliable instrument of influence the soviet authorities at that time. This, of course, cannot be said about Solzhenitsyn. He was striving for the freedom in all spheres of the country's life, starting with human right and finishing with various economic and political freedoms. It is admitted, that there is still much to be done, but in the area of human rights Sakharov has surely been more prominent than Solzhenitsyn. However, the fact that both Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn belong to the circle of the most well-known scientists and public personalities, cannot be argued. Though the only action undertaken by Solzhenitsyn was his book and his writing, but it still has created certain effect on the world community and made it think about the role and negativity of the totalitarian regimes. Solzhenitsyn was able to carry the truth of the totalitarian repressions to the foreign public, though without looking for Western support and mainly relying on the idea of national spirit and inner revival of Russia. His role in the dissident movement should not be underestimated, though it has mainly been aimed at fighting with the regime as a whole, than fighting exactly for the human rights. From the objective point of view, the opposition of these two dissidents, their views and statements, led them to playing different roles at the world arena of human rights.12 Conclusion The fight for human rights has covered the whole world, and though both Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn were acting in the 70s, their ideas find application only now. These two personalities have made significant contribution into the human rights movement, though with Sakharov being much more active and decisive, he remains more influential and prominent in the light of the human rights activity at that time. Taking into account the serious situation in USSR in relation to dissidents, he had enough courage to persuade the public in the necessity of supporting the human rights, which would be the only means to general peace and understanding. His letters to President Carter, his open letter to the US Congress in support of Jackson-Vanik amendment, with Peace Nobel prize and the influence on the Helsinki process (indirectly) have attracted attention of the whole world to the problems of human rights in the Soviet Union. Asking for assistance from the West remained the only means for him to change the existing situation, and the fact that he used this means proves the assumption that still his influence was much more significant. Simultaneously, Solzhenitsyn was writing his books for condemning the Soviet regime for repressions and terrorist actions towards its citizens, relying on the Russian spirit, which had already been suppressed, and hoping that his books would lead to the desirable by him changes in the life of Soviet society. Not denying the importance of his works, especially Gulag Archipelago, he cannot be fully understood and supposed to have created serious impact on the human rights movement, as his writing was only the means of fighting with regime, and not for human rights; this means was passive, and has not brought any serious changes. Solzhenitsyn is a talented personality, but yet speaking about the human rights in the Soviet Union, we first of all associate Sakharov with this movement, for whom this idea has become the central one through all his life. Reference list Evangelista, Matthew, The Unarmed Forces: the Transnational Movement to the End the Cold War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999 Fireside, Harvey, "The Conceptualization of Dissent: Soviet Behavior in Comparative Perspective", Universal Human Rights, 2-1 (1980): 31-45 Frangsmyr, Tore, From Nobel Lectures: Peace 1971-1980. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 1997 Gorelik, Gennady and Antonina Bouis, The World of Andrei Sakharov: a Russian Physicist’s Path to Freedom. London: Oxford University Press, 2005 Greenfield, Richard, "The Human Rights Literature of the Soviet Union", Human Rights Quarterly, 4-1 (1982): 124-136 Kamenetsky, Ihor, "Nationalism and Human Rights: Processes of Modernization in the USSR", Russian Review, 37-2 (1978): 234-235 Losansky, E.D., Andrei Sakharov and Peace,. New York: Avon, 1985 Rosefielde, Steven, "The First ‘Great Leap Forward’ Reconsidered: Lessons of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago", Slavic Review, 39-4 (1980): 559-587 Rubenstein, Joshua, Soviet Dissidents,. Boston: Beacon Press, 1985 Simes, Dimitri K, "Human Rights and Détente", Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 33-1 (1978): 135-147 Sakharov, A.D, Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom. New York: Norton, 1968 Sakharov, A.D, My Country and the World. New York: Knopf, 1975 Solzhenitsyn, A, The Nobel Lecture on Literature, Translated by Thomas Whitney, New York: Harper & Row, 1972 Solzhenitsyn, A, Détente: Prospects for Democracy and Dictatorship, New York: Transaction Books, 1976 Weiner, Amir, "Nature and Memory in a Socialist Utopia: Delineating the Soviet Socio- Ethnic Body in the Age of Socialism", American Historical Review, 104 (1999): 1114-1155 Read More