ABSTRACT: Alexander Ginzburg, who attended the RP Federal Council Meeting held in Rome from September 1 to 5, in this article comments on Soviet attendance at the FC (with him were Evhghenia Debrianskaja, Lev Timoveev, Sergeji, Grigorianc and Juri Afanasiev) remarking on the presentations made.

("Russian Thought", No. 8, September 8, 1989)

"When four Russians get together, five political parties are created," wrote V. Sciulghin. This time, the four Russians were called "our Soviet guests" or "our Soviet friends". They were invited to Rome to attend the Federal Council Meeting of the Radical Party which, formerly Italian, is now called "transnational" and truly aspires to be transnational.

In order to solicit the presence of the Soviets, two members of the Radical Party Secretariat spent two weeks in Moscow, one of them even detained in a police station for having taken part in a demonstration on August 23. In the meantime, President of the Federal Council and member of European Parliament, Marco Pannella, conducted an eleven-day hunger strike. On the even of the meeting, three persons obtained permission to leave: Evghenia Debrianskaja, leader of the recently created Radical Association 'Freedom and Peace', automatically part of the Federal Council, Sergeji Grigorianc and Lev Timofeev. Grigorianc arrived a half day late because he did not succeed in receiving his Italian visa in time. The fourth guest, member of Parliament Juri Afanasiev, came from France where he had arrived a month earlier.

The RP, which in its best "exclusively Italian" years reached ten thousand members, is presently in crisis: it has no more than 3,000 members and must take a decision--extend its activities to include all of Europe, or close definitively.

The East Europe option--where the Radical Party has until now maintained relations of cooperation with Polish and Hungarian pacifists and with the Soviet Union throughout the Perestrojka period, whose dissidents the Party has for many years defended--seems to many Radicals a good solution to the crisis. Just for that reason, the "Soviet guests" were welcomed with so warmly to the Roman hotel Ergife, adorned with the new Party symbol, the stylized portrait of Mahatma Gandhi.

We were also interested in the presentations of the Muscovites, which including contrasting points of view as to the political events in progress in the USSR today.

On the first day, Lev Timoveev was interviewed:

"The day of my departure, I was contacted by the miners of Vorkuta, and the members of the strike committee.

Aware of the possibility of my reaching the mass media, they asked me to make it known that perhaps today, September 1, another strike by the miners of Vorkuta would explode, probably supported by the miners of Dopnbas and Kuzbas, and everything would start all over again. I left and I don't know if that actually happened. If it did, it is because government structures exist which refuse to recognize the strike committees which represent the interests of the miners, because the strike committee now also represents a form of government directly opposed to the traditional ideological structure of the Party.

I have begun with this example of counterposition not because of the strike--striking is also a form of violence--but because I should like to speak of the real threat of conflict, of reciprocal violence which represents at this time a more or less imminent danger to our country.

Not so long ago, in our country totalitarianism still seemed to be absolutely indestructible: a total system of violence against the personality. Although I do not mean to say that we lived in a dead country, because protest, despite the situation, continued. However, it was a protest of principles, the protest of the few against a colossal. Even the lugubrious fantasies of Orwell did not explain the force of the colossal, because they were conceived as fantasies, while we know only too well that those fantasies are real. The counterposition of personified principles represented the expression of the war of common sense against the system of senseless violence. I could list names which you know very well, the names of people who paid a high price in years of reclusion, tension, disgrace and at times with their very lives, simply for a right, the right to profess principles--it was all they could do. There is no discourse to create opposing structures, combatting structures, parties generally reviewed

: there is only the proclamation of principles--it was the war of the picnidiai and there was, could not be, no tolerance and no remission.

This war of principles has now (a year and a half to two years later) been transformed into a war of opinions. It seems to me that the principles have become public domain, or almost. Glasnost--transparency--has already demonstrated different points of view as regards these principles; however, these principles are actually very simple ones: the principle of common sense in economics, the principle of democracy i social life, the principle of ethic morality. Now that the struggle for political interests has begun difference of opinion has appeared. If previously the interests of the individual and the interests of the group could not be either demonstrated or conceived because the conception was a verbal one, and for the word one could kill and be killed, now the process of the verbal demonstration of these interests has begun. This will explain the massive increase in independent newspapers. All these are the personified demonstrations of the interests of different groups.

This process tends towards its climax. If the first threat or danger originated above all from the government structure, now the polymerization of interests creates new structures and leads to direct conflict, and it is not just mere coincidence that in the independent press and even in the official press, the words "civil war" appear more and more often. Stating our interests and proclaiming our principles, we created this great danger: the ethnic community is the most evident historical community, and just for this reason the ethnic problem is the most explosive. The other sphere is the sphere of professional interests which were demonstrated during the strikes. The cause of this danger is the absence of a democratic mechanism: the apparatus of the party does not wish to relinquish power, in any case not to the strike committees--which is obviously the case now in Vorkuta.

Ten years ago, I began to think of how the mechanism of a war against the system could be created. Against the war I attempted to participate in the creation of this mechanism by writing some articles. However, lately I have been thinking more and more of how important it is to create a mechanism of peace. There is a very enlightening historical example: Poland. I believe that today, in the evaluation of our country's situation, the words "compromise" and "peace" should become the principle concepts. I am convinced that it is not a step backwards towards totalitarianism in our country. I like people who are in the front line in the battle for democracy and ethnic interests. However, in consideration of all this and considering also that all of us have been inculcated with an imperial mentality, I cannot help asking myself how it would be possible now to find a mechanism of peace in our country? How can we avoid a civil war? And, in light of our country's problems, taking the part of the democratic f

orces, I ask you to keep in mind that for us now the most important thing is to find the mechanism of peace and avoid direct bloody conflict and its consequences."

Evghenia in her first presentation said:

"We live in a country where the non-respect for human rights is written into the Constitution, in a country where principles of non-violence and democracy are absolutely alien to the population and where civil war means the clash between State and population. At present, however, it is not possible to speak of civil war, because our population is not only disarmed, but 40% of it is actually destitute."

The reaction to the presentation of Grigorianc was unexpected, and for this reason we quote him more extensively:

"Coming from a country agitated by endless ethnic conflict--which unfortunately will continue to increase becoming more and more bloody--to attend a convention of a Party which has assumed the task of creating a united European federation which would unite and not divide strikes me as paradoxical. In the meantime, in the USSR, the struggle for independence of all the peoples under the yoke of the Communist Empire is a positive and democratic one. The profession of these democratic ideals and the battle for human rights in the USSR are inseparable from the concept of ethnic identity, the right to political, cultural and social independence and the right of a people to choose independence. In addition to this, for the people of Lithuania, Lettonia and Estonia, as well as Georgia, Armenia and the Ukraine, democratic traditions are practically inseparable from national independence, and self-determination inseparable from democracy. We share with the Radical Party the hopes for a non-violent future in both E

ast and West Europe--a future which, in the Soviet Union in the present circumstances, seems almost impossible. The ethnic problem requires a certain degree of continuity in the development of those nations: only a people which has already affirmed its existence as a nation, only people who are ensured survival and independent development, can move freely and without fear, towards political and economic rapprochement.

There is a certain logical sequence in the development of all human and social relations; one part of humanity can traverse these phases quickly enough by learning from the experience of its neighbors, but no phase can be skipped and no phase imposed; the process must be the logical consequence of an internal development of the human community. Thus, it would be absurd to propose to the miners of Vorkuta and Kuzbas--struggling for self-determination, a pound of soap and a slice of meat--a campaign for sexual freedom. And it is the miners' strike and the national movement which constitute the most important and significant element of social development. Neither the Communist government--even with the will to believe in its promises of democratic reform--nor the political activities of so-called "liberal" Soviet society constitutes an alternative for the country. If political activity, as it is conceived of in the West, is to be possible, a higher level of social consciousness will be necessary for the ent

ire population. And for this reason, an independent political experience must be acquired by those who struggle throughout the country for political and ethnic rights.

It seems to me that reference has already been made to the danger, the unusual danger, involved in these movements. And that is not an exaggeration. Yesterday, the miners of Vorkuta, Don Bas, Kharkov and the North Caucasus once more went on strike. The strikes, despite official statements, have not ended: they have become less grandiose, but they are stable. This situation will lead to a worsening of the economic situation--equally catastrophic --characterized by the following: according to some evaluations, the level of inflation has reached 10% per year, and at the same time the accumulative value of all the goods on display in the shops constitute less than one fourth of the money available to the population, which is worth less than the paper it is printed on.

The economic situation is bound to worsen, independently of whether the decisions taken by the government are right or wrong. The right decisions, in the best of cases, will take effect in a few years--and until that time tensions within the country will inevitably continue to increase.

The ethnic situation is even worse, although at first sight the economic situation appears to be worse. Three days ago, a forty year old Armenian from Baku threw himself from the 12th floor as the Arzebaijans broke down the door of his apartment. An Armenian pogrom (massacre) was scheduled for today in Baku, and I do not know if that plan was carried out or not. But in the past two months, approximately 30 people have been killed and almost every day people arrive in Moscow crying, "Help us, they are killing us, we live only waiting to die." I hear them; I know that they are telling the truth; I know that perhaps I am seeing them for the last time. However, I also know that there is no way I can help them. At the same time, thousands of refugees drag themselves around the country. There are dozens of mutilated Arzebaijans in the hospitals of Karabakh; the Turks and other groups attempt in vain to find asylum. The situation in the country is already monstrous, and before very long it will become even

worse. But the country cannot avoid these events, and it must not, although this may seem horrible. The growth of individuals, of a people, has always been accompanied by great difficulty. But the child must learn how to enter the world of adults, while a people must learn to resolve its own problems, by itself. There is no other way.

Now, I should like to speak of the commitments and opportunities of the Radical Party in East Europe. After having set itself the task of bringing social and political aid, as well as solidarity, to the tens of thousands of millions of persons who are living in tragic conditions, the Radical Party, as a transnational force, can help transfer the Western democratic experience to the East, as a support for groups and institutions which on the one hand are attempting to consolidate democratic principles in East Europe, and on the other are a stabilizing element not for the entire country, but only for that which represents the basis for future society, constituting an authentic part of Federalist Europe and the entire democratic world."

Following Grigorianc, Afanasiev spoke:

"Like my colleagues from the Soviet Union, I should like to speak of what is happening at present in my country. I should like, however, also to bring attention to the issue of how we can become a part of today's world. The problems of the Soviet Union are not only ours, and in this sense I am completely in agreement with what Timoveev and Debranskaja have said: these problems are yours in the same measure that they are ours. But, here, I should like to disagree slightly with my colleague Grigorianc: I agree with all his ideals in general, except one. If I am not mistaken, he said that things in our country were going very badly, and on this point I agree. However, when he says that things must go even worse, I cannot agree, either intellectually or emotionally. This is not the first time I have heard this point of view: "Worse is better". I do not deny the right to hold this point of view, but I also have the right to disagree with it. It seems to me that it is necessary to establish the magnitude of

this "worse" toward which, according Grigorianc, we must go. If the inevitable result is civil war in the USSR, we would have to listen to the appeal of tens of millions of dead in the USSR, which would be the consequence of a civil war. It is not only the fact that should such a civil war break out, the people would have to wage it disarmed: military forces which are armed exist, and if civil war should break out, it would be impossible to assume that that army would choose to combat on only one side of the barricades--this would never be the case; the army as well would be divided in two. The scale of a similar catastrophe or the quantity of blood which would be spilled is inconceivable. Thus, I cannot accept the thesis that we are destined to move towards the "worse". Vice versa, wishing to imagine our task, we must avoid this horrible prospective and if possible facilitate an end to this serious crisis."

Taking up again the line of his presentation before the meeting of the inter-regional Parliamentary group and stating his support for the ideas of Sacharov on the Afanasiev convergence, he spoke of the crisis of civilization which began with the Enlightenment. But this did not touch the hearts of Italian Radicals, and the journalists noted only the controversial comment, to which Grigorianc immediately responded:

"I am very sorry that it had to be a Russian who misunderstood my presentation. This was perhaps due to a certain degree of uncertainty in my discourse. It is only natural. However, it is certain that what I said was interpreted, by Afanasiev, in the opposite sense than the one I intended. I said, and I remember this very well, that we must do everything we can to avoid the catastrophe threatening our country. I appealed to the Radical Party to help us stabilize the situation and reinforce all the democratic movements and associations being created in our country. I repeat that the tendency is a dangerous one; the situation in the country is truly tragic. Even if--although it might seem strange--groups and individuals exist tending to suggest that the situation is even worse than it actually is. Practically no one in the country wants civil war. No one, with the exception of a few madmen, who wants violence. However, last summer, the following episode occurred: The officials of the KGB claimed to

have found in the underground (subway) an unexploded bomb. The only characteristic of the individual who left this "bomb" was that he had a black plastic bag. One can imagine how many there are in Moscow. The announcement that "an individual with a black bag" was wanted was displayed in every car of the underground and for an entire month announcements spoke of the importance of finding "an individual with a black bag". There is no one in the country who would want to kill a of Party official, the colleagues of Dr. Afanasiev. Not even the KGB ordered the secretaries of the party's district committees to carry pistols or changed the license plate numbers of provincial secretaries for fear of attacks. In Estonia, the relations between Russians and Estonians are very peaceful. There are no conflicts between them to speak of; not even Soviet mass media has transmitted data on "the growth of violence", which fortunately do not yet exist. For this reason, I consider it a very unpleasant and ominous sign tha

t my colleague did not understand what I said and attributed to me words which I fortunately had not uttered and thoughts which I do not share."

The next day, Lev Timoviev summed up the discussion:

"I am very saddened by the fact that this disagreement took place. It is completely irrelevant here, while it would be natural in our country, where everyone know what the position of each participant is on this issue. Every position has its points: Grigorianc is a political journalist, he does not have to instruments of power and his journalism is comprehensible; Afanasiev, on the other hand, has direct access to power, he responds not to words but to facts, and for this reason must be a constructive force."

The Italian Radicals present here were for Grigorianc and...Gorbaciov, even though Evghenia Debrianskaja attempted to explain to them that totalitarianism is not dead. And, from the four walls of the hall, everything was observed by the only politician who saved his very national country from civil war.