502
PARTISAN REVIEW
The contradiction between the appeals for disarmament and
the political significance of Sakharov's martyrdom were dramatized
by some of the attempts to interpret the text of the letter. The com–
ments by some of the discussants on Sakharov's remarks about dis–
armament and nuclear weapons were particularly confused. In an
und<::rstandably cryptic passage, Sakharov says:
"I consider disarmament necessary and possible only on the basis
of strategic parity . Additional agreements covering all kinds of mass
destruction are needed. After strategic parity has been achieved, a par–
ity which takes account of all the political, psychological, and geo–
graphical factors involved, and if totalitarian expansion is brought to
an end, then agreements should be reached prohibiting the first use of
nuclear weapons , and later, banning such weapons."
It
is not surprising that those who talk about nuclear disarma–
ment without considering Russian intentions or power could not
grasp the meaning of this passage. For Sakharov has to use an
Aesopian language.
It
seems to me he is implying that Russia is
ahead of the United States, and that disarmament can only be
arrived at when the United States has parity. Sakharov appears to
indicate, too, that it is Russia that is likely to make a first strike, and
that this can be prevented only by the fear of American retaliation.
Otherwise, why is it necessary to have parity and to stop "totalitarian
expansion" before banning a first strike. What Sakharov obviously
has in mind is that it is meaningless to ban a first strike, unless you
have the power to enforce the ban.
Another interesting difference between Sakharov and those
scientists who argued for outlawing nuclear power is his insistence
that the "dangers of nuclear power have been exaggerated in the
West, and that such distortion is harmful." No one at the conference
commented on this flat statement by Sakharov. This omission itself
did point up the cleavage between the Communist dissidents and the
left in the West. It would appear that the dissidents live much closer
to political reality than does much of the left in America and Europe.
Despite these disconcerting evidences of political divisions, that
often undermine our support of the Russian dissidents, the meeting,
as I have indicated, did generate the kind of enthusiasm that comes
only from collective action. And it reminded one that most of the
recent protests have been against right-wing violations of human
rights, while Soviet or Arab transgressions have been played down
or ignored. One of the reasons, I am sure, is the almost obsessive
concern by many liberals and by much of the left with our own
