I consider it important to state my position on questions of principle and on the actions taken by government bodies in my case, to respond to certain public accusations, and to discuss the stand taken by my colleagues in the USSR and, in particular, by the Academy of Sciences and its directors.

For two decades I worked as a scientist in the military-industrial complex and then, for more than twelve years, I have joined those persons engaged in a non-violent struggle for human rights and the rule of law. My life has forced me to devote particular attention to questions of war and peace, international security, international trust and disarmament, and their links to human rights and open societies. As my ideas evolved, they have often turned out to be unorthodox, at odds with the official line and with my own earlier opinions. My life, my goals and my ideals have changed radically.

Quite a bit earlier, I reached the conclusion that despite our people’s passionate will to peace and the government leaders’ unquestionable desire to avoid a major war, our foreign policy has often been dominated by an extremely dangerous geo-political strategy of force and expansion, and by a striving to subdue and destabilize potential enemies. But in “destabilizing” an enemy, we destabilize as well the world in which we live. ...

I am convinced that the prevention of thermonuclear war is our most important problem and must take absolute priority over all other issues. The resolution of that problem involves politics, economics, the creation of international trust among open societies, the unconditional observance of fundamental civil and political rights, and disarmament. ...

I oppose international terrorism, which undermines peace no matter what the terrorists’ goals. States striving for stability in the world should not support terrorism under any circumstances.

A most important concept which over time became the keystone of my position is the indissoluble bond between international security and trust on the one hand, and respect for human rights and an open society on the other. That concept was incorporated in the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference, but words have not been turned into deeds, particularly in the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe. I have discovered the massive and cynical nature of the violations in the Soviet Union of fundamental civil and political rights, including freedom of opinion and of information; freedom to choose one’s country of residence (i.e., to emigrate and to return) and one’s domicile within a country; the right to an impartial trial and to a defence; and freedom of religion. A society which fails to respect these rights is a “closed” society, potentially dangerous to mankind, and doomed to degradation. I have become acquainted with individuals who are using publicity in a struggle for human rights, who reject violence as a matter of principle. They have been cruelly persecuted by the authorities. I have been an eyewitness to unjust trials. I have seen the brazen, crude acts of the KGB. I have learned about terrible conditions in places of detention. I have become one of those people you have called an “alien clique” and have even been accused of treason. They are my friends and they represent the shining strength of our people. ...

I have taken a fresh look at our economic difficulties and food shortages, at the privileges of the bureaucratic and Party elite, at the stagnation of our industry, at the menacing signs of the bureaucracy perverting and deadening the life of our entire country, at the general indifference toward work done for a faceless state (nobody could care less), at corruption and improper influence, at the compulsory hypocrisy which cripples human beings, at alcoholism, at censorship and the brazen lying of the press, at the insane destruction of the environment, the soil, air, forests, rivers and lakes. The necessity for profound economic and social reforms in the USSR is obvious, but attempts to implement them encounter the resistance of the ruling bureaucracy and everything goes on as before, with the same worn-out slogans. Occasionally something new is tried but successes are rare. Meanwhile the military-industrial complex and the KGB are gaining in strength, threatening the stability of the entire world, and super-militarization is eating up all our resources.

My ideal is an open pluralistic society which safeguards fundamental civil and political rights, a society with a mixed economy which would permit scientifically-regulated, balanced progress. Such a society should come about through the peaceful convergence of the socialist and capitalist systems. That is the main condition for saving the world from thermonuclear disaster.

The era of the Stalin regime’s monstrous crimes represents half of the Soviet Union’s history. Although Stalin’s actions have been officially condemned, the specific crimes and the scope of repression under Stalin are carefully hidden and those who expose them are prosecuted for slander. The terror and the famine accompanying collectivization; Kirov’s murder and the destruction of the cultural, civil, military, and Party cadres; the genocide occurring during the resettlement of “punished” peoples; the penal labour camps and the deaths of many millions there; the flirtation with Hitler which turned into a national tragedy; the repression of returning prisoners of war; the laws against workers; the murder of Mikhoels and the resurgence of official anti-Semitism – all these evils should be completely disclosed. A nation without historical memory is doomed to degradation.

I have expressed my views in articles and interviews which have appeared since 1968. Instead of engaging in serious discussion, official propaganda has deliberately distorted my position. It has been caricatured, reviled and slandered. I have experienced increasing persecution, threats directed against me and especially against persons close to me, and, finally, deportation without trial.

Yes I do live in better conditions than those of my friends serving long sentences or awaiting trial, among whom are many colleagues. I will mention only a few: the biologist Sergei Kovalev, the physicist Yuri Orlov, the mathematicians Tatiana Velikanova and Alexander Lavut, the young computer scientist Anatoly Sharansky, the physicians Victor Nekipelov and Leonard Ternovsky, the mathematician and computer scientist Alexander Bolonkin (all except Bolonkin I know personally). None of them broke any laws. None resorted to or incited violence. They attempted to achieve their goals through the written and spoken word. They acted as I have. It would have been only natural for the Academy of Sciences to have defended these repressed scientists. But my case is different in that here the authorities abandoned even that poor imitation of due process which they have employed in persecuting dissidents in recent years. This is inadmissible both as a precedent and as a relapse. Not a single one of the official institutions charged with executing the law accepted the responsibility for my banishment. According to generally accepted legal principles only a court can determine a person’s guilt and punishment. My case is an example of flagrant lawlessness and thus my demand for an open trial is a profoundly serious and principled demand. I am not asking for mercy – I am demanding justice. ...

Prior to the General Meeting of Soviet Academy of Sciences in March 1980, I requested the Presidium of the Academy to assist my participation in the meeting, which is my right and my duty according to the By-laws. I received the reply: “Your participation in the General Meeting is not anticipated.” The meaning of those words was underscored by the KGB agents who would not allow me onto the Gorky-Moscow train on the evening of March 4, the day before the General Meeting, when I was accompanying my mother-in-law and wished to assist her with her suitcases. The Presidium of the Academy allowed the KGB to interfere in the affairs of the Academy by formally allowing me to remain a member of the Academy but depriving me of a fundamental right of an Academician.

In sending you this open letter I am hoping that you will also reply openly, presenting your reasoned replies to the questions raised by me in this letter and, in particular, to the following: is the leadership of the Soviet Academy of Sciences prepared, in accordance with the wishes of the international scientific community, to actively defend my violated rights and the rights of other repressed scientists?...

The attitude of the Academy of Sciences and its leadership, not only in my case but in the cases of other repressed scientists as well does not correspond to the traditional understanding of solidarity among scientists. Scientists now bear great responsibilities for the fate of the world and this obliges them to remain independent from bureaucratic institutions, especially the secret police...

I continue to hope even now that the Academy will display such independence.

© Andrei Sakharov, Yelena Bonner, heirs