V. Bolshakov, Concerning A Furor. July 19, 1978
Original Source: Pravda, 19 July 1978, p. 4.
The opponents of detente are not squeamish about the means they use in whipping up anti- Soviet hysteria. In the past few days they have tried to obstruct the working of Soviet justice in connection with the bringing of criminal charges in the USSR against hirelings of foreign special services for committing what have now been proved to be grave crimes.
An anti-Soviet propaganda wave arises every time imperialist agents are caught red-handed. Now too, some politicians and bourgeois newspapers in the West, under the pretext of 11 concern” for the observance of “human rights” in the USSR, show no hesitation- and in doing so they try to outdo one another – in making statements in defense of spies who worked for foreign imperialist intelligence services. This “concern” can only be described as unworthy and impermissible attempts at interference in the USSR’s internal affairs.
Filatov was a spy who engaged in smuggling as a sideline. He didn’t advertise his treasonable activity, and he made no appeals to the West. Shcharanskii is a different matter. He too labored with might and main for a foreign intelligence service, but in so doing he pretended to be a champion of “human rights” and made constant appeals of his Western bosses and protectors while supplying them with anti-Soviet wares. Therefore, the bourgeois press, having decided to say nothing at all about the Filatov case and taking pains to pass over the point of that trial, reduced the whole matter to the Shcharanskii trial, in the process launching an unprecedented anti-Soviet campaign. It was alleged that Shcharanskii was put on trial for his “convictions” and for his “nationality.”
Even after the publication of the materials of the investigation and the trial, which convincingly proved Shcharanskii’s guilt on all counts, including his direct link to an intelligence service of a foreign state, there are still some people abroad (and holding rather high posts) who, without any proof, try to repeat the sentence that was once uttered there: “The espionage charge against Shcharanskii is a lie.”
Apparently acting on this basis, the West still continued to maintain, the facts notwithstanding, that Shcharanskii was put on trial because he was defending “human rights.” However, any unbiased person who familiarizes himself with the criminal case against this renegade cannot fail to reach the conclusion that the people’s court tried not an “ideological fighter” though he did try, with the support of Western anti-Soviets, to don the toga of such a personage – but a common criminal who had conducted espionage work on assignment from a Western country’s military intelligence service.
Imperialist propaganda is pulling out all the stops in its attempt to mislead the public and to misinform it on the Shcharanskii case. Alas, representatives of some democratic organizations have allowed themselves to be drawn into the anti-Soviet campaign unleashed by reactionary circles in the Western countries.
It is unfortunate that, in the atmosphere of acute class struggle in the capitalist countries, there are some people among the progressive forces who have been unable to hold to class positions and, instead of administering a resolute rebuff to anti-Sovietism and anticommunism, are virtually playing into the hands of the organizers of the anti-Soviet campaign.
However, there is a serious flaw in the anti-Soviet furor raised in the West. Raised long before Shcharanskii’s trial began, it declared him innocent in advance. How could the participants in this campaign have learned whether he was innocent or not, since they didn’t know the substance of the case or the facts that were proved at the trial? This shows that his would-be defenders were not after the facts – they only wanted to shield the man who worked for them.
Shcharanskii tried in every way to depict his activity as not criminal but “public.” However, the facts and the defendant could not help but admit this – indicated the contrary. On assignment from a foreign intelligence service, in the autumn of 1976 Shcharanskii began to collect information that constituted state secrets. Using a special form, Shcharanskii prepared a list of 1,300 persons. This list included the names of restricted enterprises, their location and the names of their managers. Shcharanskii gave part of this list to a foreign intelligence agent who was working in Moscow at the time under the “cover” of foreign correspondent. During the court hearing, this correspondent published an article in the Western press in which, while whitewashing his activity in Moscow during that period, he did confirm that he had received materials from Shcharanskii. One can be sure that he didn’t obtain them for his personal collection.
The findings of the court-appointed panel of experts on this score are precise: The various pieces of information that Shcharanskii transmitted to the West “are, in their entirety, state secrets and, taken as a single whole, constitute a state secret of the Soviet -Union.” This legal language means that Shcharanskii committed a crime punishable under Art. 64, Paragraph A of the Russian Republic Criminal Code.
Of course, it is not only this article of the Russian Republic Criminal Code that makes it possible to equate Filatov and Shcharanskii. Both betrayed their homeland, the country that reared them and gave them an education, work, roofs over their heads and bread grown by its toilers. They trampled on all this and, finally, committed treason.
The last charge was most convincingly proved at the trials in Moscow. Therefore, attempts by the foes of socialism to criticize Soviet justice from the standpoint of the Helsinki agreements are completely groundless. Speaking of these agreements, it is the provocational anti-Soviet campaign, which is being used in an effort to undermine the detente-related growth in mutual understanding and confidence among peoples, that is at variance with the Final Act and the very spirit of Helsinki. It is well known that the Soviet Union strictly observes all parts of these agreements and is doing significantly more than the Western countries are to carry them out. No one has a right to use these agreements for interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The Soviet Union has solved and will continue to solve its internal problems in accordance with its laws and in the interests of the Soviet people and the consolidation of the gains of socialism.
Source: USSR Today (Columbus: AAASS, 1981), pp. 26-27.