It is less well known, by the way, that Sakharov developed his US strategic containment plan, which, in his opinion, would have allowed him to get rid of the devastating nuclear arms race. V.M. Falin, who at the end of the USSR’s existence was the head of the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee, reports: “A.D. Sakharov proposed not to serve the Washington strategy for the destruction of the Soviet Union by an arms race. He advocated placing 100 megatons each of nuclear charges along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States. And with aggression against us or our friends, push the buttons "...
1. Physics and politics
But, nevertheless, Sakharov is also a public figure, a politician who became the spiritual father of the dissident movement in the USSR. During perestroika, he, which is quite logical, became one of the leaders of the emerging liberal movement, called "democratic".
The “politicization” of the academician was due, in many respects, to his scientific activities. Being one of the creators of the Soviet nuclear shield, Sakharov was well aware of the destructive power of the new weaponsarising from the outpouring of the Second World War.
Actually, his first disagreements with the Soviet leadership (even under NS Khrushchev) were about testing nuclear weapons - in 1961, the academician categorically objected to the explosion of a thermonuclear bomb under New Earth.
Sakharov felt his own responsibility, like many other scientists who, one way or another, put their hands on the creation of a "non-peaceful" atom. So, Niels Bohr wrote a memorandum back in July 1944, in which he called on the American President F. Roosevelt to completely abandon the use of nuclear weapons, as well as from some kind of monopoly on them. In addition, he insisted on the strictest international control.
Awareness of the global threat moved Sakharov in the direction, as they would say now, of globalism. Sakharov believed that only the interpenetration of the two systems (convergence) could save mankind from the threat of a nuclear apocalypse (and from many other problems - hunger, etc.). And it could become possible only on the basis of the rapprochement of the United States and the USSR. The latter, from his point of view, had to carry out serious reforms of the liberal-democratic persuasion. At the same time, Sakharov believed that reforms were also necessary for Western capitalist countries (albeit to a lesser extent). He was less critical for the US than the USSR, but still did not idealize them. Thus, in his work “Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom” (1968 year), the academic criticized the States, in particular, for the Vietnam War: “A whole people are sacrificed to the supposed task of stopping the“ communist flood ”. The American people are trying to hide the role of considerations of personal and party prestige, cynicism and cruelty, the futility and ineffectiveness of the anti-communist objectives of American politics in Vietnam, the harm of this war for the true goals of the American people, which coincide with the common human goals of strengthening peaceful coexistence. ”
It is possible to understand the fears of Sakharov and other "pacifists" - nuclear weapons really have tremendous destructive power. And scientists are modeling terrible planetary cataclysms that can become a reality as a result of a full-scale atomic war. Take, for example, the well-known theory of "nuclear winter".
However, be that as it may, the presence of a nuclear weapon was a powerful factor holding back a global war. But the "conventional" weapons would be enough to lead to hundreds of millions of victims and horrific, unprecedented destruction. So this factor must also be taken into account. And it is not yet clear where a complete rejection of nuclear weapons will lead to, if that happens.
2. Global issues and global leadership
Activities to prevent various planetary crises and disasters can be multilevel, with various motivations, including political ones. Often there are loud calls for greater global control in order to prevent global cataclysms. But this can be used for a variety of political purposes. For example, in order to dismantle the modern system of nation states and create a “world government”.
According to some data, powerful transnational corporations (TNCs), which have long been closely integrated into national frameworks, are striving for this. By the way, the well-known sociologist E. Toffler predicted the emergence of global power in the face of the World Council of Global Corporations.
About his need in all seriousness stated a variety of people with powerful influences on world politics. Here you can recall the Pope Benedict, who called for the creation of "world political power." Incidentally, the current Pope Francis, in his recent encyclical, which places particular emphasis on “global warming,” notes: “In the current situation, it is absolutely necessary to develop stronger and more efficient international departments, officials in which will be fairly appointed by consensus of national governments, and which will be authorized impose sanctions. " And here is the characteristic reaction of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who called for "putting the common global good above national interests and accepting an ambitious universal climate agreement."
As you wish, and this is very similar to an attempt to impose a "world government" on the planet. Of course, with the most "good intentions" in order to prevent global threats. Sakharov also advocated the creation of a unified global leadership, closely linking it with the upcoming “convergence”. Political analyst F.I. Burlatsky, former, in the days of Brezhnev, a senior official of the Central Committee, draws attention to the peculiarities of his “globalism”: “Recently, a group of Russian émigrés, including very authoritative human rights defenders in the past, asked the US President George W. Bush to consider Russia as one of the totalitarian States, similar to Iraq, which should also be subject to pressure from America. And on the contrary, America should be regarded as a kind of world government with the authority to restore democratic order on Earth. At the same time, they are trying to rely on the idea of Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, who in his time really wrote that it was necessary to establish a world government to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. However, the fact that Andrei Dmitrievich put forward as a hypothesis how the sky differs from the earth from the proposals of his imaginary followers. I participated in these discussions back in the 70s and would like to restore the truth. The creator of the “new product”, as the hydrogen bomb was affectionately called, Andrei Sakharov was one of the first to realize that some extraordinary political mechanisms are needed to prevent the complete destruction of life on the planet ... ”
3. Great Fiction: Convergence Dreams
Here it is necessary to make some digression in order to illustrate more vividly - how influential and diverse is the movement for “world government”, what famous personalities took part in it. It seems to be quite appropriate, especially since the discussion will concern G. Wells, who predicted a nuclear war at the beginning of the last century. In the 1914 year (the year when the First World War began!) His book “The Freed World” was published, which describes the practical use of atomic energy by mankind. At first it was used for peaceful purposes, but then the world war began - the conflict between Germany and France lay at the heart of the conflict. Opponents exchanged powerful, crushing nuclear strikes, which led to huge casualties and destruction. Then the frightened rulers decided to abandon their super-weapons and established a world government. That is, the global leadership, as a panacea for nuclear war, was already marked then.
Wells was not only a fantasy, but also a very active public figure. The writer was a member of many elite societies ("Effectivni", "Kibo Kift"), who were engaged in designing a "bright future". Wells himself was, like Sakharov, a supporter of convergence (although this word had not yet been used). He advocated the rapprochement of the United States and the USSR, to which tandem England should have joined. It was on this basis that the left-liberal government was planned to lead to global power, which took all the best from Soviet socialism and Western capitalism.
Paradoxically, at the same time science fiction progressive sympathized with ... fascism. So, in his speech at Oxford (1932 year), Wells argued that the progressives must become "liberal Nazi enlightened Nazis."
Wells tried to play some difficult political game with the leaders of the USSR. And here we should note the role of his last wife, Maria (Mury) Zakrevskaya, who “was a double agent - both the OGPU and English intelligence. It was she who defined the social and political activities of Wells from 1933 and until his death in 1946. ” (Share. “HG Wells, Mura, Nick Clegg and their utopia about the World Government” // “Interpreter.Ru”)
In this case, we note this moment. Mura is selected from Soviet Russia with the active assistance of A.M. Gorky, who was a friend of Wells. But Gorky was in close contact with G.G. Berry, Berry himself sympathized with N.I. Bukharin and his "right" group. In 1934, after the death of V.R. Menzhinsky, Yagoda becomes (officially) the chief security officer of the country. At the same time, Wells meets with I.V. Stalin (the meeting is organized by the omnipresent Mura), they talk for three hours, and little is known from the conversation itself. They discussed, in particular, the theme of world government, convergence, etc. At the same time, in 1934, the creation of a second party in the USSR was planned (a sort of “restructuring”, convergence) based on the VARNITO Society of Science and Technology Workers. It was supposed to be headed by Gorky and V.I. Vernadsky (former cadet). And in the diary of the latter there is a very intriguing record that only chance did not give “the people of Berry” “to seize power”. Obviously, Stalin understood where all this was going, and covered up the perestroika shop of that time.
And M. Zakrevskaya continued the work of her husband after his death. And then her descendants took the banner into their hands: “Does this mean that Wells' prediction about the World Government will come true? - wonders network author Share. - It is only known that Mura (she died in 1974 year) and her English descendants continued to work on this idea of his. So, the current leader of the party of the British Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg - Mura's great-grandson. He is in favor of the closest integration of England into the EU and the creation of a single confederation of the USA, Canada and Europe ... In the person of Nick Clegg, the case of HG Wells and Anglo-Soviet intelligence officer Mury continues to live. "
After the war, the idea of a “world government” will become a real mainstream. In 1946, mathematician and philosopher B. Russell said: “It is clear that there is only one way that world wars can be prevented - that is, the establishment of a World Government with a monopoly on serious weapons ... To be able to maintain peace, only the World Government must have an atomic a bomb and a plant for its production, Aviation and warships and everything else necessary for invincibility. ”
4. Sakharov Constitution
Let us return, however, directly to Sakharov and his political views. At the height of perestroika, in November 1989, the academic proposed his draft constitution. According to him, the USSR transformed into a kind of soft confederation - the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia (Euro-Asian Union). (It is curious that he also roughly suggested calling the Soviet Union VI Lenin in the 1922 year, during the debate with Stalin, who put forward the project of “autonomization”, which meant the inclusion of all national republics in the unitary RSFSR as autonomous. Moreover, Ilyich intended to keep The USSR "only with regard to military and diplomatic, and in all other respects, to restore the complete independence of individual commissariats.")
The draft constitution enshrined the provisions on convergence and world government, so beloved by Sakharov: “The global goals of the survival of humanity take precedence over any regional, state, national, class, party, group and personal goals. In the long run, the Union represented by the authorities and citizens strives for a reciprocal pluralistic rapprochement (convergence) of the socialist and capitalist systems as the only cardinal solution of global and internal problems. The political expression of convergence in the future should be the creation of a World Government. ”
Obviously, the desire for convergence prompted Sakharov to be equal to American designs. And the Euro-Asian Union was considered by them as a kind of “United States of Eurasia”.
Only if the United States lined up according to the territorial principle, did Sakharov advocate the priority of the ethnonational principle. In his opinion, all national-territorial formations of the USSR were to become equal subjects: “Initially, the Union and Autonomous Republics are structural components of the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia. National Autonomous Regions and National Districts of the Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The former RSFSR forms the Republic of Russia and a number of other republics. ”
And for this new Russian republic, there was a certain exception: “Russia is divided into four economic regions - European Russia, the Urals, Western Siberia, and Eastern Siberia. Each economic region has complete economic independence, as well as independence in a number of other functions in accordance with the Special Protocol. ”
By the way, the project that was being developed in the environment of Yu.V. Andropov. So, his assistant A.I. Volsky recalls: “Somehow the Secretary General called me. Let's end with the national division of the country. Provide considerations for organizing states in the Soviet Union on the basis of population size, production expediency, and that the forming nation be extinguished. Draw a new map of the USSR. Corpely day and night. Draw three options. Forty-one state we have turned. " Then the Secretary General noted that the division along national lines is not characteristic of any of the countries of the world. And at first he set the task of “modeling” the division of the USSR into economic regions of 15-16. In the future, the number of "states" was increased. However, Andropov was seriously ill, and the project was never set in motion.
5. Sakharov against Yeltsin?
Sakharov wanted to maximally weaken the “imperial factor” inside the EAU. “We,” said an academician at the Congress of People’s Deputies in 1989, “inherited from Stalinism a national constitutional structure bearing the imprint of imperial thinking and the divide and conquer imperial policy. The victim of this heritage are the small union republics and small national formations ... They have been subjected to national oppression for decades. But the big nations, including the Russian people, fell on this heritage, on whose shoulders lay the main burden of imperial ambitions and the consequences of adventurism and dogmatism in foreign and domestic policy. ”
The future, however, will show that the liberation from the “imperial burden” hit hard all the peoples of the former USSR.
True, this future was determined by the Yeltsin cadres already, and Yeltsin, to put it mildly, did not enjoy Sakharov’s special sympathies. F.I. Burlatsky emphasizes the cautious attitude of Sakharov to B.N. Yeltsin: “It was he who objected to the sole leadership of the group by the future democratic authority ... It was at the end of 1989 in the hall next to the hall of the USSR Armed Forces meeting, there was a meeting of the MDG - noisy, almost hysterical. Members of the group attacked their founding father Sakharov for his proposal to launch a general political strike against Gorbachev’s policies. Sakharov, Panov, Ryzhov and Yeltsin were sitting on the presidium. I asked for the word. I was given immediately. “You want to create an opposition,” I said, “but which one?” And on which platform, for the sake of what purposes? I don’t understand how it is possible to combine the great liberal of the 20th century, Sakharov and the member of the CPSU Central Committee Yeltsin. The noise rose terrible. But it's not that. Andrei Dmitrievich did not take the criticism of his friends and soon died. ”
Sakharov, of course, could hardly compete with such old apparatus wolves like Yeltsin. However, even in the case of his success, nothing good could be. The union would cease to exist as something really united, and in its place an amorphous conglomerate 40-50 of weak formations appeared. The Russian Federation, which had lost its autonomy, would have collapsed. Yes, and the area (edge) would also become de facto "independent" ...
Yeltsin, on the other hand, was forced to somehow restrain centrifugal processes in the Russian Federation. Otherwise, he would simply lose the real power that he gained in 1990. It just so happened that his interests coincided objectively with the interests of Russia.
And although he distributed a lot to the republics, he did not bring the process to its logical end.
Political activity A.D. Sakharov, his views are a curious phenomenon of the era of the crisis and the collapse of the USSR. He seemed to be embodying the left-liberal aspirations to preserve the Union in a new, extremely decentralized format, bringing his system as close as possible to the western, capitalist one.