221 CHRONICLESnPresident Mitterrand’s favorite leftists. They, too, werenconcerned about their moral credentials and wanted tonshow the world that they supported the American left’sndesire to dispel the unfortunate impression that “moralnequivalence” was really a double standard.nWhen the protest march reached the Soviet Embassy, itnstopped on the sidewalk outside to regroup while a delegationncomprising Speaker Tip O’Neill, Jane Fonda and TomnHayden, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Mary McGrory, ArmandnHammer, and Ed Asner were invited in for tea and zakuski,nthose nice Russian hors d’oeuvres. Ambassador Dobryninnreceived them in person and listened with grave courtesy tontheir protest at the Soviet action in Afghanistan.n”Many of us, indeed almost all,” began Ms. Fonda,n”were wholly opposed to the American action in Vietnamnand took various measures to express our view of the matter,neven to committing what some reactionaries called treason.nWe believed that our country was quite unjustified innsending troops to intervene in a quarrel that was no concernnof ours. Even if the government was right in principle, thensuffering caused by our action was wholly out of proportionnto any good it seemed likely to do. And we felt the same waynabout the invasion of Grenada.”nAmbassador Dobrynin nodded. “Go on,” he said pleasantiy,n”but please explain how this analogy fits your protestnagainst my country’s support of the liberation movement innAfghanistan.”n”Why, don’t you see,” said Ms. McGrory peevishly.n”Surely you can understand how we, never motivatednduring the Vietnam War, and later during the Grenadaninvasion, by anything but a burning sense of injustice at thenaction of a mighty military power against a small nation’snstruggle for independence and freedom, would be regardedn—as a matter of fact, rightly—by ourselves as well asnothers, as no better than so many hypocrites if we remainednsilent for almost seven years in the face of another actionnby another mighty military power against another smallnnation.”nThat same evening all three networks, who had broadcastnall kinds of documentary and news programs against SouthnAfrica, did a combined program in which Harrison Salisbury,nintroduced as an expert on Afghanistan “with nonpolitical axe to grind,” described the Soviet aggression innAfghanistan in language as objective as he had used inndescribing the U.S. bombings of North Vietnam. Tonbalance the program, the three networks engaged DannRather, Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw,nall of whom agreed with Salisbury.nPresident Carter, who, it will be recalled, lost faith in thenSoviet Union after its attack on Afghanistan, made a specialnappearance. He said that he was now convinced that thenAmerican people were absolutely right in having an inordinatenfear of Communism. With a thrust at PresidentnReagan, he added that, had he been reelected in 1980,nthere would now be American—not Soviet—troops innAfghanistan. Mrs. Carter chimed in, saying she would havenused laser and particle beam and other kinetic energynweapons. Mr. Carter agreed.nAs was only to be expected, a substantial number ofngroups have sprung up spontaneously designed to achieventhe widest possible variety of world protest against the Sovietnnnaction. None of these, of course, have any connection withnany other group; indeed, few are even aware of the existencenof the others. (The fact that they all operate from the samenNew York address is purely coincidence.) These groupsninclude the Committee for Peace in Central Asia, the Peacenin Central Asia Committee, and the Afghanistan Committeenfor Peace. There are also Doctors Against SovietnImperialism, Teachers Against Soviet Imperialism, JournalistsnAgainst Soviet Imperialism, Hollywood Against SovietnImperialism, Labor Against Soviet Imperialism, IntellectualsnAgainst Yellow Rain in Afghanistan, and Anti-nIntellectuals Against Bee Feces in Afghanistan.nThe Black Caucus in Congress has been so aroused overnthis attack on a Third World country that its leadership hasnproposed resolutions defining the attack on Afghanistan asn”racist” and demanding that President Reagan send allnpossible military aid including tactical nuclear weapons tonhelp the beleaguered Afghan people unless he, too, wants tonbe regarded as a racist. A Congressional delegation headednby Rep. William Gray demanded the right to visit Afghanistannas they had South Africa so that they could see the realnsituation for themselves. If the USSR failed to grant suchnpermission. Rep. Gray, with the full support of the BlacknCaucus, was prepared to call for an end to all trade andncultural relations with Moscow.nIn Tunisia, Yasir Arafat was so indignant at what thenRussians were doing to a Moslem country that he set up annInter-Arab Committee Against Soviet Imperialism with thenKings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Muammar Qaddafi ofnLibya, and President Assad of Syria as honorary chairmen.nIn Canada, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau organizednthe interparty Canadian Trilateral Commission AgainstnSoviet Aggression Anywhere and Everywhere. Ingbar Carlsson,nthe Swedish Premier, was so indignant that hensponsored the Scandinavian Committee Against SovietnAggression Anywhere and Everywhere. Professor GeorgenKennan wrote an article from a historical perspective innwhich he said that the Russians under Mikhail Gorbachevnwere worse than the Prussians under Bismarck. The articlenwas reprinted on the front page of the Washington Post.nBut it is in the Soviet Union itself that the biggest volumenof public protest is to be found. Most impressive is whatnhappened when the Soviet Committee for an End to SovietnInvolvement in Afghanistan held an all-night vigil outsidenthe Kremlin walls. At one point during the frigid night, thenKGB guards appeared with cans of hot soup which theyndistributed to the invigilators. Through it all, Gorbachevnlived up to Seweryn Bialer’s praise for him in the New YorknTimes as a man “open to new ideas.” At about one o’clocknin the morning, Mr. Gorbachev emerged from the Kremlinnwearing an overcoat and fur hat. Even though a heavy snownwas falling, he moved among the crowds of protesters quitenfreely, talking to them, listening to their views, and assuringnthem that although he disagreed with what they said, henwould fight to the death for their right to say it.nEditor’s Note: Owing to technical errors beyond anyone’sncontrol, the word “not” was unfortunately omitted throughoutnthe article above.n