KREMLIN BUREAUCRAT SACKED AS NIXON ARRIVED

The fall from grace of Pyotr Shelest, hred on May 25 from the post of First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Ukraine, is being described in the capitalist press as 'the biggest shake-up since Khrushchev's fall.

Alain Jacob, Moscow correspondent of the French newspaper 'Le Monde' has described Shelest's demotion and the subsequent leadership changes as 'a change in personnel of the first importance, the most considerable and politically significant hat has happened inside the Soviet regime for many years'.

Shelest was undoubtedly a very important bureaucrat— he had held the post of First Secretary in the Ukraine for nine years and is even now still a member of the Politburo, though his importance must be much diminished in his new post as a Deputy Prime Minister in Moscow.

Shelest is no "liberal'-he was one of the most outspoken supporters of the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. His differences with the Brezhnev leadership a r e symptoms of tension within the bureaucracy-not of opposition to Stalinism.

The Brezhnev leadership is said to have been at loggerheads with Shelest for some time before finally removing him from his Ukrainian fiefdom. Some of the differences appear to have centred on foreign policy questions: there are indications of a disagreement with the leadership in articles Shelest wrote as long as a year ago.

It also seems likely that Shelest's conduct in the Ukraine was not entirely to Moscow's liking. Jacob says he 'showed unquestionable tendencies to behave like a baron in his own stronghold' —a charge the central bureaucracy frequently levels against its opponents in the provinces.

Brezhnev moved against the Ukrainian leader on May 19, just three days before Nixon's arrival for the Moscow summit talks. The reshuffle involving his demotion appears to have been finally decided at the plenary meeting of the Soviet CP Central Committee on that date.

There have been reports in the western press that Shelest took issue at the plenary meeting with the decision to invite President Nixon to Moscow regardless of the bombardment of Vietnam.

Whether or not there was a confrontation at the plenary central committee, 'Pravda' Published a decree two days Jaer naming the Ukrainian party chief to one of the nine deputy premierships.

On May 25, the Ukrainian arty Central Committee reieved him of his post and appointed Brezhnev's close protégé Ivan Scherbitsky as First Secretary in his place.

Shelest's removal is undoubtedly a victory for Brezhnev, who has been able to place one of his firmest supporters at the head. of the Ukraine CP.

As a result of the conflict, Brezhnev has also received the 'entire approval' Top: the Nixon-Brezhnev talks. Al Trotskylst, Ponomaryov. Above right: deposed Ukrainian leader Shelest rotskylst, Ponomaryov. Above righ ho is reported to have opposed tl Soviet Central Committee for his foreign policy. In particular this means endorsement of the attempts to reach a detente in Europe through a European security conference and form closer ties with the US leaders.

Other bureaucrats are falling over themselves to sing Brezhnev's praises in words which indicate their anxiety to retain their own posts. Byelorussian party secretary Masherov : spoke recently of the role and veritably eminent • left: rising bureaucrat and antideposed Ukrainian leader Shelest, Nixon visit. merits of comrade Brezhnev' language more reminiscent of the 'cult of personality' than of the 'collective leadership'.

An index of the character of the changes within the bureaucracy is the simultaneous rise of Boris Ponomaryov, a secretary to the Central Committee, who has now been nominated an alternate member of the politburo.

At the end of last year Ponomaryov wrote a series of articles denouncing the growth of Trotskyism, particularly among the youth. The article was extensively extracted in Soviet publications for British readers, including 'Soviet News' and 'Soviet Weekly'.

Ponomaryov also played a walk-on part during the massacres of communists in the Sudan last July. He was in Cairo throughout the aftermath of the abortive left-wing coup, while Jafaar Numeiry, was slaughtering the leaders of the Sudan CP.

Jacob describes him as showing 'a remarkable facility for adaptation to the changes of the regime and a good dose of cynicism in foreign affairs'. The latter is certainly a desirable attribute for anyone involved in implementing Brezhnev's counter-revolutionary policy.

Foreign policy questions were only one side of the disagreements, if capitalist press reports are to be believed. The Ukraine is undergoing a resurgence of rationalist feeling like many other Soviet republics, and it is a resurgence that eloquently reflects the crisis of the bureaucratic regime.

The Ukraine has long been subjected to attempts at Russification from Moscow, which has ridden roughshod over the national rights of the Ukrainians. Any disagreement with this process has normally been labelled "bourgeois nationalism'.

There are undoubtedly bourgeois and restorationist tendencies in the Ukrainian nationalist movement. But there are also tendencies demanding a return to Leninist policies on the national question. This is recognized even by some Stalinists: A Canadian CP delegation which visited the Ukraine late in 1967 accused the authorities of condemning as 'bourgeois nationalists' people who simply wanted to use their language.

Shelest appears to have been zealous in his persecution of the Ukrainian deviators, and one speculation is that his differences with Brezhnev's foreign policy were linked at least in part to a fear that increased contacts with the West would tend to strengthen he nationalist tendency.

necessity the further decomposition of bureaucratic centrism. In this sphere our task is to save the best elements for the • cause of the proletarian revolution. Side by side with tireless principled criticism, our main weapon for the right and to the left follow from its very nature. There will yet be tens and hundreds of such episodes on our road. It would be the most wretched faint-heartedness to fear to go forward just because the road is strewn with obstacles or