COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	%business letter outline to use with buslet.tex macros
C00015 ENDMK
C⊗;
%business letter outline to use with buslet.tex macros
\input buslet[1,ra]

\jmclet

\vskip 30pt
\address 
Professor Dana Scott
Computer Science Department
Carnegie-Melllon University
Pittsburgh, PA

\body
Dear Dana:

I am concerned that Vladimir Lifschitz and Yuri Gurevich, who are former
Soviet citizens planning to submit papers, will be unable to attend the
Moscow Congress on Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science meeting.
Lifschitz is a Senior Research Associate at Stanford, and we will probably
submit a joint paper.  My fear is based on
phenomena that happened before and have often led people to say in the
end, ``Had we but known how things would work out, we would have acted
differently.''

First let me make the point that if their submitted papers meet scientific
standards, Lifschitz and Gurevich are entitled to attend the meeting.
Moreover, the organizers of international scientific meetings are morally
obliged to hold them under conditions that make sure that would-be
attendees who meet the scientific and procedural requirements for
attendance can attend.  If this requires moving the meeting at the last
minute or making it clear to the host country that the meeting will be
moved unless certain people can attend, then it is their obligation to do
it.  This obligation is being fulfilled in the case of an anthropolgy
meeting, for which international sponsorship was removed,
when the local hosts decided not to admit South
Africans.  Fulfilling the obligation was easier in this case than it has
been over the last 20 years with regard to the Soviet Union because the
local hosts gave plenty of notice and the Soviet Union has always (to my
knowledge) been evasive until the last minute.  People are assured that
there will be no problem, and then the outcasts don't get Soviet visas at
the last moment.  It is Soviet custom to issue visas close to the last
moment for everyone.

I enclose a report on IJCAI--1975. Already in 1973 we were aware of the problem
of Israeli attendance and extracted a promise from the Soviets that all
qualified scientists could attend, but through a combination of an error by an 
M.I.T. secretary (in a matter which should not have required special action)
and the reluctance of the remaining Israeli to gamble on a possibly fruitless
trip to Vienna, the Soviets succeeded in keeping out the one Israeli who didn't
have a U.S. passport.  My impression is that Israelis have occasionally 
succeeded in attending international meetings in the Soviet Union.  No one knows
of a case where an emigr\'e from the Soviet Union has attended. I believe that 
Israeli attendance has depended on the vigilance of the organizers of meetings.

Here is what I propose:

\disleft 15pt:{1.}:
The non-Soviet people responsible for the meeting inform the Soviets
as early as possible about Lifschitz and Gurevich and that you expect them to
be able to attend. You can wait till you see reasonable abstracts if you want.
Abstracts can be sent to you and whomever you choose by the November 1 
deadline as well as to Moscow which I understand is the normal procedure.

\disleft 15pt:{2.}:
The trigger for further action should be a two week delay in responding to
Lifschitz and Gurevich beyond delays experienced by other applicants.  At early
stages the further action should consist of telegrams to Frolov and
whoever is directly above him in the hierarchy.

\disleft 15pt:{3.}:
There should be a contingency plan for moving the meeting triggered by the
earliest of:

\display 30pt: {a.}: A definite refusal (this would be unprecedented).
\display 30pt: {b.}: A two-week delay beyond receipt of visas by other attendees.
This is unlikely, because if the Soviets run true to form, no one will get visas 
much in advance no matter when they apply.
\display 30pt: {c.}: The failure of problem attendees to get visas in time for
the earlier Tallin meeting. Victoria Fromkin can keep you informed about this.
\display 30pt: {d.}: Two weeks previous to the meeting. We had a plan to move
IJCAI to Sweden, since the general chairman was Swedish.  The alternate site should
be in Europe in order not to substantially increase travel costs.  A Scandinavian
university should be possible. How large is the Moscow meeting likely to be? The
Tbilisi IJCAI meeting was about 600 non-Soviets. The Swedes, having lost tourists
to Chernobyl, might be especially accomodating.

In our telephone conversation you implied that you weren't the right person to
appeal to in this matter, but you didn't tell me who was.  I got the impression
that Prof. Fenstad was responsible only for invited speeches.  
(The meeting would win if it invited a speech by Lifschitz and me on non-monotonic
reasoning, but I can understand if this is not yet apparent to many logicians and
philosophers). I would be grateful for full information about who is responsible
for what, including information about who are the people currently running ICSU.
I would also like to know what discretion has been delegated to the Soviets.
Also, is Frolov a known scientist?  Lifschitz, who was a logician
in Leningrad, never heard of him.

I realize you may be surprised at my detailed anticipation of problems
that have not yet arisen in connection with this meeting and measures for
dealing with them.  Unfortunately, identical problems have arisen in the
past, and the Soviets have usually succeeded in defeating inexperienced
people, who vow not to let it happen again. As a result, international
meetings in the Soviet Union are almost always one shots. A year is a
short time given the slow communication with the Soviets.

Finally, let me put my last card on the table.  If there is no action at all,
there will be public criticism well in advance and an attempt to persuade
prominent people not to attend.  Such appeals usually have partial success. 
There may also be a demonstration in Moscow by some attendees if this can be 
organized.

Let me also assure you that our objective is limited to the issue of attendance.
Achieving this, we will avoid embarassing the Soviets, the meeting or ICSU.

Gurevich sent a registered letter (return receipt requested) asking for
materials. He didn't even get his receipt.  This presumably tipped off the
Soviets. I sent an ordinary letter, but it's too soon for a reply.
Lifschitz will send
an ordinary letter not identifying himself.
Both emigrated legally from the Soviet Union. (and paid money to be allowed
to renounce Soviet citizenship.)

I am sorry to confront you with a problem I suppose you didn't anticipate.

A new fact has arisen.  I had supposed that Lifschitz and Gurevich would
be the first former Soviet citizens to attend international meetings there.
However, it turns out that Semyon Kheifets of the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center attended a meeting this August.  I enclose a report of information
that Lifschitz obtained from him.

I think the precedent means that we may win if we try hard.  It emphatically
doesn't mean that the problem is solved.  Kheifets's attendance required
a very strong stand by Burton Richter, a Nobel Prize winner and Director
of SLAC, and refusing him would have meant disrupting a long standing
relationship that influential Soviet physicists are eager to preserve.

Also since I don't know the format or length of abstract required for
the meeting, I enclose a short draft abstract of the paper Lifschitz
and I plan to submit.  Of course, we will ultimately submit one that
conforms to the rules.

\closing
Sincerely,       

John McCarthy    
\annotations
\vskip 1in
Enclosures: Report on IJCAI-75; Gurevich and Lifschitz biographies.  Report
by Lifschitz on Kheifets case.  Draft abstract.
\vskip 1in
JMC/ra 
%\smallskip
%Enclosure
%\smallskip
%cc: Matthew Kahn
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S.: whatever you wish to say here

\endletter

\makelabel
\end