Down to Business
The United States and the Soviet Union have indulged in a lot of gamesmanship on arms control, both before and after the October summit meeting in Reykjavik. But, to employ an old American expression, the time has come to fish or cut bait. The Geneva arms-control talks will resume on Thursday, and if an agreement is not reached soon it will be at least three years before a decent opportunity arises again.
On the surface at least, the Soviets appear to recognize this fact. Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration is behaving as though it doesn’t.
Admittedly the signals from Moscow are mixed. President Reagan seized on the negative in his statement this week chastising the Soviets for backtracking “from some of the important points” on which he and Mikhail S. Gorbachev agreed in Reykjavik, and accusing them of showing more interest in scoring propaganda points than in reaching an agreement.
It’s a fair enough comment. The Soviets will be staging a major propaganda exercise in February, when several hundred church leaders, scientists, businessmen, cultural personalities and international experts from around the world will convene in Moscow for a “peace” and “disarmament” rally. The record indicates that such gatherings are always stacked in favor of Soviet policies, and that they tend to take place when the Russians are more interested in image than in substance. It is also true that the Soviets have backtracked from Gorbachev’s position at Reykjavik (just as it’s equally true that the Reagan Administration has hardened its public position against concessions on anti-missile defense systems).
Fortunately, the Soviets are sending out some positive signals, too. Gorbachev has reportedly appointed Yuli M. Vorontsov, a first deputy foreign minister, to replace a lesser official as the chief negotiator at Geneva. And, most intriguing, the editor of Pravda wound up a fact-finding visit to Washington with a statement that arms-control proposals being discussed within the Reagan Administration represent a “big step forward” toward agreement. With regard to the U.S. arms-for-Iran scandal, he added, “We have formed a firm impression that Reagan will not be de- throned--that ‘Irangate’ will not turn into Watergate . . . . We have not written off Reagan, and don’t intend to. We are prepared to talk to him.”
It may turn out that the Soviets are indulging in a huge con game. But it’s worth noting that Arthur Hartman, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Moscow, believes that the Soviets really want an arms-control agreement. A lot of other Kremlin-watchers agree.
The Soviets, of course, want a deal tailored to their interests. But many arms-control experts believe that a decent compromise is possible--a compromise that would leave both sides free to pursue research and development work on missile defense systems without abrogating the 1972 ABM treaty--if the Reagan team will show a little give. So far, unfortunately, it hasn’t.