Moscow: Going Very Public

Mikhail S. Gorbachev disappointed those who expected him to use the extraordinary party that he hosted in Moscow over the weekend--a peace forum attended by movie stars, novelists, scientists and assorted other famous folk from all over the world--to announce some new, dramatic arms-control proposal. It didn’t happen. Instead, the Soviet leader used the publicity-generating presence of his glamorous guests to press the theme that the Soviet Union wants and needs peaceful and stable relations with the West so that it can concentrate on domestic concerns.

Soviet foreign policy, Gorbachev said, “is more than ever determined by domestic policy, by our interest in concentrating on constructive endeavor to improve our country. This is why we need lasting peace, predictability and constructiveness in international relations.”

Gorbachev’s conciliatory plea deserves to be treated seriously. There is ample evidence that the rejuvenation of the Soviet economy really is his top-priority goal; it makes sense that his reform program could be pursued more vigorously if East-West frictions could be eased. Western governments obviously must give him a chance to demonstrate his sincerity.

So far, though, the plain truth is that the Soviet leader has not done all that he could do to overcome suspicions that his rhetoric of peace and accommodation is mostly for propaganda effect.

Gorbachev, for example, talks a good game about removing Soviet troops from Afghanistan. But, when you examine the fine print, Moscow is still demanding peace on its own terms, paying no more than lip service to the Afghan people’s right of self-determination.

The Soviet leader lambastes President Reagan’s apparent intention of bulling ahead with the testing of “Star Wars” components. The Times has repeatedly expressed its own concern about the President’s refusal to accept meaningful restraints on Star Wars development. But if Gorbachev himself is willing to work out an agreement drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of research and testing of missile defense systems, he and his negotiators should plainly say so. If he really is interested in reducing the chance of nuclear war, he should stop using the impasse on Star Wars as an excuse to block agreement on the reduction of offensive missiles of medium and intercontinental range--an area in which the two sides are within negotiating distance.

The return of dissident Andrei D. Sakharov to Moscow from enforced exile in Gorky, together with the release of 150-odd political prisoners, is certainly welcome. But Gorbachev’s avowal of a new, more relaxed policy on human rights would be more credible if human-rights pronouncements were being publicized inside the Soviet Union; instead, they are being made by Foreign Ministry spokesmen basically for foreign consumption.

Finally, it is hard to square Gorbachev’s soft words with the Soviet propaganda campaigns alleging that the disease AIDS was concocted by U.S. biological-warfare experts, and suggesting that the American CIA was somehow responsible for the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme.

It was with such thoughts in mind that a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday for a resolution cautioning the Soviets against efforts to “exploit American domestic politics or divide the United States from its allies.”

The overall positive tone of Gorbachev’s speech on Monday was encouraging. There is a reasonable prospect that he meant what he said. But, as a State Department spokesman noted, it can’t be accepted as gospel until the Soviet Union does more to close the gap between words and deeds.