Accounts of U.S.-Soviet Rift Overstated: Shultz

Secretary of State George P. Shultz sought Saturday to brush off rancorous complaints by Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev about President’s Reagan’s recent harsh Soviet criticism as a standard part of discussions with the Kremlin.

He said that a Soviet account of those complaints exaggerated the differences and largely ignored positive discussions during last week’s meeting in Moscow.

At a brief stopover in Kiev and on his flight here, Shultz said it would be a “total misreading” of Gorbachev’s words to see a crisis in U.S.-Soviet relations or bad blood between the two men who are to meet at a Moscow summit in five weeks. Shultz saw instead a “broadly constructive flow” toward improved Soviet-American relations.

Surprised by news stories based on the Tass news agency account of Gorbachev’s attack, Shultz told reporters that the Soviet leader’s words were “perhaps an overreaction to the Springfield speech” last week by Reagan.

Return to Harsh Rhetoric

In the speech Thursday in Springfield, Mass., the President returned to some of his harsher rhetoric about communism and Soviet performance, among other things expressing doubt that the Soviets will really withdraw from Afghanistan despite the recent Geneva agreement to do so.

Reagan also said that just as a Soviet Union “that continues to suppress free expression, religious worship and the right to travel” cannot develop normal relations with the United States, “neither can a Soviet Union that is always trying to push its way into other countries ever have a normal relationship with us.”

Shultz strongly denied any difference between himself and the President on policy issues, but he refused to say whether he had read in advance and approved the Springfield speech.

“The President has always taken the view, and I agree, that we have to state our views realistically at all times. We have to act in terms of things we think need to be done, so that’s the way we’ll do it. . . .

“He feels very determined, and he feels he’s absolutely on the right track,” Shultz added when asked if the President might mute his criticism now in the wake of the Gorbachev attack.

The Soviets agree that there are still numerous problems in the relationship, Shultz said, just as there are many problems that have already been solved. But he complained that the Tass account of his talks with Gorbachev “was emphasizing only the differences” encountered during their two-day meeting in Moscow.

Positive Exchanges

If a full transcript of the session were available, he said, it would be clear that there were also very positive exchanges. The human rights discussions, during which Gorbachev made his attack, occupied only one of three hours of their meetings, he said.

When the United States proposed a schedule for the May 29-June 2 summit meeting in Moscow, Shultz explained, Gorbachev suggested changes in the schedule that “expressed a greater warmth, a greater desire to do things in a way . . . to emphasize the personal as well as the institutional” relationship between the two leaders.

Specifically, an official said later, Gorbachev proposed an initial one-on-one discussion with Reagan and a dinner at which only the President and Nancy Reagan, and Gorbachev and his wife, Raisa, would take part. This suggestion was apparently made in response to rumors that the two wives do not get along.

Every meeting with Gorbachev, like the U.S.-Soviet relationship itself, has a rhythm to it that includes both harsh exchanges and cooperative periods, Shultz said.

“There have been some very tough parts of every meeting on both sides,” Shultz added. “He has things to say, I have things to say. There are informative parts and there are positive parts. This most recent meeting was no exception.”

Neither Shultz nor other U.S. officials challenged the accuracy of the Tass account of the meeting Friday in which Gorbachev bitterly reproached Reagan for the recent return to anti-Soviet rhetoric. The Soviet leader complained that Reagan recently has been delivering “sermons” telling Moscow how to behave, and he warned that if the Soviets retaliate across the board for U.S. human rights accusations, further progress in U.S.-Soviet relations could be doomed.

But as Shultz put it, “When you listen to refuseniks (Soviets who are not permitted to emigrate), you can’t help worry about them, and you bang on them (Soviet officials) and they don’t particularly like it, but it’s got to be done. That’s part of reality.”

Softer Line on Afghanistan

At the same time, Shultz appeared to soften one of Reagan’s criticisms of the Soviet Union when he said, “We believe they (the Soviets) are going to get out of Afghanistan.”

Senior U.S. officials traveling with Shultz said that while the Tass account was accurate, it overemphasized the Gorbachev attack. Nevertheless, one official said, it did represent a shot across Reagan’s bow, a warning that fresh attacks could jeopardize success at the Moscow summit.

The consensus was that the Soviets were genuinely angered at Reagan’s recent words but that some domestic factors may also have played a part in published reviews of his remarks. One of these was the need for Gorbachev to show Kremlin hard-liners that he is tough, much as the Soviets implied that Reagan was playing to his right-wing followers in his recent speeches.

State Department spokesman Charles Redman said that Shultz will meet May 11-12 with Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze in Geneva to continue preparations for the Reagan-Gorbachev summit.

Coincidentally, many of the issues raised in a U.S. human rights presentation to the Soviets--such as emigration and religious freedom--were apparent during Shultz’s tour of Kiev.

“We want your help to emigrate,” a woman called to Shultz as he left St. Sophia’s Cathedral, the seat of Christianity in Russia, which is celebrating its millennium this year.

Earlier, Shultz visited the memorial at Babi Yar, site of the massacre near Kiev of an estimated 100,000 people, including 30,000 Jews, by the Nazis during World War II.