U.S. Aides Wary of Gorbachev Proposals

Top federal officials, reflecting the caution that characterizes the Bush Administration’s sweeping review of American national security strategy, complained Sunday that there is much “old thinking” in Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s new proposals and said the United States will not be rushed into responding to a flurry of new initiatives from Moscow.

At the end of a week of extraordinary activity in East-West relations, Secretary of State James A. Baker III dismissed one of Gorbachev’s latest initiatives--a proposal to halt the production of enriched uranium for nuclear weapons--as “great words . . . (but) not much by way of deeds” because the Soviets’ supply of uranium is already abundant.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week With David Brinkley,” Baker pointedly reminded the Soviets that “when we’re ready to talk, we’ll talk.” The remark was in response to criticism that the Administration has been slow to react to Gorbachev openings.

Retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, President Bush’s national security adviser, echoed Baker’s skepticism toward Soviet initiatives, declaring that evidence of a significant change in Moscow’s policy toward the Third World is “so far . . . mixed.”

The comments of the two top aides reflected the findings of the Administration’s sweeping review of U.S. national security policy, which sources said foresees no immediate changes in the nature of superpower competition.

The still officially secret review of U.S. policy, ordered by President Bush when he took office, has concluded that the Soviet military threat to the United States may diminish significantly over the next decade if Moscow’s present policies endure, Administration officials said last week.

Need to Keep Up Guard Seen

But it warned that until there is firm evidence that Soviet nuclear and conventional forces have been reduced, the United States must maintain its guard.

“It’s probably not surprising that the future looks somewhat like the present,” Scowcroft declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

In a stance that is sure to anger conservatives, Scowcroft also hinted that the Administration’s national security blueprint would call for caution in the deployment of missile defenses.

While Scowcroft said that he “would not” see early deployment of such defenses, he added: “I think strategic defense is here to stay and we need vigorously to pursue it.”

One of the most immediate decisions to emerge from the Administration’s review will focus on the modernization of long-range, land-based missiles.

The decision over whether to deploy a large force of small, single-warhead mobile missiles or to place at least 50 ten-warhead MX missiles on trains “could impact the negotiating positions that we will take in the resumption of the (Strategic Arms Reduction) talks,” Baker said.

Scowcroft, who has long favored the deployment of the smaller mobile missiles, suggested that the system may still be the choice of the Administration, in spite of its $24 billion price tag.

Asked whether deployment of the small missile system, widely known as “Midgetman,” is feasible, Scowcroft replied: “Oh, yes, at the cost of other things, yes.”

While both men expressed caution in predicting changes in Soviet behavior, Scowcroft and Baker appeared to differ markedly on expressing hope for long-term change on Moscow’s part, with Scowcroft especially critical of recent Soviet moves. He called it “discouraging” that Gorbachev failed to use a recent visit to Cuba to renounce the Brezhnev Doctrine, which promises Soviet intervention to shore up failing Communist regimes.

Baker’s remarks, by contrast, reflected greater hope that Gorbachev will back his initiatives with actions.