US Stance on Baltic States' Sovereignty
The opinion-page column ``Lithuania - the Forgotten War Spoil,'' Nov. 9, makes some valid points. Upon his return from talks with Foreign Minister Shevardnadze in Moscow, Secretary of State James Baker was interviewed by CNN's Ralph Begleiter. US policy seems to have hardened on behalf of maintaining the integrity of the Soviet empire.
Specifically, Mr. Baker endorsed the so-called ``All Union Treaty'' concocted by President Gorbachev who suggests all republics sign. This is problematic.
The three Baltic republics, particularly Lithuania, have declared that signing the All Union Treaty would be tantamount to conceding the legality of the 1940 incorporation of the Baltics into the USSR.
The Balts cannot be expected to sign Mr. Gorbachev's All Union Treaty unless they are subjected to intimidation, economic arm twisting, or other forms of force.
Baker's comments to Mr. Begleiter suggest that the Balts renounce their right to sovereignty without making the US appear to reverse its long-standing policy.
Prime Minister Nicolai Ryzhkov's declared aim is to batter the Balts into signing the new federation agreement. The US seems to be backing Ryzhkov. What will the US do when Ryzhkov tightens the noose on the Balts?
Washington has set up a false dichotomy between Kuwait and the Baltics where there is none. Self-determination is at stake in both instances. The rule of international law is at issue. V. Racenis, Kenmore, N.Y.
Revolution Day Regarding the article ``On Revolution Day, Few Soviet Citizens Feel Like Celebrating,'' Nov. 7: Less than a month after learning of Mikhail Gorbachev being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I read that ``Gorbachev issued his own decree commanding the military to hold its traditional parades.''
The article also says that ``The Army has rolled its tanks into the Baltic capitals,'' as part of the activities in observance of the October Revolution.
The members of the Nobel Committee have given a new definition to the term ``peace.'' Ilvi J. Cannon, Bolton, Conn.
Chinese campaign Regarding the article ``China Launches Hunger Campaign,'' Nov. 7: Looking through American eyes, the author sees the attention the Chinese government is giving to stopping the waste of food through advertising as ``the Maoist device of blanket propaganda.''
Yet the US government is doing the same thing by using all forms of media to advertise the ``Just Say No!'' campaign. Is this also ``the Maoist device of blanket propaganda''? Or could this nobler cause be properly classified as ``A War on Drugs''?
War on waste, or war on drugs? It must depend on who's talking. Cherie L. BeCraft, Cleveland, Okla.
