If Soviet leaders stick with their rejection of President Reagan’s proposed interim agreement reducing the number of warheads on medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, they will have missed another valuable opportunity to prove their sincerity in the quest of peace guarantees. Joint willingness of the two superpowers to limit themselves to an equal number of warheads while they talk could break a discouraging deadlock in the Geneva negotiations, which have been under way since Nov. 30, 1981. But the Russians wasted no time in saying no. Moscow radio dismissed the U.S. plan as “a variation of the zero option Reagan offered 16 months ago.” And in logic not easy to understand, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko said the proposal would widen the gap between the U.S. and Soviet positions. Reagan did not propose specific limits, which would be open to negotiation. But Gromyko attacked the chief points of the American plan, which in turn sparked a rebuttal by the U.S. State Department. The President said he was disappointed by the initial “unconstructive Soviet Reaction,” but noted that Gromyko’s tone was “relatively restrained by USSR standards.” Reagan’s interim proposal came after flat rejection by the Soviet Union of his zero option approach toward nuclear control. That plan called for the Russians to dismantle their estimated 600 SS-20, SS-4, and SS-5 rockets. In return, NATO would abandon plans to deploy 572 Tomahawk cruise and Pershing 2 missiles in five Western European countries in December. As a counter plan, Soviet Leader Yuri V. Andropov offered to cut his European missiles forces to a number equal to the 160-plus missiles currently deployed by the British and French, provided the U.S. cancel proposed deployment of its Pershing and cruise missiles. American officials rejected this offer. The interim idea doesn’t mean the U.S. is giving up on its zero option. Its prime purpose is to break the current Geneva logjam, meantime working for more far-reaching goals. NATO Allies have hailed the new plan, Reagan has called for unity at home – something exceedingly important. The people of the world want peace. They want an end to the ridiculous arms race and the threat of nuclear holocaust. Growing restlessness was indicated by the four days of Easter anti-nuclear protests by himdreds of thousands of people in Europe, especially West Germany. Proposed deployment of the new U.S. missiles in Western Europe apparently was the main thnist of many demonstrations. But a statement by protest organizers in Frankfurt seemed to offer a consensus when it called for ”a complete nuclear-free Europe.” in Moscow, the Communist Newspaper Pravda said the Germans are “upset about plans to tum the territory into a launching site for the Pentagon’s missiles.” The statement apparently said nothing about the Russian missiles nor the adamant Soviet position. It’s time for some significant breakthroughs at Geneva. The U.S. interim plan is not the decisive step the world is waiting for. But it could start the ball rolling toward solutions in an issue which has momentous implications for all mankind. That shou-ld be enough to spur both sides to renewed effort at the negotiating table.