Cautious Talk About Talks

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

Moscow offers a September parley; the U.S. says O.K., but......

It was a modest step, far short of resuming the ruptured arms control talks. But late last week the U.S. and the Soviet Union were suddenly exchanging and publicizing messages about meeting to determine if and when they might negotiate. Given the deep-freeze between Washington and Moscow, even talk about holding talks to decide whether to talk constitutes progress.

The Kremlin began the exchange Friday when on short notice Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoli Dobrynin called at the State Department. Ushered into Secretary George Shultz's temporary offices (his regular quarters are being renovated), he laid on the desk a proposal for a September superpower session in Vienna. Purpose: to "prevent the militarization of outer space" and begin negotiating a ban on weapons that could destroy satellites. Before Shultz could discuss the matter with President Reagan at a prearranged meeting at the White House, the Soviet news agency TASS began releasing the proposal to the world. Whether or not the offer was a ploy, its publication forced the Administration to produce an immediate response. Said one official: "If we rejected the move, or said we would study it, they would have scored a propaganda coup."

Huddling at the White House, Reagan, Shultz and National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane weighed the Pentagon's reluctance to have any of its Star Wars options foreclosed against the State Department's desire to make some progress in renewing arms talks. McFarlane proposed an ingenious solution: linking acceptance of the Soviet offer with a demand that any talks include the subject of existing nuclear missiles. The Soviets might balk, which would be fine, but they might accept, which could be even better. After an interagency group that included the Pentagon worked out the details, McFarlane came out to brief reporters in time for the evening news broadcasts. He said that the U.S. "is prepared to meet," not necessarily to bargain, but "to discuss negotiating approaches." He also said that the talks would explore "limitations" on antisatellite weapons, even though the Soviets are seeking an outright ban.

Most important, McFarlane stressed that the U.S. wants to broaden the agenda to include the discussion of the negotia tions on strategic weapons and intermediate-range missiles that broke off in Geneva last fall. But despite his idea of linking these items to the Soviet proposals, McFarlane explained that the U.S. was setting up "no preconditions " and promised, "We'll be at the meeting in September." If the Soviets agree to meet but balk at discussing a broad agenda, one official explained, the U.S. will simply bring up the matter of other arms negotiations when the sessions begin.

The White House was uncertain whether the Soviets would still want to meet on this basis. Maybe. Recent visitors to Moscow have come away with the impression that the Kremlin leaders are genuinely afraid they might lose an arms race in space to superior U.S. technology.

As for Reagan, he contends that an outright ban on antisatellite weapons would be impossible to verify, and has pushed the idea of developing an ultra modern defense against incoming missiles. The Administration, however, was thinking about proposing some kind of limitations when the Kremlin beat it to the propaganda punch. Each side is anxious to depict the other, particularly in the eyes of Western Europeans, as being recalcitrant on the subject of arms control.

In addition, the President is under heavy fire from the Democrats for letting relations with Moscow drift into limbo. A September meeting with the Soviets, just as the presidential election campaign was heating up, would provide a powerful way for Reagan to undercut the Democrats on the "warmonger" issue. If, against the odds, discussions in Vienna actually amount to something -- well, all the better for his chances to campaign as a man of peace .

-- By George J. Church

-- Reported by Laurence I. Barrett and Johanna McGeary/ Washington

With reporting by Laurence L. Barrett, Johanna McGeary