A Tentative Rsvp From Moscow

By Jacob V. Lamar Jr.

It was 1943 and the Allied powers were struggling to gain ground in World War II when Franklin Roosevelt journeyed to Tehran for a meeting with Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin. Since then, every U.S. President has held a summit with his Soviet counterpart. Some have been successful: at the 1972 Nixon-Brezhnev conference, the two leaders signed the first Strategic Arms Limitation treaty, initiating a brief era of detente. Others have been less so: Nikita Khrushchev decided that John Kennedy would be a pushover after meeting him in Vienna in 1961 and a year later began installing nuclear missiles in Cuba; just six months after Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev embraced in Vienna in 1979, Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan. Summitry is obviously a risky venture, but after four standoffish years, President Reagan is now eager to follow the practice of his eight predecessors.

In an interview with the Washington Post last week, Reagan said he had received a response to the invitation that Vice President George Bush hand- delivered to Mikhail Gorbachev at the funeral of his predecessor, Konstantin Chernenko. Administration officials said the President had received a "positive" reply, but admitted it was vague and noncommittal. "There are no negotiations for a summit," said White House Spokesman Larry Speakes, and added, "There has been no discussion about arrangements for a summit, no meeting set, no time set, nothing along those lines."

Other Reagan aides said that a conference could take place next October in either Washington or New York if Gorbachev attends the 40th-anniversary celebration of the United Nations. But Reagan and his men avoided talking about specific plans. When a reporter asked him, "Whose court is the ball in?" the President promptly replied, "Theirs."

Politicians and pundits debated the value of a summit conference at a time when East-West relations are mostly chilly. "It would serve to clear the air and to have a return to normalcy," said Dimitri Simes of Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Malcolm Toon, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in the Carter Administration, disagreed vigorously. "I happen to feel summits aren't a very useful way of doing serious diplomatic or political business," he said. "It makes no sense for a U.S. President and a Soviet General Secretary to meet just in order to 'get a fix on each other.' "

Secretary of State George Shultz told a Senate subcommittee last week that a "pure-and-simple get-acquainted session is not the way to go." But the Secretary declined to name specific issues that might be on the agenda for a Reagan-Gorbachev conference. Helmut Sonnenfeldt, a former National Security Council member, speculated that a summit might result in "a broad declaration of principles" that could advance the current arms negotiations in Geneva. In 1972, Nixon and Brezhnev signed such an agreement calling for the peaceful coexistence of the superpowers. Experts doubt that the initial summit would deal with such volatile areas as the Middle East, South Africa or Central America.

The recent shooting of U.S. Army Major Arthur Nicholson by a Soviet sentry in East Germany forced Reagan to juggle awkwardly his harsh words and inviting posture. He condemned the incident as "a cold-blooded murder" and said that the Soviet society "has no regard for human life." But he was quick to add, "I want a meeting even more so, to sit down and look someone in the eye and talk to him about what we could do to make sure nothing of this kind happens again."

Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger also addressed the Nicholson shooting last week, saying that the Soviets believe that "you shoot first and ask questions later." His attack came at a press conference called to publicize this year's edition of Soviet Military Power, an assessment published annually by the Pentagon. The 143-page volume abounds with alarmist rhetoric. "Soviet doctrine envisions a future world war of wide scope waged over vast territories," it warns. Although its large print and splashy illustrations make the report resemble a junior high school textbook, it nonetheless provides a good deal of thorough information on the latest weapons developed by the U.S.S.R.

One controversial part of this year's edition is aimed at substantiating Weinberger's contention that the Soviets are at work on their own Star Wars technology, including space-based laser weapons, designed to destroy American satellites, that could be deployed in the early 1990s. Said Weinberger: "All this emphasizes the very extensive work and resources that the Soviets are devoting to the very defensive systems that they oppose."

Despite the Nicholson shooting and the fears of the continued Soviet buildup, Reagan seemed surprisingly keen to arrange a summit. Why would a President who once called the U.S.S.R. an "evil empire" be so determined to meet with its leader? Administration officials do not like to admit that Reagan has relaxed his hard-line position. "In my view, there is no change in Reagan's attitude at all," said one foreign policy adviser. "We've been interested in meeting with the Soviets for a long time."

But clearly there has been a change. Observers believe that a successful summit might help Republicans in the 1986 midterm elections and bolster support for some of Reagan's favorite programs, particularly the MX missile and Star Wars. It might also help him leave his mark on history as a peacemaker. Since his meetings with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko last fall and with the Politburo's Vladimir Shcherbitsky last month, Reagan has gained confidence in his ability to deal face to face with Soviet adversaries. There are, of course, some serious potential perils: a conference could raise expectations so high that they almost surely would be dashed. In addition, the Soviets might use the prospect of a summit as part of a propaganda "peace offensive" that could weaken public resolve in the U.S. or its allies for further military deployments. Still, the Great Communicator apparently feels that after four years of tough rhetoric, it is now time for table talk.

With reporting by Alessandra Stanley and Bruce van Voorst/Washington