The summit fortunes of President Reagan took a sharp upturn when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev finally agreed to meet him in Washington next month. But the fundamental issues that brought both men to an impasse on the craggy rocks of Iceland 13 months ago are no more resolved today than they were then. The meeting, scheduled to begin Dec. 7, is to sign an accord on the reduction in intermediate-range nuclear missiles. The outlines of the deal were agreed to by Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October, 1986.
But Gorbachev refused in Iceland to come to Washington for a summit, mainly in hopes of getting Reagan to drop his commitment to ”Star Wars,” the Strategic Defense Initiative. Although Reagan has not done so, Gorbachev has agreed to come.
Any time the two superpowers are willing to talk about reducing their stockpiles of nuclear weapons is an event, but the choice of Dec. 7 as the start of the summit seemed to add its own peculiar significance; for Americans, that date could be taken as either an auspicious or ominous sign.
Reagan said he would like that day to become known as the first step on
”the path to peace and safety . . . through disarmament.”
Others, however, might remember it as the day of the nation`s most humiliating surprise attack, one that destroyed a huge part of the nation`s defenses and launched the U.S. into World War II-the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Even so, the joint announcement of a meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan was taken as a modest victory for both sides. Chances for a superpower summit have fluctuated wildly in the last two weeks.
First, Reagan was enthusiastic about the Soviet chief`s visit, even inviting him to ”see how a capitalist lives” at his California ranch.
Then there was a downturn, and Secretary of State George Shultz left Moscow baffled that Gorbachev would not agree to a summit date without a new sign that Reagan was willing to cut back or negotiate on ”Star Wars.”
Americans now suspect that might have been a negotiating ploy, a senior White House official said Friday.
Next, Gorbachev was said to be battling internal dissension.
Shultz, though he seemed pleased that the Soviet position had turned around in less than a week, said Friday he still had no inkling that the Soviets had changed their positions on the basic arms-control issues.
”I don`t want to overplay that,” Shultz said after the President had left Washington to attend the funeral of his mother-in-law in Arizona. ”There is a different tone to their discussion, which leads me to think of change.” Shultz said he has emphasized to the Soviets that Reagan wouldn`t do anything to ”cripple” his ”Star Wars” program.
A joint U.S.-Soviet announcement Friday said the leaders would discuss a future treaty on strategic arms-and adherence to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty-at the Washington summit.
The Soviets have insisted on maintaining the ballistic-missile treaty, the last major superpower arms pact in force, as a way of halting development of Reagan`s space- and ground-based defenses against ballistic missiles.
The joint announcement said: ”The President and the General Secretary envisage a further meeting . . . in the Soviet Union in the first half of 1988, where they would also seek progress across the entire range of U.S.-Soviet relations.”
Both sides said they would seek a strategic-arms treaty, slashing long-range nuclear weapons by 50 percent, ”which could be signed during the President`s visit to Moscow,” the announcement said.
”They clearly are interested in pursuing that (strategic-arms)
agreement,” said an official traveling with the President during the weekend. ”They are looking forward to that Moscow trip.”
When the two leaders met at Reykjavik, they could not overcome an impasse on ”Star Wars” research and their differing views on the ballistic-missile treaty.
Essentially, the U.S. has reinterpreted the treaty to give itself greater freedom to do ”Star Wars” research. The Soviets, however, still hold to the traditional and restrictive interpretation, which has been observed by previous American administrations since President Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev signed the treaty in Moscow in 1972. Differences may remain even after the December talks, but the summit is still a personal milestone for the President, now in the twilight of his administration.
It also has domestic political significance. Ever since the Iran-contra scandal broke, Republicans have worried about the political future. They have been hoping for both a summit and an arms control agreement as the best possible medicine for political troubles.
If a summit happens, Republican National Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf said not long ago, ”things will really look up for us.”
Because of the stock market plunge, the summit and the treaty may be somewhat less helpful to the Republicans now. And it was evident in the GOP candidate debate Wednesday night that many Republicans, especially the conservative activists, oppose the treaty to be signed at this summit.
Signing the treaty just as the campaign takes center stage will only highlight the differences among Republican contenders. All the Republican candidates are scheduled to debate in Boston Dec. 7; this might now be postponed.
Whatever the political spin put on the summit and the treaty, the meeting will mark the first time in 14 years that the top man in the Kremlin has agreed to formally visit to the United States.
Shevardnadze said Friday that Gorbachev expects to meet with U.S. congressmen and visit United Nations headquarters in New York during his time here.
Shevardnadze left hanging, however, whether Reagan`s return to Moscow would go ahead if the impasses over ”Star Wars” and the nuclear-weapon treaties continue.
”We are hopeful, yes,” said one administration official, ”but we`re also realists.”
