Changing His Tune

By Evan Thomas

In a deft political move, Reagan sends summit signals to the Soviets

Exit Ronald Reagan, rough rider.

No tough talk, no declarations that the Soviets are "the focus of evil in the modern world," no boasts that the "march of freedom and democracy ... will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history." Enter Reagan the statesman, man of peace and reason, holding out an olive branch to the Kremlin. "I am willing to meet and talk any time," he declared at a White House press conference last week. "The door is open. Every once in a while, we're standing in the doorway, seeing if anyone's coming up the steps."

The clear implication was that if Soviet President Konstantin Chernenko would just climb up, the two world leaders could sit together at the summit and begin to thaw the big chill between the superpowers. Reagan's calming words marked a clear departure from his old hard line against a summit. But few experts expected the new tone to lead to a superpower sitdown any time soon.

Despite some conciliatory words of their own, the Soviets remain wary, distant adversaries (see WORLD).

Reagan's softer line was not aimed so much at Moscow as at the American electorate. If he has a political vulnerability, it is the state of relations between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., which are cooler than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. "The risk we face now is that the people view the President as being locked in concrete and against negotiations with the Soviets," says a senior White House adviser. In taking a more conciliatory tack, he said, Reagan was "making sure the Democrats don't have an issue." At his press conference, Reagan insisted, "One thing let me make clear. I'm not going to play political games with this subject." White House operatives took a less noble view of the exercise. "We got just what we wanted," said one. "The headlines read REAGAN WANTS A SUMMIT MEETING."

In fact, he does not, at least not until after the election. A pre-election summit might turn out to be politically risky, his advisers believe. Some voters would see it as a campaign gimmick, and conservatives might accuse him of groveling before the Soviets. Moreover, a face-to-face encounter would give the Soviets a chance to cause mischief. They could feign interest in a summit, then stay home because of some trumped-up U.S. offense, or walk out of the talks with words of derision for the President. Either way, Reagan would have trouble repairing the damage before November.

Democrats were understandably skeptical about Reagan's transformation. Said House Speaker Tip O'Neill: "Reagan has built a wall around them and thrown brickbats. Now he wants to reach through a crack in the wall and extend the hand of fellowship." Reagan's likely Democratic opponent, Walter Mondale, has long pledged to make unconditional talks with Kremlin leaders his first priority after Inauguration Day. He derided Reagan's motives: "I intend to be a President who will lead us toward a safer world from the first day I'm in office, and not from the first day I start my campaign."

Though his press conference words were mellower, Reagan did not remove his standing preconditions for talks, namely that the groundwork be carefully prepared and that the two sides be well along toward some sort of agreement.

Reagan indicated that the agenda could be "general," but he repeated his insistence that it could not be open-ended and that the meeting must "hold out the promise then that something might be accomplished." Reagan believes that "get-acquainted" meetings between Khrushchev and Kennedy in 1961 and Johnson and Kosygin in 1967 produced no results, and indeed heightened tensions.* The Soviets could, of course, call Reagan's bluff and offer to sit down before November. "We'd say, 'Let's have a summit,' " says a White House aide. But the Reaganauts are confident that the Soviets will not ask. "They have shown no interest at all," says the adviser. The Soviets have no desire to do anything that might help re-elect their nemesis. In any case, not enough time remains to agree on an agenda.

At his press conference, Reagan alluded to "quiet diplomacy" behind the scenes, and said that he had written Chernenko. But he conceded that the diplomacy had not moved very far. Had a summit agenda been discussed? "No," allowed the President.

"Much of the communication has been simply on the broad relationship between two countries." In fact, Administration officials say that a summit has not even been mentioned to the Soviets. They add that there has been only one exchange of correspondence between Chernenko and Reagan in the past two months, and it was not a personal note but a formal government-to-government letter.

Try as he might to be nice to the Soviets, Reagan could not constrain himself when a reporter at the press conference suggested that he had heightened tensions with his previous hard-line rhetoric.

"Well, if I've been too harsh," he answered sarcastically, "maybe if I apologize for shooting down the KAL 707 [actually a 747]... maybe they'll warm up."

The President, who earlier last week had in a private Oval Office conversation described the Soviet system as "Mickey Mouse," insisted that he had not gone out of his way to "call them names." He added: "I don't think that I've said anything that was as fiery as them referring to the funeral service for the Unknown Soldier as a 'militaristic orgy.' If we're going to talk about comparisons of rhetoric, they've topped me in spades."

The Soviets also were trying last week to depict themselves as conciliatory. At a press conference eleven hours before Reagan's, chief Kremlin Spokesman Leonid Zamyatin raised similar hopes for a summit. "We want to have negotiations with the U.S. on a whole complex of issues," he said. But like Reagan, he did not drop the condition that the agenda be carefully worked out beforehand. Also like Reagan, he was primarily concerned with imagery. Neither side wants to be seen by the rest of the world as outrageously bellicose; each accuses the other of being the intransigent party. Reagan said that while he was ready to talk, "so far they have been the ones not responding." Earlier in the week, Chernenko had scoffed that Reagan "does not even want to discuss" a Soviet proposal to ban antisatellite weapons. The White House has maintained that such a treaty would be unverifiable, and that the U.S. must first catch up with Soviet antisatellite technology. But at his press conference Reagan said, "We don't have a flat no on that yet... We haven't slammed the door on that at all."

Reagan is under pressure from all sides to keep any door open. At the economic summit in London, the leaders of the world's major industrial democracies fretted over the dangerous state of U.S.Soviet relations. At one point, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau urged Reagan, "For heaven's sake, Ron, do a bit more." Reagan removed his eyeglasses and shot back, "Damn it, Pierre, what do you want me to do? We'll go sit with empty chairs to get those guys back to the table." Early last week legislators in Reagan's own party implored him to seek a summit with Chernenko--without a formal agenda. Said Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker: "Let's just get together and talk about the world situation, because we've got to figure out some way not to blow each other up." Noted Illinois Senator Charles Percy: "It's been five years since we met with our chief adversaries." The lawmakers described their plea to Reagan at a press conference outside the White House, infuriating the President's advisers, who felt that the G.O.P. leaders had been indiscreet.

Ever since the Soviets abandoned the strategic-arms talks last December, Reagan has repeatedly invited them to return. He has offered to open negotiations to curb chemical weapons, and responded favorably to a longtime Soviet request for a treaty banning the first use of force. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Soviets do continue to discuss grain trading, ways to upgrade the "hot line," and how to deal with incidents between their navies at sea. No progress has been made on the crucial negotiations to reduce nuclear arms, but it is significant that Zamyatin did not declare as a precondition to a summit that the U.S. remove its missiles from Europe (the Soviets broke off the intermediate-range arms talks when the U.S. deployed its Pershing Us). It is equally noteworthy that Reagan did not insist that the Soviets return to the arms talks before he would go to a summit.

Until last week, the Soviets and the Democrats both thought they had Reagan pinned down as an erratic, trigger-happy leader. But like a wily chess player, Reagan has now maneuvered out of check. As long as U.S.-Soviet relations stay frozen and arms negotiations remain in limbo, the "war-peace" issue will be a liability for Reagan. But after his deft performance last week, neither the Soviets nor Walter Mondale can credibly label him a warmonger. It is their move in the game of public perception, and it will take a clever gambit to get Reagan back on the defensive. The President may be an ideologue, but he is also a highly pragmatic politician. Especially with an election drawing near. --By Evan Thomas.

Reported by Douglas Brew/Washington

* The Berlin Wall crisis followed the Kennedy-Khrushchev meeting, though the two leaders did agree to defuse an East-West confrontation by seeking to make Laos a neutral country. Johnson failed to persuade Kosygin to cancel deployment of an antiballistic-missile system.

With reporting by Douglas Brew/Washington