Gorbachev Responds to Summit Bid : Reagan’s Aides Describe Written Reply as Positive

President Reagan said Monday that Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev has responded to his invitation for a summit in the United States, and other Administration officials described the written reply as positive.

In an Oval Office interview, Reagan declined to discuss the contents of Gorbachev’s letter but said he is hopeful about a meeting with the new Soviet Communist Party chief.

An Administration official said that Gorbachev, in a letter received last week, endorsed “the idea of a summit” but did not specify a time or place.

Reagan extended the summit invitation in a letter sent with Vice President George Bush to the funeral in Moscow last month of Gorbachev’s predecessor, Konstantin U. Chernenko. In the interview, Reagan repeated his desire for the meeting despite the killing March 24 of U.S. Army Maj. Arthur D. Nicholson Jr. in East Germany by a Soviet sentry.

‘A Coldblooded Murder’

“This was a murder, a coldblooded murder,” Reagan said, “and it reflects on the difference between the two societies: one that has no regard for human life and one like our own that thinks it’s the most important thing.

“And, yes, 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,” he continued.

The official who confirmed the positive nature of Gorbachev’s reply said that the killing of Nicholson has “clouded” summit arrangements and that a more detailed Soviet reply about such a meeting is expected.

In the 32-minute interview, Reagan also contended that disaffection among Nicaraguans with the leftist Sandinista government is increasing and again blamed “rival factions” in the South African black community for much of the recent violence there.

Talks ‘Going Forward’

Reagan said negotiations in Geneva to reduce offensive nuclear weapons are “going forward” despite Soviet objections to his emphasis on missile defense in his Strategic Defense Initiative, often called “Star Wars.”

“The (SDI) is purely research, and Mr. (Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei A.) Gromyko himself said there’s no way to control that, that it’s not covered by any treaty, and the plain truth of the matter is they’ve been doing the same kind of research in the same areas and started it before we did,” Reagan said.

Discussing his opposition to the Sandinistas, Reagan said, “I think there are more people who are opposing the regime right now in Nicaragua than actually fought in the revolution against (dictator Anastasio) Somoza.

“And it seems to be growing. . . . You only have to look at the flood of refugees that are escaping from Nicaragua to realize that the people of that country are not happy with that totalitarian regime,” he said.

Reagan reiterated his support for the anti-government rebels in Nicaragua, whom he has called “freedom fighters” and “our brothers.”

The President acknowledged that his policies toward Nicaragua are unpopular with Congress and the public but blamed this on the “very sophisticated lobbying campaign” by the Sandinistas and their Soviet and Cuban backers.

Soviet Disinformation

“There has been a disinformation program that is virtually worldwide, and we know that the Soviets and the Cubans have such a disinformation network that it is beyond anything that we can match,” Reagan said.

Reagan said he cannot discuss new proposals for persuading Congress to approve $14 million in aid for the Nicaraguan rebels, also known as contras, and does not know what he would do if Congress refuses to appropriate the money.

“That’s something I’d have to face . . . ,” he said. “We’re not alone in helping them. As a matter of fact, in spite of the polls, there is more and more private support for the contras.”

On the recent violence in South Africa, Reagan defended the Administration’s approach of “constructive engagement,” which involves maintaining good relations with South Africa while gradually seeking changes in its policies of racial segregation.

“We think that (what) we’re doing is the best, has the best effect, and the most effect of anything that we could do. Just walking away would leave us with no ability to influence them,” he said.

Reagan repeated his contention, voiced at a news conference March 21, that rival factions in the South African black community are in part responsible for recent violence in that country.

“Nothing can be solved by violence. And that isn’t the answer. But remember, the violence is not just alone stemming from a government putdown of demonstrators,” he said.

“You have, in the black community there, you’ve got rival factions, and the violence is sometimes between them, fighting each other. And we’ve seen evidence of that, and we’ve seen murders and some of the 40 deaths . . . without the government participating,” he said.

The President was also asked about another controversial remark from that news conference, regarding his decision not to visit a Nazi concentration camp site in West Germany in May because an “unnecessary” feeling of guilt has been imposed on today’s German population.

The remark provoked criticism in the American Jewish community that Reagan seemed to be suggesting that the Holocaust be forgotten.

‘I Should Have Elaborated’

Reagan said this was another case where “I guess I should have elaborated more in my answer.”

“I have made it very plain and spoken publicly on a number of occasions and will continue to say, we should never forget the Holocaust. We should never forget it in the sense that this must never happen again to any people--for whatever reason--in the world.”

But Reagan reiterated his view that it would not be right to commemorate the Holocaust during his trip to West Germany because “the bulk of the population . . . were either small children or were not born yet” at the time it occurred.

“And there’s no question about it, there are great feelings of guilt even though they were not there to participate in it, of what their nation did,” he said, adding that “it just seemed to me that it would be just out of line to emphasize that when I was there as a visitor in their country.”