U.S. Optimistic on Arms Talks : McFarlane Sees Possible Movement by Soviets

President Reagan’s national security adviser offered a carefully optimistic view of the just-completed second round of U.S.-Soviet arms talks Friday, saying there were signs of potential flexibility from Moscow despite little real progress toward agreement.

“We have seen a few signs that might ultimately prove to be promising,” Robert C. McFarlane told reporters after briefing the President. “For example, in this round, the Soviets were marginally less polemical than in the first round, and in some areas they have begun to respond to our efforts to engage them in serious dialogue.”

At the same time, McFarlane accused the Soviet Union of preventing progress in the talks by demanding a ban on research in space-based missile defenses--a position he called “a charade, a propaganda ploy.”

“They have remained in essentially a propaganda mode, seeking more to make political points and to influence public opinion than to engage in serious negotiations,” he said.

But his comments were more upbeat than a White House statement on the Geneva talks issued on Tuesday, when the negotiating round ended, and significantly more optimistic than assessments of the first round of talks, which ended in late April, when U.S. officials charged the Soviets with “backsliding” from their own previous positions.

Encouraging Soviets

McFarlane’s remarks were said to be aimed at encouraging the Soviets to elaborate during the next round of talks on the suggestions they have already made. The third round is scheduled to begin this fall.

“We’re disappointed--but not surprised, given the importance and complexity of these negotiations--that little headway has been made so far,” McFarlane said. “I think when you review the history of negotiations with the Soviet Union, it’s clear that it requires patience, that progress requires a long time.”

“We will remain patient and prepared to stay in Geneva for as long as is necessary to reach mutually beneficial agreements,” he said. “We hope the Soviets are equally prepared.”

Topic at Summit

McFarlane said the arms talks would be on the agenda at Reagan’s scheduled November summit with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev, but called it “unrealistic . . . to expect dramatic change” at the meeting.

The Geneva talks, which began last fall, focus on three categories of weapons: strategic or long-range nuclear arms, intermediate-range nuclear arms, and space weaponry including President Reagan’s proposed “Star Wars” missile defense plan.

In the area of strategic arms, McFarlane said Soviet negotiators had suggested a “broad concept” for the reduction of missiles and other nuclear weapons, but added that they had made no specific proposals.

He acknowledged that the Soviets have discussed a plan under which each side would reduce nuclear launchers and warheads by agreed-on percentages, but said: “There are disagreements between us on what is really the effect of that idea . . . It’s a very imbalanced proposition.”

‘No Movement’

In intermediate-range nuclear arms, “There has really been no movement at all,” he said.

In the area of space weaponry, McFarlane said the U.S. delegation in Geneva was able for the first time to engage Soviet negotiators in serious discussion of how Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (the formal name for the “Star Wars” program), which aims at replacing offensive nuclear weapons with defensive systems, might work.

“In the first round, the Soviets weren’t even willing to hear anything of that,” he said. “This time they were willing to hear our explanations of how such an evolutionary process--a transition, if you will--might take place . . . I wouldn’t say that that’s dramatically important, but it’s a change.”

Critical of Soviets

At the same time, he criticized the Soviets for demanding a ban on any research into missile defenses, a position he called “unreasonable for two basic reasons: First of all, the notion that research somehow could be banned is simply unfeasible. . . . Secondly, there is a very active and far-advanced Soviet program.”

McFarlane refused to confirm a report that U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the Soviet SS-19 missile is less accurate than had been estimated earlier, thus posing a lesser threat to American missile bases. But he said such a conclusion would not significantly change the balance of nuclear power because the Soviet Union still has more nuclear warheads than the United States and is soon to deploy two new strategic missile systems.

The official U.S. description of the arms talks paralleled earlier accounts by two senators who traveled to Geneva as official observers.

‘Painfully Slow Pace’

“They are at least now having a dialogue, but the talks are preceding at a painfully slow pace,” Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) said last week. “They are listening to each other. They are no longer two trains passing in the night.”

Nunn said U.S. delegates have been conducting “a seminar” for the Soviets on the details of “Star Wars.” Noting that Administration officials still disagree over the capabilities of the program, he added: “We’re educating ourselves as well as the Soviets.”

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said that members of Congress emphasized in talks with the Soviet negotiators that they all support research for the Strategic Defense Initiative, even though there is some disagreement among them about the eventual nature of the program. He said the Soviets were “startled” by that message.

“I hope that will lead them to abandon the impression that they can wait out the Congress on SDI,” he said.