Reagan Asks Pre-Summit Allied Talks

President Reagan has asked the leaders of six industrial powers to meet with him in New York later this month to discuss issues that he plans to take up with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev at their Geneva summit, the White House disclosed Monday.

The session, including a working luncheon hosted by Reagan, is expected to take place Oct. 24 when Reagan and the other leaders visit the United Nations in connection with ceremonies marking the 40th anniversary of the world organization.

Seeking to take advantage of the U.N. gathering, Reagan has sent invitations to the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Italy, West Germany and Japan, the same countries that join the United States in regular economic summit conferences. It was not known yet what the responses are.

“The President is looking forward to having a dialogue with the Western leaders and expressing his own (views) on a range of issues before the President’s meeting with General Secretary Gorbachev in November,” White House spokesman Edward P. Djerejian said. “The presence of the Western leaders at the United Nations in October provides a timely opportunity for such a working session.”

Pre-Summit Maneuvers

Besides being a part of Reagan’s preparation for the Nov. 19-20 summit, the planned gathering of the Western and Japanese leaders was viewed as another move in the elaborate pre-summit maneuvering that has seen both sides carefully trying to establish position in a public relations contest.

The White House announcement of Reagan’s invitation coincided with the Soviet Union’s formal placement of its new arms control proposal before U.S. negotiators in Geneva. The proposal, which reportedly calls for reductions of up to 50% in offensive weapons, was outlined to Reagan last Friday in a meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze.

Officials said Monday that the President wants to talk with the other leaders about the whole range of subjects expected to come up at the summit, including arms control, which has emerged as the meeting’s centerpiece.

In the immediate wake of the new Soviet proposal, the Administration gave all indications that it will not relinquish its Strategic Defense Initiative, the research program for a “Star Wars” space missile defense, in exchange for cuts in offensive arms.

The much-debated research is expected to be one of the topics before the allied leaders in the U.N. meeting suggested by Reagan. Britain, West Germany and Israel have indicated they wish to take part in the research, while Canada, France, Norway and Denmark have declined.

In an interview published in Paris on Monday and made available by the White House, Reagan noted that it will be years before it can be determined whether strategic defensive weapons are feasible. He assured the European allies that “the Strategic Defense Initiative does not replace the current energetic efforts to improve the conventional defenses of the alliance.”

Questions for Gorbachev

Reagan told the newspaper Le Figaro he plans to put a number of questions to Gorbachev in an effort to clear up misunderstandings between the superpowers. Among them, he said are:

“Does it serve the long-term Soviet interest or the interest of peace for them to keep well over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, against the wishes of that country’s people?

“Is it in the long-term interest of a just world for the Soviet government to ignore the obligations it assumed under the Helsinki accords and other international agreements, to deny its people some of the basic human rights that we have in the West taken for granted?

“Is it in the long-term interest of peace and stability for the Soviet Union to continue to build up its military forces beyond defensive needs and to such levels that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) has no choice but to respond by strengthening its own defenses?”

It was the clearest description yet given of how the President envisions the conversations with the Soviet leader.

“Arms control,” Reagan said, “is understandably one of the central issues between us. But it is not the only one. We need to look hard at the fundamental sources of tension in our relationship. . . .”