Reagan Will Seek Stable Soviet Ties : Speakes, Without Giving Details, Says U.S. Wants a New Course in Relations

President Reagan will embark on a new course in U.S.-Soviet relations that is to be “fundamentally different” from the policies of his predecessors, White House spokesman Larry Speakes said Sunday.

The new policy, as described at a news briefing here less than 48 hours before Reagan is to begin two days of meetings with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev, is aimed at bringing about more stability and predictability to a relationship that Speakes noted has had its ups and downs in the past but generally “has not been good.”

The announcement, which Speakes said follows an exhaustive review of past U.S.-Soviet relations by senior advisers and the President himself, appeared to suggest that the Administration has developed a comprehensive new framework for American policy. Speakes, however, offered few details about how it would differ from past policies or how smoother relations might be achieved.

Differences Remain Wide

Also, other developments Sunday underlined the Administration’s continuing difficulties in making positive gains on the major issues on the summit agenda. Indeed, national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane said that pre-summit negotiations have produced no narrowing of differences between the two superpowers, except on a cluster of secondary issues, including air safety and cultural exchanges.

And the White House summit team continued to struggle with the controversy over the leaking of a letter from Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger to Reagan urging that the President make no commitments to Gorbachev concerning future U.S. compliance with the unratified second strategic arms limitation agreement or the U.S. interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Although the President himself has frequently talked of making a new beginning with the Soviets, he has made no public comment about following the kind of distinctive new policy described Sunday by Speakes.

In commenting on the new approach, Speakes said Reagan has carefully studied what has worked and what has not worked in past administrations and hopes to use the insight he has gained to build “a more constructive arrangement.”

Pressed several times on how the new policy would differ from past approaches, Speakes answered in broad terms:

“I think it is the ability to sit down with the Soviets, recognizing, first of all, that we do have fundamental differences with the Soviets. . . . But we also have a way we can work in serious but peaceful economic competition. And that’s what the President wants to lay out--a better understanding, a better way to work together.”

Reagan has been severely critical of the U.S. approach to Soviet relations in the 1970s when detente was in full bloom, but Speakes made it clear that this was not the only era the President has in mind as he attempts to chart a course different from those of his predecessors.

New Direction for Ties

Reagan and his advisers have examined in detail “the entire range of historical relations with the Soviet Union,” Speakes said, and the President feels prepared to sit down with Gorbachev to map the new direction.

After examining the ups and downs of the competition between the superpowers, he continued, the President has chosen a course that he believes can put the relationship “back on an even keel.”

McFarlane, seeking to put the Weinberger flap to rest during a press briefing, sought to dismiss it as “yesterday’s headlines,” but the controversy continued Sunday--to the obvious displeasure of Reagan.

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), interviewed on television, said the leak of Weinberger’s letter has reduced Reagan’s “flexibility” in bargaining with Gorbachev and has played into the hands of Soviet propagandists.

A Soviet official here branded the leak as an attempt to “torpedo” the summit--a comment paralleling that of one of Reagan’s own senior aides. Asked whether the leak amounted to sabotage, the aide replied, “Sure it was.”

Probe of Leak Ordered

Reagan himself, questioned by reporters as he walked to a meeting with staff aides, exclaimed, “No!” when asked whether somebody was trying to sabotage the summit, and yelled, “Hell, no!” when asked whether he intended to fire Weinberger. The defense secretary has denied leaking the letter to the press and said he has ordered an investigation of the incident.

Asked further about his own aide’s characterization of the leak as an act of sabotage, the President pursed his lips in annoyance and declared, “I’m wondering if that individual is not a figment of someone in the press’s imagination.”

The senior official involved made the statement to a group of reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Geneva on Saturday and it was circulated to the full press corps covering the summit through a pooling system arranged by the White House staff.

During a television interview Sunday, McFarlane was asked whether he was the senior official but he avoided a direct answer and said it was typical of the media to “become preoccupied” with a transitory issue and thus to miss “the historical significance” of the event being covered.

Taking note of the discord among Reagan’s advisers, Georgy A. Arbatov, the chief Americanologist in the Kremlin, suggested that the commencement of the summit on Tuesday will force the President to make clear where he himself stands on the controversial arms issues. Said Arbatov: This will be Reagan’s “trial by fire.”

McFarlane told reporters that despite the lack of progress on major issues, Reagan is “hopeful, optimistic, determined” as he approaches the summit.

In the pre-summit search for areas of agreement, McFarlane said there was progress on several bilateral issues. In addition to the “people-to-people” exchanges Reagan advocated in a nationally television address last week, accord appeared near on air safety and new consulates in each country.

“There is basis for expecting that we will reach agreement in the next day or so,” said McFarlane. “We are just optimistic and we’ll have to wait and see.”

Asked if differences had narrowed on anything other than bilateral issues, McFarlane paused, then answered, “No.”

He said there have been lengthy talks on a possible global ban on chemical weapons, but that they have not brought the superpowers any closer on the issue.

McFarlane added that there is a “specific urgent need” to talk about halting chemical warfare in several regional conflicts and that the United States would be open to such talks. He did not mention any particular country, but the Administration has repeatedly accused the Soviets of using a chemical known as “yellow rain” in Cambodia.

No Movement on Verification

On the touchy subject of nuclear test verification, McFarlane said the Soviets have not offered any new proposals and the issue remains stalemated.

The only area he sounded hopeful about was the one relating to the spread of nuclear weapons to nations that do not have them. Those talks have gone better, he said, and “we are optimistic that agreement can be reached in setting common purposes on non-proliferation.”

The Administration’s response to substantive points in the Weinberger letter appeared to narrow Reagan’s options on a possible agreement to abide by the constraints outlined in the SALT II treaty.

In recent weeks, top officials have said Reagan could possibly agree to a one-year extension proposed by the Soviets. With Weinberger’s adamant opposition now out in the open, Administration officials here on Sunday backed away from the idea of using the summit to endorse any such extension of the treaty, which expires Dec. 31. Although SALT II was never ratified by the Senate, both the United States and the Soviet Union say they have abided by its terms.

White House arms control adviser Paul H. Nitze said in a television interview that the Soviets have commited an “irreversible violation” of SALT II--by testing a second type of intercontinental ballistic missile when the accord permitted testing of only one additional type of new missile--and that the Administration “reserves the right to take offsetting action.”

A comparable violation, Nitze said, would be testing the Midgetman missile, which would give the United States a second new ICBM in addition to the MX missile.

In a briefing for reporters, McFarlane said it would be “premature” to rule out any formal extension of the U.S. agreement to abide by the terms of the unratified SALT II agreement at the summit but he said it is “unlikely” that Reagan would make that kind of decision in Geneva.