Europeans Relieved but Warn Geneva Was Only a Start

The outcome of the Geneva summit has been greeted by European leaders and commentators almost unanimously with a mixture of relief at the prospect of improvement in the atmosphere of East-West relations and cautious skepticism over the practical tests that lie ahead.

There is an obvious reason for the relief: Repeatedly in the 40 years since the end of World War II, governments of Western Europe have found it impossible to stimulate even the most marginal improvements in East-West relations on their own if the relations between the superpowers were at a low ebb.

There were indications Friday that the first practical result of the good mood established at Geneva is almost certain to be a twice-postponed visit to West Germany by Erich Honecker, the leader of East Germany.

Orders From Moscow

Honecker was last scheduled to have made the visit in September, 1984, but it was quashed, reportedly on direct instructions from the Kremlin. The Soviet Union was then boycotting the arms control talks in Geneva to protest the installation of new American missiles in Western Europe.

In Brussels on Thursday, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said “the door is open” to Honecker, and the West German newspaper Bild now predicts that the visit will take place in January. It clearly would not take place if the Geneva summit had turned sour.

Talk about the Honecker visit so soon after the Geneva meetings made clear how a change in atmosphere between the superpowers almost automatically opens up diplomatic, political and economic opportunities for the Europeans in small but significant ways.

Observers here and in other West European capitals believe that these opportunities will be pursued now whether or not the Soviet Union and the United States make progress on arms control, whether or not the problems of Afghanistan are resolved.

As the Financial Times of London put it, in a comment echoed throughout Europe in various ways, “Atmospherics may be partly theater, but they are also a real factor in the international situation and may turn out to be a significant barometer of policy intentions.”

Almost everyone seemed in agreement about the summit. They expressed some disappointment at the lack of real progress, great pleasure at the start of dialogue, and much caution about evaluating its success too soon.

The most ambiguous reaction came from President Francois Mitterrand of France, who refused to attend President Reagan’s briefing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies in Brussels on Thursday. Instead, he staged one of his rare news conferences in Paris, driving the summit into a subordinate place on the front pages of the French newspapers Friday.

‘Fragility of Peace’

“The simple fact that the dialogue has been reopened is a sign of hope to those who know the fragility of peace,” said Mitterrand, whose nation has pursued independent foreign and defense policies since the days of President Charles de Gaulle.

However, the French leader, who opposes Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, warned of problems ahead if the United States and the Soviet Union prove unable to agree on keeping the arms race out of space.

“It will not be possible,” Mitterrand said, “for Europe to be absent from space if the two big powers are imprudent enough to commit themselves to what is known as ‘Star Wars.’ ”

Most European commentators, whether from the right or left, noted with approval that a new atmosphere had been created.

“Geneva will not go down in history as the meeting of great themes and great solutions,” the German newspaper Die Welt said in an editorial, “but as a summit of two men who stamped it with their personalities. . . . The world’s two most powerful men understand each other better.”

And the Financial Times said in its editorial, “In comparison with a past characterized over a long period by mutual suspicion and recrimination, almost any improvement in the mood would look like a valuable step forward.”

Alessandro Natta, leader of the Italian Communist Party, was quoted as saying: “No one reasonably expected that all the complex and acute problems that have arisen over the years would be resolved in two days. The most important thing was for both sides to face up to them with clearness and in a constructive spirit.”

Despite all the optimism about the change of atmosphere, there were warnings. In London, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who, unlike Mitterrand, did go to Brussels to hear Reagan’s summit report, said: “I do not expect sudden results. . . . There’s still a lot of hard, detailed negotiation in those separate arms negotiations.”

‘Gorbachev a Realist’

A complex analysis of the summit came from Le Monde, France’s most influential newspaper. In a front-page editorial, Le Monde said it was clear that the summit conference had not changed the position of either leader on the main issues that divide the Soviet Union and the United States.

“Gorbachev is a realist,” the paper said, adding, “The main lesson of the summit is that he has decided to live with these differences and to renew both a dialogue with the United States and much more intense bilateral relations.”

Le Monde predicted that hard-liners in both the Reagan Administration and at the Kremlin will try to prevent Reagan and Gorbachev from maintaining the mood of the summit, adding, “But the reaction of public opinion should encourage them to maintain the chemistry of Geneva.”