Geneva Summit Post-Mortems

Your editorial (Nov. 22), “Toast to Survival,” has a dubious liquid substance. Optimism is the operative word in these United States. To be pessimistic is neither fashionable nor positive thinking. So The Times wrote: “. . . we count ourselves among those (optimists) no matter how hard-headed we try to be . . .”

We are allowing our way of life to act as a neutralizing agent on our thinking processes. Reagan was correct when he remarked that building confidence and trust be based upon the Soviets’ “deeds and not words.” Gorbachev’s boldness in saying that “. . . the world has become a more secure place” doesn’t make it so. We astutely realize that the Soviets have suspended their normal demands and actions because of our missile-proof shield chip.

Our somewhat delicate balance has become a precarious balance. And “. . . In foreign relations,” said the late Walter Lippmann, “as in all other relations, a policy has been formed only when commitments and power have been brought into balance.” Not toasting to survival but analyzing substance, I conclude that the Soviets have not consciously committed themselves to any peaceful issues we have promoted. Their commitments have been menacing gestures. Necessity brought Gorbachev to the summit, not the conviviality of our President nor the fireside chats of a more “secure place.”

Your editorial suggests that “there are clues that both men got beyond arms into global politics . . .” I believe those clues to be red herrings. I think the Soviets intend us to spread the Geneva Solvent--optimism--over our intellectual eyes. My thrust is for our President to remember that “the prince who relies upon their words, without having otherwise provided for his security, is ruined . . .”

SUZANNE TUCKER

Newport Beach