Arms Policies Fast Becoming Issue in Elections

President Reagan’s arms control policies--the so-called “Star Wars” nuclear defense system and his offer to dismantle all ballistic missiles--are fast becoming a central issue in a bitter, partisan battle for control of Congress in the Nov. 4 election.

On Friday, the President made the “Star Wars” program the centerpiece of a campaign speech in Grand Forks, N.D., arguing that it would have been a mistake for him to surrender the program--known officially as the Strategic Defense Initiative--in exchange for an arms control agreement during his summit meeting last weekend with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

“I couldn’t help but think that giving up SDI would have been like Chamberlain giving up radar, as well as Czechoslovakia, at Munich--a tragic blunder that might have spelled the end to freedom in Europe,” Reagan added.

Democrats Critical

Back in Washington, Democrats harshly criticized the President’s negotiating performance in Iceland and called on him to withdraw his offer to Gorbachev to eliminate all ballistic missiles by 1996. House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) accused Reagan of emphasizing SDI to draw attention away from the nation’s economic woes.

It was a surprising development, especially considering that only one week earlier Reagan had telephoned O’Neill from Reykjavik to thank the Democrats for deciding not to make the summit or arms control a partisan issue. Until now, the congressional election campaign has had no broad national issue.

Moreover, it was ironic that the Republicans and not the Democrats decided to introduce arms control into the election campaign--even though the President had returned from Iceland without the arms control agreement that members of his party had been hoping would help them to keep the Democrats from seizing control of the Senate.

Born of Necessity

Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, said the President’s strategy was born of necessity. “According to the Republicans themselves, they expected a major triumph in Iceland that would give them an election boost,” he said, “and now they are trying to salvage the situation.”

The President obviously chose to emphasize arms control to capitalize on what polls have shown as a surge in his popularity after the Iceland summit. According to GOP pollster Richard B. Wirthlin, Reagan’s approval rating jumped from 64% to 73% in the last week.

But Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the President made a political mistake in a campaign speech Wednesday in Maryland, during which he accused “liberals” in Congress of promising to destroy the “Star Wars” system--”exactly what Mr. Gorbachev wants them to do.”

The speech was “too harsh and too partisan,” Coelho said, adding: “Americans want to see him as the leader of the Free World--not as the leader of the Republican Party.”

Role in Winning Peace

As a result, the President toned down the partisanship of his message when he returned to the arms control theme Friday in North Dakota. He made no mention of members of Congress but instead emphasized that the “Star Wars” program would play a key role in obtaining peace.

“The American people know that the only way to negotiate for peace is from a position of strength,” he said. “We’re closer to real arms reductions than ever before and it’s because America today is once again strong and united.”

Reagan’s decision to make arms control a partisan issue caught the Democrats by surprise, and they were clearly divided over how to respond.

O’Neill decided to soft-pedal the arms issue, saying only that Reagan should not be permitted to use SDI to divert attention from the economic problems in farm states like North Dakota.

Scathing Floor Speech

But Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Democratic Party’s chief spokesman on defense matters, made an uncharacteristically scathing floor speech Thursday night that bluntly ridiculed the President’s approach to arms control.

Nunn criticized the President and his top aides for providing members of Congress with two differing versions of the offer that they made in Iceland. He said it was not clear whether Reagan wanted to eliminate all nuclear weapons or simply all ballistic missiles by 1996.

Likewise, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) said in an interview that he was confused by the account of their talks with Gorbachev that Reagan and Secretary of State George P. Shultz gave to congressional leaders earlier this week.

Differing Versions

Aspin added that, when he questioned John M. Poindexter, Reagan’s national security adviser, about the differing versions of the U.S. offer, Poindexter responded that “I haven’t briefed them up well enough.” Aspin said he replied: “What do you mean you haven’t briefed them up? Those were the two guys in there with Gorbachev cutting the deal.”

But White House spokesman Larry Speakes told reporters en route to North Dakota that Reagan never agreed to the elimination of strategic weapons. “I don’t quarrel with what Nunn says,” he said. The President “could have said it in the leadership meeting. But clearly they did not question him to understand his position in full.”

Speakes said there was a discussion in Iceland between Reagan and Gorbachev about eliminating strategic weapons, but the subject quickly turned to SDI and the meeting then collapsed.

“I don’t think Sen. Nunn would favor a world with nuclear weapons over a world without,” Speakes said. “Given a choice of a world with nuclear weapons or a world without, I think the American people would favor a world without.”