U.S. Won’t Propose New Initiatives at Arms Talks

Chief U.S. negotiator Max M. Kampelman today ruled out new American proposals to reduce nuclear missiles at the resumption of arms control talks in Geneva next week with the Soviet Union.

“Somehow we have to always come in with new initiatives,” Kampelman said. “This is not a way to have negotiations. We are not doing that.”

Kampelman said the Soviets “would be making a serious error” if they concluded the Iran- contra affair has weakened the Reagan Administration to the point of making unwise concessions in the arms talks.

Don’t ‘Miscalculate’

“I hope they do not miscalculate,” Kampelman said on a U.S. Information Agency Worldnet telecast to Western Europe.

“The United States is strong. The President is strong. We have no intention of acting in any other way than to carry out our objectives. We will not make concessions that are not otherwise in our interest.”

The negotiations on weapons and missile defenses resume Thursday.

Kampelman said the Soviets always approach the reopening of talks in Geneva with demands for new U.S. initiatives. “If they should come to believe that every time we come back we are coming with something new, that provides an incentive to them not to respond to us now because we are coming with a concession tomorrow,” he said.

“We will not, we will not,” Kampelman said, repeating for emphasis. “They know what they have to do. They’ve not done it. They have to respond to our proposals.”

Not Pessimistic

Kampelman said he was not pessimistic about reaching an agreement to reduce U.S. and Soviet nuclear arms. “There has been a tremendous amount of movement” in the 22 months since the talks opened, he said.

But the U.S. negotiator did not single out any particular problem as being on the verge of settlement. He also was sharply critical of Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev for not fulfilling a commitment to President Reagan to come to Washington for a summit meeting.

“Mr. Gorbachev, for his own reasons, decided he would go back on the promise to come to the United States,” Kampelman said. “That’s his right. . . .

“If they want a summit, let them respect Mr. Reagan’s invitation. There it is, on the table. We’re not eager for it. We’re willing to have it. We think it will be useful to have. And if he thinks he is doing the United States or Mr. Reagan a favor by coming here, this is no way to proceed. . . . “