Geneva Talks to Resume; Soviets Hint Flexibility

The moribund U.S.-Soviet negotiations on arms control resume in Geneva next Thursday amid hints of new Kremlin flexibility and signs that Moscow remains interested in reaching an agreement with the Reagan Administration despite the President’s weakened political status.

At the same time, the Soviets are preparing what U.S. officials call “another peace offensive” in an effort to exert maximum pressure for compromise on the Administration’s pivotal Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars” plan. A series of international seminars will be held in Moscow next month, providing a stage for Soviet and other critics of SDI, the issue which caused the collapse of last October’s summit in Reykjavik, Iceland.

Report on Soviet Violations

The Administration, for its part, appears unprepared to make concessions and is in the midst of preparing another report on Soviet violations of strategic arms treaties that could chill prospects for progress at Geneva if it follows the Pentagon’s recommendation and accuses the Soviets of moving closer to abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

Yet senior Administration officials, while wary of the coming Soviet propaganda effort, treat the encouraging Soviet signals as sincere, in part because their analysis indicates that it would be in the Soviets’ interest to reach agreement with Reagan rather than wait for the next Administration.

Moscow may not find the next President easier to bargain with, whether a Republican or a Democrat, one White House official suggested.

“The Soviets ought to want to nail down Reagan now,” the official said. “He may be slightly weaker now, due to the Iran- contra business and the Democratic control of Congress. But he can deliver ratification by Congress of an arms deal.”

In the Kremlin’s new propaganda effort, five groups of foreign specialists--physical and social scientists, businessmen, and cultural and religious leaders--are being invited to a conference broadly titled “A Nuclear-Free World and the Survival of Humanity.” At least some of those invited have been offered free travel and all expenses paid for the meetings Feb. 14-16, according to U.S. officials.

Sakharov May Attend Meeting

Soviet participants may include Andrei D. Sakharov, the Soviet dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner who was recently allowed to return to Moscow from six years of internal exile in Gorky. Sakharov, whose appearance would win Moscow the approval of human rights activists, would be expected to repeat his past statements opposing SDI on grounds that the proposed space-based missile defense shield can be overwhelmed easily by a determined offensive attack.

U.S. officials said that Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who seeks to kill “Star Wars,” is tentatively expected to appear at the meetings, where he could unveil another arms initiative at the same time that it is introduced at the Geneva negotiations.

The key obstacle to a new U.S.-Soviet arms agreement centers on SDI, the program for developing lasers and other forms of directed energy capable of destroying enemy missiles in space, although nuclear testing and offensive missiles are also arms issues under current discussion.

At the Iceland summit, the Soviets proposed that the two nations pledge to remain within the ABM treaty for 10 years and conduct only “laboratory research” on SDI-type weapons during that period. The United States accepted the 10-year offer--the treaty now permits either side to withdraw after six months’ notice if it concludes its “supreme national interest” is jeopardized--but insisted that “research, development and testing” of potential space-based weapons be allowed.

Since then, the Soviets have hinted at flexibility. Most recently, Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze told visiting U.S. and West European politicians that the Kremlin would not insist that laboratory research take place “within four walls and a ceiling,” for example, implying that research could include tests in space.

Limits on Laser Tests

Similarly, Soviet scientists have recently suggested to non-government American experts that quantitative limits might be negotiated on directed-energy experiments. One idea would be to restrict the power of laser beams used in space tests to a level below that needed to damage satellites or warheads, according to a U.S. official informed of these indirect overtures.

Officially, though, Moscow has stayed with its Reykjavik position. At the last session of the Geneva arms talks, in December, Soviet chief negotiator Viktor P. Karpov informed his U.S. counterpart, Max M. Kampelman, that he had no authority to show flexibility on these issues.

Whether the Soviets will be more forthcoming in the new round remains to be seen. In Moscow’s most recent commentary on the Geneva talks, Pravda said the positive results of Reykjavik could be affirmed and built upon at the new round, but it called upon the United States to make “constructive changes” in its positions, according to the Soviet Embassy here.

However, Moscow’s reported change of its chief negotiator from Karpov to First Deputy Foreign Minister Yuli M. Vorontsov suggests that the Kremlin may in fact come forward with new initiatives.

Whatever tactics they now employ, “the Soviets certainly are still interested in doing business with this Administration on arms control, or at least they have decided that it is an appropriate position to take at this time,” according to Arnold Horelick, director of Rand Corp.’s center for Soviet studies who recently returned from Moscow.

Aim to Mute GOP Criticism

Moscow apparently also wants Reagan to embark on a conciliatory course in order to mute Republican criticism of arms control after the President’s term ends, according to other experts.

Dmitri K. Simes, a Soviet specialist at the Carnegie Institution, said a Soviet trade official recently told former President Richard M. Nixon that the Kremlin wants an arms agreement “even if it is strictly symbolic, because it is important to engage the Republican right wing now. Otherwise, they will be a hindrance to arms control when Reagan leaves office.

“My feeling is that the Soviets will not go out of their way to help Ronald Reagan now,” such as making a new arms offer “which would imply that the worst of the Iran-contra scandal is over,” Simes added. “But they would do a deal if the Administration itself is capable of making a deal.”

The Administration may, in fact, be too preoccupied in coming months by Iran-contra investigations, and by Democratic attacks on its programs, to take advantage of any new Soviet opening or to offer concessions on its own, U.S. officials concede.

Indications so far, however, are that it is capable of taking decisions on strategically significant issues despite the crisis. For example, Reagan decided Nov. 25 to break the SALT II numerical ceiling on nuclear launchers in what some officials saw as a warning to Moscow not to seek to exploit the Iran-contra crisis, which was disclosed the same day.

The President also made the difficult decision to push ahead with design of a small, single-warhead Midgetman missile, as well as to pursue studies on basing the huge, 10-warhead MX missile on railroad cars, rather than a larger Midgetman and deployment of more MX missiles, as the Pentagon proposed.

But he now faces a rancorous split between the State and Defense departments on the significance of three new, high-performance Soviet radars being built on the European border of the country. The outcome of the fight could affect the atmosphere as well as substance of the arms talks.

The State Department wants to remain with the language used in last year’s report on Soviet non-compliance with arms treaties. It states that because of various actions, the Soviets “may be preparing an ABM defense of its national territory.” The Pentagon, however, wants to toughen the report significantly by accusing the Soviets of now having in place the basic requirements for an anti-missile network, which is barred by the ABM treaty.

Such a charge could chill the Geneva arms control negotiations, State Department officials fear, as well as prepare the foundation for calls by conservative Republicans for abrogating the ABM treaty.

At least, these officials claim, it would make more difficult any compromise with the Soviets on what kind of research the ABM treaty permits since the Soviets would look like they were prepared to tear up the treaty entirely.

Time is also beginning to run short for the negotiations. The consensus of Soviet and U.S. officials, as well as outside experts, is that a breakthrough agreement in principle is needed this year, and probably by mid-year, in order to have the agreement written and ratified before the presidential election season starts in mid-1988.

“After September, it’s drop-dead time for three years,” said one senior arms control official.