THE VENICE SUMMIT : All But Thatcher on Shaky Ground at Home, Experts Say : Leaders’ Political Woes May Result in Lame-Duck Summit

When President Reagan and six other heads of government open this year’s annual summit of the major industrialized democracies tonight, they will assemble in the same ornate Renaissance palace where the doges ruled for centuries over the prosperous Venetian Republic.

Unfortunately for the modern-day leaders, their political footing is far less secure. With the exception of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who is taking less than a full day off from her reelection campaign to attend the Venice meetings, each arrived here in a politically weakened state.

And in the view of some of Reagan’s top aides, that does not bode well for agreement on many of the host of thorny issues on this year’s summit agenda. That could translate into lost opportunities to make progress on matters ranging from fighting AIDS to ensuring safe shipping in the Persian Gulf.

Concern at White House

Some private U.S. experts believe the political problems faced by the seven heads of government back home may force them to demonstrate success in Venice. But among the White House staff, there is clear concern that the problems each head of government faces will limit the chances for compromise, according to one senior official who has spent much of the past several months preparing for the meeting.

“We’re very conscious of it,” said the White House official, speaking on the condition that he not be identified. And another senior official said he expects the other leaders to use the United States as a whipping boy to relieve some of the pressure the stumbling politicians are feeling at home.

“To a large extent, this is a lame-duck summit,” said Alan Stoga, an economist with Kissinger Associates, a New York international economic and investment consulting firm. “Since they are nearly all playing from political weakness rather than strength, it’s not likely to lead to any bold initiatives.”

In recent years, the formal meetings have generally been reserved for international economic issues, and the informal settings--the opening dinner, the lunches and receptions--have been turned over to non-economic topics. That is likely to be the pattern in Venice, White House officials say.

Two weeks ago, Reagan Administration officials believed that the No. 1 topic on the non-economic agenda would be the U.S.-Soviet effort to eliminate medium-range nuclear weapons from Europe. West Germany had resisted such an accord for fear that it would make Germany vulnerable to the remaining battlefield-range nuclear weapons and increase the Soviets’ opportunities to exploit their advantage in conventional forces in Europe.

But last week, the West German government stated its support of the U.S. position. Secretary of State George P. Shultz said the German support demonstrated that a unified Western position was beginning to “jell” and would lead toward resumed progress at the ongoing U.S.-Soviet arms talks in Geneva.

The Persian Gulf, one of the battlefields of the 6 1/2-year Iran-Iraq War, has emerged as an issue to take arms control’s place.

The U.S. frigate Stark was disabled in the gulf last month by two missiles from an Iraqi jet, and Reagan plans to press the other summit leaders to increase their support for U.S. efforts to keep the gulf open to oil tanker traffic.

In addition, the summit participants will devote at least some time to discussion of international efforts to stem the acquired immune deficiency syndrome epidemic and to combat international terrorism and, possibly, the need to put increased pressure on the white-minority government in South Africa.

Domestic Troubles

On all fronts, progress will depend on the leaders’ ability to surmount their political difficulties at home--no easy matter. While disclosures in the Iran- contra affair chip away at Reagan’s political standing and Thatcher prepares for a general election Thursday, the other summit participants all find themselves entangled in domestic troubles of their own.

In the worst shape of all are the Italians, who in effect have no government. And because this summit is in Venice, the Italians’ problems pose particular complications.

In the past, the summit chairman--the leader of the host nation--has called up topics for discussion, directed the flow of conversation and had the last word in all debates. Since 1983, when Reagan was the host in Williamsburg, Va., the summits have produced a pattern of support for the United States, guided by Thatcher in 1984, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1985 and Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone last year.

This year’s chairman, Italian Prime Minister Amintore Fanfani, is a caretaker without electoral support as Italy prepares for national elections next weekend.

“You have a 78-year-old man who has no political influence,” said a senior White House official. “That is of concern to us. Things could disintegrate.”

The U.S. delegation, many analysts believe, has troubles enough of its own.

“The Iran-contra affair is going to be there,” said Helmut Sonnenfeldt, a former State Department counselor who is now a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution. “It affects people’s assessment of the strength of the President. It’s there as a barometer of the President’s credibility.”

Beyond the Italians and the Americans, the other delegations face their own peculiar difficulties:

--France. For the second consecutive summit, France is represented by two leaders: Francois Mitterrand, 70, the socialist president, and Jacques Chirac, 54, the conservative premier. Many analysts predict that the two will be the main candidates in the French presidential elections next year. If so, according to most polls, Mitterrand is well ahead. For this reason, Chirac needs to look “presidential” in Venice. He cannot afford a repeat performance of last year’s summit at Tokyo, when, less than three months after taking office, he appeared to play the role of an aide-de-camp to Mitterrand.

--Japan. As the host of the Tokyo summit a year ago, Prime Minister Nakasone was riding the crest of an unprecedented wave of domestic public support. Victory in elections for both houses of Parliament last July enabled him to avoid being forced out of office by October, 1986, and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party rewarded him with an extra year in office. But now his time appears to be running out. Battered by a humiliating defeat of his proposal for a 5% value-added tax, Nakasone arrived in Venice with his support in opinion polls standing at only 31%, fully 20 points below last year. His frail political position will rule out any significant concessions on such matters as freeing up Japan’s protectionist agricultural policies.

--West Germany. Chancellor Kohl’s political image has been tarnished, too. His winning margin in the January national election was less than he expected, and his Christian Democrats have had disappointing results in the three state elections held since then. One reason for the latest electoral disappointments in Hamburg and Rhineland-Palatinate on May 17 was his administration’s hard-line approach to the U.S. and Soviet proposals to ban most of the intermediate-range missiles from Europe.

--Canada. Public opinion polls place Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s Conservative Party a distant third behind the New Democratic Party and the Liberals. He does not face an election until 1989, however, and he still has a totally loyal and overwhelming majority in the House of Commons, enabling him to force through any legislation he wants and leaving him free from worry about the opposition.

--Britain. It was Thatcher who set Thursday, the day after the summit ends, as the date for national elections. She is limiting her time at the summit to tonight’s dinner and the first multilateral meeting Tuesday morning. During the rest of the conference, she will be represented by Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe.

Her absence is expected to be felt most by Reagan, for whom she has been a particularly loyal partner.

How the leaders’ political troubles will play out this week in Venice remains the basic imponderable on the summit’s eve.

“It’s always an interesting question as to whether these summiteers want to be seen as making a contribution or standing up to those who are ganging up on them,” Sonnenfeldt said. “The latter is likely to be favored by Nakasone, Kohl, and Reagan to some extent.”

On the other hand, he said, “nobody there has an interest in driving a nail in the political coffin of anyone else.”

Charles L. Shultze, chairman of former President Jimmy Carter’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the summit participants may go out of their way to give ground on thorny issues in the hopes of returning home with claims of progress.

But Shultze’s view that the political climate could lead to progress is not universally shared.

“They all want to come out with smiles,” said Burton Yale Pines, senior vice president and director of research at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative public-policy research organization. “One way to come out with smiles is to do nothing.”

Contributing to this article were staff writers Tyler Marshall in London, Kenneth Freed in Ottawa, Stanley Meisler in Paris, Don Schanche in Rome and Sam Jameson in Tokyo.