THE VENICE SUMMIT : End to Iran-Iraq War Urged at Summit : But Reagan Fails to Win Support for His Military Policy in Gulf

The economic summit’s six other participating nations joined the United States on Tuesday in an urgent call for a negotiated end to the Iran-Iraq War, but President Reagan failed to win their support for U.S. military policy in the Persian Gulf.

The summit’s brief statement on the 6 1/2-year gulf war, while strongly supporting mediation efforts by the United Nations and reaffirming the “paramount importance of freedom of navigation in the gulf,” was silent on the Reagan Administration’s policy of increasing military forces there to ensure that the gulf remains open.

Shortly before the leaders approved the resolution on the Persian Gulf, as well as statements on East-West relations and terrorism, a car bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy in Rome, 250 miles away, and rockets were fired at both the British and U.S. embassies there. There was little damage and no bomb injuries.

An anonymous caller linked the attacks to the Venice summit and said they were the work of the Anti-Imperialist International Brigade.

Two hours earlier, military frogmen here retrieved and detonated a suspicious-looking metal device from a Venetian lagoon, prompting a further tightening of the already heavy security precautions surrounding the summit. The box turned out to be harmless, Italian police said--either an old water heater or an abandoned buoy.

The resolution on the gulf asked for “new and concerted efforts” to end the Iran-Iraq War, which has been raging since September, 1980. U.S. officials had said the United States had sought endorsement of a U.N. resolution calling for a cease-fire in the war and an arms embargo if either Iran or Iraq refused to abide by it. But the actual statement adopted by the summit leaders stopped short of that demand, calling for “just and effective measures” by the U.N. Security Council.

Hundreds of tankers regularly carry oil from the states that border the gulf to destinations mostly in Western Europe and Japan. Iranian and Iraqi forces have attacked more than 300 of the ships with missiles or mines.

Even before their conference opened here Monday night, President Reagan had pressed his six summit partners--the leaders of Canada, Britain, France, West Germany, Italy and Japan--to unify behind his policy. Top Administration officials had expressed the hope that some of the summit nations would provide military or financial support for U.S. operations in the gulf and step up their naval presence there.

After the summit statement was issued, Administration officials sought to depict it as a victory for Reagan. And the President himself, when asked why he had not received more support from the allies, said, “I am delighted with the support we are getting, the attitude of these allied nations here with regard to the gulf.”

When reporters asked why the statement did not have more teeth, Reagan replied, “We couldn’t think of anybody to bite.”

Secretary of State George P. Shultz insisted that the leaders at the economic summit had done “basically what we want” in issuing the statement and added that “the principal thing here is to support the diplomatic moves” by the U.N. Security Council aimed at negotiating an end to the war.

War Against Terrorism

The summit leaders also issued statements reaffirming their dedication to better East-West relations and to international cooperation in combatting terrorism.

U.S. officials had made the Persian Gulf policy a dominant issue of the summit, issuing repeated warnings that the United States intended to use military force if necessary to keep the gulf open and hinting that it would consider making a preemptive strike if Iran deploys the Silkworm anti-ship missiles it has obtained from China.

The U.S. approach unnerved some officials of other summit nations. They expressed fear that Reagan’s policy would heighten tension in the war-torn gulf, where 37 U.S. sailors were killed in the May 17 attack on the U.S. Navy frigate Stark by an Iraqi jet.

French officials, who had said Monday that the U.S. policy was too “confusing” for France to determine just what it was being asked to support, clearly were relieved at what they called the “moderate” tone of the statement on the Persian Gulf that emerged from the summit.

French External Relations Minister Jean-Bernard Raimond, emphasizing that it was no time for extreme statements, said, “No one wants the problem of freedom of navigation to aggravate itself into an East-West confrontation.”

It is understood that the French, in particular, resisted the U.S. proposal of an arms embargo to help bring an end to the Iran-Iraq conflict. France supplied Iraq with the Exocet missiles that struck the Stark and killed the American sailors.

Belgian Foreign Minister Leo Tindemans, here as president of the European Communities, told a reporter, “The Europeans have driven the United States off the military path and back to the diplomatic in the Persian Gulf.”

In their statement, the summit leaders noted that both Iran and Iraq have “suffered grievously” from the war and warned that “neighboring countries are threatened with the possible spread of the conflict.”

The statement reaffirmed “that the principle of freedom of navigation in the gulf is of paramount importance for us and for others and must be upheld.” The free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, the gulf’s only gateway, “must continue unimpeded,” the statement added--but left the accomplishment of that goal largely to the United States.

Shultz said the Administration interprets the broadly worded communique as generally backing the Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq War and imposing a mandatory arms embargo against either country if it refuses to quit fighting.

Acknowledging that it will be difficult to win approval of the U.N. resolution, Shultz said, “Whether we will be successful, I don’t know, but we are going to work at it.”

Shultz said all the summit nations already have embargoed arms deals with Iran and that a U.N. resolution could help extend the embargo to other nations.

The secretary said “there was no mention that I heard or have heard of” at the summit about the secret U.S. arms sales to Iran, a political and diplomatic embarrassment to Reagan.

Administration officials had said that the Persian Gulf policy would be a dominant topic of discussion at the summit’s opening dinner Monday, but the United States apparently decided not to even raise the subject after the policy ran into such opposition in preliminary discussions.

As recently as Monday, White House Chief of Staff Howard H. Baker Jr. said that the Japanese, who receive a large portion of their oil from the Persian Gulf, and the other summit nations as well should be supporting the U.S. effort.

But, frustrated over opposition to the policy, Baker said support by the allies should not be the “linchpin” of American strategy in the gulf region.

“If it’s a good strategy, it’s a good strategy,” he said, “and it’s too bad that we ought to have to go it alone if we do. But if it’s a good strategy, we ought to do that.”

Shultz told reporters that while the United States feels its force “can do the job set out for it very well,” he wanted to emphasize that the country is “not alone in this by a long shot.”

The other summit countries have the same interest as the United States in keeping the shipping lanes open, he said, and pointed out that both the British and French have provided military escorts for vessels in the gulf.

Another senior Administration official, who declined to be identified, also portrayed the summit statement as a victory for Reagan. “We felt it was an important statement of solidarity, in terms of world opinion, in terms of putting pressure on countries, particularly those who are selling arms to Iran,” he said.

The official denied that the Administration had escalated its rhetoric on the Persian Gulf issue as part of a strategy to secure allied support for its policies. And he said that, contrary to some unconfirmed reports, none of the allies had criticized the United States for “saber-rattling.”

The summit nations, in their statement on East-West relations, resolved to maintain “a strong and credible defense which threatens the security of no one, protects freedom, deters aggression and maintains peace.”

They expressed appreciation for the U.S. efforts to negotiate “balanced, substantial and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons” in its Geneva talks with the Soviet Union and urged the Soviets to negotiate in “a positive and constructive manner.”

The statement also called for significant and lasting progress in human rights and for an early and peaceful resolution of regional conflicts, “especially for a rapid and total withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan.”