Shultz, Shevardnadze Confer on Summit

With President Reagan muting his criticism on Afghanistan, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze and Secretary of State George P. Shultz on Monday opened their latest round of talks aimed at preparing the next summit meeting of U.S. and Soviet leaders in late May in Moscow as well as ending some regional conflicts in the Third World.

The Soviet foreign minister met for about an hour in the late afternoon with Shultz, an “organizational” session that the two men hold at the start of each round of their now-monthly talks to lay out a schedule and divide the agenda among working groups of experts for meetings over the next two days.

“We have no expectations, but we do have hopes,” a State Department official said.

U.S. officials are hoping for progress toward a new arms control agreement and ratification of nuclear test bans, toward Soviet troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and toward the release of more Soviet political and religious prisoners on the millennium of Christianity in Russia.

“We may be approaching a historic moment,” said Reagan, signing a proclamation to mark “Afghanistan Day 1988.” “We all hope that what we hear from Moscow means there will be a complete and irreversible withdrawal of all the Soviet forces from Afghanistan,” he added, pledging to continue U.S. support for the anti-Soviet guerrillas “as long as it’s needed.”

Less Strident Tone

The President’s tone was less strident than in the past and even less critical than the words of the proclamation he signed. The document again assailed the 1979 Soviet invasion as designed to “prop up an illegitimate, unrepresentative and discredited regime.”

Officials said Reagan’s comments reflected the continuing U.S. belief that the Soviets want to withdraw from Afghanistan--perhaps even unilaterally, without any guarantee for the future--rather than any anticipation of new concessions Shevardnadze may be bringing from the Kremlin.

Shultz and Shevardnadze are expected to hold press conferences after their final meeting Wednesday.

The major hurdle to the Afghan settlement now appears to be the so-called “symmetry” of the timing and pace of military aid cutoff by the superpowers. As formulated in 1985, the United States and Pakistan would stop military aid to the Afghan guerrillas when the Soviets begin what the United States judges to be an irreversible withdrawal.

The Administration is concerned that the Soviets, even as they withdrew, could continue to provide military aid to Kabul’s army, while the U.S. supply line to the rebels was drying up. Moscow would also have a precedent for continuing military supplies to the Kabul regime after withdrawal, while the United States would be barred from helping the guerrillas.

“This would be unfair,” one Administration official said, “and it presents us with a serious political problem. We need assurances that Soviet aid and our aid will stop together.”

Besides Afghanistan, Shultz and Shevardnadze are expected to discuss three other regional conflicts: the Middle East, where the United States would like greater Soviet support for its latest peace plan; the Iran-Iraq War, where the United States would like Soviet support for an arms embargo against Iran, and Central America, where the United States would like the Soviets to stop supplying arms to Nicaragua, Assistant Secretary of State Rozanne L. Ridgway said.

In a news conference, Ridgway scathingly rejected the suggestion of a U.S.-Soviet deal in which the Soviets would halt aid to Managua as the United States cut off help to the Contras.

“The Soviets have said that if you (Washington) stop supplying the Contras, we (Moscow) will consider not sending things to Nicaragua unless we call them police equipment,” she said.

On arms control, Ridgway claimed that “good progress” has been made in U.S.-Soviet negotiations to cut long-range strategic offensive weapons by 50%, and she hoped for further advances.

The two sides have put forward in Geneva their proposals for inspection to police a new treaty and for ways to eliminate or convert weapons to be reduced, she said, though considerable differences in the two proposals must be ironed out.

The two sides have also submitted outlines of the information each side would be required to provide on the number, characteristics and location of their strategic nuclear arsenals. Neither side has yet provided any of that data, however, and Shultz is expected to push for an early exchange of this key information, an official said.