NEWS ANALYSIS : THE MALTA SUMMIT : Bush and Gorbachev Forge Personal Alliance

When they came together on this haven from a Mediterranean gale, they could not have been more opposite. Geographically and ideologically, the two presidents came from different worlds.

They are more opposite still in temperament: Mikhail S. Gorbachev, a charismatic leader whose changes are remaking Europe, and George Bush, a cautious President whose every instinct cries out for the status quo.

Yet, as they closed off their summit Sunday with a joint press conference aboard this Soviet cruise liner, both men said they parted with a new understanding of each other’s needs and wants.

The ultimate utility of personal diplomacy remains to be seen. As both men noted, neither country is ready to abandon long-sought interests simply because their leaders spent two days being tossed around in a storm and emerged as amiable companions.

Nonetheless, as the two presidents talked together in a closing press conference aboard this luxury vessel, there could be no question that they had developed a mutual respect and a rapport that appears to be unique in the history of superpower relations.

From V. I. Lenin to Gorbachev and from Woodrow Wilson to Bush, leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States have forged relationships that ranged from deep enmity through chilly pragmatism to occasional bursts of giddiness.

What makes the new Bush-Gorbachev relationship different is the sense both men gave of being almost personal allies. And the personal relationship parallels the sudden and unaccustomed position of the two superpowers as both try to slow down what they fear may become a runaway: the pace of change in Europe.

With the instincts of long-practiced politicians, Bush and Gorbachev protected each other’s flanks. Gorbachev praised Bush’s “caution” and “prudence,” a tacit rebuttal to Americans who have called Bush timid.

And Bush praised Gorbachev’s work “for peaceful change in Europe” while assuring Soviet citizens that “there is enormous support” in the United States for the Soviet leader’s embattled perestroika reform program.

Even on issues where they continue to differ, the two were careful to avoid giving offense. On Central America, for example, Bush made a point of saying the U.S. government is not accusing the Soviets of supplying arms to leftist guerrillas in El Salvador. Nicaragua, not the Soviet Union, is to blame, he said.

“I don’t believe that the Sandinistas have told the truth to our Soviet friends,” Bush said.

Gorbachev, in turn, repeatedly endorsed the U.S. call for free elections in Nicaragua but made no reference to Soviet support for negotiations between rebels and the U.S.-backed government in neighboring El Salvador.

As the two sat side by side at a long table covered with red felt and decorated by twinned sets of Soviet and American flags, they shared small jokes with each other.

Bush passed Gorbachev a note on a green index card. “The President wrote a note to me in English. I don’t read English,” Gorbachev told the audience. “But I answered in Russian. He doesn’t read Russian. But we agreed anyway.”

Amid the resulting laughter, the two could have been any two political leaders seeking to set each other at ease as they negotiated for mutual advantage.

“It’s a working relationship,” said Gorbachev’s spokesman, Gennady I. Gerasimov.

Reaching the current point required overcoming layers of mistrust between the two camps. Even up to the day Bush left Washington, some members of his staff worried about the possibility that Gorbachev would unveil some bold new proposal to upstage Bush. That sort of fear had long been one of the reasons many American foreign policy experts, including Bush himself until recently, had opposed unstructured summits.

The factors that make this relationship different were reflected in the words the spokesmen for the two men used to describe the talks.

“More pragmatic” and “less personal,” said Gerasimov. “Businesslike,” “serious,” “dignified” and “sophisticated” were the terms of choice for White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater.

Bush, Gerasimov quipped, “left his thick briefing book somewhere else, I guess on another ship”--a thinly veiled way of contrasting Bush with his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, who never ventured into a meeting with another world leader without a carefully prepared script.

Bush himself made a similar point when he spoke to reporters after concluding his meetings. “I’d like to think he (Gorbachev) thought I knew what I was talking about, so we could have a good exchange without having to go to the experts or go to the notebooks,” Bush said.

But, despite all the emphasis on pragmatism, there was an emotional side to the summit as well.

“I’m not the most articulate emotionalist,” Bush told reporters who asked him to describe his feelings about the meeting.

But, he said, “We have got to find ways to work for peace constructively. And across the table from me was a person (who) can have as much to say about that as any other individual in the world.

“It was good,” he said. “I really mean it.

“Yes, and I look at it that way--grandkids, all of that. Very important.”