Reagan Signals Arms Progress : U.S. to Offer Missile Formula That Apparently Accepts Soviet Plan

WASHINGTON —  President Reagan, apparently accepting Moscow’s latest offer on nuclear arms, said Monday that the United States will push for an arms control accord that would eliminate U.S. and Soviet short- and intermediate-range nuclear missiles worldwide.

Reagan, in a nationally televised speech reporting on last week’s Venice economic summit meeting, said that U.S. negotiators at the Geneva arms control talks will submit a formula calling for the elimination of short-range missiles and “deep reductions in--and we hope the ultimate elimination of--longer-range . . . missiles.”

The Soviets have proposed keeping 100 nuclear warheads on medium-range missiles, with ranges between 1,000 and 3,000 miles, in the Asian part of the Soviet Union and allowing the United States to maintain a comparable force on its own territory. Such intermediate-range missiles would be banned from Europe, as would nuclear missiles with ranges between 300 and 1,000 miles.

Requirement for Soviets

Such a formula would require the Soviets to eliminate nearly 1,500 nuclear warheads and the United States to dispose of nearly 300. The proposal does not address the enormous forces of intercontinental missiles maintained by each superpower.

Reagan, in his speech, also reaffirmed the Administration’s determination to defend oil tankers flying the U.S. flag in the Persian Gulf--including 11 Kuwaiti vessels that are being reflagged to bring them under American protection.

Allied leaders in Venice expressed only tepid support for the Administration’s policy in the gulf and resisted Reagan’s efforts to persuade them to take a stronger position. And in the United States, objections to deeper U.S. military involvement in the gulf were also raised by former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.).

“If we don’t do the job, the Soviets will,” Reagan retorted. “And that will jeopardize our own national security as well as (that of) our allies.”

At the same time, Reagan said, allied leaders expressed continuing concern over this country’s budget deficits because “they realize how interdependent all of our economies are--and they know a weakened American economy is a threat to their continued growth.”

Reagan called for public support in his struggle with Congress over budget priorities and reiterated his determination to veto what he called “big spending bills.”

In announcing the apparent U.S. acceptance of the proposal made by Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev in April, Reagan said the Geneva negotiations could lead to a “historic arms reduction treaty” on intermediate-range missiles, but only with bipartisan support from Congress as well as the allies. Reagan was sufficiently vague so that it could not be determined if the United States will simply embrace the latest Soviet offer or modify it slightly.

The President, in a televised address from the Oval Office billed as a report on last week’s economic summit in Venice, said:

“There was also strong agreement in Venice on the importance of pressing the Soviet Union for progress on other important arms negotiations, such as our efforts to cut 50% in strategic forces. So, too, we were agreed on the need for Soviet progress in the human rights area as well as regional conflicts, especially Afghanistan.”

As things stood before Reagan spoke, the United States and the Soviet Union had agreed in principle to eliminate all of the longer-range intermediate missiles from Europe and to restrict each side to a total of 100 warheads mounted on such missiles and located outside Europe.

This concept was embodied in a U.S. draft treaty submitted to the Soviets in March. At the same time, the United States expressed in a written statement its continued preference for the total or global elimination of all such missiles and their warheads, on the grounds that the problems of verifying a treaty would be easier if all were forbidden.

In April, when Secretary of State George P. Shultz visited Moscow, Gorbachev offered as well the elimination of short-range missiles of this type, those with ranges of 300 to 1,000 miles.

The proposal was opposed within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, primarily by military officials. The West Germans, in particular, said that they feared that eliminating the short-range missiles would eliminate one more rung in the nuclear retaliatory ladder of NATO’s flexible response strategy. Without nuclear weapons, the Soviets’ superiority in conventional forces would leave Europe vulnerable, they reasoned.

West German Acceptance

But over the past month, in the face of overwhelming political pressure within NATO, the West Germans finally gave their blessing to the concept--with important reservations such as retaining their own force of 72 Pershing 1A missiles, which are shorter-range weapons that are fitted with U.S.-controlled nuclear warheads. NATO formally endorsed the idea last week.

Reagan on Monday night indicated that the U.S. position at the Geneva talks will be modified to reflect this stance.

Although Reagan’s announcement appeared to represent, in effect, an acceptance of the Soviet proposal, his Administration can claim credit for proposing the elimination of the intermediate-range missiles six years ago.

As he put it, the United States will “formally propose to the Soviet Union the global elimination of all U.S. and Soviet land-based, shorter range INF (intermediate nuclear force) missiles--along with the deep reductions in--and we hope the ultimate elimination of--longer-range INF missiles.”

‘An Integral Element’

“I am now directing our INF negotiator to present this new proposal to the Soviet Union as an integral element of the INF treaty, which the United States has already put forth in Geneva,” he said.

In defending his Persian Gulf policy, Reagan insisted that Britain and France have provided warships to make the gulf safe for oil tankers and that West Germany and Japan, while constitutionally prohibited from supplying naval support, “are also working actively to seek other ways to be helpful.”

That did not satisfy congressional critics who have urged Reagan to ask the allies to increase their participation in the patrolling of the gulf. “It was very painfully clear . . . the Administration has not asked them,” said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.).

Even Rep. Jim Courter (R-N.J.), a loyal Reagan supporter, criticized the President for saying that the allies are helping in the gulf. “I don’t think his statement that we received assurances from our allies that they will cooperate will make it so,” he said. “I think they could do a lot more. . . . The baton leader is way ahead of the band.”

Nunn continued to protest that Reagan’s Persian Gulf policy, which included an explicit warning to Iran not to attack oil tanker traffic, amounted to a tilt toward Iraq in the seven-year Iran-Iraq War. “The Iraqis,” Nunn said, “started the tanker war in the gulf and have carried on 70% of the attacks on ships.”

Apparently chafing at news accounts that the U.S. fared poorly at the summit, Reagan declared: “You’ve been hearing and reading reports that nothing was really accomplished at the summit, and the United States in particular came home empty-handed. This was my seventh summit and the seventh time I’ve heard that same chorus. The truth is we came home from this summit with everything we had hoped to accomplish.”

He contended that the summit was “not only successful on a number of specific issues but . . . the spirit of consensus shown by world leaders there was particularly strong.”

However, Reagan, who had dominated every previous summit he attended, could not claim credit for a single major declaration at the Venice summit in either the political or economic field, and he failed in efforts to secure either increased military or financial support for the U.S. military policy in the Persian Gulf.

On economic matters, Reagan said in his speech that the leaders of the seven summit nations made progress toward dismantling trade barriers, particularly in agriculture. But he acknowledged that the six other summit leaders--from Japan, West Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Canada--expressed “a sense of unease” about the massive U.S. budget deficits, which have distorted the international economy.

The deficit is estimated at $175 billion for the current fiscal year, and the House and Senate are negotiating over a budget with a deficit of $135 billion for fiscal 1988, which begins Oct. 1.

Reagan denounced the budget being prepared by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate, which are deadlocked over differences in their separate versions. Although both the House and Senate budgets would reduce the deficit by about as much as Reagan’s budget, they would also raise more new revenue and allow more spending for social programs and less for defense.

The lawmakers, Reagan protested, seek to cut defense spending “back to the dangerous levels of the late 1970s” and would raise taxes $100 billion over the next four years. “If this trend isn’t stopped--and stopped now--we stand to lose all the progress on the economic front we have made,” he said.

The President, renewing his call for a constitutional amendment that would mandate a balanced federal budget and for authority to veto individual items of spending bills, said he will commit more of his time to that cause.

“I’m going to be taking the case to you, the American people,” he vowed. “Because, believe me, if some in Congress won’t see the light, I know you can make them feel the heat.”

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lawton Chiles (D-Fla.) said he hoped Reagan would not only talk to the American people but would also listen.

“People now know the difference between rhetoric and what actually happens,” said Chiles. “They know the national debt is going to triple over the President’s tenure.”

Although Reagan hinted at some willingness to negotiate over the budget, Chiles said, “It wasn’t exactly an open invitation. . . . I read him to say, let’s negotiate, but only if you talk about my program.”

Times staff writers Robert A. Rosenblatt and David Lauter contributed to this story.