A Chance to Keep All the Ships on Course : Summit: There may be nothing on the table, but the hands of Bush and Gorbachev already are full--particularly with Europe.

The summit-on-the-sea. Just a few months ago, or even a few days ago, it seemed almost impossible. Even now we have some difficulty believing it. As they say, it’s too good to be true.

But it’s good and it’s true. Frankly, I admire President Bush’s courageous “timidity.” It’s almost unreal to hear a politician, especially one who occupies the White House, saying that he changed his mind. Bush did.

If we sum up Bush’s approach to Soviet-American relations in just a few words, they would be “beyond containment” and “we want to see perestroika succeed.” Of course, there are other people in Washington who are already seasick. But I hope that the captain himselfis sure of his course.

Bush cautions the public that the Mediterranean meeting isn’t a summit, and he and Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev will hold their sessions without too much fanfare. But if something looks like a dog and barks like a dog, it is a dog.

In the textbooks of Soviet-American relations, there were four summits between Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan. Then, under the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, there was the summit that looked more like a relay race, with Reagan passing the baton to Bush. So, simple arithmetic and not-so-simple political mathematics show the same result: Summit No. 5 1/2, the meeting in the Mediterranean.

President Bush says that there is nothing off the table and nothing on it. The absence of a formal agenda supports these words. I don’t know about the table, but the hands of Bush and Gorbachev are already full with countless problems. The rapid change in Europe and perestroika in the Soviet Union have created a new situation in the world, especially in East-West relations. So it is symbolic that Bush and Gorbachev will meet each other off the coast of Europe.

President Bush said that he didn’t want to have two gigantic ships passing in the night because of failed communication. I know that Gorbachev thinks in the same direction. The Frank Sinatra doctrine--not “I Did It My Way” but “Strangers in the Night”--doesn’t apply here.

Bush and Gorbachev are not strangers to each other, and they have much more to exchange than just glances. More than that, they need each other. Perestroika needs American help but not in terms of a bailout. The Soviet Union is not an S&L.; There are other ways, much more productive and at the same time beneficial to both sides. As for the politics, both captains of the warships that will meet in the Mediterranean have to deal with very explosive matters. I don’t mean nuclear weapons, but a new emerging Europe, not only in the East but also in the West.

So it would be correct to say that in the Mediterranean we will witness the meeting of not two but three ships. And the third ship is Europe. If this third ship becomes the Titanic, it will profoundly and tragically define the fate of the remaining two ships. The course of all three ships must coincide in terms of the future. Otherwise they will collide. Drawing the map for these three ships is the topic of the summit-on-the-sea.

There are partly genuine and partly hypocritical worries that the forthcoming summit will be just a great show, that it will produce a hangover of disillusionment. Well, the history of mankind and the experience of every human being teaches that even the greatest achievements are poorer than great expectations.

Predictions in politics are a very risky business. But it seems to me that the December summit will produce neither an Atlantic Charter, which, by the way, was worked out by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill at sea, nor an updated version of Yalta.

Still, a summit in the Mediterranean will be a great relief in our stormy times and will make many unnerving and unpredictable events, which are destined to shape our future, more manageable, more predictable.

Bon voyage and fair winds, President Bush and President Gorbachev.