Kremlin debate on S.A.L.T. continues

Press, 23 February 1977, Page 20

Kremlin debate on S.A.L.T. continues

By

VICTOR ZORZA

in Washington

Something of the argument now’ taking place between the hawks and the doves in the Kremlin may be glimpsed between the lines of a “Pravda” article aimed against the hard-line faction. The Moscow moderates want a quick S.A.L.T. agreement, even if it is to consist only of small steps towards the larger objective. The military conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer to move slowly, cautiously, towards the more comprehensive agreement that could give them a greater feeling of security. This has been a welldocumented issue in the Moscow debate on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks from the very start. By responding so promptly to Mr Brezhnev’s call for a quick S.A.L.T. agreement. President Carter has alarmed the Moscow hawks who have always been suspicious of rapid, “partial” steps towards arms limitation. There is good reason to believe, therefore, that “Pravda” is denouncing the

Soviet Union’s own hardliners When it attacks people who “belittle or deny the positive importance of specific partial measures.” They believe, it says, that such partial measures are "a waste of time and energy” as far as disarmament talks are concerned. “Pravda” rejects that view, arguing that without partial agreements the arms race would have been “even more intensive.”

Soviet policy debates are not usually conducted openly on the pages of “Pravda,” and in this instance, too, the paper resorts to a timehonoured debating code. Its strictures are ostensibly directed against people in the West, but they are meant as a signal to the Soviet bureaucracy. What the article conveys is that Mr Brezhnev is in favour of “partial measures.” The military and other Soviet conservatives, who regard the negotiations which produce such measures as “a waste of time,” are thus told that they can either toe the line or risk the

consequences of Kremlin wrath.

To say that all this follows from just a few lines in “Pravda” would be to claim more for Kremiinology than it can accomplish. The “Pravda” article provides only the starting point for an analysis based on evidence which must be sought elsewhere. “Pravda's” onslaught against those supposedly “in the West” who think that disarmament negotiations are a waste of time ought to be read together with a statement by a leading Soviet commentator attacking unnamed “Soviet comrades” who hold the same views.

Speaking on Moscow television about the benefits to be derived from early S.A.L.T. negotiations. “Pravda’s” chief diplomatic correspondent. Mr Yuri Zhukov, insisted that participation in the talks “demands great skill and patience” from the Soviet delegates. “1 must tell you. comrades,” he explained, “that ... it is a very complicated and involved business.” Why was he using so many words to state the obvious? Because he was preparing his listeners for a re-

mark. very rarely encountered in the Soviet media, which revealed the existence of opposition to the Kremlin’s foreign policy. “I must admit.” he said, “that some impatient comrades sometimes write saying, ‘what is it all for? It is just a talking shop’.” “That is not true, comrades.” he insisted heatedly — and the evidence he used was the same as that used in the “Pravda” article against the "Western” critics of arms talks. “Let me remind you that in recent years many very important agreements’ have been reached, and they are being strictly implemented by all signatories.” That last point, about strict implementation “by all.” was no doubt meant for the Soviet hardliners who suspect that the United States is failing to honour the spirit of the S.A.L.T. agreements, much as United States hardliners suspect Russia.

Mr Zhukov’s remarks on television provided a key to the code used by “Pravda.” making it clear that the supposedly foreign critics of arms limitation were to be

found at home, but he did not identify the issues in dispute. These may be deduced, perhaps, from the “Pravda" complaint that the critics insisted on “allembracing solutions" to disarmament problems, instead of accepting “partial measures” as adequate. One such partial measure which is now very much at issue is President Carter’s proposal that both the United States Cruise missile and the Soviet Backfire bomber should be excluded from the next S.A.L.T. agreement. For the Soviet military, this would be difficult to accept because the United States is so far ahead with the Cruise missile that its further development might, in their view, deprive the Soviet Union of the strategic parity which it now enjoys.

That Mr Brezhnev himself is inclined to favour "partial measures” is evident from a spirited attack he made more than three years ago on those who wanted “all or nothing" from the S.A.L.T. negotiations. Thev argued, he said — much as “Pravda” says now — that the summit agreements had only pro-

duced “half-measures " But what, he asked, if the West was not prepared to move ahead on all these issues”

"Must we really sit by and wait for the heavenly manna to fall into our mouths?” In international politics. he said, addressing himself ex idently to the military, the all-or-nothing approach just did not work. He expressed him self in favour of a policv of "small but real steps." Mr Brezhnev's speech ’n 1973 provides the other key to the code “Pravda” is

using today. What the hawks want is to hold out for a more substantial agreement perhaps after they have piled up even more strategic weapons which they could use as bargaining chips What the doves want is to move ahead rapidly, even if on a more limited front, in order to prevent the furthei escalation of the arms race which a delay might provoke Not for the first time, the hawks and doves in Moscow are moved by much the same considerations as the hawks and doves in Washington. — (Copyright, 1977. Victor