Arms experts fault report

Press, 26 December 1985, Page 6

Arms experts fault report

NZPA-NYT Washington

Ronald Reagan’s report on purported Soviet arms control violations was criticised by private experts yesterday.

An edited version of the Government’s report was officially made public yesterday but its contend were disclosed on Monday in the press.

The Government’s report accused the Soviet Union of nine violations but also drops previous allegations and modifies others.

One of the critics, Spurgeon Keeny, a former deputy director of the Suited States Arms Control id Disarmanent Agency

and the head of the Arms Control Association, said that the report was an “unbalanced assessment of the compliance issue.’/ “The report ignores the fact that for the most part the Soviet Union is clearly in compliance with existing agreements,” he said. Michael Krepon, who is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a specialist on verification issues, faulted the treatment of the compliance issue. The edited version of the Government’s report says that the Soviet Union has violated a, commitment not to increase the number of strategic bombers and mis-

sile-launchers that it had when it signed the second Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty, in 1979. The number of launchers then was 2504.

Mr Krepon said that the report failed to- mention that the Soviet Union had taken steps to dismantle SSII missile-launchers and “Bison” bombers in line with its commitment Administration officials said that these actions were dealt with in the secret version of the report They said that even if these actions were taken into account, the Soviet Union would still be slightly over the 2504 limit becauserithe United States did not

the Soviet argument that some old “Bison” bombers had been converted into aerial refuelling tankers.

The issue of Soviet compliance remains contentious among American officials.

One of them said that the Government’s report was a “political document .that does not present a balanced picture of Soviet activities related to arms control agreements.” Another official said that some of the purported violations had possible military significance.. ‘ He said that the report’s publication had resulted from attempts to resolve the matters in discussions with Soviet officials.