‘Star wars’ resurfaces as treaty hurdle

Press, 26 December 1987, Page 5

‘Star wars’ resurfaces as treaty hurdle

By

TONY BARBER

of Reuter (through NZPA) Washington United States and Soviet differences over “star wars,” set aside at the Washington summit meeting are quickly re-emerg-ing as the problem most likely to impede progress in the super-power arms control dialogue. While the gulf between Washington and Moscow on the issue has narrowed a little, it remains the biggest obstacle to their stated goal of slashing their arsenals of strategic nuclear missiles 50 per cent, private American analysts say. The disagreements are clear. President Reagan wants to deploy a multi-billion-dollar land and spacebased shield to. shoot down incoming missiles. The Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, says the programme will disrupt the nuclear balance and fuel an offensive arms race in space. “In my view, as long as we continue to insist that we are going to deploy as soon as we can, it is highly unlikely that the Soviets will sign a treaty on strategic weapons,” said James Rubin of the private Arms Control Association.

Washington and Moscow have been fighting over "star wars” since Mr Reagan began the initiative in 1983. It led to the collapse of the 1986 super-Power summit in Iceland. When Messrs Gorbachev and Reagan met in Washington earlier this month, they played down their differences on space defences to focus attention on their achievements in signing a treaty banning intermediaterange nuclear missiles.

Both men declared the summit a success and appeared to have agreed to disagree over “star wars,” the Strategic Defence Initiative. But the ink was scarcely dry on the treaty and the summit was barely over when the two leaders made statements underlining the profound divisions between them on S.D.I. and its implications for a strategic arms accord.

In a radio address two days after Mr Gorbachev left the United States, Mr Reagan said: “Our bottom line on S.D.I. is simple: we will research it, we will test it and when it is ready we will deploy it.”

Mr Gorbachev said on Soviet television: “Certain persons even try to assert that the talks in Washing-

ton have removed differences on such a problem as S.D.I. and under that pretext make calls for speeding up work on that programme.

“I must say outright that these are dangerous tendencies and that they should not be under estimated.” Some American officials and European politicians think Moscow will now revive its campaign against “star wars” and will argue anew that limits on it are a condition for a treaty.

“We believe that it would be prudent to recognise that inevitably the U.S.S.R. will re-establish the connection between S.D.I. and strategic weapons,” says Italy’s Prime Minister, Giovanni Goria.

A United States arms control negotiator, Paul Nitze, said Mr Reagan’s view that a treaty must not be tied to restrictions on S.D.I. would certainly be challenged by Moscow before the President’s planned visit to the Soviet Union in the first half of 1988.

“Hopefully, this is a matter that we will be able to resolve, but this is one of the difficult issues,” he said. Arms control analysts say that, while Mr Reagan has shown no sign of

changing his stance on 5.D.1., Mr Gorbachev has moved in the last two years from opposition to any type of space defence programme to acceptance that some S.D.I. work is permissible. “He has already very significantly compromised,” said Raymond Garthoff of the independent Brookings Institution. “He has already moved a tremendous distance from the original position that S.D.I. had to be abandoned.” “The Soviets’ rhetorical and substantive position has evolved,” Mr Rubin said. “The United States has basically not moved an inch.”

Analysts said the Soviet compromises partly reflected an awareness that the Reagan Administration was under mounting political and economic pressures to modify its S.D.I. programme.

The Democraticcontrolled Congress last month cut funding for “star wars” in 1988 to $3.9 billion from the $5.7 billion Mr Reagan had wanted. The figure could fall further as part of efforts to reduce the vast Federal Budget deficit. Congress ordered also that the S.D.I. programme through next September

30 must stay within the traditional interpretation of the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

This was a setback for Mr Reagan, who in 1985 advanced a so-called broad interpretation of that treaty to permit vigorous pursuit of S.D.I. With Mr Reagan’s term set to end in January, 1989, it is possible that S.D.I. could later be curtailed or even abandoned — particularly if a Democrat should win the presidential election next November.

In spite of the gradual changes in Moscow’s attitude to 5.D.1., some analysts say the onus is on Mr Reagan to shift his stance if he is to sign a strategic arms treaty with Mr Gorbachev in Moscow next May or June. The prospects for such a shift are unclear. “For this reason, I think it is uncertain whether agreement will be reached next year,” Mr Garthoff said.

Since neither the Soviet Union nor the United States have made a Moscow summit conditional upon signing a strategic missiles accord there, analysts say Mr Reagan seems assured of visiting the land he once dubbed an “evil empire.”