Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
June 22, 2015
Document Release Date: 
December 15, 2008
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
September 1, 1967
PDF icon DOC_0005284701.pdf184.94 KB
Secret DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE WEEKLY SUMMARY APPROVED FOR RELEASE DATE: 09-24-2008 Sccr et 4 9. 1 September 1967 No. 0305/67 NONPROLIFERATION TREATY: THE NEXT PHASE The US and the USSR have introduced parallel drafts of a nonproliferation treaty (NPT) at Geneva, but there are still problems to be worked out between them. The Soviets have begun the search for compromises on these differences and for ways in which they, together with the US, can get around the remaining objections of the nonnuclear states. Ambassador Roshchin, head of the Soviet delegation, has indicated that Moscow is willing to consider a compromise on the key question of safeguards--the subject of Article III, which was left blank in the draft sub- mitted to the disarmament con- ference last week. He told the US delegate that the Soviet ver- sion of Article III--calling only for the International Atomic Energy Agency (.IAEA) to verify compliance with the treaty--could be altered to help overcome ob- jections raised by members of EURATOM, which operates the safe- guards system of the Common Mar- ket countries. Roshchin said the provision could note that the IAEA can ne- gotiate agreements "bilaterally or multilaterally." Such a for- mulation could accommodate EURA- TOM in fact if not in name, and clear the way for a compromise-- probably one in which the two in- stitutions would work out the in- spection problem between them. The question of security as- surances to nonnuclear countries is another hurdle still to be gotten over. After the US-Soviet draft was tabled, Roshchin told the US it was essential for Mos- cow and Washington to reach agree- ment quickly on this and the safe- guards question so that the NPT could be more easily defended at the UN General Assembly. The Rus- sians see eye-to-eye with the US on the desirability of confining consideration of the draft to the Geneva forum until a text--a com- plete one, if possible--can be put before the General Assembly, probably in October. The Soviets have also indi- cated that they will go along with Washington's wish to make separate statements on security for nonnuclear states, rather than writing these assurances into the treaty. Before the treaty is signed, however, ob- jections from several quarters must be overcome. Moscow's delay in tabling the treaty draft, apparently the result of Rumanian foot-dragging, Page 14 WEEKLY SUMMARY 1 Sep 67 0 indicates that approval of a final text by the USSR's allies will not in every case be auto- matic. As self-appointed spokes- man for the nonaligned states, India is giving the draft treaty a cool reception and promises to take an especially hard look at the security guarantees. On the Western side, West Germany and Italy object to the proposed un- limited duration of the treaty and to the amendments provision, which gives a veto power to the IAEA board of governors--of which they are not permanent members. Moscow is least likely to give ground on these latter two points. The Russians are ob- sessed with preventing West Ger- man access to nuclear weapons, and do not want to limit the NPT's duration nor give the sig- natories the riaht relect amendments. MOSCOW PAYS FOR SOVIET TROOPS IN EAST EUROPE Recent research on the bal- ance-of-payments deficits in So- viet accounts since the late 1950s indicates that Moscow reimburses its allies for most if not all costs of maintaining Soviet troops in Eastern Europe. The substantial deficits in bilateral accounts with East Ger- many, Poland, and Hungary are pro- portional to the number of Soviet troops billeted there. There is no similar imbalance in accounts with Rumania, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria, where no Soviet troops are stationed. This strongly sug- gests that any contribution by the Eastern European countries toward the upkeep of Soviet troops is small and in no case an eco- nomic burden. Against this background, Ru- mania's grievances toward the Warsaw Pact take on an overwhelm- ingly political hue. The purported Rumanian memorandum to other pact members, published by the French Communist Party newspaper L'Hu- manite in May 1966, complained about the expenses that arose from the maintenance of foreign troops on the territory of pact coun- tries. Rumania was reported to have argued that the country from SECRET Page 15 WEEKLY SUMMARY 1 Sep 67 A