ISSUE AND DEBATE SERIOUS TROUBLE DEVELOPS FOR ARMS TREATY WITH SOVIET

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01315R000400350074-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 10, 2004
• Sequence Number: 74
• Publication Date: September 28, 1979
• Content Type: NSPR

pproved For Rele4/lj,: CIA-RDP88-01315
lops . be ready for six month I s y so. In a , Re
Serious trouble lab move, Senator or Henry Bellmont-
publican of Oklahoma has said that a
28 SEPrEM ER 1979
Issue j not consider the treaty until Mr. Carter and.Pe hate unveils detailed military spending
plans for 1981 and 1982 which would not
Senate vote should be put off until after
Arms Trey T i th tountry's
*r~/ Soviet. future military needs. _
for Senator John W. Warner, Republican
The Background.
Long before the completed arms
treaty was presented to the Senate in
July, it was clear that the Administra-
tion faced a tough fight. In addition to
doubts over whether It imposed suffi-
cient - constraints on Soviet missileF,
power, critics challenged the ability of',
the Administration to monitor ad-
equately the complex agreement.
Also, in contrast to the debate, over
the first strategic arms accords in 1972,
the prospectsh for approval were
clouded by grci*Ing skepticism in the
Senate over Moscow's military motives
and its interv Lion in conflicts in the
Middle East ar Africa.
Despite this,,// when treaty hearings ,.
got under way last summer, Secretary
of Defense. Harold. Brown and other
senior officials were judged to have
done a 'good' job in arguing that the
treaty would not undermine American
security in the 1980's. As a result, Sena i
for Robert C. Byrd, the majority lead=
er, was quoted earlier this month as
saying that the treaty debate could be
concluded by the end of October.
However, Senator Byrd is now saying
that the debate may not end until early
next year. In part, the delay is caused
by the situation in Cuba, with several
senators waiting to see how the dispute
over the Soviet troops is resolved. How-
ever, White House aides also acknowl-:
edge that a short delay in the debate is
probably In the Administration's inter
est, because if a vote on the treaty was
held in the near future; it would. prob-
ably be rejected.
But;some political' forces would like
to defer a vote on the treaty for much
longer than a few months. Earlier this.
week, for instance, former President `I
,Gerald R. Ford said the Senate should
military balance and political rela.
tions, the long-term position of the
Presidency and the image of the United ..
States in the world
By RICHARD BURT
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27'- The Car
ter Administration's drive to win` Sen-
ate approval of the nuclear arms treaty
with the Soviet Union has.runinto seri-
ous trouble.
Only a month ago, as senators 're~
turned to Washington from the August:
recess, White House aides spoke confi
dently about winning a two-thirds-vote
for the agreement as early as October.
In five weeks of hearings before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Administration witnesses, in the view
of the White House, were able to refute
the numerous technical arguments that
had been directed against the accord.
But to the surprise of treaty support.
ers and critics alike, the arms debate in
the last few weeks has bogged down on
several fronts.
To begin with, the political furor set.
off earlier this month by the discovery.
of Soviet combat troops in Cuba has led
some prominent proponents of arms
control, such as Senator Frank Church,
the chairof the Foreign Relations
Committee, to insist on deferring ac-.
tion on the treaty until the dispute with
Moscow is resolved. At the same time,
more conservative senators, particu-
larly Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia,
are saying that the treaty should not be
considered in isolation and that, before
any vote is taken, President Carter
must demonstrate his willingness- to in-
crease military spending. for the fiscal
year 1980 and beyond.
The controversies surrounding the
issues of military spending and troops
in Cuba have led some senators to an-
nounce their opposition ta.,the accord
and others to call for a delay in the vote
until January or later. This state of af-
fairs has forced the Administration, for'
the first time since the debate got
under way, to confront the real. possi-
bility that the treaty, Mr. Carter's most
important foreign policy priority, may
either be rejected outright or allowed
to wither through Senate inattention.
While the treaty's defeat would come
as a direct blow to Mr. Carter, a heated
debate is developing over what the wider consequences of the accord's de-
mise would be for the American-Soviet
of Virginia, went further` than.either
Mr. Ford or Senator Beilmon this week
when he proposed In a speech that a
vote. on the 'treaty be deferred until`
after next year's Presidential election.
The Case for Defeating
Or Delaying the Treaty,
-
cord acknowledged that such a move
Moscow and many other capitals. But
they contend that adverse reaction
would be short-lived and that it would
be a huge mistake-?to let political con-
siderations forceth+,United States into
an accord that could-give the Soviet
Union real military, advantages in'the
next decade i
Some treaty critics, such.- 'Senator
Henry M. Jackson, Democrat fi, Wash-
ington, say that Moscow has a trong
= interest in arms control and that r ?ect-
ing the treaty would not'spell the e . of
future negotiations. Mr. Jackson d
others go so far as to suggest that if t e
Senate turned down the accord
th
,
United States would be, placed in a
stronger position to get a better agree
ment in new talks.
Treaty opponents also maintain that,-?1,
rejection would be received -favorably'
by allied: countries, particularly in
Western Europe, where governments
are-said to retain serious doubts over
Washington'si Commitment to main-
taining the military balance of. power.
Senate rejection, it is asserted, would
send a+signal to,American allies that'
,.the United States had. put the Vietnam,
'.
experience behind it. and was ready to
compete with Moscow around::the
Case Against Defeating'
Or.Delaying the Treaty
,
Those opposed to defeating or sheiv
ing the.arms treaty offer a+ long list-of
reasons for. rejecting such a course.
First, they- maintain that without the
treaty; Moscow over the next few years
could "probably exceed the limits
down do missiles and bombers. They
also.d,, ` ibt whether scuttling the treaty
would ause the country to embark on a
new, aggressive program of arms rood
ernization.. Senator. Gary, Hart, Demo-
crag of Colorado, for example, says
that the demise of the treaty would lead.
to deep. political divisions' on Capitol:
GON.T.I i'
Approved For Release 2005/01/12 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000400350074-2
 Approved For Release 2005/01/12 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000400350074-2
Hill that would rule out the possibility and aides are agreed that the problem
,L ,-of forming a new consensus for a larger must be resolved quickly. If the Admin-
military effort. ' istration. is able to gain some conces-
Secondly, Administration specialists sion from Moscow on the Soviet troops,
fiercely reject . the contention that the prospects for ratification would
Western Europe would welcome the . quickly improve.
treaty's defeat. They note that every Even if the Administration succeeds
major government in Western Europe in clearing the Cuban hurdle, it will still.
has endorsed the accord and they say. have to address the concerns of Senator
that treaty rejection would undermine Nunn for further increases in the mill-
.a number of American initiatives in the tary budget. Mr. Carter has already
Western alliance, including the current agreed to add $4 billion to the current
i' effort to gain the approval of the Atlan- Pentagon budget and Secretary Brown
tic alliance for a plan to deploy several', ? has not ruled out future increases, If,,
hundred medium-range missiles in' Eu- as now seems likely, the arms debate
rope in the early.1980's.will extend into early next year, the Ad-"
While some .Pentagon, officials, are ministration could use this time to put
concerned about the possible military tpgether an'r, arms package to satisfy'
. impact of a treaty defeat, State Depart.: Senator Nunn and his like-minded col-
ment aides are much more concerned leagues.
about the political consequences. The'`., But any delay'in the Senate debate
treaty, they said, is not simply a Carters' imposes risks for the Administration.
initiative, but was pursued by three dif- By continually deferring a vote, many
ferent Administrations. As a result,,,a *' senators together-may be able to kill
decision to' abandon the accord,' it Is the treatywithout taking a public stand
contended, would appear to both allies on the complicated issues bound -up in'
and adversaries as a sign of weakness the debate. and incoherence;. which could cause
governments to question the credibility.,
of Americanrpmmitments on other,
matters.
The Outlook . g,
Opinions differ widely over whether.-
the Administration can somehow sal-
vage its chances of winning treaty rata-,.
fication. The'immediate issue confront;.;,
ing the White House is. the Cuban affaie`:
Approved For Release 2005/01/12 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000400350074-2