SOVIET ARMS CONTROL VIEW FRUSTRATES U.S. OFFICIALS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00806R000200980106-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 22, 2010
• Sequence Number: 106
• Publication Date: July 7, 1981
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000200980106-5
STAT
WASHINGTON STAR (GREEN LINE
ARTICLE APPEARED 7 JULY 1981
ON PAGE
ns raised'after the meet-t
i . Questio
Fings bean seven weeks ago includ-
.
Soviet Army Control View
a
r
t
f
F
a
Washington Star Staff Writer.: _ 0 oS
viets earlier-in commission sessions.
i
0-
ace-
ed Soviet testing of sur
p~ r7 strales . S. Officias
:`ed "ABM mode,". deplhyment of ra-
.`~ i ;~ ~> ------ days possibly "constructed and
This attitude came as- no surprise,.
urprise .. de toYed for an ABM role," and de-
By Henry S. Bradshe ~;i P
who have dealt with the So-
able
de
lo
t th
idl
f
t
The Reagan administrations first Butlit. represented something. of a
direct talks with the Soviet?Union on. setbackfor the new administration's
arms control have provenefrustrat- determination to take a-tougher line-
in because of a pre-emptory Soviet . with Moscow on arms. control
uestions about possible The. transition team'for the Rea-
ection of
q
rej
violations of a 1972 treaty, adminis- gan administration brought into the April that earlier discussion of them
tration officials say. government's arms control machin by the commission. had. never pro'..
The talks have been held in. Ge- ery. several persons' who had long;' :`duced a clear result
ut Soviet - . -
bli
l
skeptical: ab
-_..o. n_ been
pu
c
y
o
by th
ABM
h
he
e
treaty uaa.,
tions' ? standing consultati ve.~ adhe at ace to t
. ' much data the United States inn-
trea-.~;.
commission on the working of arms : 1972 strategic arms limitations how
_ t tallioanra cvcteln bait been able to
bee
d
pp-._
w
ll
i
!
.
e
as s
ng
, as
control- agreements. ay, yraa.a.
that stet-`
t'collect, sometimes argued
Although this round of tlie:com= to some terms of the tinratifiedSALT C.
tronic monitoring had been misin?
mission's regular sessions has about a treaty. . i' , _~ :.f
over the results, according to of fivolved in preparing for the
ervising arms control of scheduled meeting early this ar of New officials sought this springy to
ls su
ci
p
a
fairs here.. the: standing consultative commi be more specific about questioding--
The negotiators questioned Soviet . Sion. Sullivan,. a former. CIA official,., ;. the Soviets on these points. And they
representatives about activities 'has _argued that the Soviets have. ..added a. new series of- questions. It
which might have been interpreted been guiltyof a number. of viola `dealt with Soviet testing of radar "in'
as violations of the treaty limiting :.tions an ABM mode,".a subject Often dis
anti-ballistic, missile systems:; Since; ? t} The commission session was de- cussed in the.U.S. press on the basis
signing the-ABM treaty nine: years. la ed at?U.S. is while new offi of official leaks here but- ne-er be
Y request fore put dire tly to Soviet repres
ago; en=
the Soviet Union has keptoP an cials argued over how. to handle tatides.:~
intensive research program on-ways Some wanted to use intelligence data?
to intercept intercontinental. mis- to charge the Soviets directly with',
sites, and some of this research has having violated arms control agree-
raised questions repeatedly oy,er.the'-, ments. Others, supported by career
years about violations. men who had longwrestled with the
According' to officials .familiarL. issues, urged more caution because
with the commission's proceedings., of treaty ambiguities : r.
the:Soviets took a brusque.or? even There was also a question of which :
hostile attitude toward the?question q
.treaties to take up at the commission
ing. They bluntly denied any viola
tions without providing . exlana -meeting. The.ABM treaty has no ter
lions P ->mination =date; so it -is --still
un
But in private conversation with;. - questionablp:.in- effect. But- SALT r
US.. .representatives,:: the---Soviets:..; technically expired An-
pointed 1977; and:.
pointed out that the treaty contained_ SALT II has.been. in i legal limbo
a number of loopholes in its.word since the Carter administration call
ing. These loopholes?made it possible` ed for a halt to Senate. ratification
for them to: take the- position -that _procdedures.
practices which were supposed to be,- - The administration ? decided, to-
barred.by the- spirit. of the treaty. dealkprimarilg-w th:ABM`questions'
were. not In fact prohibited-by the--: .'at the Geneva meeting in. order -t
letter , ofit.....:: Ovoid focusing on the continuing le= '
gality of SALT,L And; some:re-,,.
portedlytough infighting, it decided
to sharpen some old questions about
rposskble` ;Soviet= .violations yrather,
than to accuse the Soviets of having
committe4 violations.,. -, ?.k. a~ ~:. .
.;
p
y
a rap
y
o
velopmen
-rand mobile ABM System. Some SALT ' I
I questions were also raised.
None of these was new. A former.
US: representative. on the commit-
` -tee, Robert W. Buchheim, said in
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000200980106-5