SOVIET DELEGATION TO UNITED NATIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 15
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 21, 2010
• Sequence Number: 10
• Publication Date: March 16, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
RADIO TV REPORTS, IN.
4701 WILLARD AVENUE, CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND 20815 (301) 656-401
FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF
PROGRAM This Week with David Brinkley STATION WJLA-TV
ABC Network
DATE March 16, 1986 11:30 A.M. CITY Washington, D.C.
Soviet Delegation to United Nations
DAVID BRINKLEY: Is the Russian delegation top the
United States in New York a crowded nest of spies, tapping
phones, reading mail, stealing every secret that is not nailed
down? The U.S. Government says so, says there is so much spying,
the FBI cannot keep track of it, that the Russian delegation is
far bigger than it needs to be, and so some of its members have
to be sent home.
Or is it possible that so many Russians are eager to
work in the U.N. in New York because it is close to
Bloomingdale's, consumer goods not available in Moscow?
And, does the U.S. have the right to order 105 Russians
We'll ask all of this of today's guests: Ambassador
Vassiliy Safronchuk, acting representative of the Soviet Union to
the United Nations; Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, formerly
American Abassador to the U.N.; Senator William S. Cohen of the
Select Committee on Intelligence; and Richard Helms, former
Director of the CIA.
BRINKLEY: There are a good many functionaries,
apparatchiks and paper-shufflers at the U.N. from many countries,
but they don't bother anybody. The Soviet delegation, however,
has all of those, plus a great many others. And the U.S. charge
is that many of them are spies, stealing or buying at fire-sale
prices military and other secrets.
Before we ask our guests what's going on here, some
OFFICES IN WASHINGTON D C ? NEW YORK ? LOS ANGELES ? CHICAGO ? DETROIT ? AND OTHER PRINCIPAL CITIES
Material suppbed by Radio N Reports, inc may be used for file and reference purposes only it may not be reproduced. sold or publicly demonstrated or exhibited
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
background information from Jack Smith.
JACK SMITH: David, this is the Soviet Mission to the
United Nations here in New York. Some 275 Soviets work here,
many more than Moscow actually needs, says the U.S., because many
of them actually work as spies. And so the U.S. now says that
some of them will have to go home.
CHARLES REDMAN: After the reductions have been
achieved, the Soviet Mission will still be the largest in the
United Nations and will have sufficient personnel, 170, to
conduct legitimate U.N. business.
SMITH: The reduction actually affects three Soviet U.N.
Missions, one representing Moscow, and one each for Byelorussia
and the Ukraine, two of the Soviet Union's 15 republics. The
nearly 40 percent cut in staff is to take place over two years.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CASPAR WEINBERGER: There's just no
question that the only reason that those people are there is
because they are accomplished espionage agents trained as spies.
SMITH: The move was none too soon for some and not
enough for others.
SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN: The real problem is
that the Soviet Mission at the United Nations, for some 14 years
now, has systematically been invading the telephone system of the
New York region.
SMITH: A maze of sophisticated listening devices atop
Soviet diplomatic facilities in the United States allows the
Soviets to monitor naval communications, U.S. business and
government conversations, and even ordinary Americans on the
telephone.
The U.S. move is aimed at human intelligence-gathering.
While the U.S. has just over 200 diplomats in the Soviet Union,
the Soviets have roughly a thousand trade officials and diplomats
over here, several thousand when their East Bloc allies are
counted in. And U.S. counterintelligence has estimated that 40
percent or more engage in espionage.
MAN: The FBI finds itself overburdened with thousands
of people that literally have to be monitored, in one way or
another; and the Bureau is not up to it. And I think that's one
of the motivating factors in reducing the size of the Soviet U.N.
Mission.
SMITH: Another factor, say U.S. officials, was the
arrest last year of the Walker family on charges of spying for
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
the Soviets and the large number of other Americans caught spying
last year.
The decision to cut the Soviet U.N. mission was actually
made six months ago, according to some officials, but the move
was delayed first by the Geneva Summit and then by last month's
Soviet Party Congress.
The delay did not soften the reaction. Last weekend the
Soviets described the U.S. move as:
MAN: Totally arbitrary, unfounded, and hostile towards
the Soviet Union.
SMITH: By Tuesday, when a formal protest was delivered
to U.S. diplomats in Moscow and broadcast on Soviet TV, the
language got more specific. "The U.S. must be aware," said the
statement, "that such actions by no means create a favorable.
background for a summit meeting." In spite of the threat,
though, few think that the U.S. move, by itself, will affect this
year's on-again, off-again summit with the Russians.
SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE SHULTZ: It has no connection
whatever with any thought about the next meeting.
By targeting the Soviets' U.N. Mission and not their
Embassy, the U.S. effectively removed the issue from the realm of
bilateral relations and may have avoided what happened to British
Prime Minister Thatcher last year when she expelled 25 Soviet
Embassy diplomats for spying. Two days later Moscow threw out 25
Britons. So Thatcher expelled six more Soviets. But Moscow then
retaliated by throwing out six Britons. Prime Minister Thatcher
finally put a halt to the cycle of expulsions.
This week Moscow did expel an American diplomat from the
U.S. Embassy, alleging he'd been caught spying. But the State
Department refused comment, and there was no immediate indication
if the expulsion was linked to the U.S. move against the Soviets'
U.N. Mission. Some this week doubted there'd be any open
retaliation.
MAN: Had we done this to the Embassy in Washington,
they might have retaliated. But the U.N. is a special situation,
and I think on this one they'll be careful, because they want the
U.N. to turn on the United States.
SMITH: Indeed, by Thursday, the Soviets were already
moving in that direction and had called a meeting of the U.N.'s
Host Country Committee to protest the U.S. move. The U.N. is
still studying the affair, but it's already questioned the
legality of what the U.S. did. The 1947 agreement setting up the
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
U.N. in New York allows individual diplomats to be removed for
proven misconduct, but says nothing about whole blocks of
diplomats whose nations are accused of misconduct. A techni-
cality, but still, say U.S. legal scholars who sympathize with
the move, a fact.
MAN: To try to deal with the problem abruptly and
without a clear legal foundation may be the kind of solution that
will come back to haunt us when we find ourselves vulnerable to
similar action by other host governments, or find our friends
vulnerable.
SMITH: Legal or not, getting a black eye in the United
Nations is not going to make the Administration unpopular in the
U.S. And even if the move does not stop Soviet spying here, it
has probably already made some Americans feel better.
BRINKLEY: Coming next, Richard Helms, formerly Director
of the CIA.
BRINKLEY: Mr. Helms, thanks very much for coming in
today. As always, a pleasure to have you here with us.
RICHARD HELMS: Delighted to be here.
BRINKLEY: Here with us are George Will of ABC News, and
Sam Donaldson, ABC News White House correspondent.
Now, Mr. Helms, the CIA's mission is, and always was,
intelligence outside the United States, of course. But the U.N.,
being an interational agency, sort of crosses that barrier, I
gather. So what can you tell us about the Russian spying? Is it
as bad as we're told?
HELMS: Well, I would think it was. And the thing that
has impressed me is that President Reagan, at long last, has made
a right and proper step in starting to reduce the size of the
Soviet Mission to the United Nations.
When one considers that the 275, roughly, individuals
that they have there is more than the combined total of the next
two largest delegations, which is the United States and the PRC
-- in other words, the United States has 126 people, roughly; the
Chinese have 116. That makes a total of 242. So 275 against 242
does seem rather outlandish, quite frankly.
Over and above that, this Soviet Mission to the United
Nations has doubled in size in the last two decades. So I'm
really quite surprised that some President before President
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
Reagan hasn't asked that they be reduced in size. Because what
are they there to do?
If other delegations can get along with the numbers they
have, particularly the United States and the Chinese, what are
these other Russians doing? It's obvious that they're up to some
kind of nefarious work, espionage or something similar. And this
is something that I don't think we have to put up with.
DONALDSON: You once told us -- in fact, I think the
last time you were on this broadcast -- though, that everybody
does it. And you were making a case that we shouldn't be so
shocked and upset because of one set of spying -- I think we were
talking about an alleged Israeli spy ring at that time.
DONALDSON: So if everyone does it, why should...
HELMS: Everyone does it. But I think there's reason on
the scale. I mean this is just too much of a much, and it's
making it very difficult for the FBI to protect our interests.
Suppose that you send three men out as agents one
morning and they all go in different directions. Now, the fellow
that's trying to protect our country, the FBI agent, has to
follow all three to find out what they're up to. Now, if you
reduce the number, it reduces the problem.
Obviously, espionage is going to go on until the last
Russian has left, if you like. But I do think that this has
gotten outlandish.
DONALDSON: Sir, if I can just -- so your complaint is
not necessarily that the Soviets spy, but that there are too many
of them and we can't keep up with them. By reducing the number
of spies, it gives us an opportunity to follow them and to make
certain we know what they're doing.
HELMS: That's right. And I'd like to see us reduce it
even more. When they finish, they're still going to have more
than we do and more than the Chinese. Even when we get down to
170, there are going to be more than our delegation or more than
the Chinese delegation. So they've still got a sizable advan-
tage. I'd like to see them cut down to about the same that we
are.
GEORGE WILL: You just said that the size of the U.N.
Mission of the Soviet Union grew like Topsy in the last 20 years
or so, and it is obvious that they're up to no good. I have a
feeling our next guest is going to say, "Perfect nonsense. We're
there to promote world peace."
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
What do we know for sure, and how do we know? How do we
identify that these people are indeed in the espionage business?
HELMS: Well, the FBI and the CIA obviously keep records
on people they have identified as either KGB or GRU. In other
words, both Soviet intelligence organizations, their
representatives around the world in various places. Some of them
come to the United States, some of them we identify here, and
records are kept.
And actually, the FBI and CIA are more conservative
about the number of Russian spies in this country than Shevchenko
was in his book. You will recall he said about half the people
at the Soviet Mission to the United Nations were spies. The
current estimate of the FBI and CIA is about 30 to 35 percent.
Well, that's a third, and that's plenty.
WILL: Okay. In other words, we know who's paying
their salaries. We know who they belong to.
HELMS: That's right.
WILL: Now, obviously, one thing we can do about this is
what's been done. We can improve the ratio of our surveillance
people to their operatives. What else can we do?
HELMS: Well, not very much. And so -- that's why I'm
so in favor of cutting back, cutting back, reducing the number of
people, because I don't see why we have to have an FBI that's
absolutely enormous to follow the Russians around. We've got
enough crime, drug problems, auto thefts, Mafias, and so forth,
in this country for the FBI to deal with without having to have
as large a delegation as they do in New York to deal just with
the Russian spying.
WILL: Does the growth of the Soviet interest in this
kind of operation, as manifested by the growing size of their
U.N. Mission, tell us something important about what's going on
in the Soviet Union? Why this increase, I gather, increased
emphasis on espionage?
HELMS: I don't think there's any question that this is
a desire to steal from us the high-tech secrets that we're
continuing to invent. In other words, we're always keeping a
step ahead of the Russians in the area of technology. They're
terribly anxious to keep up with us. And one of the easiest ways
to do it is to steal from us, the way that you do this, either
the equipment or the diagrams.
WILL: So you would expect a correlation of increased
espionage with decreased economic vitality of the Soviet Union.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
HELMS: I would think so. I don't think there's any
doubt that they're feeling hard pressed, otherwise they' wouldn't
do this.
DONALDSON: The Soviets may very well introduce
reciprocity now and ask us to reduce our U.S. Embassy in Moscow,
although the two are not exactly similar. What does that do for
us?
HELMS: Well, Sam, this is something we ought to keep
straight. The Russian Embassy in Washington, the American
Embassy in Moscow, they are the ones that are supposed to deal
in bilateral relations between the two countries. They are not
affected by what's at the United Nations. That's supposed to be
an international organization and could be located in Buenos
Aires or Calcutta or Vienna, for all of that. So that we mustn't
get these two things mixed up. There are certain regulations we
have that guide the Soviet Embassy in Washington, but they don't
apply to...
DONALDSON: I'm not getting them mixed up. But the
Soviets will retaliate in some way. I mean that has been their
pattern. I would be surprised if they simply accept this with
sort of a little complaint publicly.
So, does it harm us if we lose some significant number
of our diplomatic strength in Moscow?
HELMS: It will not help us. But on the other hand, you
know, we could hand most of the information about the United
States to the Soviets for free, in the press, on the television
and our technical journals.
DONALDSON: You mean their spies are not as effective as
ours because they can get it out of the newspaper.
HELMS: It isn't that so much. They've got certain
specific things they want to get ahold of that we're not putting
in the newspaper.
[Confusion of voices]
HELMS: It would be just jolly to have the U.N. in
Vienna, for example, where these Soviets could wander around
having coffee and cream and all those pleasant things there.
The Soviets don't want to move the United Nations out of
New York because it's very convenient for them to have them. And
I don't think they're going to press us too hard on this.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
BRINKLEY: Thank you, Mr. Helms. Thanks very much.
Thanks for coming.
Coming next, Vassiliy Safronchuk, acting permanent
representative of the Soviet Union to the United Nations.
BRINKLEY: Mr. Safronchuk, in New York, thank you very
much for coming in today, talking with us. Pleased to have you
with us.
VASSILIY SAFRONCHUK: Thank you, David.
BRINKLEY: Now, you are aware, of course, the United
States is complaining that the Soviet delegation to the United
Nations is bigger than that of the United States and China
combined. So, tell us, why do you need so many people threre?
SAFRONCHUK: Well, David, first of all, I heard what was-
said before me, and I must quite categorically state that all
this talk about spying and Soviet personnel being engaged in the
activities unrelated to the United Nations is utter nonsense.
And I must state quite categorically that we deny all that.
It may sound like a good fiction, the style of Ian
Fleming, but it has nothing to do with reality. The Soviet
Mission is engaged completely in the activities of the United
Nations aimed at maintaining peace and international security.
With regard to the size of the mission, you should take
into account the amount of work. This is the only criteria which
can be used. If you look at the United Nations agenda you will
find out that half of all the issues of the agenda were initiated
by the Soviet Union. These issues are vitally important. These
issues are the issues of disarmament, particularly nuclear
disarmament, maintenance of peace, resolving the regional
conflicts, maintaining the orderly relations among nations, and
to -- this is quite evident, that it was the Soviet Mission which
was directly engaged in promoting and initiating all these
vitally important issues.
WILL: Mr. Ambassador, your position is that the Soviet
people are needed because they're awfully busy, that the American
charges are rubbish, that the American action is illegal.
Are you going to obey it?
SAFRONCHUK: Yes, this is correct statement of our
position. As I said, we are busy only with the United Nations
activities, and with no other activities. No evidence has ever
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
been produced by anybody that we are engaged in anything else.
All the statements we have heard today, they are just statements
without any proof whatsoever.
WILL: But Mr. Ambassador, therefore, are you going to
obey the United States directive about reducing the size of your
mission?
SAFRONCHUK: The United States directives are illegal,
they are unlawful, and they run counter to the existing norms of
international law, particularly the headquarters agreement of
1947, the Vienna Convention of 1975, which rules the relations
between the missions and the United Nations organization. And
they run counter to the legal opinion of International Law
Commission, which says that only the missions have the right to
establish their structure and the numerical strength of their
mission.
WILL: Are you going to obey it?
SAFRONCHUK: Well, we will certainly discuss it with the
United Nations Secretary General. It is his business, not the
United States Government's business. We are not accredited to
the United States Government, we are accredited to the United
Nations.
DONALDSON: Mr. Ambassador, in the final analysis, of
course, you'll have to do what Washington wants you to do.
My question is, what will Moscow do in retaliation?
SAFRONCHUK: Well, missions to the United Nations are in
unique position. They cannot retaliate, because they are
accredited to the international organization. And in this case,
the United Nations is used by the United States as a whipping boy
because...
DONALDSON: I'm not talking about -- sir, I'm not
talking about the mission to the United States.
SAFRONCHUK: We do not consider this act as act which is
against us. It is the United Nations as a whole. It is against
all the missions of the United Nations.
DONALDSON: So you're saying...
SAFRONCHUK: We brought our complaint to the Host
Country Committee, and the Host Country [Committee] is going to
discuss it next week again, and we will see what will happen at
that time.
DONALDSON: Well, are you -- let me get this clear. Are
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
you saying that because you believe the complaint is one before
the United Nations, that you don't think Mr. Gorbachev and people
in Moscow will take any unilateral action against the United
States?
SAFRONCHUK: Well, I'm not going to comment on our
bilateral relations and on what steps my government is going to
take. I am here at the United Nations and I'm supposed to take
steps here in the United Nations. And because this act is
utterly illegal and this runs counter to the [unintelligible] of
the United States, in accordance with the Headquarters Agreement,
we are going to take steps here at the United Nations.
BRINKLEY: Well, Mr. Safronchuk, you say that the U.S.
charge that some of your people at the U.N. are spies is
nonsense.
SAFRONCHUK: Absolutely.
BRINKLEY: We have two Americans who have pleaded guilty
to selling American secrets to Russian people who were at the
U.N.
SAFRONCHUK: Well, what kind of Russian people? First
of all, whatever charges were brought before us, before that,
were proven to be complete false statements and complete false
evidence. So, what new evidence you are talking about? There is
no evidence, as I said. It has never been produced before.
DONALDSON: Mr. Safronchuk, do you think that this act
will in any way affect the timing or the probability of a second
summit meeting between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan?
SAFRONCHUK: Well, I must say that this is a strictly
bilateral affair, the forthcoming summit meeting. And I am
afraid of being again accused that I interfere into the business
which has nothing to do with the United Nations. That is the
bilateral relation.
But I must say that certainly this illegal decision of
the U.S. Government will not help to create favorable conditions
for the summit meeting.
WILL: Let me ask just two questions, one of which for
the fourth time.
Are you saying, really, that you're not going to obey
this illegal nonsense, as you describe it, the United States
position?
SAFRONCHUK: I didn't say anything of the kind. I said
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
that we lodged our complaint against the illegal, *unlawful
decision of the U.S. Government with an appropriate U.N. body.
And this body is going to deliberate on this complaint, and we'll
find out what to do.
WILL: Mr. Helms just said that you people really like
the U.N. in the United States because it's convenient there. But
one way to protest the misdeeds, as you see them, of the host
country would be to move the U.N. outside of a superpower, move
it to, let's say, a Third World country. Would you be in favor
of that?
SAFRONCHUK: Well, we will go along with the decision of
the United Nations if the decision is taken to that effect. But
you are quite right that questions are raised in the United
Nations why to stay in the country which systematically violates
its own obligations to the international organizations which are
situated here in New York. And this is the case. And if the
majority of the United Nations members will go with that decision
and approve it, we'll certainly support it too.
BRINKLEY: Mr. Safronchuk, thank you very much. Thank
you for coming in and talking with us today.
Coming next, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New
York, formerly the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; and
Senator William Cohen of Maine, of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence.
BRINKLEY: ...Senator Moynihan, until you came to the
Senate, you were Ambassador to the United Nations. Tell us, what
did you actually see or actually know of Russian spying at the
U. N.?
SENATOR MOYNIHAN: Well, the first thing I was told when
I got the assignment, Nelson Rockefeller called me into his
office in Washington, pulled down the blinds and closed the
doors, and said, "Now, the one thing that you've got to know is
that the Soviets will be listening to every telephone
conversation you make from the Waldorf Towers." I thought he was
telling me a secret. It wasn't until about ten years ago I
realized he'd published it in a book, the Rockefeller Commission,
then-Governor Reagan was a member, that the phone-tapping that
you talked about earlier is just -- and Jack Smith showed the
apparatus -- is just widespread. It's getting worse. And it's
an outrage.
The second thing that happened to me. It was on my
watch, you might say, that Arkady Shevchenko, then-Undersecretary
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
of the United Nations for Political Affairs, defected to us. It
remained something unknown to the public or to the Soviets for
about two years. He told us everything, and most particularly
about the one clear violation of the Charter, Article 100 of the
Charter, the degree to which the Soviets use U.N. personnel for
plain-out espionage. The governing -- they give directions in
the most direct manner to their employees. They use them as
spies.
A young man, Paul Brown, who works for me, was at the
Columbia Law -- Columbia Journalism School about ten years ago.
And a Soviet librarian from the U.N. tried to recruit him. He
went to the FBI and they had him continue doing this. He said,
at the time, it seemed silly to him that they would try to
recruit him. But then, ten years later, he's working for a
Senator who's on the Intelligence Committee. Not so silly.
The main thing is, these are violations of the Charter.
And I'm sorry to disagree with the Ambassador, but the
Headquarters Agreement specifically states that behavior outside
official duties is governed by American law. And tapping
telephones is a violation of our law.
I only wish the Administration had said what they're
doing. I mean, after all, they're doing it not just to --
they're not just collecting secrets. They're listening in...
DONALDSON: Let me ask you about the timing of this.
Senator Cohen, let me begin with you.
We're told that the President actually made this
decision six months ago, to reduce the Soviet U.N. Mission, but,
because of the forthcoming Geneva Summit, held his hand. Well,
if there was a reason to hold his hand before the Geneva Summit,
why do it now, in anticipation of a Washington Summit?
SENATOR WILLIAM COHEN: Well, frankly, I might take the
opposite tack and say if the Soviet Union is interested in
promoting the spirit of Geneva, they might undertake to
unilaterally reduce the outrageous number of people they have
here in terms of -- in the name of equity.
We use the term "rought equivalence" in dealing with
arms control, reduction of missiles on both sides. What the
United States is simply seeking to do is to have a rough parity
or rough equivalency test applied to personnel.
So it would seem to me, in this era of Gramm-Rudman, the
Soviet Union might take into account that we have a problem here.
We can either tax the American people to employ more FBI person-
nel, or we can reduce the number of Soviet they have to follow
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
and to watch and to monitor. And so it would seem to me, in the
interest of the Gramm-Rudman reductions that the pp'ople are
accpeting across the board, from Medicare/Medicaid reductions and
child health/nutrition programs, that the Soviet Union might help
us achieve our reduction efforts by reducing their personnel.
DONALDSON: That's sort of a wish that will never come
Senator Moynihan, how about you? Why do we do it now?
Why didn't we do it six months ago?
SENATOR MOYNIHAN: Well, we've been pressing. I have
had a bill in for ten years. It passed the Senate 97-to-1. My
good friend Bill Cohen voted with me -- to say for the FBI to
locate these people and eventually, the bill said, tell them to
get out of the country. They're violating our constitutional
rights. The government has a responsibility...
DONALDSON: Senator, if I may -- I stipulate what you're
saying. But why did we do it now? Why not do it six months ago,
or why not wait another six months?
SENATOR COHEN: Could I just respond to that, Sam?
First of all, Congress has been initiating action in
this field for well over a year. We have a Leahy-Cohen proposal
that passed last year dealing with the reduction in diplomatic
personnel within our embassies, both in Moscow and here in the
United States. This was a follow-on. There has been a bill
pending, 5-1733, which is now before the Congress...
DONALDSON: So I take it both of you feel it should have
been done a long time ago, and the question of timing is really
irrelevant.
SENATOR MOYNIHAN: Well, it may be that -- listen, a
Cohen-Leahy bill, my bill -- Congress doesn't like this and is
telling the Administration.
WILL: Senator Cohen, is it conceivable, in your
judgment, having heard what the Soviet Ambassador just said, that
they will not obey the U.S. directive, on the grounds that it's
illegal and the charges are false?
SENATOR COHEN: Well, it's conceivable they might take
that position. But frankly, beyond the express violations that
are occurring that Senator Moynihan has just pointed out, there
is a provision in Public Law 357, in the Article 6, which says
that nothing contained in the agreement dealing with the United
States serving as host nation shall in any way abridge the right
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
of the United States to protect its own national securit
Now, if you follow the logic of the Ambassador, it would
seem to me that the more paperwork generated by the Soviets, the
more peaceful initiatives they take in the United Nations, it
would seem to me they could then argue, "We need 500 personnel,"
or a thousand. And that simply is intolerable.
So I think that, under our own law, Public Law 357, we
have the right to protect our own national security interests.
And I would say, in spite of anything the Ambassador has said, it
is not a violation of the U.N. Charter. And in fact, we will see
to it that it's enforced. They may choose to disagree...
BRINKLEY: Senator Cohen, Senator Moynihan has told us
that in the quarters the U.S. maintains for its ambassador in the
Waldorf Towers, his phone was tapped. Now, do you, does your
Intelligence Committee know anything specific to add to this list
of high crimes?
SENATOR COHEN: I think the Intelligence Committee is
satisfied -- or I should say the intelligence community is
satisfied that the Soviets are engaged in widespread gathering of
conversations, whether by wiretap or a through a very
sophisticated...
SENATOR MOYNIHAN: Microwave.
SENATOR COHEN: ...microwave system operating both out
of Washington, San Francisco, with a station down in Havana.
So, we're well aware the conversations are in fact
monitored on a daily basis.
WILL: Senator Moynihan...
BRINKLEY: Well, here in Washington they've got so much
microwave going from the embassy, it's interfering with
television reception in the neighborhood, we are told.
George, go ahead.
WILL: Well, Senator Moynihan, this is about the third
time on this show you've made this vigorous plea for the
President to do something about it. You two Senators sitting
right there. Get 48 more, and the Congress could start to do
something about it.
Couldn't Congress stipulate that either the wiretapping
stops or they go home?
SENATOR MOYNIHAN: Well, we have done that. The Senate
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5
has, this legislation I've been pressing. But the Administration
always makes us drop it in conference. And I think maybe now
that this is out in the open, they will. And I hope they will.
And I might say that, you know, it's in the interests of
the government. The President sent a major message to Congress
on Friday, a real state paper. He kept referring to the United
Nations in it. And we need that U.N. And if we let that U.N.
Secretariat be systematically debauched by Soviet, and probably
Chinese, spies, we'll lose it as an institution, and we'll miss
it.
I might say, if I can, for the record, that the United
States is absolutely meticulous in keeping its commitment, under
Article 100 of the Charter, not to use U.S. employees in the U.N.
for our government purposes, whatever. Our hands are clean. And
we have a right to act, and I think a need to do.
BRINKLEY: Senator Moynihan and Senator Cohen, thank you
very much for coming in and giving us your thoughts on this
subject.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/21 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201110010-5