White House Must Clarify Arms Stance, Aspin Warns

The Reagan Administration must clarify the seeming contradictions in its positions on arms control and the “Star Wars” space defense proposal if it wants congressional support for the programs, Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, warned Wednesday.

Until now, “the Administration has been able to have it both ways,” arguing that Congress should support the “Star Wars” defense proposal and the MX missile as potential bargaining chips in upcoming arms control negotiations with the Soviets, while at the same time declaring that “we aren’t going to give them up,” Aspin said.

The warning from Aspin, who addressed the arms control and defense budget issues for the first time since he unseated octogenarian Rep. Melvin Price (D-Ill.) for the key House committee chairmanship earlier this month, will command careful attention within the Administration. Not only is he head of the powerful armed services panel, but he also is regarded as a knowledgeable moderate who has often criticized the Pentagon and been an effective ally in forging congressional support for some major policies.

Aspin helped fashion the most recent compromise on the MX missile--a compromise that has kept the controversial weapons system alive at least until March, when it must again be voted on. In recent years, he also has helped add riders to defense money bills that spurred the Administration to adopt greater flexibility in arms negotiations.

If the Administration wants Congress to fund its weapons requests and support its arms control negotiating positions, “it is going to have to spell out its positions with considerably more clarity,” he said in a speech at the Carnegie Endow ment for World Peace.

In particular, he indicated that the ambiguity surrounding the $26-billion “Star Wars” program, also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, must be cleared up. And he signaled that funding for weapons such as those contained in the “Star Wars” proposal will be closely examined--and perhaps held hostage for acceptable Administration bargaining positions at the arms talks.

Aspin accepted the Administration argument that Congress should not eliminate U.S. weapons systems that otherwise could be used to bargain for cuts in Soviet weapons. But he also warned that Congress will not “rubber stamp” Administration arms requests just because arms talks are under way.

“With huge deficits looming, it is not enough for the Administration to say that arms control negotiations are going on,” he declared.

Aspin congratulated the Administration Wednesday for achieving “a very impressive beginning at Geneva” in the two days of talks last week between Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko. At the talks, the United States and Soviet Union agreed to begin three sets of negotiations--on intermediate- and long-range offensive weapons, and on “space arms,” including defensive weapons systems.

But at the White House Wednesday, President Reagan cautioned Shultz and members of the U.S. delegation to the Geneva talks to guard against “euphoria” over the agreement. Instead, he emphasized that the United States wants a solid agreement and not just “a piece of paper,” White House spokesman Larry Speakes said.

Aspin raised six defense and arms control issues that he said the Administration should address.

In one case, he asked: “Where are we going with SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative)?” At various times, he said, the Administration has described the space defense proposal as a research and development program, a nationwide shield against enemy missiles that will replace the deterrent threat of mutual destruction with offensive weapons, and a shield only around some U.S. offensive missile fields to ensure their survivability and capacity to retaliate against a surprise attack.

Questions Raised

“Which is it?” Aspin demanded. “And, if we don’t know now, how will we determine the answer and when will we get it?”

The other questions raised by Aspin included:

--Will the Administration allow the unratified second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty to die at the end of the year, when it is scheduled to expire?

--What are the U.S. positions on intermediate- and long-range offensive weapons as the nation heads into new negotiations with the Soviets?

--Why shouldn’t the United States trade the “Star Wars” program for deep reductions in Soviet offensive missile forces, as the Soviets appear to be seeking?

--What should be done with the MX missile, now that it apparently is less central to the negotiations than the “Star Wars” defense?

--Will space defense--the alternative to deterrence, which has preserved the peace for 40 years--really work?