Balance of Power Shifting, U.S. Says : Shultz, Weinberger See Swing ‘Back in Our Favor,’ Cite Hike in Spending

Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger said Thursday that increased military spending has swung the global balance of power toward the United States and called for greater willingness to use force to advance American interests.

Shultz and Weinberger made their statements on the principles of Reagan Administration foreign policy in the first of a series of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings aimed at creating a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy issues. The panel’s chairman, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), said:

“We already have a basic consensus on the strategic issues, East-West (and) U.S.-Soviet relations. The disagreements are mostly on the fringes . . . on where it is appropriate to use force.”

The Senate committee’s session largely bore out that contention. Democrats questioned Shultz and Weinberger pointedly on several issues, including the Administration’s request for CIA funding of Nicaraguan rebels, but only one, Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), directly challenged the premises of their policies.

‘Changed Dramatically’

Shultz, in a bullish, hourlong speech, asserted that in the four years of President Reagan’s first term, “the underlying conditions of U.S.-Soviet relations have changed dramatically.”

“A decade or so ago, when the United States was beset by economic difficulties, neglecting its defenses and hesitant about its role of leadership, the Soviets exploited these conditions,” the secretary of state said. He added, “They had reason for confidence that what they called the ‘global correlation of forces’ was shifting in their favor.

“Today, the West is more united than ever before,” Shultz said. “The United States is restoring its military strength and economic vigor and has regained its self-assurance. We have a President with a fresh mandate from the people for an active role of leadership.

Soviet Difficulties

“The Soviets, in contrast, face profound structural economic difficulties, a continuing succession problem and restless allies,” he said. “Their diplomacy and their clients are on the defensive in many parts of the world. We have reason to be confident that the ‘correlation of forces’ is shifting back in our favor.”

Weinberger, who appeared separately, was less optimistic and--embroiled in a major battle over the size of next year’s defense budget--emphasized the need to match what he described as an unremitting buildup of Soviet military forces.

“Most elements of our relations with the Soviet Union have been constant, or changed very slowly, in the postwar years,” Weinberger said. “Coupled with U.S. restraint during the 1970s, (the Soviet Union’s) expanding military power enabled Moscow to shift critical components of the overall global military balance in its favor.”

Agreeing with Shultz, he said the Reagan Administration has improved the military balance in the direction of greater U.S. strength but said he still sees Soviet advantages in both conventional and nuclear forces.

Shultz and Weinberger also appeared to agree on the use of military force in the Third World--an issue on which they battled publicly last year. In several speeches then, Shultz called for greater willingness to back up diplomacy with greater military force, and Weinberger responded with a speech detailing tough conditions that should be met before force is used.

On Thursday, both said military intervention should be a “last resort” but called for a consensus to support its use when necessary.

“Regional or local conflicts and crises . . . can affect important Western interests,” Shultz said. “It is absurd to think that America can walk away from such challenges.”

Weinberger noted: “Few people have more clearly understood the need for a powerful military hand within the glove of diplomacy than President Reagan. . . . We should never rule out the use of force if deterrence fails.”

The defense secretary said the United States “erred” in Vietnam by applying a doctrine of “gradual application of force” and said any future military intervention should be swift and massive, “to achieve a clearly defined objective as speedily as possible.”

Repeating a much-debated point he made last year, Weinberger said combat forces should never be committed without “some reasonable assurance” of public support. But he added: “This does not mean, as some unkind interpreters of my speech suggested, that we have to take a poll before we act.”

During his remarks, the defense secretary also appeared to confirm a British newspaper report that Soviet forces had recently shot down a Soviet cruise missile mistakenly launched toward Western Europe. Weinberger said, “They shot down one of their own cruise missiles that got away from them and was starting to work its way across Norway and Finland.”

Later, however, a Pentagon official said Weinberger had “goofed” and that his remarks “were not intended to confirm the false reports printed in the British paper.” Spokesman Michael I. Burch said the unarmed Soviet target missile crashed and was not shot down. “It either flew into the ground or it ran out of fuel,” Burch said.

Pell, the Foreign Relations Committee’s senior Democrat, said Lugar’s goal of a bipartisan consensus “is a worthy aspiration with which we all agree.” But he added: “No member of Congress should feel compelled to support the President simply because he’s the President.”

He said he agrees with Shultz that the Soviet Union has suffered a series of reverses in its foreign relations and suggested that that fact has made the Administration’s nuclear weapons buildup unnecessary.

“As long as the Soviets spend on more weapons . . . we must have an ability to dissuade them,” Weinberger replied. “It is not an area in which I think we should underestimate the need.”

Pell also clashed with Shultz, charging that the U.S.-backed rebels fighting Nicaragua’s leftist regime are “our terrorists. . . . One country’s terrorist is another country’s freedom fighter.”

“I certainly don’t accept that at all,” Shultz said stiffly.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) asked Shultz whether the Administration asked any allied countries to provide money to the rebels after Congress cut off their CIA funding last year.

“We haven’t made any such request,” Shultz said.

“Has a decision like that been discussed?” Dodd asked.

“We consider all sorts of ways to help people fighting for their freedom,” Shultz replied.