Arms Pact Likely Within a Year, Reagan Aide Says

A senior White House official predicted Sunday that the United States and the Soviet Union will reach “some kind of arms agreement” within a year.

Robert C. McFarlane, President Reagan’s assistant for national security affairs, said he believes the agreement will include elements governing strategic defense, reductions of offensive nuclear weapons and limits on other nations’ ability to obtain nuclear weapons.

McFarlane’s comments followed by one day the President’s warning against “false hopes” in connection with his planned summit conference with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

The Reagan Administration is privately developing the positions it will present when Reagan and Gorbachev meet Nov. 19-20 in Geneva. At the same time, it is publicly maneuvering for international support in presenting its views on arms control and the overall state of U.S.-Soviet relations.

Last week, the Pentagon released a report publicizing Soviet efforts to obtain U.S. weapons and high technology, and officials suggested limiting the number of Soviet citizens working in the United States to the number of Americans working in the Soviet Union.

‘There’ll Be Some Changes’

On this subject, McFarlane said the United States is reviewing its practice of hiring Soviet mechanics and maintenance workers at its embassy in Moscow and predicted that “there’ll be some changes.”

Approximately 950 Soviet citizens work in the United States and about 320 Americans are employed in the Soviet Union. In addition, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow employs about 200 Russians, although the Soviet Union’s diplomatic installations here hire no Americans, the State Department says.

McFarlane, speaking on the ABC News program “This Week with David Brinkley,” disputed the Soviet contention that it has abandoned work on a space defense system and said the Soviets have “the most advanced SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) on the face of the Earth.” (Strategic Defense Initiative is the official name for the proposed U.S. space-based defense system popularly known as “Star Wars.”)

McFarlane added: “The President’s position is (that) both of us can gain by the integration of non-nuclear defense into our forces and getting rid of our nuclear weapons.” However, he acknowledged, there is no certainty that a “Star Wars” system, if developed, would not involve nuclear weapons, or that it would lead to the abolition of all nuclear offensive systems.

To the suggestion that years of stalemate in arms control efforts would follow continued Soviet insistence that the United States drop its work on “Star Wars,” McFarlane responded:

“There is a very good prospect that there will be some kind of arms agreement in the next year’s time.”

He said the components of such an agreement could not be defined, but that certain elements could already be seen:

--”The Soviets believe very strongly in strategic defense. They have an enormous investment in it. So, there’s going to be some kind of strategic defense on both sides.”

--At the same time, taking “their public statements at face value,” the Soviets “have said they want to reduce offensive systems,” so “we . . . will define . . . what mix of offense and defense serves the security interests of us all.”

--And the Soviets have a “self-interest” in making sure that additional nations do not obtain nuclear weapons.

Some Means of Compensation

Defending the Reagan Administration’s insistence on proceeding with the five-year, $26 billion “Star Wars” research project, McFarlane said, “We have to have some military means of compensating for (the Soviet) advantage.”

Reagan said Tuesday that the United States trails the Soviet Union “in literally every kind of weapon,” but that assessment has been disputed.

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), ranking minority member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on Sunday’s ABC program, “The President needs to sit down with the Joint Chiefs and learn about our submarines, about our aircraft carriers, about our tactical air, about our cruise missiles, about our bombers and other advantages.”

But McFarlane said the Soviet Union has a 3-to-1 advantage in the number of missile warheads capable of destroying key U.S. targets.