U.S. to Comply With ABM Pact on ‘Star Wars’

Secretary of State George P. Shultz announced Monday that the Reagan Administration will limit its development and testing of anti-missile defensive technology to comply with a restrictive interpretation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, even though the Administration believes that such an interpretation of the pact is wrong.

Shultz made the announcement in response to complaints from Congress and from U.S. allies in Western Europe about a recent Administration statement contending that the ABM treaty does not apply to the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) research program.

“Our research program is, and will continue to be, consistent with the ABM treaty,” Shultz told members of Western parliaments at the annual meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly here.

“The treaty can be variously interpreted as to what kinds of development and testing are permitted, particularly with respect to future systems,” he said.

“It is our view . . . that a broader interpretation of our authority is fully justified. This is, however, a moot point. Our SDI research program has been structured and, as the President has reaffirmed, will continue to be conducted in accordance with a restrictive interpretation of the treaty’s obligations.”

Treaty Permits Research

The ABM treaty, signed by the Soviet Union and the United States during President Richard M. Nixon’s term, permits all forms of research into anti-missile defenses but prohibits “testing, development and deployment” of most types of ABMs.

Until recently, the Reagan Administration argued that “Star Wars” testing now planned is too rudimentary to be limited by the ABM treaty. But a week ago, national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane suggested that testing and development of systems “involving new physical concepts” are not covered.

That touched off an immediate debate over what the treaty covers precisely, and several arms control officials from the Nixon Administration challenged McFarlane’s contention. Nevertheless, White House officials said that the Reagan Administration is firm on its “reinterpretation” of the treaty.

Shultz did not retreat from that position Monday, but he tried to placate Congress and the allies by emphasizing that Reagan plans to observe the traditional interpretation of the treaty, at least for the time being.

“The program, as currently structured . . . , is consistent with a restrictive interpretation of our obligations under the ABM treaty,” Shultz said.

State Department officials said his announcement was approved by the President during a meeting Friday at the White House after intense discussions of the issue.

All Not Satisfied

Congressional critics attending the assembly here said they were pleased but not all were entirely satisfied.

“If I were writing the script, I’d say we’re abiding by the treaty, period,” Sen. Charles McC. Mathias (R-Md.) said. “But I suppose there were several points of view within the Administration that had to be factored in. . . . The toothpaste got out of the tube last week (with McFarlane’s statement), and this sort of puts it back in.”

Mathias, who is retiring from the Senate next year, was elected president of the assemby to replace Patrick Wall of Britain. Rep. Dante B. Fascell (D-Fla.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “I welcome this explanation. There are still unanswered questions. . . . It will depend on whatever the test is. But he did say that, when we get to that point, it will require consultations with the allies.”

However, Rep. Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.), who is planning to introduce legislation to force the Administration to abide by the previous interpretation of the treaty, said he believes that Shultz’s “clarification” left a dangerous opening to the Soviet Union.

“What they’ve said is that we’re going to abide unilaterally by this, but the treaty doesn’t require it. That means the Soviets can come along and test whatever they want,” Dicks said. “Does that mean the Administration is in fact inviting the Soviets to do it so the United States can do it too?”

Soviet Proposal Assessed

Shultz gave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization parliament members attending the meeting here a review of the Administration’s approach to arms control and its assessment of the Soviet proposal presented formally in the Geneva arms talks two weeks ago.

He stressed that the Administration is committed to continuing its research and does not view the “Star Wars” program as a “bargaining chip.”

The secretary, repeating earlier Administration assessments, said the Soviet proposal for a 50% cut in strategic nuclear forces is flawed by what he called a “hooker”--Moscow’s insistence that its short-range missiles based in Europe not be counted because they are not aimed at the United States.

In addition, he said a Soviet call for a ban on new nuclear delivery systems is unbalanced because Moscow has several such systems ready to deploy, while the United States has several that are further away from deployment. “It’s a hell of a deal,” Shultz said sarcastically.