U.S. Urges Anti-Nicaragua Stand on Treaty, Aides Say

The United States is urging its allies in Central America to stand firm against Nicaragua in negotiations over a regional peace treaty, Reagan Administration officials said Friday, and as a result, the pact may not be ready for signature by the June 6 target date.

The Administration wants to head off completion of a treaty unless it requires leftist-ruled Nicaragua to move toward internal democracy in ways that can be enforced, the officials said.

“A treaty which does not do any of that is a fake and is going to make the situation worse, not better,” one senior official said, speaking on the condition that he not be identified.

U.S. Advice

“The question is whether the Central Americans . . . can in fact negotiate an effective treaty,” he said. “Our advice to them has been . . . ‘Negotiate hard. Your national security is at stake. Be tough.’ ”

Several officials said that because of continuing disagreements between Nicaragua and the four U.S. allies in the area--El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Costa Rica--the treaty may not be completed by the date that its sponsors, the four-nation Contadora Group, hope to have it signed.

The proposed pact, arising from an initiative begun by Mexico, Colombia, Panama and Venezuela when their foreign ministers met on the Panamanian resort island of Contadora in January, 1983, has been the subject of increased controversy and debate as June 6 approaches.

Conservatives in Congress have charged that special U.S. envoy Philip C. Habib was too enthusiastic about the treaty’s draft, which Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) assailed as “a false peace.” The Defense Department issued a report warning that Nicaragua inevitably would violate the treaty and draw the United States into war; State Department officials charged privately that the Pentagon was attempting to block any pact.

U.S. Warning

On Thursday, in an attempt to end the confusion, the White House issued a statement repeating its commitment to a treaty--but warning that the United States would refuse to comply with any pact that failed to meet U.S. concerns.

“The United States would not consider itself bound to support an agreement which failed to achieve in a verifiable manner all the agreed objectives of the Contadora Document of Objectives,” the statement said, referring to a negotiating framework agreed upon by the four Contadora nations and the five Central American republics in September, 1983.

The Administration wants the treaty to require that Nicaragua’s government cut its military ties to the Soviet Union and Cuba, reduce the size of its army, withdraw its support for guerrilla movements in other countries and implement internal democracy.

In exchange, officials said, the Administration would be willing to end its support of the Nicaraguan rebels--but only when the contras are able to return home and participate in a democratic system.

Officials’ Doubts

Several officials said they doubt that Nicaragua’s ruling Sandinistas will ever agree to those conditions in a form acceptable to the United States.

The Sandinista government has insisted that U.S. aid to the contras should stop even before a treaty is signed and has argued that it should be allowed to maintain a larger army than its neighbors because of the danger of a U.S. invasion. The four U.S. allies in the talks have refused both of those conditions.

A senior State Department official said Friday that the Sandinistas are still debating whether to sign the treaty in its present form and have considered several options, which he characterized as subterfuges.

“We have discovered that they have discussed the ideas of signing (the treaty) but not ratifying, ratifying but not implementing, or frustrating later meetings about implementation,” he said.

As a result, he said, the Administration now wants the treaty to include more precise provisions about how each side would implement its measures and on what timetable.

Habib’s Letter

“An implementation schedule which calls for nothing on the part of the Sandinistas and everything on the part of the United States is not a balanced treaty,” he said.

Two senior officials said that a letter signed by Habib, which promised that the Administration would comply with a treaty as soon as it was signed, was “imprecise.”

“It now appears to everybody that the letter would have been clearer if it had said ‘implementation’ rather than ‘signature,’ ” one said.

Some officials said that the flap over Habib’s letter, which had been approved by Secretary of State George P. Shultz, had highlighted a basic split within the Administration over the prospect of a Contadora treaty.

“There are really three factions,” one State Department official said. He described the three viewpoints as one espoused by Habib, who is actively seeking a treaty on the Administration’s terms; one espoused by Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, who favors negotiating for a treaty but doubts that an acceptable pact can be concluded; and one espoused by Fred C. Ikle, undersecretary of defense for policy, who believes that the Sandinistas would turn any treaty to their advantage.