Bonn’s Missiles Major Obstacle, Kremlin Asserts

Senior Soviet officials said Thursday that American nuclear warheads atop 72 Pershing 1-A missiles under West German control remain one of four major obstacles in the way of a global superpower ban on medium-range nuclear missiles.

Their comments were made as Soviet arms control negotiators in Geneva formally presented to their U.S. counterparts the new Kremlin proposal to eliminate all medium-range missiles--both those with the longer range of 600 to 3,000 miles and those with a shorter range of 300 to 600 miles--in Asia as well as in Europe.

The proposal, which drops Moscow’s previous insistence on keeping 100 warheads in Soviet Asia and effectively deals with the U.S. response that it should then have the right to deploy a similar number of warheads on U.S. soil, probably Alaska, has been greeted as a breakthrough in the bogged-down Geneva talks. The official news agency Tass reported Wednesday that Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev revealed the new position in an interview with an Indonesian newspaper.

Prompt Response Expected

First Deputy Foreign Minister Yuli M. Vorontsov and Marshal Sergei F. Akhromeyev, chief of staff of the Soviet armed forces, said they expect a prompt American response that would lead to an agreement and a follow-up summit between Gorbachev and President Reagan this year.

In Washington, National Security Adviser Frank C. Carlucci welcomed the latest Soviet arms control move. Gorbachev’s proposal, if reflected in the official Soviet position at the Geneva talks, “removes the major obstacle to an agreement” that would eliminate ground-based medium-range nuclear missiles from Europe and Asia, Carlucci told reporters.

However, the firm Soviet position on the destruction of the American nuclear warheads on the 72 West German missiles could pose a sharp political problem for Washington in its relations with the West German government of Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

The Bonn government, fearing the Soviet advantage in conventional forces in Europe, appears to be deeply divided over whether to support the Soviet-American efforts to do away with all U.S. medium-range missiles in Europe; it gave its support only on condition that the 72 Pershing 1-As be retained.

The U.S. position in the Geneva talks has so far been that the missiles belong to a “third party”--West Germany--and are co-operative weapons systems rather than American. Therefore, they should not be bargained away in bilateral negotiations.

Dangerous Precedent

To do so would be to set a dangerous precedent, say American arms experts. A number of weapons systems in Europe are under joint control of the United States and other NATO nations, and the United States cannot trade away their allies’ weapons.

Vorontsov, however, underlined Soviet concern over the West German weapons, asking rhetorically, “What kind of a global double zero option would there be if the United States left 72 of its warheads behind?

“This is no joke,” he added. “The power of each of these warheads is equal to 20 Hiroshimas. That is 72 multiplied by scores of Hiroshimas.”

U.S. experts say there may nevertheless be room for compromise. One possibility is that the United States and West Germany could accept an informal proposal made by a Soviet negotiator about a month ago that they promise not to modernize the aging Pershing 1-As.

The other three issues seen as obstacles by the Soviets were spelled out by Akhromeyev:

-- Destruction of missiles rather than converting them into missiles that would fall out of the intermediate range category.

-- Equal verification rights.

-- Scheduling of the reduction toward elimination.

In the past, the United States has said that it reserves the right to convert those missiles covered by any intermediate-range missile agreement into missiles belonging to a different category and, therefore, not covered by an agreement. For instance, U.S. sources have talked about converting ground-launched cruise missiles into sea-launched missiles, since as currently envisaged an intermediate-range agreement would cover only those missiles based on land.

The Soviets have also criticized reported plans of the United States to redesign the Pershing 2 ballistic missiles into the shorter-range Pershing 1-Bs, which would take them out of the long-range (600 to 3,000 miles) category. Whether they would then be abolished would depend on whether an agreement would also cover intermediate missiles of the shorter-range type (300 to 600 miles).

Even on Thursday, U.S. specialists in Geneva were still telling reporters: “We reserve the right to use them (INF weapons) for other purposes elsewhere.”

Possible U.S. Shift

However, experts in Washington say that the United States might be prepared to forgo this right.

On the timetable and verification issue, the Soviet Union objects to the U.S. position that the Soviets, who have more missiles and warheads in Europe, should come down to U.S. levels before the United States begins to reduce the number of its missiles. The Soviets argue that this would mean U.S. verification of Soviet facilities would begin before Soviet inspection of U.S. facilities.

Experts in Washington say that the United States would probably agree that both sides begin reducing their weapons simultaneously, so long as the Soviets reduce their missiles faster.

Carlucci, in his session with reporters in Washington, said verification remains the biggest hurdle. The United States has proposed on-site inspections of suspect missile facilities, but President Reagan has still not decided whether some facilities--such as factories that manufacture spy satellites--could be declared exempt from such searches by each side, he said.

The U.S. intelligence community and the Joint Chiefs of Staff support such exemptions, but the Pentagon opposes them, U.S. officials say. The Soviet position has not been spelled out in detail at the Geneva talks, but Moscow also leans toward exemptions, these officials said.

Jointly Operated Bases

A somewhat greater problem might be posed if the Soviets demand access to European military bases operated jointly by the U.S. and European nations and the European host objects. But U.S. officials says they believe this problem can be overcome.

Despite all these outstanding problems, Vorontsov said Thursday that there are real possibilities for agreement on a treaty that could be signed “at the summit level.”

If the Geneva negotiators deadlock, he indicated, Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze could meet and seek a solution.

Speaking of Gorbachev’s abandonment of the Soviet position on the Asian warheads at the October, 1986, summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, Vorontsov added: “This is a serious step toward an agreement. The U.S. side said more than once that if this were done, it would be possible to work out a speedy agreement. We want to see to what extent the forecasts of the American side come true.”

Two months of hard work, Vorontsov said, should be enough for the Geneva negotiators to complete work on the first nuclear arms reduction treaty in history.

Japan-Based Planes

Expanding on the changes in the Soviet position, Marshal Akhromeyev confirmed Thursday that the Kremlin has dropped its previous demand that the United States remove nuclear-capable warplanes from Japan in return for the elimination of Soviet medium-range missiles from Asia.

Gorbachev made no mention of Japan in his announcement but said that the Soviet Union would no longer insist that the United States withdraw its nuclear forces from South Korea, the Philippines and the Indian Ocean island base of Diego Garcia. The United States have never confirmed or denied that it has nuclear weapons deployed or stockpiled in any of these locations.

A Soviet reporter for Izvestia, the government newspaper, noted that Soviet officials had said the retention of 100 warheads in the Asian part of the Soviet Union was essential for national security and asked why the position had changed overnight.

“The Soviet Union has taken a fresh look at the situation in the world and has sought to take account of the interests of countries in the Asian and Pacific region,” Akhromeyev replied.

“We are looking for appropriate political and military steps from those countries,” he added, without elaboration.

Moscow has been trying to build better relations with China, Japan and other Asian nations during the past year.

Times staff writer Robert C. Toth, in Washington, contributed to the story.