Shultz Bars Early End of U.S. Aid to Afghan Rebels : He Pledges Help Until Soviet Pullout Is Well Along, Aim of a Neutral Nation Achieved

Secretary of State George P. Shultz said Thursday that withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan seems “close at hand” but that the United States will continue to send weapons to anti-Communist rebels until the insurgents’ objective of a self-governing and neutral nation has been assured.

Shultz, asked at a press conference about Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze’s statement that Moscow hopes to remove its troops from Afghanistan before the end of this year, said, “I hope that turns out to be the case and, from our standpoint, that would be very desirable.”

But Shultz rejected Shevardnadze’s implication that the United States would end its military assistance to the moujahedeen rebels before the Soviets start the withdrawal of their troops, estimated to number 115,000.

“We will do our part to see an Afghanistan which rules itself, where the refugees can return, an Afghanistan that is . . . neutral,” Shultz said. “And, of course, the objective of our support for the resistance has been to bring about those conditions and, as those conditions emerge, obviously, we wouldn’t have to continue that support.”

Soviet Pullout Hopes

In an interview in Kabul, distributed Wednesday by the Soviet news agency Tass, Shevardnadze said that all Soviet troops can be withdrawn by the end of 1988 if conditions are favorable. As soon as an Afghan peace agreement is signed in Geneva, he added, the United States would have to stop providing military equipment to the rebels. Shevardnadze said that the Soviet withdrawal would begin about two months after the signing of the pact.

However, Shultz said that Washington intends to be sure that the withdrawal process is well enough along so “there is a certain inevitability to it” before it stops aiding the moujahedeen. Moreover, he said, the United States “presumes” that Moscow will end its military support of the Afghan army once it removes its own troops.

“Make no mistake,” he said. “We’re going to support the resistance in the attainment of their objective. And it’s very important to emphasize that, even as the objective may seem close at hand.

“As far as our side is concerned,” Shultz said, “we look for Soviet agreement to a firm schedule for withdrawal. We think that schedule must be front-end loaded, so that once it starts there’s a certain inevitability to it, there’s no turning back.

“As far as support in the form of (U.S.) military equipment is concerned, as withdrawal proceeds and as it takes place--we hope in a peaceful atmosphere--then you don’t have the need for that continued support and it would cease,” Shultz said.

At the White House, spokesman Marlin Fitzwater told reporters that “there is an environment that gives some reason for optimism” about a Soviet troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, but he added, “The fact remains they (the Soviets) haven’t set a date for withdrawal and that is what matters.

“The President again urges the Soviets to set a date certain for a withdrawal. They have talked about their intentions, but it is time to set a date certain and also to let us know exactly when and how it’s going to happen,” he added.

Shultz implied that the United States will insist that the Soviets end military support for the Moscow-installed government of Afghan President Najibullah. But he stopped short of making this a firm condition for an end to U.S. aid to the rebels.

When asked if the Soviets would be required to “stop in any way helping the Afghan army,” Shultz replied: “We would presume that, as part of that agreement, military supplies would stop going in there.” He did not clarify the matter further.

Shultz also emphasized that the United States will insist that Afghan refugees, including Pakistan-based rebel groups, be given equal status with Afghans who have remained in the country in determining future political developments.

“What we want to see is the people of Afghanistan . . . take control of their own destiny,” he said. “When I say ‘the people of Afghanistan,’ I don’t mean just those who are in Afghanistan right now, but the refugees, which amount to a quarter or a third of the population. They also have to have a voice.”

Soviet troops entered Afghanistan at the end of 1979 in support of a pro-Soviet Marxist regime and have remained, helping the Kabul government against Muslim insurgents. It has been unclear whether Moscow would withdraw its troops without a political agreement and assurances as to the future of the Kabul regime.

Shevardnadze, alluding to that issue Wednesday, implied that Najibullah would have to share power with his political adversaries. In remarks quoted by Tass, the Soviet foreign minister said, “We believe that a constructive political dialogue in which no one will claim a monopoly on power is indispensable to internal political settlement in Afghanistan.”

Shevardnadze also seemed to leave open the possibility of a different, non-Marxist type of government after an interim coalition.

“It should be taken into consideration that the creation of a coalition government is viewed as an initial step toward working out the common Afghan accord about the future road of Afghanistan’s development,” he said.