U.S. Criticized for Impasse on Chemical Arms

On the eve of what the United States had expected to be a breakthrough on a chemical weapons accord, the Bush Administration is coming under growing criticism from the Soviet Union, Western European allies and Third World countries for alleged foot-dragging on a new international treaty.

U.S. officials had expected acclaim for simultaneous arms initiatives at meetings this week in Wyoming between Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze and at an international chemical weapons conference here that, ironically, the United States had asked Australia to organize in an effort to spur momentum on an accord.

Instead, the Administration is being sharply criticized, both publicly and privately, for failing to move on several issues that could break a three-year impasse on negotiations. And the spirit of cooperation between the superpowers expected in Wyoming has been replaced by a rivalry at the Australia conference, which opened Tuesday.

“This is not what we expected. We expected to be awarded, but instead we’re getting burned unjustifiably,” one American delegate said.

The Administration has encountered its greatest criticism for refusing to agree to a deadline for concluding a new international chemical weapons treaty.

The Soviet Union, France, West Germany, Australia and several Third World nations have pressed the U.S. delegation to offer a target date for concluding an accord on one of the world’s most controversial types of weapons, most recently used with deadly effect in the eight-year Persian Gulf War. Several delegations came out of private bilateral talks charging that the United States is stalling.

The United States is also being accused of:

-- Slowing down agreements on mandatory short-notice inspections of any site suspected of hiding deadly poison and nerve gases.

-- Failing to agree to help Third World nations develop alternative chemicals used only for peaceful purposes in an industry vital to economic development.

-- Refusing to provide mandatory financial or military aid to countries victimized by violators of a chemical warfare treaty.

‘As Soon as Possible’

“We reject charges that we are foot-dragging. We would like to complete an agreement as soon as possible, like everyone else,” Ambassador Max L. Friedersdorf, U.S. representative to the Geneva disarmament conference, told The Times in an interview.

“We feel we have taken the lead on the negotiations,” he added. “When they say we are foot-dragging, that means the U.S. does not agree with their positions.”

But the chief delegate from a leading Western nation charged: “The Americans have been struck by inertia for almost three years.”

The U.S. delegation expected two specific proposals put forward here to demonstrate the Bush Administration’s commitment to a chemical weapons ban. Instead, the Soviet Union has stolen the limelight by going even further.

On Tuesday, U.S. chemical manufacturers announced a five-point self-regulation plan to prevent the spread of poison gases.

Moscow Export Controls

The Soviet Union then revealed that Moscow has already introduced new export controls on 40 controversial chemicals. Sales will have to carry so-called end user certificates guaranteeing that they will not be resold or used for development of chemical weapons. The provisions are now the strictest controls in the world, Australian officials said.

The Soviet delegation chief, Nikolai P. Smidovich, also called for international cooperation among chemical industries.

In a second initiative, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Clarke proposed a new interim body to coordinate sensitive pre-verification issues. In a speech scheduled for delivery today, the Soviets are expected to again go further.

A Bush Administration official conceded before the conference began: “We are not negotiating seriously. Strong presidential leadership is necessary to move fast on negotiations. We could wrap it up in a year if we really wanted to.”

The U.S. refusal to set even a target date for concluding an accord has elicited the deepest concern here. “We were ready to try to make an agreement this year,” Smidovich said in an interview.

“Everyone who saw the United States hold up the negotiations over the past three years hoped that, with a change in administrations, the U.S. would be ready to move more speedily,” he said.

Even U.S. officials concede that progress since 1987 had lagged in part because of a lack of impetus from the Reagan Administration. Then, after taking office last January, the Bush Administration argued that it needed time to review U.S. policy.

“The U.S. keeps saying that there are too many details to be worked out. We said, ‘OK, how about 1992?’ We were told the U.S. does not want to set artificial deadlines,” Smidovich complained.

The U.S. delegation has responded that it does not want to repeat the mistakes of the 1972 biological weapons convention.

‘A Sloppy Job’

“We rushed to sign a piece of paper, but it sits today without a means of verification,” Clarke told the conference. “A sloppy job of verification on a chemical weapons convention would damage the entire structure of arms control.”

But European allies and several Third World nations claim a tentative deadline is now needed to inject momentum into talks that have crawled along in Geneva under U.N. auspices for 18 years.

“We need to feel there is commitment from the U.S.,” said one Asian delegate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “So far, we feel there is more talk than action. The U.S. is prepared to address its agenda but not our concerns, which have to be taken into account to win our agreement. It will not feel vulnerable without chemical weapons, but we will.”

68 States Involved

The disagreements underscore the complexity of a multilateral treaty, the first such attempt since the 1963 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The current Geneva talks involve 40 nations, plus 28 observer states--and the disparate concerns of each.

Several Third World nations, which have increasingly turned to chemical weapons as a cheaper and more accessible alternative to nuclear arms, now argue that there is limited incentive to agree to an international ban--particularly if regional rivals possess the deadly toxins.

“If a party is attacked by someone who has developed chemical weapons clandestinely, then we believe all parties to a treaty should commit to come to their aid with either financial or military aid,” Iranian delegate Hassan G. Mashhadi said in an interview. “So far, the U.S. has talked only about voluntary or humanitarian aid.”

Iran was repeatedly the victim of Iraqi chemical weapons between 1984 and 1988, according to U.N. reports.

“We need more guarantees that we will not be left exposed,” Mashhadi said.

The Soviet Union and several other nations support collective responsibility for victims of chemical weapon violators. As an alternative, Moscow has backed proposals for an international fund to contribute money or support to countries attacked.

“We are prepared, through the Red Cross or other agencies, to provide humanitarian aid,” Friedersdorf said. “But what some of these countries want is for the industrialized nations to set up a slush fund. A fund is a possibility, but we don’t like the mandatory approach.”

Another concern is that various restrictions on up to 40 chemicals--some of which are basic to production of everything from fountain-pen ink and plastics to fertilizers--will impede Third World development.

“The chemical industry accounts for $90 billion a year worldwide. It is the largest industry in the world, and the Third World wants its share,” said one Latin American delegate, who requested that his name not be used. “With restrictions, we may have a ban on simple things we are finally capable of producing for ourselves. Then we will have to rely on buying materials that others have. This is colonization again.

“Industrialized nations should be more generous in supporting us, rather than making us more dependent,” he said.

The U.S. delegation has countered that banning the inherent threat of chemical weapons should be incentive enough to agree to an accord.

“We don’t see arms control as part of a welfare program. We’re not into the game of bribing countries to sign up for a chemical weapons treaty by providing aid or technology,” Friedersdorf said.

Administration officials also contend that Congress would not ratify a treaty that added what amounts to a multimillion-dollar foreign aid project. Another problem is that the technology is in the hands of private U.S. industry, over which the government has no control.

But at least one country, Pakistan, has indicated privately that it will not agree to an accord without transfer of alternative chemical technology.

“The Pakistanis were quite blunt. They said that this was the price for signing up,” a U.S. official said.

The main dispute here between the U.S. and Soviet delegations centers on “any time, any place” inspections of suspected secret caches of lethal toxins, an idea first put forward at the disarmament conference by then-Vice President Bush in 1984.

In 1987, during the last major breakthrough in talks, Moscow accepted the concept. The Soviets are now charging that Washington is balking.

“There are concerns because of proprietary rights and the secrets of private industry that might be violated because of intrusion,” Friedersdorf said. “Proposals have been made by various delegations in Geneva which would provide that there be ways to protect civilian or military installations (that are) not pertinent but which may have to be part of access during an inspection. In no way has this slowed down talks.”

But the Administration official conceded: “We put forth the idea without fully thinking it through. Then the Soviets accepted it. Now we’re trying to figure out what it would mean. For example, does that include Langley (the Virginia town where the CIA is headquartered)?”

A U.S. spokesman attempted to counter the criticism, saying: “We regret that other countries have felt compelled to make unfounded charges about our performance at the disarmament conference, which we reject. For our part, we hope our negotiations presented in Canberra will advance the Geneva negotiations even further.”

But the leading Western official charged: “On each of the important issues, the U.S. delegation has repeatedly told us over the past three years, ‘We have no instruction on that issue.’ The U.S. still has a long way to go on addressing the issues that have been on the table for years.”

ARMS CONTROL--U.S. policy calls for slow but steady progress. Page 12.