Lucien,

Please tell the SG that I have checked on the attached and amconvinced that this story was not on our UPI wire.

lAfe get from UPI a special service known as "Washington CapitalNews Service", which is a considerably foreshortened version than theregular service to daily newspapers. Moreover, this wire shuts downat 7 p.m. and does not resume operation until the following morning.Mr. Munn, the bureau chief here, thinks the MacMillan story ran duringthe night and was not repeated the next morning.

' - UNITED NATIONS • NATIONS UNIES

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. E. Kiselev

FROM: w. Epstein"^? Bat.: ?? March 1963

SUBJECT: FILE NO.:.

I forward herewith UPI dispatch of yesterday containingobservations by Prime Minister Macmillan to the effect thathe would study a Labour Party suggestion that U Thant preparea compromise plan for disarmament. Mule the dispatch is nottoo clear, it appears that the suggestion was for a compromiseplan for general disarmament rather than for a nuclear testban.

The dispatch came in late last night after the tickersin the UN had closed down for the night, and I had to get theattached copy from the UPI Office in New York outside of UMHeadquarters. It is, accordingly, probable that the Secretary-General has not seen a copy of the dispatch. Perhaps he wouldbe interested in having a look at it.

I have also arranged with DPI to cable the LondonInformation Office to giianail a copy of yesterday's Hansardto us, so that we shall have the full text of the remarks.

LONDON, MARCH 21 (UPD—PRIME MINISTER HAROLD MACMILLAN SAID-'//' ITJODAY HE WOULD CONSIDER A PROPOSAL THAT UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY

[GENERAL THANT DRAW UP A COMPROMISE PLAN FOR EAST-WEFT D I S A R M A M E N T ,THE PRIME MINISTER TOLD THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HE WOULD STUDY

LABOR PARTY M. P. ARTHUR HENDERSON'S SUGGESTION THAT THANT FORGEA PLAN FROM THE BEST PARTS OF THE U.S. AND SOVIET D I S A R M A M E N TPROPOSALS.

HENDERSON ASKED. MACMILLAN TO DISCUSS KIT PROPOSAL WITH PRESIDENTKENNEDY IN VIEW OF THE DEADLOCK AT THE 17-NATION GENEVA DISARMAMENTCONFERENCE.

HE TOLD MACMILLAN IT WAS "UNLIKELY THAT ANY PROGRESS WILL^-BE MADE IN GENEVA AS LONG AS THERE ARE TWO D I S A R M A M E N T PLANS"

BEFORE THE CONFERENCE.OPPOSITION LEADER HAROLD WILSON URGED THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE

THE INITIATIVE AT GENEVA."DON'T YOU FEEL THAT JUST OCCASIONALLY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

SHOULD TAKE AN INITIATIVE IN DISARMAMENT WHICH ONjC THE WHOLE WEHAVE NOT BEEN DOING," WILSON SAID.

MACMILLAN SAID HE HOPES "THE CONFERENCE ITSELF WOULD MAKEA COMBINATION OF THE AGREED ELEMENTS OF THE TWO PLANF."HE CALLED HENDERSON'S PROPOSAL A MATTER OF PROCEDURE WHICH MIGHTCOMMAND ITSELF TO THE CONFERENCE.

MACMILLAN ALSO WITHSTOOD A BARRAGE OF QUESTIONS RELATING TOU.S. NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS JAMES VAN ALLEN'S DISCLOSURE LAST WEEKTHAT HE WAS WRONG IN HIT ASSESSMENT OF THE AFTER AFFECTS OFHIGH ALTITUDE HYDROGEN BOMB TEST.

VAN ALLEN O R I G I N A L L Y HAD ESTIMATED THE ARTIFICIAL RADIATIONBELT SET OFF BY LAST SUMMER'S TEST FROM JOHNSTON ISLAND IN THEPACIFIC WOULD LAST ONLY 12 MONTHS. THE IOWA UNIVERSITY SCIENTISTSAID SATURDAY THE A R T I F I C I A L BELT COULD STAY FOR 10 YEARS ANDHAMPER SPACE EXPLORATION.

MACMILLAN SAID IT WAS TRUE VAN ALLEN HAD "SOMEWHATCHANGED HIS MIND" AND THIS SHOWED "THE GREAT COMPLEXITY OF THISPROBLEM."

MACMILLAN SAID HE WISHED HE COULD FIND SOME WAYS IN W H I C H

THE ATMOSPHERIC TESTS AND ALL TESTS COULD BE DONE AWAY WITH ALTO-

GETHER.

WR109PES.,

NEW YORK TIMES, TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 13, 1962.

Texts of U. S.-British Note and Khrushchev's ReplyMessage to Khrushchev

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12Following is the text of i<Feb. 7 jncasar/e from Preside.Kennedy and Prime MinistWaomiUrt-n to Premier Kit;thchev on new disarmamentjotiationSj as made publiche White House today:

Dear Mr. Chairman:We are taking'the unusua

step of addressing this mes-sage to you in order to ex--press our own views, as wellas to solicit yours, on whatwe can jointly do to in-crease the prospects of successat the new disarmament ne-gotiations which will beginin Geneva in March.

We are convinced that asupreme effort must be madeand the three of us must ac-cept a common measure ofpersonal obligation to seekevery avenue to restrain anclreverse the mounting armsracft. Unless some means canbe 'Hound to make at least astatft in controlling-quickening' anus coi..^.—tion, events may take theirown course and erupt in-a disaster which will afflictall peoples, those of the So-viet Union as well as of theUnited Kingdom and ''United. States.

' Disarmament negotiationsIn the past have been spo-radic' and frequently inter-rupted, indeed, there has beenno sustained effort to cometo grips' with this problem atthe conference table since thethree months of meetingsending in June of I960, overa year and a, half ago. Beforethat, noreal;negptiationson, the problem, o£ generaldisarmament had taken placesince negotiations came toan end in September 1957.

Personal Direction UrgedIt should be clear to a....

of- us that we can no longerafford to take a passiveview of these negotiations.They must not be allowed todrift into failure. According-ly, we propose that we threeacqept a personal responsi-bility for directing the paw*to pe played by our repre-sentatives in the forthcomingtalks, and that we agree be-forehand that our representa-tives will remain at the con-ference table until concreteresults have been achieved,however long this may take.

We propose that our negotiators seek progress onthree levels. First, —.,should be instructed to workout a program of general andcomplete disarmament which-could serve as the basis forthe negotiation of an imple-menting treaty or treaties.Or negotiators could thusbuild upon the commonground which was found inthe bilateral ^talks. ^betweentire "tfriifedSSpates ahd theU. S. S. R. which took placethis summer, and which werereflected in the statement ofagreed principles of Sept. 20,1961.

Secondly, our negotiatorsshould attempt to ascertainthe: widest measure of dis-armament which would beimplemented at the earliestpossible time xvhile still con-tinuing their maximum ef-forts to achieve agreementon those .other aspects whichpresent'1 more difficulty.

Thirdly, our negotiatorsshould try to isolate andidentify initial measures ofdisarmament which could, ifput into effect without de-lay, materially improve inter-national security and theprospects for further disarma-ment progress.

All Termed UrgentWe do not believe that

these triple objectives needconflict with one anotherand1 an equal measure 'bf ur-gency should be attached toeach.

As a symbol of the impor-tance which we jointly at-tach to these , negotiations,we propose that we be -repre-sented at the outset of 'thedisarmament conference bythe foreign ministers of ourthree countries, who woulddeclare their readiness to re-turn to participate person-ally in the. negotiations asthe progress made by ourpermanent representativeswarrants. We assume, in this

V

12 —the

dentisteiJirtt-t ne-3 by

ualles-ex--vellhatin-essne-gin

aadeac-

ofeekmclmscan: atheeti-eirin-lictSo-the;he

s30-er-eenmeat

thengsverore

ralaceto

dalljer

us.to

1S~reesi*-ai*re-ngbe-:a-Dn-eteedke!jo-

ey>rkndich-forle-es.1USion

inaentheace

of20,

Dl'S

ainis-beestin-ef-entich '

ors

ofif

de-er-:he"ia-

lataecllerur-to

or-at-ns,re-bheby)uruldre-:>n-as

)urfeslis

threatening nature of modemarmaments is so appalling)that we cannot regard this'problem as a routine one or'as an, issue which may beuseful primarily foC the scor-ing of propaganda victories.

The failure of the nucleartest conference, which lookedso hopeful and to .the suc-cess of which we attachedsuch a high priority in thespring of 1961, constitutes1, adiscouraging background forour new efforts. However wemust be resolved to overcomethis recent setback, with itsimmediate consequences, andto forego fruitless attemptsto approtion blame.

Our renewed effort must beto seek and find waysin which the competition be-tween us, -which will surelypersist for the foreseeablefuture, can be pursued on aless dangerous. level. We mustview the forthcoming djsarmament meetings as an op-ortunity and a challengewhich time and history maynot once again allow us.

"We? would welcome anearly expression, .of your

'

Reply From KhrushchevFollowing is the tecr-t of the

message sent by Premier Khru-shchev to President Kennedyand Prime Minister Macmillanjas made -public in. English "byTass the official Soviet Pressagency :•

I am -writing to you on aquestion which, aa can beseen from your message ofFeb. 7 this year, is-uppermostin your minds, too.

I could not but feel pleasedthat you. too are consideringthe role to be played in thesolution Of the disarmamentproblem by the recently 'es-tablished eighteen - nationcommittee which is beginningits deliberations in. Genevaon March 14, 1962, and. of.which our countries aremembers. This is enjoined onus already by the fact thatthe Governments of the coiui-tries represented on this com:mittee have been entrustedby decision of the sixteenthsession of- the U. N, GeneralAssembly with a question ofsuch vital importance to thepeoples as general and com-plete disarmament.

There is no need to :provethat the development of theinternational situation --in thefuture will depend, to -a greatextent on how matters pro-ceed in the committee.

Will it be able ro rise to alevel from which the distantand the difficult will appearnear and real.? Will it cope .with its. great 'task of draft-'ing an agreement on generaland complete disarmament ?Or will the new .disarmamentbody begin stumbling from itsfirst steps, on the same diffi-culties on.- which -its predeces-sors came to grief?

Such are . the questions towhich the answers ar.e being'sought now by all to whomthe future of mankind is notindifferent. And. these ques-tions agitate the peoples the ••more and the greater bepause.the arms race . is growing all 'the time, swallowing the. la-bor and property of hundredsof millions -of people, and 1;bedanger of a new war is grow-ing, finding, material ex-pression in a vast arms build-up.

It seems to me that allthis must be borne in mindif we are to assess correctlythe importance which thedisarmament talks resumingin Geneva are acquiring in 'the obtaining conditions.

Preparatory Work -HailedYou will agree . with me, I

think, that a definite amountof preparatory worlthas'beenaccomplished for these nego-tiations. For the1 -first.- timeJn. the entire history of -ne-gotiations/ the disarmamentbody has a fairly clear cutmandate — the basic principlesof general and complete dis-armament approved by theU. N. General jN.-ssembly. •

Also hopeful is., the factthat the disarmament bodynow includes representatives •of all free principal groups of

removed on the way to agree-- .intent.

.The Soviet Government con-siders it necessary to see toit in advance that the workof the eighteen-nation com-mittee should not get in arut and be reduced in the

- final analysis -to verbal ex-: changes between function-aries.

There have been too many.inglorious failures by variousdisarmament committees,subcommittees, and commis-•sions, many of- which 'havebeen established in the past, ,•for us to fail .to draw thenecessary lessons from this.

Correct Start Urged *In our opinion, the most

Important thing now 'is forthe eighteen-nation commit-tee to make a powerful andcorrect start in its work, to

•get a good, impetus whichwould enable it to work pro-ductively, with, a high yield.

Who have it in them to-make such a start? Whocan cut quicker through theroutine notions and differ-ences which disarmament ne-gotiations amass 'like a roll-ing snowball the moment theybegin? It seems to us thatthis should be done above allby those who are vested withthe greatest confidence of 'thepeoples and who have 'all thepowers.

Guided by these considera-tions, the Soviet Governmentproposes that the work of theeighteen-nation committee beopened by the heads of gov-ment (state) represented onthe committee. For this, theheads of government shouldarrive in Geneva, by March14 and themselves accomplishthe most important and com-plex part pf the work' whichawaits the eighteen.-' nationcommittee at the start.It may be that this idea.

will seern- rather unusual at;first, but you. will agree" thatIt* is quite justified by thegreatness of the aim aitiL.theconditions in which the\Dis-arrnament Committee isV"be-ginning its wovlc. ' "\-

Direct contacts between na-tional leaders — meetings, con-ferences, exchanges of mes-sages, personal participationin the work of the most rep-resentative international bod-ies — • have 'become an estab-lished international • practicein our days. And this isu n de rs tan da bl e.

The qucker distances be-tween .states can be overcomeand. the '.more .terrible1 theweapons of , destruction be-come, the greater 'becomes theresponsibility. • of. statesmenand thelLmQre;, sagacity;; andwisdom: -is -required in the so-lution of both major interna^tlonal Issues and', those which,at&iirst glai;ce,5- seem of sec-oridary importance, inasmuchas they are frequently rootedin. questions of war and peace.

Bol4/JVctibn Advocated1 .This is. doubly true of the

question ' :of disarmament,which affects-the most sensi-tive interests "of the states,the interests • of national se-curity, and requires special'circumspection, flexibility andboldness for its solution.

I shall not conceal that Ireceived your joint messageat a time when I was work-ing on this message to theheads of government of thes.tates represented on theeighteen-nation DisarmamentCommittee.

It is gratifying that ourreasoning,- on the whole, runsin the same direction, I fullyshare your thought that theheads of government shouldbe personally responsible for

the eighteen-nation commit-tee. There may of course bepeople who will take our pro-posal to mean that the SovietUnion is again raising thequestion of a summit meetingand will start consideringwhether or not conditions ex-ist for such a meeting atpresent.

I want to explain in ad-vance that I am speakinghere not of a meeting' at thesummit, as it is generally un-derstood, but of participationby the heads of governmentIn the work of the eighteen-nation committee establishedby the United Nations, not ofconsidering a wide range of

'international questions, but oftalks on one specific issue —

, disarmament. And the claimthat conditions are not yetripe to consider the problemof disarmament can only beadvanced by those who arecompletely uninterested in itssolution.

Breakthrough PossibleOne cannot or course ex-

pect that the heads of gov-ernment will from the startbe able to accomplish sucha work in Geneva that itwill only remain to sign atreaty on general and com-plete disarmament. But evenif their efforts result onlyin giving the right Direction

' to further negotiations andoutlining the contents of atreaty on genorrJ and com-plete disarmament, thiswould be a tremendous shiftwhich the peoples have longbeen waiting for.

It seems to me that itwill be worthwhile, very

much so, to make such anattempt which— if successful,which the Soviet Govern-ment sincerely hopes it willbe— promises to become abreaktli rough in internatiau»al relations ana Bring man-kind closer to the realiza-tion of its age-old dream ofpeace.

Warns of Lost OpportunityIt is no secret to anyone

that talks on the heads ofgovernment level are not inrfrequently held on the ques-tion of increasing militarypreparations. But if this is;so, what objections can therebe to holding the openingmeetings of the eiglitcen-na-tion committee at the high-est level in order to workwell for such a noble goalas disarmament.

History would not pardonus if we let .slip an oppor^tunily to consider the disrarmament problem at sucha prestigious forum as a.specially held meeting of theheads of government ofeighteen states.

I wish to hope that youwill rightly understand themotives which have prompt-ed the Soviet Government to'suggest that the work ofthe eighteen-nation commit-tee should begin at the levelof heads of government( state ] , and thai you will'regard this proposal favor-ably.

I have addressed analogousmessages to all the heads ofgovernment ( state j of thecountries represented on the?eighteen-nation DisarmamentCommittee.

!

the direction of disarmamentnegotiations . and that thestate of affairs in the eight-een-nation committee shouldbe the subject of a broaderexchange of opinions between,us.

But why should we makeonly half the step and limitourselves to being represent-ed by foreign ministers at thestart of - the DisarmamentCommittee work?

If one is consistent, on&would, proceeding ;from ourconsiderations, inevitably ar- ;rive at the same proposalthat is being put forward bythe Soviet Government:namely to begin the -work of 'the Disarmament Committeeat the highest level. '

The work of the eifi'hteen-

Oi* negotiators could thusbuild upon the commonground which was found in'the bilateral. , --talks i. betweenthe-;Umfed- StatesHlhd theU. S. 3. R. which took placethis summer, and -which werereflected in the statement ofagreed principles of Sept. 20,1961.

Secondly, our negotiatorsshould attempt to ascertainthe widest measure of dis-armament which would beimplemented at the earliestpossible time while still con-tinuing their maximum • ef-forts' to achieve agreementon' those .other aspects whichpresent-more difficulty.

Thirdly, our negotiatorsshould try to isolate andidentify initial measures ofdisarmament which could, ifput into effect without de-lay, materially improve inter-national security and theprospects for further disarma-ment progress.

AH Termed UrgentWe do not believe that

these triple -objectives needconflict with one anotherand' an equal measure -of ur-gency should be attached toeach.

As a symbol of the impor-tance which we jointly at-tach to these negotiations,we propose that we be repre-sented at the outset of thedisarmament conference bythe foreign ministers of ourthree countries, who woulddeclare their' readiness to re-turn to participate . person-ally in the negotiations asthe progress made by ourpermanent representativeswarrants. We assume, in thiscase, the foreign ministers ofother states as well wish toattend. • ' •

The status and progress oftlie conference should, in ad-dition, be the subject, of morefrequent communicationsamong the three of us. In or-der to give impetus to theopening of the disarmamentnegotiations, we could con-sider having the foreign min-isters of our three countriesconvene at Geneva, in advanceof the opening of the confer-ence to concert our plans.

At this time In our his-tory, disarmament is themost ungent and the mastcomplex- issue we face. The

level from which the distantand the difficult will appear.near and real.? Will it co£e..with its great 'task of draft-'ing an agreement -on ' generaland complete disarmament ?•Or will the new disarmamentbody begin stumbling from, itsfirst steps, on the same diffi-.culties on- which its predeces-sors came to grief ?

Such are the questions towhich the. answers are beingsought now by all to whomthe future of mankind is notindifferent. And these ques-tions agitate the peoples. themore and the greater becausethe arms .race Is growing allthe time, swallowing the la-bor and property of hundreds-of millions of people, and- thedanger of a new war is grow-ing, finding .material ex-pression in a vast arms build-up.

It seems to me that allthis must be borne in mindif we are to assess correctlythe importance which thedisarmament talks resumingin Geneva are acquiring inthe obtaining conditions.

Preparatory Work HailedYou will agree with me, I

think, that a definite amountof preparatory work has beenaccomplished for these nego-tiations. For the first timein the entire history of ne-gotiations, the disarmamentbody has a fairly clear cutmandate — the basic principlesof general and complete dis-armament approved by theU. N. GenerarA-ssembly.'

Also hopeful is the factthat the disarmament bodynow includes representativesof all free principal groups -ofstates existing in the -world:the Socialist,' those belongingto the military blocs of theWestern powers, and. the neu-tral. These are .unquestion-ably positive points.

At the" same time we can-not but be aware that reallystrenuous efforts will still berequired to make the disar-mament negotiations bear theexpected fruit. Suffice it tocompare . the • Soviet programfor general and complete dis-ai'nmtnent with the other pro-posals put forward at the six-teenth session of the U. N-.General Assembly in opposi-tion to our program to seewhat mountains must yet be

tional issues and those which,ati>-f Irst -'- .glance^- seeni of sec-

; oricjary importance, inasmuch,as 'they are frequently rootedin questions of war. and peace.

' Bold Actipa Advocated'This is- doubly true of the

question ' „ -of disarmament,which affects, the most sensi-tive' interests of the states.the interests : of national se-curity, and requires special'circumspection, flexibility andboldness for its solution.

I shall not conceal that Ireceived your joint messageat a time when I was work-ing on this message to theheads of government of thestates represented on theeigh teen-nation DisarmamentCommittee.

It is gratifying that ourreasoning,- on the whole, runsIn the same direction. I fullyshare your thought that theheads of . government shouldbe personally responsible for

' the direction of disarmamentnegotiations and that thestate of affairs in the eight-een-nation committee shouldbe the subject of a broaderexchange of opinions between,us.

But why should we makeonly half the step and limitourselves to being represent-ed by foreign ministers at thestart of the Disarmament

1 Committee work?If one is consistent, one

'would, proceeding 'from OUTconsiderations, inevitably ar-rive at the same proposalthat is being put forward bythe .Soviet Government:namely to begin the work ofthe Disarmament Committeeat the highest level.

The work of the eighteen-nation committee could beginat the highest level even ifnot all the heads of the gov-ernment (state) belonging tothis committee wish or maytake part; this need not bean obstacle to our participa-tion in its work.

It goes without saying thatthe foreign ministers of ourcountries must also talce partin the work of the eighteen-nation committee, both withthe heads of 'government andin the subsequent period ofthe committee's work.

Thus, there is- much in fa-vor of our proposal for theparticipation of the heads ofgovernment in the work of

„,,,.,,,.,. _ •>;.'-.""' T V ' ' ' • • A/V'-fe1^ - £V^A, ' < • " • •Kennedy Statement on Test Inspection

xSpRSal.to^TheNew York.TImes. •'•"W4SBINGTQN:, March 29—

Following .is., the text of a state-ment today "by President Ken-nedy on nuclear test inspectionas released by the Whtte House:

I stated on March 2, theUnited States earnestly ,de-sires a test ban treaty with

' effective'controls.'The •essen-tial'element upon which theUnited States/ has /insisted,1

lurtveyer.jis that" there be anibbjectiye. .. international . sys'-itern for insuring that .the/ban

. *.*v* . ., amsw.^.i bev^;an,;-interna-. tiphal'Qrganizatip'n for pj)erat- .irig.fseismife: stations''and^. for''!v.eri:Eyirig/'.tiia.t:.seismic events/have been1 detected, locatedfend : are ••; appropriate vfor ;inspection.,Most important of

•all; the ^organization shouldhave 'the-power to conduct .aJimite.d,number .Df/onTSite ih-specfions.to verify'whether aseismic; event was an (.earth-quake or an- explosion.:With-:put these inspections therecan be !nq 'confidence in' anysystem/ of •' detection, ...becauseit, will;: not tell /us whether'anunderground event is a nu-:

.. clear/ explosion or an earth- .,quake..,.-."•:/ . ' . ' • / < • ' • : ;

•: On ;this!;;subject one- must,distinguish /Carefully between >

.detection • 'and- .-identification;We can detect and locate ;,significant !.';/! f;; undergroundevents /by' seishiic means, butof "course, the'.''.same'seismic

iineans 'detect .many/ shallow'(earthquakes. The';,problem isto identify a'.particular de-tec1;e4 event as an explosionor as/'an, earthquake./Seismicmejans alone simply/will notdo thej jbfc. This-matter has'

.been reviewed again andg^ain by the ; best technicalhiinds. .of! the United'•States,a&d 'Great Britain, .and •"' theanswer is- always the; same.

Ajid:-.no .serious technical e'vi- .•j dence to,, the, Contrary has -.been produced by any othercountry..'J4.;; few" !of '-the largerearthquakes can be. identified'as such,, and .very large/underr.ground tests.-."outside.: of. seis- ;(mic: areas" can/'/be. •identified.''with'-a high^meaLsure/df.'^rob^ability;: this^: .was" • the. casewith,|he Soviet test: on Febi2. But the., seismic ..recordsfrom the: large majority ofthe eyentsv ar;^; siicH that :they

'could be from either1 earth-quakes or explosions/: Iri otherword's they cannot be/identi-^fied. . . / " . , \'., ' . ". ; '. ' I ' , / /

;, .The dhl'y; way'::we.rkno\y'::itb!,

perform"' this identificatibn-'is--tot have -.a" sciehtific^team'':;gp

•:'to; the site: of .the event-"and;examine it. By studying'"therocks and, the/, radioactivity :

and by drilling /holes 'one can/find out -with/ satisfactory

'certainty whether it: was an;explosion. This is. the on-siteinspection which we insist isthe only way.- to.."verify-.thecharacter of an undergroundevent. : . . •-..' •

Now the Soviet Governmentobjects,/to our'April,'! 1961,

.draft treaty , on-the .test bah'quite simply becayse it pro-.

• vides for mternatio'nal'virispec- ,tion in'Soviet ^territbfy. Itobjects specificaliy. to havingany control; posts/ fpl? - test •detection- mtieir'temtoryl•This is a sharp' and inexpli-cable regression • froni'-thej.S6--viet position of, even a yearago. In addition, the Sovietsobject to any on-si£e:' ;ihspec-

' tibhs whatsoever:-.•••'.:';-Ih' earlier^ years the' Soviet

Government, at. alt levels,clearly accepted both the idea.of control1 posts; and the basicprinciple of /phrsite inspec-tibhi Now it ,is .claimed that.

• such control posts-and' inspec-tions are-useful only, ipr purr/poses of espionage./.

As Mr. Rusk, pointed outin Geneva last Friday, such'

fears of espionage from thiproposed system of controlarid inspection are wholly un- •justified: Members, of fixed'control posts would be underSoviet supervision at all timesand could go nowhere at allwithout'1 Soviet., approval,!Member's of/inspection teamswould ;be'under 'constant So-viet observation ;and would beiimije'd to .the/ execution of .technical"' tasks'1. in" an. areawhich; ' at the very most,:wbuld never exceed more thanone part "in 2,000 of Sovietterritory in, any year — andmost of this work would bis.dqhe.iiri.-the',earthquake areas"of:f'the^U;,.S:::S.'«R;, far/from''centers of military or indus-'trial. .activity. Finally, occa-sional- air.,- sampling /team'swbuld:: fly'1 iin Soviet- plane'sunder fully controlled condi-tions^ I submit that ,no oneinterested in espionage wouldgo at it by means of controland inspection worked but inthis treaty after years of ef-for Involving Soviet scientistsas wel 'las our own.

Nevertheless,\ the SovietGovernment is now absolutelyopposed not only to this par-ticular system of, inspection,carefully supervised and nar-

,rbwly limited..as/it'is, -but toany inspection at all., This;

•position'has been made veryclear 'both publicly and. pri-vately—most plainly by Mr.•Grbrnykp on the United Na-,tioris. radio on March 27.

We know of , no way to/verify underground nuclearexplosions without inspec-tions, and we cannot at thistime enter into a treaty with-out, the ability and right ofinternational verification.'Hence we seem to be .at areal impasse. Nevertheless, Iwant .to, repeat with emphasis

; our' desire for ^aii effectivetreaty and pur readiness.' toconclude such a treaty at ^heearliest .possible time. ^

THE NEW YORK POST, Friday, 13 August 1965

Nuclear SpreadSoviet-Russia's disarmament negotia-

tor has climbed down from his propa-gandistic effort in Geneva to link progressin .disarmament with a U. S. withdrawalfrom Viet Nam.

Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Tsar-apkin now asserts that Moscow would beready to sign a "really comprehensive"treaty halting the spread of nuclear weap-ons, even while the war in Viet Nam con-tinues. But the treaty would have to barWest Germany from direct or indirectaccess to nuclear weapons, he adds.

..presumably this means that "Russia.would;vre'jecli any treaty that permittedthe:••. establishment of either an Atlantic'Nuclear Force or a Multilateral NuclearForce. Both of these are plans aimed: at;

giving Bonn some control over nuclearcapabilities, the Russians contend.

This contention is, clearly being ex-ploited for the divisive effects it may havein NATO. But it also may reflect genuineSoviet concern, as our chief disarmamentnegotiator William C. Foster concedes.. Whatever the Soviet motivation in op-

posing the MLF, the West has more togain in security terms from a non-prolifer-ation treaty than from creation of anMLF or. ANF. It is time the search fornuclear gimmicks designed to accommo-date West Germany was abandoned andpriority given to a treaty that will haltthe spread of nuclear weapons.

It may be that Moscow will back awayagain and find some other reason for not

• 'signing. But let's test it out. •• '

— X~L \ ~" riS "* j '<'^T/sri?i*''''^^^Wi*f^^ ---- «. „,,,.Atom Treaty: Qff thetMilsFlM < TIMES^ „_ T Kirtw&^ ' tr '

j, The treaty to, ban the spread of nucleate-weapons, ; L&y ' ^2 Feb. 1967

whicji had seemed near realization, has rim into deep' trouble. It appears unlikely now that the seventeen-

nation Disarmament Conference in Geneva will evenhave a draft to report to the" United Nations GeneralAssembly in September. l

This dismaying transformation of tne negotiatingclimate has been brought on by several developments,some of them only now coming, to light. Soviet dele-gate Roshchin returned to Geneva with the Kremlin'sancient objections to any international inspection onceagain in his portfolio He refused to accept an Ameri-can proposal for treaty-compliance inspection by theInternational Atomie'Energy Agency (IAEA) or itsequivalent — ,i NAt the same time opposition to the treaty has beenmounting, particularly in. West Germany but also inItaly, India and other non-nuclear countries. They fearthat signing a treaty engineered by the t two nuclearsuperpowers could jeopardize their security and alsoput their science and 'technology under a permanenthandicap in the development of peaceful uses of theatom, j '

'Finally, Germans and other (Europeans fear thetreaty would permit Soviet inspectors to cripple theEuropean Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)i andeliminate any possibility for an integrated EuropeanCommunity nuclea'r force in the far future.1

" An'unmentioned stumbing block at, Geneva, in fact,concerns this so-called "European option" for a futureatomic force. ' It is now clear that American andSoviet'negotiators tried deliberately to agree on vaguelanguage in a treaty( draft that would neither author-ize nor exclude such a force The West 'then couldinterpret the treaty as leaving open the] "European

\ option," no matter how conjectural that project Jmay- . ^ ^ t i T* ™ l * 7"'-* *' < V*>

uzzy language could not satisfyespecially since Moscow made clear it would

epudiate ,kny American interpretation aimed at reas-suririg^Bonn. High American officials have now wiselydecided against this patent attempt to blur an impor-tant issue. ' i

It is painfully clear that, no matter how hard WJash-^.ingfton and Moscow try to finesse le'sser issues in the-ijite^st Of getting agreement, the United States must'do ^jaetter job of education among its friends andalljej^if that treaty is to have any chance of ratifica-tion 'by West Germany, Italy, India and even Japan'.

Experts say it should be relatively easy to convince *these countries that nonprolfferation of weapons willnot deprive them of peaceful uses of atomic poweror consign them to permanent second-class status inscience and techtiology.

It ,may be harder, however, to assure the "have-nots" on the security issue, particularly so long as1

Pranqe and Communist China remain outside thetreaty. It "will 'be difficult, too, to overcome the legaland pohtical problems involved in meshing any treatyrequirements with the functioning of Euratqm, whichalready has its own inspection system.

But agreement on a treaty is imperative for the i'survival of all nation's. Leaders everywhere musthope that the two nuclear superpowers will be ableto travel the rest of the way io that "historic turn-ing point" which President Johnson envisioned, in his

to the Geneva Conference yesterday,. 'Ei'or,Johnson said, "plain sanity calls for 'aompetition in .nuclear arms."

NEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 22 February

SoyielWould Widen TalksAsked by U.S. on Missiles

By 1IEDKICK SMITH 7 L

Spocial to The NEW York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21—United States officials said

jihe Sbyiet Union, submitted gen-egal' disarmament plans, '.. deal-iiig^with limitations on offen-sive weapons, to the Disafma-

today that the Soviet Union had indicated it preferred to ]£ft Conference But

broaden discussions of a. prpposed limitation of .antimissile cussions of these/proposals haddefenses. Moscow, accordingto these officials, has spg-gested that the talks take-upthe even more complex prob-lem of limiting offensive mis-sile systems.

The .Soviet Union has alreadybegun installing- antimissile de-fenses around Moscow and pos-

:sibly other sites. The Adminis-i tration, under pressure from theJoint Chiefs of Staff to followsuit, has delayed taking such astep while seeking an agree-ment with Moscow for a mora-torium on the deployment ofantimissile defenses.

In his State of the Union ad-dress last month, PresidentJohnson urged such a moratori-

lum to prevent another costly1 spiral in the East-West armsrace.

A State Department spokes-man asserted that Moscow was

sador Llewellyn1 Jfi,"1 'Thompson.He said Washington expected"further contacts >$ith the Rus-sians on this matter,"

"These continuing contactsreflect interest on'•both sides ining at an understanding; onexploring possibilities of arriv-strategic missile problems," fc.Mc.Closkey said. ;

Mr, Kosygin said on his re-cent visit to London that de-fensive systems were designedto save human lives and thuswere, less objectionable than of-fensive systems. But he did notreject the' American suggestionof an.. outright missile freeze.

Last;,Wednesday a commen-tator in-Ilftavda quoted Mr. Ko-sygiii; as-'having said that Mos-cow- ;.'\was:.;willing, '"to discusscurtailment; of .the'; arms race,both in the field Qf.y/offensiyeand defensive weapons. On thefollowing day, ;'the .Soviet For-eignr-Ministry jirivately said thePrayda article was mistakenan$fi left the ..impression thatMoscow was cool, if not actu-

•» •£.

showing continuing interest in ally hostile, to a moratoriumseeking- some "understanding" on defensive missile systems.

Ion -strategic missile problems," 'Officials noted that two yearsI including both defensive and o f - . . . . .fensive weapons.

Robert J. McCloskey,. thespokesman, said that PremierAleksei N. .Kosygin discussedPresident Johnson's "proposal"for. 'limitations on .antimissiledefenses Saturday with Ambas-?

not made any significant prog-2SS.

Officials said privately thatin. recent contacts Moscow ap-peared to be saying that anAgreement concerned only withlimiting1 the 'deployment: of- an-timissile systems would riot beacceptable.

These off ieialsa-'eport that theRussians have sought to deflectthe American proposal on de-fensive missiles into considera-tion. . of the broader and morecomplex question of limiting of-fensive missile inventories aswell. Because this goes to theheart of the entire subject ofdisarmament, some Governmentexperts see little chance for anearly agreement to limit anti-missile defenses.

These experts, who declinedto be identified, rated prospectsfor such a freeze as "not veryhigh."

The result, according to somecivilian officials in the Admihfistration, .is expected to begreater pressure from the JointChiefs of Staff and their sup-porters in Congress for theUnited States ,to go ahead withinstallation! or at, lejtst a. limited

. >, t ^ " V

•the United States land antimissile^ , „ _the Umtedf States.1""

The costf of an American anti-missile defense has been esti-mated by Secretary of DefenseRobert S..MctNaniara'at.between$5-bilHon. to $40-billiorii deperid-ng'oh how extensive the defen-

sive system is to be.United States officials said

:hat because of its desire toloid down such expenditures,:he Administration was eagerto -keep the Soviet leadershipengaged in discussions on limit-ing antimissile defenses.

At the same time, Washing:-ton does not want to embarrassthose Soviet leaders .who may besympathetic to 1a.*'frleeze on mis^sile expenditures bu^^are "OjjJposed by the SJjvieb mi.litaiS'leadership ^ ~,« "&

Gen. Pavel F Babtsky, a So-viet Deputy Minister of Defense,said yesterday. that. Moscow'santiballistic missile systemwould protect the Soviet Unionfrom attack. Another high'pffi-'cer, Gen. Pavel A. Kurochkihvsaid missiles fired at the SovietUnion would never, reach theirtargets;: • • • ' • • . ' ? i . ' ; . , ' • . ' . ' ' ' • '

American analysts' were in-clined .to. • disepunt^such state-ments ;ias' military I propagandatimed 'Co coincide 'with Sovietarmed :forces celebrations andpossibly'1 also to convince the1

Soviet regime to extend-: devel-opment of Russian antimissile1

systems. > / , s— i_^_-^r

'NEW YORK TIMES,'WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1967

of Johnson Message to Arrris^TalksSpecial to The New Yort.Timek.'

WASHINGTON,.- Feb. 21—Following is the text of, a:mes-sage President Johnson sent to-day to flie Disarmamenti Con-ference m ^Geneva: . /

The. 18-nation disarmamentcommittee reconvenes todayin a time of renewed "hope.Conclusion of a treaty ban-ning weapons of inass' de-',.-struction in outer space, anda treaty for a Latin-American'nuclear-free zone,, gives newimpetus to the effort to tiring

' the arms race under, control.The disarmament; commit-

tee now faces.a great oppor-tunity—a treaty to" preventthe spread of nuclear weap-ons'. I earnestly hope that'll''will soon'be possible .to" rec- .:ommerid' draft, provisions of a7 ' 'nonprbliferation treaty for

--the consideration of'the com- ';mittee: • ' ' ' . - ' '' ,; ' '.- ' : :

As' I pointed' out to" the"Congress in my State of theUnion message, the world is"in the midst of a.great trans-ition,- a transition' 'from nar-row nationalism • to " interna-:

.tional partnership"; from the/harsh sp'irit ofHhe.'cold warto the hopeful spirit of com--::mon humanity oh -aVtroubled ;

and;threatened planet." , , ' ; '" .•-••; Asks Need ior.Equity/

•. H Coir deepest obligation to.. ourselves and t6; our children.is to: bring nuclear weaponsunder control. We. have.-., al-

ready made considerable.prog-ress. The next step is to pre-vent the further,-spread |0_f 'these weapons.' If ,'W;e. if ail to .•act now, nation, :after;vnation.will be driven to: use-^aiuable.resources' to ''acquire.p^tiejrn.Even local conflicts.1 .willf1 in--volve the danger bfjnuclearwar Nuclear arms will. s"pre3,d

to potentially unstable' areaswhere open-warfare has taken

-place^during the last-decade.'Indeed, all the progress of thepast few years: toward a lessdangerous, worM may well be'undone^

A nonproliferation treatymust be equitable as betweenthe nuclear and the non-nuclear-weapon powers. I amconfident that we can achievesuch equity and that the se-

"cunty of all nations will beenhanced.

. Such a treaty will help freethe nonnuclear nations fromthe agonizing decision ofwhether to pursue a searchfor secunty through nucleararms. Freed from the fearthat nonnuelear neighborsmay develop such weapons,nations can devote their,-- ef-forts in the field of atomic

, 'energy to developing strong,peaceful programs^ i

No Technological PenaltyI; have instructed bur.; ne-

gotiators to exercise thegreatest1 care that the treatynot. hinder the f npniiuclearpowers in their developmentof nuclear energy:for peace-ful purposes. We 'believe insharing the benefits of scien-tific progress and , we. willcontinue to act accordingly.

, Through I.A.E.A. [the Inter-,national Atomic Energy Ageh-

;'cy]: through' Euratom, andthrough other international'channels,; we .have shared -.•—and.will' continue...to share^the knowledge Sve have gained'about nuclear energy! Therewill be no barrier \,o effectivecooperation among the signa-tory-nations.": ; ' ' ' ' ;

I am sure we:all agree thata. nonproliferation treatysho'uld not contain any provi-sions that would defeat its

major purpose. The treatymust, therefore, cover nuclearexplosive devices for peacefulas well as military purposes.The technology is' the-.same. A^peaceful nuclear explosive de- -vice would, in effect, < also be.a highly sophisticated weapon.

However, this will not im-pose any technological penaltyon the participating nations.The( United States is preparedto make.available nuclear efc-plosive ; services for peacefulpurposes on a hondiscrimina-tory. baSis under appropriateinternational safeguards. Weare prepared to join other nu-clear states in a commitmentto do this.

More -generally, we recom-mend that the treaty:clearlystate the intention of itssignatories' to make availablethe full benefits of peacefulnuclear technblogy---including

i any benefits that are the.by-product of weapons: research, i

To assure that the peaceful !atom remains peaceful, we jmust work toward a broad ;international system, of safe- :guards satisfactory to all con- :

cerhed. The treaty provides aunique opportunity for prog-ress to this end.

Agreement on a .treaty, tostop the spread of nuclearweapons wiE be an [historicturning point in the long,effort to bring the atom. toheel. It .will, I am confident,permit further cooperativesteps to reduce nuclear arma-

'• ..inents. Plain sanity calls for a'• halt to the competition iii nu-

clear arms".There is nothing to choose-

here between the interests ofthe nuclear and the non-nuclear nations:. There is a

1 terrible and inescapable equityin our common danger. I wishyou Godspeea in. your work.

' ' ' : , —j

7SrW?2 .February 1967

Message for Reopening ofArms Parley Says ^TreatyWon't Halt Their Projects.

HE SEEKS TO CALM BONN

Asserts Pact to Bar FurtherSpread Will Protect All-

Soviet Talk Called

Text. of the. Johnson message,is printed on Page^lQ,'". \".

• By^HQJMCAS;j. HAMILTON: , .<v.' Special to JThe flew Yorki.Tlmesi ; '-,!. .•

"i§ f lff^VA|4i;eb.: 21--Presjdent:ifoM&otf ^sfiiired:' the nphnucleaf^powers; -feday;i that if they,. ac.-rceptedj^treaty prohibiting^ thespread- of nuclear: weapbnSj^itwould' nbt hinder their develop;merit of nuclear, energy v;f or -_peaceful purposes. /.' V'.:-iW'

'. Mr.' Johnson's message, ..readat the resumption of'the,r-Dia-armament ' Conference, ' dealtwith objections raised/by'.WestGermany and other Eurppeaiiallies of the United States: :;t|.Washington's revised draft- of.4treaty to forbid the spread pinuclear weapons to additionajcountries. . ••• i.?~

William ,C. Foster, head...,pithe United. States '-Arms . C.briftrol-and Disarmament Ageriby;said • at:,a:

;news conference.: iifterthe opening- session that;;:MriJohnson was addressing . hinfeself to the- "Doubting Thpm-rases.": v_ . ; . • ' . . • " ' - •

Fears Undoing of-;Gains •••--"). • .- i '• '..'"':'r

Mr. Johnson warned, that.-"na*tio'n : after, nation"' would bedriven.: to acquire ^ nuclear ^weap-ons - if ma, agreement was reaclied'a'iid;' .that ..'-'ali,' the;'-progress : ofthe'. pkst few- years1! towjard --aless 'dangerous" world may, well.,be .undone;";;: ; : V -^ . ' :.;. The session •produced .no' efe;planatiori of ::the last-minute.-Sb-viet. decision, nbt to join, the,-:United- States ;iri-"submitting:''^^ '•'

.,. jtreaty^ articles' f>n .-which.-ffe;;.:t'understar!lir:1 *~

riopesTto have preenueu imtlf, did not'submib'tneih 'en

his own behalf. •• , ¥•«*{ 1

i 1Aleksei A Roschm made

anticipated Soviet attacks' onthe aggressive war unleashed

by the United States in Viet-nam" as a threat to peace anda complication in effortsiijto[achieve a treaty. 5

Also Attacks :Bonh *Mr. Roshchm, the Soviet

representative, also renewedr-liisattacks on West Germany,chargmg that it was making"open" efforts to achieve accessto nuclear weapons, "substan-tially" hindering efforts towarddisarmament:

However, Mr. Roshchm'scriticisms of Washington ., andBonn1 were considered mildly"Soviet/ standards—he devoted,only ^one sentence to Vietnam-r-and the atmosphere was mor.6'hopeful than it was Aiig;i'-_25,at the time the 17 participatingnations repessed the last session.The ••. conference technicallyinvolves. 18. nations, but Francehas refused'to take part; ';•' "'

The. Soviet.representative said

afterward that It had; been "agdpd| meeting." Mr. ''Foster saidthatt1'he still hoped^ithe con-ference would reach agreementsoon* oh the treaty under dis-cussion. However, Mr. Fostersaid that "long and arduousnegotiations" were ahead, andit i$ generally predicted thatagreement will not be* reached,at the earliest, before the UnitedNations General 'Assemblymeets in ' September.

Mr. 'Foster expressed regretat Mr. Roshchin's refusal tojoin him in submitting "thedrafts .of treaty articles/:..'..•,.;.;.

Mr. Johnson said in his mes-isage that the United.; Stateswould continue to share its iinSfclear knowledge with r;Qtfietcountries .through. Euratbm,.;..the.|nuclear development' orgamza'-tion; comprising the CommonMarket countries—West Ger-mariy,: France, Italy, v Belgium,the . Netherlands and -L,uxem-bourg^as'Tvell' as- through^, theInternational Atomic EnergyAgency of 'the United Nationsin Vienna and "other i.ihterriatib|ial channels." .

However, this did not meetthe:'objectioii raised by West!

. Germany and Italy to rthe, Unit^:ed 'States1 .proposal ;.:that the?.Vienna agency, of' which theSoviet Union is a leading niem-1

,ber,-'I supply ''the ^inspectors to|check on compliance by npri-;nuclear signatories of a' treaty.This;would supersede Euratom'so.wn inspection system and-both;West Germany and Italy;.:.havej

nuclfar-induslry secrets to M5§r"cow. ' '

Thant %ends Message 'At , the end of -his -message,

President Johnson expressed afeeling of urgency, saying,"There is nothing to choose be-tween the interests of the nu-clear and nonnuclear nationsThere is a terrible and ines-capable equity in our commondanger."

Prime Minister Wilson senta message declaring, "We havenow reached the point at which,given the political will, a treatyto prevent the spread of nuclearweapons can be negotiatedsoon." He added that such suc-cess must spur delegates tomake progress toward a banon underground nuclear testsand toward general disarma-ment.. A message from Secretary

General Thant of the UnitedNations also urged the confer-ence- • tp. grapple with theseproblems as well as with thetreaty ' to ' halt the spread ofnjiclear weapons.S;:

;Ih a:' brief opening statement,Mr ..-.Foster reported that theUnited:~States and the Soviet;Union, as co-chairmen of thesix-year-old conference, hadheld "a number of meetings"since the recess. However, hedid not refer to a basic UnitedStates concession — abandon-ment of an article in a previousdraft that would have permittedWest Germany to acquire "co-ownership" or "copossession" ofnuclear weapons through mem-bership in the abortive alliednuclear force.

Since the Soviet Union hadannounced that it would notsign a treaty with such a pro-vision, the United States con-cession gave rise to a beliefthat the new United Statesdraft Would be quickly accepted.

In accordance with the usualschedule, the. conference willjneet' again. Thursday. . •"/ "'

MEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 2.6 April 1967

- . . • - . .

e Space Treaty «,

lous Senate approval of the^-spacfe ' treathas' come as a pleasant surprise after the widespreadconcern; earlier this year that the pact might fall

/short of the needed /two-thirds vote.important as it is, ihe space treaty is only a first

.step toward .the comprehensive and many-facetedspace cooperation that is required 'for the future. Thetreaty itself .merely creates the elementary prereq-uisites for space law and prohibits military baseson, and national appropriation of \ celestial bodies.

Activity in space is today almost entirely the mo-nopoly of 'the "United States and the; Soviet Union,whose expensive rivalry involves a race for propa-ganda and possible military as well as scientific ad-vantage. This duplication of effort is expensive inmoney, and perhaps in lives. The three dead American

' astronauts might still be alive if ; Apollo employed theRussians' two-gas system instead of a pure oxygenatmosphere. Vladimir Komarov might perhaps havesurvived .if his craft had been able, like United Statesmanned vehicles, to land at sea.

The basic problem is to create the organization. needed tp .carry out space exploration— in the treaty's

.words— "for the benefit and/ in the interests of all

.countries." Ideally, the probing of space and theplanets would be the province of a World' Space Or-

' ganization affiliated with the United Nations, financed .by the contributions' of all nations desiring to partici-pate, .and drawing upon the technical manpower and

• knowledge -of all nations. This international organiza-tion could be the owner of the moon and other solarbodies, arranging for the exploitation of \ resourcesfound there, and using any extraterrestrial profitsfor the benefit of all men.

It will/take much time before such, an ideal can be'reached. But even now 'the more sober spirit evidentin Moscow,' and Washington opens the door to greaterbilateral cooperation. - Both nations have technicalknowledge in this field that they could, exchange totheir mutual advantage. Their 'space tracking andrescue facilities could be coordinated into a singleworld system; they could agree on a division of labor'that would eliminate such duplication as is representedby ,. Surveyor .and Lunar Orbiter. The result couldeasily be major savings in money and increased safety; ,

;' for -all astronauts, regardless of nationah'ty^; ';;^-^'™

>I13IZ^,-,Z^n~;^' • — __ .'''•/:. :id£"''iiLv- . 5J4tvU.W

NEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 26 April 1967

Peaceful Exploration Pact,1 First of Kind, Is Sent to

Johnson for Signature

Legislator Hails Accord asa Triumph for the U.N.—

79 Nations Backing It

,By JOHN W. FINNEYSptclil to The New Yori Times

WASHINGTON, April 25—The Senate approved unani-mously today a treaty, estab-lishing general principles forthe peaceful exploration an<l useof outer space. j^

The treaty, the first tp governactivities in space, bang ^eap-•ons of mass destruction fromouter space and prohibits mili-tary bases on, or claims of na-tional sovereignty to, the moonand other celestial bodies.

It also specifies that the ex-ploration and use of space shallbe -.carried out for the benefitof air'mankind without dis-crimination... The treaty was approved byan. 88-to-O: roll-call vote after aday of perfunctory debate; inwhich conservatives joined 'withliberals in' endorsing the. treatyas a constructive step towardpreventing the extension' of na-tionalistic . / cpmpetttion .intospace. •••• '.'. <'.'., ;>£.v '

.•Already: signed'by ..79. nations,the:•; treaty;1 nbyir'goes', to Presi-dent Johnson''for formal ratifi-cation.; It will go into effectafter it has been ratified by theUnited States,, Britain,; the-, So-viet Union .and;' two! .other. lia?' '

DEBATE IS PERFUNCTORY

arurtne Soviet Ujiiori, the- treaty!represents another step in theAidmimstration's "bridge-huild-ing" program of reducing East-West tensions.

Approval of the treaty washailed by Senator Frank Church,Democrat of Idaho, as atriumph for the United Nations,which helped draft the treaty,and;a tribute to the -"politicalmaturity .'of the United Statesand the Soviet Union."; He saidt that it was *'no smallachievement'' for the two na-tions to reach, a. accord onthe treaty despite their dif-ferences, over the Vietnam wari-The "treaty on principles gov-

erning the activities of statesiti the exploration and use ofouter space, including the moonand other celestial bodies," asit is; called formally, is rankedby the Administration with thetreaty; of 1959 that bans, mili-tary activities in the Antarcticaand the treaty of 1963 that bansall .but underground tests ofnuclear, eapbns.?|jT|£f e^ressed' hope/J,^

,tion is

space trgJH;y;,Hj?L3fs^t the ISgefor additional,, tjififeft. States-.Soviet^agreements, such as a1

;r'ea.ty,to prevent the spread ofatomic weapons.

The outer space treaty hasbeen proclaimed by the Admin-jistration. as the most importantarms control agreement sincethe limited test pan treaty. Butdespite its.hortatory preamblecalling for" international coop-eration in the use of space forpeaceful purposes, the treatywill not preclude all militaryactivities in space,.

For example, it will not stopthe. launching of reconnaissance"spy" satellites or the use ofcommunications and weathersatellites for military purposes.The two major powers are nowengaging in these projects.

, Nor-will the treaty stop thelaunching by the United StatesAir Force-of a manned,orbitinglaboratory to. determine;.man'smilitary usefulness, in sga'ce. .

Ironic Effect ExpectedIn fact, the treatyr'is:expected

to have the ironic!) effect ""leading to increased -mi'tiL^,

(activity in space by,the\Unitej States—an outcome; predicteeirby^Gen.-Earle G. Wheeler, chair-

\an-Qf the Joint Chiefs of Staff,iv-testifying in support of the

treaty;----He indicated that the Admin-istration had given assurancesthere would be "an increase Inour military efforts in space"so that this country could de-termine whether the SovietUnion was abiding by thetreaty's prohibition on the orbit-ing of nuclear'weapons.

The space treaty .provides forinternational inspection of in-stallations arid space vehicleson the moon and other celestialbodies. But it' does not providefor any right of inspection todetermine whether satellitesmay be carrying nuclear bombsor other weapons of mass de-struction. . : . .

This provided, the one sourceof reservations to; the treaty]in the Senate debate. Typical1

of the critical comment froma conservative minority wasthe' statement by Senator StromThurmond, Republican of SouthCarolina, who complained thatthe treaty was "nothing morethan a scrap of paper" to theSoviet Union.

The reservations were over-come by assurances fromPentagon leaders that thetreaty would .not endanger na-ional security, and that theJYutejJ States had its ownneaBs, both • in ground - based

'-detection networks and obser-•yation satellites, to determinewhether the Soviet Union was

tucky, pointed ' o u t h de -bate, the military leaders saidthey Would prefer to dependupon a national system of veri-fication rather than an interna-tional system that might givethe Soviet Union the right tointerfere with military satel-

by, ^States,.

NEW YORK TIMES, Monday, 5 June 1967

Niiclefar ffeaty in Dajfpffv The "violent and irrational emotion's <aflo6'd ?>itf'

Middle-East only emphasize the infinitely greaterdangers that such trouble zones will pose for the worldif nuclear weapons continue to spread,to more nations.The thought that atomic warheads one day may bein the hands of such volatile, adversaries as the Arabsand Israelis1—or the Indians and Pakistanis—undoubt-edly is not lost on the seventeen-nation Geneva dis-armament conference which for more than three yearshas been trying to write a nuclear nonproliferationtreaty.

That treaty now is far enough advanced to raisethe possibility that an agreed Soviet-American draft,with the exception of one or two clauses, might be laidon the table within a matter of weeks. Intense nego-tiations are in progress, with lengthy Soviet-Ameri-can meetings almost daily, to clear away lesser issues.Major portions of a draft treaty already are agreedupon, not only in substance but in language. Neitherside thus far has permitted Middle East conflict orVietnam war to disrupt the talks.

But on one critical issue, the nature of inspectionmachinery, no solution is in sight. This dispute essen-tially, is riot between the United States and the SovietUnion but between Russia and Western Europe. TheEuratom countries—West Germany, Italy, France,Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg—are determinedto continue their regional safeguards system, whichthe United States for a decade has accepted as a validsubstitute for American inspection. Moscow insistson having the worldwide system of inspection by theInternational Atomic Energy Agency also apply inWestern Europe.

The United States first supported the Euratom po-sition, then shifted to the position'now held by theRussians, seriously alienating America's NATO allies.Most recently, Washington has sought a compromise•that would combine Euratom inspection with a systemof I.A.E.A. verification. A first compromise proposalwas rejected'by Euratom.-A later attempt acceptedby the Euratom countries was rejected by Russia.

Other issues undoubtedly will be raised in the seven-teen-nation:conference by such nuclear-capable nations"as India and Sweden. The most difficult is the Indiandemand for Soviet-American guarantees of nuclearprotection/against China.= The two superpowers cannot resolve the Euratomand Indian: issues between,themselves. They alreadyare regarded warily by the rest of the world becauseof the inescapable fact that the halting of atomicspread, by definition, preserves the Moscow-Washing-tbn nuclear hegemony, while the world's non-nuclearcountries sign self-denial ordinances. Moreover, thereis increasing reluctance on the part of the nuclear-capable countries to sign away their own rights in thisfield.'••• The point now has been reached where the wholeenterprise is endangered, but can yet be saved ifMoscow and Washington can confront the non-nuclearnations with an agreed draft treaty before the summerrecess, even if'they continue to differ on the inspec-tion clause.^ The momentum

THE NEW YORK TIMES, THURSDAY, JUNE IS, 1967

RtiskReports Gain on U.S.-Soviet Atom Pact DraftBy CLYDE H. FABNSWORTH

Special to The New York Times

LUXEMBOURG, June 14 —Negotiators for the UnitedStates and the Soviet Unionhave agreed on all but one arti-cle of the draft of a treaty pro-hibiting the spread of nuclearweapons.

The purposal leaves blank thecontroversial third article, cov-ering inspection and controls.

The United States had longsuggested that the issue be by-passed as a means of puttingnew life into the Geneva nego-tiations on disarmament.

The agreement was describedtoday by Secretary of StateDean Rusk to the Council of

Ithe North Atlantic Treaty Or-• ganization.

He won the general backingof the council for putting thenew version before the disarma-jment conference.

'Fundamental Interest'American officials said the

accord showed the "fundamen-tal interest" of both powers inpreventing the proliferation ofnuclear weapons before "timeruns out." High British officialssaid it had been . given a deci-sive push by the war. in theMiddle East.

On the other'hand, the Amer-icans took pains to emphasizethat the accord did .not sudden-ly open, the way to conclusionof the treaty. •

Until' recently, the Russianshad insisted -that the treatycontain a provision for inspec-tion by the International Atom-ic Energy Agency. This wasunacceptable to the members ofthe European ^Atomic EnergyCommunity, which wanted asystem of regional controls sothat they could continue to beinspected by Euratom. teams.

The United States had con-vinced the Western Europeansto 'agree to a' phasing in of con-trols by the international agen-cy, but the Soviet refusal evento discuss the issue unless in-ernational inspection was writ-ten into the draft treaty hadthreatened to block all prog-ress.

The Russians have backecdown on a procedural issue bui

i this could. mean. far more —•that they are willing to accep-[-the kind of compromise workecr ' n. '"".. =—

The New York Times

Matfrice Couve de Murville,French Foreign Minister,said Middle East situationis worse than ever before.

called that Sweden and Swit-zerland, in signing the treatyforbidding nuclear tests in theatmosphere, in space and underwater, had reserved the rightto produce nuclear weapons.

The West Germans and theItalians have insisted that anytreaty not be prejudicial tothe commercial nuclear inter-ests of states not now havingnuclear weapons. Furthermore,the nonnuclear powers have ar-gued that the treaty condemnsthem to permanent second-class status, including depend-ence on the nuclear powersfor assistance in peaceful re-search.

The Council of Foreign Min-isters of the 15 NATO coun-tries also discussed the Sovietinitiative in asking the UnitedNations General Assembly toexamine the Middle East ques-tion in an emergent" session.

Foreign Minister MauriceCouve de Murville of Francedeclared that the situation wasworse now than ever before andthat time was not running infavor of a peaceful settlement.Though Paris is supportingthe Soviet initiative, Mr. Couvede Murville said there wasjlittle hope for United Nationsintervention.

A communique issued by theministers after the two - daymeeting, "expressed their con-cern to see progress made mthe field of disarmament andarms control, including stepsdirected toward preventing theprol i fera t ion of nuclearweapons."

Fewer than 100 words weredevoted to the Middle East. TheFrench had fought hard to keepthe passages brief because theywant a minimum engagement,by NATO as an organization. ,

out between the United Statesand the Western Europeans oninspection.

Another disagreement be-tween the United States and theSoviet Union is apparently re-solved in the new -draft. Thisinvolves Article 5, which gov-erns rules for revision of thetreaty.

The Russians had insistedthat the nuclear powers retainthe right to veto any amend-ments. The United States hasapparently been willing to givein on this, according to in-formed conference cources.

The Russians have beforethem two versions of the articlegiving the right of veto to al-ternative groups of nations, onelarger than the other but bothcontaining the nuclear powers.An American official said bothversions were acceptable to theWest.

Apart from the problems stillfacing the Western Europeans,particularly the Germans, thereis the question of gaining ac-ceptance from such other pow-ers as India, Japan, the Latin-American countries, Swedenand Switzerland.

An American . official rer

W* TOPS, mI5'^S F r n ^ a v , 2^ V~yst 2

Nuclear Milestone at GenevaIn hailing the American-Soviet agreement at Geneva

on a draft treaty to halt the spread of nuclear weapons,President Johnson was wise to emphasize thetiistanceyet to be traveled on the road to world nuclearsecurity. Submission of the agreed draft to the seven-teen-nation Disarmament :Conferen'ce is. a remarkableachievement, but its full contribution to world security

- will not be realized unless the next stage of interna-tional negotiations proves equally successful.

That stage will involve an attempt tb get agreementon a workable system of international inspection andcontrol. Article ni-ofxthe treaty draft at present con-sists only of the title, "International Control." To comeupon that vacant article in 'reading the draft is to getan immediate reminder of what remains to be done ina crucial area.

Hope persists that an acceptable compromise can befound between Moscow's stand for inspection of allnon-nuclear countries by the International AtomicEnergy Agency in Vienna and the insistence of Amer-ica's Wesf European allies that inspection in theircountries be continued by their own agency, Euratom.Even such a compromise may not completely resolvethe control issue; however, as shown by Rumania'sdemand that the nuclear powers should also be subjectto inspection.

Apart from a control system, much missionary workwill remain to persuade non-nuclear: countries thatadherence to the treaty will neither consign them tosecond-class industrial status nor leave them vulner-able to : nuclear blackmail.

In an earlier stage at Geneva, Brazil argued that tobar a i country from carrying out its ,own peacefulatomic explosions in earth-moving and constructionwould be to.', damage its entire technology. This weekIndia— ever 'conscious of China's nuclear weaponsprogress; — again asked for a. multilateral guarantee ofprotection for non-nuclear signatories.

These problems are not insurmountable, but theyxare substantial enough1 to: rule out premature cele-bration. Recognition of their, importance in no waydetracts from the considerable— -perhaps monumental— achievement at Geneva.

American-Soviet agreement on even an incompletetreaty! constitutes evidence that the world's two nu-clear super-powers can recognize: a powerful commoninterest despite their bitter .and :perilbus disagreementson Vietnam and the Middle East, Great-power responsi-bility of this high order, if translated ;intd other fields,could mean a mighty step, toward that minimum, secu-

.t rity iri;a tiuc]eai> -world without which there can be no::::- assured futiieiforaanyone. . \(h^.'K".\-,!i^:-(

THE NEW YORK TIMES, FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1967

Special to The Hew York- Times

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24—Followingis the text of the dra/t treaty on thenonproliferution of nuclear weapons:

The states concluding this treaty,hereinafter referred to as the "partiesto the treaty,"

Considering the devastation thatxvould be visited upon all mankind bya nuclear war and the consequent needto make every effort to avert the dangerof such a war and to take measures tosafeguar the security of peoples,

Believing that the proliferation of nu-clear weapons would seriously enhancethe danger of nuclear war.

In conformity with resolutions of theUnited Nations General Assembly call-ing for the conclusion of an agreementon the prevention of wider dissemina-tion of nuclear weapons,

Undertaking to cooperate in facili-tating the application of InternationalAtomic Energy Agency safeguards onpeaceful nuclear activities,

Expressing their support for research,development and other efforts to furtherthe application, within the framework ofthe International Atomic Energy Agencysafeguards system, of the principle ofsafeguarding effectively the flow ofsource and special fissionable materialsby use of instruments and other tech-niques at certain strategic points,

Affirming the principle that the bene-fits of peaceful applications of nucleartechnology, including any technologicalby-products which may be derived bynuclear-weapon states from the develop-ment of nuclear-explosive devices,should be available for peaceful purposesto all parties to the treaty, whether nu-cJear-weapon or non nuclear-weaponstates,

Convinced that in furtherance of thisprinciple, all parties to this treaty areentitled to participate in the fullest pos-sible exchange of scientific informationfor, and to contribute, alone or in co-operation with other states, to the fur-ther development of the applications of

i atomic energy for peaceful purposes.Declaring their intention that poten-

tial benefits from any peaceful applica-t'ons of nuclear explosions should beavailable through appropriate interna-tional procedures to nonnuclear-weaponstates party to this treaty on a non-discriminatory basis and that the chargelp such parties for the explosive devices•used should be as low as possible andexclude any cfearge for research and de-velopment,

£. Declaring their intention to achieve>. at the earliest possible date the cessa-)u4ion of the nuclear arms race, ;|%=;

• Urging the cooperation of all statf^in the attainment of this objective,

Desiring to further the easing of inter-

Unltcd Press International CablephotoAT GENEVA JMEETING: William C. Foster, right, the U.S. representative atthe disarmament talks, and Aleksei A. Roshchm, his Soviet counterpart.

national tension and the strengtheningof trust between states ;n order to facil-itate the cessation of the manufactureof nuclear weapons, the liquidation ofall their existing stockpiles, and theelimination from national arsenals ofnuclear weapons and the means of theirdelivery pursuant to a Treaty on Generaland Complete Disarmament under strictand effective international control,

Noting that nothing in this treaty af-fects the right of any group of sLates toconclude regional treaties in order to as-sure the total absence of nuclear weap-ons in their respective territories,

Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE IEach nuclear-weapon state parly to

this treaty undertakes not to transferto any recipient whatsoever nuclearweapons or other nuclear explosive de-vices or control uver such "weapons orexplosive devices directly, or indirectly;.and not in any way to assist, encourage,or induce any nonnuclear-weapon stateto manufacture orxttherwise acquire nu-^clear weapons 'or other nucfear explosive;

devices, or control over such weaponsor explosive devices.

ARTICLE IIEach nonnuclear-weapon state party

to this treaty undertakes not to receivetiie transfer from any transferor what-soever of nuclear weapons or other nu-clear explosive devices or of controlover such weapons or explosive devicesdirectly, or indirectly; not to manufac-ture or otherwise acquire nuclear wea-pons or other nuclear explosive devices;and not to seek or receive any assistancein the manufacture of nuclear weaponsor other nuclear explosive devices,

ARTICLE III[This article, on international control,

was omitted because the parties havenot yet agreed to inspection methodsand procedures.]

ARTICLE IVNothing in this treaty shall be inter-

preted as affecting the inalienable rightof all the parties to the treaty to devel-op research, production and use of nu-clear energy for peaceful purposes with-

out discrimination and in conformitywith Articles I and II of this treaty, aswell as the right of the parties to par-ticipate in the fullest possible exchangeof information for, and to contributealone or in cooperation with other statesto, the further development of the ap-plications of nuclear energy for peacefulpurposes.

ARTICLE V1. Any party to this treaty may pro-

pose amendments to this treaty. Thetext of any proposed amendment shallbe submitted to the depositary govern-ment which shall circulate it to all par-ties to the treaty. Thereupon, if request-ed to do so by one-third or more of theparties to the treaty, the depositary gov-ernments shall convene a conference, towhich they shall invite all the partiesto the treaty, to consider such an amend-ment.

2. Any amendment to this treaty mustbe approved by a majority of the votesof all the parties to the treaty, includingthe votes of all nuclear-weapon statesparty to this treaty and all other par-ties* which, on the date the amendmentis circulated, are members of the Boardof Governors of the International AtomicEnergy Agency. The amendment shallenter into force for all parties upon thedeposit of instruments of ratification bya majority of all the parties, includingthe instruments of ratification of all nu-clear-weapon states party to this treatyand all other parties which, on the datethe amendment is circulated, are mem-bers of the Board of Governors of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency.

3. Five years after the entry into forceof this treaty, a conference of partiesto the treaty shall be held in Geneva,Switzerland, in order to review the op-eration of this treaty with a view to as-suring that the purposes and provisionsof the treaty are being realized.

ARTICLE VI1. This treaty shall be open to all

states for signature. Any state which-does not sign the treaty before its entryinto force in accordance with Paragraph3 of this article may accede to it at anytime.

2. This treaty shall be subject to rati-fication by signatory states. Instrumentsof ratification and instruments of acces-sion shall be deposited with the Govern-ments of . . , which are here-by designated the depositary govern-ments.

3. This treaty shall enter into forceafter its ratification by all nuclear-weap-on states signatory to this treaty, and— • other states signatory tothis treaty, and the deposit of their in-struments of ratification. For thepurposes of this treaty, a nuclear-weap-

Text of the Johnson StatementSpecial to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24—Following is the text of a statement by PresidentJohnson issued today by the White House on the draft treaty to stop thespread of nuclear weapons:

Today at Geneva the United Statesand the Soviet Union as co-chairmenof the 18-nation Disarmament Com-mittee' are submitting to the committee

•a draft treat}' to stop the spread ofnuclear weapons.

For more than 20 years, the worldhas watched with growing fear as nu-clear weapons have spread.

Since 1945, five nations have comeinto possession of these dreadful weap-ons. We believe now—as we did then—that even one such nation is too many.But the issue now is not whether somehave nuclear weapons while others donot. The issue is whether the nationswill agree to prevent a bad situationfrom becoming worse.

Today, for the first time, we havewithin our reach an instrument whichpermits us to make a choice.

The submission of a draft treatybrings us to the final and most criticalstage of this effort. The draft will beavailable for consideration by all gov-ernments, and for negotiation by theconference.

The treaty must reconcile the interestof nations with our interest as a com-munity of human beings on a smallplanet. The treaty must be responsiveto the needs and problems of all the na-tions of the world — great and small,

aligned and nonaiigned, nuclear and non-nuclear. •

It must add to the security of all.It must encourage the development

and use of nuclear energy for peacefulpurposes.

It must provide adequate protectionagainst the corruption of the peacefulatom to its use for weapons for war."

I am convinced that we are today, of-fering an instrument that will meet theserequirements.

If we now go forward to completionof a worldwide agreement, we will passon a great gift to those who follow us.

We shall demonstrate that — despiteall his problems, quarrels, and distrac-tions — man still retains a capacity todesign his fate, rather than be engulfedby it

Failure to complete our work wilt beinterpreted by our children and gra'nd-children as a betrayal of conscience; ina world that qeeds all of its 'resourcesand talents to serve life, not death.

I have given instructions to the Unit-ed States representative, William C. Fos-ter, which reflect our determination toensure that a fair and effective treaty isconcluded.

The 18-nation Committee on Disarma-ment now has before it the opportunityto make a cardinal contribution to man'ssafety and peace.

on state is one which has manufacturedand exploded a nuclear weapon or oth-er nuclear explosive device prior to Jan.1, 1967.

4. For states whose instruments ofratification or accession are depositedsubsequent to the entry into force ofthis treaty, it shall enter into force onthe date of the deposit of their instru-ments of ratification or accession.

5. The depositary governments shallpromptly inform all signatory and ac-ceding states of the date of each signa-ture, the date of deposit of each instru-ment of ratification or of accession, thedate of the entry into force of this treaty,and the date of receipt of any requestsfor convening a conference or other no-tices.

6. This treaty shall be registered bythe depositary governments pursuant toArticle 102 of the Charter of the UnitedNations.

ARTICLE VIIThis treaty shall be of unlimited dura-

tion.

Each party shall in. exercising its'na-tional sovereignty have the right towithdraw from the treaty if it decidesthat extraordinary events, related to thesubject matter of this treaty, have jeop-ardized the supreme interests of itscountry. It shall give notice of such with-drawal to all other parties to the treatyand to the United Nations SecurityCouncil three months in advance. Suchnotice shall include a statement of theextraordinary events it regards as hav-ing jeopardized its supreme interests.

ARTICLE VIIIThis treaty, the 'English, Russian,

French, Spanish and Chinese texts ofwhich are equally authentic, shall be de-posited in the archives of the depositarygovernments. Duly certified copies ofthis treaty shall be transmitted by thedepositary governments to the govern-ments of the signatory and accedingstates.

In witness whereof the undersigned,duly authorized, have signed this treaty.

HEW YORK TIMES, Friday, 25 August 1967

ireaiy Would ' Bloiftthe Froiiierailoii o^

Nuclear Arms "•;

Text of the nuclear draft •irony is o:: F^e 12. . '..

by TIIOMAS i'. E>J,lILTG-n>Spcclil Lo TV.e l.t^ Yori: Tinea

GENEVA, AUG. 24—ThaUnited States end the SovietUnion submitted to the disar-mamcrjL conference today sepa'-rate but identical texts or adraf t treaty to prevent the fur-ther spread of nuclear weap-ons. The draft lc-i[ blank thearticle on inspection, ^

Tha draft treaty, reproduc-ing the language used by tl]o

lUnited States when it intrcj-iduced the original proposalhere two yearj ago, would .Le

|0f infinite duration.i It would bar the five ijvj-clcar powers from transferringnuclear weapon^ or other nu-clear-explosive devices to na-lions that do not have therj.It would also prevent the nu-clear pov/ers from assistirrgother nations in the productionof nuclear weapons.: Franco Nat ParticipaiJr.;*i French and Communist Chi-:r,a, tv/o nuclear povvcrs thatarc not taking part ia tho.Ge-neva negotiations, have 'rr.aSeu clear that they will not cl^n'~the proposed treaty. It is talicnfor granted, however, that they%vill not hand over their weap-ons or knowledge to any other'Country.

The rirait treaty will be suo-rr.itled to the 17-naiion dis-irmxyieni; committee here—France, the 13th iv.cmber, h.-.snoi participated. The three oth-er nuclear powers, the UnitedStates, Britain aim Uie t>ovietUnion, are represented.

The treaty is open to all na-tions for signature and becomeseffective when it is ratified byall signatory nations..The pro-posed draft left blank the num-ber of signatory States. ' '"£

The draft treaty allows anynation to withdraw "if it ds-cides that extraordinary events,related to the subject .matterof t!iis treaty, have jeopardizedthe supreme interests" of Kacountry."

•Within ReacB,' FoSSer Says'.The document also declares

that nuclear technology forpeaceful purposes should iemade available to all partiesto the treaty. It calls for .areview of provisions after fivayears.

When all 17 nations at Ge-neva reach agreement on Hiedraft treaty, it will then ba;ubmttted for discussion to tba

United Nations General As-sembly.

William C. Foster, the UnfbjaStates representative, told th,aGeneva conference that thsong-sought agreement wfes •

now "within reach." \At a news conference late!',

le said it was a reasonablelope that all powers concerned

would reach agreement on;;theentire treaty by trie'beginningof 1968.

He expressed the hope thatthe other 15 participants in theconference would keep handsoff while he resumed his at-tempt to reach agreement withAleksei A. Roshchin, the Sovietrepresentative, on inspection,which is the only issuein dispute between the UnitedStates and the Soviet Union.

The United States wants togive West Germany and Italya temporary exemption fromthe inspection arrangementsthat have been proposed forother nonnuclear countries. So-viet objections to thisblocked submission of the drafttreaty since Feb. 21, when theconference convened.

On the inspection issue, MrRoshchin confined himself to aremark that the Soviet Unionwould continue to exert itselfas promised in the preambleto the draft, to insure "theestablishment of internationalcontrol through the Interna-tional Atomic Energy Agency[in Vienna] whose safeguardssystem is universally recognized and accepted by theoverwhelming majoritystates.

Agency Set Up in 1958The international agency was

established in 1958, with theUnited States' blessing, to promote and control the peacefuuses of atomic energy. . ;

No one in Washington coulcobject to the Soviet view, andMr. Foster explained the disagreement in similar terms. Thetwo Governments agreed fromthe start that the Vienna agency should check up on compliance by all nonnuclear partieto the treaty with the commitment not to produce or acquirenuclear weapons.

In response to complaints byWest Germany and Italy, however, the United States decideilast winter to propose a thnyear reprieve for them and fothe other nonnuclear memberof Euratom—Belgium,Netherlands and Luxembourg—during which Euratom's owi

SrSqll .iwoulM^SoIhi S-

-thening

thati theands; at-withoviettion,still

nitednion.ts toItalyfromentsI for. So-had

draftn the

, Mr.to a

Jniontself,imble

"thetionalerna-lencyuardsecog

the0

}f was1 the

proicefu

coulc, and

dis.Thefromagen>mpliartiemmit:quire

its byhow

;cidedthreeid fomber

thurg—

ow

p6ifslble.v • ' • '',"-'•"•''. -•,.«:?Both'feSoviet and' Unitedtates" ''sources indicated to-

night that Mr. Foster and Mi'.loshchin might work ""out theong-talked-of compromise, un-

der which Euratom and Inter/-ational Atomic Agency inspec-ors would have joint respon-ibility.

However, there is a real dan-;er that West Germany, whichlas raised one objection afteranother to the proposed renun-ciation of nuclear weapons,will refuse to sign if the Unit-ed States reached a compro-mise with the Soviet Union onhis issue.

No Prediction VenturedMr. Roshchin did not offer

any prophecy about the out-ook, but told newsmen that he

was willing to keep the con-erence going as long as any

participants wanted to speak.Asked why he had submittec

a separate text, instead or ac-cepting Mr. Foster's invitationto join him in presenting aproposal in the name of bothgovernments, Mr, Roshchinsaid only that the Soviet Gov-jrnment felt that this was thejest method. He gave the same-eplv when asked whether iwas because the Soviet Unioilad been unwilling to put itname on a proposal introducecay the United States.

According to Western delegates, Moscow hit upon thiDrocedure at the last minutn the hope that it would beless likely to produce ChinesCommunist charges that theSoviet' Union was1 once agaiiacting in collusion with thUnited States.

According to .reliable sources, the Soviet delegation didnot propose separate but identical drafts until two days ago

Although the United Statepromptly agreed, the Soviedelegation did not give thfinal go-ahead until 9 A.M. today.1

•The regular Thursday-morning session of the conferencwas then postponed until iP.M. to permit the simultaneous 'Publication of the 'draft iWashington and in Moscow. Astatement by President Johnsoaccompanied the United .Stateaction^ : 1 : - •••. '• '

.'tiie'text sUbmi tt^if todky wasdentical with the one' Mr,'dster rianded to Mr. Roshchinwo and a half months ago.i/lt. Foster proposed then thathey agree tp disagree on in-pection, leaving the article>lank.

Moscow's long delay in re-)lying had aroused fears thatts 'objections to the war inrietnam, and to American sup-;ort of Israel in the Middleiast crisis, had ruled out anyoint action on the treaty

against nuclear proliferation.One Western diplomat said

le would never fully under-stand why Mr. Roshchin askedHr. Foster to return to Genevarom Washington two weeks

ago to make arrangements forsubmitting the proposal, onlyo relapse into silence again

until he sent word yesterdaythat he was ready to go ahead.

One reason, the diplomatsaid, was certainly the fadthat Rumania, which mean-while had publicly espoused acombination of the neutralistand Chinese Communist linesm the proposed treaty, hacust given Moscow a greenight for the introduction of thetext.

Whatever the explanation,Wr. Foster's and Mr. Roshchin'sjehavior after the conferencesession in the Palais des Na-tions was confirmation of theirmeeting of minds on every-thing except inspection.

When a photographer point-ed out that the Soviet repre-sentative did not have a copyof his draft treaty in his hand,Mr. Foster handed ove? his ownwith the request, "Let mehave it back when you arethrough."

The two men, as one delegateremarked, could just as wellhave traded the lengthyspeeches they made in submit-ting their identical proposalsAt the end of his speech MrRoshchin tacked on the stand-ard Soviet denunciation of "theimperialist aggression of theUnited States in Vietnam" ancthe "Israeli aggression againstthe Arab states," but this wasout of character with the rest

With this exception, MrFoster's and Mr. Roshchin's re-marks were almost identical onthe need to prevent any ad-

ditional expansion of the "nu-clear club," on the. proposedreaty safeguards for the-peace-ul nuclear programs of the

non-nuclear powers and onheir continued .negotiations onthe inspection problem.

The draft proposal gives the•ight to veto any amendments^to the treaty to nuclear-weaponstates and to members of thej25-nation board of the Inter-national Atomic Agency. Byaccepting this clause, the SovietUnion and the United Statesrejected an alternative put for-ward earlier to confine the vetojower to nuclear nations butto give others an option onamendments.

The United States, the SovietUnion, Britain and Japan havepermanent seats on the boardof the International Agency,riowever, West Germany andItaly, among potential nuclearpowers, hold elective seats andmight not be members whenthe question of a veto arose.

The United States and theSoviet Union rejected India'sdemand that the treaty providenonnuclear signatories with aguarantee against "blackmail"by Communist China, However,Mr. Foster and Mr. Roshchinpromised today to try to workout an agreement on this sub-ject, outside the proposedtreaty.

V. C. Trivedi, the Indianrepresentative, was the onlydelegate who gave their pro-posal a chilly reception. Mr.Trivedi said that India's de-cision on whether to sign thefinal draft would depend on theextent to which it provided for"balanced" sacrifices by -nu-clear and nonnuclear powers,and general security, as de-fined by United Nations Gen-eral Assembly resolutions.

Canada, Mexico and Sweden,the only others to comment,gave the draft a warm welcome.

Although the disarmamentconference normally suspendsat the end of August, Mr.Foster . said that the UnitedStates wanted it to continueconsideration of the draft treatyuntil the first week of Octoberand that Mr. Roshchin hadagreed. Nonetheless, it is clearthat negotiations iti the Gen-eral Assembly this fall will de-termine the outcome.

HEW YORK TIMES, Friday, 25 August, 1967

• VV- -rtJl'i 'ft^i, ••' •' " iU'l^J - ^t^S £-»!/*1 i ' v*' ;'' "';'i'v '' ' ' ' • •'

~ '7"" '

{fGHPiill Ha ff1

h's Says iiie ProposalIs SQ tii'Stii" Gifr for

Future World

Te.vc of Jo/msof; G'alcmc/U'. witV je found on Fa£2 J2.

Ey 'PETE3 GS03E

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 —President Johnson hailed todayUie Soviet-American agreementon the draft of a treaty 10 pre-vent the spread of nuclearweapons as opening the finalslage in the pursuit of "a greatgift to those who follow us"en 'earth.

"I-'ailure to complete ourwork- will be interpreted by ourchildren and grandchildren asa betrayal of conscience," thePresident said.

Kis statement was published.•by the White House as the an-nouncement came from Genevathat Soviet and American ne-gotiators had finally submitteddrafts for the consideration ofthe full IV-nation disarmamentconference and, subsequently,the United Nations General As-sembly.

United States officials cau-:Uoned that crucial work andIvP.oUy deliberations still lieahead. however, ^'though afundamental passage in thedriiff -was left blank — tj|a in-spection provisions to cuard!against violations of the pro-1

posed trcsty-»officials here ex-pressed the belief that the pre-liminary record woulj "create,an atmosphere" favorable tofurther steps toward disarma-ment and the easing of inter-'national tensions.

Watched With Fear"For more than 20 years,"

President Johnson said, "theworld has watched with grow-ing fear as nuclear weaponshave spread.

"Since 1945, five nationsjhave/'come into ^juiscsa-ion of.these dreadful weapons. We be-'lieve now — as we did then —

|that even one such nation is'too many.

"But the issue now is notwhether some have nuclearweapons while others do notjthe issue is whether the na-tions will agree to prevent abad situation from becoming

i worse. .: "Today, for the first time,we have within our reach aninstrument which permits us tomake a choice."

United States officials saidthis country and the SovietUnion were now committed toa text that would prevent anyof the world's five nuclearpowers — the United States, theSoviet Union, Britain, Franceand Communist China — fromtransferring nuclear weapons"to any recipient whatsoever."'

There is no confidence herethat Communist China will ad-here to any treaty, and onlythe vaguest of hopes thatFrance can' be persuaded tooin.

Moreover, United States of-

. . ' ' . ,^f „., ^.,,, „,,.-„..„. , . -•- -••• "' "^ liit^siiluflffS waters of tlie

yfrffiWwas'iTieJiatiated in July;ficials foresaw major difficul-ties in satisfying certain non-aligned nations such as India'that their security could beprotected if they agreed not toreceive nuclear weapons or de-velop their own weapon sys-tem.

Any final treaty. PresidentJohnson said, "must reconcilethe interests of nations withour interest as a community ofhuman beinss on a smallplanet."

"It must add to the securityof all," he went on. "It mustencourage the developmentand use of nuclear energy forpeaceful purposes. It mustprovide adequate protectionagainst the corruption of thepeaceful atom to its use forweapons of war.

"I am convinced that we aretoday offering an instrumentthat will meet these require-ments.

"If we now go forward tocompletion of a worldwideagreement, we will pass on agreat gift to those who followus.

"We shall demonstrate that— despite all his problems,quarrels and distractions — manstill retains a capacity to de-isign his fate, rather than be en-gulfed by it."

Postwar Policy GoalMeans to prevent the spread

of nuclear weapons have beeran underlying aim of UnitedStates foreign policy since theend of World War II.

A plan put forward by Ber-nard Bahich in 1946 proposedsome international authorityover "dangerous" atomic ma-terials. Through the decade thatfollowed the focus of diplo-matic activity was .progressive-ly narrowed, toward the formu-lation presented today.!' Separate Soviet and Ameri-can draft treaties to bar thespread of nuclear weapons havebeen before the Geneva disar-mament conference since 1962: A treaty prohibiting, nudeartests in the vaOTOsphej£)Jih

iSeSiySfifr'eaty forbidding nu-clSSr" "weapons in space wasapproved in Moscow on Jan.27 -of this year.

_. p . . Arrtor:,inn p^Hnn

oday was the culmination of adiplomatic effort first signaledast Oct. 10, when the Soviet'oreign Minister, Andrei A.ji'omyko, emerged from a din-ner meeting with Secretary ofState Dean Rusk and com-mented, with an optimism thatsurprised and cheered Americanofficials:

"It looks like both countries,the United States and the So-viet Union, are striving toreach agreement to facilitate:he conclusion of an interna-tional agreement."

First Sign of AcceptanceThis remark was seen as the

first sign that the Russians hadaccepted the Administration'sassurances that the UnitedStates nuclear stockpile wouldnot be made available for theuse of the Western Europeanallies, particularly West Ger-many.

It has since become clearthat in their talks that dayPresident Johnson and Mr.Rusk gave Mr. Gromyko strongindication that the previousUnited States reservations,aimed at accomodating somenuclear-sharing device hi theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organi-zation, had been withdrawn.

This concession opened theway to the language of today'sdraft, barring the transfer 01nuclear weapons "to any re-cipient whatsoever," long ad-vocated by the Soviet Union.

On this basis, the long-stallednegotiations in Geneva • beganto pick up through the winterAt President Johnson's meet-ings with Soviet Premier Alek-sei N. Kosygiu in GlassboroN. J., on June 23 and 25, UnitedStates offcials said, the twoleaders gave "final, officialhigh-level confirmation" thaiboth governments were readyto see the bilateral treaty talksproceed to today's climax,, ..United; States officials now;expectTthe proposed draft to ,be.

examined in detail by" othernuclear and nonnuclear powersat the Geneva conference.Meanwhile, Soviet and ATner-can diplomats are to continuetrying to agree, first, on a'sys-:em of international inspectionsmd, second, on some kind of)ig-power guarantee for smallernations who would voluntarilysurrender the protection oftheir own nuclear defenses.General Assembly DiscussionAn optimistic timetable, of-

fered by one United States dis-armament expert, would havethe 17 nations at Geneva reachan agreed draft by October,then submit the question forgeneral discussion at the UnitedNations General Assembly.,Final signature of the treaty,even by this optimistic projec-tion, would be many monthsaway.

By producing an identicaldraft, the United States . andSoviet Union now throw a largepart of the responsibility fqr aneventual treaty on the lesserpowers, those that alreadypossess nuclear weapons andthose that do not. . '

The administration hopesthat nonnuclear nations can besatisfied with the provisions ofthe draft that give them theright of access to peaceful nu-clear technology.

The United States hopes that,by opening the draft to multi-lateral discussions, some .wayout- can be found to the dead-lock between Moscow andWashington on the issue ofinternational inspections andsafeguards — a deadlock :thatshows up bluntly 'in the blankArticle III 'of the draft treaty.

Trying to meet the reserva-tions of the Western allies, theUnited States has asked thatinspections to warn of unau-thorized nuclear activity beconducted by Euratom, theatomic energy agency of theEuropean Common Market,then, certified by the Interna-tional Atomic Energy Agencyin Vienna. .

The Soviet Union has so farinsisted that the internationalagency. itself carry out the in-spections.- .•:,!•. ; ..'•.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Monday, 28 August 1967

Cause for hope •^••r---:ifi.,^-:! I-. ' .-

No matter how imperfect, any agree-ment between the United States and theSoviet Union helps the world sleep betternights. Whenever these two greatest pow-ers can lay aside their rivalries, and dis-agreements long enough to join effortsfor the preservation of peace and security,men everywhere take new heart. Andwith submission of a joint American-Soviet resolution to prevent the spreadof nuclear weapons, a great step towardsa safer, saner, sounder world has beenmade.

This resolution, when adopted by allthe necessary signatories, will bar theworld's five nuclear powers (America,Britain, China, France and Russia) fromeither transferring nuclear weapons ornuclear explosive devices to nations nothaving them or from helping such nationsin producing nuclear weapons.

Although neither France nor Commu-nist China is expected to sign the treaty,nonetheless the American-Russian resolu-tion is of the highest -importance. Itpledges these two world leaders to do allin their power to restrict the nuclearthreat. It places France and China undergreat pressure to do likewise. It will helpgalvanize world opinion in favor of what-ever further steps will be necessary toguarantee that atomic power be used onlyfor peaceful purposes.

This joint United States-Soviet move isheartening proof of men's sanity and ra-tionality. It encourages us to recognize theoperation of a law of intelligence in the

;,aff,aJir5,:-ofBmankind. It is proof that when

men acknowledge the essential and funda-mental unity and brotherhood of man-kind, they are led into paths which pointtowards peace and progress rather thantowards war and poverty.

It will be noted that not even Moscow'sstrong disagreement with Washingtonover Vietnam prevented the Kremlinfrom joining hands with the White Housein this important move. And it is to behoped that this American-Russian accordon nuclear weapons will somehow, some-day make it that much easier for Wash-ington and Moscow to cooperate in endingthe strife in Southeast Asia. There, too,a putting aside of distrust on behalf of agreater goal could open the way to thestopping of a war which no longer iswanted by anyone or serves anyone.

It is likely that one of the reasons forMoscow's willingness at this time to signsuch an accord is the Soviet Union's con-cern over its relations with CommunistChina. If so, it is but one further proof ofMoscow's recognition that, at an ever-increasing number of points, its interestscoincide with those of the United States,and that these interests are fundamentallydirected towards the preservation ofpeace.

The danger of nuclear war has not dis-appeared. It will not do so until all meneverywhere recognize that such insanitymust be put aside forever. Yet the jointAmerican-Soviet move at Geneva is along step in this direction. As such it is acause for legitimate rejoicing and greaterhope everywhere. . . . . .

.fe. '!fffll NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, 2k September 1967

DISCERNED ATM..

U.S. Missile Plan Viewed asContrary to Atom Pact

By PETER GROSESpecial to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 —At the United Nations this com-ing week, the United States andthe Soviet Union—rivals in nu-clear ambitions—will be part-ners in a drive to persuadeother nations to give up anynuclear ambitions of their own

Western diplomats see this asa paradox, or double standard,that is already causing concernif not open resentment in thecapitals' of allies of the super-powers as well as the non-aligned world.

The issue of nuclear accorc'is likely to underlie much ofthe private discussion duringthe new session of the GeneralAssembly, while the more spec-tacular issues of Vietnam' andthe Middle East dominate thepublic forum.

Secretary of State Dean Ruskplans to fly to New'York to-morrow for at least 10 days oftalks with other leading diplo-mats attending the session.

Ministers to MeetHe is scheduled to meet over

a working dinner Tuesday withthe Foreign Ministers of Britain,France and the Soviet Union atthe invitation of Secretary Gen-eral Thant. Private meetingswith the Soviet Foreign Minis-ter, Andrei A. Gromyko, are be-ing arranged.

Diplomatic analysts see basic jquestions of international poli-•tics posed by the juxtapositionof two recent moves. These arethe Soviet-United States agree-ment on a draft treaty to pre-vent the spread of nuclearweapons, announced in GenevaAug. 24, and Defense SecretaryRobert S. McNamara's an-nouncement last Monday thatthe_ United States will constructa limited system of antiballisticmissiles.

Despite all the protestationsof United States disarmamentofficials, even friendly diplo-mats believe the decision tobuild a new missile-defense sys-tem has complicated the pros-pects for an effective drafttreaty to curb the weapons'spread.

The McNamara announce-ment is viewed as the sort ofweapons' spread that is almostcertain to be met with;: an; jrHtensifieation of Soviet- ..nticlearplaniimgi '-•. •. : , i?^,/r --.&.VSL-- * J '" • - - • • " ' ' .,..

.CotSadiction, May_BeiSeenThe 'two leading jjijuc'lear

'powers, therefore, woflra be in-creasing their arsenals at thesame time they are urging anend to the spread of nuclearweapons to other countries.

The United States decision isexpected to be interpreted bysome allied governments as adirect contradiction of thespirit'of the draft treaty.

In the preamble to the iden-tical texts submitted by theUnited States and Soviet dele-gations to the 17-nation dis-armament conference in Gen-eva the two Governments de-clare "their intention to achieveat the earliest possible datethe cessation of the nucleararms face."

Barely one month after sub-mitting this declaration, theUnited States announced anew armament program thatboth the Kennedy and JohnsonAdministration had previouslyresisted for fear of expandingthe arms race with the SovietUnion.

Reasoning Is UnderstoodThe reasoning behind Mr.

McNamara's announcement iswidely recognized in foreigncapitals: the threat of ChineseCommunist intercontinentalmissiles by the mid-nineteen-seventies is considered realenough to justify a defensivesystem.

What many allied diplomatsseem unable to accept is theAdministration's hope that theSoviet Union will not feelobliged to reply to the UnitedStates missile program with allenlargement of their own anti-ballistic missile system alreadydeployed.

Nor do they seem impressedwith the belief that an Amer-ican missile defense systemwill improve the prospect forconcluding the nuclear drafttreaty.

Administration spokesmenargue that Asian nations shouldfeel more secure against pos-sible Chinese attack in theknowledge that the UnitedStates will not be vulnerable toChinese nuclear threats to firenuclear warheads at Americaif the United States tried tointervene in defense of one ofChina's Asian neighbors.

Fundamentally, the drafttreaty is an attempt to.,freezethe power •-relationships ^be-tween nuclear ..and nnations. ' '•'•

Presidents Johnson'- ipiitfway when the draft treaty, waspresented: :"' '"'"• "~*~ -~^ •'

"The issue now is not whethersome have nuclear weaponswhile others do not. The issueis whether the nations willagree to prevent a bad situa-tion from becoming worse."

United States officials ac-knowledge, however, that thereis a basic reluctance on thepart of^a developing nation toaccept what would amount to asecond-class status against thenuclear powers—the UnitedStates, the Soviet Union,Britain, France and CommunistChina.." •:; •:• : •. ,. . • v^

BOSTON GLOBE, Tuesday, 11 June 1968

DARIUS S THABVALAGlobe TJ V Bureau

UNITED NATIONS ,- a heGenpial Assembly's Politicaland Security Committee en-dorsed by an overwhelmingvote on Monday the U.S.-So-viet Union draft treaty forthe -nonproli-feration "-of nu-clear weapons.

By E. vote of 92 to 4 with 22

abstentions and ;slx absent,the ~'U24-membe.r • committeeeDiniaen'dejl; the; • treaty.^' re-

f :|ted>.' -that iV ''be openediSSghature arid1 ratification,

at trie'' earliest, possible date"and expressed the hope "forthe widest possible adher-ence" by both nuclear andnon-nuclear states.

U also called on/the 18-na-lion Disarmament.','] 'Commit-

tee to "urgently" pursue ne-gotians "on effective measuresrelating to cessation of thenuclear arms race at an earlv

' date "

The action on Monday vashailed by U.S. AmbassadorArthur J. Goldberg .as "a goodaugury for a moi'efepeaceful,world.'*

i ."The treaty is s milestonepn^herroad to a more peace-fuli'"and'secure int.ernalinnalorder, :HE CDECLARED."•Goldberg, who announced

in APRIL THAT HE WASRESIG-NING TO RETURNTO PHI V ATE L I F E ,AGREED TO PresidentJohnson's request that hestay on to help the treatythrough the Assembly.

Soviet First Deputy For-eign 'Minister Vasily V.Kuznetsov limited his re-marks ..to offering thanks tothe officials of the commit-tee and its chairman, IsmailFahmy of ' the United ArabRepublic, for "conducting

• the debates impartially."Before the treaty can

come into effect, the docu-ment -will need do be ap-proved 'formally by the Gen-eral Assembly. This is nowvirtually certain since thosemember states which votedfor it in the committee willvote for it in the assembly.The vote in favor on Mon-day was far more than thetwo-thirds majority requiredin the Assembly.

After Assembly passage, the treaty will be opened forsignature1 and come into ef-fect as soon as the U.S.,United Kingdom . SovietUnion and 40 other stateshave deposited their instru-ments of ratification.

A concommitant of thetreaty will be a SecurityCouncil resolution, yet to headopted, assuring nonnu-clear states of securityagainst threats or use offorce.

The vote "Monday reflectedthe wide spectrum of objec-tions that had been voicedby various delegations dur-ing the seven-week debatein 'the committee and beforethat at the disai'm.firn.entco m m i 11 e e • .'meetmgg*> in-

• ,nL.^t in A r i e r i r a . Braz i l 'i8na,*'"&rgehtina refused to.sugpoif'jHhe d ra f t becauseffleyWish to retain the op-tion to use nuclear energyfor peaceful purposes with-out dependence on the pres-ent nuclear powers.

Again, scvera. countrieswhich voted "yes" an Mon-day — among them Israel,Pakistan, South Africa,Thailand and Australia —did not specifically indicatethat they would sign thedocument or ratify it.

Despite these objectionsand reservations, it is virtu-ally certain that the trealywill get the necessary signa-tures and ratifications. The11 articles of the treaty, con-cluded after four years ofintensive negotiations, ae in-tended to prevent additionalnations from gaining posses-Sinn of nuclear weapons andthe power to emp,oy them toini t iate a nuclear war.

In addition to the five 'nu-

clear weapons states, at leastseven more can produce anatomic bomb in less thantwo years, and thirty-eightothers possess nuclear reac-tors.

In essence, the treaty for-bids the transfer of nuclearweapons or the means oftheir manufacture to nonnu-clear states and forbids non-nuclear signatories from re-ceiving them.

The treaty contains provi-sion for providing devel-oping countries with, use ofatomic energy for peacefulpurposes.

On May 31, the two majornuclear powers offered revi-sions to their original draftsoa s to strengthen some ofthe provisions, particularlythose dealing with peacefuluses of nuclear energy; forfur ther and prompt meas-ures to halt the arms race;and for the security of thesignatories. However, thesechanges did not' help to swaythe hard core of objectors.

ro'unis'f'China's opposition'to *thy'treaty — and Cuba —Because of U.S. nuclearbases-1 near its territory —cast the four 'negative votes.

' Among' the major abstain-ers wer 'France, India, Brazil •arid Argentina.

France has _ a l l along fol-lowed an independent nucle-ar .policy and has refused to .parti-cipate in the disarms- 'ment negotiations However,her stance on nonprolUera-tion . attracted a number offormer French-Afican coun-tries. •

• India -resolutely main-tained that the treaty would •R»t lead to genuine disarma- :ment since it would restrictthe -nonnuclear states from. .acquiring or manufacturing 'weapons but allow the nu-clear states to increase their j

1 atomic arsenals in quality. ,, Furthemore, India is dU- ,

satisfied with the treaty's se- <, 'eurity provisions.

NEW YORK TIMES, 11 Jui

EDINMBY 92-1-4 VOTE

Final Approval of the Draftto Halt Weapons Spread

Is Expected This Week

22 MEMBERS ABSTAIN

Political Committee's A6tionIs Hailed by Goldberg as'Milestone' Toward Peace

ByJUANdeONISSpecial to The New York Timej

• UNITED CATIONS, N. Y., June10—A large-'majority 'of UnitedNations members gave a voteof endorsement today, to. thedraft treaty to halt the spreadof nuclear weapons.

The vote at the end of a sixrweek debate iiu. the GeneralAssembly's Political Committee,which encompasses all of theAssembly\ members; was 92 infavor and 4 against, with 22abstentions. The' Assembly,with 124 members,, is: expectedto take similar action beforethe end of this week. ;

• Arthur. J. Goldberg, "chiefUnited States delegate,, saidthat the ,vote on the .treaty^ was"a milestone on the road to amore peapeful and secure inter-national order."

"This treaty will .push; baclcthe fearful ''shadow of. nucleardestruction , -and ;;bf ighteri ••: thehopes of alt: nations, nuclearand nonnucjear'- alike, formore peaceful world," Mr.Goldberg said. . '•" :

Action Began in 1960The vote today; and the

action expected, .'.in; the ASTsembiy gre;wVout:6f a!, I960General.,' Assembly -resolutioncalling on the Geneva Disarma-ment Conference to draft sucha treaty.

The nuclear-arms proposal isthe oriostiirnportant item before

of the • 22dThe.'draft;

f "the United Statesandresult of six.years of negotia-tions at the; disarmament con-ference in Geheya.

Vasily V. Kuznetspv, - FirstDeputy Foreign Minister of theSoviet Union, and chairman ofhis country's delegation duringthe current resumed - session,said the approval rof- the en-dorsing resolution: by "^n over-whelming majority" had clearedthe way for bringing the dis-armament: measure .into forces

The main provision of ; the;draft treaty is that .signatorycountries that ;now do • notpossess nuclear weapons willvoluntarily refrain from acquir-

weapons ,6r nuclear explosive^devices of any kind. -

The nuclear-weapons powersunder the treaty agree to re-frauvtfrom assisting any non-nuclear-weapon country to ac-quire nuclear arms, but agreeto assist those signatory coun-tries in all forms of peacefulnu'clear development.

The treaty will be openedfor-1 signature next month inWashington, Moscow and Lon-don by the United States, theSoviet Union and Britain, thethree nuclear-weapons statesthat support the treaty. France1

and_ Communist China, both ofwhich-possess^nuclear arms,have announced that they willnot sign the treaty.

-The treaty v?ill come into__rc£,when it has been ^ratifiedby~'the United States, the• So-viet Union, Britain and 40other signatories.. It :has a dura-tion of 25 years.

Although it does loot figurein the text of the treaty, thethree sponsors have announcedthat they will make pledges inthe Security. Council to go tothe assistance of .any signer ofthe' treiaty threatened by ag-gression- by'-'any 'nuclear stateoutside the treaty.

The endorsement today meantthat-.the majority consideredthe: drafting job well done, andwas an indication of intentionto sign the treaty. I

Only Albania, which sharesCommunist China's view, that

s-- treaty is a. Soviet-UnitedStates plot, and Cuba, Tanzaniaand Zambia voted against en-dorsement.

The abstainers'.were France,Argentina,. .Brazil, India, Spain,Portugal; Algeria, Saudi Arabia,ahd 14 black African countries.

The abstentions reflected avariety of criticisms of thedraft treaty that -no degree ofpersuasion-by the United Statesand the Soviet Union, as wellas oth^r backers of the treaty,could eliminate.

The main ; objections :voicedby these countries during thedebate were that the treaty didnot' bind the nuclear-weaponscountries to, limit the develop-ment -of:-, their own nucleararms, and that the treaty limi-tations . and safeguard inspec-tions -on- nuclear- activitiesweighed unequally on- non-nuclear weapons, states.-; India stressed the''absence ofcommitment' to specific .cut-backs on the level. of nucleararmament, despite .statementsby: the United! States and theSoviet Union that adoption/ ofthe treaty would-in itself en-courage further : disarmamentmeasure.?,:, . • , - , : • .;-,. The ,positipn. of some .of theAfrican, countries,, was believedtO:.hav.e been'; influenced by-the:disapppintm^nfr;.-ambngi -'blackAfricaff d^gstfoj-- •""**•'-tjnited Naijionjsa1

overSbuth-West°A'frici: "^:"':-'.France's .abstention also, in-

fluenced some of the formerFrench colonies.

The treaty sponsors tookparticular satisfaction iii :th'e'favorable vote of all Arabcountries, except Algeria, andSaiidi Arabia, and of Israel, de-spite the tense political situa-tion in the Middle East.

They also found satisfactionin the favorable vote of SouthAfrica,- a major producer • ofuranium and the only countryin ^southern Africa with a realpotential for nuclear industrialdevelopment.' Runaania, which had been

strongly'critical of .the draft atthe -opening of the debate,j oined all the , other EasternEuropean countries in backingthe. . treaty. Pakistan,, despiteIndia's: abstentipn;*, also votediri..'favbr,'as'-ai&'.JI'""'""'' * '"

BOSTON GLOBE, Thursday, 13 June 1968

By DARIUS 5. JHAEVALAGlobe U.N. Bureau

UNITED NATIONS — Presi-dent Johnson on Wednesdaytraveled to the U.N. to hail thetreaty for the nonproliferationof nuclear weapons—which hadjust been endorsed Wednesdayafternoon by the U.N. General

Assembly—"as the most impor-tant international agreement inthe field of disarmament sincethe nuclear age began."

He also avowed to the U.N.General Assembly "the urgentdesire" of the U.S. and the So-viet Uniion "to.. begin. early dis-cussions on .!-ffie airiitft'tjien1 .of

strategic offensive and defensivenuclear weapons system."

"We shall search for anagreement that will not onlyavoid another costly and futileescalation of the arms race, butwill deescalate it," he said.

Before and after the 15-«

minute aadress, the Presidentreceived a standing ovation fromdelegations, including Sovietfirst deputy foreign ministerVasily V. Kuznetsov. The ambas-sadors of Albania and Cuba pur-posely absented themselves .,:when the President spoke. • f* ?v#ii - - '^•-->;^ * ^v'< ',*;.,.:;;.; . .:s

- -{•dress, . Me- ' jof'jnap.n, accom-panied to the • tfvN. by his•daughter, tech-- Nugent,shook hands.- .;svi:t:h;;delegationleaders at anj'jWfpgifial gath-ering just outsi'd.ei'the blue-and-gold assembly chamber.

Just 15 minutes before thePresident arrived, the 124-member body .completed for-mal endorsement of thetreaty by a vole" of 95 to 4with 21 abstentions. LastMonday the .Assembly's po-litical and security commit-tee recommended Assemblyendorsement

The treaty bars the trans-fer and'' -.assistance to themanufacture. _ of nuclear.•wessons to fcountries notpossessing them. Further-• -" • '"'

nVore. itsp'rivents the diver-s'ioji"; ofr'';f?uclear materialsfrom -jfe'ciceTul uses to weap-6iis "and "offers signatories afree flow of information andknowhow for peaceful uses.

A corollary will be a Se-curity Council resolutionwhich will seek to providenonuclear states with assur-ances that they will not bevictims of nuclear threats oruse of force.

The U.S., U.K. and SovietUnion Wednesday drafted aletter to the president of thecouncil asking for an earlymeeting to consider thequestion of assurances.

Earlier in the day, the As-sembly called upon all states"to take effective economicand other measures" againstthe Republic of South Africaso ..as .to securer freedom and

independence for the territo-ry of South West Africa,now renamed Namibia,

It also called upon thecouncil "to take all appro-priate steps . . . and effectivemeasures .. . to ensure theimmediate removal of SouthAfrica's presence" in the ter-ritory. The decisions onSouth West Africa and thetreaty brought the work ofthe resumed 22nd session toa close. The 23d session willmeet on Sept. 17.

A third item on the agen-da, the Middle East question,was shelved until the nextsession.

The President's decision toaddress the assembly on itslast day was made beforenoon and conveyed to thesecretariat by AmbassadorArthur J. Goldberg.

NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 15 June 1968

[biding "Back Dooms. -.„_ United Nations turned ,™g^,.~,!.?-r..__.^,.ui

clock yesterday when the General Assembly* voted95 'to 4 to endorse the treaty to halt the spreadof nuclear weapons.

By his surprise appearance in the Assembly haHPresident Johnson underscored his conviction that"this is the most important agreement in the field ofdisarmament since the nuclear age began." The

.President rightly stressed, however,-"that the U.N.actfpn is "but a first step toward ending the perilof nuclear war/' . . ; '

The treaty lacks the support of two'atomic powers—Prance, which abstained;'' and China, which hasrefused to participate—but it does establish a strongdeterrent to the nightmare of further nuclearproliferation. The broad support the pact musteredwill impose political restraints on all nations andwill reinforce national leaders in resisting demandsfor-nuclear arms development.,

Signing of the treaty by such potential nuclearpowers as West Germany; South Africa, Israel andthef United Arab Republic should assist significantlyin reducing tensions in Europe, Africa''and the MiddleEasJ. . . .•

The negative votes cast by Cuba and Albania wereunfortunate but not unexpected. It is surprising,however, that Tanzania and Zambia, joined in thispetty opposition; their stand was out of characterfor!;the normally pacific .and avowedly nonalignedleadership of those two countries.. The hope remainsstrong that they and many of the 2 l.i abstainers willeventually sign the treaty and thus' help give thisvita! step toward international sanity the strongestpossible, sanction. , :i

Successful completion of the nonprqliferation treatyafter years of intensive negotiations' and extensiveadjustments is especially significant as a demonstra-tion: of the potential fruits of Soviet-American cooper-ation—with each other and with the other nationsof the world. Yesterday's vote, as President Johnsonnoted, paves the way for the further'steps "urgentlynee'ded if this treaty is to fulfill its gf:eat purpose andif we: are to ;.;rnoye. beyond", to, establish a peacefulworld prder.;. ' • ' ' - ; ' " . • > ' • • ' • ' - ' ' ' - ; ' '''' ' • ' ' ' • ' • .

The nohproliferation treaty- puts a particular dutyon c£he United States and the Soviet'• Union to move 'rapidly to "Vheck their own dangerous nuclear armsrace and to find new•'ways to prevent international

MSW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 15 June 1968

Hailing Nuclear Pact, HeSays U.S. and Soviet Must

Now Seek Limitation i

HIS VISIT IS A SURPRISE

Speech Follows Assembly'sAcceptance of Draft by t

Two Major Powers j

Text o/ President JoHison'saddress is on Page IS.

By JUAN de ONISSpecial to The Hew Yovl: Tilmra

UNITED NATIONS, N. Y.,June 12 — President Johnsontold the General Assemblytoday that its approval of atreaty to halt the spread ofnuclear weapons obligated thethe United States < nd the SovietUnion to move rapidly on other,disarmament negotiations.

Mr. Johnson, in a surpriseSB-minute visit here, spokemoments after the General As-sembly had adopted a resolu-tion endorsing the treaty by avote of 95 to 4. There were21 abstentions.

The next order of businessbefore the Geneva disarma-[rnent conference, where the"United States and the SovietUnion agreed on the draft nu*clear treaty, should be "the.limitation of strategic offensivs•and defensive nuclear weaponssystems," Mr. Johnson said.

Urges Speedy Ratification

1 He said that the nuclearjreaty was "the most important^iteiT.ational agreement in thefie ld of disarmament sinceithe

li'andiife°'

ki%ty wxiuld lio!p,:,i';^1th^r,'dis^

jimnameHintatks*--' ' ^--*' -. - "

lha retjuesrof Arthur J. Gold-berg, Chief United States Dele-gate, was a gesture of appre-ciation for the endorsementgiven the treaty and of en-couragement for quick actionby United Nations members onsigning the agreement.

To come in uo force, thetreaty must be signed and rati-fied by United States, the So-viet Union, Britain, and 40 non-nuclear countries. The votetoday indicated that -this actionwould come quickly.

However, a substantial num-ber of relatively developedcountries considered capable ofproducing nuclear amis, ab-stained on the vote. These in-cluded India, Brazil. Argentinaand bpain.

France to Abide by TermsFrance, which has nuclear

weapons, also abstained, butArmand Berard, France's per-manent representative, said hiscountry wou]d abide by thetreaty's major provision andwould not provide other coun-

the means and technology tomanufacture them.

Tonight, the United States,the Soviet Union and Britainasked for a Security Councilmeeting to consider a security**uELrantee supplementing thetreaty.

The three nuclear powerswill make a pledge to actthrough the Security Councilto go to the assistance of anynonnuclear country adheringto the treaty that is threatenedwith aggression by a nuclearpower.

Mr. Johnson's speech wasgreeted with enthusiasm bysupporters of the treaty amongthe nonnuclear countries.

"It was a strong and verytimely promise to move aheadin disarmament, which is whatwe want,"" said Ismail Fahmyof the United Arab Republic,who steered the treaty throughthe debate as President of theGeneral Assembly's PoliticalCommittee.

Mr. Johnson last addressedthe General Assembly in De-,<#mber,' .1963, after the assas-t$i$iationcrj? President Kennedy.f^Mr. Goldberg advised Corne-

HS:Koll-Call?©ir Nuclear Pact

Spcolal to The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS, N. Y.,June 12 — Fo/lowing is the re-sult of the vote today in theGeneral Assembly on a resolu-tion endorsing the treaty to haltthe spread of nuclear weapons:

IN FAVOR — 95

Aust ra l ia Indonesia ParianAustria nan PanamaBarbados i^q ParaguayB e l g i u m I r e l a n d PeruBolivia israM P h i l i p p i n e sBotswana I taly PolarriBntam ivory Coast R u m a n i aBulgaria Jamaica SalvadorByelorussia .Inpan SenegalCameroon Jordan SingaporeCanada Kenya SomaliaCeylon Kuwai t 5 Afr icaChad Laos S. Yemen

China Lesotho SwedenColombia Liberia SvnaCongo ( K i n s h ) Litm T h a i l a n d

Cyprus Madagascar Tnn -TobagoCzech. Malaysia TunisiaDahomry Malrt'vcs TurVevDenmark Mal^a U k r a i n eEcunr inr M a u N l i u i U.5 S.R.

Fin land Mongolia U S.G.iiinn MoretCO IJonpr VohaG'OPce Neaal L'-uquavr.uatf-mala N M h - r l a n r i s V-n«ualaGuva"n Mew Zealand Y Ti:n

Hungary' Niger*1"*

OPPOSED — 4Cuba"' aniania

A B S T A I N I N G — 21Alger ia f-tance NigerArgenhna Gabon PortugalBrazil Guinea RwandaBurma I n d i a 5audi ArabiaB u r u n d i Alal.iwi S ' P r r a LeoneCrjn l . Afr Rep. Mali Spain

Congo [Bra:.) Mauritania U g a n d a

NOT V O T I N G — 4Cambod ia Gambia H a i l iDoi inn Rep.

Jiu Manescu, President of theGeneral Assembly, this morn-ing that Mr. Johnson wouldcome. But this was not knownto most delegates when theywent to the afternoon meetingfor the final vote on the treaty.

Mr. Johnson flew from Wash-ington to Kennedy InternationalAirport, accompanied by WaltW. Rostow, Special PresidentialAdviser for International Secu-rity Affairs; George Christian,White House press secretary,and Mrs. Patrick Nugent, hisdaughter.

He drove through a. drizzlingrain to the General AssemblyEsplanade, where he wasgreeted by' Secretary GeneralThant and a crowd of secre-tariat members.

Mr. Thant accompanied the

Vestdeni; .to.. 'the General A/-sembiy* Chamber, where Mr,Manescu had interrupted mesession 15 minutes earlier to

When Mr. Johnson enteredthe chamber, delegates and visi-tor 5 in the crowded galleryrose and applauded. The repre-sentatives of Albania and Cubahad withdrawn before Mr.Johnson entered.

The President wore a graysuit, white shirt and gray tie.He read his speech throughgold-rimmed glasses. It took12 minutes and ended with thedelegates standing and applaud-ing for half a minute.

Mr. Johnson then receivedheads of delegations to theGeneral Assembly in the Indo-nesian Lounge, outside the en-trance to the General Assem-bly, before he left to fly backto Washington.

As he left, Mr. Johnsonstretched across barriers set upby United Nations securityguards to shake hands withbystanders.

Mr. Johnson's visit drama-tized an otherwise routine votein the General Assembly, whichconfirmed the main test voteon the treaty draft Monday inthe Political Committee.

In explaining France's posi-tion, Mr. Berard said she wouldact just like a signer of thetreaty, and»would not share hernuclear arms capability withany nonnuclear arms country-

He also indicated that Francewould, in effect, join the UnitedStates, the Soviet Union andBritain in making a pledge inthe Security Council to go tothe assistance of any nonnu-clear nation that was threat-ened with nuclear aggression.

Mr. Berard said France hadrefused to take part in theGeneva Conference and had ao-stained on the vote today be-cause the international situa-tion offered no "true detente"as a basis for effective dis-armament.

Communist China, which isnot a member of the UnitedNations, was invited to takepart in the Geneva talks, butrefused.

Peking has denounced thetreaty as a Soviet-United Statesplot. China has developed itsown nuclear arms, including the,hydrogen bomb, but is. far fre'-'Jiind^e United States arid, jj}J4

-^ %-*r£^/NThe Proceedings

In the U.N.YESTERDAY^

(June 12, 1968)GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Approved draft resolutionson south-west Africa andlimitations on spread of nu-clear weapons; heard state-ment by President Johnson;adjourned 22d session.

ECONOMIC ANDSOCIAL COUNCIL

Committee on program andcoordination — discussed work

mission for Latin America.TRUSTEESHIP COUNCILConcluded general debate

on New Guinea.SCHEDULED FOR TODAY

(June 13, 1968)GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Special committee on col-onialism — 3 P.M.

ECONOMIC ANDSOCIAL COUNCIL

Committee for program andcoordination — 10:30 A.M. and3 P.M.

Tickets may be obtained atthe public desk, main lobby,United Nations headquarters.Tours: 9:15 A.M. to 4:45 P.M.

Soviet Union in delivery sys-tems.

During the debate in the Po-~~

ical Committee, some Asianid African countries said that;irticipation of Communist

Ichina in disarmament talksand in the United Nations, asa regular member, was increas-ingly important for worldpeace.

With the vote on the treaty,the General Assembly's 22dsession, which began last Sep-tember, completed considera-tion of all itenis on its agendaexcept the Middle East.

Mr. Manescu said in a clos-ing statement that the actionon the treaty was consideredby the members as "only astarting point" for a series of

'further disarmament agree-ments.

Since neither the Arab coun-tries nor Israel wants an As-sembly debate now on the Mid-dle East, the members agreedto adjourn the current session,reconvene if Mr. Manescu de-cides "after consultations" thatthat "the conditions are met"

!for considering the Middle East.

United' States action in signingthe treaty and submitting it tothe Senate for ratification. Hesaid that nations without nit.clear arms that adhered to thetreaty had'a right to'expectthe.United States and the. So-viet Union to move rapidly tonegotiations toward reducingor ending the nuclear aiajsrace.

The Soviet Union has hintedthat it is prepared to beginfurther discussions on disarma-iment, including antimissile'systems.

Opposes 'Futile Escalation*"We shall search for aa

agreement that will not onlyavoid another costly and futile!escalation of the arms race,iutwill de-escalate it," Mr. Johnsonsaid.

Under the treaty, nations!that do not possess nucleaoarms will refrain from acquiting or manufacturing thenvwhile the nuclear states prom-ise to share their nuclearknowledge for all peacefulpurposes with signers of thstreaty.

During the six-week debate'on the treaty in the GeneralAssembly's Political Committee,the United States and Sovietdelegates have collaborated intrying to convince other dele-gates that approval of thQ

BOSTON GLOBE, Friday, Ik June 1968

By DARIUS, S. JHABALAGlobe U.N. "Reporter

UNITED NATIONS—TheUnited States, United King-ton and Soviet Union onThursday requested an earlymeeting of the UN SecurityCouncil to consider theirjoint draft resolution con-cerning the protection ofnon-nuclear states from nu-cleat attack.

Representatives of thethree delegations, whosedraft treaty was endorsed bythe General Assembly onWednesday, were confidentthat the council meetingwould take place .eithertoday or, next .Monday andtheir *" resolution1* Adopted

Meanwhile, in Washing-t o n, President Johnsonsigned the Soviet-Americanconsular treaty and calledagain for closer cooperationbetween the two countries toresolve their "deep and dan-gerous differences" for agerous differences" for a

more peaceful world.(The treaty, which goes

into~ effect July 13, lays thegroundwork for establishingconsulates in both countries,with diplomatic immunityfor U.S. and Soviet repre-sentatives.)

The U.N. resolution is notpart of the nuclear treatybut a vital concommitant. Itseeks to offer the non-nuclear. ..- states assurancesthat "they would not be vic-

of,- nuclear threat or

The three powers wouldhave the council "recognize"that aggression with nuclearweapons or the threat ofsuch aggression "would cre-ate a situation in which theSecurity Council, and aboveall its nuclear weapon statepermanent members wouldhave to act immediately inaccordance with their obli-gations under the U.N.Charter."

Furthermore, the nuclearpowers have expressed theirintention to "provide or sup-port immediate assistance"to any nonnuclear countrythat would be a potentialvictim.

These assurances havecome under criticism fromseveral quarters which be- ,lieve them to,be'inadequate.,,-:Since the cbrApIalHtrqf;-"''a:;rpo--*

tential victim would firsthave to be discussed andthen voted in the council, as-sistance could either cometoo late or not at all if one ofthe five permanent powerscasts a veto, it has beenargued.

Again, if a complaint isbrought against one of thefive veto-holding permanentpowers—the only ones thatn o w p o s s e s s n u c l e a rweapons—the chances of thecouncil-- taking' . any actionseem ;reraote.~ • • '

NEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 18 June 1968

Will Help to Defend Nations

Facing Nuclear Threat

By JUAN de ONISSpecial to The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS, N. Y.,June 17—The United States,Britain and the Soviet Unionpledged today in the SecurityCouncil to provide "immediateassistance" to any nonhuclear-weapons country facing nuclearaggression.

The three-power security)[guarantee was offered a s -an ,1 added inducement to nonnu-jclear-weapons countries to signthe treaty to halt the spread ofnuclear weapons, which wasendorsed by a large majorityin the General Assembly lastweek. ' ' ,

Under the treaty, countries.that do not possess nuclear\ arms now would give up for 25I years their right to manufac-ture or acquire nuclear arms.iToday's formal pledges wereproffered as a "defensive shield"'or these countries against at-tack from nuclear-arms powersoutside the treaty:

In this sense, the concurrentpledges made by the threecountries were clearly ad-dressed to the problem of Com-munist China, the only nuclear-arms country tha-t is not aUnited Nations member. Com-munist China is hostile to thetreaty.

Arthur-J. Goldberg, the chiefUnited States representative,said that the "concerted action"by the three major nuclear-weapon states was "-a politica!fact of the first order;"

He said the security guaran-tee, contained in identical de-clarations by the three powersand in a resolution they "spon-sored, "introduces a powerfuelement of deterrence againstaggression with nuclear weap-ons."

Mr. Goldberg said that ' thaadoption of the resolution bythe 15-member Security Cbunciwould "lay a firm politicalmoral and legal basis for assur-ing the security of nonnuclear-weapon parties" to' the treaty.

Soviet Official Comments "Vasily V. Kuzhetsov, the

first deputy, foreign minister ofthe Soviet Union, who is head-ing his country's delega-tion here, .for United''Nationsconsideration of the treaty, saidthe security guarantee was a.^logical and_. natural" deniandif ^-'no'rtriuclear-weapon spate's"

' ">to; adhere to * fflfef

world'' the . possibifir .leashing^a nuclear war againstnonnuclear countries."'; " ...

The resolution provides thati"aggression with -nuclear wea-pons or the 'threat '"of suchaggression against a nonnu-clear-wea'poh state - would ere*ate' a situation in which • theSecurity Council, and aboveall, its nuclear-weapon statespermanent members, wouldhave to act 'immediately" tomaintain international' peaceand security.

, "The Soviet Union standsamong those countries, whichintend to provide or support,if necessary, such : immediateassistance to the countries- con-cerned," Mr. Kuznetsov said.

' . Briton Sees DeterrentLord Caradon of Britain said

that it should be clear "toeveryone" that any -countrycontemplating nuclear aggres-sion against a nonnuclear sign-er of the treaty "would bedeterred by these assurances."

"Surely no one can doubtthat the common determina-tion of East and West in thisissue of supreme internationalconcern is a development ofthe utmost significance and im-pprtance in world affairs," headded.

Despite these "statements, thecontroversy' over the treatydraft during its passage throughthe General Assembly and po-litical considerations of someSecurity Council' members in-dicate that at least five mem-bers will abstain'" on the res-olution.

; France,, the only nuclear-arms power in the United Na-tions that.' has decided to re-main outside the treaty, an-nounced she-'would abstain.

French .Position StatedArmand.-Berard, the French

representative, said he 'did notwant the 'abstention to be anobstacle to adoption of the, res-olution, b;ut he said his Gov-ernment 4id not believe 'the!treaty or the guarantees weresufficient: 'to provide interna-tional security against nuclearconflict. '

"The French Government isas aware as any other of theterrible risks that nuclear armsrepresent for all, but it main-tains that the only solution forthis menace1 lies in the haltingof production of .these arms andthe destruction of their stocks,"Mr. Berard said.

Also expected to abstain arePakistan, India, Algeria andBrazil. Pakistan voted in favorof the endorsing resolution onthe treaty in the Assembly. Thethree others abstained.

Pakistan, India and Algeriamaintain diplomatic relationswith Communist China, whichhas denounced the treaty andthe guarantees as a Soviet-United States plot "to preservenuclear, monopoly by the big'powers and oppose China "

Nine (votes'ar,emeces|ary inthe Securyt&jGo^ncjl fptrfedop-

^of .jAe^esolutton' The de-P Will Hpi-Clll-no •fritvu-irrrtTir

NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 2? June 1968

Invites Red ChinI \- '••\*ty'2'-p-:?'~^.'-f;i--£*'J>:-;-•£>••',:••' '•> • • • j

! To Geneva AtomTalks• • ;•"' V';;-——, \ s \

:<!DeolaI to The New York -mmtf' j• UNITED NATIONS, N. Y.,June 26—Communist Chinahas been invited by the Unit-ed Nations to participate in

• a conference at Geneva thissummer at which nonnuclearstates will discuss their se-curity in a nuclear-armedworld.- : . -

The conference, -to startAug. 29, was called by theGeneral Assembly.

Secretary General Thantextended invitations yester-day to nonnuclear memberstates of the United Nations,representatives of the special-ized agencies, the Interna-tional Atomic Energy Agencyand "those powers possessingnuclear , weapons, ^includingthe People's •Republic ofChina^"' •..;•.•• '•"- ' :•:• '•.: *>, /•: .. .

' ' • ' '

rNEW YORK TIMES, Friday, 28 June 1966

^ ^__ the Missile Ra^^ ^v |Vlfms words'mean what they seemHo'ni^arviSoviet-;'$o|;eign''Minister Gromyko has: now ended''the krem-lin!s" long refusal to. begin negotiations for a halt intK^Sriissile. race. Even before the Glassboro meetings.wit^i.,Premier1 Kosygin a year ago, President Johnsonha.cfi'begun pressing for controls on strategic weaponss^ft^ms; particularly antihallistic missiles. •Butj despite .eac(y,:}Kosyghv expressions of interest' in limitationspr£both offensive rand-defensive missiles, the effort tob£g|n talks remained in a deepfreeze until yesterday.' The missile race now under way or in prospect hasa^t^ast'three dimensions, all of which need to be

, r^iiifed in sharply. The total number of Soviet inter-co^tinental and submarine-launched ballistic missilesh|$?';Tecently been "growing rapidly, providing argu-injnts for those in Congress and the Pentagon whow'aht similar American escalation.

^^the' Soviet deployment of ah ABM system aroundMoscow spurred the Washington,;'political pressure^fi^i culminated•••'.in . the Administration decision to

. cjga'te" a •'thin" .',Ameri,dan ABM system, a-decisionunfortunately ^backed by the Senate this week.finally, both; this country and the Soviet Union

ai^f working hard to create and install MIRVs, themissiles ttiat couple multiple; warheads with multipledeeoys and thus greatly; increase the menace of everysjaS'h rocket in a nation's atomic arsenal. , .[

-rffeor'Moscow and Washington to press ;their competirtion in weapons of mass annihilation would divert todestructive purposes funds both .capitals need,.fordomestic progress. Even worse, as Carl Ka'ysen of theInstitute for Advanced Study notes in the currentForeign Affairs, this competition threatens ,to upsetthV equilibrium of mutual deterrence on which'peacenibw: depends. , : ' /

.t'She long history and many disappointments of theefldirt to bring nuclear weapons under control provideadvance warning of how arduous and difficult nego-tiations for missile control may be. But Mr. Gromyko'swords yesterday represent the first ground for hope-that, the'-two /'super powers are finally launched onthat essential journey. . - / * , - '>/ . , "w"

THE NEW YORK TIMES, FRIDAY, JUNE 28, J95S

SQVUAndrei Andreyevich Gromyko

Man

in the

News

ONCE known as "the greatstone face" behind 25

Soviet vetoes in the UnitedNations Security Council,Andrei Andreyevich Gromykohas mellowed in his last 11years as Soviet ForeignMinister.

But to those who haveknown him over the years,

the change reflectsa change in policytoward the UnitedStates and not achange in Mr. Gro-myko. Since he

firs t came to prominence asone of the youngest ambas-sadors to Washington inWorld War II, Mr. Gromykohas been known as a thor-ough tactical executor ofSoviet foreign policy ratherthan a policy maker.

i The former Soviet Premier,-Nikita S. Khrushchev, once

I said of Mr. Gromyko:"If I tell my Foreign Min-

ister to sit on a block of iceand stay there for months,he will do it without back-talk."

As Soviet-American rela-tions haye, thawed, Mr. Gro-myko has •ffiniseif become lessfrozen, but his public person-ality has-'cf/riformed' closelyto Soviet policy and his pri-vate personality has remainedlittle known.

Once when he was askedfor persona] information tobe used in a descriptive arti-cle, Mr. Gromyko replied-"My personality does not in-terest me."Smile Now More Frequent

However, the dour Russiandiplomat has been known tosmile publicly more often inrecent years and diplomaticcorrespondents say he hasa good, sometimes jocular,working relationship withSecretary of State Dean Rusk.

Identifies His JokeThe smile, a straight gap

that pushes back the usuallyhard ridges at the cornersof his mouth, was not seenoften in the two years Mr.

: Gromyko represented his! country at the fledgling Unit-

ed Nations after 1946.He, probably more than

any other, was the man whorepresented the grim, post-war "face'of the Soviet Unionto Americans/ and taught(.hem the. word, "Nyet."

Hisjiickname in tfese earlyyears at the United Nationswas "grim Grom." The Rus-sian word "grom" meansthunder, hut Mr. Gromykowas known even then to havea sometimes heavy, wryhumor.

During the years he livedin the United States, Mr.Gromyko was once asked by

, an American hostess what hethought of American women.

"I am not impressed," Mr.Gromyko answered, then has-tened to add, "That is ajoke."

He was born in the Byelo-russian'village of Gromykion July 8, 1909, the son of afarmer, and went to schoolin Minsk. There he met hiswife, the former Lydia V.Grinevich. The Gromykoshave two children, a son,

Following are excerpts/ram the text of a Sovietforeign policy speech byForeign Minister Andrei A.Gromyho to the Supreme So-viet (Parliament) as madepublic in English by Tass,

if. _ ,. it Soviet press agency:IfirOtnykO TellS Parliament! -rjie current revolutionaryF - • i i n j , *«. Hflaot epoch is doing away withf' Soviet Is Ready to Meet „',., tl.aditiona/ conc/pts of

m i l l <? 1%7PrODOSal strength. This idea, expressedOllU.b. ISO' nuiJuaai jn Leon;d Brezhllev,3 report

— on the "50 years of the greatvictories of socialism" grasps

BROAD TREATY IS URGED the very essence of the newc phenomena which form the

international relations today.in»icto It <?hnnlrl Can il be said that theInsists It i>nouiunumbei. of missiles and nu.

Limit Bottl Defensive and cleaf submarines, aircraftU I I I I I L u u u i »<"»• carriers and bombers is de-

OffensiVe Systems creasing in the Americanarmy? Of course, not Their

• • lumber is growing yearly andnonthly, and an ever bigger

Associated Presss s e ress

A thorough executor- ofhis country's policies.

Anatoly, 37 years old, anda blonde daughter, Emilia,now 31.

After graduHting fromMoscow's Institute of Eco-nomics in 1936, Mr. Gromykotaught economics at theAcademy of Sciences beforeentering the Soviet diplo-matic service in 1939. He wasassigned to the American Bu-reau shortly afterward andhas remained closely con-nected with Russian policytowards the United Statessince.

Mr. Gromyko joined theCommunist party in 1931.

His first foreign post wasthe Soviet Embassy in Wash-ington, which he joined inNovember, 1939, as counsel-or of embassy. With the re-call of Ambassador MaximM. Litvinov in 1943, Mr.Gromyko became charged'affaires. He was named am-bassador later that year, atthe age of 34.

After gaining a reputationas a shrewd, sharp, skepticalnegotiator in key conferenceswith the West as the Perma-nent Soviet Representativeat the United Nations, Am-bassador to the Court of St.James's in London, and Dep-uty Foreign Minister, Mr.Gromvko was named Foreicn i

Excerpts from Gromyko talk ihare^of Jundsjs being spent... arms from the "unitedi tales budget. Judging byare printed on Page 12

uantitative" yardsticksr theBy RAYMOND H. ANDERSON Inited states in(iuence and

sjecui to Ttc New Yoii Tim" s policy in the world arenaMOSCOW June 27 — The louid have become stronger.

[Soviet Union affirmed today' reality we observe quite.'* that it was ready to open dis- '^.°PF ^^ Qf munitions

tn cussions toward a mutual urm- roduction in the United')e tation on the deployment of tates is rising, while the in-

' costlv antimissile defense uence of the United SlatesJl, declining. Is this acci-systems. mtal? No> ftis tendency is

m, Moscow's willingness to ms- ljte ]egitimate and explain.So cuss the issue, in response to ,jeclo appeals from President John- There are many reasons for

I 1 son was disclosed by Foreign The main one is that the™ Minister Andrei A. Gromyko in 1'tary might of imperialismtin r«, o rpmp Soviet contained, and successful-™ a report to the Supieme Soviet f(ji. ^^ ^ ^

tur (Parliament). . ght created by the Sovietanc The Foreign Minister empha- ip\e, which is by no meansanc sized however, that an agree- ser; fay their heroic efforts

" inent to crab antimissile de- the building of the Sovietmem 10 emu a . nomy. in strengthening11 tenses could be reached onjy J..^ B gin the context of a broad ,es; by {he aggregate

IV treaty limiting or reducing htj created by us joirlt|y.~ «...v,ha,.c nf nffpnsive missiles, -r thp. npnnlpc nf (ho nthorthe numbers of offensive

Ition Kosygin Replied in'67

Tl That was the formulasizeimitted by Premier Alekst. ...limi, Kosygin in 1967 when he re f^^^^e

plied to a letter from President

i the peoples of the otheritries of the socialistmunity, our allies.

The War in

o p ' Johnson that urged Soviet-ijuiiu&uu w.<" »'o— mt also a mirror, reflect-United States cooperation to vith particular clarity the

deal'avert a new arms race. that the processes'of a" " 1 and national

irrestiljlc.

Mr. Gromyko speaks Eng-lish well, with a precise in-tonation and a clipped ac-cent not usual with Russians.

Known as a precise dresserand polished diplomat, Mr.Gromyko has been seen to bepublicly embarrassed duringonly one crucial incident inhis long career.

When former Premier Khru-shchev visited the United Na-tions in October, 1960, Mr.Gromyko was at his side andlooked startled when hischief began to pound the ta-ble to emphasize his fury.

The Foreign Minister be-gun tentatively to pound hisown desk, but when thePremier took off his shoe toflail at his desk. Mr. Gro-myko stared straight ahead,motionless.

pend: point of no return.

and said that the possibility oftalks with the Russians wouldnow strengthen the case ofthose who oppose costly newmissile constructions.

Expected to Seek an EarlyMeeting on Missiles

deals avert a new arms race. ";i mem premier Kosygin's letter stir- '^'™^'red hope that negotiations t victories_ - — -- ^

i "+ could be arranged quickly be- )ccn scorcd and are rot

ODDO fore the deployment of antl- eeable, but defeat in thelean missile systems had reached the sfields and growing iso-

M. in the world arena—

;i s what the United States

however, Moscow fell silent on ^Ujr0

eng de]ays ;t was

,,..„ the issue. Some Western diplo- e|led to star-t contacts

,as jmats feared that the delay^m the government of thej a n d - rIgressdthe' K!

AnLenin

organizing discussions stemmed icratic Republic of Viet-hostilitv of Soviet mili- However, Buring meet-nostmiy uileaders to restraints on jn ^.^ ^ Amer;can

[antimissile defenses. lentatives are demand-Linked to Atom Pact omething short of a

,„• •* I- ,„ n for a complete dis--, The Foreign Minister s re- uaI)M flf bombj raids

Presmarks appeared to confirm pR v. territory, whichlast ^speculation that Moscow's de- -, act of aggression, aStates]lay - - - - . . . .antimii, J

SBSP^ST ««T« Session if theMoscow the proliferation "F "nwp.ar _. .

lay had been linked to theie to work out an E clear for everybody

aggression does notnf nuclear beins aggression if the

. °r n"cl,, : States air force sub-Cone weapons. The treaty finally to Dombjng raids not

Union was approved June 12 by the e territory of Northadvantiunited Cations General Assem-m but a part of it.'" "•" igton should weigh.network Mr. Gromyko uned ttie^t^P^sent ^tua-.network ™- ""»": ' , ,,. «_,„,,=.* "ail itself of theof S40-5 treaty as "one of the strongest offered by (h

Form steps ever taken to halt tnelf direct offici" dded:Robert

that

--jin-ial con-misteps ever umc" i» .—---- , r airect omcial con-

t nuclear arms race." He added: witll the D.R.V., and,00.,t >.U..OL. uniu^. "—. juJ '.•jne soviet Union would like eps to stop the aggres-Another factor believed to be timatelyl solution Of nonprolife""™'" '- ";" -J

nvolved in the timing of the worthle'"16 s.. " '," ^nd aSoviet move is the completion of imprjto add .dimensions and a

- - - r iggres--. in Vietnam and

i a political settlement.

By PETER GROSESpecial to The New Y<Mfc Times

WASHINGTON, June 27 —The United States prepared to-day to move quickly to openlong-sought discussions withthe Soviet Union seeking a mu-

tual limitation of strategic mis-sile systems.

Llewejlyn E. Thompson, Unit-ed States Ambassador in Mos-cow, is expected to seek anearly meeting with Andrei A.Gromyko, the Soviet ForeignMinister, to pursue Mr. Gro-myko's unexpected statementthat the Soviet Government "isprepared" to discuss missilequestions with the United

system, more-iver, was originally advprate^>y Mr. McNamara as a "light"lefense against Chinpse Com-nunist nuclear threats —' notSoviet. Though the Soviethreat was cited in last week'sSenate debate more often thanhe Chinese as justification for

«... „.,. «H,v:c..,c,ii lu iiiini.'i 'u'u. ' "'»" « J=ar now, whichtrategic missiles could surely In February, 1967, Marshal harms greatly the interestsome only after complex tech- Andrei A. Grechko. now Min- of international shipping,lical negotiations, the Admin- ister of Defense, and "Marshal The tension in the Middle„„,:__ : .-, .- • .*.--:... - ™. - •• civil de. E^t does j10t SUDside.

., ... „, speeches Who is responsible fo:ig"point, that antimissile defenses would situation with all the at-

.... _ „„ . not prevent all enemy rockets tendant dangers? There canChinese Threat Cited from reaching their targets.

The Sentinel system, more-i M,,^IO=H pariey Urged

antimissile system around Mos-cow, but there is no indicationthat they have moved in the

|1ast year to expand the detenses to other regions of th

iwn views on thisbe npscore.

The Arab states have <ic-The Russians are reported to cepted as the basis for the

—- continued work on their solution of the Middle East-ern crisis the United NationsSecurity Council resolution

, of Nov. 22, 1967, and havede-i declared their consent to ful-

fil l it. They have so informed

of military budgets, the liqui-dation of foreign militarybases, the creation of nuclearfree zones and on the pro-hibition of the use of nuclearweapons.

What was the reply of theWest? There were differentanswers but there were al-ways reservations: One pro-posal goes too far, the otheris insufficient, the fifth ispremature, while the tenthmay mean difficulties forNATO.

The Soviet Government re-ports with satisfaction to theDeputies of the U.S.S.R. Su-preme Soviet that the workconducted for many years atthe initiative of the Commu-nist party's Central Commit-tee and the Soviet Govern-ment has led to the draft-ing of an agreed-upon treatyon nuclear nonproliferation,which will be open for acces-sion starting July 1, includingin Moscow.

The draft treaty has beenapproved by the United Na-tions General Assembly, andthe Soviet Union, as the ini-tiator of the treaty, will beone of the first to sign it.The treaty's conclusion willbe one of the biggest meas-ures ever to be taken to holdback the nuclear arms race inthe name of long-term inter-ests of peace.

The nonproliferation treatywill dam the canals to thespread of nuclear weaponsand thus make the outbreakof nuclear war less likely. Itis a fact that the conclusionof the treaty will create an-other important foothold forfurther efforts in solving dis-armament problems.

The Soviet Government de-clares from the rostrum ofthe- Supreme Soviet of theU.S.S.R that now, as in thepast, it is ready for the im-plementation of a program ofgeneral and complete dis-armament, and urges allstates in the world to stintno effort for the accomplish-ment of this historic task.

Underground Tests OpposedThe Soviet Union urges the

Western nuclear powers tosit down at a conferencetable, in a narrow or broadcomposition, with the par-ticipation of other states, andto consider seriously thequestion of an internationalconvention prohibiting theuse of nuclear weapons.

Our country is ready toaff ix its signature to such aninternational document im-mediately.

The Soviet Union urges allstates, above all, the nuclearpowers to discontinue imme-diately underground tests ofnuclear weapons. There canbe no justification for at-tempts to evade the solutionof this problem. It is neces-sary to put into their placethose leaders who wreck asolution of this importantproblem on the plea of thenecessity of improving nu-clear weapons.

References, usually madein the discussion of this prob-lem, to the necessity of somecontrol are unfounded andfar-fetched. No one can ex-plode nuclear weapons under-ground in secret without be-ing detected.

One of the unexplored re-gions of disarmament is thesearch for an understandingon mutual restriction andsubsequent reduction of stra-tegic vehicles for the deliveryof nuclear weapons — offen-sive and defensive — includ-ing antimissile. The SovietGovernment is ready for anexchange of opinion on thisquestion.

Bonn's Law AssailedIt is necessary to speak

firmly and vigorously of thethreat to the peace, the plansof preparing revenge in Eu-rope.

The "emergency laws," justpassed by the West GermanBundestag, are in many waysa replica of the laws whichwere adopted in Germany cmthe eve of World War II.

The Nazis kept Germany ina state of tension, adoptingsuch kind of laws with theobject of obscuring the minds

' of the Germans by militaris-tic, chauvinistic fever. In thisway it was easier for themto drive the men into bar-racks and those who dis-agreed wirh llipir nnlir-v intn

sober approach to the ques-tion of borders was vaguelymentioned at the recent con-gress of West German SocialDemocrats, the people in.Bonn immediately banged thetable and even this timid hintevaporated.

Let us take another aspectof European security — themutual relations between thetwo German states. Here, too,the F.R.G.'s position has noth-ing new to boast of. Havethey discarded the bankruptHallstein doctrine or de-nounced their claim to speakfor all Germans? They havenot.

And what is the F.R.G.'sline in respect of West Ber-lin? The line is the old one.The same attempts to annexthis city, which has never be-longed to the F.R.G. and willnever belong to it.

West Germany alone is tobe blamed for the repeatedaggravation of tensions overWest Berlin. Quite naturally,provocations in respect ofthat city are meeting andwill meet with a proper re-buff on the part of the SovietUnion, the German Demo-cratic Republic and the War-saw Treaty Organization.

Policy Toward ChinaSpecial' mention should be

made of the question of ourrelations with the People'sRepublic of China. The deci-sions of party congresses andplenary meetings of the So-viet party's Central Commit-tee contain a profound andprincipled appraisal of thesplitting and adventuristicposition of Mao Tse-tung'sgroup in international af-fairs, its provpcational, anti-Leninist line in the interna-tional Communist and work-

. ers' movement. "Frankly speaking, these

relations are a long cry fromwhat relations between twosocialist countries and evensimple neighbors can andshould be. Everything possi-ble is being done from ourside to prevent a deteriora-tion of state rejations with-China.

This year the Soviet Gov-ernment presented concreteproposals to the ChineseGovernment on questions oftrade, or joint utilization ofborder rivers for shippingand on some other questions.But Peking remains deaf toany initiative reflecting con-cern for the present and fu-ture of Soviet-Chinese rela-tions.

Through the fault of thePeking authorities the vol-ume of Soviet-Chinese tradehas shrunk 95 per cent since1959 and has reached a tri-fling size. Cultural ties be-tween our countries, not tomention public contacts, haveactually been severed.

Soviet-American IssueSoviet-American relations

are still burdened by the ag-gressiveness of the foreignpolicy of the United Statesand, primarily, by the war itunleashed in Vietnam.

Speaking recently on theanniversary of the Glassboromeeting withAleksei Kosygin,the chairman of the Councilof Ministers of the U.S.S.R..President Lyndon Johnson ofthe United States stressed thenecessity of displaying re-sponsibility and restraint forthe sake of the cause ofpeace, the necessity of build-ing peace brick by brick,agreement by agreement onthe pattern of the under-standing just reached on thenonproliferation of nuclearweapons.

He stressed the readinessof the United States to ad-vance toward disarmament,tried to advance the idea ofthe desirability of expandingspheres of cooperation withpur country which, as he putit, would make the path topeace less thorny.

U.S. Policy QuestionedVery well. But who pre-

vents the United States fromacting precisely as the Ameri-can President said? Why doesit act otherwise in decisiveproblems of war and peace?The vital problems of warand peace must be solved/ahdthe preconditions for thisexist. But the United Stateshas to abandon the attemptsto turn the world, inside out,attempts to tilt the balance

"I am not impressed," Mr.Gromyko answered, then has-tened to add. "That is ajoke."

He was born in the Byelo-russian ' village of Gromykion July 8, 1909, the son of afarmer, and went to schoolin Minsk. There he met hiswife, the former Lydia V.Grinevich. The Gromykoshave two children, a son,

ui^ SOVIET STAND

Expected to Seek an EarlyMeeting on Missiles

By PETER GROSESpecial to The New YwUi Tlraco

WASHINGTON. June 27 —The United States prepared to-day to move quickly to openlong-sought discussions with;he Soviet Union seeking a mu-tual limitation of strategic mis-sile systems.

Llewellyn E. Thompson, Unit-ed States Ambassador in Mos-cow* is expected to seek anearly meeting with Andrei A.Gromyko, the Soviet ForeignMinister, to pursue1 Mr. Gro-myko's unexpected statementthat the Soviet Government "isprepared" to discuss missilequestions with the UnitedStates.

tions in October, 19BO, Mr.Gromyko was at his side andlooked startled when hischief began to pound the ta-ble to emphasize his fury.

The Foreign Minister be-gan tentatively to pound hisown desk, but when thePremier took off his shoe toflail at his desk, Mr. Gro-myko stared straight ahead,motionless.

and said that the possibility oftalks with the Russians wouldnow strengthen the case ofthose who oppose costly newmissile constructions.

Another factor believed to benvolved in the timing of theSoviet move is the completion:his month of the treaty to ban;he spread of nuclear weapons.^s part of the effort to per-luade nonnuclear nations toiign this accord, the main nu-:Iear powers are eager to showhat they, too, are moving toisarm.

Del ruri- g rtT^firm ncf1 of bonibin17 raidspresid marks appeared to confirm v =lasi ye speculation that Moscow s de- of /essiollp a

States llay had been linked to tneantimissi long straggle to work out an c|ea|. FOI. everybodyreports t' international treaty banning ;gressmn does notdeploying th m-0liferation of nuclear mg aggression if theMoscow. 'tne r:"' The ^3^ finally .tales air force sub-

Concer:weaP°ns- T1? T "f% bv the bombing raids notUnion m.was approved June i- uy i territorv of Nonhadvantagdunited Nations General Assem- bu(. a part Qf |t

in the Urfely ton should weightionwide Mr Gromyko acclaimed the the present situa-network |, w as ..one of the strongest il 1 itself of the oppor-of S40-bill"eay "V. ,.-.!,„, to halt theiffered by the begin-

Former isf^ ever l^ce" He added: ecl official con-Robert sJnuclear arms race. He aaae .ft (he D ^that such! "The Soviet Union would like , £Q stop ^ ^^timately i the solution of nonproliferation. jn Vietnam andwortliless ;to add dimensions and a sense political settlement.

pa^P7lConUnuedon^U,Colu,nn5 lion in Mideastfenses. ! - '°rg of Israel con-

This position seemed to havewon a degree of supportamong Soviet military leaders,although some continued to as-sert that Soviet ' antimissile^could destroy all incoming wea-

Since any agreement to Jimitipons.trategic missiles could surely1 In February, 1967, Marshalome only after complex tech-lical negotiations, the Admin-stration is expected to persistvith its Sentinel program,lartly as a bargaining point.

Chinese Threat CitedThe Sentinel system, more-

)ver, was originally advorpteH>y Mr. McNainara as a "light"defense against Cliinrse Com-nunist nuclear threats — notSoviet. Though the Soviet.hreat was cited in last week'sSenate p debate more often thanhe Chinese as justification for:he Sentinel svstem. the Ad-

The Johnson Administration ninistration's reasoning is thathas waited 17 months for thatstatement.

m agreement with Moscowvould reduce — but not obviate—the need for missile defenses.

It opens the possibility, in The Soviet Union is believed

Andrei A. Grechko. now Min-

tinue to occupy the capturedArab territories. Her armedprovocations continue cease-lessly against the neighbor-ing states. The Suez Canalis out of service for morethan a year now, whichharms greatly the interestsof international shipping.

ister of Defense, and 'Marshal] The tension in the MiddleVasily T. Chuikov, the civil de- East does not: subside.fense chief, warned in speechesthat antimissile defenses wouldnot prevent all enemy rocketsfrom reaching their targets.

Nuclear Parley UrgedThe Russians are reported to

ha\fe continued work on theirantimissile system around Mos-cow, but there is no indicationthat they have moved in thelast year to expand the de-fenses to other regions of thecountry.

Foreign Minister Gromyko re-vived today a Soviet plea foran international conference toreach an agreement abolishingall nuclear weapons.

the Administration's view, that o be well advanced alreadyl "The Soviet Union is readvthe Soviet Union and the Unit- n construction of an anti-,' to sisn such an agreement im-ed States can reach a level of 'alllstlc missile net aroundlmediatelv," he said.disarmament agreements to "oscoyv- Another missile svs-i Mr. Gromvko also ureed thatavert what the former Secre am, the so-called Tallinn l ine the 1963 treaty banning nu-

llong the eastern Baltic coast, r lpar testing in thp atmns-tary of Defense, Robert S. Me- vhich was earlier believed to ijherr. in^a"" n'nd im"i"i-~wafprNamara, once called the "madie such a defense svsteni. now

Continued on Page 12, Column S1 ..^ ._ ^ u,ithe issue, first raised by Presi-dent Johnson in January, 1967.

The Soviet statement camejust three days after the Ad-ministration won Senate ap-proval for the start of a $5.5-billion missile-defense program,the so-called Sentinel antiballis-tic missile system.

Senator Henry M. Jackson,Democrat of Washington, wholed the Administration's driveto defeat an appropriations cutthat would have postponedconstruction of the Sentinelsystem, linked the Soviet movewith the Senate's action.

"This was one of our objec-tives," he said, " — to strengthenthe President's diplomatic handvis-a-vis the Soviets and toimprove the chance that Mos-cow would start talking."

Senator Mike Mansfield, anopponent of the construction of

n-t,ino tu uc jjai L uj jm iut anii-lircraft .defenses.

In his first- formal discussionwith Ambassador Thompson inFebruary, 1967, the Soviet Pre-mier, Aleksei N. Kosygin, madeMoscow's view clear that of-fensive missiles, as well as de-fensive systems, should be in-cluded in any new disarmamentdiscussion. The United Statespromptly agreed.

The latest Department ofDefense estimate is that theSoviet Union will have aboutas many land-based intercon-

he broadened to prohibit un-derground testing, which is con-t inuing in the United States andSoviet Union.

Alluding to United States in-sistence that an undergroundtest ban. must provide for in-spection to check on violations,he declared:

"No one is .able to explodenuclear weapons secretly un-derground without being foundout."

Mr. Grounyko's speech rangedover the entire internationalfield, including condemnationnf Israel. West. German v and

tinental ballistic missiles as the Communist China, and a pledgeVn'™ d ,states ~ more than: that the efforts to tighten Com-1,000— by the middle of 1969.lmunist bloc unitv reoresented

United States diplomatsnoted that, unlike previousSoviet statements on the sub-iect, Mr. Gromyko included"antimissile weapons" in cit-ing offensive and defensive de-livery systems to be discussed.This was taken as another signthat the Russians were ready

antiballistic missiles, disagreed'to talk in specific terms.

"a sacred duty" to the SovietUnion.

The Foreign Minister painteda bleak picture of relations withCommunist China. He reportedthat Peking had rebuffed re-cent efforts by Moscow to re-vive trade and to reach anagreement for navigation onborder rivers.

Who is responsible for thissituation with all the at-tendant dangers? There canbe no- two views on thisscore.

The Arab states have ac-cepted as the basis for thesolution of the Middle East-ern crisis the United NationsSecurity Council resolutionof Nov. 22, 1967, and havedeclared their consent to ful-f i l l it. They have so informedGunnar V. Jarring, the Sec-retary General's special en-voy, charged with the taskof helping the sides imple-ment the Security Council'sresolution. Israel, on the con-trary, refuses to fu l f i l l thisdecision and enjoys UnitedStates backing in this.

A short while ago the Gov-ernment of the United ArabRepublic advanced a pro-posal to draw up a scheduledplan For coordinating thesteps of the two sides tonormalize the situation inthe Middle East.

This is an important in-itiative and the Soviet Gov-ernment is ready to helpcarry out such a plan forthe restoration of peace inthe Middle East.

The Disarmament IssueThe Soviet Union has ad-

vanced a detailed program ofgeneral and complete dis-armament under strict inter-national control. What do wehear in reply? We are toldthat they are ready to dis-cuss this, but for ynar uponyear they do not want to getdown to business.

The Soviet Union has triedother roads, too. The SovietGovernment has urged theWestern powers virtuallydozens of times to reachagreement, for the beginning,on more modest measures, forinstance on the curtailment

those leaders who wreck a.solution of (his importantproblem on the plea of thenecessity of improving nu-clear weapons.

References, usually; madein the discussion of this prob-lem, to the necessity of somecontrol are unfounded andfar-fetched. No one can ex-plode nuclear weapons under-ground in secret without be-ing detected.

One of the unexplored re-gions of disarmament is thesearch for an understandingon mutual restriction andsubsequent reduction of stra-tegic vehicles for the deliveryof nuclear weapons — offen-sive and defensive — includ-ing antimissile. The SovietGovernment is ready for anexchange of opinion on thisquestion.

Bonn's Law AssailedIt is necessary to speak

firmly and vigorously of thethreat to the peace, the plansof preparing revenge in Eu-rope.

The "emergency laws," justpassed by the West GermanBundestag, are in many waysa replica of the laws whichwere adopted in Germany onthe eve of World War IT.

The Nazis kept Germany ina state of tension, adoptingsuch kind of laws with theobject of obscunnp the minds

' of the Germans by militaris-tic, chauvinistic fever. In thisway it was easier for themto drive the men into bar-racks- and those who dis-agreed with their policy intoconcentration camps.

The question arises howdid West Germany expect theSoviet Union and otherpeace-loving states to assessthe emergency legislationadopted in the Federal Re-public of Germany?

If the West Germans arecompelled in peacetime to getused to the idea that theywill have to take up arms atany moment for the attain-ment of mad aims, for thesake of which the Nazisdrove millions upon millionsof Germans to the shambles,this cannot help arousinggrim condemnation of all theSoviet people.

Policy Toward EastThe fact that the Govern-

ment of the Federal Republicof Germany proclaims a"new" Eastern policy doesnot delude the peoples, espe-cially those this policy isaimed at.

Let us take the main ele-ment of European security—the immutability of the exist-ing frontiers of states. Whatis the position of the F.R.G.Government here? Perhaps,unlike its predecessors it rec-ognized these frontiers? No,it did not recognize them andhas not yet abandoned de-mands for a return to theborders of the 1937 GermanReich.

When the need for a more

Soviet - American relationsare still burdened by the ag-gressiveness of the foreignpolicy of the United Statesand, primarily, by the war itunleashed in Vietnam.

Speaking recently on theanniversary of the Glassboromeeting with Aleksei Kosygin,the chairman of the Councilof Ministers of the U.S.S.R.,President Lyndon Johnson ofthe United States stressed thenecessity of displaying re-sponsibility and restraint forthe sake of the cause ofpeace, the necessity of build-ing peace brick by brick,agreement by agreement onthe pattern of the under-standing just reached on thenonproliferation of nuclearweapons.

He stressed the readinessof the United States to ad-vance toward disarmament,tried to advance the idea ofthe desirability of expandingspheres of cooperation withpur country which, as he putit, would make the path topeace less thorny,-

US. Policy QuestionedVery well. But who pre-

vents the United States fromacting precisely as the Ameri-can President said? Why doesit act otherwise in decisiveproblems of war and peace?The viral problems of warand peace must be solved andthe preconditions for thisexist. But the United Stateshas to abandon the attemptsto turn the world inside out,attempts to tilt the balanceto the detriment of the legiti-niate interests of others, theinterests of peace,

It has more than once beensaid from the Soviet side thai;we are in favor of good rela-tions with the United States,in favor of cooperation insolving topical internationalproblems.

We still believe that thereare no reasons for a clashbetween our states if theAmerican side displays duerespect for our security, thesecurity of our friends, if theUnited States does not en-croach on the security andindependence of other peo-ples.

Our country has neverstruck and will never strikeany deals with anyone at theexpense of the peoples, cir-cumventing their Interests. Itdepends on the United StatesGovernment to what extentavailable possibilities in So-viet-American relations canand will be used.

THE- NEW YORK TIMES, FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1968

.; •"'. v^O* Vj£ C/- 1*- ; JL CJ-t £/J[&X£ \f/£Li^/I.

Andrei Andreyevich Gromyko

ONCE known as "the greatstone face" behind 25

Soviet vetoes in the UnitedNations Security Council,Andrei Andreyevich Gromykohas mellowed in his last 11years as Soviet ForeignMinister.

But to those who haveknown him over the years,

the change reflectsMan a change in policy

in the toward the UnitedStates and not a

News change in Mr. Gro-myko. Since he

first came to prominence asone of the youngest ambas-sadors to Washington inWorld War 11, Mr. Gromykohas been known as a thor-ough tactical executor ofSoviet foreign policy ratherthan a policy maker.

i The former Soviet Premier,Nikita S. Khrushchev, oncesaid of Mr. Gromyko:

"If I tell my Foreign Min-ister to sit on a block of iceand stay there for months,

' he will do it without back-, talk."

As Soviet-American rela-tions haye, thawed, Mr. Gro-myko : has Itfmjelf . become less

. frozen, but his public person-' 'ality ha'sr'coTjfdfmetf'' closely

to Soviet policy and his pri-vate personality has remainedlittle known.

Once when he was askedfor personal information tobe used in a descriptive arti-cle, Mr. Gromyko replied:"My personality does not in-terest me."

Smile Noiv More FrequentHowever, the dour Russian

diplomat has been known tosmile publicly more often inrecent years and diplomaticcorrespondents say he hasa good, sometimes jocular.working relationship withSecretary of State Dean Rusk.

Identifies His JokeThe smile, a straight gap

that pushes back the usuallyhard ridges at the cornersof his mouth, was not seen

: often in the two years Mr.Gromyko represented hiscountry at the fledgling Unit-ed Nations after 1946.

He. probably more thanany other, was the man who-represented the grim, post-

' war 'face 'o'f the Soviet Union-to Americans and taughtthem Uie word, "Nyet."

Hisjaickname in tftose earlyyears at thte United Nationswas "grim Grom." The Rus-sian word "grom" meansthunder, but Mr. Gromykowas known even then to havea sometimes heavy, wryhumor.

During the years he livedin the United States, Mr.Gromyko was once asked byan American hostess what hethought of American women.

"I am not impressed," Mr.Gromyko answered, then has-tened to add, "That is ajoke."

He was born in the Byelo-russian ' village of Gromykion July 8, 1909, the son of afarmer, and went to schoolin Minsk. There he met hiswife, the former Lydia V.Grinevich. The Gromykoshave two children, a son,

U.S. ENCOURAGEDBY SOYIET STAND

Continued From Page J, Col. S

momentum" of the nuclear armsrace.

Mr. Thompson's first missionwill be to discover the serious-ness of Moscow's intentionsby proposing specific arrange-ments for discussions to begin.

Only last week Secretary ofState Dean Rusk said that theRussians had long "indicatedinterest'* in talks on limitingboth offensive and defensivemissile systems. "But we havenot been able to schedule atime and place for serious dis-cussions," he said last Friday.

Now, State Department offi-cials said, Mr. Thompson willpropose a time and a place tosee whether the Kremlin meansbusiness.

Vice President Humphrey saidin a written statement that "ifMr. Gromyko's speech doesconstitute an acceptance [ofUnited States offers to nppn-

,..,-, ..r, . .,

iwll !L«j .\- • ^"•'Jlffilfi •

lPlpiy§%s^j|iyiililliinl§8*-~' imiiiiai^mp^

"A thorough executor of

his country's policies.

Anatoly, 37 years old, anda blonde daughter, Emilia,now 31.

After graduating fromMoscow's Institute of Eco-nomics in 1936, Mr. Gromykotaught •• economics at theAcademy of Sciences beforeentering the Soviet diplo-matic service in 1939. He wasassigned to the American Bu-reau shortly afterward andhas remained closely con-nected with Russian policytowards the United • Statessince.

Mr. Gromyko joined theCommunist party in 1931.

His first foreign post wasthe Soviet Embassy in Wash-ington, which he joined inNovember, 1939, as counsel-or of embassy. With the re-call of Ambassador MaximM. Litvinov in 1943, Mr.Gromyko became charg6d'affaires. .He was named am-bassador later that year, atthe age of 34.

After gaining a reputationas a shrewd, sharp, skepticanegotiator in key conferenceswith the West as the Perma-nent Soviet Representativeat the United Nations, Am-bassador to the Court' of St.James's in London, and Dep-uty Foreign Minister. Mr.Grotnyko was named ForeignMinister in 1957.

Mr. Gromyko speaks Eng-lish well, with a precise in-tonation and a clipped ac-cent not usual with Russians.

Known as a precise dresserand polished diplomat, Mr.Gromyko has been seen to bepublicly embarrassed duringonly one crucial Incident in

MOSCOW OFFERSA MISSILE PARLEY

Continued From Page 1, Col. 8

of realism to the problems oioutlawing nuclear weapons.

"One of the untouched prob-lems in this field is a mutualimitation and later reductionof strategic weapons, both of-fensive and defensive and in-cluding antimissile missiles. TheSoviet Union is ready for anexchange of opinion on thisquestion."

Mr. Gromyko reiterated Mos-cow's objections to significantcooperative relations with theUnited States, beyond mattersof overriding worldwide im-portance such as a missi eagreement, before the war inVietnam was settled.

The Foreign Minister's re-buff was tile first response bva Soviet Government official toPresident Johnson's recent ap-peal for cooperation in peace-making^ science and economicdevelopment.

Mr. Gromyko said the Presi-dent spoke commendable wordsin his June 4 speech at Glass-boro; N. J., in which he urgedthat the Soviet Union and theUnited States put aside mis-trust and work together for thebenefit of the world.

But the United States's deedsin questions of war and peacemust match its words, Mr. Gro-myko declared, before theSoviet Union will agree tocloser cooperation.

If the United' States reallywants better relations, he con-tinued, it must end the war inVietnam and "stop trying toturn the world upside downand stop trying to shift the bal-ance of power to the detrimentof the legitimate interests ofother peoples."

Harmony FavoredMr. Gromyko declared that

the Soviet Union was basicallyin favor of harmonious rela-tions with the United States.

The Foreign Minister empha-sized, however, that there werelimitations to the developmentof Soviet-United States co-operation.

"Our country never hasand never will agree to anydeals with anyone to the detri-ment of the peoples of theworld and their interests," hesaid.

"The extent to which theopportunities for Soviet- Amer-ican relations are developed de-pends upon the United States."

Mr, Gromyko .addressed1,517 deputies of the SupremeSoviet at the final session of athree-day meeting. The meetingwas held in the modern glass-and- marble Palace of Con-gresses inside the old walls ofthe Kremlin.

his long career. j An enormous white bust ofWhen former Premier Khru- ! Lenin on the stage looked out

shchev visited the United Na-tions in October, I960, Mr.Gromyko was at his side andlooked startled when hischief began to pound the ta-ble to emphasize his fury.

The Foreign Minister be-gan tentatively to pound hisown desk, but. when thePremier took off his shoe toflail at his desk, Mr. Gro-myko stared straight ahead,motionless.

and said that the possibility oftalks with the Russians wouldnow strengthen the oase ofthose who oppose costly .newmissile constructions.

Another factor believed to beinvolved in the timing of theSoviet move is the completionthis month of the treaty to banthe spread of nuclear weapons.As part of the effort to per-suade nonnuclear nations tosign this accord, the main nu-clear powers are eager to showthat thev, too, are moving todisarm.

Since any agreement to limitstrategic missiles could surelycome only after complex tech-nical negotiations, the Admin-istration is expected to persistwith its Sentinel program,partly as a bargaining point.

Chinese Threat CitedThe Sentinel system, more-

over, was originally advp'-ater'by Mr. McNamara as a "light"defense against Chinese Com-

E .xcerpts J

Following ore excerptsfrom the text of a Sovietforeign policy speech byForeign Minister Andrei A.Gromyfco to the Supreme So-viet (Parliament) as madepublic in English by Tass,Soviet press agency:

The current revolutionaryepoch is doing away withthe traditional concepts ofstrength. This idea, expressedin Leonid Brezhnev's reporton the "50 years of the greatvictories of socialism" graspsthe verv essence of the newphenomena which form theinternational relations today.

Can it be said that thenumber of missiles and nu-

carriers and bombers is de-creasing in the Americanarmy? Of course, not. Theirnumber is growing yearly andmonthly, and an ever biggershare of funds is being spenton arms from the UnitedStates budget. Judging byquantitative yardsticks, theUnited States influence andits policy in the world arenashould have become stronger.In reality we observe quitethe opposite.

The curve of munitionsproduction in the UnitedStates is rising, while the in-fluence of the United Statesis declining. Is this acci-dental? No, this tendency isquite legitimate and explain-able.

There are many reasons forit. The main one is that themilitary might of imperialismis contained, and successful-ly for that matter, by themight created by the Sovietpeople, which is by no meanslesser; by their heroic effortsin the building of the Sovieteconomy, in strengtheningthe glorious Soviet armedforces; by the aggregatemight, created by us jointlywith the peoples of the othercountries of the socialistcommunity, our allies.

The War in VietnamVietnam is not simply the

most dangerous and biggestconflict of the post-war peri-od, but also a mirror, reflect-ing with particular clarity thefact that the processes of apeople's social and nationalliberation are irrestible.

Not victories, "which havenot been scored and pre nntforeseeable, but defeat, in thebattlefields anrt "rowinn iso-lation in the world arena —this is what the United Stateshas acouired.

After long delays it wascompelled to start contactswith the government of theDemocratic Republic of Viet-nam, However, during meet-ings with the D.R.V. dele-

representatives are demand-

over the 6,000-seat hall. 1 r!,5Sr,m fm. a° „„„„,„,„ ,W_Deployment Recalled

President Johnson's appeallast year for Soviet-UnitedStates agreements to curbantimissile defenses followedreports that the Russians weredeploying such a system aroundMoscow.

Concern that the SovietUnion might gain a strategicadvantage touched off demandsin the United States for a na-tionwide antimissile defensenetwork at an estimated costof $40-billion.

Former Defense SecretaryRobert S. McNamara insistedthat such a costly defense ul-timately would be renderedworthless by the developmentof improved attack missiles ca-pable of penetrating the de-fenses.

This position seemed to havewon a degree of supportamong Soviet military leaders.although some continued to as-sert that Soviet antimissilescould destroy all incoming wea-pons.

In February, 1967, MarshalAndrei A.. Grechko, now Min-ister of Defense, and MarshalVasily I. Chuikov, the civil de-fense chief, warned in speechesthat antimissile defenses wouldnot prevent all enemy rocketsfrom reaching their targets.

Nuclear Parley UrgedThe Russians are reported to

lave continued work on theirmunist nuclear threats — not antimissile system around Mos-Soviet. Though tbe Soviet cow. out there is no indicationthreat was cited in last week's!11131 they have moved in theSenate debate more often than last year to expand the de-the Chinese as justification for!f™ses to other regions of the

continuance of bombing raidson- D.R.V. territory, whichare an act of aggression, acrime.

It is clear for everybodythat aggression doe^ notcease being aggression if Lhe

•United States air force sub-jects to bombing raids notall the territory of NorthVietnam but a part of it.Washington should weighseriously the present situa-tion, avail itself of the oppor-tunities offered by the begin-ning of direct official con-tacts with the D.R.V., andtake steps to stop the aggres-sive war in Vietnam andachieve a political settlement.

Situation in MideastThe troops of Israel con-

tinue to occupy the capturedArab territories, Her armedprovocations continue cease-lessly against the neighbor-ing states. The Suez Canalis out' of service for morethan a year now, whichharms greatly the interestsof. international shipping.The tension in the MiddleEast does not subside.

Who is responsible for thissituation with all the at-tendant dangers? There canbe rip two views on thisscore.

The Arab states have ac-cepted as the basis for thesolution of the Middle East-ern crisis the United NationsSecurity Council resolutionof Nov. 22, 1967, and havedeclared their consent to ful-f i l l if. ThftV hflvp <?n infnrmprf

of military budgets, the liqui-dation of foreign militarybases, the creation of nuclearfree zones and on the pro-hibition of the use of nuclearweapons.

What was the reply of theWest? There were differentanswers but there were al-ways reservations: One pro-posal goes too far, the otheris insufficient, the fifth ispremature, while the tenthmay mean difficulties forNATO.

The Soviet Government re-ports with satisfaction to theDeputies of the U.S.S.R. Su-preme Soviet that the workconducted for many years atthe initiative of the Commu-nist party's Central Commit-tee and the Soviet Govern-ment has led to the draft-ing of an agreed-upon treatyon nuclear nonproliferation,which will be open for acces-sion starting July 1, includingin Moscow.

The draft treaty has beenapproved by the 'United Na-tions General Assembly, andthe Soviet Union, as the ini-tiator of the treaty, will beone of the first to sign it.The treaty's conclusion willbe one of the biggest meas-ures ever to be taken to holdback the nuclear arms race inthe name of long-term inter-ests of peace.

The nonproliferation treatywill dam the canals to thespread of nuclear weaponsand thus make the outbreakof nuclear war less likely. Itis a fact that the conclusionof the treaty will create an-other important foothold forfurther efforts in solving dis-armament problems.

The Soviet Government de-clares from the rostrum ofthe Supreme Soviet of theU.S.S.R that now, as in diepast, it is ready for the im-plementation of a program ofgeneral and complete dis-armament, and urges allstates in the world to stintno effort for the accomplish-ment of this historic task.

Underground Tests OpposedThe Soviet Union urges the

Western nuclear powers tosit down al a conferencetable, in a narrow or broadcomposition, with the par-ticipation o[ other states, andto consider seriously thequestion of an internationalconvention prohibiting theuse of nuclear weapons.

Our country is ready toaffix its signature to such aninternational document im-mediately.

The Soviet Union urges allstates, above all, the nuclearpowers to discontinue imme-diately underground tests ofnuclear weapons. There canbe no justification for at-tempts to evade the solutionof this pvoblem. It is neces-sary to put into their placethose leaders who wreck asolution of this importantproblem on the plea of thenecessity of improving nu-clear weapons.

References, usually madein tile1 discussion of tliis prob-lem, to the necessity of somecontrol are unfounded andfar-fetched. No one can ex-plode nuclear weapons under-ground in secret without be-ing detected.

One of the unexplored re-gions of disarmament is thesearch for an understandingon mutual restriction andsubsequent reduction of stra-tegic vehicles for the deliveryof nuclear weapons — offen-sive and defensive — includ-ing antimissile. The SovietGovernment is ready for anexchange of opinion on thisquestion.

Bonn's Law AssailedII is necessary to speak

firmly and vigorously of thethreat to the peace, the plansof preparing revenge in Eu-rope.

The "emergency laws," justpassed by the West GermanBundestag, are in many waysa replica of the laws whichwere adapted in Germany onthe eve of World War II.

The Nazis kept Germany ina state of tension, adoptingsuch kind of laws with theobjectof obscuring the minds

' of the Germans by militaris-tic, chauvinistic fever. In thisway it was easier for themto drive the men into bar-racks and those who dis-

sober approach to the ques-tion of borders was vaguelymentioned at the recent con-gress of West German SocialDemocrats, the people inBonn immediately banged thetable and even this timid hintevaporated.

Let us take another aspectof European security — themutual relations between thetwo German states. Here, too,the F.R.G.'s position has noth-ing new to boast of. Havethey discarded the bankruptHallstein doctrine or de-nounced their claim to speakfor all Germans? They havenot.

And what is the F.R.G.'sline in respect of West Ber-lin? The line is the old one.The same attempts to annexthis city, which has never be-longed to the F.R.G. and willnever belong to it.

West Germany alone is tobe blamed for the repeatedaggravation of tensions overWest Berlin. Quite naturally,provocations in respect ofthat city are meeting andwill meet with a proper re-buff on the part of the SovietUnion, the German Demo-cratic Republic and the War-saw Treaty Organization.

Policy Toward ChinaSpecial' mention should be

made of the question of ourrelations with the People'sRepublic of China. The deci-sions of party congresses andplenary meetings of the So-viet party's Central Commit-tee contain a profound andprincipled appraisal of thesplitting and adventuristicposition of Mao Tse-tung'sgroup in international af-fairs, its provocational, anti-Leninist line in the interna-tional Communist, and work-

.. ers' movement, 'Frankly speaking, these

relations are a long cry frontwhat relations between jtwosocialist countries and evensimple neighbors can andshould be. Everything possi-ble is being done from ourside to prevent a deteriora-tion of state relations with-China.

This year the Soviet Gov-ernment presented concreteproposals to the ChineseGovernment on questions oftrade, or joint utilization ofborder rivers for shippingand on some other questions.But Peking remains deaf toany initiative reflecting con-cern for the present and fu-ture of Soviet-Chinese rela-tions.

Through the fault of thePeking authorities the vol-ume of Soviet-Chinese tradehas shrunk 95 per cent since1959 and has reached a tri-fling size. Cultural ties be-tween our countries, not tomention public contacts, haveactually been severed.

Soviet-American IssueSoviet - American relations

are still burdened by the ag-gressiveness of the foreignpolicy of the United Statesand, primarily, by the war itunleashed in Vietnam.

Speaking recently on theanniversary of the Glassboromeeting with Aleksei Kosygin,the chairman of the Councilof Ministers of the U.S.S.R.,President Lyndon Johnson ofthe United States stressed thenecessity of displaying re-sponsibility and restraint forthe sake of the cause ofpeace, the necessity of build-ing peace brick by brick,agreement by agreement onthe pattern of the under-standing just reached on thenonproliferation of nuclearweapons.

He stressed the readinessof the United Slates to ad-vance toward disarmament,tried to advance the idea ofthe desirability of expandingspheres of cooperation withpur country which, as he putit, would make the path topeace less thorny*

U.S. Policy QuestionedVery well. But who pre-

vents the United States fromacting precisely as the Ameri-can President said? Why doesit act otherwise in decisiveproblems of war and peace?The vital problems of warand peace must be solved'andthe preconditions for thisexist. But the United Stateshas 10 abandon the attemptsto turn the world inside out,

1 Another factor believed to beltimately would "be rendered

Continued From Page ], Col. 8

momentum" of the nuclear arms

Mr. Thompson's first missionwill be to discover the serious-ness of Moscow's intentionsby proposing specific arrange-ments for discussions to begin.

Only last week Secretary ofState "Dean Rusk said that theRussians had long "indicatedinterest" in talks on limitingboth offensive and defensivemissile systems. "But we havenot been able to schedule atime and place for serious dis-cussions," he said last Friday.

Now, State Department offi-cials said, Mr. Thompson wi l lpropose a time and a place tosee whether the Kremlin meansbusiness.

Vice President Humphrey saidin a written statement that "ifMr. .Gromyko's speech doesconstitute an acceptance [ofUnited States offers to nego-tiate missile agreements], thisis good news for all of us whohave worked for peace."

Welcomed by White HouseGeorge Christian, the presi-

dential press secretary, said theWhite House welcomed Mr.Gromyko's statement. The StateDepartment spokesman, RobertJ. McCloskey, said that "theUnited States is vastly en-couraged by the news this

1 morning" from Moscow. Butofficials said that 'there was nospecific notice that the SovietUnion was ready to move onthe issue, first raised by Presi-dent Johnson in January, 1967.

The Soviet statement camejust three days after the Ad-ministration won Senate ap-proval for the start of a $5.5-billion missile-defense program,the so-called Sentinel antiballis-ttc missile system.

Senator Henry M. Jackson,Democrat of Washington, wholed the Administration's driveto defeat an appropriations cutthat . would have postponedconstruction of • the Sentinelsystem, jinked the Soviet movewith the Senate's action.

"This was one of our objec-tives," he said, " — to strengthenthe President's diplomatic handvis-a-yis the Soviets and toimprove the chance that Mos-cow would start talking."

Senator Mike Mansfield, anopponent of the construction of

involved in the timing of theSoviet move is the completionthis month of the treaty to banthe spread of nuclear weapons.As part of the effort to per-suade nonnuclear nations to

worthless by the developmentof improved attack missiles ca-pable of penetrating the de-fenses.

This position seemed to havewon a degree of support

sign this accord, the main nu-among Soviet military leaders,clear powers are eager to showthat they, too, are moving todisarm.

Since any agreement to l imitstrategic missiles could surelycome only after complex tech-nical negotiations, the Admin-istration is expected to persistwith its Sentinel program,partly as a bargaining point.

Chinese Threat CitedThe Sentinel system, more-

over, was originally advnrp.tec'by Mr. McNamara 'as a "light"defense ag'ainst' Chinese Com-munist nuclear threats — ' notSoviet. Though the Sovietthreat was cited in last week'sSenate debate more often thanthe Chinese as justification forthe Sentinel system, the Ad-ministration's reasoning is thatan agreement with Moscowwould reduce — but not obviate— the need for missile defenses.

The Soviet Union is believedto be well advanced alreadyin construction of an anti-ballistic missile net aroundMoscow. Another missile svs-tem, the so-called Tallinn linealong the eastern Baltic coast.which was earlier believed tnbe such a defense system, nowseems to be part of Soviet anti-aircraft defenses.

In his first- formal discussionwith Ambassador Thompson inFebruary, 1967, the Soviet Pre-mier, Aleksei N. Kosygin. madeMoscow's view clear that of-fensive missiles, as well as de-fensive systems, should he in-cluded in any new disarmamentdiscussion. The United Statespromptly agreed.

The latest Department ofDefense estimate is that theSoviet Union will have aboutas many land-based intercon-tinental ballistic missiles as theUnited States — more than1,000— by the middle of 1969.

United States diplomatsnoted that, unlike previousSoviet statements on the sub-ject, Mr. Gromyko included"antimissile weapons" in cit-ing offensive and defensive de-livery systems to be discussed.This was taken as another signthat the Russians were ready

antiballistic missiles, disagreed 'to talk in specific terms.

although some continued to as-sert that Soviet antimissile:could destroy all incoming wea-pons.

In February, 1967, MarshalAndrei A.. Grechko, now Min-ister of Defense,, and MarshalVasily I. Chuikov, the civil de-fense chief, warned in speechesthat antimissile defenses wouldnot prevent all enemy rocketsfrom reaching their targets.

Nuclear Parley UrgedThe Russians are reported to

have continued work on theirantimissile system around Mos-cow, but there is no indicationthat they have moved in thelast year to expand the de-fenses to other regions of thecountry.

Foreign Minister Gromvko re-vived today a Soviet plea foran international conference toreach an agreement abolishingall nuclear weapons.

"The Soviet Union is readyto sigh such an agreement im-mediately," he said.

Mr. Gromyko also urged thatthe 1963 treaty banning nu-clear testing in the atmos-ohere. in snnc.r nnd im^^r watorbe broadened to prohibit un-..derground testing, which is con-tinuing in the United States andSoviet Union.

Alluding to United States in-sistence that an undergroundtest ban must provide for in-spection to check on violations,he declared:

"No one is able to explodenuclear weapons secretly un-derground without being foundout."

Mr. Gromyko's speech rangedover the entire internationalfield, including condemnationof Israel, West Germany andCommunist China, and a pledgethat the efforts to tighten Com-munist bloc unity represented"a sacred duty" to the SovietUnion.

The Foreign Minister painteda bleak picture of relations withCommunist China, He reportedthat Peking had rebuffed re-cent efforts by Moscow to re-vive trade and to reach anagreement for navigation onborder rivers.

sive war in Vietnam""andachieve a political settlement.

Situation in MideastThe troops of Israel con-

tinue to occupy the capturedArab territories. Her armedprovocations continue cease-lessly against the neighbor-ing states. The Suez Canalis out1 of service for morethan a year now, whichharms greatly the interestsof international shipping.The tension in the MiddleEast does not subside.

Who is responsible for thissituation with all the at-tendant dangers? There canbe no two views on thisscore.

The Arab states have ac-cepted as the basis for thesolution of the Middle East-ern crisis the United NationsSecurity Council resolutionof Nov. 22, 1967, and havedeclared their consent to ful-fill it. They have so informedGunnar V. Jarring, the Sec-retary General's special en-voy, charged with the taskof helping the sides imple-ment the Security Council'sresolution. Israel, on the con-trary, refuses to fu l f i l l thisdecision and enjoys UnitedStates backing in this.

A short while ago the Gov-ernment of the United ArabRepublic advanced a pro-posal to draw up a scheduledplan for coordinating thesteps of the two sides tonormalize the situation inthe Middle,East.

This is an important in-itiative and the Soviet Gov-ernment is ready to helpcarry out such a plan forthe restoration of peace inthe Middle East.

The Disarmament IssueThe Soviet Union.has ad-

vanced a detailed program ofgeneral and complete dis-armament under strict inter-national control. What do wehear in reply? We are toldthat they are ready to dis-cuss this, hut for year uponyear they do not want to getdown to business.

The Soviet Union has triedother roads, too. The SovietGovernment has urged theWestern powers virtuallydozens of times to reachagreement, for the beginning,on more modest measures, forinstance on the curtailment

of nuclear weapons — offen"-sive and defensive — includ-ing antimissile. The SovietGovernment is ready for anexchange of opinion on thisquestion.

Bonn's Law AssailedIt is necessary to speak

firmly and vigorously of thethreat to the peace, the plansof preparing revenge in Eu-rope.

The "emergency laws," justpassed by the West GermanBundestag, are in many waysa replica of the laws whichwere adopted in Germany onthe eve of World War II.

The Nazis kept Germany ina state of tension, adoptingsuch kind of laws with the

( object of obscuring the mindsof the Germans by militaris-tic, chauvinistic fever. In thisway it was easier for themto drive the men into bar-racks and those who dis-agreed with their policy intoconcentration camps.

The question arises howdid West Germany expect theSoviet Union and otherpeace-loving states to assessthe emergency legislationadopted in the Federal Re-public of Germany?

If the West Germans arecompelled in peacetime to getused to the idea that theywill have to take up arms atany moment for the attain-ment of mad aims, for thesake of which the Nazisdrove millions upon millionsof Germans to the shambles,this cannot help arousinggrim condemnation of all theSoviet people.

Policy Toward EastThe fact that the Govern-

ment of the Federal Republicof Germany proclaims a"new" Eastern policy doesnot delude the peoples, espe-cially those this policy isaimed at.

Let us take the main ele-ment of European security—the immutability of the exist-ing frontiers of states. Whatis the position of the F.R.G.Government here? Perhaps,unlike its predecessors it rec-ognized these frontiers? No,it did not recognize them andhas not yet abandoned de-mands for a return to theborders of the 1937 GermanReich.

When the need for a more

agreement by agreement onthe pattern of the under-standing just reached qn thenonprohferation of nuclearweapons.

He stressed the readinessof the United States to ad-vance toward disarmament,tried to advance the idea ofthe desirability of expandingspheres of cooperation withour country which, as he putit, would make the path topeace less thorny*

U.S. Policy QuestionedVery well. But who pre-

vents the United States fromacting precisely as the Ameri-can President said? Why doesit act otherwise in decisiveproblems of war and peace?The vital problems of warand peace must be solved.andthe preconditions for thisexist. But the United Stateshas to abandon the attemptsto turn the world inside out,attempts to tilt the balanceto the detriment of the legiti-mate interests of others, theinterests of peace.

It has more than once beensaid from the Soviet side thatwe are in favor of good rela-tions with the United Statesin favor of cooperation insolving topical internationalproblems.

We still believe that thereare no reasons for a clashbetween our states if theAmerican side displays duerespect for our security, thesecurity of our friends, if theUnited States does not en-croach on the security andindependence of other peo-ples.

Our country has neverstruck and will never strikeany deals with anyone at theexpense of the peoples, cir-cumventing their interests. Itdepends on the United StatesGovernment to what extentavailable possibilities in So-viet-American relations canand will be used.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Saturday, 29 June 1968

Now rocketsThe movement toward greater world

security has picked up momentum. Mos-cow's announcement that it is "ready toexchange opinions on the curtailment ofrocket systems—both offensive and de-fensive" is of immense hope and encour-

' agement for mankind.In thus responding positively to year-

and-a-half-long American efforts to getsuch talks started, the Soviet Union hasagain indicated its recognition of the needfor a limitation on today's terrible arma-ments. For this Kremlin response followshard on the heels of the United Nations

: General Assembly's endorsement of the-joint American-British-Russian treaty tohalt the spread of nuclear weapons.

President Johnson, in his surprise ad-dress to the General Assembly on June 12,asked that the nuclear treaty be followed

•by other disarmament negotiations.Through its positive response on rockets,

•-the Soviet Union seems clearly anxious tomaintain the present momentum toward

.-a relaxation of the threat which today's. gigantic and monstrously destructive-.weaponry poses to peace and security.

True, a vast amount of hard negotiating.lies ahead. True, Moscow is today talkingprimarily of rockets and not of an over-all cutback in armaments.

But neither of these facts need dis-. courage men and nations of goodwill in•their determination to find a means of

lightening the burden and threat of arma-ments. No one familiar with the complexi-ties of the problem (whether technical,political, ideological or economic) has eversupposed that armament agreements couldbe reached other than after long and hardbargaining.

As for beginning with rockets, this isclearly a most sensible place to take off.After nuclear weapons (with which theyare so closely associated) rockets are thegreatest international weapon menace. Alimitation on them would be a giganticstep forward.

Moscow's willingness to open talks onrockets strengthens the argument that theKremlin, basically, believes that its bestinterest lies in at least limited coopera-tion with the United States in the preser-vation of world peace. It is interesting tonote that this "yes" from Moscow cameonly a couple of days after the UnitedStates Senate decided to go ahead withthe Sentinel antimissile missile system.Were America to press forward vigor-ously with this system, Moscow in turnwould almost certainly have felt forcedto step up its own antimissile missile sys-tem at a probable cost of tens of billionsof dollars.

Thus economically, as well as practicallyand morally, America and Russia mustturn their attention to the curtailment ofrockets, not to their expansion.

WASHINGTON POST, Sunday, 30 June 1968

U.S. BacksThan t BidToChinese

1 The State Department, in an,unusually warm statement -.re-garding Communist China,has "welco'med" its pres-ence iat a United Nations-spon-sored conference on nuclearcontrofls wthiclh is to foe IneM toGeneva Augn29-Seipt. 28.

State Department, spokes-man Robert J. McCloskey saidThursday the invitation toChina, which TJ.'N. SecretaryGeneral U Thant cabled toPeking Tuesday night, was"consistent with our generalposition that -we wquld wel-vcome Chinese participation inmatters related to disarma-ment."

However, the United States,whidh for years'lhas led the op-pbsitiionr to inviting eMniar'tatoU.N. membership itself, alsobias been highly restrained dmChina's presence at even U.N.-sponsored conferences.

But officials pointed putthat even though Ohina is notexjjpected > to accept U Thamt'sinvitation, - Ohiniese. ; involve^,ment :fis vital to any eventualairtigiht world dis'atMnameotaigreement. . : -'i; . , ' • > : " >

j Nejct month's conference IsI ah',: omttigfcowtih .oif; last Decem-Iber's Uiniited natibhS GenerailvAsseinJbly resolution" ,spon-sbr^d toy 'Vnoini-niucleiar powerswho toaid objectioiri^ to the (nu-clear powers' tnoni-prolif eratiohtreaty.,.^;.••*•'.-...;".;

:/.'. .,„.':• >• -.' . ; . • .Nucleiatr ipowers,;, Ihoweveir,

-also :(ariei invited to .the confer-ehce, aind/CWna therefore foe-.comes eliigible. Tlhe invitationis ,the first. ever extended'; to

) -attend ia United;''.INa-

HEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, 30 June 1968

M ° * f T^4-' n o •* ! /PI f>r i? r* rs°i^OO-ilC- JVCiC/C'

Moscow's decision to open dis-cuss" :ns r:i t'.i3 m'ssils race pres-ages the most critical Soviet-American negotiation of the nu-clear era and, undoubtedly themost difficult. A minimum of"three, four or five years" ispredicted by American officialsbefore agreement may be reached.

The Soviet offer, announcedunexpectedly by Foreign Minis-ter Andrei Gromyko in a speech.before the Supreme Soviet lastThursday, was something theUnited States had waited 17months to hear. Gromyko said,"The Soviet Union is ready f-ran exchange of opinion on thisquestion." The State Departmc"tplanned to move quickly tjarrange discussions.

The negotiators, however, willbe pursuing a fast-moving train.Since early 1967, when PresidentJohnson proposed talks on theantimissile problem, the armsrace has taken a new spurt.

The Soviet Union has beentripling its land-based offensivemissile force and is approachingparity with the 1,054 Minutemenand Titan II missiles emplacedin the United States. It is con-tinuing to install an antimissilesystem in the Moscow regionand possibly in other areas. Itis adding to its small long-rangeforce of 30 submarine-launchedballistic missiles, still greatlyoutnumbered by the UnitedStates Polaris force of 656missiles.

The United States has held itsmissile ni::'i":;r3 s'.et.iy at 1,710,but moved toward later modelswith multiple warheads and otherpenetration aids. Minutemen IIIand submarine-launched Posei-dons will carry three to 10 war-heads each, providing an offen-

sive force capable of saturat-ing a nationwide Soviet antinvs-sile system, should one ever bebuilt. And a decision has beenmade to build the "thin" Senti-nel antimissile system in theUnited States.

There has been a good dealof criticism of the Sentinel sys-tem on grounds that the $5-bi i l ion it will cost to buMd willnet give the country any realprotecticn against a Soviet mis-s ;lc attack but wiil fur ther s t imu-h';e the anns rs-jo. That line cfcrit'c'sm rccrj'vcd support lastv;eck frcr/i a bipart'san coalitionrf Senators, but failed to blockthe appropriation asked by the.V.lministratjcn to make a starten tli2 system.

The .dynamics of this missilerace makes the date of an agree-ment to halt it as important asthe limits imposed. The "madmomentum" of the race, as for-mer Secretary of Defense RobertS. McNamara once described it,could alter the strategic balancesignificantly while the negotia-tors are talking and in the periodbetween accord and the date themissile limits take effect.

The limits themselves will bedifficult to fix, given the asymet-rical nature of the Soviet andAmerican strategic forces andthe different target systems atwhich they are aimed. A simplefreeze at present levels of alloffensive and defensive forcesevidently is unacceptable to theSoviet Union. Moscow has indi-cated a desire to achieve parityin offensive missile. It may wantto extend its antimissile networkfurther.

But defining parity will not beeasy. In the Soviet Union, popu-lation is much more widely dis-persed than in the United States,

where it is concentrated in arc'.?';vcly E m n l l number of ur-ban complexes. Identical e f f ^ n -riv3 nissile systems would in-f l ' " t far more casualties in theUn' t rd States than in Russia.

Reconnaissance satellites cancount the number of land-basedmissiles on each side and eventhe number of Polaris subma-rines at sea. But they cannotcount the number of warheadse.tch missile carries. To monitoren agreement limiting warheadas well as missile numberswnu'd require on-site inspectionfar more -intrusive than any theSoviet Union has ever been wil l-inn; to contemplate.

Restrictions on research, de-v-bpnent and production ofmissiles would be even more dif-ficult to inspect. Yet an increasein accuracy of missile guidancecould double the effectiveness ofa given missile force.

The present strategic balancejs based on the possession byboth sides of relatively invul-nerable missile forces that couldabsorb a first strike and then,in retaliating, knock the adver-sary out of the 20th Century.Equilibrium is provided by pos-session of that "assured-destruc-tion" capability on both sides,whatever the disparity of forces.

Forces beyond the size neededto impose unacceptable damageon the other side in a second-strike riposte do not provide"superiority," most analystsagree, just "overkill." But un-certainties in the calculat ions ofboth sides have been increasedby technological advances inmissile accuracy, mult iple war-heads and antimissile defenses.

The United States has com-pensated for these uncertainties,according to McNamara, by

building a strategic nuclear ar-senal "greatly in excess" cfpresent security needs. It isplanning "another big increase"in offensive capabil i ty able toovercome "the most powerfuldefenses the Soviets couldbuild."

The Soviet Union, on the otherhand, undoubtedly is concernedthat highly-accurate multiple war-heads might give the UnitedStates a capability for a pre-emptive attack. It is tempted toovercompensate by building mo-bile offensive missiles and by ex-tending its antimissile system.

The growing danger is that themissile race will proceed fromrough equilibrium to a situationof nuclear nervousness. Fear onboth sides that the other isachieving a pre-emptive capabil-ity may lead in a crisis to ashoot-first psychology.

This prospect and the difficultyof achieving formal agreementon missile limitations lead someanalysts to believe that Soviet-American missile negotiationswould be a success if they simplyremoved some uncertainties aboutthe intentions of the other side.

Assurance that the SovietUnion would limit its antimissilesystem to Moscow, for example,would enable the United Statesto restrain its deployment ofmultiple warheads. Through aseries of such tacit understand-ings and confirming actions,each side might .be reassuredthat the other wants to maintainrather than upset the strategicbalance.

The tacit arms-control environ-ment that emerged might obviatethe need for formal agreementsor even, in the end, make suchagreements feasible.

—ROBERT KLEIMAN

HEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, 30 June 1968

At Dam Dedication, He UrgesControl of Competition in

Antiballistic Missiles

By FRED P. GRAHAMSpecial to The New York Times

NASHVILLE, June 29—Presi-dent Johnson called today forthe United States and the SovietUnion to act to bring undercontrol the expensive antibal-listic-missile race and the com-petition in offensive atomicarms.

This can be> done, the Presi-dent said, "in ways which donot endanger the security of theUnited States, our allies, orothers."

The arms-control statementwas made in' a brief commentinserted in a speech on conser-vation delivered by Mr. Johnsonat the dedication of a new damhere.

Mr. Johnson said he wouldhave more to say on the sub-ject on Monday. There wasspeculation that he might an-nounce details of arrangementsfor a meeting • between ' UnitedStates and Soviet. representa-tives to discuss an agreementfor .limiting antiballistic-missiledevelopment and deployment.

Soviet Statement RecalledThe President's'statementwas

his first on the subject since[Andrei A. Gromyko, <the Sovieti Foreign Minister, announced inMoscow on Thursday .that the.Soviet Union was ready to opendiscussions on limiting the anti-ballistic-missile -defense, system.

. Mr, Johnson again hailed the: treaty to prevent the spread ofnuclear weapons, worked outby- the-United' States and Sovietdelegations to the Geileva;J*is-

ment.^ ....negotiation^.. .^

Approval by 'the UnitedGeneral Assembly rThe treatyis to be open for signature Mon-day at the'.White 'House, andwill later be. sent-.tt the Senatefor ratification. • ..':•

After, praising the treaty, Mr.,Johnson-1 declared: • ' . \

"We 'must now turn to .a ta:sl' jat least - equally complex ahd|difficult:, to bring uri'der cohtiolthe nuclear arms -race—in of-fensive' and defensive weapp'ns—in ways which • do not en-danger the security of .the Uttffcjed States, our allies, or others)

"It would be easy for theUnited States and the SovietUnion to continue, on the pres-ent course of piling weaponssystem: -on;'weapons' system, dj-

irig' biiiioiis ••

the security of either country,"the President said.

"But the time is now at handto find security in a more ra-tional way, he concluded.

On Monday, the Senate re-sponded to Administration pleason the need for a defenseagainst Chinese and Soviet nu-clear threats, and defeated amove to postpone deploymentof the Sentinel missile-defensesystem. By a 50-to-34 vote, theSenate rejected a motion toeliminate $227-million from amilitary construction authoriza-tion bill to start the $5.5-bilIionSentinel system.

President Johnson's call for ahalt in the arms race is viewedby officials in Washington asnot inconsistent with the Ad-ministration's desire to proceedWith a relatively big'missile de-fense.

Since the Russians are al-ready well under way in install-ing such a defense themselves,a. similar defense for the UnitedStates will provide both na-tions with the ability to defendagainst an accidental launchingof intercontinental ballisticmissiles by the other, or a de-termined missile attack by oneof the smaller nuclear nations—Communist China, France orBritain.

Mr. Johnson flew to Tennes-see today to honor old politicalfriendships and to promote a"new conservation" campaignto preserve natural playgroundshear population centers.

In a brief visit from Wash-ington, Mr. Johnson spoke atthe dedication of a new Feder-al dam and 14,000-acre lake onthe outskirts of Nashville.

The project is named for the•late J. Percy Priest, a formerDemocratic colleague of Mr.

•; Johnson's m the House of Rep-

resentatives. Mr. Johnson wasintroduced by Gov. Buford

! Ellington, a long-time politicalfriend and ally.

In stressing the theme of the"new conservation," a termhe had used before but had'not elaborated upon recently,Mr. Johnson said that theUnited States must concentrateon preserving recreation areasnear cities. Too many Ameri-cans cannot afford to visit thegreat national parks in theWest, he said.

"We can no longer go insearch of far horizons while weneglect the land under ourfeet," Mr. Johnson declared."Our new conservation mustbuild on a new principle: Bring-ing nature closer to people."

He also called for immediateenactment of a number ofpending conservation bills, in-cluding the Redwood NationalPark Bill.

10 MONDAY, JULY 1, 1968

Arms race could be endingThe disposition in too many quar-

ters is to look for the fly in the oint-ment any time Moscow makes or as-sents to a proposal which could leadto a reconciliation of U.S. and Rus-sian differences.

Thus, even now in the instancee-f Moscow's readiness to open thediscussions Washington has soughtfor so long on the mutual limitation0? the deployment of anti-missilesystems and a reduction in offensiveweapons, the reaction is still hedged$ith "ifs":

: "If Foreign Minister Andrei Gro-myko. means what he says ... If theRussians will live up to the terms ofan agreement."

But of course there are "ifs" inMoscow as well as Washington. Anddespite them, the new developmentIs precisely what M.I.T. political sci-entist Lincoln Bloomfield says it is:.. "An extraordinarily important de-velopment. I'm absolutely excited.It's terribly important for every-body."•t Whether the Senate's approval ofa $5.5 billion to $40 billion anti-missile system was the nudge Mos-

cow needed, or maybe even a WhiteHouse ploy, cannot be known. Norcan it now be said what is going tohappen to the deployment plan. Itpresumably will be abandoned. Itshould be.

What is known is that neitherRussia nor the United States can anylonger -afford the colossal expendi-tures both were making. What nowis tacitly acknowledged is that bothwere racing toward domestic bank-ruptcy if not disaster for the wholehuman race.

The agreement to seek an agree-ment is a triumph for PresidentJohnson. It results from the conver-sations he initiated at the Glassbbroconference with Premier Kosygin ayear ago.

That it has taken Moscow a year. to make up its mind that Mr. John-

son meant what he said is a goodsign, not bad. It means that the Rus-sians, after due deliberation and aweighing of all the consequences,have recognized the danger of pro-ceeding further along the old road

. and are ready at long last to get downto the business of searching for peace-ful accommodations.

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSBAPEB,a^.a>H .! Yaf f i l !!;'-I"-. TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1968 PAGE A16

Arms Control Comes of AgeThe ends and means of the nuclear arms race

have long conspired against controlling it. Theends—to serve security and a globalist foreignpolicy—contain no inherent limits. Any weaponsdevelopment can be justified in the name of oneof them. The means involve the science, wealthand ambition of the two great powers, and inpractice these have proven virtually limitless aswell. This is why it has been so difficult to-haltwhat Robert McNamara called the "mad momen-tum" of arms..

For what success has been achieved, first creditmust go to fear. Political inventiveness is a slen-der reed next to the mutual instinct for survival.There has been, nonetheless, a large and neces-sary place for political inventiveness. Its first greatapplication—great because it was first and therebyshowed that controls could be imposed—came inthe partial test-ban treaty. This agreement, set-ting a pattern, limited the environment wherebombs could be tested. The next, the outer spaceagreement, limited the environment -where bpmbscould be stationed. The newest, the nonprolifera-tion treaty signed yesterday, limits the environ-ment where they can be acquired at all and offerscompensation in the form of protection and peace-ful explosions for those forfeiting the right totheir own nuclear arms.

But even the men who value these accords mostunderstand that they leave intact, and on a hairtrigger, the enormous arsenals of the Soviet Unionand the United States. To many foreigners, this

stance is an act of irresponsibility, if not arro-gance. Washington and Moscow themselves havelong recognized it as an act of great mutual peril.Finally, now, they have brought themselves tothe brink of imposing substantive controls on theirown arms. This is what gives historic significanceto the announcement of Sovet-American strategic-missile talks. For they offer far more than thewidely trumpeted prospect of heading off the nextweapon, antimissile missiles, however worthy thatprospect alone may be.

The difficulty of the task will match its dimen-sions. As an indication, there is apparently tobe more than a little back and forth just on select-ing a time and place to start meeting. The catchalldisarmament memo issued yesterday in Moscowsuggests how the effort at arms control is likelyto be entangled with the search for more routineforms of political advantage. Strategic-weaponstalks must perforce confront the devilish issue,sidestepped in previous agreements, of the balanceof nuclear forces between Kussia and America:superiority or parity or something else again.Nor will it be possible much longer to sidestepthe issue of on-site inspection. And will the alliesand clients and enemies and rivals of the twogreat powers stand still and let their talks freelygo on?

Arms control has come of age. The nonprolif-eration treaty emerges as the last stage of diplo-matic adolescence. The missile talks representmaturity. The great tests begin.

A6/j

By Chalmers M. RobertsWashington Post Stall Wrjter

The public remarks inMoscow and Washingtonyesterday indicated how dif-ficult a Soviet-Americanagreement to limit and thenreduce nuclear-tipped mis-siles and anti-missile de-fense systems will be.

In Washington, Americanofficials compared the lim-ited agreement on holdingdiscussions to the openingof the Paris talks on theVietnam war, hardly a signthat any conclusion is likelyin the immediate future,

r resident Johnson spokenot only of the complexityinvolved but of the "fears,

Neivs Analysis

suspicions and anxieties weshall have to ovecome." Hecould have added "in boththe United States and theSoviet Union."

In Moscow, Premier Kosy-gin announced that his gov-ernment has sent to all gov-ernments a new version ofSoviet proposals in the armscontrol field. The documentreached Washington latelast week.

Most of the Soviet propos-als are well known but theywere being checked here .forany new angles. Some felt

that the section on possible"regioanl disarmament" inthe Middle East might offersome hope.

Other experts noted thatfor the first time in such adocument, although the ideahad been advancde before,the Soviets called for limita-tion on activities of missile-carrying submarines. Asread here, this would hobbleAmerican Polaris subs with-out a compensating hobbleon the Soviets, who have amuch smaller Soviet missilesubmarine flee.

The Soviet call for an endto ,the manufacture of nu-clear weapons, an idea long

^advpcate.d. /b.C.ge;.__ UjiHSd •

States, was so worded that itcould only occur if theFrench and Chinese alsoagreed, experts here said.

While President Johnsondeclared that there was nowa Soviet-American agree-ment to "enter in the near-est future into discussions"on missiles and ABMs, Kosy-gin made no such reference.Press reports from Moscowsaid that a separate state-ment spoke only of "earlytalks" on this critical issue.

It appeared that someAmerican officials hadhoped that Mr. Johnsoncould 'announce a firm dateand Place; for the missile-

ABM talks but so far Mos-cow has not been willing togo that far. Thus some jock-eying on this mechanical de-tail seems to be in prospect.

The more hopeful Ameri-can officials said that, taken•as a whole, the Soviet state-ment and Kosygin's remarkscould be interpreted as anecessary ideological screenfor the majority in theKremlin which is now pre-pared for the missile-ABMtalks. It is widely believedhere that there lias beenconsiderable Kremlin disa-greement on the issue.

It was noted here that theSoviet document charged

American "aggression" inVietnam and American useof chemical (warfare there.All of this was taken as asop to those who opposedthe coming talks.Refers to Two Items

While Soviet Foreign Min-ister Andrei Gromyko lastThursday referred specifi-cally to talks on both mis-siles and ABMs, the Moscowdocument referred only tothe former as "strategicmeans of delivery of nuclearweapons."

As to who would talk, thedocument said there shouldbe an exchange of views

"with states concerned." Atthe moment that means theUnited States and the SovietUnion.

From hints by other So-viet officials which have

reached Washington, it ap-peared the taiks may takeplace in Geneva under cover•of the Eighteen Nation Dis-a r m a m e n t Commission(EMDC), which convenesagain on July 16.

This would enable the So-viets to push for their entireprogram at the ENDC table,it was said here, while talk-ing privately on a bilateral•basis with the United Stateson the missile-ABM prob-

lem. To meet that possibilityWilliam C. Foster, the topAmerican arms control offi-cial, will go to Geneva for apreliminary meeting withhis Soviet opposite numberon July 12 or 13.

Thus it is evident it willtake some time to settletime, place, format and levelof .participants. As to thesubstance, officials here con-ceded yesterday that Presi-dent Johnson has yet to setan American position. Onlyunder pressure of a timeand place, it was said byothers, can an agreed Amer-ican position toe hammeredout.

BOSTON GLOBE, Tuesday, 2 July 1968

China ReliseslBilJ to NiideaiUhHed Press International

• UNITED ^NATIONS' —Communist China won't at-tend -a Geneva conference on 'nuclear weapons this Sum-mer despite an invitation. Itspostal and telegraph 'depart-ment refuses to have any-

• thing to do with UN; Secre-...'. tary/ General UTharit.-'' ; -

. .The : United Nations '. an-nounced ' Monday it had re->

.ceived :a: message from the

.' Peking Telegraph Office , re-fusing to ., accept a .caljle.gram from Thant concerningthe invitation!

Thant sent , the invitationlast Tuesday and the fol-lowing message was re-ceived early Saturday.

"The People's Republic ofChina has no relations what-soever with the United Na-tios. We therefore refuse toaccept the June 25 talegramof U Thant. Peking Tele-graph Office, June 27, 1968."

"I think that is the end ofthe matter,'' a U.N. spokes-man said. He added thatThant accepts the telegraphoffice message as an officialreply.

The invitation was the. first to the Peking regime toattend a U.N. meeting sinceOctober, 1950, when it sent

.•Gen W Hsiu-chuan here atsuggestion of the SecurityCouncil to discuss the Kore-

' : , • • • • : • ,,." -The Geneva meeting fwascalled by the General As-sembly as a conference onnon-nuclear , states fromAug.; 29 to; Sept.; 2S.:.';It/.was

- detidedtch 'invite' "all ;U:N.

members, its specializedagencies and all nuclear.powers as well,

The invitation<syas sent byregular comercial channels,and the reply was receivedin the same way.

There was no comment onthe Peking reaction fromThant, who was visiting inEastern Europe. But he hadbeen advised of the receipton Saturday of the Pekingmessage.

NEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 2 July 1968

CHINESE KEDS SPURNBIDTO ATOM PARLEY

Special lo The N«w York Times; UNITED NATIONS, N. Y.,uly 1—Communist China has

rejected an invitation to attendja conference of nonnuclearstates in Geneva next monthat which nuclear nations havebeen invited to participatewithout vote.

Peking, with 133 other na-tions, was notified of the forth-,coming meeting last week bySecretary General Thant. Hesaid the communication "hasno relation to the question ofthe representation of China inthe United Nations."

Last Thursday the RadioCorporation , qf.. .America re-

a service - message fromthat read:

People's Republic ofnina has no relations what-ioever with the United Na-

tions. We therefore refuse toaccept the June 25 telegram of

~ .." The message was

fice."A spokesman for Mr. Thant

said, "I think this is the endof the matter."

WALL STREET JOURNAL, Tuesday, 2 July 1968

E£f'*Ked rcliina spurned'am invitaljii&.'fixjpi £ecVfretary General U Thant to attend a UNfgpon-sored nuclear conference in Geneva, "a UNspokesman disclosed. He said Peking's tele-graph office refused even to accept delivery ofthe invitation, the first issued to Red China forany UN-'sponsored conference. Non-nuclear na-tions are meeting in Geneva Aug. 29-Sept. 28jfor sessions to which the nuclear powers havejtaeen .invite'd.,without vptingV rights! . ..:..'yj.$§"' |.

WASHINGTON POST,Tuesday, 2 July 1968

'"^P7"v' " """^message From U.N.Refused by Peking

Prom News Dispatches

UNITED NATIONS, ,N.Y., July 1 — CommunistChina has refused to ac-'cept a message from Sec-"retary General U Thanfinviting it to take part ina forthcoming nude a*conference in 'Geneva, aU.N. spokesman said to-day.

The spokesman said thef o l l o w i n g transmissionwas received from the PeVking Telegraph Office last,-Saturday:

"The People's Republic1

of China has no relations-'whatsoever with the Unit-:ied Nations. We therefore!refuse to accept the June ^25 telegram of U Thant.;C.:,

The c o n f e r e n c e was,called by the non-nuclearpowers of the United Na-,tions to consider ways of ,strengthening their secu-.rity from nuclear attack. *The meeting will also dis-,,.'cuss the peaceful uses oi. jnuclear devices. '„,

Because it is a .nucleart'power, China was invited*.'to the gathering as an ob- 'server. As such, it would'have enjoyed the same;;'privileges as the other"world nuclear powers-r— •'the United States, the St£"'viet .Union, Britain and ...France.-*1 '.•>>;?- '

TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1968

'Reason and sanity prevailr .Russian Premier Kosygin's "at-I tack" on the United States at Mos-[ cow's signing of the nuclear nonpro-: 'liferation treaty is par for the course* and should trouble no one. It detracts'"in no way from the importance either

of the treaty itself or the talks whichWashington and Moscow concurrent-ly have agreed to hold toward th*

• limitation of both defensive and of-fensive nuclear weapons in their own

r,.arsenals.

;:: It certainly did not detract fr6ni?-the subdued but nevertheless clearI. elation amongst the diplomats of 51I natibns who met ai; the White House^Monday for Washington's treatyF signing ceremony.

v. The reported "attack" merelyI stresses some of the essential differ-•rences blocking a still better rap-[ prochement between the UnitedJiStates and Russia. Their public list-"= ing is as it ought to be.

Thfe war in Vietnam is an obvious; $ore spot. It would have been unex-- pected for Mr. Kosygin to pass up theopportunity of saying so publicly andloudly, especially since the convictiongrows in world capitals that the in-tervention of sortie third nati6n maybe required to get the Paris pftacetalks off .dead, center. His own gbod

Offices •'cduKUbk fielpful.

The restriction on the Middle. Eastarms race is another sore spot, andMr. Kosygin's insistence that Israelitroops withdraw completely from oc-cupied Arab countries is a stickler.

But most of th* other items fordiscussion on Mr. Kosygin's list areon Washington's also, or stronglyurged where they are nc-t, and therecan be no seridms quarrel with any ofthem. In addition to the agreed upontalks on a cutback of nuclear weap-ons, the Kosygin list includes thfeprohibition of nuclear' planfe flightsbeyond national borders, a limitationon the travels of rocket-carrying sub-marines, a ban on underground nu-clear testing, prohibition of chemicaland bacteriological warfare and thfcelimination of foreign military bases.

Therfe is not one of these which isnot also importantly supported inWashington, and advisedly so. So theconclusion has to be that a franklisting of differences, rather .thantheir concealment, adds to PresidentJohnson's stated hope that "reasonand sanity have prevailed" and thatthe nations of the world (by whichhe of course means primarily theUnitfed States and Russia) are "readyto make new efforts to k&ep alive andactivft the impulse .toward & safer:world." "'''a/ »« ^ -^ * V - -

THE NEW YORK TIMES. TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1968

Following, as recorded byThe New York Times, is thetext of a statement in Wash-ington yesterday hy Presi-dent Johnson on the signingof the treaty to halt tliespread of nuclear weapons:

Secretary Rusk, Your Ex-cellencies, honored membersof Congress, distinguishedguests, ladies and gentlemen:

This is a very reassuringand hopeful moment in therelations among nations. Wehave come here today to theEast Room of the WhiteHouse to sign a treaty whichlimits the spread of nuclear

; weapons.More than 55 nations are

here in Washington thismorning to. commit their gov-ernments to this treaty. Theirrepresentatives are also sign-ing today in Moscow and

1 London. We hope and expect; that virtually all the nations

will move in the weeks andmonths ahead to accept thistreaty, which was commend-ed to the world by the over-whelming majority of themembers of the United Na-tions General Assembly.

The treaty's purposes arevery simple: To commit thenations of the vvorld whichdo not now have nuclearweapons not to produce orreceive them in the future, toassure equally thai such na-tions have the fu l l peacefulbenefits of the atom and tocommit the nuclear powersto move forward toward ef-

. fective measures of arm con-: trol and disarmament.; It was just a year ago this

month when Chairman Kosy-gin and I agreed at Glassborothat we would work inten-sively in the time ahead to

' try to achieve this result..After nearly a quarter of a

century of danger and fear,reason and sanity have pre-vailed to reduce the dangerand to greatly lessen the fear.

Thus all mankind is reas-sured and as the moment isreassuring, so it is even moi;e .'-.

Jic^aftjK and., heartening.. Jpr^1tlj]s^'treaty is. evidence,.that-'^

".amid the tension*; a net--'the-'strife and the struggle andthe sorrow of these years,men of many nations havenot lost the way or have notlost the will toward'peace.

The conclusion of thistreaty encourages the hopethat other steps may betaken toward a peacefulworld. And it is for thesereasons and in this perspec-tive that I have describedthis treaty as the most im-portant international agree-ment since the beginning ofthe nuclear age.

It enhances the security ofall nations by significantly

. reducing1 • the danger of mi-"'Cieaivw.jir arnqng nations. It..

encourages the peaceful useof nuclear energy by assur-jhg safeguards against its de-structive use.

But perhaps most signifi-cantly the. signing of thistreaty keeps alive and keepsactive the impulse toward asafer world.

We're inclined to neglect.and to overlook what "thatimpulse lias brought about inrecen t years. These havebeen f r u i t f u l times for thequiet works nf diplomacy.

Af te r long seasons of pa-t ient and pa ins taking nego-tiation. \ve have concludedjust w i t h i n ihf j M i i nveyears the Mini led IPS [-bantreaty, thr nurt.T space

treaty, the treaty creating anuclear-free zone in LatinAmerica. And the inarch ofmankind is toward the sum-mit and not the chasm.

And we must not and weshall not allow that marchto "be interrupted.

This treaty like the treatiesthat it follows, is not thework, as Secretary Rusksaid, of any one particularnation. It is the accomplish-ment of nations which seekto erercise their responsibili-ties for m a i n t a i n i n g peaceand maintaining a stableworld order.

And it is my hope and thecommon wi j l of' mankind _thai -all nations wi

• that this treaty affords themsome''added protection.

We hope they will acceptthe treaty and thereby con-tribute further to internation-al peace and security.

As one of the nations hav-ing nuclear weapons, theUnited States all throughthese years has borne 'anawesome responsibility. Andthis treaty increases that re-sponsibility. For we havepledged that we shall useour weapons only in con-formity with the charter ofthe United Nations.

Furthermore, we havemade clear to the United Na-tions Security Council whatI would like to repeat today.

If a state which has accept-ed this treaty does not havenuclear weapons and is a vic-tim of aggression or is subjectto a threat of aggression in-volving nuclear weapons, theUnited States shall be pre-pared to ask immediate Se-curity Council action to pro-vide assistance in accordancewith the charter.

Commitment Repeated:In welcoming the treaty

that prevents the spread ofnuclear weapons, I shouldlike to repeat the- UnitedStates commitment to honorall of our obligations underexisting treaties of mutualsecurity.

Such agreements have add-ed greatly, we th ink , to thesecurity of our nation and thenations with which suchagreements exist.

They have created the de-gree of stability in a some-times unstable world. Andthis treaty is a very impor-tant security measure. But italso lays an indispensablefoundation for expanded co-operation in the peaceful ap-plication of nuclear energyfor additional measures tohalt the nuclear arms race.

And we wil l cooperate fu l lyto bring the treaty safeguardsinto being and we shall thushelp provide the basis of con-fidence that's necessary, Jar

increased cnnpr rat ion in thepeaceful mu-Jear held.

After the treaty has comeinto force, we will permit theInternational Atomic EnergyAgency to apply its safe-guards to all nuclear activi-ties in the United States ex-cluding only those with direeSnational security significance.

Thus the United States isnot asking any country to ac-cept any safeguards thatwe're noi willing Lo acceptourselves.

As the treaty requires, weshall also engage in the fu l l -est possible exchange ofequipment and materials andscippt i f ic and technologicalinformat inn for the peacefuluses of nuclear energy. Andthe needs of the developingnations wil l be given especial-ly partciular attention.

We shall make readilyavailable to the non-nucleaVtreaty partners (lie benefit? ofnuclear explosions for peace-ful purposes- And we shall doso \vithout delay and underthe treaty's provisions.

Now at this moment ofachievement and great hope,I am gratified to he able toreport and to announce tothe world a significant agree-ment—an agreement thatwe've actively sought amiworked for since January,1964.

Accord Is ReachedAgreement has been

reached between the Govern-ments of the Union of Social-ist Republics and the UnitedStates to enter in the nearestfu ture into discussions onthe limitation and the reduc-tion of both offensive stra-tegic nuclear weapons deliv-ery systems and systems ofdefense against ballistic mis-siles.

Discussion of this mostcomplex subject will not beeasy. And we have no i l lu-sions that it "will he. I knowthe stubborn, patience, per-sistence that it has requiredto come this far. And we donot underestimate the d i f f i -

| culties that may lie ahead.* Iknow the fears and the sus-

picions and the anxieties that/e shall have to overcome.lut we do believe that theime spirit of accommoda-

t?pn that's reflected in thenegotiation nf the presenttreaty can bring us to a goodand frui t ful result.

Man can still shape hisdestiny in the nuclrar age—'and learn to live as brothers.

And toward that goal—theday when the xvorld moves.:out of the night of war into.the tight of sanity and so-

. curity, I solemnly pledge the( resources, the resolve and'j,lhe unrelenting efforts of the''•people of the United StagesI and their Government. < • - _ • '

Following are remarks byPremier Aleksei N. Kosyginand excerpts /ram a Sovietmemorandum on steps to re-duce the arms race, as madepublic in English by Toss,Soviet press agency:

By Premier KosyginPermit me on the instruc-

tions of the Soviet Govern-ment to express profound sat-

• isfaction over the fact that1 today commences the signing; of the"'treaty OIL the nonpro-i liferation of nuclear weapons..I which.'is an important inter-:"i national document commend-

ed by the overwhelming ma-jority of the United Nationsmembers.

The conclusion of a treatyon the nonproliferation of'nu-clear weapons is a major suc-cess of the cause of peace.Since the very emergence of rnuclear weapon"sT^the- SaVjieV*Union has firmly and consist--*--entJy come out for deliveringmankind from the nuclearthreat. The treaty is an im-portant step toward this goal.since it bars further prolifera-tion of nuclear weapons, thusreducing the danger of anoutbreak of a nuclear war.

The participation of a greatnumber of states in the sign-ing of the treaty today is aconvincing proof that statesare capable of finding mu-tually acceptance solutions ofcomplicated internationalproblems of vital .importancefor the whole of mankind. '

The preparation -of thetreaty required great effortsand prolonged negotiations,taking part in which were

' nuclear and non-nuclear, big• and small , developed and de-j veloping nations.- countries! belonging to different social1 systems.

Numerous Views ReflectedThe treaty reflects numer-

ous wishes and 'proposals ex-pressed by states, takes intoaccount various points nfview on the solution of thenonproliferation problem; un-der these circumstances, allthe states approving it haveagreed about the main thing:the necessity nf barring fur-thei piolifefation of nuclear

A significant supplementto the^treaty is furnished bythe SQcunty Council decisionon secuiity assurances fornon nuclear weapon coun-tne<; pal t\ to the treaty,adopt°d quite recently. Aswas stated in the. Security

[Counci l the Soviet Govern-ment intends to "comply withthis decision unswervingly.

Five lears . ago .here in5 Moscow \ve signed-the treaty-banning, nuclear weapon testsin three environments. Afterthat "the' treaty ''prohibitingthe use of outer space for

- mi l i tary purposes was con-cluded. Alongside with -thetreaty on the nonproliferationof nuclear weapons, therearc practical steps towardslimiting the arms race whichcreates more favorable con-ditions for progress in dis-armament.

The Soviet Government, as-signing great significance tothe provisions of the treatyon the nonproliferation of nu-clear weapons,. whereby itsparties undertake to pursuenegotiations in good faith oneffective measures relating tocessation of the nuclear raceand to nuclear disarmament,decided and- sent to all gov-ernments a memorandum on

some urgen t measures forstopping the arms race andfor disarmament, which listssuch measures as prohibitionof the use of nuclear weap-ons, cessation of the manu-facture of nuclear weapons,and reduction and destruc-tion of their stockpiles,limitation and subsequent re-duction of means of deliveryof strategic weapons, andothers. "

The Soviet Government at-taches exclusively great im-portance to the memorandumas it is aimed at the strength-ening of peace. Simultaneous

: or stage-by-stage implemen-tation of the measures fordisarmament proposed by theSoviet Union would be a seri-ous contribution to the strug-gle for the cessation of thearms race and for a radicalsolution of the disarmamentproblem.

May I express a hope that-..the memorandum-will receive*.due consideration from the.governments of the world na-tions, that it will be a subjectof" comprehensive discussionin the 18-nation committeeon disarmament which is go-ing to resume its work short-ly, and that this will make itpossible to achieve specificresults in the field of disarm-ament, which peoples of thewhole world are longing for.

Soviet MemorandumFollowing the conclusion of

the treaty on the nonprolifer-ation- of nuclear weapons, theSoviet Government proposesthat an understanding bereached on the implementa-tion of the following urgentmeasures on an end to thearms race and on disarma-ment in the near future.

1. A Ban on the Use ofNuclear WeaponsAn important advance to-

wards a solution of this prob-lem, towards the eliminationof the threat of nucelar war,would be the conclusion of aninternational agreement, ban-ning the use of nuclear weap-ons.

With the object of facilitat-ing the earliest possible solu-tion of this problem, the Gov-ernment of the U.S.S.R. sub-mitted to the 22nd session ofthe United Nations GeneralAssembly a draft conventionon a ban on the use of nu-clear weapons.

The Assembly urged allstates to study the draft con-vention on a ban on the useof nuclear weapons, submit-ted by the Soviet Union, andalso other proposals, whichmay be made on this ques-tion, and to hold talks con-cerning the conclusion ofan appropriate convention•through convocation of an in-'tcrnational conference, in the18-nations Disarmament Com-

- mittee or directly betweenstates.

With the object of a prac-tical solution to the problemof banning the use of nuclearweapons, the Soviet Governrmerit proposes that the 18-nation committee should dis-cuss as a priority item thedraft convention on banningthe use of such weapons andexchange opinions on theconvocation of an interna-tional conference for its sign-

'ing. • •2. Measures on Ending the

Manufacture of NuclearWeapons, Reducing andLiquidating their Stock-piles.

The Soviet Governmentproposes that all nuclearpowers immediately opentalks on an end to the manu-facture of nuclear weapons,the reduction of its stock-piles and the subsequenttotal ban on and liquidationof nuclear weapons underappropriate international con-trol.

The Soviet Governmentexpresses its readiness toopen such talks with allother nuclear powers at anytime.3. Limitation and Subse-

quent Reduction ofMeans of Delivery ofStrategic WeaponsThe Soviet Government

proposes that an understand-ing be reached on concretesteps in the limitation andsubsequent reduction of stra-

tegic means of delivery ofstrategic nuclear weapons. Indoing so the Soviet Govern-ment proceeds from the as-sumption that the destruc-tion of the entire arsenal ofmeans of strategic deliveryand, in any case, the reduc-tion of this arsenal to the ab-solute minimum, with the re-tention, and this only tempo-rarily, of only a strictly lim-ited quantity of such means,would be a measure leadingto the elimination of thethreat of nuclear war.

The Soviet Government ex-presses its readiness to holdan exchange of opinion withconcerned states on mutuallimitation and subsequent re-duction of strategic meansof delivery of nuclear weap-ons.4. Ban on Flights of Bomb-

ers, Carrying NuclearWeapons, Beyond Na-tional Frontiers. Limita-tion of Zones of Voyagesof Submarines CarryingMissiles.The Soviet Government has

more than once drawn theattention of the governmentsof other states and worldopinion to tlie danger offlights of bombers, carryingnuclear weapons, beyond theboundaries of national fron-tiers. The increasing crashesof American bombers, carry-ing nuclear weapons beyondthe territory of the UnitedStates, arouse the legitimateanxiety of various countries.

From a military point ofview, these flights of bomb-ers are devoid of sense inconditions of the existence ofnuclear rocket weapons.

The Soviet Government pro-poses that flights of bomb-ers! carrying nuclear weap-ons, beyond the 'boundariesot national frontiers bebanned without delay.

In order to reduce the riskof the outbreak of a nuclearwar, the Soviet Governmentalso proposes that an agree-ment be reached on an endto the patrolling by subma-rines, carrying nuclear mis-siles, within missile-strikingrange of the borders of thecontracting sides.5. Ban on Underground

Tests of NuclearWeapons.The Soviet Government is

prepared to reach an imme-diate understanding on thebanning of underground testsof nuclear weapons on thebasis of using national means

of detection to control thisban.6. Ban on the Use of

Chemical and Bacterio-logical Weapons.

The Soviet Governmenthas more than once drawnthe attention of states to thethreat for mankind from theuse of chemical and bacterio-logical weapons.

Reflecting the commonanxiety -,of the peoples iiaview of such a threat, the21st session of the UnitedNations General Assemblypassed .1 resolution, callingfor strict observance by allstates of the principles of theGeneva protocol of 1925 on aban on the use of chemicaland bacteriological weapons,denouncing all actions con-tradicting this aim, and pro-posing that all states accedeto the Geneva protocol.

However, this importantdecision of the General As-sembly, is not fulfilled bysome countries, first andforemost the United States.The United Stales uses chem-ical weapons in its aggres-sive war in Vietnam.

In view of this, the SovietGovernment proposes thatthe 18-nation committee ex-amine ways and means ofsecuring observance by allstates of the Geneva Proto-col on a ban on the use ofchemical and bacteriologicalweapons.

7. Liquidation of ForeignMilitary Bases,Foreign, military bases on

alien territories create a seri-..QUS threat to the peace. Such'bases serve as a source ofoutbreak" of military conflicts,threaten the freedom and in-dependence of the peoples,This is convincingly borneout by the continuing ag-gressive war of the UnitedStates in Vielnam, by thetension and conflicts in otherparts of the world, whereforeign bases are located.

The Soviet Governmentproposes that, in conformitywith instructions of the 21stsession of the United Nation?General Assembly, the lg-

nation Disarmament Commit-tee urgently examine thequestion of the liquidation offoreign military bases.8. Measures on Regional

Disarmament.The Soviet Government

supports the setting up of de-nuclearized zones in variousparts of the world.

The Soviet Government he- :lieves that not only groupsof states, embracing wholecontinents or major geo-graphic regions, but alsomore limited groups of statesor even individual countries,may assume commitments forthe establishment of de-nuclearized zones.

The Soviet Government alsosupports proposals concern-ing the implementation ofmeasures for regional dis-armament and for the reduc-tion of armaments in variousregions of the world, includ-ing the Middle East. Thequestion of such measures forslackening the arms race inthe Middle East, of course,could be considered only inconditions of elimination ofthe consequences of theIsraeli aggression against theArab countries, and, aboveall, the full evacuation of theIsraeli forces from the terri-tories of Arab countries occu-pied by them-9. Peaceful Uses of the

Sea Bed and OceanFloor.The progress of research

and the prospect for the de-velopment of the sea bed and(he ocean floor make it pos-sible to raise the questionof the timely recording in aproper form of conditionsthat would insure the utiliza-tion of the sea bed beyondthe limits of existing terri-torial waters exclusively forpeaceful purposes.

This would ban, specifi-cally, the establishment offixed military installations onthe sea bed and also anyother military activity.

The Soviet Governmentproposes that the 18-nationcommittee open talks on theuse of the sea bed beyondthe limits of existing terri-torial waters exclusively forpeaceful purposes. ,

'ossible Nuclear Blastl\ 'In Soviet Is RecordedI

WASHINGTON, July I (AP) ,—The Atomic Energy Com-mission recorded today whatcould have been a nuclearexplosion in the Soviet,Union. ".

A commission statementsaid: "The United Stales hasrecorded seismic signalswhich originated today in theU.S.S.R. north of the CaspianSea. The signals were eqm'v-

ilent to those of a nucleartest in the low Intermediaterange."

"Low intermediate" means20,000 to 200,000 tons ofTNT equivalent. The A.E.C.has not announced a nucleartest in this area before.

UPPSALA, Sweden, July I .(AP)—The SeismologicaJ In- istitute here reported todaythat it had registered whatwas believed to be a strongunderground explosion in thearea north of the CaspianSea.

By RAYMOND II. ANDERSONEp~c!al to TUC :\;w Yorfc TUncs

MOSCOW, July 1 — The treaty jnudcar weaponsorevent the spread of nu-|to flights withinto prevent

be restrictednational bor-

clear weapons was signed byidcrs. It also urged that missile-36 countries in Moscow today firing submarines be prohibitedand the Soviet Union took oc- from cruising within launchingcasion to issue a new appcaljrange of countries covered by

NEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 2 July 1968

Kosygin talk, excerpts frontSoviet memo, Page 2.

jtiie proposed agreement on in-ternational arms control.

The treaty on nuclear weap-

achieve disarmament for lhe cause of Peacc-' con>!Premier Aleksei N. Kosygin,mits tlle Sovict Unlon' lhe

in br ief remarks at the signing United States and Britain toceremony, disclosed that the refrain from giving other coun-Soviet Government had acl-|trics nuclear weapons, controldressed a memorandum to all',over such weapons or assist-countrics proposing a nine-point program for disarmamentand arms control.

In addition to reviving anold appeal for a prohibition onthe use of nuclear weapons,the Soviet memorandum pro-

.posed that bombers armed with

ance in their development. Thecountries acceding to the treatycommit themselves not to ac-quire or develop a nuclear ar-senal.

France and Communist China,the two other countries thatpossess nuclear arms, have re-fused to .sign the agreement.China lias denounced it as p:utof a "United States-Soviet cor/spiracy" against nonnuclear

jpowcrs, while in France the de-velopment of a nuclear s t r ik ingforce has been an clement inPresident de Gaulle's stress onFrench national pride and

'greatness.The signing ceremony, also

staged later in the day inLondon and Washington, was

;hcld in the Soviet Govcrn-jment 's House of Receptions, amansion overlooking Moscow

[from landscaped grounds atopthe Lenin Hills.

The document, in a red loose-

-y the.'States "'Ambassador,

Llewellyn E. Thonipson, theSoviet Foreign Minister, An-drei A. Gromyko, and the Brit-ish Ambassador, Sir GeoffreyHarrison.

Senior officials of the Amer-jican and British Embassies!stood in the background beside |Premier Kosygin, Marshal A_n-drei A. Grechko, the SovietDefense Minister, and otherSoviet officials. |

A shadow was thrown over,the 11:30 A.M. ceremony byjinformation received a fewhours earlier that Soviet fighterplanes had forced a UnitedStates airliner carrying troopsto South vJttnatn to land on theSoviet islan-A of Iturup in theKurile chain norih of Japan.. .Despite the uncertaintiesrais^4::by •this, incident,, the at-

^ 'ilSJ^fe IM signing...-cere-

., warm. After : theX: signatures had been

|ffixect:i;o" the document, wait-ers appeared with chilled cham-paign. Anlba.ssador Thompson,joined occasionally by theBritish Ambassador, chattedamiably in Russian with .Pre-mier Kosygin, Mr. Gromyko |and Marshal Grechko. They:smiled frequently during theconversation.

Later, flag-flying limousinesof embassies of other countriesconverged on the House of Re-ceptions for a ceremony ofaccession to the treaty.

The ceremonies followed byfour days an .announcement by'Mr. Gromyko that the Soviet iUnion was ready to open dis-jcussions with the United Statestoward limiting costly and pos-sibly futile antimissile defenses.In Washington, President John-son;jj|n:ngtaced today that such

.talks-'-would "'begin; iri "the,est'future." . . . - . ' •• . - • • • . . . • ' '| The Soviet disarmament plan[made public today was fore-I shadowed by Mr. Gromyko'sspeech in the Supreme Soviet,!or Parliament. He called then'

:for a revival of efforts to out-law nuclear weapons and toreach other major agreements!on arms control.

The nine-point disarmamentmemorandum, Premier Kosyginsaid, will be submitted to theI7-nation disarmament commit-tee, which will reconvene July17 in Geneva.

Besides calling for a prohibi-tion on the use of nuclear weap-ons and restrictions on nuclear-armed bombers and sub-marines, the memorandum con-tained these proposals:

1A ban on the production ofnuclear weapons and steps to-|ward destruction or reductionof existing stockpiles.

<IA limitation and Later re-duction of strategic weapon de-livery systems, meaning mis-'siles, bombers and submarines.

flA broadening of the 1963'test-ban treaty to prohibit!underground nuclear explq-1

sions. ' '«JA prohibition on the use of;

chemical and bacteriologicalweapons. !

iAn elimination of military |bases on foreign territory.

^Agreements on nuclear-dis-armament zones.

§A ban on military use ofocean floors in internationalwaters.

A seemingly visionary pro-hibition on the use of nuclearweapons would be beneficial,the memorandum said, not only:in constraining nuclear powersbut also in "allaying appre-hensions of some states as; tothe intentions of others regard-

iflg' nuclear eaporis," thereby!helping - to relax international jtension. The disarmament com-imittee will be asked to givejhigh priority to such an agree-ment. - I

The proposal for a ban onthe manufacture of nuclear |weapons and reduction or de-struction of stockpiles specified!that such an agreement should;be carried out "under appro-priate international control."

Negotiated curbs on deliverysystems for nuclear weaponswould aim at total destructionof existing systems or at leasttheir reduction "to an absoluteminumum," the memorandumsaid.

A limitation on the deploy-ment of antimissile defensespresumably would fall withinthis section of the proposed in-ternational treaty.

Soviet insistence that dis-armament measures arejotillusory was emphasize"d"~by

. - • . . • • • • • • • . : . - , , . • • ; ; • , - , , ; • {•Premier Kosygin in his remarksat the ceremony.

"The participation of a greatnumber1 of states in the signingof the treaty today is con-vincing proof that states arecapable of finding mutually ac-ceptable solutions to compli-cated international problems ofvital importance for the wholeof mankind," he declared.

I _23 Sign in London

LONDON, July 1 (Reuters)—Twenty-three nations signed thetreaty against nuclear prolifera-tion here today. The Soviet Am-bassador, Mikhail N. Smirnov-sky, advocated further andurgent steps to end the nucleararms race.

The treaty was signed byForeign Secretary Michael Stew-art, by the Soviet envoy andby the United States Ambassa-dor, David K. E. Bruce.

The signing was watched byPrime Minister Wilson, whosaid the treaty sought tq- dispel

:th"e gathering cloud of fear thatnuclear weapons would spreadfrom one country to another.

He said cynics had scoffed atthe idea of the treaty "but, asit is, we have chosen the roadof wisdom" and "it will lead,we confidently expect, to con-itinuing advance toward further!measures of arms control and!disarmament." '

MEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 2 July 1968

DECLINES"Cites 'Series of Problems

: to Be Resolved First

By PHILIP SHABECOFFSpecf.tl to Thf New York Tlmt!

BONN, July I—The WestGerman Government indicatedtoday that it had no immediateintention of signing the treatyto hal t the spread of nuclearweapons.

Gunther Dichl, the Govern-ment's press and informationchief, said that "a whole seriesof problems" had to be re-solved before West Germanycould sign the treaty.

He specifically mentioned"massive Soviet political pres-sure" against West Germany asbeing a serious obstacle to rat-ification of the treaty.

The Government spokesman'said, that West Germany wel-comed the signing of.the treatybythe Soviet Union, the United!States and Britain today. Healso noted that Chancellor Kurt

eorg .Kiesingei- unilaterally re-nounced the use or manufactureof nuclear weapons.

But he added that Bonncould not -approve the treatynbw •' because of a series o•'world political problems."

The Government, Mr. Diehsaid, "has reason, to study thetreaty" more thoroughly thanother nations." He declaredthat Bonn would seek "fulclarification of the intentionsof the nuclear powers" beforeratification. • • :

Soviet Policy CitedThe' Government spokesman

said that :there was--no directlink between Bonn's reserva-tions about .-the nuclear treatyand the latest East .Germanharassment of traffic betweenWest Germany and West Herlin. He acknowledged, however,

I that "the manifestations of-Soviet "policy in recent dayshave activated the FederalGovernment's considerations of| the treaty."I Political circles in Bonn in-dicated today stfiat the -Govern-ment; had -more^'than. the newharassments; py^East Germanyttt-miad—vrfseTk^-ilrfefeFred- -toSoviet pressures. They notedthat the Government had con-sidered for some time delayingits acceptance of the nucleartreaty in return for a Sovietquid pro quo.

| "Bonn 'would like Moscow to'end its resistance to West Ger-

.Jmany's efforts to re-establishpolitical and trade contactswith the countries in EasternjEurope.

The Government spokesmanindicated that a cessation of

!Soviet pressure Would not auto-jmat ica l ly mean ' that Bonnwould be ready to sign thetreaty. But il wnuld "sig-nificantly lighten" West Ger-man problems in accepting the|nuclear pact, -he said. . • ; • • . j

Time Element Questioned jMr. Diehl a l<=o psserted that!

Jthere.were problems within thr(Western all iance that required3onn 'to examine the treat;'further.! One cf the problems,he said; was that the term ofthe treaty could conceivablyextend beyond the tenn of thethe alliance itself.

The spokesman said that itwas not a question of time un-til Bonn signed the treaty, but:a question of resolving ,theproblems surrounding the pact.He agreed ihnt the text of thetreaty itself could no longer bechanged, but suggested that ob-

jject icns to the treaty could beovercome in other ways.

He said that Bonn wouldawait the outcome of a confer-ence of jionnuclear nations,which ir, scheduled to be heldin Geneva in August, beforemaking a decision on whetherto sign the treaty.

Surtax Becomes EffectiveSpsclil to The New York Times

BERLIN, July 1—East Ger-many put into force today thesecond stage of its new rules onaccess to West Berlin .imposinga surtax on truck and barge;traffic to and from the city. |

The move was announced by!the East Germans on June 11,when they also introduced a|transit visa for West Berlin'at a $2.50 fee. The surtaxis expected to net the EastGermans additional income onshipping of about $10 to $12-million a year. The West Ger-man Government has declaredit will reimburse shippers.

The levying of the surtaxcame amid reports that theEast Germans had additionalplans to harass West Berlintravel.

According to reliable sources,East Germany has indicatedthat it may take steps to inter-fere with mail. It has also in-dicated that it may bar certaincommercial shipments on Ber-,lin's access routes. . J

YORK TIMES, TUB sday, _2_Ju2y

r, h IJ/ii

Weapons of Offensive

to Be Included

Xc.vt of Johnson's .c*z!r~.m£.will be- fo:ind en Pz^s T.

r,y PETER Gr,C?E

WASHINGTON. :•',- J ~~President. Johnson uiir.c. :~.-Ca-today that the United Statesa n d ' the Soviet Union hadagreed to open talks "in thenearest future" that v.-ou'.d boaimed at limiting c.nd reducing.both offensive nuclear v.'eap-ons and defensive antimissilesystems.

The President was the first .to concede that cccord on thesubstance of the complex::sues would be difficult tojclrcve. Cut after years of falsesta:ts, the r^rc::r.rnt opened anr-.v charter in t!'.2 tortuous• v G t o r v o" r-rf-Vv'c:t c'.isarnia-

.il'-ital St-*.--, r r i ta in -M f'?|"ov;ct Unl^-i, as v;c!l r~ of'r.or.nuclc-ar nation?, signed thstreaty to prohibit the spread ofnuclear v.-c^yjons, which hadbrc-i nor" th?"i ri:: "cr.iv. innegotiation.

F.-csH:::t ILi'b TVc.'vMr. .7r~ ••-.?;\ r-"?1:1::'; 'l a

\Vlsile Hoi .;c i'r.nir.j c.-r::.,~.ny

in Lo--'.3n and Me:"--" -de-clared:

"This trn'y i3 thr n-- 1 Im-'roil.-1"1 I'.:'"since t!.: L - cr iho nu-

• "Agreement has been re."!: • 'between iho Gi.vernmcr.lr c-1the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics nnd the United Statesto enter in the nearest futureinto discussions on the limita-tion and reduction of both of-fensive Ktrntcpjc nuclear weap-ons delivery systems r.ndsystems of defense against ba!4-

listic missiles,'" the Presidentadded.

The treaty will now go to theSenate for ratification.

White House aides said thatthe exact date and place forthe talks on the missile issueand the composition of the ne-gotiating teams are yet to bedecided.

State Department expertsare said to be prepared to goto Moscow within the comingweek. Qualified officials saidthe United States was willing tohold the discussions in the So-viet capital if the Russianswere agreeable.

One White House officialsaid the agreement to hold themissile talks was comparablein import to the opening ofthe Vietnam talks in Paris inMay.

There seemed to be nothingin the Soviet-United Statesmove to suggest a change ofpositions on the Vietnam issue.American diplomats do not ex-1pect the subject of Vietnamto be raised in connection withnew disarmament proposals.

The United States was in-formed over the weekend of theother proposals made by Pre-mier Aleksei N. Kosygin inMoscow today. A White Houseofficial called the proposals a"standard statement." The at-titude of State Department of-ficials was to proceed with onething at a time.

Announcement by Gromyko

The break in a 17-monthdeadlock over missile talkscame last Thursday, when theSoviet Foreign Minister, AndreiA. Gromyko, announced thathis Government was preparedto open the talks, which'.,Presirdent Johnson had -proposed •: in»rJajmary, 1967. __ i^:-.', """'

'The President^said*tha^r'dis-cussion of this1., .most''complexsubject will not be easy."

"We have no illusion's thatit will be," he added. "I knowthe fears, suspicions and~anxie-ties we shall have to overcome.But I believe that the samespirit of, accommodation re-flected in the negotiation ofthe present treaty can bringus to a good and fruitful re-sult."

The immediate^ reaction onCapitol Hill was enthusiastic."The world can breathe thefresh air of new hopfe today,"

,said Senator Mike Mansfield,"jthe majority leader. A Republi-

can, Senator Charles H. Percy,said "The agreement to talkrepresents a step toward sanity)in international relations. :

•Jfhe delineation of the pre-cise, issues will undoubtedly^onsum^' much of the nego-tiators''3 efforts in the earlyjfages. Both sides agree on thefundamental approach: first alimitation on the scope of bothcountries' missile launchers,then a reduction in both na-tions' stockpiles.

.Same FormulationMr. Gromyko mentioned this

two-phase approach in his re-marks Thursday. Mr. Johnsondeliberately used the same for-mulation today, White Houseaides said.

The proposed limitations areto encompass both interconti-nental ballistic missiles, which;are offensive weapons, and; thigcostly antiballistic missile derfensive systems that the UnitedStates has long hesitated tobuild for fear of setting off a Inew spiral of arms expendi-tures.

The United States officialsdoubt that the limitations wi l l ,be expressed in absolute num-bers, partly because the Rus-sians have a deep reluctance |to discuss the size of theirstockpile. A more likely for-mula would be to set a mora-torium on new construction.

Proceeding on that -basis,Administration officials havejjiot indicated that there willbe any cutback in the con-struction of the $5.5-billion

Sentinel antiballistic - missile;(system, the start of which the'Senate aproved only last week.

The idea for the missile talkscan be traced to a letter fromPresident Johnson to the thenPremier, Nikita S. Khrushchev,in January, 1964. He called onthe Soviet leadership to jointhe United States in present-ing proposals to the GenevaDisarmament conference "toplace limitations on nuclear;weapons systems." I

'Twists and Turns'That suggestion passed

through many "twists andturns," according to WhiteHouse officials, while the twocapitals directed their primediplomatic effort to the con-clusion of the related treatyto prevent proliferation of nu-clear weapons.

The United States interest,as expressed last year, was inbarring the construction of|antiballistic missile systems, iPremier Kosygin told PresidentJohnson at their meeting a yearago in Glassbpro, N. J. thatoffensive missiles as well asdefensive system should be in-cluded. The United Statesraised no objection.

Some United States officialsbelieve that Soviet agreementon the talks came now becauseof a desire to show nonnuclearnations that 'the nuclear powers*«rere moving to restrain arma-ments.

The i-1-- '•- - -

.nuclear countries to sign the'treaty against proliferation con-tinues to cause concern in bothWashington and Moscow.Among the noteworthy ab-sentees at the three ceremoniestoday were West Germany,India and Brazil, all of whichhave expressed reservationsabout foregoing their own nu-clear;development.

- s , represented usu-

ally by their ambassadors,could sign the treaty in eitherof the three capitals, or morethan one if they chose. At thej

iWhite House, 56 signatures,;were affixed, in London 23 andiin Moscow 36. After allowingfor duplications, a total of 58nonnuclear countries1,,^hadjsigned. / '

WALL STREET JOURNAL, Wednesday, 3 July 1968

The Arms l&aee: Hopes and Cautions. Is the talk of slowing the U.S.-So-

"yiet arms race just one more phony onthe part of the Kremlin?

Certainly the U.S. Government andthe American people would dearly liketo believe some substance will emerge-from the new agreement to discuss re-duction of both offensive and defensivenuclear weapons systems. The John-

[»son. Administration, of course, hasSbeen doing practically everything pos-jisible to wrest a 'measure of coopera-SHion from -the Soviets.s|?! The fact is that the arms race is^getting entirely too costly for comfort.|fAt the rate it is going, U.S. officialsffigure that defense spending will go|jdown hardly at all after the end of theijVietnam war. It may well go up; anIjtem like a -full anti-missile systemgcould cost ?20 billion to $40 billion, andInhere is apparently no limit to the de-^vices the two sides can compete in—i-military spacecraft of the future, for^'example.'& It is not only the cost/that is dis-J'turbing. An ever more widespread,*r4nore complicated weapons competi-l^tion could bring us to something un-lipleasantly close to a garrison state.£That is, the demands of -the militarytvcould grow so heavy as to dwarf ev-j*erything else, and the only choicejj'jwould seem to bevthe regimentation of^industry and individuals.!<; Current reports indicate that attjleast the cost considerations are also^worrying the Soviets, which, wouldpimply that to that extent they are "sin-;^cere" 'about wanting to curtail the^weapons build-up. A full anti-missile^system, to mention only that, would**cost them as much as it wpuld cost us,J-Jand at a time when the government is.^trying to meet a portion of the vastapent-up demand of Soviet consumers.•| In addition, it is thought—and natu-£rally this is not susceptible to proof—£sthat the Soviets may have concluded;*ithat huge anti-missile defenses are fu-jstile. The reasoning is that every step'|Siey take will be countered by the U.S.|fn building bigger and more penetrat-ing missiles. If true, the change in•i'tiieir strategic thinking would be an-ppther hint they may genuinely want aDegree of arms limitation, in their owninterest. ' • ' • ' • , v '^..•'•i^t : - • • " ' . ' ,

(Critics of the U.S. anti-missileplans, by no means soft on commu-nism, also make the futility argument.One of their most telling points is thatthe "thin" Sentinel system, supposedto protect against Red China, will beobsolete before it's finished, a damn-ing indictment if correct.)

Despite the signs of substance inthe arms-curb atmosphere, the U.S.must proceed gingerly in any suchdealings with the Soviets. They arestill treacherous, still hope to vanquishus one way or another. This countrywould be in grave peril if they wereable to pull a fast one, getting us tohold back while they went ahead. Andarms-limiting agreements are noto-riously difficult to police.

Beyond that, they are at war withus in Vietnam. The conflict would al-most surely have been over long sincebut for the Soviets, for it is all but in-conceivable the North Vietnamese andVietcong could have held out in theabsence of the massive arms ship-ments from Russia. It is a circum-stance that makes the whole idea ofslowing the arms race rather ironic.

At the same time the Soviets arecausing fresh trouble in Berlinthrough their East German stooges.While the main purpose may be sa-ber-rattling in the hope of halting theliberal tide in Czechoslovakia and res-tiveness elsewhere in the satelliteworld, any mischief-making in Berlinimmediately impinges on the interestsof the U.S. and its allies.

Plenty of cause for caution, inshort. The task of policy, and we donot for a moment underestimate itscomplexity, is to try to ascertain, notwhether the Soviets have altered theirbasic aims, but whether they are per-haps changing their strategy for rea-sons which seem to them sound. It isnot impossible; just as it would havebeen in the true Soviet interest not tohave forced America into the armsrace in the first place, so they maynow see benefits in a slowdown.

Certainly U.S. officials must not begullible. But neither should they be sorigid as to miss what could be an op-portunity for safely lifting some of the

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Wednesday, 3 July 1968

Common sense and the atomAn improved atmosphere is dawning in

relations between the United States andthe Soviet Union. Ascribe it to the open-ing of Vietnam peace talks in Paris, to thefruition of negotiations toward a nuclearnonproliferation treaty, to PresidentJohnson's Glassboro initiative or PremierKosygin's intelligence. . Whatever thecauses, there is a better tone to the dia-logue, even though the Soviet forcedlanding of an off-course American trans-port plane in the Kurile islands adds aremporary irritant.

The most hopeful news in a long time isthe announcement that talks will indeedbegin, in the "nearest" future, on thelimitation and reduction of offensive nu-clear weapons systems, and the systemsof defense against ballistic missiles. Presi-dent Johnson rightly warns against expec-tations of quick results. The negotiationswill be long and painstaking. But what issignificant is that Moscow, at long last, hasagreed to consider avoiding a colossallycostly, and almost surely ineffective, effortto develop the anti-missile missile. Ananti-missile system could cost each coun-try upward of- $40 billion.

In five years mankind has taken practi-cal and hopeful steps to curb the atom:the limited test ban treaty, the ban onmilitary weapons circling in outer space,most recently the treaty against prolifera-tion of nuclear weapons just signed by amultiplicity of nations in Moscow, Lon-.don, and Washington. Add in'the prospect

of serious talks to cut back offensive anddefensive ICBM systems and this is,in President Johnson's words, "a reas-suring and hopeful moment."

Both Moscow and Washington need toredirect their huge defense spending todomestic purposes: the war against pov-erty in the United States, the drive forconsumer goods in the Soviet Union.Neither side has wanted to toss $40 billioninto a program that might be nearly use-less when completed. The swift develop-ment of the multi-warhead, multi-decoymissile has again thrust nuclear offenseahead of nuclear defense.

Possibly then a new era is ahead, inrelations between the two superpowers.Call it a detente, or simply a triumph ofreason. The Soviets for years have beeninferior to the United States in totals ofintercontinental and submarine-basedmissiles. Now they may well have caughtup, certainly in silo-based ICBMs.

Anti-missile advocates have argued thata "slim" anti-ICBM system would defendagainst a possible Chinese attack. But thethreat of colossal retaliation should dis-courage any such assault. Beyond thatsingle issue, it is absurd to pile nuclearsystems on nuclear systems, terror onterror and call this wisdom. It is betterthat the superpowers begin fulfilling theirobligations to the nonatomic countries, bycutting back on nuclear weapons and de-livery systems. At last they are inchingin this direction.

Sfitf YORK T/IM2S, Wednesday, 3 July 1968

SOVIET ARMS BIDr- - -^ _t •? <

vf j;

Seeks Common Ground inNine-Point Proposal

By PETER GROSESpecial to The Ne* Yor!: Times

WASHINGTON, July 2* —United States arms controL ex-perts today studied the latestSoviet package of disarmamentproposals, trying to" discernhints of significantly changedattitudes behind long - familiarphrases. * <•

One shift was" reflected inPresident Johnson's announce-ment yesterday that talkswould begin shortly on ques-tions --of limiting \and reducingstocks of strategic missiles TheSoviet Government-declared itsreadiness last week to beginsuch talks and the missile is-.sue was- one ,of june pointsraised yesterday by the SovietPremier, Aleksei N» Kosygin.

None of the other points wasnew in the history of East-West disarmament negotia-tions. But after more than twodecades of exchanges there arefew new ideas. The problem isto decide which idea would bemost'fruitful at any given tune.

U.S. to Make OffersThe United ,States is expect-

ed to produce its own propos-als'when the disarmament con-ference reconvenes -.in.. Geneyalater this'jfiqhth. The Americanproposals are now in p~repar,a-tioh. Judging • from past p/osa*'tions the United States and^tneSoviet Union are'not far: aparton several issues. . '. „

The1 most; promising.: seemed,to be a ' Soviet, .proposal 'thatthe Geneva .'.conference "opentalks.-: .oh the use:. of\ the seabed exclusively1, for peacefulpurposes."i:Only. last.week, in aUnited -{Nations committee yonthe' sea-bed,, the,;yhite'd;.Statesproposed that talks begin alongthese lines..-

, Mr. Kosygin called' for a banon military activity on the, seabed,.'.a formula that could1 beac,ceptable;to the. United States.

The Soviet. Premier also pro-posed a .ban; on patrolling bysubmarines •, carrying;,, nuclearmissiles.;. within.. striking;.- rangeof potential targets. .This pointof the Soviet proposal wouldalso•,bail • flights'- of bomberscarrying, nuclear, iweapons. •"••;,.

Siiqji a ban has long beenopposed by'.'the'/United Stateson the Aground:, that bombersand submarines' '•' carrying iiu-

~timAracture" .of '.'hiiclear weapons,reducing' and liquidating theirstockpiles is another long-pending problem :ori Whichagreement', has, *f ouridered.;;over.tiie';' issue:'•'''.of -fpolicihg .isuch'^abari;;.-'f;'M-.::^-^i^-::,'v':;'v

• JohnsonOffer Recalled1 President Johnson's proposal

in January, 1964, for, a cutoff.m production of nuclear mate-rial for. Weapons:; would se.eiri,on the face: of it, to be closeto the Soviet position. Theproblem 'is .the•[ old> one ofverification,: to unsure that theban is.not being'violated." !••.' The recently concluded treatyto halt.the^ spread of.'nuclearWeapons, applies .to the producrtion ,qf::.hucTear ma:tenals,..forweapons by-nations'that do not"already possess nuclear weap-

-:'-.the inspection issue is also;the'.main ;probiem. in1'the Sovietproposal jot- a .hah, '6n- ;under^'ground nuclea'f testing. TheRussians i: linsist pn r inatipnalimeans of : detection-to contrbl:thiS' ban, while; .the United'States Wants/verification by art;ihternati6hal authority. ,•:,;I^uclear testing • isv alreadybanned in ;the; atmosphere, the;sea1 and in space under a.: treaty icoricludedihiges.^y..: ;.- the Soviet' -proposal for a,ban-:;oh, -the, iise of nuclearweapons 'is: considered;imprac-tical and. unenforceable by theUnited .States;. American of-fibials, moreover,: consider theHuclear ' arsenal:.• an i'esseritiai:•Oivi**i'J''l*.J".'1TT—.-Jji'lJ. J~;.<"l.r! U-,L! iii'r.iLt'_£ _•_'•<•! • "'"1

.. .iectiqn^.ipn:-,V liquidation;.t-.forergrivmtlitary bases'/anothierSoviet proposal.

United States officials, saidthey; were riot ready tcp discussa proposed-ban on: .the use ofchemical and bacteriologicalweapons. 'They; said simply thatthe: issue;was;''to,o complex andthe Uriited: States'" own, studiesoh this question had. hot yetvbeen .completed.'

"American officials ^concur inSoviet support for disarmamentwithin certain. regions_ of theworld, but see no specific, issue

' • : • ' ' • •; Agreements have already

been reached for disarmamentof the Antarctic continent and •space, which fall into the.. cate-gory, of .regiorial accords. TheUnited ^States:> approved last;Spring: a Latih-Ahiefican nu-cledr-ffee zone and, has sup- ;prtei proposals: -for an .African •'

NEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 3 July 1968

11 ' ' * "'" • -" ' . .. ' . . ' . : ;;;L " . '-•'-'-'" ^'- £ '•"' '

•v -v f^\ J^ /> rf* ° ° •£ T^"1 ' *:'" /* v "R;yir-* •*? . * t 1 ' -V l /T^ 'fl'ff T 3T F * 1 *3 £™** ° VU.S. Officials Eager .for Missile Talks With SovietBy WILLIAM BEECHER

Special to The New Y<«* Times

.WASHINGTON, July 2—Ad-ministration officials are anx-ious to start arms limitationstalks with the Soviet Union assoon as possible because theyhope to influence importantmilitary decisions pending be-fore the Soviet leadership.

Officials say the Russianshave recently completed suc-cessful tests of advanced inter-continental ballistic missiles,which some Soviet militaryleaders want to go ahead anddeploy.

If they are deployed, offi-cials said, the new missileswould start showing up withinthe next six months or so. Theeffect would be to put thenumber of Soviet land-basedintercontinental missiles wellahead of the numbers in theUnited States. This doubtlesswould cause pressures inWashington to accept-the chal-lenge and increase the UnitedStates strategic1 force onceagain, officials^r.aid.'..•,> •;'; .

American analysts suggestthat a sudden deployment dur-ing the talks would tend tocast doubt on the genuinenessof Soviet interest in disarma-ment. Such a deployment couldbe expected to be deferredwhile the talks proceed, theysaid, and perhaps abandoned i"agreement is reached.

Some ranking Defense andState department officials,military and civilian, feel anagreement may be possible ifit appears clearly to serve theinterests of both the UnitedStates and the Soviet Union.

Some officials foresee thepossibility of a general settle-ment along these lines:

*IEach side might agree tofreeze either the number or thetotal payload of missiles. Butthis would not preclude sub-sequent technological improve-ments in such' things as theaccuracy of these weapons.

lEach side might agree-to;pe"tmit completion, of limitedmissile defenses that could notshield effectively against an, all-out attack from,tV"» ptBe _ .but

that could protect against anaccidental launching of eitherSoviet or American missiles, ora full-scale attack by a smallnuclear power. CommunistChina; France and Britain havenuclear weapons.

A year and a half ago,if President Johnson approached

the Soviet; Union with a pro-posal to limit defensive mis-siles. The Russians had startedto install missile defensesaround Moscow designed toprotect much of western Rus-sia. The United States was con-sidering whether to deploysimilar defenses.

At the time, the JohnsonAdministration was not tooworried about the mountingnumber of Soviet missiles. Thethinking here was that if :the;Russians got enough to destroy. |900 of America's 1,000 Min^uteman missiles in a surpriseattack, the United States couldstill'-T destroy vmuch^T)f Russiawith its-V656 ' 6cean-protectedPolaris missile's. '""

Analysts; feel that the value"of the :i Polaris.':missiles as a

firm deterrent would be jeop-ardized only if the Russiansemplaced a heavy effectivemissile defense that could in-tercept most incoming missiles.This is behind Washington's ef-fort to dissuade Moscow frominstalling such a defense.

Moscow argued that defensewas not a threat, it could onlysave lives, and that if nuclearweapons were to be limited,discussions would have to con-sider offensive as well as de-fensive missiles.

As to the form of any agree-ment, experts are uncertainwhether this should be in theform of a treaty, a formalsigned agreement not requiring•ratification, or simply a tacitunderstanding.'- , ^ • , - , . .. .

f HE 1WASHIN POST

A-^ —

Brezhnev Makes ReplyTo Missile-Talk FoesBy Stephen S. Rosenfeld

Washington Post Staff WriterLeonid Brezhnev yester-

tlay continued the Sovietleadership's vigorous and re-•vealing defense of its deci-"sion to enter missile-controltalks with the United States.Apparently, opposition with-in1 the Kremlin or popularapprehension, persists.

'The Soviet Communist'Party chief leaned hard onthe basic rationale evokedlast week by Foreign Minis-'ter Andrei Gromyko,namely, that the SovietUnion is not inferior to theUnited States in strategicstrength and therefore neednot:fear that missile talkswould freeze it into a posi-tion of disadvantage.

The same argument witha* new twist — that missilecontrols would limit the("power policy" which in-jected the United States'into Vietnam — -was madeseparately in a statement bya1 Soviet news commentator.•'« Groimyko's rationale wasessentially that of Ameri-cans in favor of arms con-trol: political influence doesnot rise in step with muni-

News Analysis

tions production. Why is thisso in respect to Washington?The main reason, he said, isthat "the military might ofimperialism is contained,and successfully for thatmatter, by the might createdby the Soviet people, whichis by no means lesser."

"Which is by mo meanslesser" — a claim of parity.

Brezhnev yesterday was•even more explicit. Declar-ing that it was Washing-ton's, but not Moscow's, in-tention to increase militaryspending, he said it was "theessence" of Washington'splans to "try to achieve astrategic superiority overthe Soviet Union."

By saying Washingtonmight "try" for superiority,he was saying it did nothold superiority now. Theintention to make such a trywas attributed to the Repub-

lican Coordinating Commit-tee, giving his words the as-pect of a warning to theUnited States as. well as anargument against" the Soviet

Union's own partisans of"superiority."Parity Argument

The,third comment on theissue came from commenta-

,tor Spartak Beglov of theNovosti agency in a state-ment to this newspaper.First, noting that in disar-mament "arithmetic cannotalways be a good assistantof logic," he observed that"even" Western comparisonsof Soviet and .American"rocket-nuclear 'arsenals . ..may prove that the SovietUnion is amply providedwith everything necessaryfor its defense."

This is the same carefulparity argument. Its point issharpened by the fact thatBeglov was explicitly com-

,menting on an article in TheWashington Post June 30 byChalmers M. Roberts. Thatarticle said: "Soviet officialshave stressed in privatewith considerable candorthe point, of parity. Criticalto an arms discussion, theyhave said, will be ...

- whether the United States_. begins by conceding that the

' are at alevel of parity."

Beglov then went on to: deny charges, evidently

made in Moscow, that the' missile-talk decision repre-j sented a "concession to

Washington's pressure, (ahint) that some things in So-

1 viet-American relations may:, take -place irrespective of

-Power Policy DiscussedHe addressed the sensitive

question of whe.ther thetalks involve a Soviet sel-lout of Hanoi, saying that"prospects of dhanging thegeneral political climate ofSoviet-American bilateralrelations directly depend onending the U.S. interferencein Vietnam. Yet, it is clearto everyone, I think, thatthe beginning of the curtail-ment of armaments as an in-strument of the power pol-icy leads also to the limita-tion of the power (policy it-self, a policy engenderingVietnam."

Gromyko, in announcingSoviet acceptance of talkson June 27, had said, "Thecurrent revolutionary epochis doing away with the tradi-tional concepts of strength.Can it be said that the num-ber of missiles and nuclearsubmarines, aircraft car-riers, and bombers is de-creasing in the Americanarmy? Of course not . . .Judging by quantitatvieyardsticks, U.S. influenceand its policy in the worldarena should have becomestronger. In reality, we ob-serve quite the opposite"—aresult he attributed to MOS-

COW'S "by no means lesser"power."

Gromyko, as though torebut other internal Sovietobjections to missile talks,criticized those who see inthe arms race "some tragiccontradiction of the epochand (who) regard the armsrace as a fatal inevitability."

Half conceding that histargets were Soviet, he said:"To the good-for-nothingtheoreticians, who try to tellus that disarmament is an il-lusion, we reply: By takingsuch a stand you fall intostep with the forces of the

,most dyed-in-the-wool impe-' •

NEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 9 July

Efforts for Disarmament Endorsed by BrezhnevBy RAYMOND H. ANDERSON

Spsdal (a The New YOTH Times

MOSCOW, July 8 — The So-viet Communist party chief,Leonid I. Brezhnev, gave fullendorsement today to effortsfor disarmament and arms con-trol,

Mr. Brezhnev warned, how-ever, that the Soviet armedforces must remain vigilantand improve their prepared-ness to cope with increases inUnited States military strength.

The party chief spoke in theKremlin to officers who weregraduated this month from ad-vanced courses in Soviet mili-tary academies.

Mr. Brezhnev's endorse-ment of disarmament effortsfollowed speculation in theWest that the issue had dividedthe Soviet leadership.

The parry chief's remarkscame a week after the signingceremonies in Moscow, Londonand Washington for a treatybarring the spread of nuclearweapons.

Premier Aleksei N. Kosyginwas present at the Moscow cer-emony and praised the treatyas "a major success for thecause of peace."

Praise Is EchoedMr. Brezhnev echoed the

praise today, describing thetreaty as one of the successesachieved in the struggle againstmilitarism and the arms race.

Mr. Brezhnev charged that"'exponents of aggression" re-mained influential in the UnitedStates. He added, however, thatthe Soviet Government hadnoted a growing resistance inthe United States to "the im-perialist policy of aggressionand war."

The party leader citedrecord budgetary request by theUnited States Department o"Defense for the next fiscalyear as evidence of the strengthof American hawks.

Mr. Brezhnev denounced, as

Tass via United Press International

Leonid I. Brezhnev speaking yesterday at graduation cere-mony. Seated at right rear is Premier Aleksei N. Kosygin.

a hoax a report to the UnitedStates Congress indicating that year"the Soviet Union was planningan increase in military spend-ing-"

He apparently was alludinga to a report submitted last

month on the Soviet economyif by a subcommittee of the Joint

Senate-House Economic Com-mittee.

The Soviet Union has in-creased its military budget for being

the last two years, raising it thisto the announced level of

16.8 billion rubles ($18.6 bil-lion). Western analysts esti-mate that a quarter to a halfthe Soviet military spending isconcealed in other sections ofthe national budget.

Mr. Brezhnev told the of-ficers, some of them fromallied Communist nations, thatideological subversion was

...directed, .against^the

armies of the Communist coun-tries.

"The present attacks of im-perialism on the prestige ofsocialist armies, its attempts toweaken their ties with thepeople show how important itis to protect this prestige andto strengthen these ties," hedeclared.

West Europe PessimisticSpecial to The New YouS Times

BONN, July 8 — Representa-tives of the six Governments ofthe Western European Unionconcluded today that prospectsfor a detente with the SovietUnion were slim.

The delegates to the confer-ence of the Western EuropeanUnion, which includes the sixCommon Market nations—WestGermany, France, Italy, theNetherlands, Belgium and Lux-embourg—as well as Britain,concurred that there had beena hardening of Moscow's atti-tude to the West.

But the delegates, who in-cluded the foreign ministers ofthe member nations or theirdeputies, also urged that mem-bers continue contacts with theSoviet Union and the otherEast European nations in along-range effort to achievea detente.

West Germany's Foreign Min-ister, Willy Brandt, the chair-man of the seven-nation con-ference, said Moscow's reac-tion to Bonn's offer to ex-change mutual renunciations ofthe use of force with the SovietUnion was an indication ofcurrent Soviet policy, Govern-ment sources reported.

The Soviet answer, whichwas presented in Bonn by Am-bassador Semyon K.'Tsarapkinover the weekend, was "notvery encouraging," Mr. Brandtsaid.

Bonn has not made public theSoviet reply. It is understoodto list a series of conditionsthat the West German Govern-meiit., considers';--, unacceptable,chief of 'which is -'the' recogni-tion of East Germany.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Friday, 12 July 1968

By Carlyle MorganStuff correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Geneva

A more widespread and intense public interest than has everfocused on the 17-nation disarmament conference at Geneva is re-ported' as diplomats from north, south, east, and west begin toarrive here for the summer session, opening July 16.

Conference leaders say an unusually large number of newspapersand other news media are assigning newsmen to cover the meetings.These officially are meetings of the 18-nation disarmament com-mittee, but France is absent. .

"The world wants to know what will happen here now, after thesuccess of the previous session," a conference insider told thiswriter.

One result of this success is that Ambassador William C. Foster,who heads the American delegation, is being talked about in confer-ence circles as a likely nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. Not inthis century, a Briton has said, has any one man worked more con-sistently, more concretely, for world peace.

During long periods of discouragement in conference after con*ference Mr. Foster has contended that "it can be done." Some-times he has looked like the world's most optimistic optimist, hisfriends admit. But they say the last session justified his attitude.

That session completed a treaty to prevent the spread of nuclearweapons. Since July 1 this treaty already has been signed by some60 governments in the United Nations.

It pledges the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britainto refrain from giving materials or information for the building ofnuclear weapons to nations which do not have them. It pledges .theso-called "nonnuclear-weapons states" not to ask for or acceptsuch help.

Cochairmen to chart talksKnown as the NPT, or nonproliferation treaty, it is a proof to

conference leaders that the seemingly impossible can be done.Now they are all the more ready, they say, to tackle some otherseeming impossibilities in the field of nuclear-arms control anddisarmament.

Just which "impossibilities" will be selected for the new sessiondepends on the meeting of the cochairmen sometime after July 12.They are Mr. Foster and the Soviet Union's chief delegate, AlexeiA. Roshchin'.

A whole list of aims awaits their discussion. Some are alreadyregarded as "old stuff", in conference circles.

Perhaps the oldest is the Soviet aim to move Western-alliancemilitary bases out of Europe, thus to increase Soviet influence ohthat continent. Another well-known Soviet proposal is for an agree-ment not to use nuclear weapons in war. This would increase thevalue of that vast Soviet military manpower on the borders ofWestern Europe.

But of all familiar projects expected to make up an agenda forthe new session, probably the most widely hoped for is an extensionof the ban on testing of nuclear weapons.

The present ban was agreed in 1963 — another notable year for"-the. Geneva ar-nis-talks — ,'alqng witti.the Washington-Moscow "hot

Union's objection.to on-the-spot inspections of nuclear explosions.Such policing of a.ban could mean inspection oh Soviet territory,as well as that of .'the. United States. '

ABM systems a likely pointThe success with the nonproliferation treaty, however, has quick-

ened hopes here that a comprehensive test ban can also be achievedwith the same hard work and patience.

That might take some years, nevertheless. Meanwhile, the limita-tion and reduction of defensive rocket systems has become a timelyaim. These systems include the antiballistic missile, meant to knockdown attacking missiles.

At Geneva it was hoped earlier that a success on the nonprolifera-tion treaty would come soon enough to discourage the superpowersfrom setting up antiballistic-missile systems. But it did not.

These systems are relatively new, however. They might better betackled now than later, conference leaders say. The United Statesand the Soviet Union are the only powers to have these systems inthe works. Negotiations therefore should be simpler than those onthe NPT, which involved interests of many nations.

Attention has been focused on antiballistic missiles by SovietForeign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko's recent speech to the SupremeSoviet. But as long ago as Jan. 21, 1964, the United States proposeda "freeze" and reduction of nuclear strategic-delivery systems evenmore far-reaching in its effects.

The United States has welcomed the Soviet desire to discuss'nuclear-defense systems and would not be expected to quibble about-the location of the talks.

Another possible subject for the Geneva agenda is disarmamenton seabeds, the floors of the oceans.

MEW YORK TIMES, Friday, 6 September 1968

President Told That Invasion'of Czechoslovakia RaisedOpposition to Russians

By NEIL SHEEHANSpecial to The New York Times

I WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 —President Johnson was told to-day by the Democratic Con-gressional leadership there waslittle chance that the Senatewould ratify: this year the treatyto ban the spread of nuclearweapons.

Congressional sources saidthat Mr. Johnson had been ad-vised at a White House break-fast meeting with the Demo-cratic leaders that the passageof the treaty had become acasualty of the Soviet invasion

I of Czechoslovakia.The nuclear nonproliferation

treaty, one of the President'sfavorite projects, has been amajor element in his detentepolicy toward the Soviet Union.

Mansfield Comments jAt a news conference after!

the meeting, the Senate major-ity leader, Mike Mansfield ofMontana, was quoted as havingsaid that the opposition to thetreaty had increased since theSoviet intervention on Aug. 20.

"Whether we will get to itthis year remains in question,"Mr. Mansfield said.

The sources said that at the50-minute breakfast meeting,,which was also attended byVice President Humphrey, thePresident was advised morebluntly that the treaty probablywould not get out of the For-eign Relations Committee be-!ore the Senate's expected ad-journment in October.

Other Senate leaders1 at theireakfast with Mr. Mansfield

svere Senator Russell B. Longif Louisiana, majority whip,

and Senator Robert C. Byrd ofWest Virginia, assistant major-1

ty whip.Representative John W. Mc-

Cormack of Massachusetts, thejpeaker; Representative Carl1

Albert of: Oklahoma,, the

expressed the hope" of :d6mg' this.

ate matter.Senator Everett

Halfe",Boggs of Louisiana, themajority whip, also attended.But'the treaty is purely a Sen-

McKinleyDirksen of Illinois, the minorityleader, expressed an opinionsimilar to Mr. Mansfield's at aseparate news conference.

"I don't think the monstrousinvasion of Czechoslovakia hasdone that cause [the treaty] abit of "good," he said. "If Russiainvades Rumania then thetreaty is dead."

Before the Soviet interven-tion, Senator Dirksen had saidhe would vote for the treatyonce it reached the Senate floor.

At a White House news brief-ing, George Christian, the Presi-dential press secretary, saidthat Sir. Johnson still wantedto see the treaty ratified thissession. Mr. Christian answered"No" when asked if the Presi-

'dent thought that the chancesof the treaty's passing werehopeless.

But sources said that al-though the President expressedinterest this morning in thepassage of the treaty, his reac-tion to the warning given himby the Congressional leaderswas "realistic."

"He was up here [in theSenate] too long not to berealistic about these things,"one Source said.

St^te Department sourcessaidjhere was a belief in somequarters of the Administrationthatyit might be wise. not topresi for the ratification of thetreaty because of the opposition..the Soviet action has aroused.

• Inaction this year, it, is be-lieve^, would demonstrate tothe Soviet Union that it cannotact jvith impunity in CentralEurope and carry on "businessas Usual" with the UnitedStates. ;•

Before the Soviet invasion,Congressional sources said, thetreaty would probably havepassed the Senate with onlyfive to 10 negative votes fromright-wing legislators" such asSenator Strom Thurmond, Re-publican of South Carolina.

The agreement is still con-sidered.^ "good treaty," thesources said, ^and the generalopiniorfseems'to be that it willeventually be passed.

On another; legislative mat-ter, the sources said, Mr. John-son vjas advised that he hadalmost no chance of addingregistration and licensing pro-visions to gun control legisla-

The Senate gun bill willprobably approximate theHouse bill, which banned theinterstate shipment of rifles,shotguns and hand-gun ammu-nition, with the exception of.22 caliber. The interstate ship-ment of pistols was alreadybanned in the omnibus crimebill.

On foreign aid, the sourcessaid, the President was toldthat he had no hope of restor-ing the approximately $l-bil-lion cut from his foreign aidrequest in the authorizinglegislation. The Senate versionauthorized appropriations of$1.9-billion, $47.9-million belowthe House bill, and the legisla-tion is now in conference.

One source said that $100-million to JSOO-million moremay be cut before the bill isfinally passed by both houses.

The President was alsowarned, the sources said, thatbills to provide $200-million forthe Asian Development Bankand $140-mi!lion for the Inter-national Development Associa-tion would probably not passthis year because of the gen-eral economy mood.

Democratic Traders told thePresident, however, that hewould probably achieve thepassage of about 30 of the 40uncompleted bills in his legisla-tive program, including themajor appropriations measuresand important conservationbills such as the scenic riversand redwood national forestmeasures.

About 20 of 40 of the billsare in conference.

But a sizable number of Sen-ators are now believed to thinkthat it is better to observe So-jviet behavior for some timebefore bringing the treaty toa vote.

"The Czech crisis raised theold railroad sign of stop, lookand listen," one source said.

The sharp opposition in WestGermany to ratification is alsocited as a reason for delay.Some Senators, before makingup their minds, would like tosee what action West Germany,Israel, India and Italy, ail na-tions with a nuclear potential-ity, will take on the treaty.

The United States ratificationof the treaty would mean anagreement not to provide nu-clear weapons to nations thatdojipt possess them. The rati-fication by non-nuclear nationswould mean a promise not to

tion on the Senate floor. White (manufacture or otherwise ac-House. officials have repeatedly quire nuclear weaponry.

MEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 10 September.,1968

Asks Senate Panel to BackIt Despite Czech Invasion

, By JOtiN W; FINNEYSpecial to The New. York Timer '

'WASHINGTON, Sept. 9—Secretary of State Dean Ruskmade a final appeal to the Sen-ate Foreign Relations Com-mittee today to approve thenuclear nonproliferation treaty

1 and 'thereby save it from pos-sible death.

A crucial test for the treaty,one .that may well determinewhether five years of diplo-matic efforts end in an im-'passe within a skeptical Senatecommittee, will come tomorrow.;

For the first time since thetreaty to prevent the spread ofnuclear weapons was submittedto the Senate in early July, thecommittee will consider whataction to take on it. The doc-ument has been signed, but ithas not yet been ratified by theUnited States.

At tomorrow's meeting, Sen-ator Albert Gore, Democrat ofTennessee, perhaps with thesupport of Senator John Sher-manKentucky, will' •move-that' ithe1

.v--\«^/+'«-jfrij^'vjav;'a7:i^^-i"^^A^i'yi*w^'w^-ws':~ "i

7< divided commRte'fej favorreport the treaty^to.the Senatefor ratification ->_ ^

Within the .committee therewas considerable uncertaintytoday over the likely .outcomeof the test vote. While themajority supports the treaty inprinciple, there is skepticism,particularly among jnore con-servative members, 'whether itis appropriate to proceed withan arms control agreement sosoon after the Soviet invasionof Cze-'hoslc-Vakia.

• The chances'for Senate ac-tion this session appear to havebeen further complicated •• :bythe injection of the treaty 'intoPresidential politics. . RichardM. Nixon,' the Republican- can-didate, took the •position-: yes-terday that while he:.supportedthe principle of nqnpj-pjifera-.tion, he was "concehied" aboutsome provisions of''the treaty;

While Mr. • Nixon was not'specific about his'reservations,his statement may lead Repub-licans on . the.:,' ic.om'mittee tomove for;-a dei'a'y. 'in cofeidera-jtion of .thei.treaty; -,'•*.."''..-'.

The :;Psrif!?;3:^ma!orr:-'fl:jsaie;r.Mike Mansfield.-'"of '.Montana.!who . :ohly.-.last. -;week ';was|glborhy .about" chances for Sen-jate .rati.flcatiori because ."of the'invasion, .'predicted today -thatthe Senate, would ratify thetreaty "if it comes to a vote."

The problem, however, maycome ia bringing the treaty toa vote, both within the For-eign Relations Committee. andon the Senate 'flb'6r. I

Treaty, supporters in the Sen- \ate and ' the Administrationwere concerned that some -con-servatives on the committeemight try to avoid a showdownvote by moving that -considera-tion of the treaty be postponeduntil the next' session ofCongress. : .: '

Objection on TimingThe objection being raised" by

some committee members-...oprposed to iirimediate ratifica-tion was that f.he:political1 rea-sons for., approving the/-treatyhad been milflfieid,..:at. least "forthe time being, tiy.^th?-.'Sovietinvasion of Czechoslovakia1.

Thus, according to this argn^ment, the underlying signifi-cance of the treaty was not somuch in preventing new na-tions from acquiring nuclearweapons as in providing aframework for future UnitedStates-Soviet cooperation inarms control.

This framework for an East-West detente has been under-mined by the Soviet invasion'.1the argument continues, and toratify the treaty now would'only represent a tacit Ameri-.can sanction of the Soviet ag-.gression. .

, It was this argumentMr.; :Rusk - sought' to refirst 'Jn'.a; -clo'sedrdoor.', briefifigiof 'the 'c^riirriittee''abOUi't'"M^

last mon-th,,;iand later•..iii-,£m-phatic terms-before 'reporters.

While acknowledging " "'fh'at"the atmosphere has been comrplicated by events in EasternEurope," Mr. Rusk stressedthat what was involved was,not "a bilateral treaty,'". b'e-jtween the United States and|the Soviet Union, but "a world-1wide treaty" intended to pre-vent additional nations f romjacquiring nuclear weapons.

Other Nations Cited"Even if there were no Soviet

Union, we think it would be 'agood treaty," he said, one thatis "very much in the nationalinterest" of the United States.

In explaining the need, .forimmediate Senate ratification,Mr. Rusk said that the Ameri-can action might well "influ-ence decisions of other cbun-tries" on the treaty.

Behind his statement was awidespread concern within theExecutive branch that if the^Senate delayed action, it would!further jeopardize chances that!other potential nuclear weap-'ons states would accept thetreaty.

This argument was made inmore pointed terms by Sena--tor Gore, who warned -thaisuch nations as India, Israel:and West Germany could notbe expected to sign the treaty"if we ourselves, whether -butof timidity or simply becauseof domestic pressures i n , - a nelection year, hestitate,' andcreate -; doubt • about...our... ownposition." . .... • ,iLl;vi:V.iiv;3;i&?

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Thursday, 12 September 1968

Fueling the futilityIn a succinct statement which has direct

meaning to Soviet and American nuclearbehavior, former Defense Secretary Rob-ert McNamara has declared: "It is xpre-cisely this action-reaction phenomenonthat fuels the arms race."

By "action-reaction" Mr. McNamarameans what has happened, and is evennow happening, within the nuclear armsstalemate existing between the two super-powers. For instance, the Soviets com-menced a limited antiballistic missile(ABM) system around Moscow. TheUnited States, in turn, has launched asimilar limited ABM system, the Senti-nel. Again, Washington has been buildingnew supermissiles with multiple war-heads. Now, the intelligence reports sayMoscow is doing likewise.

The "action-reaction phenomenon" isurged forward by fear and faulty infor-mation. Mr. McNamara has sought toprovide better information in his book,"The Essence of Security" (Harper andRow). Nuclear offense always outmatchesnuclear defense. Mr. McNamara evidentlywarned the Soviet leaders at Glassborothat a Soviet ABM system would simplytrigger the building of new Americanoffensive missiles that would penetratethe ABM shield. Soviet Premier Kosygin,armed with the McNamara data, wenthome from Glassboro and shortly the So-viet Government had agreed to begintalks on limiting defensive and offensiveweapons.

The United States has invested vastamounts of time and effort in seeking tohalt the nuclear spiraling. The question

now confronting American policymakersand Congress is whether to proceed brisk-ly toward the nuclear talks, and also intoSenate ratification of the nonproliferationtreaty to halt the spread of nuclear weap-ons. Or whether to hold off and not pressbecause of the freedom-stifling Soviet be-havior in Czechoslovakia. There are per-suasive arguments both ways.

If the "action-reaction phenomenon"got pulsing again, Moscow and Washing-ton could be embarked on an "overkill"overbuilding that would exhaust treas-uries and leave no one any safer. If theSenate disregards Secretary Rusk's en-treaties and postpones approval of thenonproliferation treaty until next year,this would give potential nuclear powersa reason for delay — West Germany,India, Israel. Delay builds on delay, andgives ammunition to the hardliners inMoscow, and in Washington.

On the other hand, there is surely rea-son to advise the Kremlin rulers thatwhen they embark on such a crude anddetente-smashing maneuver as theirCzech invasion, it may take somewhatlonger to accomplish any kind of nucleardelimitation, where mutual confidence andsome respect for mankind's basic anxietiesare key factors.

The Soviets will eventually have to getout of Czechoslovakia. Washington, Mos-cow and all countries concerned shouldtake care that fear, temporary disap-pointments, or unawareness of the highstakes do not stamp out what is probablythe most hopeful prospect for nucleararms control since the early. Baruch plan..

THE NEW YORK TIMES, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1968\t .!.•! •-•*; jf •*, J." - •. .

Soviet Scientists in Atom City Ignore Party LineThe Soviet press disclosed

yesterday that there had beena breakdown in the Commu-nist party's ideological controlsin one of the nation's key nu-clear research centers*

According to a Reuters dis-patch from Moscow, the news-paper Sovetskaya Rossiya in-dicated that the party line indomestic and international af-fairs was being ignored in thetown of Obninsk, a scientificcommunity 60 miles southwestof Moscow.

"Speaker's platforms are be-ins eagerly granted to dubiouspeople who preach .incorrectviews on the development ofliterature and the arts," theMoscow newspaper said.

The report of ideological dis-affection among the citizens ofObninsk, many of them scient-ists and technicians, seemed toconfirm a recent statement byAcademician Andrei D. Sak-harov, the nuclear physicist,that members of what he calledthe "scientific and technologicelite" were unhappy aboutsome of the party's attitudesand policies.

Dr< Sakharov made the com-ment in an essay advocatingSoviet-United States collabora-tion to solve world problems.The essay was published July22 by The New York Times.

Sovetskaya Rossiya indicatedthat party propaganda was be-ing neglected in Obninsk, when

it said that "in the House ofScholars, for example, lectureson current politics, politicaleconomy and philosophy havenot been given for a long time."

Obninsk arose in the earlynineteen-fifties as a new sciencetown around the Soviet Union'sfirst experimental atomic powerplant. The community, whichnow has a population of 40,000,became a center for the devel-opment of atomic reactors.

"More recently it has becomemore diversified in its scientificresearch, adding, for example,a weather-research tower sev-eral hundred'feet high that per-:mits the study of the loweratmosphere at various eleva-ltions.

NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 12 September 1968

CL& MembersVote in Committee

New Meeting Is Set

By JOHN W. FINNEYSpecial to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11—!The treaty to ban the spreadof nuclear weapdns ran intoRepublican delaying tactics to-day—tactics apparently aimedat postponing Senate action

[until after the election.For the second day in a row,

the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee was prevented fromvoting on the nonproliferationtreaty as Republicans blockeda committee meeting.

Invoking seldom-used Senaterules, Republicans first object-ed privately to a midafternooncommittee meeting white theSenate was in session. Thenmost Republican memberswere absent when the commit-tee met after the Senate ses-sion to consider the treaty andfailed to muster a quorum.

At one point in the late after-noon meeting the committeehad. nine members present—eightnof jthe/vtw.elve Democrats!jand '-oiie i of r Hie -seven - Repub-q

licans—-j'&St • one short of therequired^'quorum for transact-ing committee business.

The only Republican presentwas Senator John ShermanCooper of Kentucky.

, With Republicans obviously| anxious to avoid a vote, the'committee decided, at the sug-gestion of Senator Cooper, to'have an informal meeting Fri-day to discuss the treaty, with:no vote scheduled.i But as part of the compro-mise, a second meeting wasscheduled for next Tuesday tovote on the treaty, which wasfirst submitted to the Senatein early July.

Senator John J. Sparkmanof Alabama, acting as com-mittee chairman in the absenceof Senator J. W. Fulbright, whois in Arkansas, said he was"relatively confident" a quo-rum could be obtained for theTuesday meeting. Republicanswere making it clear, however,that if a vote is pressed, theywill move to postpone action.

Hickenlooper ExplanationSenator Bourke B. Hicken-

looper of Iowa, the senior Re-publican on the committee, ex-plained in an interview that,while he was not opposed tothe treaty in principle, hethought approval at this time

the international situation. Hecited the Soviet invasion ofCzechoslovakia.

Emphasizing that he saw noneed for the United States torush into ratification of thetreaty, Senator Hickenlooper | Vice-Presidentialsuggested that it might be moreappropriate to consider thetreaty in a special session afterthe election.

At this point it is doubtful

after the election, so the resultof adopting the Hickenloopersuggestion would be to deferconsideration of the treaty untilthe new Congress meets nextyear.

The New York Times

Senator Bourke B. Hicken-looper, Iowa Republican,thought treaty ratificationat this time "ill advised."

evident that the treaty, onceregarded as npncontroversial,was becoming involved in thepolitics of the Presidential cam-paign.

To Democrats, the tipoff'came when Richard M. Nixon,

to be "iiradvised" in yiew of [the Republican Presidential' candidate, expressed concern

last weekend "over some pro-visions in the treaty. He didnot identify the provisions.

After Gov. Spiro T. Agnewof Maryland, the Republican

candidate,suggested yesterday that. VicePresident Humphrey was "softon Communism," the suspiciongrew among Democrats thatRepublicans wanted to ma-

that this Congress w_ill meet heuver Democrats int9 a posi-tion-of championing the treatyand then criticize Democratsfor supporting such a treaty sosoon after the invasion ofCzechoslovakia.

It also seemed apparent to; It was becoming increasingly'Democrats that another Repub-

-.,—_^_ , "SHOE-1 VfT' ' - -lican motive ir£il«la'ytrig actionon the arms "control measure:was a desire not to present!President Johnson, and thus in-directly Vice President Hum-phrey, with a peace issue tojoffset the Vietnam war. !

On both sides of the politicalaisle it was generally acknowl-edged that any step to slow theatomic arms race would prob-ably be politically popular. Pos-sibly for this reason. Republi-cans were obviously desirous ofnot getting themselves into theposition of overtly opposing thetreaty in committee.

At the same time, some Dem-ocratic Senators were not tooenthusiastic about exposingthemselves to Republicancharges of being "soft on theRussians."

The indecision among theDemocrats was only compound-ed by the lack of any clearsignal from the executivebranch.

For the record both theWhite House and State Depart-ment were urging prompt ap-proval.

But some leading Democratsand Republicans on the com-mittee reported privately that;they were getting the impres-sion the Administration might:not be too unhappy if ratifica-tion was delayed. In the opinionof disarmament officials, toomany nations are now commit-ted to the treaty for it to diesimply because of a delay inratification by the UnitedStates.

After five years, the treatywas worked out at Geneva thisspring by an 18-nation disarma-ment conference of which theUnited States 'and the SovietUnion were co-chairmen. Thetreaty has been signed by about80 countries but ratified by onlyone, Ireland.

The treaty seeks to precludenations thait do not have nu-clear weapons from acquiringthem and to prohibit the nu-clear weapon, states from help-ing other:;p6unitries develop, oracquire atonic:'

HEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 12 September 1968

Urges Holding Up AclUnTill Soviet's Intentions

Become More Clear

By ROBERT B. SEMPLE Jr. jSpedal to The New rork Tlmca

CHARLOTTE, N. C., Sept. 11—Richard M, Nixon endorsedthe nuclear nonproliferationtreaty today, but asked theSenate to postpone approval oft.

Mr. Nixon took this stand ina written statement issued inCharlotte. Later, following a.elevision interview here to-night, the Republican Presiden-ia'l candidate was asked to

elaborate on his views and re-plied:

"I believe that for the UnitedStates—at a time when theSoviets still occupy Czechoslo-'akia, and at a time when

world opinion is outraged byhat action, which' violates thepirit of the treaty and of the

United Nations Charter —tomove precipitously to approvehe treaty would leave the im-iression that we approve the

action of the Soviets.

I jpKfe'Sf $>% treaty- I| ]*lj4va

future time,,.But I 'believe atthis time that the Senate andthe Administration would bewell-advised to delay untilsees what the Soviet intentions!are."

In response to a furtherquestion, Mr. Nixon suggestedthat his desire to postpone rati-fication was based as well ona belief that its chanceseventual approval would bebolstered by a delay.

"If the treaty were to be sub-mitted to the Senate today, itwould be disapproved based onwhat I have seen," Mr. Nixonsaid. He said he had noted notonly opposition on the Repub-lican side but also "substantial"opposition on the Democraticside.,

Mr. Nixon went on to saythat prospects for the treatywould ie improved if therewere "substantial action on thepart of the Soviet Union to nor-malize relations with Czecho-slovakia, which would reducethe threat hanging over Ru-mania and the concern in West-ern. European capitals."

•Their Side of the Net'"This time the ball basically

is on their side of the net," hesaid:

Mr. Nixon, who campaignedhere and in New York today,had made some of the samepoints in. the statement issuedearlier, 'but -his language in thestatement was less explicit.' Mr. Nixon's move is expect-

ed to diminish further the al-ready dwindling hopes for earlyratification.

In the statement Mr. Nixonsaid he had made his decisionto request postponement ofSenate action after discussionswith former Gov. William WScranton of Pennsylvania, Gov-ernor Rockefeller of New York,the Senate Republican leader-ship and his own advisers.

Some observers believe post-ponement might damage thetreaty's ultimate prospects oisuccess by giving its criticsmore time in which to consoli-date their opposition.

Vice President Humphrey,the Democratic Presidentialcandidate, has endorsed thetreaty and, along with Presi-dent Johnson, has urged itsimmediate approval.

It was. a long.campaign dayshow of unity-in which NewYork Republican leaders pledgedfealty to his candidacy. Thenhe went south.

Humphrey and VietnamHis itinerary included a visit

to a job computer center at theUniversity of North Carolina inChapel Hill, a late afternoonrally in Charlotte and severaltelevision interviews in Char-lotte that were taped for show-ing later in the campaign.

The candidate appeared re-laxed and happy throughout theday. Tanned and apparently un-marked by last week's ruggedcross-country swing, Mr. Nixonchatted comfortably with hisonetime adversaries gathered atthe unity meeting in New Yorkthis morning, joked with stu-dents and faculty members atChapel Hill, and spoke brieflybut easily to modest airportcrowds in Raleigh and Char-lotte.

The candidate's good moodapparently stemmed less from

any actions of his own than.fr'oin. -.'those of Vice Presidenttfumphrfiy.

It is the view of the Nixoncamp that Mr. Humphrey hasjadly clouded his "image" onVietnam and that his state-ment today, which attempted toclarify h>3 earlier hint that:roops would he withdrawnfrom Vietnam, only confused:he portrait further.

The Nixon aides' elation atthe prospect of their main op-ponent's going into a tailspinon the central issue facing thenation was equaled only byiheir astonishment that Mr.

Humphrey, who had earlierasked Mr. Nixon to agree to; saynothing to jeopardize the Viet-nam talks in Paris, had since,in the view of the Nixon camp,said just enougtt; to get himselfinto serious trouble.

The show of unity in NewYork today took place in theballroom of the CommodoreHotel. Mr. Rockefeller, SenatorJacob K. Javits. Senator-desig-nate Charles Goodeli, MayorLindsay' and John Gilhooley,co-chairman of New York Citi-zens for N&oh-A'gnew attendedthe •session. •

The announced purpose was

td'feport formation of the citi-zens' group.

The state Republican leadersused the occasion to stresstheir commitment to Mr. Nix-on's campaign. For his part,Mr. Nixpn pledged to seek theadvice of all those on thepodium, both during the elec-tion and, if he captures theWhite House, after it.

Mr. Javits said to Mr. Nixon:"I have seen you espouse

measures which many wouldconsider quite inconsistentwith what some attribute toyou, which is a conservativepoint of view. I have seen you

espouse the most advancedkind of measures for the^medi-cal care of our people, of whichI myself was the author. So Iknow you can do it, and ourpeople want it done:"

Mr. Javits called for a Nixonvictory on grounds that "ourpeople want peace in Vietnam,tranquility in the cities and anew' sense of morale for theAmerican people, of which theyseem to have been robbed."

Mr. Ntxon thanked his sup-porters, acknowledged thatthere were issues on which theydisagreed, then headed south-ward to North Carolina.

BOSTON GLOBE, Friday, 13 September 1968

of weaponsWrong as he may be on Vietnam,

Vice President Hubert Humphreyscored a big point on Thursdayagainst former Vice President Richrard Nixon in their dialogue over rati-fication of the nuclear non-prolifera-tion treaty now before the Senate.

Both were concerned, and rightlyso, over the Russian invasion ofCzechoslovakia. But Mr. Nixon thinksthe answer is to revive the cold war,to strengthen and rebuild the NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization, and todelay ratifying the nuclear treaty,which he had praised earlier. Thisputs.him, as far as the treaty is con-cerned, on the same side as.. Franceand China. As for' KA.T.O.'s weak-ness, that was not America's fault,as he claims, but Europe's, and inparticular-; President de Gaulle's.

Mr. Humphrey, in calling for thetreaty's ratification, has performed aservice for peace. He has acknowl-edged greater tensions exist todaythan before the invasion of Czecho-slovakia, but says the way to reducethem is to continue building "bridgesrather than falling back into "all theold antagonisms and suspicions thatdivide one human being from an-other."

He is.right. In this nuclear agethere is nothing to be gained but dis-aster for' all by rattling nuclear armsand taking aggressive stances. Thisis 1968, not 1952. The best testimonyto the effectiveness of bridge buildinghas been that it split the Communistworld to such an extent that Mos-cow's only answer was invasion.

In the long run, bridge buildinghas a far better chance of;,,-a.chieyingpeace than a policy ofHforcel •

_ -' --**- -*-'^-^ •— Ji',i

Apt -INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER . . . B FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1968 ' PAGE A16

the United Nations • General Assembly • ine, ninety-five"member states voted to approve

thes draft of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty,ivh'ich the United States and eighty other nations

• ipi'e signed since,then. For most of the signatoriestlje 'treaty amounted to a self-denying ordinance—^.'.agreement to forgo -the manufacture or acquitsition by other means of .nuclear weapons. For theUnited' States,' however, which makes no compar-.able sacrifice, the negotiation and acceptance of|hie treaty marked «£s-achievement of-a diplomatic ••objective. All this was well understood before theSeviet; repression of .the Dubcek; government in •Czechoslovakia. •:• .' _ ', / . , ' ' _ ' '•' :' -• .

••il-'Since that time, .'however, the treaty has.'been'recast as a gift to the Russians and one that'shouldjip.w be withheld. Accordingly, its • ratification, by$e. Senate is in doubt. Tht) United States, in other1

words, is about to renege on an agreement it has-..-been urging on other nations for several years and ' •

to" court the diplomatic and military consequences .of seeing 'support for the treaty around the world

' collapse. • -:' " ' • *. There is blame enough for this development togo around: the lassitude and indifference of manymembers of the Foreign Relations.Committee—in-'

'.- eluding 'Chairman Fulbright—who delayed report-ing the treaty to the floor for reasons of conveni-ence and who have done little to defend or explainit since it has come under attack; the timid Ad-ministration officials who were reluctant eitherto fight or to lead for fear that they might lose.

: But the lion's share of blame for the jeopardy thetreaty now is in must go to Richard Nixon, who hassuddenly announced that in consultation with hisfellow Republicans, he has decided that the treatyought not, to be ratified at this time. Mr. Nixonhas thus given official sanction to the fictitious no-tion of the treaty as a bilateral Soviet-Americanarrangement, and he has made its 'ratification aparty issue. In' doing so, he may have dealt thetreaty a death blow.

Except in terms of domestic politics, the Repubt-; i lican candidate's arguments make little sense. He

would have fhe United States delay its approvalof the treaty by way of registering a protest overthe treatment of the Czechs. Elsewhere' on thispage, readers will find excerpts from argu-,menta made' by the Dubcek government on behalfof the treaty—of which it was a United Nationssponsor. That government understood,, apparentlysomewhat better than Mr. Nixon cares to, the im-portance of limiting the spread of nuclear weap-

' onry'into the'tense and belligerent areas *ofx the•world. V/hat exactly does He contend v;e are de-nying the Soviets by our newfound reluctance tocurb the spread of these weapons?'In what 'waywould the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Japan,~say~-or Israel,' or Sweden, or Brazil bear favor-'ably upon the plight of the Czechs or amount tothe assertion of bur interest over that pi the So-viet "Union, or in any other way have a useful ef-.feet on the situation In central Europe?

Mr., Nixon's argument is open to criticism onmore serious grounds than its silliness. He has notjust formalized a false view of the treaty, but helias introduced, retrospectively as it were, condi-

tions to our approval of it. The point about the non-proliferation treaty and similar efforts to lessenthe" chances of nuclear war, was that both the So-

. viet Union and the United States, along with othernegotiating countries, sought to separate it outfrom other issues, and to pursue it as an importantcommon goal. Could the Soviet Union renege untilsuch time as we cease bombing North Vietnam?Will other governments follow our dangerousprecedent? l

The decision by Mr. Nixon to inject the treatyinto party politics may in the end cost a lot. Itjeopardizes the chances of the treaty's ever beingratified and it undermines the hardwon supportthe treaty already enjoys abroad. In this, he hastaken an easy and reckless way. Mr. Nixon had itin his power to assert a little of that statesman-ship he talks about and to bring his Republicancolleagues along with him. To have done so wouldhave lost him nothing 'and .won him a profoundrespect. , . :-'

WASHINGTON POST, Friday, 13 September 1968

HieGzechs and the Nuclear TreatyBefore and after the accession to power

of the Dubcek government, Czechoslo-vakia served as a member of theEighteen-Nation Disarmament Conferenceand was both sponsor and earnest advo-cate of the nuclear non-proliferationtreaty. Representatives of the Dubcekgovernment argued the case for adoptionof the treaty at the United Nations inMay and signed the treaty on July 1. Thefollowing excerpts from a statement madeto the Geneva Conference in March bythe Czechoslovakian delegate take on aspecial significance in the light of theargument by Richard Nixon and otherRepublican leaders that Soviet repre-sion of the Dubcek regime is a goodreason for: delaying ratification of thenuclear 'non-proliferation treaty.The drafts before us are, in our opinion,

a suitable basis for the final wording of thetreaty-and correspond in substance to ourideas^'Of ho^; a realistic and effective treatyon the non-proliferation of nuclear weaponsshould look. In this view of ours we areguided by the principle that the main goalof the treaty is to prevent the -states whichdo not yet own nuclear weapons from ac-quiring them. This approach is in full har-mony- with the spirit and letter of the .resolutions on the non-proliferation issueadopted by the United Nations GeneralAssembly in recent years. This approachcorresponds also to the intentions pursuedby non-nuclear-weapon states when theyraised this question within the frameworkof the deliberations on disarmament as aseparate, urgent problem calling for an im-mediate solution. 4

The efforts aimed at-the adoption of ef-fective measures against a further spreadof nuclear weapons have been, from thevery beginning, based upon the knowledgeof the serious consequences for worldpeace which would result from the acquir-^ing of such weapons by other states. - Itwould mean a serious worsening of inter-national tension and, consequently, a sub-stantially increased danger of nuclear war.It would considerably complicate -also thecompletion: of - the tasks which are on theagenda of the disarmament negotiations,especially in the field of nuclear weapons.

The initiators of the deliberations on non-proliferation are well aware of the factthat unless adequate measures are adoptedin time we might be witnesses to a chainreaction in the sphere of nuclear armamentswhich, haphazardly, might extend to allparts of the world, thus endangering theinterests of nations. Further states, whetherthey wish it or not, would become involvedin the ever-increasing arms race, with allits negative aspects as regards their politi-cal, military and economic development.As far as security is concerned, the acquir-ing of nuclear weapons by further statesnot only would have an extremely unfavor-able impact on the general situation in theworld; it would not increase the security ofstates embarking on nuclear armamenteither. On the contrary, we consider fullyjustified the conclusion that the securityof individual states and regions to whichnuclear armaments would extend would beconsiderably weakened. Moreover, the priceto be paid by the states which decided toacquire nuclear weapons would be veryhigh. A very instructive illustration of theburden to be borne by such states is givenin the well-known report of the United Na-tions Security-General of last year on theconsequences of nuclear armament. In ouropinion, it clearly results from the afore-mentioned facts of a political and economicnature that nuclear weapons or nuclear ex-plosive devices can hardly be regarded assuitable means of protection for the politicalor economic interests of any state, regard-less of the level of its economic develop-ment.

The danger of a further spread of nuclearweapons has in no way diminished sincethe resolution known as the Irish resolutionwas .adopted. On the contrary, owing torapid developments in the sphere of nuclearenergy in a number of states, that dangerhas increased and will continue to grow inbhe future. That fact should be constantlyborne in mind also in our deliberations. Inour opinion, there can be no doubt, there-fore, that the speediest possible preparationand adoption of the non-proliferation treatyis primarily in the interests of the non-nuclear-weapon states. My country isamong those states, ' < , •• ,^,r"'

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, 15 September 1968

Institute in London AssaysWorld's Military Forces

ByALVINSHUSTERSpecial to The New York Tlimes

LONDON, Sept. 12—An au-thoritative private study issuedtoday reports that the Sovie:Union has rushed constructionof land-based intercontinentaballistic missiles and now hasalmost as many as the UnitedStates,

The Institute fof StrategicStudies, a nonprofit group spe-cializing in military researchsaid the Soviet Union now hadalmost twice as many missilesas last year, and by the endof the year is expected to havereached the American total,which was put a_t 1,054.

Moreover, the institute foundevidence of growing diversifica-tion in the Soviet militaryforces, with new emphasisgiven to preparation for bothnuclear and conventional con-flict.

. It said this suggested a "pos-sible Soviet adoption of a pol-icy of 'flexible response' sim-ilar to that adopted by theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organ-ization."

Peking's Effort Is Slowed

The report, a world-widesurvey entitled "The MilitaryBalance," also said that Com-munist China's nuclear weap-ons program had been slowedbv the political struggle thereand that the Arab countrieshad rearmed significantly sincetheir defeat by the Israelis inthe war in June, 1967. .But of-ficials said the Arabs wereperhaps a year away fromagain reaching a "state ofreadiness."

Although the report was writ-ten before the Soviet-led in-vasion of Czechoslovakia,' in-stitute officials said the So-viet's intensified training ofairborne forces, for example,was reflected in the smooth andexpert use of such troops inthe military action. . ,

Alastair Buchan, the in-stitute's director, said at anews conference that he didnot think the. "balance of pow-er" in Europe had been changedby the -Soviet's massive move^ment of troops into Czecho-slovakia.

The Deputy Director, Ken-neth Hunt, agreed, saying thatjthe "same number of NATO

;;-forces;;stiII face the same riurn-Ctierpf Warsaw. pa<;t forces^ •'£,'

'^f; NATC> Shift foreseen J^•' "What has changed alongwith the new deployment" oftroops," Mr. Hunt said, "is thepolitical environment.. NATOmay now want to change itsdeployment of forces in Eu-rope." - • ^

The report said that beforethe invasion of Czechoslovakia,the Atlantic allies had about875,000 troops in Europe, whileWarsaw Pact forces totaled990,000.

Of the latter, half a millionwere troops of the Soviet Army,it said, which has a total forceof two million men.

The Warsaw Pact countriesalso had more than twice thenumber of tanks, but the reportsays that Atlantic port forceshave a "great superiority" inantitank defenses.

Comparing tactical aircraftavailable in Europe, the 61-pagereport says • that most of theWarsaw Pact aircraft are intereeptors, intended for air defense.

In contrast, the Atlantic portforces rely primarily on strikior ground-attack aircraft. Thistudy noted that the West's aircraft had a substantiallhigher performance.

The report noted that whilthe Soviet Union now hasomewhat fewer missiles, thescarried larger warheads.

But, it said, 1,000 AmericaMinutemen missiles had solifuel, enabling quick-firing. Onlya small number of the Sovietlong-range missiles, the reportadded, are solid-fueled. [

U.S. Superior in SubmarinesThe United States also main-

tains substantial superiority insubmarine-launched ballisticmissiles, the. report said, with625 against 125 for the SovietUnion.

It noted, however, that a newclass of nuclear-powered bal-listic missile submarines, simi-lar to the American Polaris,was now coming into servicein the Soviet navy.

The institute has issued anannual report assessing the mil-itary balance since it was es-tablished 10 years ago as aninternational center with agrant from the Ford Founda-tion.

It 'has an international council drawn from 15 countriesan international staff and ;membership representing 32countries.' With a budget of abou$200,000 a year, it is now largely financed by grants fromAmerican foundations, buthose in Canada and Britainalso contribute. Funds, alsocome from donations from, in-dustry and its own member-ship.

The report costs $2 and maybe obtained from <the institute'soffices, 18 Adam Street," Lon-don, W.C. 2.

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, 1? September 1968

Sees Risk in Nixon Plan tiDelay Approval of Treaty

to Halt Weapon Spread

By MAX FRANKELSpecial to The New Vork Times

SEA GIRT, N. J., Sept. 1.2—In a forceful extension of hisargument with Richard MNixon about how'to deal withthe Soviet Union, Vice Presi-dent Humphrey called again to-day for immediate Senate ap-proval of the so-called nuclearnonproliferation treaty.

Deiay in action on the treaty,as recommended by Mr. Nixon,would .only mean further anddangerous delay of the effortto halt the arms race amongboth large and small nations,the Vice President said.

It would also, he' ,added,"deny our greatness and, in avery serious way, prove, thatwe are-unworthy of trust."

Nixon Urges DelayMr. Nixon, the Republican

candidate for President, saidyesterday that he endorsed thetreaty but favored postpone-ment of its adoption until theposture and intentions of the'Soviet Union toward the rest of'Europe could be reassessed inthe wake of the invasion ofCzechoslovakia. •

Mr. Humphrey replied by cit-ing his disagreement as sym-bolic of basic differences withMr. Nixon about the whole sub-!ject of peacemaking.

. The Vice President said- thattheir, differences posed a clearchoice, to be made in the Pres-idential electipn Nov. 5, ofwhether the United States shallcontinue the effort to reducethe-.risk-of nuclear war- or "falljinto all the old, bad habits, th'ejold antagonism§,.,the doubts andlithe suspicions".'that..charac,terr

Sail, •;'.,_

,:. Mjv Humphrey .acknowledgedthat /; the.; Soviet- invasion.- ofCzechoslovakia had' produced"greater tension among thesuper powers than there wasa month or a year ago." Butthis makes measures of armscontrol all the more necessary,he asserted. J

The Vice President undertooka long discussion of the valuesof "bridge building" with theCommunist world while dedicat-|ing the second span of theDelaware Memorial .Bridge,near the tollhouse on' .the Dela-ware side of the Delaware Rivercrossing to New Jersey.

According to his aides, Mr.Humphrey was inspired alsoby the feeling that the nuclearnonproliferation treaty mightdramatize the foreign policydifferences between the Demo-:ratic and Republican leadersthis year-as effectively as thetest ban treaty did in the Pres-idential elections, of 1960 and1964.

The - treaty, which wouldcommit the nuclear powers notto share their weapons sec'retswhile; conVmitting other. Cationsnot r

"And for the strongest nationon the face of - the earth;equipped as no other with anarsenal; of .power, to say thatwe should delay in. setting, into'place this great building ,blockof peace |n t the .cathedral ofpeace,. 1. say is ^o. deny ourgreatness; arid, in a Ve y.seriousWay, „ to"'prove that we .areunwprTjhy of trust," the Vice,President said. '

; The .treaty ijs,,in.'the nationalifjterestv now,, .Mr,. Humphreyargued., because it- enhancessecurity rather "than restrictingit, and protects peace ratherthan -jeopardizing it.

"Listen not. to.-. those thatonce, again, would rattle thesaber,'! he continued. "This isa time when we must servenotice •-:«ri our-«adversary thatthere -is far more to-• be gainedfrom peaceful^engagement andwork-and-the relaxation of ten-sions, than; from the reversionto the Cold War.", .Mr. Humphrey's intense con-centration . on relations withthe .Soviet Union came at thestart .of an otherwise leisurely|;day .of campaigning,

Driven Across Bridgei He flew to' wiimington Air-pport this morning, drove to thej.dedicatipn site and after hisspeech was driven acrpss thenew span. Later, after lunchingwith Gpv. Charles L. Terry Jr.•of Delaware and Gov. RichardJ. Hughes of New Jersey, Mr.Humphrey took a turn at thewheel of a 1911 Model T Ford,whose Republican owner, HenrySeal of Pottstown, Pa., had fol-lowed him in the processionacross the. bridge.

Mr.. Humphrey, an antique-car fancier, stalled the machineonce arid after some difficulty,which caused his physician.toworry about a broken arm,cranked the engine back to life'again. ....Cranking some 'life into the.

Democratic party machineacross; the nation has been theVice, President's main and obvi-ously difficult job all week.

He .candidly recognized thosedifficulties in a talk to NewJersey ..Democrats here this eve-ning, to which he came after afew hours rest at the beach-front home of GovernorHughes, one of his , strongersupporters for the Democraticnomination.

"I have no illusions aboutthis campaign," Mr. Humphreysaid in his address. "TheDemocratic party is beingtested as never before. We shalleither be one party, together invictory, or.we shall be manyparWeJ^^SepiriEtted in defeat.":*:i^rfi"tKErtp2,000 Democrats

fromrall, parts, ,of New Jersey,who had "paid $iCfQ;;av plate forthe rally and dinner under acircus tent, heard Mr. Hum-phrey make these' and othercandid references to the 'uphillfight that he faces' for the Pres-idency.

In fact, most of the politi-cians in the tent agreed withhis estimate from their ownexperiences 'in New. 'Jersey.They cheered Mr. Humphreydutifully when he began tospeak and roared for some ofhis more partisan assaults onMr. Nixon, but a long sectionof generalities and songs oftribute to America and' theDemocratic party left themrelatively cool at the. end. <

Endorsed by UnionThe Amalgamated Clothing

Workers of-America endorsedyesterday the Democratic canrdidacies of Vice PresidentHumphrey and Senator EdmundS. Muskie for President andVice President. Jacob S. Potof-sky, president, and Frank Ro-senblum, secretary - treasurer,called upon Amalgamated's400,000 members..|p:.work:, for

'

NEW DEWY SEENDemocratic Leaders, Likely

flo Put Off Final Action ifRatification Is in Doubt

G.Q.P. HINTS OPPOSITION

Questions Treaty's Abilityto Prevent Proliferation

of Nuclear Weapons

ByJOHNW.FINNEYSpecial to The New York Times

IWASHINGTON, Sept. 17 —

The Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee rescued the nuclearnonproliferation treaty frompossible oblivion today.

By a 13-to-3 vote, the com-;mittee favorably reported thetreaty to the Senate and thusovercame the first hurdle putup by Republicans to delay ac-tion until after the Presidentialelection. j

However, the recently con-cluded treaty to prevent thespread of atomic weapons stillfaced an uncertain future onjthe Senate floor.

Senate Democratic leadersexpressed the hope that thetreaty could be brought to avote before the scheduled Con-gressional adjournment Jn mid-October. But a final decision onwhether to call up the treatyfor action this session dependslargely upon whether it seemslikely that- the necessary two-thirds yote of ratification canbe obtained.

Uncertainty on VoteConsiderable uncertainty ex-

ists in both parties on the likelySenate vote. There may thus besome hesitancy by the Senateleadership, as well as the Ad-ministration, -to call up thetreaty and have it dealt a pos-sibly fatal blow through re-jection;. .

. Republicans were hintingthat they might move to at-tach- reservations or refer itback to the Foreign RelationsCommittee: for further con-

HEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 18 September 1968

inspe,ctiQtf\s^\'couid; assume,1 the1 ;'Mafegulr'din'g; responsibili-ties demanded by the treaty.

When the treaty was firstsubmitted to the Senate earlyin July, it appeared to be non-1

controversial. Then came theSoviet Union's invasion ofCzechoslovakia, the resultingpressure'that Senators report-jed was rising among minoritygroups against entering into anarms control agreement withthe Russians and the injectionof the treaty into the Presidential campaign.

Delaying Tactics BeginWhen Richard M. Nixon, the

Republican Presidential can-didate; recently announced thathe was; opposed to ^ratificationat this time, Republicans begandelaying',tactics, such as pre-venting a committee quorum.' The treaty was apparentlyrescued in the committee bythe persistence of Senator Al-bert Gore, Democrat of Tennes-see, in pressing for a vote, anda new determination by the1

Administration to< get favorablecommittee/aciionv " '

tiounced three weeks ago thaithe would Insist upon a com-mittee! vote, the Administrationmaintained a passive attitude,saying it wanted the treaty tobe called up in this Congres-sional session but not if thatmeant a damaging partisan de-bate and a possible defeat ofthe treaty.

But in the last week,'as Mr.Nixon made the treaty a parti-san issue and as it became ap-parent that a committee votewas inevitable, the Administra-tion stiffened and began to ap-ply pressure for favorable Sen-ate action. '

William C. Foster, directorof the Arms Control and Disiarmament Agency, and AdrianS. Fisher, the deputy director,spent much of yesterday urg-ing members of the committeeto attend today's meeting andvote to report out the treaty.

They argued that a commit-tee delay would be datr.aging^particularly in reducing the mo-mentum 'in such countries asWe.il Germany, Italy, InJia, Is-rael and Japan toward accept-ing the treaty..

Their suggestion; therefore,was that the comrhittee at leastreport;but the treaty arid leave

uritif later-a decision'bn1'wheth-er; to ;ratify, it; ^ v -Kvcfte •;'.:.

With a vote seemingty inevi-table, Republicans who had beenboycotting committee meetings

'

NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 19 September 1968

: 5. DefoysTo Soviet Atom Bid

By BENJAMIN WELLES,. Special to The New Yra*TJta«s

.WASHINGTON,, sept, is—The .Soviet Union has askedthat nuclear disarmament talksbe held in Geneva: at the endof this .month, but the UnitedStates is delaying a reply.

Since 'June, when Moscowfirst indicated its willingnessto, discuss limitations oh the de-velopment .of costly antiballis-tics-missiles systems, the twoGovernments have been seekingagreement on a time and placefor the talks. The discussions,however, .were halted by theUnited States because of theSoviet-led invasion of Czecho-slovakia Aug. 20.' 'White House, and State; •

on;day : toi^ _ ithat^pviet^ion;^ nlswindicaJedtesh interest in meet-ing jsyitti United States nego-'tiatfrs in Geneva. Other trust-worthy sources, however, saidthat\ such a. Soviet approachhad i^een madp.

"I don't see any chance ofsuch talks- happening. in a fort-night -^'although; they mightcome later" one qualified in-formant said. "As i see it, theatmosphere is not conducive todiscussing this right away," thesource said. ' , • • ' •.' Officials, while declining -to

discuss the substance of- thereported Soviet approach, citedthe Republican feeling expressedrecently in the Senate againstearly approval of the treaty toprevent the spread of 'nucleararms as a sign of United Statesdisapproval of Soviet pressure

.en-Czechoslovakia. ° ^; "• ,Although they concedes that'

the Senate Foreign Rerkti.onsCommittee had at least 'tehipq-rarily rescued the treaty yes-terday from possible -oblivionby a 13-to-3'vote, its future onthe Senate floor was still; un-certain. '. •;;'•'. :.. ' •• '•

Other well-informed -sourcessaid that a possible rekspn for,the United States delay in. re-sponding to the Soviet :bi'4 wa;the continuing uncertainty ajto the level at which such imeeting should be held.Johnson Hoped for Meeting

President Johnson was knownto have been hoping — prior tothe invasion of Czechoslovakia— for a face-to-face meetingwith senior Soviet officials atwhich disarmament and otherworld issues could have beenbroached in a spirit, if not oiamity, at least of cooperation

The invasion of CzechoSlovakia came, therefore, no ionly as a/profound shock to theUnited States, these informantssaid, but as a bitter persona;setback to Mr; Johnson's hopes.

On the other hand, the£pointed -put, talks on the mutu-al limitation of future antibal-listic missiles' might still pro-vide a suitable forum in whichMr. Johtisb'ri could meet withSoviet leaders. ' • , - , ' , ,

For this to happen, however,they said, the impact of theSoviet action against, Czecho-slovakia must be permitted: ,to.fade somewhat from the.cpublicmind. - -• -.' ' • ' . - '

Furthermore, these sourcessaid, the1 level of participationmust be agreed — whether Presi-dential, Cabinet level or tech-

'uica.lv working •:leyel^-an.d the/.agenda" must 'be meticulouslyprepared in advance. , .

/Sentinel Exempted From Cuts"Chiefs of state;:- don't nor-

mally meet to negotiate," saidone experienced informant."Their officials work out agree-jments in advance and then thechiefs of state preside over the,ceremonies. Otherwise, summit|meetings turn into propagandacontests." • '

Twelve days ago, it was re-called, Defense Secretary ClarkM. Clifford told a National PressClub audience that he had ex-empted the United States Sen-tinel antibaUistic-missile systemfrom the $3-billion cuts im-posed on the Defense Depart-ment as part of the over-all $6-,billion cut in Governmentjspending ordered this year bycongress. ^

f Referring tonegotiations withthe' Soviet Union on the lirnita-tion of rival antiballistic-missilesystems, Mr. Clifford said atthe time: .

"When and if we negotiate,safety and success demand thatwe negotiate from strength."

In contrast to President John1

n's declaration two months!rlier . that ne

son caraton two months!earlier . that new disarmament

.negotiations would begin in the'near future, it was noted thatMr.; Clifford; tobjc- a. distinctly!more reserved approach". ';

NEW YORK TIMES, Saturday, 28 September 1968

MdNNUCLEAK PARLEY*REJECTS LATIN PLAN,.GENEVA, Sept. 27 (Reuters)The nuclear powers jtypn acit victory at the,conference

of non nuclear ..nations .tqnight.jwhen. a La.tm-Amefican>. pro-posal to .have the.,.mee.ting re-convened" ' periodically ; '-..was.dropped. .-. ...,:.. ' . ,.-•'Earlier, a Latin-American pro-posal, for .another conference toconclude .an international.- se-cflrity agreement failed .• to. get

Itlie tw.o.-.thirds iriajp'rity.-neededfor approval: . . ; .

\. The proposal that .the -United.Nations convene/ a jnonnuclearconference -periodjcal'ly was..??denied, after, vigorous•', pppo-sitiPn' threatened to reject it-altogether. The final- version,adopted with "no opposMiori,called on the General Assemblynext fall to consider calling, a:secortd.conferen.ee.-. ; ' • • • . . .

Although the -huelear.^owers,had • no -. vote • at•'• the '.96-naitionconference ajid refrained-.'fr.pm.taking-, the fTp.pr,- - they ^rhadei,, it<clear:"-that the.y :'did!' .hpt-.Vwarnt'.ItKelicbrifererice perpetuate'ds*,-^tij^^r?'i- - .." .,: -. =. :•' ,^j./^.,-1.l.'irl'

NEW YORK TIMES, Saturday, 28 September 1968

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27—The Senate Foreign Relations'

" Noting now few states with"the -capability ' of developing,atomic weapons have thus farsigned the treaty, the commit-tee said, "The treaty will be-come little more than a piousdeclaration of intent unless itreceives the adherence of those

Committee suggested today that President Johnson delay' with'the potential capability toratification of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty until there de^?loP nuclear weapons."

• were assurances that a ma- ™e ti%* s/eks ° Preclud1• -4 c j.u i ,.- i i nations that do not have nu-:jonty of the potential nuclear dear we frQm

weapons states intended toaccept the treaty.

At the same time, the com-mittee urged that' the Senategive its immediate approval tothe treaty, which it describedas "an important beginning" toward controlling the dangerousspread of atomic weapons, andthen leave a decision on for-mal ratification tq the President.'

The recommendation by atmajority of the 19-man com--mittee represented still anothersetback to the Administrationin its efforts toward earlyratification. The treaty wasfinally agreed to last spring atthe 18-nation disarmament con-ference and was submitted to

them and to prohibit the'--riclear weapons states from help-,ing other countries to develop-or acquire atomic weapons. : •'

trie treaty-will go into effect

•Been ratified bythe ^United States, the SovietUnio'n-'arid. Britain and at leas,t40 states without nuclear weap7ons. Thus far. the treaty hasbeen ratified by only one na-t i on .— Ireland. While it hasbeen -signed by some 80 nations,some of the nations consideredmost likely-to become nuclearpowers, such as Japan, Israel,India and West Germany, havewithheld their signatures thusfar. ' ' ,

The committee majority's ob-vious concern was that, if the

to °nly by a group of

the Senate in July. 'United States moved too quick-Administration efforts to ly on ratification, it could find

push the treaty through the itself Party to a treaty sub-Senate were first interrupted , " e d to nl b a rouby the Soviet invasion of :Czechoslovakia and the subse-quent statement by' Richard M;Nixon, the Republican Presi-dential nominee, that ratifica-ion be delayed/With consider-

lable effort, the treaty wasbrought to a vote in .-.the com-mittee, to receive only the(qualified endorsement of ' the;majority« • . • . . . ' ' • '" '\ 'Advice 'and Consent'

Technically, the . ', ' Senate,does not ratify a treaty butonly gives its ."advice andi.con-sent." 'The executive branchformally ratifies it i>y. depositing instruments- of ratificationthe essential step. in putting atreaty, in to, effect. • •;- •"' •• V •

.; It -was ' this •'. distinction thatthe committee /majority seizedupon in; urging that, 'onoe theSenate' h^as acted, the •President"consider .-delaying : the processof; depositing the United Statesinstrument of ratification" untilpositive .. assurances -that a ma-jority of those qouritries near-,est to riucl.ear.^eapons-c^rjabii-ity • intend.

'

"Administration's ViewThe contrary concern of the

Administrat ion is that, if theUnited States delays ratifica-tion, the result may be to under-mine the psychological momen-tuni bu i ld ing up on potentialnuclear-weapons states to ac-cept the treaty.

in a committee minority re-port, three Republicans and two.Democrats, while not objectingto the treaty in principle, ar-gued that it would be inadvis-able for the Senate to approve

[;it at this time. They suggestedthis view partly because of theSoviet invasion of Czechoslo-;vakia and partly because of"uncertainties" over the termsand implementation of thetreaty.

. The minority report wassigned by Senators Bourke B.tfickenlooper of Iowa, Karl E.Mundt of South Dakota andJohn J. Williams of Delaware,all Republicans, and Frank J.Lausche of Ohio and ThomasJ. Dodd of Connecticut, Demo-crats.

In."independent" views, Sen-ator George D. Aiken, Repub-lican of Vermont, suggestedthat the Senate not vote onthe treaty until there is someclarification of the UnitedStates' economic responsibili-ties, particularly in providingother-nations or foreign compa-nies. ; ' ' :

THE BOSTON GLOBE, Sunday, 29 September 1968

^RussiansTo PressABM Talks

By DARIUS S. JHABVALGlobt Dlplomitic C»rre»fthdent

U N I T E D N A T IONS —The Soviet Union will pressthe United States early thisweek to settle the date andthe agenda for discussions oflimitations on the anti-ballistic missile systems.

Well-informed sources atthe United Nations pointedout that the Russians "arekeen" on getting the talks.;,started and are concerned'"that further delayspush the opening of negotiaS|5tions until after Presidem'Lyndon Johnson leaves of-^:fice in January. <B;

.Due to uncertainties ofwhich party will be inpower after November,the Soviet leadership is anx-ious to start the discussionswith the present administra-tion.

Moscow seems to be con- ,vinced that more fruitful ad-vances could be made withthe Democratic Presidentrather than with a .Republi-can administration, '

The Russians also arguethat once 'negotiations} havebegun .before the/ electionseven a Republican adminis-tratipn would find it'.difficult to break: pfjtalks at a later " '

. . . .

Western sourcesBeen attributing other -mo-tives' to the Russian desires.

They claim that as anaftermath of the Czechoslo-vakia situation that SovietUnion is anxious to use thetalks with the U.S. to makeclear to the world that thedetente with the West hasnot suffered.

Since the U.S. does notconsider its relations withthe Soviet Union to be-atthe pre-Czechoslovakia level,Westerners feel that the U.S.is justifiably very cautiousabout negotiations in the im- 'mediate future.

The question of initiatingbilateral talks is expectedto be high on the list of items

:that will be discussed thisweek between Soviet Foreign.•Minister Andrei Gromyko:and Secretary of State DeanRusk.

Rusk also will meet with"foreign . ministers .of theNATO countries, includingWest German Foreign Min-ister Willy Brandt, to reviewthe effects of Soviet presencein Czechoslovakia on WestEuropean defenses.

The key question that theywill seek to find an answerto is not in the field of mili-tary but rather what preci-sely are the political intent-ions of the Warsaw Pactpowers.

"We know the Soviet mili-tary capacity and capabili-ties. But we do not knowwhat are their political in-

•tentkms, particularly againstWest Germany," a, British,official stated. ' ' . . ' . -

NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, 29 September 1968

JNDfiENEYATALKS;./•

Deadlocked on GuaranteesFrom Nuclear Countries

rejected qthers as1 aresult of the split, betweenrank-and-file nonnuclear coun-tries, whose nuclear programsar.e.:. mostly, vjn the-, planningstaije-, or nonexistent,: :and thepotential nuclear countries. ''•

GENEVA, Sept. 28—Plaguedfrom the outset by divisionswithin its ranks, the UnitedNations conference of non-nuclear states adjourned earlytoday without any decision onthe outstanding issue: What ad-ditional guarantees such coun-tries should ask from the,nuclear powers against a nu-clear attack or nuclear black-mail, i

A Latin-American proposal,under which the conferencewould have recommended thatthe nuclear powers give secu-rity guarantees under an inter-national convention independ-ent of trie ""'United' Nations,failed by one vote to .obtainthe necessary two-thirds .ma-jority. . ,

Most nonnuclear countrieshad criticized as inadequate thesecurity guarantee offered tosignatories of the treaty to bar

>the spread of nuclear weapons.Since this, would be conditional

• upon authorization by the. Security , Council, they areafraid that a great power mightprevent such authorization,

•"\ leaving fhem without protec-tion , '{ '" '"• '1 _.U.S. and Soviet Opposed

Both the United States andthe Soviet Union opposed theadditional guarantee Althoughthe United States delegation didnot take the floor throughoutthe Mnonth-long conference; -itpassed the word that the -.gen1-ate\ wbuld never ratify such acommitment This probablyhelped dissuade some of the90 nonnuclear participantsfrom insisting on it The votewas 39 in favor to 20 against,with 25 abstentions

The conference limited itself;to a, declaration, adopted justbefore it' adjourned; "stressing"the necessity of further stepsfor an early solution of .the^question of security assurancesin the nuclear era."frhe conference, as/expected,

adopted resolutions urging theUnited Nations -and two affili-at^fl agencies,: the InternationalAtomic- Energy-Agency..and theinterjiatioiial Bank for Recon-struction and Development, to'Ij'elpr'nonnuclear ;;states •sh'ar<ej-in{:.itfe-benefits'of nuclear develop-!;,

. „ and some,, of :vthem,; according to recent independe

,,stiidies, typuld .-be :ablfe ,to pr:iduce. the • ;bqrnb an^slrort ord

decided to;,...;. .Seek Materials.,,

* Six of these—India and Brijzil, which otherwise are rankeas underdeveloped countrieand four highly industrilizecountries, West Germany, ItalSwitzerland and Japan—triet(|have the conference endorsth^ir campaigns to obtain nuclear materials and equipmenfrom'the nuclear powers without signing 'the treaty againSnuclear proliferation.

Many of -the fank-and-file othe nonnuclear .:countries, 'othe other hand, were eager tremove the objections advanceby .these six nuclear potentiacountries to justify their failurto sign the treaty despite; itendorsement by the Genera-.Assembly last spring. '•"

"The Senate Foreign RelationCommittee : urged yester.dajthat the Senate give immediatapproval to the treaty, but suggested that President Johnsoidelay formal ratification untithere were assurances thatmajority of the potential nu•clear states intended to accepthe treaty. V;; • .

The absence of any publiccomment from the four nuclearpowers present at the conference as nonvoting observers—the United States, the SovietUnion, Britain and France —also had a chilling effect.

Although France has made it•clear that she will not sign thetreaty, the three others i hadsponsored it and -felt that theconclusion of the ; treaty': Haddestroyed any reason for thenonnuclear powers to considerthe nonproliferation issue. Com-munist China, the fifth nuclearpower, rejected an invitation toattend.

Working .behind the scenes,the Washington, Moscow ..andLondon delegation successfullyopposed a campaign led byLatin-American countries to

recom-

'decide.whether another should

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, k October 1968

Nonproliferation Nq|j||> ^:The Senate Foreign Relations Committee added- an

unfortunate qualification to its endorsement of thenuclear nonproliferation treaty when it suggestedthat the President should delay formal ratificationuntil a majority of the potential nuclear weaponsstates indicate they intend to accept the treaty.

Such a delay would be self-defeating, since manyof the most important non-nuclear states are them-selves waiting to see what the United States will dobefore acting on the treaty. If the United Statesratifies the pact,! some potential nuclear powers areexpected to follow suit fairly quickly. Others mayor may not fall in line with an American lead.

But it is certain that if the United States does notdemonstrate, its continuing interest in nonproliferaionby offering prompt ratification, the chances of wide-spread approval by other states will be sharplyreduced.

Rightly or wrongly, the non-nuclear nations believethey are being asked to make greater sacrifices in theinterest of international security than the nuclearpowers. They cannot be expected to embrace thetreaty unless the great powers continue to show thevigorous- leadership and ; mutual support for non-proliferation that won for the pact near-unanimousacclaim in the General Assembly last June.

The most serious threat to the treaty is, of course,the big-power animosity and widespread apprehensiongenerated by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.The Foreign Relations Committee no doubt was in-fluenced by the feeling among some Senators, spurredby the Republican Presidential nominee, that actionon the treaty should be deferred because of theCzechoslovak crisis.

It is ironic that concern for the Czechs and Slovaks•should be used as an excuse for delaying this im-portant step toward reducing' international tensions.Long before the invasion, Czechoslovakia was anadvocate of the nonproliferation treaty, as she istoday. To withhold ratification as "punishment" ofthe Russians for their misdeeds in Czechoslovakia isto suggest that the treaty is of prime benefit to theRussians, when what it really benefits is every civi-lized country in the world.

Withholding American ratification of the nonpro-liferation treaty will not spur others to sign, nor willit help ease Soviet pressure on Chechoslovakia. Themore likely -effects of/such proer^stipatibtt'would ;bejusjkthe opposite. • .?j!s$#--<:j; ilf^-w-^ffi^^M'.^^^'?^;^'!

NEW YORK TIMES, Saturday, 5 October 1968

Topics: On the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, By ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG

My last responsibility, on be-half of our Government beforeleaving my post as UnitedStates representative . to theUnited Nations, was to shep-herd the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weap-ons through the General As-sembly.

This required six weeks offree and full debate in whichvirtually all member states ofthe United Nations participated,intensive negotiations with bothnuclear and non-nuclear mem-bers, and important amend-ments to the draft treaty tabledby the United States and theSoviet Union at the eighteen-natitin committee on disarma-ment in Geneva. The draft it-self was the result of protract-ed negotiations over a periodof four years.

The treaty represents a care-ful balance of the rights andobligations between the nuclearand non-nuclear powers. It willserve three major purposes:

First, it will assure that con-trol over nuclear weapons, withtheir catastrophic power of de-struction, shall spread no fur-ther among the nations of theearth. Its first two articles,taken together, will help lockthe door to nuclear - weaponproliferation from both sides.The treaty will bind nuclear-

weapon powers not to transfernuclear weapons to non-nuclearstates and the latter not tomanufacture or otherwise ac-quire them.

Second, it will facilitate theway for all nations, particu-larly those in the earlier stagesof economic development, toshare in the peaceful blessingsof nuclear energy—withoutarousing fear lest that energybe diverted to nuclear weap-ons. In addition, any benefitsarising from the developmentof nuclear explosions for peace-ful purposes will be availableto all parties under appropriateinternational observation.

Third, it will'establish a newand solemn treaty obligation,especially upon the nuclear-weapon powers, to press for-ward the search for nuclear^disarmament.

Signed by Most NationsI recall this background in

order to confirm that thistreaty is a truly internationalagreement—not a purely bi-lateral treaty between the So-viet Union and the UnitedStates. This is further evi-denced by the fact that thetreaty has already been signedby 82 nations. Other signaturesshould be forthcoming, unlessthe United States, by weaken-ing its support for the treaty,retards further ratifications.

Our justifiable sense of out-rage against the brutal invasionof Czechoslovakia by the So-viet Union must not be allowedto obscure, the fact that bothour own security interests andthe common interest of all na-tions and people in peace andhuman survival will be servedby this treaty.Effect on Other Nations

Although it is regrettablethat the signatures of Franceand Communist Chinp will notappear upon the treaty, theirabsence does not emasculateits effectiveness. The Frenchhave announced publicly thatthey "will behave in the futurein this field exactly as thestates adhering to the treaty."Communist China's nuclear ca-pacity, though disturbing, stillis small. It is not in a positionto offer its weapons for export.It is doubtful that the presentChinese leadership or any likelysuccessors would be willing,much less eager, to furnish nu-clear weapons or technology tostates not under China's directcontrol.

Finally, ratification of thetreaty both by the Soviet Unionand the United States is un-doubtedly essential if the forth-coming disarmament talks be-tween the two great nuclearpowers are to have any chanceof success.

These talks to halt the nu-clear arms race are of thehighest priority. It is of the ut-most urgency to achieve agree-ment on measures to controland limit the ever-increasingbuild-up of strategic nuclearmissiles, and to take steps toforestall the widespread de-ployment of antiballistic mis-sile systems on both sides.

Already we have had strongintimations that several nations,which just a few months agowere prepared to ratify thetreaty, are now having secondthoughts. And these second''thoughts could harden into a'completely negative attitude,should the United States, aprincipal proponent of thetreaty, delay its ratification.

This is the time to remembefwhat Shakespeare said:

"There is a tide in the affairsof men,

Which, taken at the flood,leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage oftheir life

Is bound in shadows and iremiseries."

This fatefur tide is at theflood now. Let us put politicalconsiderations aside and takeit now while we have the op-portunity.

Arthur J. Goldberg served asUnited Stated representative tothe United Nations.

-

HEW YORK TIMES, Saturday, 5 October 1968

. , - . . . . • „IfiSenatel/ntiiNextYear

• • : ; • - ; . • . ; By:'/'.- .% .';. • . Special to TH? New.-YorkTinies .. '

: 5 WASHIlS[GTO]sr,: Oct. 4i-^rhe': Senate 'leadership has albut abandoned hope of winning Senate approval of theNuclear nonproiiferation,treatif jn this session • bf^CongressvThe treaty, once describedjjjy, therefore/ that the-treaty* willPresident Johnson as' e; be forrnally .ratified by the"most important'' arpls::c6n|; United -State?- by --next spring.trol agreement of the nuclear What concerns the John-age 'appears to be the victim son Administration is that the

™ ,dmplementary;politi. *"•£ ^0^°^=ca pressures. - . on potential nuclear weapons

: These are';.the desire, of Sena-: states to accept the- treaty.tors to go 'home and the'Repub- Thus far, such nations as In-lican opposition stirred up by '£>*• /Israel, Japan, Italy .and

Richard MKixon, the party's ! JK-ffiSTSe^TSSS'Presidential nominee. , ; because they are waiting to see

Between the desire of a small what the Senate will do.band of Republicans ,-to .talk Of. equal concern to the Ad'against immediate approval- of ministration, as well as the'•the treaty and the desire df Senate lea dership is : the , s y -jCongress to' adjourn, the lead- £0l^e ftT tS& ™jership at this point sees no way caiied up before the Senate atto steer the treaty through the this session and failed to 'winSenate and still meet the ' ad- approval.journment target of late next The treaty was submitted toweek. -Its present inclination, t h s?na t e in July with thetherefore, is tc, lay the treaty,aside until the next session ofCongress.

The delay is not expected tobe fatal to the treaty, agreedupon last spring by the UnitedStates and the Soviet Unionafter five years of negoti-ations at the 18-nation Geneva

I disarmament conference. The, treaty, which does not go into.effect until ratified by theUnited States, the Soviet Un-ion, Britain and "40 other na-tions, is designed to prevent,the spread of. atomic weapons.

Even Republican critics con-cede that, the treaty shouldand will be approved by theSenate early next year. Offi-

Is of, the. Arms Control and

-in the Con-

SiS-" — r--•-.-—- -.. -..Disarmament •• Agency >-,. expect

ir '••' '•' >''' •'•. ...'.; ^ .. Jn ' ' .-•;>••

I UULIJ.ICIJ' «*^*f*« TV-** -~

gressional session after the po-litical conventions. But the po-litical outlook was radically al-tered by the Soviet invasion ofCzechoslovakia and the sub-sequent position taken by Mr.Nixon that this would be aninappropriate time to ratifythe treaty.

Takes View ReluctantlyThe White House is still de-

sirous of immediate ratifica-tion, if only because the treatycould provide a historic acco-lade for the Johnson Adminis-tration. But the White Houseis putting no pressure on theSenate and is reportedly leav-ing to Senator Mike Mans-field of Montana, the majorityleader, the decision on whether,to call up the treatyfor action.

In an interview today, Sena-tor Mansfield made clear that,while he had not made a final,decision, he was reluctantlyleaning toward postponement

"'Fpnate action until next year."Time is just not with us,"

[he observed.If the treaty is' called up

next week; he said, there "arevery strong indications that asizable number" of Senators—mostly Republicans, but alsosome Democrats—would arguefor ^postponement. The result

puld,probably be a long de-patef. • upsetting = plans -forbad-journment next week. i ; x , . /

This"was confirmed by Sen-ator JgarJ E. Mundt, Republicanof South-. Dakota, the likelyleader of the opposition, whopredicted in an interview thatthe treaty would require "aweek of debate."

Senator Mansfield couldkeep the Senate in session un-til it debated and acted on thetreaty. But this, in turn, raisesthe problem of keeping a quo-rum of Senators in town.

It was only with consider-able difficulty that the Senateassembled 57 Senators today tovote on the foreign aid appro-nriations hill, and Senator Mans-field is doubtful that he canmuster the necessary quorumof 50 Senators next week andthe following week.

If the treaty is brought upfor debate, therefore, it couldface two damaging possibili-ties: it might have to be laidaside for a lack of a quorum,or ^absenteeism might make it.impossible to obtain the two-j thirds vote necessary for ap-proval.

. For these reasons, SenatorMansfield said he was comingto the judgment that it would,be.. in "the, best .interests'!:. .of jtfter.ttfe;aty,. to" postpone :a 'yb'feuntil thev-next session.'-'-''.1.''.^1?^-:!

NEW YORK TIMES, Saturday, 12 October

.-"•' FSve!nations :now have the

collective power- to destroycivilization.' •

As a four-month resident ofHiroshima in 1966,1 saw and.heard much of what happenedthere in 1945. The survivors ofthat catastrophe speak with au-thority ', when they urge theworld's powers to stop 'themanufacturing and testing ofnuclear weapons. The Hiroshi-ma bomb had a yield of 20,000tons of TNT. Today's weaponsrange up to one million tons..According to ta report : pre-

pared pursuant to a resolutionof :the United Nations, everyone of the large megaton weap-ons now; available "has a de-structive 'power greater thanthat of all the'conventional ex-plosives, that have ever been

• used in warfare since the daygunpowder was discovered."

.To-speak In ordinary politicalterms of the Senate. withhold-ing or postponing ratification,of the nuclear nonproliferationtreaty as .a kind of diplomaticslap at the Soviet Union is toignore our - responsibility to

• create a more secure planet forfuture generations. [EditorialsSept., 22 'and bet4.], Obviously ho treaty can pre-vent a nuclear-weapon nationfrom practicing internationalanarchy or national suicide.But most men: in their saner•moments do pay. attention tolaws and customsV that havebeen painfully worked out overthe centuries^past. , What isneeded is support for: the WorldCourt, whereby conflicting na-tions 'may be brought to legal

'..settlement just .as their owncitizens must submit to domes-tic laws.

This nation must not arrogateto itself the role s of world'spoliceman. If democracy, is tosurvive, it must be based onthe will of the world's people,which may be expressed in sim-ple human words like life, lib-erty and happiness.

In ratifying this treaty, theSenate will, be showing a.re-sponsibility not only for allAmericans but also for the mil-lions of men, women arid chil-dren beyond our borders.;. ;,

HEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 15 October

FOR NUCLEAR GAINS"Three physicists" were hon--ored here last night as recipi-i ents of the eighth Atoms ^for{Peace Award for their contri-

utions in promoting interna-onal cooperation fli the non-

development of nu-*clear energy.l',,r The awards, given in memory|of Henry and Edsel Ford, wentpio, scientists from Sweden, thenQilitedJ States and Pakistan, all"•associated with the Internation-i al< Atoinic Energy Agency. Thepgency Is; an intergovernmentalorganisation of 98 countries^lat wjiis ^set : up 11: years •-• agolaiderxlJnited 'Nations aegis,^Th^thr^e. physicists, : honoredIn 'a-'cel:6mpny at. .Rockefellerllnivefsii^r;' '•' are ' Dr: SigvardEklarid ; :'pf : Sweden, directorgeneral •;. of the agency; , Dr.

i^enry .-Jfle • Wolf -Smyth, Unitedptates representative on 'thefjjigehcy; and: Dr.' Abdus SalamSiSfj Pakistan, director of the

cyJS;1 International : Centerheoretical Physics in'

the American public seemedapathetic about the menace ofnuclear arms. He cited a reportmade for him last year by a12-member scientific panel,which.made the point, amongothers, that a 20-megatpn bombexploding . over Manhattancould kill six million of thecity'i eight million inhabitantsHe ^complained the1 reportaroused relatively little publicinterest, in the United States.

."General Thaht,

p'speaidhg at the award cere-t'lhony; renewed his appeal 'for^acceptance of tiie?freaty to halt:j$he -spread of nuclear weapons;Chichi was;, •apprpyed by the|||e'neral Assembly last :year andsjs^ov? :-awaiting!: ratification byI'goyenjmentSii including that ofpt?^Jnit^d;States.; ,: ;-- : , ? : ; / > •"' ''TJrt'i Secretary .General. ;;?gxi

i|'s'seia> his1' a'stoh'itehnieriti ih&~;-'-'.f.'j£*.-'-''"^ .- '" , ' ' • • • : • '•' . < ' - ^ ' - 1: -iii

KEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, 17 November 1968

OF A MOVE IN.U.HStates Without Atomic Arms

Offer a Resolution

By JUAN de ONISSpecial to iHe New York Times

UNITED NATIONS, N.Y.,Nov16 — A. variety of dissatisfac-tions with the treaty to halt thespread of nuclear weapons havebeen gathered into a draft reso-lution sponsored by a group o;large states that do not havenuclear, arms.

•The United States, the SovietUnion and Britain—the threenuclear-weapon, states that havesponsored the treaty—have allindicated opposition to the res-olution, which promises to feethe main- disarmament issue indebate in "the Political Commit-tee this year.

Although the resolution doesnot directly challenge < thetreaty, which has been signetby 80 countries, it does tend toraise new obstacles to wideratification of the treaty bysome important countries. ,

The. ratification process 'inthe United States and elsewherehas suffered setbacks since theSoviet occupation of Czechoslo-vakia in August and the victoryof Richard M. Nixon in thePresidential election this month,

Senate Did Not Act, ;TheN United States x Senate

had the, treaty before it forratification but did not actupon it after Soviet-.bloc troopsinvaded Czechoslovakia. Thisoccupation strengthened resist-ance in West Germany to ad-here to the treaty and haltedaction on ratification in manyother countries.

William C. Foster, the.UnitedStates disarmament spokesman,,who is here for the General As-sembly debate, has told somedelegates that if Vice PresidentHumphrey had won the elec-tion President Johnson wouldhave sought a special sessionof the'Senate to complete con-sideration of ratification thisyear.,

Mr. Nixon has said he willresubmit the treaty to the Sen-ate at the next session inMarch, but this delay has givenencouragement to opponents ofthe treaty to push for actionon measures :of disarmament,peaceful uses of nuclear energyland security against 'nuclearaggression that go outside theframework of the treaty.

Negotiations^was en-

majority offthfet General Assembly in June,was the result of six years ofnegotiations'^! the Geneva dis-armament conference

The treaty was followed upby a pledge made by the Unit

-ed States the Sbviet Union andBritain to act through the Se-curity Council to insure thesafety of arw^tete not having

lnuclear wea]r that ratifiedthe treaty. % *ff§xy and thepledge are considered by American and Soviet leaders to rep-resent the maximum area of

agreement between- them 5 onjcontrolling the .spread o! <nu?clear weapons: and pro.mVting1

peaceful uses of nuclear power.The draft United Nations 'res-

olution, says the treaty arid se-curity guarantee are not good'enough and calls for further Imeasures in disarmament 'anditransfer of nuclear technology.

The draft has been approvedby Italy, Japan, Yugoslavia,Pakistan, India; Brazil,. Argen-tina, Chile and Mexico. It wascirculated yesterday to the nu-clear powers as well as .'/to,other;,members of .the G(eijey;adisa|mafnent. /confererices p':T

NEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 19 November 1968

ffewfiasard to the Nuclear PactAn action at the United Nations General Assembly

illustrates the hazard involved'in the Senate's moveto- delay, until next year the United'States ratificationof the treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.Nine countries nbt possessing nuclear arms have nowintroduced a resolution likely, -at minimum, to delayimplementation of the nonproliferation treaty.

The resolution does not challenge the treaty as such,but it reflects" revived fears of non-nuclear .countriesthat! the self-denial Jnvolved in ratification will leavethem vulnerable to nuclear blackmail and far behindthe "haves" in nuclear technology. It seeks more spe-cific security guarantees 'from the treaty-sponsoringnuclear powers than those given last June, and moreelaborate machinery for assuring "have-nots" accessto nuclear scientific advance and to nuclear powerfor peaceful uses. ' . ; • " " • : ;•'"•";'

It is not the resolution's specifics so much as itspossible psychological effect on the fate'of the treatythat has led the United States, the Soviet Union andBritain to indicate opposition to the nine-nation draft.They fear this kind of initiative at the U.N. will spuran already formidable opposition to the treaty in WestGermany, a key country for implementation.

The tide for the nonproliferation treaty seemedirresistible last June, 'when it was overwhelminglyendorsed by the General Assembly and subsequentlysigned by. eighty nations. The-Soviet-bloc invasion ofCzechoslovakia revived old fears of non-nuclear coun-tries, particularly West Germany.

Senate opponents of the treaty seized on the Sovietaggression as an excuse for delaying ratification. Theywere aided decisively by Richard M. Nixon, who saidhe favored the treaty but'argued' that prompt Ameri-can ratification would "put the seal of approval" onMoscow's action. And thus the momentum was lostfor a treaty that had required years of' painstakingnegotiation .and that bears heavily on prospects forworld survival. - ' ., , . • .

When Mr. Nixon resumes the drive .for ratificationnext year, as he has'promised, he may regret havingbeen a party to delay in 1968. The new U.N. resolutionis only the first of many chickens: tiow^ threatening

/the nuclear '

MEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 28 November 1968

1CLEM TREATYJohnfeon Stiunds Feelings on

Summoning Senate.

wisHINGT,ON, Nov. 27(Reuflsrs)—Britain, became to-day the Jfirst nuclear power to

' ratify the: East-West treaty, tobar ]thef;.: spread- of nuclearweapons/ ":•'<•• • ' • • ' • • . ' - - - • '

In |a. -Washington ceremony,the British charge d'affaires,

rd : .E. Tomkins, handedBritish-.. instruments of

pation .; to;.. William . C.,:.director .of the United: Arms Control and'Dis-

armajnent Agency. 'Thp treaty --was signed by

Britajn, the United States- andRussia on:July 1." Eighty othernations :have;.:since signed it.-:,

The treaty cannot go ."-intoeffecl until it liasf- been ratifiedby Che'''three:- major powers.(United!-.States,-1 Russia, andBritajn) plus; 40 -ptheV nations:

Irejand and; .-Nigeria' havealso {ratified,-the ytreaty. . . .

MR fomkins said during .theceremony that Britain hopedits ratification'"will be seen asa significant step along : theroadf toward, the realization oft h e t t e a t y . : . . . .

InJreply,::-,Mr. 'Foster, /calledthe British.- ratificatibn':."a 'mile-ston^ .'in the history ~of thetreaty," and added: •- , . , • '• "The ^overwhelming numberof n|tipns which have.: alreadyjoine^ in [sighed] the treaty iscompelling, Hpstimony . to • the•conviction-:that the; path to'peace leads away from nuclearweapons—not toward them."

The United .States ratificationwas Jheid. up because of -the•refusal; 'by. the ;.Senate to'.actbefore the Presidential electionThe | Soviet-led -V- invasion ofCzechoslovakia also evoked'op-position in the Senate. ' " = . ' • • >

Rujssia was-expected to, waitiintil» United States ratificationis assured.

Johijson Weighs Senate Movei By ROY REEDSpecial to TUie New Yor-k Times

ANTONIO, Nov. '27 —The SWhite -House confirmedtodajs that President '' Johnsonwas Sounding put sentiment fora pr3-Christmas: session- of theSenate to approye the treaty toprevent the;. spread of nuclearweapons. - .

Mr; Johnson said, through apress* aide, that, delay by theUnited States - could , encouragefurther delay -;by other nationsthat ; had not -approved' ;thetreaty.'1

In Washington, Senate lead-ers Continued to react coollyto as special, -session. .SenateDemocratic' aIde)5.viound^sentiS'

:was¥:v Senate| tJ^fMr.^Jo

| son flad'littre/"cKance of'-push-ving!?1''ffiroiijgh'-'tfie treaty beforeithe expiration of his term'Jan.'20 without...:the . support, ofPresiflent-elect Mxon. ;

. Mr* l^Tixon'helped block rati-ficatipn: during:, the electioncampaign by arguing that Sen-ate approval ,rmight be inter-

. preteS as softness in the UnitedStates reaction ;;to the Soviet in-yasioh of Czechoslovakia.;

Nixon View ExplainedMeanwhile, [in New York,

Presi&ent-elect ;Richard M. Nix-on's Spress spokesman,;' RonaldZiegler,: said .jhat. Mr. • ivfixonwpul^'havej:nb..objection; to aspecial"isesSion but that.';'hisview|, tin,' the j treaty had not.changed. - ' ; . - ' • ; : . ,

*. Mri Mxon jsaid repeatedlypjurin^ : the campaign that he^ravored the .treaty but opposed'its ratification!;-'.at the '"presenttimefbfl thexground that anymajor gesture /of.- reconciliationwithttEe Soviet Unipn wouldrepresent an affront to the peo-ple <|f Czechoslovakia and all

|otherfe who had been outraged•jby t|e Soviet invasion.'•: He; also expressed fear thatthe |reaty woiild be rejectedby adSenate that was upset bythe Soviet invasion of Czech-oslovakia. He promised, how-ever," to review the situationafterljan, 20, Inauguration Day,and indicated that he /wouldpushjfpr ratification if the gen-eral diplomatic picture showedno further deterioration.

Torn Johnson, deputy WhiteHouse press secretary, said thatRobert D. Murphy, Mr. Nixon'sspecial representative to theJohnSon Administration, hadbeenlkept fully informed of thedevelopments.

He; said that the Presidenthad not decided on calling aspecial session, and that his de-cisioii would depend on manythings.

"Ham sure the President isglad to have the opinion of theSenators on what could beaccomplished on this," he said,reading from a prepared state-menfc

"Tfie President considers thenonproliferation treaty a most-important matter, and he isfearful that the delay in theSenate, may encourage delay:by other nations." , -,

President Johnson and-'Wfi-;cials]of. the Arms 'Control -..andDisaflnameht Agency, are saidto bel concerned over the oppo-sition to the treaty that is build-ing up in such countries asWestS: Germany, Italy, Israel,Japan and India, the key non-nucle'ar countries.

Thbse nations have alreadyexpressed strong reservationsabouj the treaty. _

Disarmament agency officialsfear [that if the United Statesdoes * not approve the treatyuntil Uhe Nixon Administrationbegins, the reluctant nationswill Begin raising once more allthe questions they have alreadythrashed out with the JohnsonAdministration.

Thjs, in effect, they say,^oultf'start the slow process ofapproval all over again.

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, 13 December 1968

ONU.N.AT01Attempt to Reactivate Croup

as Arms Forum Dropped.

ByJUANdeOiyiSSpecial to The New Yank Tdmes

UNITED NATIONS, N. Y.,Dec. 12-r-An attempt by a,group of countries that haveno nuclear weapons to createa new, permanent disarmamentforum was shattered today bythe opposition of the UnitedStates and the Soviet Union.

The sponsors of the attempt,including several countries dis-satisfied with- the treaty to jialtthe spread of nuclear weapons,agreed to put off their effortto reactivate the General As-sembly's dormant DisarmamentCommission until the Assemblysession next year.

The United States and theSoviet Union, co-chairmen ofthe Geneva disarmament con-ference, have fought the at-tempt to reactivate the com-mission, which would give non-nuciear states a sounding boardfor criticism of the understand-ings of the superpowers on

'nuclear issues.Reflects September Parley

The v attempt was led byItaly, Brazil, Yugoslavia, Ar-gentina and Pakistan. It re-flects decisions taken in Sep-tember by the conference ofnonnuclear states, which soughtstronger guarantees against nu-clear aggression, compliancewith comprehensive nucleartest bans by the nuclear pow-ers, and more international "aidfor peaceful uses of nuclearenergy by nonnuclear states.

The major nuclear powershave maintained that all thesequestions are being dealt within the Geneva disarmament con-ference, where the nonnuclearpowers are represented. Al-though the Geneva conference]

. was: cj;gated,,outside the United---'-'— '-- *-

out of the Geneva "confereSce1]early this year, was endorsedby the General Assembly June10. The treaty has been" signedby more than 60 countries andmust be ratified by the UnitedStates, the Soviet Union, Brit-ain and 40 other countries tocome into effect.

More Progress SoughtAmong the countries pressing

for reactivation of the UnitedNations Disarmament Commis-sion are several that have re-fused to sign the treaty or haveraised objections to the lackof movement by the nuclearsuperpowers to move aheadwith nuclear-test controls sincethe treaty was endorsed.

After lengthy negotiationsduring the current General As-sembly session; the nonnucleardissidents decided that theycould not carry a resolutiongiving the United Nations Dis-armament Commission strongterms of reference to deal with

' nuclear issues without incurringstrong opposition from the nu-clear powers.

They have agreed, instead, ona 12-nation draft resolution thatwill be presented tomorrow. Itasks the 24th General Assem-bly, when it meets next year,to consider convening the Unit-ed Nations Disarmament Com-mission.

The resolution also asks Sec-retary General Thant to ap-point a group of experts to pre-pare a report on the "possiblecontributions of nuclear tech-nology, to the?«eeonomic andscientific advancent:; of thedeveloping c ' '

HEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, 15 December 1968

Moscow Is Wow Thought toFavor Waiting for Nixon:—No Response Received

By. BERNARD GWERtZMAN1 ; Special to The New York Tiroes

• WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 —Administration officials saidtoday that they believed theSoviet Union now preferred -towait for President-elect1 Rich-ard M.,Nixori to take officebefore starting, the long-de-layed^ talks on' the limitationand reduction of strategic misj-siles,,. . . ' 'V^. ' ;>. . : , J - ."" . , : ' • • • ; • • ' • . •

This • conclusion .has". :beenreached, the officials said, part-ly; ''.because . Moscow,. has - nptritadjS '.'any 'positive responsei'ib.a ..Untied .States ;offer Nov. 25to begin 'the talks. :

The Russians were • oncepressing for'\a start in thesediscussions, which werd post-poned' after the invasion ofCzechoslovakia last August.But now they are telling Amer-ican diplomats informally thatit would probably be a wasteof lime to negotiate with theJohnson Administration unlessPresident Johnson had a man-date from Mr. .Nixon—some-thing he does not have.Curbs on Arms Race SoughtThe missile negotiations are

aimed at slowing the arms racefreezing the production of

I some types of missile and re-ducing the output of others.

[In Moscow, the Commu-nist party newspaper, Prav-da, charged that reportedplans for a NATO emergency

. fleet that could Ispeed tocrisis points represented a"threat to European securi-ty." Page 9.]The officials in Washington

said it was still possible that themissile talks might begin at theambassadorial level in the re-maining days of the JohnsonAdministration. But they saidthe prospects for a meeting be-tween President Johnson andPremier Aleksei N. Kpsyginwere regarded as yirtual|$|vtiili

".Mfc; Johnson-,- who '" '

(bycnr

l a s t ; . ; y e a r , r i t j v e .\w-ahirt6' begiji'the rrits'silein a meetiHg" -With th'e Sovietleader to emphasize/ the impor-iance of the topic:'He' is rerported to have asked Mv, fti^brito give his blessing.to such ameeting, either jn a: statementor by sending"&:h' o&erye'r.

' But Mr. Nixon, while riot ob-jecting to th'e Johhsori Admin-istration's dealing with theRussians has not given his en-dorsement to. a siimmSt meet-ing involving Mh Johnson,since this could cpmplicate hisown handling of foreign, policyafter he takes office Jan. 20.

The status of the missiletalks was presumably one ofjthe ssudje'cts discussed today,bySecretary of, State Dean Rusk;with, the Secretary-designate,;William P. Rogers. '

Mr. Rogers had breakfastwith Mr. Rusk Wednesday be-fore he was officially named tothe Secretary's post, fiut to-day's session was more exten-sive. The two men began theirtalks in the morning in Mr.'-Rusk's seventh-floor office inthe State Department, hadlunch in Mr. Rusk's private din-ing room on the eighth floorand continued their talks in theafternoon.

Talk of itiany Things

During a brief sessioft posingfor photographers, Mr. Ruskwas asked what they weretalking about. He replied, witha grin, repeating Lewis Car-roll's well-known lines:

"Of many things, of shoes,and ships, and sealing-wax, ofcabbages and kings."

Mr. Rogers "was asked whenhe would hold his first newsconference. He did not set adate, but indicated that he wasjust beginning to be filled in oninternational questions and washardly in a position to commenton anything.

Mr. Rogers is expected totake over a suite of offices onthe first floor of .the depart-ment on Monday—the same of-fices Mr. Rusk occupied whilepreparing to take over fromSecretary of State Christian A".Herter in 1961.

The missile talks have. ..beena subject of long discussionsbetween the United States -andthe Soviet

_ On-July 1 fliis year, the"twoGovernments announced thatthey had agree^uTtfpriiilcfpIp tohold negotiations. - 'A whiteHouse announcement that thetwo sides had agreed that Mr.Johnson and Mr. Kosygin' wouldbegin the talks at some neutralsite—probably in Switzerland—Was scheduled to be made onthe morning of Aug. 21.

But the invasion of '.Czecho-slovakia by Warsaw Pact fortieson Aug. 20-21 forced a cancel-lation of th'e announcement.

Soviet officials pressed forthe talks in subsequent weeks,asserting that the invasion wasan internal matter for the Com-munist world and should notaffect the start of arms controltalks.

Mr. Johnson is reoorted tohave been eager to begin thetalks. But he is said to havebeen persuaded by some allie<-in the North Atlantic Treaty Or-ganization that sur.h negotia-tions would permit the Rus-sians to believe that the worldwas not angered by the inva-sion of Czechoslovakia

After months of study, theAdministration decided in No-vember to tell the Russians it™a.s™ady- Mr. Rusk transmit-ted this information to Ambas-sador Attatoly F. Dobrynin onNov. 25, a day before the am-bassador returned to Moscowfor consultations.

HEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 17 December 1968

Takes Wo Position, DirksenSays, as Senate Initiative

Is Left Up to Johnson

HELMS TO STAY AT C.I.A.

President-elect to RetainHoover, Too—Talks With

Congress Republicans

By JOHN W. FINNEYSpecial to The Kaw Vorn Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18Through his legislative lieuten-.ants, President-elect Rihb'ard-M. Nixon tossed back to theJohnson Administration todaya decision on whether to pressin the new Congress for im-mediate action on the treatyto prevent the spread of nu-clear weapons.

The development occurredafter Mr. Nixon, who flew herefrom his New York City head-quarters, had also avoided pos-sible political controversy onanother flank by announcin;that he would retain J. EdgarHoover as director of the Fed-eral Bureau of Investigationand Richard Helms as Directorof Central Intelligence. Both of-ficials have powerful friends onCapitol Hill.

The Senate Republican lead-er, Everett McKinley Dirksen,after a meeting with the Presi-dent-elect, said that he per-sonally would have no objec-tion if the treaty \vas calledup in the Senate for approvalbefore the Nixon Administrationwas inaugurated on Jan. 20.

Objective of Nixon CampBut he reported that Mr.

Nixon was tailing no positionon whether immediate jaetipn,6hou]d be sought on

E'.whliin lias been beforeyit'efgjnce July.

Tfte immediate reac^JLc-r^onCaplfel Hill was that'-BelatorDirksen, with Mr. Nixon as asilent partner, had stroked adeft political backhand. For allthe verbal spin applied by theSenator, the statement left theAdministration with the unre-solved question of how to pro-ceed with the treaty.

From participants in themeeting of Republican legisla-tive leaders with the President-elect, it was learned that thiswas precisely the political ob-jective of the Nixon camp.

By remaining noncommittal,'the Nixon Administrationavoided getting itself in theposition of seeming to delayaction on the treaty and at thesame tune left tlie initiative on

istration had to reach somebasic decisions on the size of

I'libw to proceed up to the John-l'the .b^get and whether to ex-|: .:. ... :.., . e i tend the 10 ncr cent incomeson Aumm.s.rauon. ,surtax b j its nt ex.

Mr. Nixon met for more than|piratjc,n date of June 30.two hours today with Repub-ican Congressional leaders in

Mr. Ford said that the objec-tive of the Nixon Administra-

the transitional offices that had tion was to end the surtax, asbeen set up for the incomingAdministration in the new Ex-ecutive Office Building, twoblocks from the White House.

Mr. Nixon's first meetingwith the Republican leaderswho will be responsible forsteering his legislative programthrough a Democratic - con-trolled Congress dealt morewith procedures for coopera-tion than with legislative sub-stance.

The President-elect, who didnot answer any questions be-fore going off to see formerPresident Dwight D. Eisen-hower at Walter Reed Hospi-tal, announced that followingthe practice in past Adminis-trations he would meet weeklyat the White House with theRepublican Congressional lead-ers.

Basic Decisions PendingBefore working out a legis-

lative package to send to Con-gress, Senator Dirksen andRepresentative Gerald R. Ford,the House Republican leader.

promised by Mr. Nixon duringthe campaign. But whether thiscan be done, he said, dependsprimarily upon these factors:"The degree of budget control,"the economic condition in thenation and what happens in theVietnam war.

Out of the meeting cameadded hints that the Nixon Ad-ministration was consideringreorganization of some Gov-ernment departments and agen-cies.

One of the first legislativeproposals of the new Adminis-tration, Senator Dirksen re-ported, will be a request forrenewal of the ReorganizationAct, which permits the execu-tive branch to carry out reor-ganization plans unless theyare vetoed by Congress.

To accommodate the incom-ing Administration, SenatorMike Mansfield, the SenateDemocratic leader, has givenassurances, Senator Dirksenreported, that the Senate willexpedite action on Nixon Cabi-

in on Inauguration Day orshortly afterward.

As the crowning accomplish-ment of his Administration,President Johnson is believed towant to win Senate approvalof the treaty. From tlie remarksof Senator Dirksen, it was ap-parent that the President hadbeen sounding out Senate lead-ers on the possibility of obtain-ing Senate action before Jan.20.

Senator Dirksen went tosome length to please his oldpolitical friend, President John-son, by coming out more em-phatically than at any time inthe past in favor of the treatv.To that extent, the Senator alsosoftened the impression that itwas Republican opposition thathad been holding up action onthe treaty.

Senator Protects NixonBut the Republican leader

also protected the interests ofhis new Republican Presi-dent by refusing, no matterhow many different ways thequestion was put to him byreporters, to commit Mr. Nix-on when the Senate should acton the treaty.

Although the question hadbeen discussed at the legisla-tive meeting. Senator Dirksensaid that the President-electhad taken "no position."

net appointments so the new;! . .Dunu£- the, : ;C.;urip.a-feri>.L;VJVlk• made clear the Nixon Admin-Cabinet members can be swor'n^NixQn'-'S'aidi^dVatMt-^wdufd^b^jin^

appropriate for the UnitedStates to ratify the treaty im-mediately in view of the So-viet invasion of Czechoslovakia.Reflecting this position, con-servative Senate Republicans,with the aid of someDemocrats, succeeded in delay-ing the treaty in the SenateForeign Relations Committee tothe point where it was im-possible to bring the treaty upfor floor action before adjourn-ment.

Toward the end oF the cam-paign, Mr. Nixon said that hewould reassess his posi-tion after the inauguration andpress for Senate action if thediplomatic climate seemed fa-vorable.

But on whether the Senateshould act before tlie inaugu-ration, Senator Dirksen, un-doubtedly reflecting Mr. Nixon'sviews, repeatedly took the posi-tion that was something for theJohnson Administration and theDemocratic leadership in theSenate to decide.

Without a formal endorse-ment by Mr. Nixon, however,the White House, and moreparticularly the Senate Demo-cratic leadership, would havesome reluctance to call up thetreaty before the inaugurat ionand then have it run into pro-longed Republican questioningthat vvntld put pff Senate ac-tion until after J;m. :'Q.

WEW YORK 'TIMES, Wednesday, 18 December 1968

j; b'een made on the start1 of

Resolution Backed by BqthPowers Proposes Early

. Negotiation on Missiles

' By KATHLEEN TELTSCHSpecial to.THis New York'Tlmes'

UNITED:. NATIONS, 'N< y.,Dec.,17—A United Nations callfor Stalks between the SovietUnion1 and the United Statesto limit, missile systems: wasapproved today with .both • ofthe.;powers?endorsing it. '

The .Soviet .Union's; supportfor a resolution, -urging ialks"at an/ early: date" was re-peated...by. Yakov A. :Malik. justbefore' the. General Assembly'sPolitical Committee" voted itsapproval, 97 to 0. , < - ' • •! To';, many neutral observersthe' Soviet:' Union's 'reiteratedreadiness to open talks seemecdirected at the coming Administration of Richard M. Nixon,who visited here today.

It could also give the outgoing Johnson Administrationa. reason for seeking a summi'meeting. One Western repre-sentative remarked, howeverthat "time is running out fast.'

In the debate, William CFoster of the United Statesmade.no mention of prospectsfor .direct talks, leading itospeculation' that nov decisibn

f Mr;.Foster; announced to thei26-member Political Commit-tee that after consultation withthe other members,- the UnitedStates and the Soviet- Union,which serve as co-chairmen ofthe Geneva disarmament con-ference, had fixed March 6 forthe next round of meetings.

The resolution calling for So-viet-American talks to limitboth offensive and defensivemissiles, and other resolutions.Adopted at the current session,are expected to be given rou-tine and final approval Thurs-day or Friday, winding up ac-tion on disarmament at the23d Assembly.: Observers of arms debateswere inclined to feel that smallrather than significant progressljad'*been achieved, and one of-ficial offered the assessmentthat this was < a "period N ofparalysis" because the Czech-!dslovak crisis in August haddoomed immediate chances forSoviet-American arms accordsand the American elections had •postponed further the, oppor-tunities for new initiatives.

Invasion Upset Plan, The United States hadsought talks on limiting mis-sile systems for two years andin June received Soviet agree-ment to such discussions, onlyto haye the prospects dashedby the Soviet-led invasion of•Czechoslovakia.' Despite repeated urging fromBritain, Canada and a greatmany small states, it was wide-ly believed, Washington waswaiting for the Soviet Unionto pull its troops out of Czech-oslovakia before making a com-mitment., On the arms issue, this As-sembly has approved severalnew studies, including a reporton the possible threat of chem-ical and bacteriological warfare |to mankind, as well as one on"possible contributions of nu-clear technology to the econom-ic and scientific advancementof the developing countries.

;J¥"' study by the SecretaryGeneral. that was also re-quested would lead to the set--tirigoup of a service that would•uflde$ake j 'iiuclearj;j explosions•fancommercial purposes.,. ; • • •

~ • •—i- «'..J-I~-ri?_...S^i|.«a-lii,n-

Opposed' by Nuclear Natibns. Such' a'study would be. madm cooperation with the International Atomic EnerevAgency. This had been opposeby the nuclear states as dupleating a study by the agencyitself on this topic.

Of significance, arms experttelt, was the nuclear powerssuccess in sidetracking a driveby states without nuclear armsror the creation of a new disarmament forum. The nuclearpowers objected that such aforum would be used mainlyto air dissatisfactions with thetreaty to prevent the spread ofnuclear arms and would dis-courage further signatures ofthat pact.

-However, the nonnucleargroup succeeded in keeping.alive a means of putting pres-sure on the nuclear powers byvoting to have the next As-sembly consider convening thedormant 126-member Disarma-ment " -' ' • ' -

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, 20 December 1968

f\ v • i- * T 1.; 'Curbing, Nuclear'JThfe unanimous United Nations call for ' 'Soviet-1

Atheri'can talks "at an early date" to limit and reduce'nuclear missiles opens an opportunity for imaginativestatesmanship for the Kosygin, Johnson and NixonAdministrations. . Unless the talks are begun beforeJan. 20, a delay of many months and perhaps a yearor more appears likely— rat possible great costs to theworld. ; ;' :.. .; . • , .. - ; ' . ' ; ' ' ' . . :^Proposals by the military 'for $100 billion of .new

weapons willbe harder to, restrain if arms limitationtalks have not begun. Antimissile missiles and newstrategic offensive delivery systems will be far alongif- development and deployment continue unhamperedfor another year.-'The cbst .will have, to be reckoned not only inmoney but in the dangers of destabilizing the Soviet-American nuclear balance. The very possibility ofan arms control agreement, moreover, could be endan-gered. , American multiple warheads known as MIRV(I^ultiple Independently jtargeted Re-entry Vehicles)and Soviet mobile land-based missiles of the futurecould not be counted by satellite1 cameras. They couldmake arms control impossible without on-site inspec-tion far more intrusive than any Moscow has everbeen willing to contemplate. , . ._'. .'There is reason to believe that forward-lookingnegotiating positions have been adopted both inWashington and Moscow after two -years of bureau-cijatic infighting. With a delay of many months thecompromises that 'have .been reached inside the Soviet(Government could come unstuck. The sariie couldoccur in Washington., :• ." : , * ~ * ' . *

"3 "* ' r . • .

''-The chief obstacle to the missile talks at presentlies in their confusion with a questionable proposalfor a Johnspn-Kosygin ' summit conference to discusshot only missile curbs but the Middle East and otherissues/ . ^ . ( . • , .';'-,The President-elect uhderstandably sees little utilityin: a Johnson .twilight summit with Kosygin. Hisresistance evidently has led Mr. Kosygin to backaway from the meeting; with Mr. Johnson he has

f sought since August— a meeting which Mr. i Johnson,' rwho temporarily', shelved: summit plans after the

Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, is again ready to. iindertake.

^Unfortunately,- persistence in seeking an impossible.' summit undercuts chances' for the '.meeting that still

•is possible— a lower-level encounter simply to openthe missile talks, Mr. Nixon evidently 'does not opposesuch a meeting. The crucial question is whether heShould be willing to indicate support for it if Mr.Johnson were to abaadon his summit dreams. In thisicase, -the Russians surely would be prepared to gq;"' ' " ' i ' : ' *

, ."'• °<Mr. Johnson and Mr. -Nixon owe it to the peacebf the world to reach agreement on an approach ofthis kind before the objectives they both s.eek. are.;seriously prejudiced. • '

NEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 21 January 1969

i " . ' - • ; " • ' " -'•• " - • : • . ' • " • . - ' . ' '

From Moscow• !;':.;: J • • " . . • . ' : " " • : ' ' < i •' '• • ' "' ' •; •• Soviet spokesmen chose the morning of PresidentNixon's inauguration to" stress their eagerness tonegotiate with the new Administration on controllingnuclear missiles and other disarmament issues.

The Moscow initiative provides a hopeful settingfor progress toward the era of negotiation ratherthan confrontation, to which Mr. Nixon dedicatedhimself in. starting his candidacy at Miami Beach

;••:;"-•". ' . . . '• ; ' : <:-'~^l ':?&'.:"• ' ' : . . • • ' " ' . ' : " • . • " ' : ' ' ! ' ."• 'nearly six: months ago—a theme he'reiterated in 'his'.-Ihau'guralAddress yesterday. ; • - . - • > • • •

Talks.on arms control unquestionably belong highon any agenda for Soviet-American negotiation. ThePresident could contribute substantially to a favorableclimate for such talks by moving swiftly for Senateratification of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

The urgency of action to check the arms race isheightened by the new tensions and insecurity createdby the deployment of antiballistic missiles systemsand of rocket warheads that carry a multiplicity ofindependently targeted hydrogen .bombs.

But the apparent dominance in the Kremlin—atleast, momentarily—of elements interested in seekingadvances toward disarmament provides an openingfor exactly the kind of movement toward peace Mr.Nixon has made it plain he wants to achieve. Delay,accompanied by the stepped-up United States missileprogram- outlined in the last Johnson budget, couldbring a shift in Soviet policy—and even in tlie Kremlin

j, power balance—before talks get under.'way; . ' . : ' • - • ' : • • , : , • i

NEW YOSK'flMES, TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1969

Excerpts From SovietSpecial to'Thc New York Times

MOSCOW, Jem. 20 (Reu-ters)—Following, in a trans-lation provided by the SovietForeign Ministry, are excerptsfrom the Soviet statement ondisarmament as read todayby the chief Foreign Ministrypress spokesman. Leonid M.Zamyatin, at a news confer-ence here:

Guided by its fundamentalcourse in the questions of thestruggle for peace, the SovietUnion, together with otherpeace-loving states, wages anunremitting struggle for theimplementation of a broadprogram of disarmament, forremoving the threat of a nu-clear war and for curbing theforces of aggression.

. Further progress in solvingthe problem of disarmamentis an important factor con-ducive to removing the threatof war and to the lesseningof present international ten-sions.

It is not incidental, there-fore, that in the course of ex-tensive discussions held atthe last session of the UnitedNations General Assembly,delegates from a majority ofstates .expressed their con-cern over the state of affairsin the field of disarmamentand spoke in favor of takingeffective measures to lesseninternational tensions and of1

solving the complicated ques-tions of disarmament.

Task Termed RealizableTo bring about agreement

on specific problems of curb-ing the.arms race, includingthe problem of limiting thenuclear arms race, is, in theopinion of the Soviet Gov-ernment, a practically realiza-ble, though not an easy, un-dertaking.

The feasibility of it is borneout by the fact that in recentyears such Internationalagreements have been con-cluded as the Moscow treatybanning nuclear weapon testsin .the atmosphere, in outerspace arid under water, thetreaty on principles govern-ing the activities of states inouter space which prohibitsputting nuclear weapons intoorbit around the earth andplacing ^veapons of mass de-struction in outer space andon celestial bodies, and, fi-nally; 'the treaty on the non-prplifaratiGii; of.'-^jiuclear

' '

Of great importance forstrengthening peace and in-ternational security is thetreaty on the nonproliferationof nuclear weapons, the entryinto force of which wouldcreate favorable prerequisitesfor further efforts to stop thearms race.

The formalization andsigning of that important in-ternational document by amajority of members of theUnited Nations had great im-pact on the discussion of thequestions of disarmament atthe recent session of theUnited Nations General As-sembly. It was most reso-lutely emphasized that effortsshould now be made to bringabout a speedy entry intoforce of the nonproliferationtreaty. The Soviet Unionfully shares this point ofview.

Further Steps ConsideredAt the same time a natural

question arises: What furthersteps can be made on theroad to the limitation of thearms race and to disarma-ment?' The Soviet Governmentgave its answer in the memo-randum on some urgentmeasures for stopping thearms race and for disarma-ment which it submitted tothe twenty-third session ofthe General Assembly as animportant and urgent matter.

It can be noted withgratification1 that the memo-randum of the Soviet Govern-ment was the focal point ofthe Assembly's attention indiscussing the question offurther steps in the field oflimiting the arms race andof disarmament.

The memorandum raisesthe question of banning theuse of nuclear weapons asa high-priority task. Such astep would become an im-portant deterrent for thosewho would like to use theseweapons,- and would promotea healthier international cli-mate.. To eliminate the danger of

a nuclear war, it is necessaryto solve a-number of complexproblems relating to curbingnuclear rocket armament.The Soviet Government hasproposed that all nuclearpowers immediately enterinto 'negotiations on thecessation of nuclear weaponproduction, and the reductionof nuclear stockpiles followedby complete prohibition and

elimination of nuclear weap-ons. The Soviet Governmenthas also proposed that agree-ment be reached on a mutuallimitation and subsequent re-duction of strategic means ofdelivery of nuclear weapons.

Other measures proposedin the said document alsomeet the interests of allpeace-loving peoples. Worldtensions would be substan-tially reduced if effect weregiven to such proposals con-tained in the memorandumas the prohibition of under-ground nuclear tests, withnational detection means be-ing used to control such aban; the prohibition of nu-clear bomber flights beyondnational frontiers and thelimitation of navigation zonesfor rocket-carrying subma-rines; the prohibition ofchemical and bacteriologicalweapons; the dismantling offoreign military bases in theterritory of other countries;the establishment of nuclear-free zones in various parts ofthe world; the legalization ofsuch a regime as would in-sure the use of the sea bedand ocean floor exclusivelyfor peaceful purposes.

U.N. Decisions NotedThe discussion of disarma-

ment problems at the twenty-. third session of. the General

Assembly resulted in theadoption of a number ofdecisions on the problemsraised in the memorandum ofthe Soviet Government, whichcan play a positive role infurther negotiations on dis-armament.

Thus the General Assemblyapproved the resolution urg-ing strict observance by allstates of the principles andpurposes of the Geneva pro- .tocol of 1925 prohibiting theuse of chemical .and bacteri-ological weapons and inviting.all states to accede to theprotocol.

The General Assembly alsoadopted a resolution on theurgent need to suspend nu-clear and thermonuclearweapons tests, which, amongother things, urges all statesthat had not signed the Mos-cow treaty banning nuclearweapons tests in three envi-ronments to do so withoutdelay and expressed thedesire that the 18-nation dis-armament comrnittee- proceed T

to the elaboration of an in-ternational treaty banningunderground nuclear weap-ons tests.

The General Assemblywelcomed the agreementreached by the Governmentsof the Soviet Union and the.United States last summer onthe commencement of nego-tiations on a mutual limita-tion and subsequent reduc-tion of strategic nuclear de-livery vehicles, including de-fensive systems.

Readiness for TalksFor its part, the Soviet

Government deems it neces-sary to reiterate its readinessto start a serious exchangeof views on this importantissue. In doing so, we areguided by the fact that thesteps to curb the strategicarms race would serve theinterests of strengthening in-ternational peace and secu-rity.

One cannot fail to see thatthere are a group of countrieswhich, under various pre-texts, are seeking to delaythe entering into force of thetreaty on the nonproliferationof nuclear weapons. In par-ticular, such attempts havebeen made at the session ofthe General Assembly.

And what can be said ofthe persistent efforts madeby a number of NATO mem-bers, first of all by theUnited States, Britain andthe Federal Republic of Ger-many, to intensify the activi-ties of that military bloc?

There can hardly be anydifference of opinion as tothe fact that the speeding upof military preparations, thesubversive activities againstsocialist countries, the ex-pansion, of the existing

sources of international ten-sions and the enhancing ofthe cold war atmosphere—all this is contrary to the in-terests of peace and un-doubtedly raises certain newobstacles in the searcli roragreed decisions in the fieldof disarmament.

European and internation-al security cannot be safe-guarded through the armsrace or inflated war prepara-tions—they can be safe-guarded on the basis ofpeaceful cooperation, a gen-uine relaxation of interna-tional tensions and the solu-tion of existing internationalproblems by peaceful meansat the table of negotiations.

Naturally the Soviet Unionand other socialist countries,taking into account the ag-gressive policies of the NATObloc and its military prepara-tions, must take care of thefurther strengthening of thesecurity of the countries ofthe socialist community andlend assistance and supportto the states engaged in thestruggle for their independ-ence!

The solution of disarma-ment problems involves nosmall difficulties and requiresstrenuous efforts by allstates.

As is known, the membersof the 18-nation disarmamentcommittee agreed to renewthe work of the committeein March next. The SovietGovernment hopes that theforthcoming session willreach agreement on newsteps leading to the limita-tion of the arms race and todisarmament.

For its part, it will continueto do all in its power tobring about the realization ofthis noble aim.

NEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 21 January 1969

Terms Curb on Arms Race;;''Realizable' but Not Easy

'—9-Point Plan Pressed

Excerpts - from the : Moscow- • ' . ' . • statement, Page 2.

By THEODORE SHABADSpecial to Itoe N«w York Times

i; MOSCOW, Jan/ 20—The So-viet Government affirmed to--day, the day;. of Richard M.Nixon's inauguration, that itwas ready ito "start a serious^exchange .of views" on the con-.trol of nuclear missiles.'-.••" The..:,Russians /emphasized.that they were "not 'more in-terested than the United States"in beginning the talks, whichwere agreed to last July butwere delayed by tensions re-sulting from the Soviet-led mili-tary invasion of Czechoslovakia,Aug. 20-21.

Soviet views on the projectedmissile talks and on nucleardisarmanent in general werereiterated at a news conferenceheld at the Foreign Ministryby Leonid M. Zamyatin, presschief, and Kirill V. Novikov,head of the ministry's Interna-tional Organizations Depart-ment.

Difficulties AcknowledgedIn a statement, Mr. Zam-

yatin reviewed a nine-pointdisarmament plan proposed lastsummer by Premier Aleksej N.Kosygin and pressed • by theSoviet delegation during thesession of the United NationsGeneral Assembly last fall.

"The problem of limiting thenuclear arms race," the state-ment said, "is, in the opinionof the Soviet Government, apractically realizable, thoughnot an easy, undertaking."

In answer to questions, Mr.Zamyatin denied that the newsconference had been timed de-liberately for Mr. Nixon's in-auguration as President.---; --,<.•„;•>

Mr. Novikov added: ., r^"The disarmament"' issue- 'has

been a timely one for any gov-ernment of any'country, includ-ing 'both the old and the new!Administrations in the United!States. But >if the Nixon Ad--

ministration takes into accountthe points made in the state-ment, it'will to a certain ex-tent contribute to improvingthe international situation." •

The announcement followedthe Johnson Administration'snotification to Moscow lastNov. 25 that Washington wasready to begin the talks. At thattime Secretary of State DearRusk was said to have askedthe Soviet Union, through Ambassador Anatoly F. Dobryninits view on the time, place anclevel of participation.

Mr. Nixon was reported tohave approved of the JohnsonAdministration's initiative.

Commenting on reports fromWashington that the incomingSecretary of Defense, MelvinR. Laird, has been cool to theidea of an early beginning ofmissile negotiations, Mr. Novi-kov said that the agreementto hold the talks "is in force.'r

Invasion termed No Factor"When the representatives of

the Nixon Administration areready to sit down, we'll beready," he added.

The Soviet Union has adoptedthe view that there was noreason why its intervention inCzechoslovakia should affectefforts aimed at resolving EastWest issues.

& nine-point disarmament

jaekage, 'which includes long-;'amiliar Soviet proposals, calls jfor a prohibition on the useand production of nuclearweapons, restrictions on stock-piling such weapons, and lim-itations on flights of nuclearbombers and on movements ofnuclear submarines.

Other proposals are a pro-hibition on the use of chemicaland bacteriological weapons,the elimination of military basesfrom foreign territory, agree-ments on regional nuclear-freedisarmament zones, a ban onthe military use of the oceanfloor and a broadening of the1963 nuclear test ban treaty toinclude underground explosions—the only ones still permittedfor signatories.

The Soviet package also in-cludes the pending negotiation;on a reduction of stocks ofnuclear missiles as well as otherstrategic delivery systems suchas bombers and submarines.

Talks on Sea Bed PossibleAccording to American ana-

lysts, another proposal thaiseems ripe for negotiation isthe one on the use of the seabed for peaceful purposes only

The United States sees nobasis for talks on most of theother Soviet suggestions eitherbecause the point involved isconsidered essential to Ameri-can defense or because theproblems of policing disarma-'ment measures are too vast.The Soviet Union steadfastlyrefused to admit outside inspec-tors on the basis that they mayengage in espionage.

Discussing the proposed banof the use of nuclear weapons,for example, Mr. Novikov re-

terated today the Soviet stand Ithat such a prohibition-couldnot be subject -to internationalcontrol, but should simply bestated in an international con-vention similar to the 1925Geneva protocol barring theuse of chemical weapons.

The outgoing Secretary ofDefense, Clark M. Clifford, ina report made public Saturday,urged the Nixon Administra-tion not to delay the beginningof missile talks with the SovietUnion.

Mr. Clifford warned that So-viet land-based strategic mis-siles were increasing rapidlyand might match United Stateslevels by mid-1969.

Time Believed Short !Pentagon officials who favor'

early negotiations have feltthat time is a critical factor.They point to the developmentin the United States and pre-sumably in the Soviet Unionof mult iple warheads for mis-siles and the rival beginnings ofantiballistic missile systems asnew, complicating factors inarms control.

On another issue, Mr. Zam-yatin said at the news con-ference that the Soviet Gov-ernment had expressed agree-ment to a French proposal thatrepresentatives of the four bigpowers—the Soviet Union, theUnited States, Britain andFrance—in the United NationsSecurity Council meet to dis-cuss the situation in the MiddleEast.

The French proposal ap-peared to correspond to theRussians' own efforts to givethe four powers a more active'role in achieving a settlementin the area.

WASHINGTON POST, R-iday, 31 January 1969

By Bernard D. NossiterWasblngton Post Stall Writer

Defense Secretary MelvinLaird yesterday dismissed as a"graduate study . . . 'graduatethesis'* a report by an award-winning Budget Bureau exam-iner disclosing tha most mul-tt-billirni-doUar weapons sys-tems fail to perform up totheir promised standards.

That was in public, at a Pen-tagon news conference.

Later, Laird called TheWashington Post to say thatthe issues raised in the docu-ment "deserve the most care-ful study." He also disclosedthat two q£ Ms Mghefrt.4ra.nlj-.ing .ai|esraj;el preparing '..re-

on the controversialpaper. '

At his public news confer-ence yesterday, however, theDefense Secretary strove tominimize the. study by suggest-ing that . it was a juvenileproduct. He said it erred inthe reasons it gave for thecancellation of two weaponsprograms. He contended thatit had used an improper meas-ure of reliability and said thatwhat mattered was notwhether a weapon lived up toits contractual promise butwhether it out-performed itspredecessor.

But Laird declined to dis-cuss the heart of the study —its disclosure that 14 of 23

But He Says It's Under Studyj fjmodern major weapons sys-tems break down at leasttwice as fast as their specifica-tions provide. The record forthose begun in the 1960s, thereport shows,' is worse thanthose of the 1950s.

In his talk with a Washing-ton Post reporter, Laird saidhe had not had time to exam-ine the performance data. Buthe said he had asked Jils sub-ordinates to report to him onthe matter.

The author of the disputedreport, Richard Stubbing, 38,is regarded by Defense pro-

curement specialists as one ofthe Budget Bureau's mostastute examiners.

After graduating from NotreDame and the Harvard Busi-ness School, he spent fouryears at Eastman Kodak as acost engineer. Stubbing cameto the Budget Bureau in 1962and hag risen to one of thehigher career levels, grade 14.At the Bureau, he has beenthe examiner for Air Forceballistic missiles, Navy air-craft, tactical-aircraft and stra-tegic of tensive'forces.-

In 1966, he was one df.three

Budget Bureau employes toreceive the Director's Profes-sional Award for:

"Outstanding achievementas an examiner in the militarydivision and for unusual ca-pacity in analysis of broadranging programs and man-agement problems. . ."

In the academic year 011967-8, Stubbing, togefter withother outstanding career Gov-ernment officials, was selectedto attend the Woodrow WilsonSchool at Princeton. There, heanalyzed the data he had accu-mulated in the Budget Bureauand produced the study thathas aroused so much interest.

Secretary Laird, 46, gradu-ated -from Carleton College in1942.- -and won "Man of the

Year" awards in 1960 from theAmerica Cancer Society, Na-tional Association of Mental

!t Health, National Research"Foundation to Prevent Blind-ness and the American Asso-ciation of Medical Collegesand Universities.

Ladrd suggested to Theif Washington Post that public

discussion of unreliable weap-ons might shake the faith ofpotential enemies. This, be in-dicated, could weaken Ameri-can negotiators entering armsreduciton talks with the So-viet Union.

At his press conference,however, Laird suggested thatthe Stubbing report wasn'tvery Important because it wasnot originally classified.

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, 31 January 1969

T/ze Wore/ War: A 'Sufficiency'of ArmsBy JAMES RESTON

In his first news conferenceas Secretary of Defense, MelLaird said that the goal forU.S. nuclear strength was"sufficient power to deter theenemy," but he added, "I havenot given up the idea of main-taining a superior force."

This is a typical politician'sdefinition: a word for thehawks — superiority. — and aword for the doves—sufficiency—both vague enough to bemeaningless.McNamara's Figures

The arithmetic of the armsrace is more precise. FormerSecretary of Defense RobertMcNamara recently gave thesefigures on U.S. strategic offen-sive forces: 1,000 Minutemenmissile launchers, carefully pro-tected underground; 41 Polarissubmarines carrying 656 missilelaunchers, with the majorityhidden beneath the seas at alltimes; and about 600 long-range bombers, approximately40 per cent of which are keptalways in a high state of alert.

Is this "sufficient power todeter the enemy"? Mr. Mc-Namara clearly believes it is."Our alert forces alone," hewrote in Look magazine latelast year, "carry-' more than2,200 weapons,! each averaging

more than the explosive equiv-alent of one megaton of TNT.Four hundred of these deliv-ered on the Soviet Union wouldbe sufficient [that word again!]to destroy over one-third of itspopulation and one-half of itsindustry. All these flexible andhighly reliable forces areequipped with devices that as-sure their penetration of Sovietdefenses."

Mutual SuicideAt the same time he testi-

fies that even such an apoca-lyptic attack on the Soviet Un-ion would not prevent theSoviets from launching . anequally devastating attack fromnuclear-proof bases and subma-rines upon the United States."The fact is then," McNamaraconcludes, "that neither theSoviet Union nor the UnitedStates can attack the otherwithout being destroyed in re-taliation. . . ."

In military terms, the argu-ment over maintaining U.S."superiority" rather that U.S."sufficiency" is not very sig-nificant. The U.S. nucleararsenal is already "superior,"though the Soviets are catchingup. but American superioritymerely means that we wouldhave the power to destroy theSoviet Union two or three times

over while they could only wipeus out once. As Churchill said:"Why make the rubble bounce?"

In political terms, however,boasting of our "superiority"and crying for negotiationswith the Soviet Union on the"basis of superior strength"merely make effective negoti-ations more difficult if not im-possible. Moscow has its hawksand doves too, and the morewe insist on "superiority" theharder it is for them to settlefor "inferiority" or even to gettheir military leaders to talkabout slowing down the armsrace.

President Nixon seems tohave understood this point."When we talk about superi-ority," he said in his first pressconference, "that may have adetrimental effect on the otherside." In short, he is moderat-ing his language, though thereis still no evidence that eitherhe or Secretary Laird has de-cided to moderate the policy.

Not until they put their owndefense budget before the Con-gress will it be possible tojudge whether they are de-escalating the nuclear race aswell as the language. The lastJohnson budget suggests not adecrease but an increase of over$4 billion in strategic weapons.When Mr. Nixon gets around to

this item, we will have a betternotion of what he means by"sufficient."

Moreover, this could be themost important decision he willmake in the first year of hisnew Administration. We are ata moment now when both sideshave a "sufficiency" of nuclearweapons and a surplus of home-front problems as well. TheSoviet Union is now asking fornegotiations on offensive anddefensive strategic weapons,and will no doubt draw its ownconclusions from any substan-tial increase in the Pentagon'sbudget.'One Hand Tied . . .'

The United States does notwant to go into these talks, Mr.Laird told the press, "with onehand tied behind its back,"which seems a reasonableenough thing to say until youlook at the fantastic arsenal hehas-in his other hand.

"With words we govern men,"said Disraeli, and there is plentyof evidence to support hispoint. Isolation, domination,containment and nuclear supe-riority all have a long andtragic history. Maybe "suffi-ciency" will have better luck,but we still don't know whatMr. Nixon and Mr. Laird thinkit means.

'No'onNonprolifefationTo the- Editor:. • t v. , .

One of the first .matters ofimportance .for the new Admin-istration is Senate considerationof the so-called "Treaty onthe Nonproliferation of NuclearWeapons."

The nonpro'liferation treatyis intended to prevent nuclearpowers from giving or sellingnuclear weapons' to nationswhich presently do not havethem, and ostensibly would pre-

' vent the non-nuclear nationsfrom ever obtaining them.

However, the treaty is lookedupon with suspicion by ourallies .in Western Europe. Bypressuring nations such as -Ger-many and Italy to sign, itagainst their will, the UnitedStates will harm the cause of

. Western unity:Ratification of the non-prolif-

eration treaty would increasethe danger of the United Statesbecoming involved in a majorwar, since it would result indemands from non-nuclear na-tions for American protectionagainst nuclear aggression. Itwould thus double our oppor-tunities to get involved in some-. .;' ' '

'States .ffrpm, the;.-,country,..;.$E.,.grouf ^^puMfies::ieft;-.but "ofthe" "security pact. Thus thetreaty is actually a step towardwar, rather than toward peace.

This would not seem to bean opportune time for the Unit-ed States to signify thatare willing to disregardpromises broken by the invaers of Czechoslovakia. Ratifica-tion of the treaty while invad-ing troops remain in occupationof Czechoslovakia would debasethe meaning of all treaties andwould "suggest an attitude oftolerance toward those nationsthat are prone to regard treatiesas scraps of paper.

Since changes, and presum-ably improvements, were indi-cated during the recent elec-tions, one improvement wouldbe to delay or discard, and tonot ratify, a faulty nonprolifer-ation treaty. _... . ..

F, EDMUND RYDER|

; -with ?

HEW YORK TIMES,

Says Reversal of Johnson'sSentinel Program WouldHurt U.S. in Arms Talks

By WILLIAM BEECHERSpecial ta Tin N«w Y«k TJawi

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30—De-fense Secretary Melvin R. Lairdsaid today that the .UnitedStates, by moving ahead withthe Sentinel antiballistic-missile,system, would strengthen itsbargaining position in possible Italks with the Soviet Union on!limiting missiles.

"I do not want to be in aposition when we go into thesetalks, Jf we do, with one handtied behind pur back," he said.

To reverse unilaterally theJohnson Administration's Senti-nel deployment decision, hesuggested, would put Americanarms control negotiators in a"weak position."

Mr. Laird said he favoredmissile superiority for the Unit-ed States, but that he was per-fectly willing to describe thisas nuclear "sufficiency."

President Nixon said ear-lier this week that military "suf-ficiency" was perhaps a betterterm, "than either superiorityor, parity." Mr. Laird said therewas :no essential difference -be-

tinfeLf'antiballistic-niissile sys-tem ls.;a:$5-biliion to $10-billonproject; intended to providewhat is; known .as a thin shieldfor American : cities against

• .missile attack.The system^ which will take

five years-to install around thecountry, 'ia designed to detectapproaching missiles by radarand to Intercept them withnuclear-armed antimissile mis-siles.

The Defense Department has•said that the system would notprovide protection against soph-isticated Soviet missiles butwould create a shield againstthe cruder Chinese weapons.

At his first news conferenceas Defense Secretary, Mr. Lairddiscussed a variety of Pentagonactivities. These included thefollowing:

<IA high-level study, to beheaded by Deputy Defense Sec-retary David R. Packard, ofthe circumstances under whichthe intelligence ship Pueblo wasseized by North Korean gun-boats last January and of theadequacy of Navy proceduresto insure that any future piracyattempts fail.

iPlans by Mr. Laird to visitSouth Vietnam "in the not toodistant future" to assess thewar. Although North Vietna-mese infiltration has increasedthe last six to eight weeks, hesaid, he does not believe amajor enemy offensive in thenear future would succeed.

CA detailed-review of a num-ber of decisions by the previousAdministration on weapons,force levels and military pay tosee whether some budget ad-justments, either up or down,were called for. Among theprograms he singled out forscrutiny were the C-5 super-transport, which has been criti-cized in Congress because ofrising costs; the Navy's F-14fighter plane contract, whichwas recently awarded to theGrumman Aircraft EngineeringCorporation; the Navy ship-building program, and theArmy program to develop anew battle, tank, which hasrun into technical difficulties.

[During the Presidential cam-paign, Mr; Nixon talked of thedanger of a "security gap" andcalled for; a program: of main-taining nuclear superiority overthe Soviet' Union; ' ,

i He criticized the Johnson Ad-ministration's policy of 'nuclearparity, which he said wouldallow the Russians to achievenear-equality in strategicmissiles.

1 At his first Presidential newsconference last Monday, Mr.Nixon said in reply toiquestion: 4 I >'

1"6ur objective is i to Betliat -the United States has .suf-ficient military power to .defendoiir interests and to maintainthe commitments which this Ad-ministration determines are intne interest of the United Statesaround the world. I think suf-ficiency is a better term, actu-ally, than either superiority or

' ' ' • '.| A Semantic Argument•Mr. Laird seemed uncomfort-

able about getting into asemantic argument. The term"sufficiency" is a perfectly goodone, he said, pointing out thatit' was first used by a Republi-can, Donald Quarles, when hew;as Air Force Secretary in theEisenhower Administration.

;: But, Mr. Laird quickly added, I"I am not giving up the idea ofmaintaining a superior force inthe United States."

The Pueblo study, Mr. Lairdsaid, will focus on "the kind ofprotection given these ships, tosee that incidents like this can-not happen again, to see thatwe are in a position where therights of all individuals are pro-tected at all times and to seethat they are and have been inthis case." .

The Defense Secretary saidthat allied forces would con-tinue to "keep sufficient pres-sure" on the enemy in Vietnamto ensure that friendly forceswere not overrun.

One year ago, North Viet-namese and yietcong forcesopened a massive offensive inSouth Vietnam. Mr. Laird saidthat despite increased infil-tration in recent weeks Gen.Creighton W. Abrams, com-mander of American troops inVietnam, was confident thata similar effort would not beallowed to unfold.• The Pentagon's budget studyIs part of an Administration-wide review called for by Mr.Nixon, Mr. Laird said. Mr.Packard will be in charge ofthe effort in the Defense De-partment. .

"We are carefully going over[the previous Administration's$79-billion budget] to see thatthe priorities which have beenestablished are correct," hesaid.J'to Its final days, he said, the

Johnson Administration decidedagainst going ahead with a re-vjisipn of the military pay sys-t|m 'that would eliminate' mili-tary fringe benefits; suchu^as.]

l service. ;andK.Jin|d' niilitary salarieg|

HEW YORK, TIMES,, Tuesday,-^ Febn' • " • :";;-"- " > : - ^ ' ' - ^ i - T

Decides to Await 4-PowerMideast Parley and Senate

' Vote on Nuclear Treaty

TEST OF CLIMATE IS AIM

Nixon Wants Signs Moscowand American Public AS

Ready for Agreement:;

By PETER GROSE :^Special to The New York Times '•_•;•

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3—TheS[ixon Administration is defer-'ring its decision about startingmissile disarmament talks withthe Soviet Union until the ;re-sults are in on two forthcomingtests of the, domestic and inter-national political climate. .""

The President plans to askthis week for Seriate approvalof the treaty to ban the spreadof nuclear weapons. The extentof opposition will be regardedby some Presidential advisers asa measure of domestic attitudes

I toward the Russians. Senateconsideration of the treaty was.postponed last year amid bitterj feelings provoked by the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Key advisers hope that a So-viet interest in reducing worldtensions will become- apparentduring four-power meetings atthe United Nations to discussa Middle East settlement.

Reply to Be Sent SoonThe National Security Coun-

. cil decided Saturday to accept'a French proposal for suchmeetings. State Department of-ficials said 'the formal replyto President de Gaulle wouldprobably be sent this week..

Though missile talks and theMiddle East need not be direct-ly related in their substance,the Administration is under-stood to believe that the moodcreated by the Mideast discus-sions could be significant indetermining 'whether missiletalks{yfould!be fruitful. ••.-.'.'^•.

could be taken for some i•yet —- the Senate is not 'likelyto take up the nuclear treatyuntil early in March — an earlydecision to open the missiletalks is not considered likely.

Preliminary Talks UrgedSome advisers are urging,

however, that at least prelim-inary technical talks with theRussians not be delayed intothe summer, as Defense Secre-tary Melvin R. Laird hintedlast month.

The Johnson Administrationset up the talks last( sum'meraimed at limiting and eventual-ly reducing both' superpowers'stocks of'.offensive and defen-sive nuclear weapons, systems.President Johnson hoped toopen them at a summit meet-ing with Premier Aleksei N.!Kosygin, but with .the Augustinvasion of Czechoslovakia thisplan was scuttled.

At his confirmation hearingbefore the Senate Armed Serv-ices Committee on Jan. 14, Mr.Laird reflected" the views ofsome leading Republicans insaying that the action in Czech-oslovakia had "set back" theproposed missile talks at leastnine to 12 months.

Other Presidential advisersare urging greater flexibility intiming the start of negotiations,which will be highly technicaland almost inevitably will goon for many months, if ,notyears. The treaty to ban thespread of nuclear weapons wasfive years in negotiation.

President Nixon indicated athis news conference last weekthat the question of opening the Imissile talks was being consid-ered'in the broad context ofEast-West relations.

'"What I want1 to do," Mr.Nixon said, "is to see to it thatwe have strategic arms talksin a way and at a time thatwill promote, if possible, prog-ress on outstanding politicalproblems at the same time; forexample, on the problem of theMideast, on other outstandingproblems in which the UnitedStates and the Soviet Unionacting together can serve thecause of peace."

It has since become clearthat the Administration is judg-ing the matter of timing on thebasis of political mood — inthis country and abroad —and not holding out for abroadpackage settlement of manyoutstanding issues with the So-viet Union.

The attitude of several Na-tional Security Council mem-bers seems to be that there isnp.ppinCm starting the missiletalkssuniess there is reason tqbelief that the Russian^/t$a>:

. • • • - ; • y;.-_'_._ .ii.--.,* rea(

Ipexpeetation "ofthat .the talks would "be desir-able,' the Administration; 'Hasalready moved to clear up; briefactor that could inhibit theopening of negotiations withthe Russians.

Nixon's Trip ConfirmedThe White House confirmed

today that President Nixon wasmaking tentative plans to tourWestern European capitalswithin the next 60 days. A,basic tenet of the President's!foreign-policy thinking hasbeen that he does not want tomeet with Soviet leaders be-fore he has conferred with theEuropean allies. I

To do so, it was reasoned,!would only invite problems inWestern Europe, where diplo-mats and officials have alreadyexpressed fears of a UnitedStates-Soviet "deal" over theirheads.

By making the long-rumoredtrip at the earliest possible mo-ment—most diplomats had notexpected such a Presidentialtour until after the scheduledApril meeting of the NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization inWashington—the President isin effect clearing the decks fortalks with the Kremlin as soonas they are judged desirable.

Soviet Urges U.S. ShiftBy THEODORE SHABAD

Special to The New Yorlc Times .

MOSCOW, Feb. 3—A leadingSoviet political commentatorvoiced hope today that theNixon Administration wouldmake changes in United Statespolicy toward Europe.

The commentator, NikolaiPolyanov of Izvestia, the Gov-ernment newspaper, made itclear that the policy shifts theSoviet Union had in mind in-volved partial American with-drawal from Europe.

Contending that. past Amer-ican policy in Western Europehad been discredited, Mr. Polyanov said.

"The Americans do not havean automatic vote in resolvingquestions relating to the Europeof the future."

He stated these Soviet expec-tations at the end of a lengthyreview of American cultural,economic and political influencein Western Europe.

The Soviet press has beendisplaying increasing interest inthe problem of European secu-rity in recent days, pressingMoscow's proposals for a con-ference of Eastern and WesternEuropean nations, recognitionof existing frontiers, and ac-knowledgment of the existenceof two sovereign German states.

The Soviet press has beeneagerly analyzing recent policyrecommendations made by vari-ous study groups in the UnitedStates as a possible clue to thecourse of the new Administra-tion. Pronouncements by-Pres-ident Nixon's advisers haye^alsobeei|: closely watched. ...,J'M,^

NEW YORK TIMES, Saturday, 8 February 1969

iet, Urging Bonn1

To Sign Atom Pact,Pledges Generosity

By DAVID BINDER' Special to. The New York Times

BONN, Feb. . 7-—A highlyplaced source said today thata Soviet'note delivered yes-terday offered generous con-sideration "of West Germaninterests if the Bonn Govern-ment signed the internationaltreaty to bar the spread ofnuclear weapons.

The note brought about a"sudden- change in the weath-er" here, according to thesource.

It was delivered to ForeignMinister Willy Brandt by Am-bassador Semyon K. Tsarap-kiri at a moment when thedomestic political dispute be-tween liberals and conserva-tives over the treaty threat-ens to paralyze the coalitionGovernment.

Moscow has tried to al-lay West German fears ofSoviet "nuclear blackmail" byoffering assurances on threeessential points, it is reported.

These are that the SovietUnion .'views the .nucleartreaty as a major contribution,

toward peace in^general andspecifically toward improve-ment of relations with West"Germany; that, upon signing,the"West Germans would enjoyfull rights to engage in peacefulatomic -energy developments,and that Moscow views its dif-ferences with 'Bonn as ulti-mately subject to United Na-tions authority.

-Relations between Bonn andMoscow have been worseningsteadily over recent years,although both governmentshave maintained that therewere areas, such as civil avi-ation, where they could co-operate

On the surface the assur-ances would appear to go along way toward eliminatingWest German worries that theRussians might use the pactto hinder atomic research fora peaceful purpose or to inter-fere otherwise in domestic afrfairs.

Bonn's Approval ExpectedThe Soviet note and the an-

nouncement by President Nixonyesterday that he intends toseek West German signature tothe treaty during his visit hereare viewed in senior Govern-ment circles as gentle but ir-

'. resistible big-power persua-sion.

• However, despite the causticdomestic controversy over thetreaty, which boiled over inthe Bundestag, or lower houseof Parliament, this morning, theconviction in knowledgeable

•quarters is that West Germany^will sign-it and will not be the^last country to do so.• • Today the Minister of. Sci-entific Research, Gerhard. Stol-

Itenberg, said that West Ger-' many was incapable of produc-ing nuclear weapons now and

':was not interested in develop-; ing such capability in the fu-ture.

He made the comment dur-ing a news conference on theFederal Republic's developmentof nuclear reactors for gener-ating electric power.

Concern Mounts oh Berlin.' While the new Soviet dec-laration has created a certaindegree of relief — ChancellorKurt Georg Kiesinger is spend-ing his second consecutivefW.eekend in the South Germancountryside — concern is-.'nojyAmounting ori another, issue ,—'

:>The city, isol'ate'd HO -miles;.inside Communist East Germanyarid protected by the Westernallies, is to be host to PresidentNixon Feb. 27 and to the WestGerman Federal Assemblyseven days later.

Some Bonn officials hope Mr.Nixon's visit will ward off So-viet and East German Commu-nist threats of "dire conse-quences" in retaliation againstthe meeting of the Federal As-sembly, at which the new WestGerman President is to beelected.

It was learned tonight thatWest Berlin authorities plannedto ask President Nixon to makea speech during his half-dayvisit in the city. In contrastwith the public' appearance ofthe late President Kennedy in1963, the Berlin Senate wantsMr. Nixon to give his addressin a large factory.

East Germans Warn AnewSpecial to The New York Times

BERLIN; Feb. 7 — In thesecond warning in two days,East Germany said officiallytoday that it would take actionagainst the convening in WestBerlin of the West GermanFederal Assembly.

Following the warning to theBonn Government, the EastGerman Minister of the In-terior, Col. Gen. FriedrichDickel, addressed a note toMayor Klaus Schiitz of WestBerlin,' telling him the cityGovernment must assume "fullresponsibility" for the measuresEast Germany said it wouldhave to take. '/General Dickel's protest was.

taken to indicate the Com- \munist regie's intention to!interfere at least temporarily jwith free access to and from.Berlin. Mayor Schiiltz rejected-

ithe East. German note. • ;

NEW YORK TIMES, Monday, 10 February 1969

It Spends Far More ThanU.S. on Defense Systems,

the Secretary Asserts

By JUAN de ONIS;,; •;peclil' to The Bfew.rork Time's ' •.

retary of Defense ;'Melvin R,Laird said today .that , the 'SovietUnion was far outspending theUnited States, in deployment ofdefensive nuclear missile sys-tems. ' . . . . " . - . „ • ' .

Mr. Laird said the Sovietbuildup in antimissile missiles,particularly around Moscow,was far greater than the levelforeseen 12 months ago whenMr. Laird was a member of theHouse . subcommittee on de-fense appropriations that stud-ied the: United States nucleardefense system.

Mr. Laird's comments weremade on the Columbia Broad-casting System program "Facethe Nation" against the back-ground of a temporary halt lastweek in the construction of theUnited States "thin" Sentinelsystem of defensive missiles inlight of Congressional opposi-tion- - , ,. . '^ ; • • • • ' !

• ; fhe'Sedreta'ry «aid= tfie^Sentif

stST7 <gr* > IS TSt" SneE system, which ncommunity opposition fromBoston to Hawaii over theproximity of missile sites, wasunder a review that is to pro-duce a decision, to be publiclyannounced, .in early March.., Mr. Laird said Defense. De-partment calculations indicatedCommunist China would betechnically capable of delivering an intercontinental nuclearBallistic missile against a Unit-ed States target before the endof 1970..

The major security considera-tion for the United States, how-ever, is the prospective buildupin offensive .nuclear capabilityby the Soviet Union, particu-larly by Russian naval units,in the period 1972 and 1973,Mr. Laird said.' He said the Nixon Adminis

tration was looking to what theRussians do to influence theParis talks oh a Vietnam set-Itlemeiit ,and the discussion inthe United Nations'on a MiddleEast peace settlement beforedciding on United States stepson disarmament discussionswith the Soviet Union.

"I think that we have toshow some progress, not onlyin Paris but also in the MiddleEast, before we move into talkswith the Soviet Union as far asantimissiles, offensive and de-fensive missiles arid the wholearms limitation question," Mr.Laird said.

'Signs' AwaitedThroughout the half-hour in-

terview, Mr. Laird indicatedthat the United States wasawaiting . "some signs" fromthe Soviet Union that an "enof cooperation" between th<two powers was possible oninternational issues.

"I think those signs of prog-ress have not moved forwardas rapidly as I would like tchave them move forward," hisaid.

The Soviet Union has indi-cated to the United Stateswillingness to open at an earlyopportunity talks on limitationof antimissile systems, whictrepresent a potential expendi-ture of billions of dollars f01both countries if matching de-tensive systems are constructed,. Mr. Laird's comments sug-gested that the' Nixon Administration expects the Soviet Union to take steps contributin.to peace in Vietnam and a se1tlement of the conflict betwee:Israel and its Arab neighbor:before proceeding to the proposed talks on nuclear 'issue

Mr. Laird said the Pentagoestimated Soviet spendinganti-missile .systems during ;ttlast, two years to^have IbeeSj^

• ' - v ' • ••United States- C> .f§i-•,..-«.». 3 , l-.-: ...il-,-a-i.-i.SiSiiSJ

v ; i ,Aims ' f in- "Sincevthe Soviet-Union's' grfrssnational product, or total outputof goods and4services, is onlyhalf that of the United States,Mr. Laird said, the Soviet effortwas in a ratio of 7 to 1 toUnited States efforts in nucleardefense.

The Secretary indicated thatUnited States troop withdrawalsfrom Vietnam would not moveahead of'results in the Paristalks., He said the immediate UnitedStates objectives in these talkswere an effective demilitariza-tion/of the border zone betweenNorth and South Vietnam,agreement on the; level oftroops to be maintained in SouthVietnam by North Vietnam andthe United States, and exchangeof prisoners.

Only after some progress de-velops in these areas, he said,will the United States be in aposition to reduce the level ofits forces in Vietnam. ,

He said he would be visitingSouth Vietnam shortly to studythe situation, with an eye tothe capability of the South Vi-e(tnamese forces to assume agreater responsibility, fp^Sthe •military confrQhta|i6ri;;-wIt;pOTenemy. 7 :te£^£*iiSi&M

NEW YORK TIMES,, Wednesa/=iy,.l-19 February 1969

Concedes Weapons TreatyObligates U.S. to Enter

Arms Control Talks

ByJOHNW.FINNEYSpecial to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18—TheSenate Foreign Relations Com-mittee extracted a concessiontoday from Secretary of StateLWilliam P. Rogers that • thej United States, under the treatyto ban the spread of nuclearweapons,- would have an obliga-tion to enter into strate-gic arms talks with the SovietUnion.

Mr. Rogers expressed hopethat such arms control negotia-tions could begin within thenext six months and indicatedthat preparatory talks were al-ready under. .way<-\ -_. ::,,,

'But* Mr. R-ogjrs'1 left Unelearthe Administration's 'position onwhether the United Statesshould start deploying a ballis-tic missile defense system be-fore entering into the negotia-1

tions.Contention by Laird

At one1 point, under a cross-fire of questioning from com-mittee members opposed to suchdeployment, Mr. Rogers voicedthe hope that the arms controltalks could precede a decisionon deployment of the Sentinelmissile defense system.

This position seemed at vari-ance with that of Defense Sec-retary Melvin R. Laird, who hasbeen .contending that deploy-ment of the Sentinel systemwould strengthen the UnitedStates' bargaining hand in ne-gotiations with the Russians.

But at another point Mr.!Rogers took the position thaw'' Sal-ism requires-'that--;

f**CVp»sr't'>!vi*'T¥ ""J 41 -*r*w~f--"'-~ifyf?rrsfv~::'''"''PfV'"•*'•*">"•[a^..c,ertain Imutuality" "andj;tar-[gii'e'd.'.that the treaty would?nb'tprevent the United States fromproceeding with deployment ofa missile defense system.

While Mr. Rogers was testify-ing, Mr. Laird was indicatingat a Pentagon news conferencethat the Defense Departmentfavored proceeding with de-ployment of the Sentinel sys-tem but revising it to make itmore effective than the systemproposed by the Johnson Ad-ministration.

The Deputy Defense Secre-tary, David M. Packard, whojoined Mr. Laird at the newsconference, said that in its cur-rent review the Defense' Depart-ment was not considering ba-sically different alternatives tothe proposed Sentinel systembut was, rather, studying vari-ous deployment options. One ofthe options under review, Mr.Laird said, is the moving ofsome of the Sentinel basesaway from population centers.

In his first public appearancesince becoming Secretary ofState a month ago, Mr. Rogerstestified for three and three-quarter hours in support of thetreaty.

With first one argument,then another, Mr. Rogers.soughtto avoid linking.the treaty tothe issue of whether the UnitedStates should deploy a missiledefense system.

Gore Wins ConcessionBut under persistent ques-

tioning, particularly by Sena-tor Albert Gore, Democratof Tennessee, Mr. Rogers fi-nally conceded that under Ar-ticle VI of the treaty, the Unit-ed States would undertake acommitment to enter into armstalks -with the Soviet Union tocurb the deployment of defen-sive as well as offensive strate-gic missiles.

Under Article VI, "Each ofthe parties to the treaty under-takes to pursue negotiations ingood -faith on effective meas-ures relating to cessation ofthe nuclear arms race at anearly date and to nuclear dis-armament, and on a treaty ongeneral and complete disarma-ment under strict and effectiveinternational control."

When the treaty was beforethe committee last year, thearticle went virtually unno-ticed. But now it has beenseized upon by the committeeas one way to build up a caseagainst deployment of the Sen-tinel system.

The committee.broached thesubject ^gentlyrat^fifst,. SenatorJ. W. Fulbright, Democrat ofArkansas, the committee chair-man, asked in almost a casualmanner whether there was not"a little inconsistency" in urg-

.ing: ratification of the treaty;• while the. United States accel-erated the arms race by pro-ceeding to deploy a missile de-

• fe'nse.-' system* • ' ,

s '.' Inconsistency Den ied?" ' ' •There is no inconsistency

Mr. Rogers countered, because"realism requires that there bea certain mutuality and that iswhat we are hoping for."

The clear implication of hisanswer was th_at in negotiationsthe Soviet Union, which is de-ploying a missile defense sys-tem around Moscow, woulchave little incentive to halt itssystem if the United Statesunilaterally refrained from de-ploying one.

The questioning turned sharp-er and more prolonged withSenator Gore. His essentialargument was that under Arti-cle VI the United States wouldbe committed to enter intoarms control negotiations withthe Soviet Union dealing withdefensive as well as offensiveweapons.

If Mr. Rogers stated that thearticle was meaningless andnonbinding, he would alienatesome of the nonnuclear statesthat regard the article as oneof the significant concessionsmade by the United States andthe Soviet Union in draftingthe treaty. But at the sametime he obviously desired notto get the Administration inthe position of being bound bya generally worded article.

To the Gore argument, there-fore, Mr. Rogers offered a seriesof rebuttals. The treaty, he ar-gued, deals with the prolifera-tion of atomic weapons to newnations, not with the prolifera-tion of weapons among the'present nuclear powers.

Then he argued that the arti-cle represented a hoce thatthe nuclear powers might enterinto arms negotiations some-time in the future. And finally,he shifted to the argument thatthe article did not single outmissile defense systems for ne-gotiations but rather referred tothe over-all problem of the nu-clear arms race.

Senator Gore then got theSecretary to acknowledge thatdeployment of missile defensesvstems now represented the"big issue" in the nuclear armsrace. Noting that the SovietUnion had expressed a willing-ness to enter into negotiationsto curb deployment of such sys-tems. Senator Gore finally askedwhether the ratification of thetreaty, with its Article VI,would not commit the UnitedStates to enter into such negcf-tiations.

"Yes, sir," responded Mr.Rogers. |

At one point Mr. Rogers said,that the-nonnuclear states didnot have to sigir the treaty tocontinue, to -receive peaceful,atomic assistance from thejUnited-f States. This -point was

, deliberately left ambiguous by.the State Department last year.

MEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 25 February 1969

>eri Huclear Door .gf|n an almost offhand manner, the Nixon -^istration appears to have thrown away orie'Sf-tlie1 'Few-inducements at the command of the nuclear powersto persuade reluctant non-nuclear states to acceptthe nuclear nonproliferation treaty. This inducementinvolves the threat of cutting off peaceful atomic as-sistance to any country that refuses to sign the treatyor "accept International Atomic Energy Agency safe-guards over its atomic activities.

The treaty's Article III clearly enunciates this threat.Under the article, the nuclear powers undertake notto provide fissionable material to non-nuclear statesunless the material "shall be subject to the safeguardsrequired by this,article."-It'also states that "the safe-guards required by this article shall be applied on all"fissionable material "in all peaceful activities withinthe territory" of the recipient state.

JThe meaning of the article would appear to be self-evjident. If they want tp receive atomic assistance, thenon-nuclear states either have to sign the treaty orplace their atomic activities under international inspec-tion—in effect accepting the treaty.

(Largely at the insistence of the Atomic Energy Com-mission, which has its own parochial interests in pro-moting atomic exports, the Administration now hasplaced American interests in bilateral atomic cooper-ation above the obligations of the treaty. The inter-pr|etation of Article III offered by the Administrationbefore the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hasbeen that it only required:inspection of the fissionablematerial furnished by the" United States. Under thisinterpretation, for example, Israel could receive Amer-ican assistance in building a large nuclear desaltingplant or India could receive uranium fuel for itsAmerican-built Tarrapur atomic power plant eventhough they-did not sign the treaty or place all theiratomic activities under, international inspection.

:By this interpretation the Administration hasopened up a large loophole in the acceptance and en-fqrcement of the treaty. What incentive, for example,'wjould Israel or India have to sign the treaty if theyknew that" they could continue to receive atomic as-sistance: asnonsignatories? Or what assurance wouldthe United*(States have' that its internatronally.,in;.:

spected atomic assistance on one.-:prqJi|t5-^aB n<gi?in<]directly helping a country to devdop^a weaponscapacity in an uninspected area?

Now that the Administration has opened this loop-hole, it is up to. the Foreign Relations Committee toclose it in reporting out the nonproliferation treaty.The committee should make clear that, it interprets .Article III as meaning that a country cannot receive \assistance unless it signs the treaty or places all its Iriuclear activities under international inspection. If 'the United States wants to close the door firmly

j against the_ danger or proliferation, that is the only1 possible* mtf&Rretation of Article III.

NEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 26 February 1969

Approval, 14-0, Clears Wayfor Action • on the Treaty

to Halt Arms Spread

By JOHN W. FINNfiYSpecial to The New YwkjTJiSncsi'; ;•!,

WASHINGTON, E§b., 25 —The Senate Foreign" RelationsCommittee approved withoutdissent today the treaty to pre-vent the spread of nuclearweapons, clearing the way forprobable American ratificationnext month.

The committee also movedtoward adoption of a resolutiondesigned to curb what it re-gards as a proliferation of for-

ieign commitments by the Unit-ed States. The sense-of-the Se*n-ate resolution calls upon theexecutive branch not to enterinto any further foreign com-mitments without the "affirma-tive action" of Congress.

The nuclear treaty was ap-proved, 14' to 0, with SenatorThomas J. D.odd, Democrat ofConnecticut, voting. "present."Floor debate on the. treaty isexpected to start late nextweek. Senate approval is re-garded as certain.

With Senate approval, theNixon Administration will bein a position to ratify thetreaty next month, some ninemonths after the treaty was ap-proved and signed by the Unit-ed States.

.The belated American ratifi-cation is expected to lead toapproval of the treaty by theSoviet Union and sortie non-nuclear states, such as WestGermany and Japan, that haveexpressed reservations ;abouttaking vows of nuclear liabsti-nence.r-- .Vi- ./ ./ .• . '.•;•'';•;'^v;,?V

clear -.powers: pledgelJnoi^to" dis-tribute atomic; Weapons and the

,nonnuclear states pledge not toacquire such weapons.

The treaty goes into effectwhen it has been ratified bythe United States, Britain andthe Soviet Union plus 40 othernations—a point that the StateDepartment now expects willbe reached by next fall. Thusfar the treaty, has been signedby 87 nations but ratified byonly nine, including Britain.

The treaty was submitted tothe Senate last July by Presi-dent Johnson. The committeeapproved it for the first timelast September, 13 to 3, withthree Sentors abstaining.

Despite considerable prod-ding by the Johnson Adminis-tration, however, the SenateDemocratic leadership put offconsideration last year afterPresident Nixon, then the Re-publican Presidential nominee,said that immediate ratificationwould be untimely in view ofthe Soviet invasion of Czecho-slovakia.r On the basis of the vote to-day, it was apparent that muchopposition to the treaty hadevaporated, particularly amongRepublicans, now that Presi-dent Nixon has taken the position that ratification would ad-vance his policy of negotia-tion rather than confrontationwith, the Soviet Union.

But the Administration isnow confronted with a ForeignRelations Committee that istaking a closer, more criticallook at the treaty's terms andthus raising questions that theState Department and the ArmsControl and DisarmamentAgency .would have preferred thebe left unaske.d'S' Much of the committee's dis-

cussion today, for example, cen-tered on whether, under Arti-cle III, the United States couldgive nuclear assistance to acountry that did not accept thetreaty or refused to place allits atomic activities under in-ternational inspection, andwhether Article VI obligatedthe United States to enter intoarms control negotiations withthe Soviet Union.

Article III specifies that anuclear power may not furnishatomic assistance to any non-nuclear-weapons state unlessthat state has accepted Inter-national Atomic Energy Agencyinspection over all fissionablematerial in all its nuclear facili-ties. Left unclear is whetherthe nonnuclear-weapons statemust also be a signatory to thetreaty.

Article Calls for TalksUnder Article VI, the nuclear

powers undertake to enter into"good faith" negotiations tocurb the atomic arms race.'For its own diplomatic bar-

gaining purposes, both withthe1 Soviet Union and-some'ofthe reluctant nonnuclear states,the Administration would havejpreferred that the UnitedStates interpretation of thetwo articles be left somewhatambiguous.

By approving the treaty atthis time, committee members,such as.. Senator George D.Aiken of Vermont, the rankingcommittee Republican, be-lieved they had strengthenedPresident Nixon's hand on hiscurrent European trip in per-suading Western Europeancountries to sign and ratifythe treaty.

Partly to avoid embarrassingPresident' during his trip,

however, the . committee de-cided to postpone action on

what has come to be knownas "the national commitmentsresolution."

Partly in reaction to theVietnam war and partly be-cause of a desire to reassertSenate authority in makingforeign policy, the committeeapproved about two years agoa sense-pf-the-Senate reso-lution calling upon the execu-tive branch not to commitAmerican troops to foreignhostilities without positive ap-proval by Congress.

Ready Tor action by the com-mittee, now, however, is amuch broader resolution call-ing upon the executive branchnot to enter into any foreigncommitment, military or non-military, without first obtain-ing "affirmative • action" byCongress, such as through, ap-proval of a treaty or conven-tion.

HEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 2? February 1969

;flieliht Way to Ratify '^" -".-,r. i-.-.- •?' ':"••••• • /1 ; •, , . • ^' i.

The Senate1 Foreign Relations Committee hasapproved without dissent the treaty to ban the spreadof nuclear weapons, but its responsibility does not endwith the 1-4-to-O vote. United States interpretation oftwo articles has become of prime importance in win-ning treaty ratification by non-nuclear countries, andthe committee's report to the Senate next week couldprovide essential impetus and clarification.

First, the report should clear away the ambiguitiesleft by an Administration interpretation of Article III.This article restricts the provision by nuclear powersof fissionable materials for peaceful uses to non-nuclear countries that place all their atomic activitiesunder international inspection. Its purpose was to'induce nuclear "have-not" states to ratify the treatyand accept the International Atomic Energy Agencysafeguards it requires. The committee should make itclear it accepts no modification of this requirement.

Article VI, adopted at the demand of key non-nuclear nations, commits the nuclear powers to "pur-sue negotiations in good faith on effective measuresrelating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at anearly date and to nuclear disarmament."

A Foreign Relations Committee majority believes—and so do we—it would violate the spirij of this articleif the United States proceeded with development of theSentinel antiballistic missile system before attempt-ing the promised negotiations.

Secretary of State Rogers has told the committeeonly that he,"hopes" negotiations with Russia can belaunched before any decision to .continue on the ABMroad is made. But Defense Secretary Laird obviouslywants .to .proceed regardless. A -strong statement bythe committee majority Could assist those Administra-tion forces resisting the militaryt on .this, issue.

After inexcusable delay, American ratification of thenonproliferation treaty early next month seemsassured, but the manner In which Washington carriesout this action—the significance it attaches to all thetreaty commitments—will have much to, do with its;«ccep;t.aji6e';arpund the world. **:>; <\ '%•

NEW YOW»: TIMES, Sunday, P MOV-.-.V-

Laird Backs Plan Designedto Increase Protection and

Facilitate Arms Talks

COST WOULD BE HIGHER

Defense Department Hopesto Reduce Opposition to

the Sentinel System,

By WILLIAM EEECHERspecial to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 1 -r-The Defense Department isdrafting a proposal for a slight-ly larger, more expensive anti-missile system that, it hopes,may increase 'protection againstSoviet missiles, improve chanc-es for successful arms talkswith the Russians, and lessenopposition around the countryand in Congress to deploymentof the system.

The proposal, if it passes' afinal review by top defense of-ficials, is expected to go toPresident Nixon next week as.one of the first matters ofbusiness before him after hisreturn from Europe.

It is known on good authori-ty that the plan is endorsed byDefense Secretary Melvin R.Laird. He has personallybriefed key Congressmen on it.

Tile Pentagon lias been con-ducting a high priority reviewof the Sentinel antimissile sys-jtern for. nearly a munch, after'a rash of protests from com-munities where sites had beenselected and criticism of theprogram from many membersof Congress. •

Some Details of ProposalThe proposal now favored

by top Defense officials woulddo the following things:

' <IMoye ' some of the long-range Spartan missile sitesfrom cities such as Boston and.Chicago, where local resident1"'have exprcsse c-L in abot 1he ppssit btv of a nncleii dc

tident

spunl jins^iles neat Mvrurtf nvn?intercontinental ballistic, mis-

, sile sites and strategic bomberbases.

^Increase radar coveragealong the coasts of the UnitedStates to guard against sub-marine-launched missiles.

<JDelay the start of construc-tion while Army engineers makenew land surveys, to determinewhere best to locate the newdefensive missile sites. Under!the new plan, while radar equip-ment and computers 'would go'in earlier, no missiles wouldbe deployed until about 1972.

The Sentinel missile programadvanced by the Johnson Ad-ministration would have costS5.8-billion to install. The newsystem will cost about SG.3-billion, it is now estimated.

The proposed Johnson sys-tem, announced in September,1967, called for Spartan mis-siles at a minimum of 15 citiesaround the country. The siteswere selected to provide blan-ket protection for the entirenation agairist the modest num-ber of missiles CommunistChina was expected to have by1975. The plan also called for a

radaf'sitesl', .. ••1 f h^ktionale behind *he re-jriehted plan is complex. Asexplained by knowledgeableAdministration officials, itwould serve several purposes.

Could Complicate Attack

It would complicate a pos-sible surprise attack by theSoviet Union. Officials notethat the approximately 70 longrange antiballistic missile mis-siles that the Russians havearrayed around Moscow have"complicated" American ICBMplans for destroying targets ineastern Russia in the event ofwar. Additional ICBM's andspecial penetration devices inthe missiles are required to en-sure that an attack against suchtargets would get through thisdefense, even though it is anadmittedly light defense.

Addin Sprint missiles aroundAmerican strategic missile andbomber bases, which the Rus-sians would have to knock outfirst to try to prevent heavyretaliatory fke, United Statesplanners say, would reduce So-viet confidence of gettingthrough successfully. Thisshould decrease the temptationto consider a first strike, of-ficials say.

The radars-that pick up ap-proaching enemy warheads and'direct Spartan and Sprint mis-siles on intercept courses canhave anywhere from one tofour "faces" to cover as manypoints of, the compass.

Radars along the coasts willbe given not only a northern 1face but also another facingseaward to ensure that theycan protecS against missilescoming in from offshore sub-marines as well as from ICBM'scoming in across the north po-lar region.

Soviet Force GrowingIt is now estimated that the:

Soviet Union, if it continues iits current rate of construction,'will exceed the 41 nuclear-powered Polaris submarines innumber by about 1974. It's es-timated that the Russians nowhave in service and under con-;struction 12 to 15 of a newclass of nuclear powered sub-marine with 16 missiles each.

Communist China is believedto have only from one to three1

diesel powered missile subma-;rines with only three missile;launching tubes each.Long range Spartan sites have

been announced for locationclose to about 15 cities. Specif-ic sites had only been selectedin Boston, Chicago and Seattlewhen Mr. Laird stopped allsite clearing work pending theDefense Department review.

Many critics questioned whysuch sites, to provide area cov-1

erage of the whole. countryagainst the 25 to 75 .IGBM'sChina is expected to have inthe mid-1970's, could not beinstalled further from popula-tion centers.

The Army's answer was thatthe closer-in locations wouldenable fairly inexpensive addi-tion of Sprint missiles nearcities 10 years hence if the sec-ond generation of ChineseICBM's carry penetration aidesto enable some of them topierce the shield of long range-Spartans.

Could Weaken OppositionBut the Pentagon now be-

lieves that future improvementsin the Spartan will enable it tokeep pace with any futureChinese improvements and pro-vide as much protection fromfarther out. Such a move mightalso tend to defuse some of thelocal opposition to installationof defensive missiles, Adminis-tration sources say.

By stretching put the deploy-ment time, officials say, theUnited States could enter talkswith the Russians on limitingstrategic offensive and defen-sive missiles and explore theprospects of agreement forsome time before any defensivemissiles are deployed.

The Moscow defensive sys-tem, when completed, is expec-ted to have only about 100ABM's [antiballistic missiles].But the Russians have begunto test an advanced ABM sys-tem in a remote site.

American officials are de-termined to try to convince theRussians not to deploy a heavyABM system because this wouldforce the United States to in-stall multiple warheads onmany of its ICBM's to ensurethey could penetrate the de-fense. Maintaining the abilityto respond to a first strike bydestroying half the Soviet pop-ulation is the heart of thisGovernment's strategy for de-

ing by either of the two super-powers, it is felt.

Defense officials say thatalthough Congress has previ-ously approved the Sentinelsystem proposed by the lastAdministration, if the reorient-ed ABM system is decided on,the Nixon Administration willask Congress to vote on the

along the coasts of the UnitedStates to guard against sub-marine-launched missiles.

•JDelay the start of construc-tion while Army engineers makenew land surveys to determinewhere best 'to locate.' the newdefensive missile sites. Underjthe new plan, while radar equip-'ment and computers'would gojin earlier, no missiles would]he deployed until about 1972.

The Sentinel missile programadvanced by the Johnson Ad-ministration would have cost$5.8-billion to install. The newsystem will cost about $6.3-billion, it is now estimated.

The proposed Johnson sys-tem, announced in September.1967, called for Spartan mis-siles at a minimum of 15 citiesaround the country. The sitesiwere selected to provide blan-ket protection for the entirenation agaipst the modest num-ber of missiles CommunistChina was expected to have by1975. The plan also called for a

tion of Sprint missiles nearcities 10 years hence if the sec-ond generation of ChineseICBM's carry penetration aidesto enable some of them topierce the shielc1 of long range-Spartans.

Could Weaken OppositionBut the Pentagon now be-

lieves that future improvementsin the Spartan will enable it tokeep pace with any futureChinese improvements and pro-vide as much protection fromfarther out. Such a move mightalso tend to defuse some of the „=,local opposition to installationof defensive missiles, Adminis-tration sources say.

By stretching put the deploy-ient time, officials say, thesay.

United States could enter talkswith the Russians on limitingstrategic offensive and defen-sive missiles and explore theprospects of agreement forsome time before any defensivemissiles are deployed.

The Moscow defensive sys-tem, when completed, is expec-ted to have only about 100ABM's [antiballistic missiles]But the Russians have begunto test an advanced ABM sys-tem in a remote site.

American officials are de-termined to try to convince the:

Russians not to deploy a heavyABM system because this wouldforce the United States to in-stall multiple warheads onmany of its ICBM's to ensurethey could penetrate the de-fense. Maintaining the abilityto respond to a first strike bydestroying half the Soviet pop-ulation is the heart of thisGovernment's strategy for de-terring nuclear war.

The reoriented Sentinel pro-gram currently favored by theDefense Department would in-clude about 700 Spartan and300 Sprint missiles. But sinceInone of them would be in-stalled in silos until 1972, therewould be plenty of time tonegotiate a mutual limitationagreement that would keepABM's at a lower level in bothcountries, officials say.

The United States would tryto combine this with a freezeon ICBM's and strategic bom-bers.

If the Soviet ABM's andICBM's were limited to rough-ly present numbers, therewould be little need for Sprintsaround Minuteman sites, andthis portion of the proposed.missile defense might be bar-gained away.

Thin ABM systems in bothcountries, however, would stillprotect against an attach froma lesser nuclear power—suchas China, France or Britain—as well as against a small ac-cidental or unauthorized 1;. jnch-

either of the two super-. it is felt.

Defense officials say thatalthough Congress has previ-ously approved the Sentinelsystem proposed by the lastAdministration, if the reorient-ed ABM system is decided on,the Nixon Administration willask Congress to vote on the

JTHE NEW YORK TIMES, 1S69

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S most difficult decision inthe early days of his office was whether to pressfor a military solution in Vietnam or to seek a- nego-

tiated settlement. From his military leaders in the fieldand from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington camemaximum pressure for stepping up the war. The Presidentwas told that North Vietnam would continue its attacks inthe South unless there was clear and specific evidence thatthe United States was prepared to become directly involved.Those who urged this view on the President said they werecertain that North Vietnam would not dare to confrontAmerican military might,

President Johnson thereupon ordered U.S. combat.units into the field. The direct intervention of the UnitedStates, however, did not bring about the expected result.Instead, North Vietnam stepped up the pace of the war,

'bolstered by'increased military supplies from the Soviet'Union.,-At this: point, the President publicly declared thatno military solution, to the war was. possible and urgedHanoi to come to the negotiating table. U.N. Secretary-

decbys to one armed missile, activating the defense andcausing it to expend most of its explosive payloads onunarmed attackers. Radar devices have no way of discrim-inating between decoys and destroyers. Moreover, it takesonly one penetrating armed missile to destroy a city, creat-ing a hurricane of fire that can rage over hundreds ofmiles.

One thing is certain: once an ABiM system is installed,its advocates will be no less energetic in pressing for fundsfor a full decoy system and for more powerful warheads.And, once the decoy phase of the nuclear arms race is infull development, it will be claimed that the Soviet Unionintends to disadvantage the United States by going under-ground with its major industrial and defense facilities, its.utilities, and its key government, b.'ireaus. We.-have nochoice, it will be said, except to go underground ourselveswith even more of our establishment because of our greaterconcentration of industry and population. Cost: anywherefrom ?300 billion to $500 billion.

The resultant atmosphere of tension and terror and

through good laws and good structure. This meant prevent-ing runaway power situations. Today, the system of checksand balances has become seriously impaired through boththe massive spending power of the military and its abilityto take action and to create situations in the field thatforce the hand of the President.

Is it claimed that the President's hand is forced onlyby the actions of other nations ? Secretary of Defense Mel-vin Laird said as much when he justified his position bypointing to what he described as initial steps taken by theSoviet Union in building its own ABM system. It is theaction of the Soviet Union, he insisted, that creates the

-...laeednfqr, an American- system1 of anti-ballistic installations.Yet^ine hollowness- of this argument was demonstratedwhen'he was asked by U.S. Senators whether the best wayto resolve this problem would not be. to seek enforceableagreements with the Soviet Union under whieHJbdth coun-tries would forgo ABM, development. It wag pointed out

"

for a military solution in Vietnam or to seek a- nego-tiated settlement. From his military leaders in the fieldand from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington camemaximum pressure for stepping up the war. The Presidentwas told that North Vietnam would continue its attacks in

. the South unless there was clear and specific evidence thatthe United States was prepared to become directly involved.Those who urged this view on the President said they werecertain that North Vietnam would not dare to confront

; American military mightPresident Johnson thereupon ordered U.S. combafc.

units into the field. The direct intervention of the UnitedStates., however, did not bring- about the expected result.Instead, North Vietnam stepped up the pace of the war,bolstered by increased military supplies from the Soviet

•.Union. At this point, the President publicly declared thatno military solution to the war was possible and urgedHanoi to come to the negotiating table. U.N. Secretary-General U Thant privately obtained Hanoi's agreement toparticipate in peace talks and so informed Washington.The American military, however, urged the President tospurn any talks at that time, persuading him that direct andsustained bombing of the North was absolutely essential.

And so it went. Each time it was demonstrated thatthe quest for a military verdict was fruitless and increas-ingly costly, our Government's response was to step up themilitary pace of the war. Meanwhile, thousands of Viet-namese and Americans were being killed or wounded.Meanwhile, too, the billions of dollars expended for thewar made it impossible for the President to carry out hisexcellently conceived program for enlarging social justiceand upgrading the quality of life inside the United States.The war cut deeply into the American subconscious, pro-ducing one of the most far-reaching and divisive debatesin the national histoiy. The result in the end was a debacle,with the President sacrificing his own political future toseek negotiations under circumstances far less propitiousthan might have been possible two or more years earlier.

In many respects, President Nixon is now facing thesame kind of decision that confronted President Johnsonin 1964 with respect to Vietnam. The issue today is whetherto proceed with the f u l l development of an anti-ballistic mis-sile system. Again military pressure is being applied. It isargued that the Soviet Union has already started on itsown ABM system, and that therefore we have no choiceexcept to ring American cities with installations fromwhich missiles containing nuclear warheads could be firedat attacking missiles.

The idea of protecting American cities against missileattack seems logical and incontestable until it is recognizedthat the ABM system would result in less security, not more.For there is an obvious and inevitable consequence of theABM. And this is the development of an expensive decoymissile system and the packaging of greater destructivemegatonnage in the missile warheads. An aggressor nationcan readily afford to saturate a target with ten or more

unarmed attackers. Kadar devices nave no way 01 mscnm-inating between decoys and destroyers. Moreover, it takesonly one penetrating armed missile to destroy a city, creat-ing a hurricane of fire that can rage over hundreds ofmiles.

One thing is certain: once an ABM system is installed,its advocates will be no less energetic in pressing for fundsfor a full decoy system and for more powerful warheads.And, once the decoy phase of the nuclear a rms race is infull development, it will be claimed tlii'.t the .Soviet Unionintends to disadvantage the United States by going under-ground with its major industrial and defense facilities, itsutilities, and its key government bureaus. IVr hare nochoice, it will be said, except to go underground ourselveswith even more of our establishment because of our greaterconcentration of industry and population. Cost: anywherefrom $300 billion to $500 billion.

The resultant atmosphere of tension and terror andits concomitants of political extremism are not d i f f i cu l t toimagine. The prodigious inflationary pressures and thesquandering of national resources and wealth on measuresthat do not add to but actually subtract from the nation'ssecurity will create a stage for internal upheaval and ex-plosion. The next step urged on government v.-ill be theneed for preventive attack. It wi l l lie argued that there isno point in l iving with the mounting- fear of surprise attack,and that the only thing that makes scnve is tr. destroy theenemy before he destroys us. Both the United States andthe Soviet Union will be (as they are now) in the sameboat. Yet it will be argued that we. have to knock a hole intheir end of the boat before they open one in ours.

* * *It would be dangerous to dismiss any of the foregoing

as fanciful or exaggerated. What is happening already isa.form of accelerating madness. The major nations arenow capable of expunging life from this planet. Force isextolled and endlessly multiplied despite the fact thatsecurity no longer depends on the pursuit of force but onthe control of force. President Eisenhower's warning aboutthe inevitable tendency of installed power to magnify itselfhas not been taken seriously. Nor are the implications fullyunderstood of President Kennedy's statement that therewas scarcely a serious problem confronting the UnitedStates abroad in which the Pentagon did not advise himto use military force.

Is military power becoming an end in itself and alaw unto itself? This may well be one of the most seriousquestions in American history. It is no answer to declarethat the men at the head of the American defense agenciesare balanced, intelligent, sober, responsible. This is not theissue. The issue is whether a context of power is now being-created beyond the ability of even the best men to change.At the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787-89,no principle of history and political science was morethoroughly understood and applied than that good mencannot be expected to produce good works in a bad setting.Accordingly, it was decided to create" good government

the massive spending power of the military and its abilityto take action and to create situations in the field thatforce the hand of the 'President.

Is it claimed that the President's hand is forced onlyby the actions of other nations? Secretary of Defense Mel-vin Laird said as much when he justified his position bypointing to what he described as initial steps taken by theSoviet Union in building its own ABM system. It is theaction of the Soviet Union, he insisted, that creates theneed for an American system of anti-ballistic installations,Yet tne hollowness of this argument was demonstratedwhen he was asked by U.S. Senators whether the best wayto resolve this problem would not be to seek enforceableagreements with the Soviet Union under which both coun-tries would forgo ABM development. It was pointed outto the Secretary that the Soviet Union had called for agree-ment to head off an ABM race and that, at the very least,its stated willingness to talk should be tested. The Secretaryreplied that he was inclined to go ahead nevertheless. What,therefore, are we to conclude? If the stated reason for pro-ceeding with the ABM lacks validity, is the real reason tobe found in the determination of the military to press formassive appropriations whenever an opening presents itself ?

The absence of logic in Secretary Laird's reasoningis not confined to the argument over the Soviet position.The discussion over Chinese missile capability is equallydistinguished by its absence of rational examination. Thequestion is being debated whether the United States oughtto devise a system to defend against Chinese missiles oragainst Russian missiles. What the discussion overlooks isthat if an attack should occur, there would be no way ofdetermining whether the missiles come from China or theSoviet- Union or.any other nation.

This monstrous danger is now producing precisely thewrong response. We seek to confront the danger by enlarg-ing it and igniting it instead of recognizing that there isnow- a totally new condition on earth, calling for a newemphasis on world controls and world approaches. The oldreflexes of absolute national sovereignty are inconsistentwith either peace or progress, The extent to which theUnited Nations can be transformed into an effective sourceof world law will be the measure of security and sanity forthe United States—and everyone else.

President Nixon has declared that the main objectiveof his Administration is peace. The ABM road on whichIlls Secretary of Defense is embarked, however, cannot leadto peace but only to increased tension, a tragic deferral ofprograms for meeting internal needs, relentless pressureon the American economy, and a world of no return. TheABM could be President Nixon's Vietnam. This is the timeto stop the juggernaut.

NOPMAN COUSINS

This editorial reprinted from the March 8,1969 issue of Saturday Review

ducing one of the most far-reaching and divisive debatesin the national history- The result in the end was a debacle,with the President sacrificing his own political future toseek negotiations under circumstances far less propitiousthan might have been possible two or more years earlier.

In many respects, President Nixon is now facing thesame kind of decision that confronted President Johnsonin 1964 with respect to Vietnam. The issue today is whetherto proceed with the full development of an anti-ballistic mis-sile system. Again military pressure is being applied. It isargued that the Soviet Union has already started on its .own ABM system, and that therefore we have no choiceexcept to ring American cities with installations fromwhich missiles containing nuclear warheads could be firedat attacking missiles.

The idea of protecting American cities against missileattack seems logical and incontestable until it is recognizedthat the ABM system would result in less security, not more.For there is an obvious and inevitable consequence of theABM. And this is the development of an expensive decoymissile system and the packaging of greater destructivemegatonnage in the missile warheads. An aggressor nationcan readily afford to saturate a target with ten or more

a form of accelerating madness. The major nations arenow capable of expunging life from this planet. Force isextolled and endlessly multiplied despite the fact thatsecurity no longer depends on the pursuit of force but onthe control of force. President Eisenhower's warning aboutthe inevitable tendency of installed power to magnify itselfhas not been taken seriously. Nor are the implications fullyunderstood of President Kennedy's statement that therewas scarcely a serious problem confronting the UnitedStates abroad in which the Pentagon did not advise himto use military force.

Is military power becoming an end in itself and alaw unto itself? This may well be one of the most seriousquestions in American history. It is no answer to declarethat the men at the head of the American defense agenciesare balanced, intelligent, sober, responsible. This is not theissue. The issue is whether a context of power is now beingcreated beyond the ability of even the best men to change.At the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787-89,no principle of history and political science was morethoroughly understood and applied than that good mencannot be expected to produce good works in a bad setting.Accordingly, it was decided to create good government

uiau 11 an auaun snouiu uccur, uiere would De no "Way 01determining whether the missiles come. from. China or theSovietlUnion or.any other .nation.

This monstrous danger is now producing precisely thewrong response. We seek to confront the danger by enlarg-ing it and igniting it instead of recognizing that there isnow a totally new condition on earth, calling for a newemphasis on world controls and world approaches. The oldreflexes of absolute national sovereignty are inconsistentwith either peace or progress. The extent to which theUnited Nations can be transformed into an effective sourceof world law will be the measure of security and sanity forthe United States—and everyone else.

President Nixon has declared that the main objectiveof his Administration is peace. The ABM road on whichhis Secretary of Defense is embarked, however, cannot leadto peace but only to increased tension, a tragic deferral ofprograms for meeting internal needs, relentless pressureon the American economy, and a world of no return. TheABM could be President Nixon's Vietnam. This is the timeto stop the juggernaut.

NOPMAN COUSTNR

This editorial reprinted from the March 8,1969 issue of Saturday Review

THE THOUGHT-WEEKLY380 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10017 (212), 983-5555

HEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, 11 March 1969

enators See a New Defense Pledge for U,S, in Nuclear TreatyBy JOHN W. FINNEYspecial lo Tno New YOTK Times

WASHINGTON, March 10— The treaty to prevent thespread of nuclear arms ran intoa momentary snag in the Senatetoday as objections were raisedthat under it the United Stateswould assume new commit-ments to protect nonnuclearstates against attack.

The objections were raisedby Democratic and Republicanconservatives as the Senate be-gan debate on the treaty eightmonths to the day after Presi-dent Johnson submitted it forSenate approval. •*

The treaty is regarded as cer-tain to be approved by theSenate, perhaps by the end ofthis week.

But f i rs t its supporters willhave to beat back conservativeattempts to attach a treatyreservation making clear thatthe United States would notobligate itself to defend non-nuclear states against nuclearattack or blackmail.

Opening the debate before avirtually empty Senate cham-ber, Senator J. W. Fulbright ofArkansas, chairman of the For-eign Relations Committee,. 'em-

phasized that the treaty wouldimpose no new commitmentsupon the United States.

But conservatives pointed toa 1968 United Nations SecurityCouncil resolution under whichthe three major nuclear powers—the United States, Britain andthe Soviet Union — pledged toseek immediate Security Coun-cil action to assist a nonnuclearstate that was threatened bynuclear attack.

The deliberately ambiguousSecurity Council resolution wassponsored by the three nuclearpowers to reassure some of thenonnuclear states worriedabout protecting themselves ifthey accepted the treaty's ob-ligation not to acquire nuclearweapons.

But now, in its ambiguity,the "security guarantee" iscoming back to liaunt the StateDepartment, which was sud-denly worried about obtainingapproval of the treaty withoutany reservations attached bythe Senate.

Citing the United Nations res-olution, Senator Sam J. Ervin,Democrat of North Carolina,proposed a formal reservationspecifying that ratification

would be "subject to the under-standing that the United Statesdoes not obligate itself by thistreaty to defend any nonnu-clear weapon state or anymember of the United Nationsagainst any acts or threats ofaggression even if such acts orthreats are accompanied by theuse .or threatened use of nuclear weapons."

In a drawling debate between:wo Southerners, alternatelyengaging in mock humility andcompliments about each other'smental prowess, Senat6r Ful-bright insisted that the ForeignRelations Committee had al-ready made that clear in itsreport on the treaty.

In its report, . and again inSenator Fulbright's openingspeech, the committee empha-sized that the Security Councilresolution and an accompany-ing declaration by the UnitedStates "in no- way involve aratification of prior commit-ments or establish new com-mitments."

Repeatedly Senator Fulbrightargued that the Security Coun-cil resolution was separate anddistinct from the treaty andthat by ratifying the treaty the

Jnited states would not there-jy be giving its approval to;he security guarantee.

Quoting statements by Sec-retary of State William P. Ro-gers and former secretary Dean?usk to that effect, Sen-ator Fulbright went so far atone point as to declare: "1don't think it [the securityguarantee] means anything."

Whether conservatives couJclmuster the simple majority

necessary to attach a treatyreservation appeared doubtful.But Senator Ervin had a fall-back position that might bemore attractive to the Senate,namely offering his position asa Senate "understanding" in ap-proving the treaty.

Unlike a reservation, whichbecomes part of the formalratification of a treaty, an "un-derstanding" simply reoresen^-an expression of Senate opinion.

MEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 12 March 1969

To Alter the AtomBy The Associated Press

WASHINGTON, March 11—Senate backers of the treatyto stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, won an impor-tant test vote today as the first of a'series of attempts t o > ,modify the agreement was*

Seriate Roll-Call on Treaty

rejected.Later, Senator Everett Mc-

Kinley Dirksen of Illinois, the

Iganization forces 'by denying[member -nations nuclear weap-ons.

Mr. Tower is the sponsor ofminority leader, said that the! a reservation that would makefinal vote on the treaty might! •!Tni.ert S^fes ratification of thebe delayed until next week. A SVS ^revTnf^number of Senators will be out I furnishing of nuclear weaponsof town on official business, to regional defense organiza-"late this week, he said. ;

Today, the Senate rejected,by a 61-i;o-30 vote, a proposalby Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr.,Democrat of North Carolina, to

a reservation to t ' i _

Under it, approval of the'

tions established under theUnited Nations charter.

Mr. Dodd proposed that Unit-ed States approval be condi-tioned on an understanding thatthe treaty would become void ifa nuclear power signing it at-tacked any other country.

The nucleaf power signa-tories -are the United States,

treaty would have been; con-iiBritain and the Soviet Union.ditioned on an understandingthat -no commitments to defendsmaller nations from nuclearaggression were involved.

Defended by FulbrightSenator J. W.: Fulbright, 'Dem-

ocrat of Arkansas, chairman ofthe .Senate Foreign Relations

ommittee and floor managerfor the bill, had insisted dur-ing debate .that -no new •comniit-

ents^;were\required"; anaVthatSenator 'Ervin's reservation Wasunnecessary.

Mr. Fulbright said efforts tomodify the treaty at this .latestage would require an exten-sive, new round o'f 'international;negotiations.

The .treaty, .was: endorsed inthe Senate debate as a stepitoward' eventual disarmament.It was attacked as a threatto the defense of Western Eu-rope.

Both Senator John G. Tower,Republican of Texas', and . Sena-tor Thornas J. JDodd, • Democratof .Connecticut,; expressed.; con-cern /that V the treaty: would

Bavh (Ind.)Burdick (N.D.)Church (Idaho)Cranston (Calif.)Eagleton (Mo.)Fulbright (Ark.)Gore (Tenn.)Ogravel (Alaska)Harris (Okla.)Hart (Mich.)Hartkednd.)Hughes (IowaIn-'jve ('r;(>.vt-iii}Jackson (Wash.)Kennedy (Mass.)Mansfield (Mont.)

Aiken (Vt.)Allott (Colo.)Bellmon (Okla.)Bennett (Utah)Boggs (Del.)Brooke (Mass.)CaselNJ.)Cotton (N.H.)Dirksen (III .)

Tydings (Md.)Williams (N.J.)Young (Ohio)

Republicans—27Fong (Hawaii)Coodell (N.r.)Gurney (N.H.)Hatfield (Ore.)Hruska (Neb.)Javits (N.Y.)Jordan (Idaho)Mathias (Md.)Miller (Iowa)

WASHINGTON, March 11 (AP)— Following is today'sroll-call vote by which the Senate killed a reservation forthe nuclear nonproliferation treaty offered by Senator SamJ. Ervin' Jr., Democrat of North Carolina:

FOR TABLING— 41Democrats— 34

Anderson (N.M.) McCarthy (Minn )McGee (Wyo.)Mclntyre (N.H.)Montova (N.M.)Moss (Utah)Muskie (Maine)Nelson (Wis.)Pastore (R.I.)Pell (R.I.)Proxmire (Wis.)Randolph (W.Va.).Jbicoff (Conn.)Sparkman (Ala.)Symington (Mo.)

Packwood (Ore.)Pearson (Kan.)Percy (III.)Prouty (Vt.)Saxbe (Ohio)

AGAINST TABLING—30Democrats Against—IS

Scheikcr (Ps.)Scott (Pa.)Mrs. Smith (Maine)Stevens (Alaska)

Allen (Ala.)Bible (Nev.)Byrd (Va.)Byrd (W.Va.)Cannon (Nev.)Dodd (Conn.)Eastland (Miss.)Ervin (N.C.)Holland (Fla.)

Hollings (S.C.)Jordan (N.C.)Long (La.)McClellan (Ark.)Metcalf (Mont.)Russell (Ga.)Spong (Va.)Stennis (Miss.)Talmadge (Ga.)

Republicans Against—12Cooper (Ky.) MundMS.D.)Curtis (Neb.) Murphy (Calif.)Fannin (Ariz.) Thurmond (S.C.)Goldwater (Ariz.) Tower (Tex.)Griffin (Mich.) Williams (Del.)Hansen (Wyo.) Young (N.D.)

Not voting nor paired but announced asfor tabling: Ellender (D.-La.), Magnuson(D.-Wash.), McGovern • (D.-S.D.), Mondale(D-Minn.). . -, .,-; \

.Atlantic: • Treuty^Qr- •

HEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 15 March 1969

'Moscow SuggestsCould Hamper A rms Talks

- By BERNARD CjWERIZMANSpecial to The New York lilies . . . ' ' . -

MOSCOW, March 12—-'The ' Soviet Government news-,paper Izvestia suggested tonight that 'deployment of anAmerican ahtjinissile s^sterh might:set,back;,'the;ch*nces'f^rjsuccessful United Stat&s-%-;l:,'.J'

1. Sp^:^4i^^--^«-----X4

viet talks on arms coring}. '••• ftat^fe:^oti |fs^te&!1nta|'• .' -,' ' ii.-.*.-i-iT.-»t»r.V*'lA • -rNinoiTi i"iit'-n iri, faPTlonr,

oyie|J|GtovernmBht /toiroice

^resident? Nixon tOffy- can-iiel or'.pfestppnfe plans«f6r::-jstart*

' ' ' ' : ' '.

?hg toi I dep'16y ''1$ues':. ''Sentinel

,. .. .. ,. iinfavbtable:,p6sftioffi hi '•] respectBreaking its silence on the -•f :- ••• r-•-•---•"-••--••- ri -debate'in Washington over de- g Th^T'jzivfe&ial articleWwasployment of the Sentinel missile! |iveny Iproinmence -herer -anddefense,. Izvestia said that the -•'j^-.'vi.-Vx.ii ,_*&_*• ti.,+i,=current balance of; forces • be-tween the United States "andRussia "offers a possibility toconclude agreements on thefreezing and reduction of nu-clear, armaments;

"It is'. Well known," its lead-ing commentator, VikentyMatveyev, said, "that the So-viet Union suggests the begin-ning of talks on the restrictionand reduction of both offen- .., __ .sive and defensive nuclear $ its ow,^ and agreed fe> 'told-wpaf)nns „ Ling talkslwith the Umt.ed Statesweapons- [last yeari'lfter Prgsid'ent Jqhh-

But Izvestia said, in an ap-^pn and Congr.e'ss approved go-parent .reference to the Sen--ing afiea^.'With: the Sentinenttinel debate, .."Steps that, may^deployjftent,,.'^''

thatmissife'sfrmight ; ause-:1|he Bus-

senior : ;. Western - ,'4ipl|&%tpointed 'but that Moscdyf ' al-

; ready ha^ a small-scale systemL X-P -i-l-n <-»TITM :' o n rT Q nremd'- "tir\ ''rifSlrl-

of ta^Twrth-;the Soviet: Uiifciff

•riien t^r.e.jpri record for.^ueH''tilks tvpile-in office.. • .'i\-.--'.-•S " wiards, ot course,. a%'- in-

;;suffici|nti'; Izvestia. said.' "pjher

"|tate|f • Their jMthbrsy prbjipse

'and ^all' for • creating'%' 'posi--tjon 6(vstrength.''.;• "''',''•••'•'• ... ; :'4 Izvestia', said;ttiat|thqse .voices--•'—*• - J;;;\tp:rf;s1;ef; vupjlthe : arms

iria.', ady.B'cate': the.' de-^ n_r ._ ^.^ sys-'

Stem in' the • absenteeJ of an. agree-<ment With 'the'-' Riissians.!*.jj Observers believe that much<if the ..criticism .was aimed, at'rSfecretaryV.of.Blfeiase Melvin R.Skird, jvho -• has. ,| advocated a^•tart to'de,pl6yment, but he was»ribt mentioned' by| name,s:,]lMuch; of. the article was de--Vpted to \deplo|ing the high^cjpsts of neSw arms. . .V-li "Every day emphasizes, with:i(.ew force, j;he a|uteness of the^disarmament prp'blem," it said,•.'ibecause everyday huge'sunis:;:tBat are; so !needed for peacej

;f&l, \.civilian [ n;eed.s: .are;,:iS|)en;t"oji .military. -p*rcidu:etion"'-! ^^-;V

"'?< Sentinel Is Denounced;«,| MOSCOW, March 12.'(AP)—f|vestia condemned the Senti•reel antimissile system as jusatoother burden on the Unitec;S:tates taxpayer.; [Mr. Matveyev, described' ia|s "a new gigantic pump tha•wpuld transfer money from thpockets of American taxpayersirito the safes of the weaponsfactories."

• j "Experts are not joking whenthey say that from the finan;c|al point of view the SentineSsiould be a bottomless well," he.Jv.rote..'.ifHe wrote that there were?6bstacles on the path to dis-aimament talks, but they canafid must be set aside in theinterest of all countries and allpeoples."

| Missiles Around Moscowk Special to Th« New YorS TSmts

* IWASHINGTON, March 12—High Pentagon officials estimatethat 75 antimissile missilela|mchers have been installedat sites around Moscow, abouttflree-quarters of the total de-pl^yment planned there..SWork on some of the facili-

ties in the Moscow suburbsstopped last year. Intelligenceanalysts believe the v/ork wasdelayed to improve the sys-tifn's radar sets so that theycp.uld track more incoming mis-siles simultaneously.

|The Moscow system, partlyOperational is believed to becapable of providing a thindefense over a large part ofeastern Russia, not just Mos-cow itself.

phe Moscow system couldn;0t..cope wi.t'h . a. lar^e number.of incdmmg 'American missiles^

, accofairig to defense analysts'."

NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 15 March 1969

March1 12—The Senate Foreign : RelationsCommittee, over, the objectionsof the State Department, ap-proved today a resolution call-ng upon the Executive branch

not to enter into ariy furtherforeign commitments withoutthe express approval of Con-gre;ss.

The Senate, meanwhile, bog-ged down in a' debate overwhether the. 'United', States,under the treaty to prevent thespread of nuclear weapons,would be assuming a far-rang-ing commitment to protect non-nuclear states against nuclearattack.

TKe treaty is expected to be!

approved by the Senate tomor-rpw(, about eight months afterit was, first; suhmitted by theJohnson administration.

But in the process of con-sidering it, the Sena^'has gon,dfar to vitiate a isep'urity/guaran- ^ The State Department's po-'of the committee, decided to|ifying that under the treaty'tee extended "by the' United sition was spelled out in aStates, as wen as Britain ana letter sent to the committeethe Soviet Union, to encouragenon-nuclear states to accept the

yesterday by William B. Mac-Comber, Assistant Secretary of

return to the much broaderlanguage of the resolution ap-proved today.

Luncheon for EbanShortly after approving the

resolution, the committee gaveagreement's mandate not to ac- State for Congressional Rela-quire atomic weapons. jtions.

The so-called commitments| .The fact that the letter was!a luncheon for Abba Eban-theresolution approved by the signed by an Assistant Secre- Is..aeli Foreign Ministpr 'whnForeign Relations Committee tary, rather than by Secretary !siaeu toieign Minister whowas also symptomatic of the | of State William P. Rogers, in- !s presumably interested dur-wao aiavj L3^*u^vyiiiiivio \ j i *-_,._ j . ,_ . . ,_ n l _ _ L _ r^_ __ ,_ mcr nic vicif llpro in HofoKrrt in.prevailing mood in the Senate, 'dicated that the State Depart-largely in reaction to the Viet-nam war, against extendingAmerican commitments abroad.

The resolution reads: "It isthe sense of, the Senate that a [Committee.

ment was not entering strenu-ous objections, largely becauseit realized it had no chanceof blocking the resolution in

national commitment by theUnited States to a foreignpower necessarily and exclu-sively results from affirmativeaction taken by the executiveand legislative branches of theUnited States Governmentthrough means of a treaty, con-vention or other legislative in-strumentality specifically de-signed to give effect to such acommitment."

As viewed by the Foreign Re-lations Committee, the resolu-tion represents an attempt toredress the constitutional bal-ance between the Executivebranch and Congress by re-asserting Congressional prerog-atives in the formulation offoreign policy and the exerciseof war power.

To the State Department,however, the resolution repre-sented an inappropriate at-tempt to make too rigid thenecessarily flexible relation-ship between the Executivebranch and Congress in formu-lating foreign policy.

The State Department alsosuggested that in its intent theresolution might transgressupon some of the President's

The resolution, as the Mac- such countries as Israel thatComber letter noted, is notkhe United States last year co-legally binding upon the ExecuJsponsored with Britain and thetive Branch. |poviet Union a United Na-

The committee approved thai tions Security Council resolutionresolution with only one dislunder which the nuclear powers,senting vote, that of Senatorfpledged that they would seekGale W. McGee, Democrat of immediate Security Council ac-Wyoming, who was a sup-porter of the Johnson Adminis-tration's Vietnam policy.

There were no hearings topermit the Nixon Administra-tion to present its views oriof the Senate debate has re-

constitutional authorityhandle foreign relations.

to

Resolution Not Binding

ing his visit here in determin-ing what American commit-ments Israel can obtain if shewithdraws from Arab terri-tories as part of a peace agree-ment or if she signs the non-proliferation treaty.

It was precisely to reassure

tion to aid any non-nuclearstate threatened with nuclearattack.

While the security guaranteeis not part of the treaty, much

to explore with the Senatorsthe intended meaning of theresolution.

One of the objections raisedin the MacComber letter wasthat the resolution did not de-fine what constitutes "a na-tional commitment."

In November, 1967, thecommittee approved a similarbut narrower and more pre-cisely defined resolution call-ing upon the President not tocommit troops to foreign hos-tilities without "affirmativeaction" by Congress.

At the suggestion of SenatorRichard B. Russell, Democratof Georgia, Senator J. W. Ful-brieht. of Arkansas chairman

volved around the questionwhether in ratifying the treatythe United States would assumean obligation to protect non-nuclear signatories againstatomic attack or blackmail.

Leading the conservative op-

the United States "does notobligate itself" to defend anynon-nuclear state against nu-clear attack.

Senator Fulbright, as floormanager for the treaty, prompt-ly indicated acceptance of theErvin resolution. "Off hand Idon't see any objection to it,"he told Senator Ervin, becauseit--was merely "an expressionof what I believe to be thetruth."

Senator Fulbright's repeatedposition, in the face of the con-servative opposition, that thesecurity guarantee entails nonew obligations from theUnited States has put the Sen-ate Department in a dilemma.

The effect of the Senate de-bate has been to emphasize theambiguity of the security guar-antee and its lack of obligationupon the United States. This,in turn, will complicate theState Department's task ofsecuring signature of the treatyby some of the non-nuclearstates.

By a 75-to-17 vote, the Sen-ate defeated a reservation pro-pposed by Senator John G.Tower, Republican of Texas,specifying that the treatywould not prevent the UnitedStates from providing nuclear

position, Senator Sam J. Ervin,[weapons to regional defenseDemocrat of North Carolina J organizations,took a new tack today to make j The effect of the Tower res-clear that the United States,ervation would have been towould not be entering into any l amend the atomic energy lawnew commitments under thetreaty.

Senator Ervin was defea tedyesterday in at tempting to at-tach a Senate reservation to thetreaty. Today he offered asense of the Senate resolution,senarate from the t.reatv. snec-

of 1954, which prohibits the jUni ted States from giving nu-clear weapons to other coun-tries. One of Senator Tower'sobjections was that under thetreaty Congress would be giv-ing up its option to amend thelaw.

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, lU March 1969

Treaty Approved v|I(. : Thg;: 83;4p-15 vote &f--approval by Tthe Senate \I breathes : hew life into the nuclear nonpfolif eration J|treaty after eight months of American political delay. 2^Although 87 countries have signed the pact, only tenhave ratified arid some of. the key countries withnuclear capability have done neither. With the SovietUnion expecte'd sobn to add its ratification to thatof the United States, the two superpowers will beable to argue more effectively for the near-universalacceptance vital to halt the spread of atomic weapons.

Fortunately, all efforts.by Senate conservatives toattach restrictive reservations to the treaty werebeaten down or pushed aside.' Renegotiation of thetreaty is manifestly impossible at this point. Had theUnited States reneged on any aspect of the pact andits accompanying understandings, Washington's influ-ence with Cither countries would have been gravelyweakened.

Even'with the overwhelming vote of approval, the- task of winning the adherence of such nuclear capablestates as India, Japan, Israel, Brazil and Switzerlandhas been complicated by the undue emphasis in theSenate debate on the so-called "security guarantee"accompanying the treaty.

The United States, Great Britain and Russia made itclear last year that they were undertaking no newobligations when they pledged themselves to act im-mediately through the Ut.N. Security Council-'"tocounter . . . effectively" atomic attack or blackmail 'against a nonnuclear signatory. As-both Secretariesof State Rusk and Rogers have emphasized, the soleUnited States intent was to reaffirm its U.N. Charterobligations.

However, the repeated efforts by some Senatorsthis week to specify that the United States "does notobligate itself" to defend nonnuclear countries—andSenator Fulbright's confirmation of that interpreta-tion, though he wisely opposed its incorporation in aformal resolution—will provide additional ammunitionfor treaty opponents abroad.

Against the fears such arguments may arouse, thenonnuclear nations must set the fact that the jointpledge of the superpowers creates the prerequisitefor SecurityCouncil action should it ever be needed—a far from insignificant deterrent, to .Peking, thepotential aggressor uppermost in India's mind andin that of many other 'abstainers as welL

Most important, the dangers inherent in the spreadof nuclear weapons are so clear that it will becomeincreasingly difficult ,for the last holdouts to refuseparticipation as the number bf signatories rises. Thepressure will be particularly strong on states withhostile neighbors, where one abstention begetsanother. . ' ' •-'The Senate's action moves a step closer to general

"acceptance a treaty essential to the world's safetyfrom nuclear annihilation. All mankind will benefitwith each additional link in the ratification chain. Nonation can purchase increased security for itself bystockpiling weapons of mass destruction and thus jintensifying a world-wide race toward doom:".'- ' ; ;

-'"^"- ;

5-YEAR FIG

Nixon Likefy to MoveEarly on Ratification-Vote Is 83-to 15

By JOHN W. FfflNEYSpecial to The New York Hlmes

WASHINGTON, March 13—The Senate approved today aninternational agreement to pre-vent the spread of nuclearweapons, ending a five-yeareffort.

The vote was 83 to 15, or 17more than the required two-thirds majority. Forty - nineDemocrats and 34 Republicansfavored the treaty. Seven Demo-crats, all Southerners, andeight Republicans voted againstit. . •

The Nixon Administration isexpected .to move rapidly toratify the treaty, agreed uponnearly a year ago at the GenevaConference. , *

The treaty will go intb.: ef-fect once it lias been ratifiedby the United States, the So-viet Union and Britain, plus 40other nations. Thus far it lias

ibeen signed by 87 countriesand ratified, or formally adopt-ed, by 10, including Britain,

Other Signings Expected

Potential nuclear weaponsstates such as West Germany,Japan, Israel, Australia andIndia have yet to sign or indi-cate intent to ratify the treaty,but the expectation is that un-der the United States' initiativeother nations will follow, withthe possible exception of Indiaand Israel.

Other members of the NorthAtlantic Treaty Organizationbesides Britain that have rati-fied the treaty are Denmark,Norway and Canada.

The other countries tliat haveratified are Cameroon. Ecuador,Finland, Ireland, Mexijo andNigeria.

The •rsixv '.nieEafi^rs -of the • fiu-ropeaiy-AtqmicIEnergy Commu-nity—West 'Germany, Italy,France, the Netherlands, Bel-gium and Luxembourg—havesaid that they will not ratifythe treaty until Euratom hasworked out a satisfactory in-spection agreement with the In-ternational Atomic EnergyAgency.

Procedure Varies

France has said that it willnot sign the treaty but that itwill abide by the injunction notto distribute atomic weapons.Communist China has also de-clared that it will not sign.

The procedure for ratifica-tion differs from "country ..tocountry. Most countries, • likethe United States, require ap-proval by legislative processand then ratification by thechief of state. In the SovietUnion, the treaty must first be.approved by the Presidium ofthe Supreme Soviet.

Britain requires Cabinet an/not parliamentary approval bo1'fore'ratification. In a few cou;--.tries,*the chief of state casi

'••ia'VijSjaty without parlia-mentary approval.

Once described by: PresidentJohnson aa the most importantarms contitt agreement of thenuclear age,; the treaty wouldbasically d<j Uhe following:

^Prohibit" the nuclear pow-jers from transferring atomicweapons to others or helping!other states' develop a nucleariarsenal.

flBar the .nonnuclear statesfrom acquiring or developingatomic weapons. To monitorthis prohibit ;on, the nonnuclearstates would be required to ac-cept inspection l>y the Interna-tional Atonvc Erferev Agency.

The treaty is designed to dealwith the growing potential ofmany nations to develop atomicweapons from • the plutoniumproduced in their nuclear powerplants. It is estimated that by1985 these power plants will be

lutonium to make tens ofatomic bombs every day.

The treaty would help furtherwhat President Nixon has de-scribed as his pohry of ''hego-tiatini-i rather ' than confronta-tion" .with the Soviet Union. ,

pliI at,

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, lU March 1969

•'Sie President wiir*Srfnpuncetprngrrow:wheUier;he:rwiil: orderlhe:Vegutifption of.-tlie^'deploy-ment of ah antimissile defensesystem. During the drafting ofthe nuclear treaty and the sub-sequent Senate debate, it be-came intertwined with the issueof' whether the United StatesshouTd'dfiploy such a system.

Article VI Added^ At the insiste.pcsCbtthe non-

nuclear^ states, A'rticle VTTvasincluded'^'in the treaty underwhich theX^uclear powerspledged to enter negotiations"at an early 'date'K-tp end theirnuclear arms race. v - :

When the treaty was signedby the United States and theSoviet Union last July 1{ Presi-dent Johnson announced thatthe Soviet Union had agreed toenter into discussipns on limit-ing strategic nuclear weapons,defensive and offensive.

The strategic arms limitationtalks were postponed after theSoviet invasion of Czechoslo-vakia in August. Despite con-siderable prodding by the John-;son Administration, the Senate]then, put of f ,. a consideration ofJ.he treaty , last' ff all after Mr.Nixon; as theMep'ublican Presi-Senfial'ccahdiaate, said that rat-fjeationV would be untimely iview of that invasion.

it

When the treaty finally camebefore the Senate, it was seizedupon by opponents of the Sen-tinel antiballistic missile systemas an additional reason why•the United States should nodeploy such a system at thitime. Their argument was thaa deployment would violate thespirit of Article VI.

This argument was--repeatecbv Senator J. W. Fulbright o

ii1

Arkansas, chairman of theSenate Foreign Relations Committee, just before the finavote.

"I can't believe that the President of the United States, itithe face of this vote, would goahead with the deployment othe ABM," Mr. Fulbright said.

'The Real Significance'Senator Fulbright said that

the Senate vote should be in-terpreted as a specific endorse-ment of Article VI.

"That is the real significanceof the treaty," he said.

However, this did not seemto be the interpretation of theAdministration. During com-mittee hearings, Administrationspokesmen had taken the posi-tion that while Article VI mightimpose an obligation on theUnited States to enter into armstalks, it did not preclude thedeployment of an ABM system

Once the eight-month deadlock was broken, the Senateacted relatively swiftly andwith little controversy.

About the only substantiaargument that developed duringthe . five days of floor debatetwas';whether the United States(would' /be/obligated to defendbjonhublear states against atom-ic "a*tta~ck' or blackmail.

The United States, the So-viet Union and Britain spon-sored last year a resolution inthe United Nations SecurityCouncil that pledged the nu-clear powers to seek immediatecouncil action to assist anynonnuclear signatory to thetreaty threatened with nuclearattack.

Security GuaranteeThroughout the debate, mem-

bers of the Foreign RelationsCommittee emphasized that this"security guarantee" establishno new commitments for theUnited States. But they hadto beat back attempts by con-servatives to attach reserva-tions or understandings to thetreaty specifying that the Unit-ed States would not be assum-ing any such commitment.

The last attempt came onan understanding proposed bySenator Sam J. Ervin Jr., Demo-crat of North Carolina, specify-ing that in ratifying the treatythe United States would notobligate itself to defend anynonnuclear weapons stateagainst aggression. The under-standing was aereateu, t>9 to 25.

The probable effect of theprolonged argument, however,was to vitiate the significance3f an apparently ambiguous'security guarantee" and thusmake it more difficult to obtain

,'• ' j-'i-

Senate Roll-Call Vote on Atom PactV(

WASHINGTON, March 13(AP) j— Following is the roll-call vote .by which the Senateapproved today the treaty tohalt the spread of nuclearweapons:

-, FOR THE TREATY-83•' • Democrats — W

inl£1?"Jt<M-) Jordan (N C.)?k'i '/» 1 Kenneily (Mass->

""Li Wn ! Magnuson (Wash.)jurdlck <K,D.) Mansfield (Mont.)

vr3 (X?1)/ • McCarthy (Minn, )i y r d l W . V a . ) McGee (Wyo.)

Cannon (Ne«.) McGovern (S. D.).hurch (Idarto) Mclntyre (N. H ).ranston (C&Iif.) Metcalf (Mont ))odd (Conn.S Mondale (Minn . )Easleton («4) Montuva (N. M )

»^ILa.) Atos s (U lah )Fu lb r lgh l (ArK1) Muskie (Me.)Gora (Tonn. ) - : Nelson (Wis.)Gravel (Alaska) Pastore (R. 1.)larr is (okla.^: PCII (R. i . )Ian (Mich.) ,« Proxmrre (Wis . )

H a r t k e ( l n d . ) i . Randolph (W. va.lUlland (Fla.)y. Ribicoff (Conn. )lughas ( I o w a ) ' Spsrkman (Ala.)nouyc (Hawair) . Spong (Va )ackson (Wash;) Symington (M0.)

ful applications of atomic en-ergy. 4 ' • •

Agency^.Chief OptimisticSpecial tp/The New York Times

UNITED •: NATIONS, N YHarch 13— Dr. Sigvard Eklund':

Director General of the Inter-'national Atomic Energy Agen'cy, said today that he expectedhe treaty to be in operation'during I970P' .

He expected? no difficulty se-uring inspectors and said that

a number of -etfuntries had a

Talmadcr (Ga ) Yarbomugr, (Tex.)Tydings (Md ) Young (Ohio)W i l l i a m s ( H . J . )

Republicans — 34Aiken (Vt.) Hruska ( N c - b . JAllolt (Cri lc .) J av i t s [N. Y.)Baker (Tenn.) Jordan (Idaho)Bel lman (Okla.) Mathiss (Md.)Bennett [Utah) Miller ( Iowa)Boggs (Del.) Munrit (S. D.)Brooke (Mass.)' PacKwood (Ore.)Case (N. J.) ' Pearson (Kan.)Cook (Ky.) Percy ( I I I , ) 'Colton (N. H.) Prouty (Vt.)Di rksend l l , ) Saxbe(Ohlo)Dole (Kan. ) Schwelker (Pa.)Fons (Hawai i ) Sort in.)"Goodlirdl. r.) . Smith (Me.)Griff in (Mich.) Stevens (Alaska) •Hanson (Wyo.) Williams (Del.)Harfield (Ore.) Young [N. D.)

AGMHST-THE TREATY-IS

Allen (Ala.) Long (La.)Easlland (Miss.) Russell (Ga.)E r v l n ( H : C . ) Stonnls (Miss.)-Hollings (S. C.)

Republicans — SCurtis (Neb.) • Gurney (F l a . )Dominick (Colo.) Murphy ( C g l i f )Fannin (Ariz.) Tnurmond ' IS . C.) 'Gold'vater (Ariz ) Tower (Tex.)

'•fairly good supply of scien-tists and technicians."

":'• Soviet Approval Seenf. MOSCOW! Friday, March 14(UPI) — Diplomatic observerssaid today that they expectedthe Soviet Union to give warmpublic approval to the Senate'saction on the treaty.

There was no immediate of-'icial reaction because of theateness of the hour here. The

news reached Moscow past mid-night.

approval of the treaty by some!•eluctant nonnuclear states.

In addition to the .guaranteeand the pledge to enter intoarms talks, the nuclear pow^r^jffer two other incentives tohe nonnuclear states.

One is a commitment to pro-'ide peaceful nuclear explo-

tied the treaty are Denmark,Norway and Canada.

The other countries that haveratified are Cameroon, Ecuador,jFiijIancI, Ireland, Mexico andNigeria.

Plutonium io make tens ofatomic bombs every day.

The treaty would help furtherwhat President Nixon has,-de-scribed as his policy of_'.'Dego-

jtiatinr. rather than rbnfronta-ttlon" witH the Soviet Union. :, '

,lacted relatively swiftly and'with little controversy.| About the only substantial[argument that developed duringthe fiyg days of floor debate•vraijwEetlier the United States:wouldv'be."obligated to defendnsnpuclear. states against atoni-ic'attacfe'or blackmail.

The United States, the So-viet Union and Britain spon-sored last year a resolufion inthe United Nations SecurityCouncil that pledged the nu-clear powers to seek immediatecouncil action to assistTvonnuclear signatory to

anythe

treaty threatened with nuclearattack.

Security GuaranteeThroughout the debate, mem-

bers of the Foreign RelationsCommittee emphasized that this"security guarantee" establishno new commitments for theUnited States. But they hadto beat back attempts by con-servatives to attach reserva-tions or understandings to thetreaty specifying that the Unit-ed States would not be assum-ing any such commitment.

The last attempt came onan understanding proposed bySenator Sam J. Ervin Jr., Demo-crat of North Carolina, specify-ing that in ratifying the treatythe United States would notobligate itself to defend anynonnuclear weapons stateagainst aggression. The under-standing was defeated, 69 to 25.

i The probable effect of the'prolonged argument, however,| was to vitiate the significance'of an apparently ambiguous["security guarantee" and thusmake it more difficult to obtainapproval of the treaty by somereluctant nonnuclear states.

In addition to the .guaranteeand the pledge to enter intoarms talks, the nuclear powir.,offer two other incentives tothe nonnuclear states.

One is a commitment to pro-vide peaceful nuclear explo-sives on a "nondiscriminatorybasis." The other is a pledge(to help the states in the peace-]

'-'J.-t "WU.J.-L V V/ (w\^ V^J. J. A Jk l.\Ji.J.>. X Ci I.

WASHINGTON, March J 3(AP) 4— Following is the roll-call vote vby which the Senateapproved today the treaty tohalt the spread of nuclearweapons:

• FOR THE TREATY-8J

-' • Democrals^JPAnderson OJ.Jtfl.j Jordan (N. C.)Bayh (Ind.jBible (New') TBurdick (N:D.)Bvrd(Va-) .Byrd (W. Va.)Cannon (Netf.)Church (Idalia)Cranston (Calif.)Dodd (Conn.8Eaalaton (Mot)Ellender (La.J.Fulbright |ArM']Gora (Tonn.)1 'Gravel (AlasKa)Harris (Qkla.l'Hart IM'rch.) VHarfke [lnd.)'JHolland (Fl3.)>.Hughes (Iowa);inouyo (Hawaii?Jackson (Washj)

ful applicationsergy. j ;- '

Kennedy (Mass.)Maanuson (Wash 1MaasfielddWlmt.)McCarthy (Minn.)McGee (Wro.)McG?vern (S. D.)MclntrrefN. H.)Wotcalf (Monf.)Monclale (Minn )Montoya (N tA )Moss (Utah)Muskie (Me.)Nelson (WIs.)Pastore (R. l.lPell (R. 1 )Proxrmre (Wis.)Randolph (W. Va.)Ribiccrtf (Conn.)Sparkman (Ala.)Spona (Va.tSymington (A^o.)

of atomic en-

I AgencyVChief Optimistic1 Special tjfTho Now York Times

! UNITED •: NATIONS, N. YJ^•Tarch 13— Dr. Sigvard Eklund;;pjrector General of the Inter-Jnational Atomic Energy Agen^py, said today that he expectedthe treaty to be in operation'"during 1970;*,'

He expected no difficulty se-curing inspectors and said thata number of -countries had a

Tofmsdp" (Ga l Yflrborruflh (Tex.)Tvd'nas (w.d.; Y^'ji-.? (Ohio)Williams [H. J )

Republirans— 34Aiken (VI.)Al lo t t (Cnlo.)Baker (Tenn.)Ballmoil (Ofcla.JBennett (U^n>Boggs (Del.)Brooke (Mass.)Case IB. J.-1Cook (Ky.)

Oirksen (111.)Dole (Kan.)Pong (Hawaii)Gcodsl! IN. V.IGriffin (Mich.)Harsan (Wvo.JHaificld (Ore.).

Hruska (Neb )Javils (N. Y.JJordan {Idaho)Maihias (Md.)Miller (Iowa)Mundt (S. D.)Packwood (Ore.)Pearson (Kan.)Percy (III.)

Saxbe (Ohio)Schwslker (Pa.)Scott (Pa.)Smilh (MM ,Stswcns (Alaska) -Williams (Del.)Young (N. D.)

AGAINST— THE TREATY—15. Democrats — 7

Allen (Ala.)EasHand (Wiss.)Ervin (N. C.)HollinsstS. C.)

Long (La )Russell IGa.)Stonnls (Miss.) .

Republicans— SCurtis (Neb.) ' Gurney fFla.lOominict (Colo.)Fannln (Ariz.)Guldwoler (Aril.)

Murpti/ (Cal i f .JThurmond (S. C.)Tower (Tex.)

'[fairly good supply of scien-tists and technicians.'*

f ; Soviet Approval Seen£ MOSCOW! Friday, March 14QJPI) — Diplomatic observerslaid today, that they expectedt,he Soviet Union to give warmpublic approval to the Senate'saction on the treaty,i There was no immediate of-ficial reaction because of thelateness of the hour here. Thenews reached Moscow past mid-night.

NEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 19 March 1969

, Jjucial Arms TallIII Both the United States and the Soviet Union con-tributed positive notes to yesterday's resumption

jjof the United Nations disarmament deliberations inGeneva. Now the superpowers must provide action tomatch their rhetoric by getting down to serious talksin the matters/that really count in the arms race. •

The proposal to bar nuclear and other mass<lestruc-tion weapons from the seabed is a logical complementto existing treaties invoking similar bans for Antarctica

I and outer space. But the much more urgent task is tomake peace secure in the areas where men live.

The non-nuclear nations set the right priority whenthey insisted on the insertion in the nuclear nonprolif-eration treaty of Article VI, binding the nuclear powersto negotiate in good faith on "effective measures relat-ing to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an earlydate and to nuclear disarmament."

Just in case that declaration is not clear enough,it was reinforced—as Secretary General Thant nasreminded the Geneva conferees—by a U.N. GeneralAssembly resolution urging prompt Soviet-Americantalks to limit.both offensive and defensive nuclearweapons systems.

Even minimum safeguards against nuclear war^require superpower agreement to freeze and then tocut back plans for ahtiballistic missile defense and theMIRV multiple warhead offensive system. The worldknows this; its Will to peace will not be turned-asideby an attempt to concentrate oh the ocean floor.

On this crucial..matter, President Nixon's instruc-tions to the American delegation .at Geneva were asdisappointing as his decision last week to. deploy amodified ABM system. He listed negotiations ..withRussia on limiting .strategic arms last in a six-pointdisarmament policy, .and he expressed only the hopethat "the international political situation will evolve

1 in a way which will permit such talks to begin in the1 near future/'

In short, the .President is still insisting that seriousdisarmament negotiations :can; proceed only in thecontext of progress with Moscow on other outstandingissues, such as the Middle East crisis. He warned thatthere can be no progress oh arms control "if the poli-cies of confrontation prevail throughout the world."

If both Washington and Moscow wait forever forthe other to take the first step away from the policies

•rsrbf confrontation, the benevolent messages Mr. Nixono:and Premier Kosygin sent to Geneva will add little'

to man's security. : .:

BOSTON GLOBE, Thursday, 20 March 1969

ptolking forBoth the United States and the

Soviet Union made diplomaticallycorrect overtures to peaceful coexist-ence at the reopening of the GenevaDisarmament conference. Both saidthey want an agreement to keep theworld's seabeds free of nuclear weap-ons. Both paid lip service to the goalof nuclear disarmament. Yet on eachissue they started off poles apart.

Soviet Premier Kosygin, in hismessage, gave priority to the questionof nuclear disarmament. He said:"We deem it important to find with-out delay ways of reaching agree-ment primarily on the non-use of nu-clear weapons, as well as othermethods of nuclear disarmament."

President Nixon, in his message,gave first priority to a seabed agree-ment and only reluctantly concededthe possibility of nuclear arms limita-tion f'talfesfi'&bmetime in the future,

proposal, the

initial U.S. response was negative.The Russians tabled a comprehen-

sive draft treaty prohibiting not onlynuclear weapons, but also "militarybases,. structures, installations, forti-fications and other objects of militarynature."

U.S. Delegate Gerard C. Smithresponded too hastily when he said:"I do not detect any interest by theU.S. government in what would be acomplete demilitarization of theocean floor." There should be such"interest." Surely humanity must berepresented at these conferences.U.N. Secretary General U. Thant ob-viously meant just that when he re-minded the delegates that, the GeneralAssembly last year urged promptSoviet-American talks to limit bothoffensive and defensive nuclear weap-ons systems. The nuclear giantsshould heed U •Thaii.t's •appeal .insteadof embarking on-mohtfes^jesf-'-word-haggling. . r " ^ ; „._.

NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 20 March 1969

AT GENEVA TALKSBrandt Also Says It Hopes

to Join Atomic Agency _

- .-• Special to Trie -New York Times

BONN, March; 19—ForeignMinister Willy Brandt disclosedtoday that West Germany wasseeking membership in theGeneva disarmament confer-ence and ,a 'permanent seat inlie governing! council of .thenternatipnal Atomic Energy

Agency in Vienna.He made the disclosure dur-

ng a'report-to the federal Par-iament on • the coalition Gov-ernment's view of the treatyto h,alt the spread of nuclearweapons, sponsored by theUnited States and the SovietUnion;

Mr. Brandt indicated thatBonn-thought it could bette:protect the• country's' peacefuauclear energy program frominterference through full memsership in the two organizationthan through the treaty.

He pointed out that Bonnalready contributed substantial.y to the budget of the Inter-national Atomic Energy Agencyand was thus justified on thisground, among others, in seekrig. membership.

The Foreign Minister saidWest Germany had , ma_deknown to the United States itsinterest in joining the Geneva-Conference, but he acknowl-edged that it would' be muchmore difficult to gain member-ship there. The Geneva Con-ference' is -intended to -bebalanced—five nations from theWarsaw : Pact countries, fivefrom the North Atlantic TreatyOrganization and eight ; 'that:belong.' to .'neither. . ' ; ' , V - ' J

BOSTON GLOBE, Friday, 21 March

F. BUCKLEY JR.

Nuclear pact puts U.S*in role of the patsy

It is too bad that the debate on the anti-proliferation treaty, just approved by theSenate, failed to stimulate the analyticalimagination. Becuase, after all is said anddone, the proponents of the treaty were ask-ing us simply to vote against atomic war-fare: that is what it came down to. Theyasked us to vote a symbolic disavowal of theweapon which, in fact, has kept the peaceduring the past 20 years.

Professor Stefan Possony of the HooverInstitution at Stanford neatly cut throughsuch arguments as the proponents sum-moned. He insisted that knowing Europeanswere not so much afraid that the UnitedStates would fail to respond to a Sovietthreat with the use of atomic bombs — ourcredit, he insisted, was pretty good on thatscore, even with de Gaulle. What they be-lieve is that American defense strategy is sogarbled that we have in fact maximized thepossibly of a great Gotterdammerung —precisely because we have denied to WesternEurope the means of self-defense, namelytactical nuclear weapons.

It is true that the tacit ban on their de-velopment, primarily the responsibility ofRobert McNamara, (has had the effect of ren-dering Europe incapable of resisting a mas-sive Soviet military threat. In so doing, wehave vested American massive nuclear re-sources with the primary rather than thesecondary responsibility for European de-fense.

It must be stressed, Possony reminded us,that NATO does not call for automaticAmerican participation in the protection ofWestern Europe. If Russia were to strikeagainst West Germany, America is privi-leged, under the terms of the treaty, toweigh what would be an appropriate re-sponse. It is chilling under the circumstanc-es to reflect that Russia has recently laiddown the position that her intervention inWest Germany would be legally justified asan extension of her rights won on the con-clusion of the Second World War. Ulbrichtof East Germany goes along, adding the fil-lip that action by the East against West Ger-many would not be a "fraternal war" but a"war of liberation."

The point is not lost on those who are ex-perienced in vacillation: if moves weremade against West Germany, and if NATO

,., were unequipped to withstand those moves:v:;-by.-.theuse of tactical nuclear weapons, and

if therefore the only response is to triggermassive nuclear retaliation by the UnitedStates strategic Air Force: then, surely,there will be those who insist that the mo-ment is for weighing the interesting legalclaims of the Soviet Union and West Ger-many, rather than engaging us in a thirdworld war. Meanwhile, of course, West Ger-many would disappear.

"The U.S.", Dr. Possony wrote, "in ac*cepting the non-proliferation pact, provides,for the impotence of our allies and, there-fore, is writing off its alliance system.Through this treaty, the alliances are trans^-formed into permanent unilateral Americanguarantees. Hence the main military bur-dens for the defense of the entire FreeWorld must be borne by the United States•and, ironically, we will be compelled, bythose who most adamantly argue against ourassumption of that role, to remain theworld's policemen. American forces willhave to fight all the decisive engagements,and American troops, bases, installations,and cities will draw virtually all Soviet nu-clear fire."

"The nonproliferation pact," he conclud-ed, "is an attempt to stop the wheel of tech-nological progress. The strategy underlyingthis treaty could have been inventedby an American Don Quixote or, con-versely, by a Soviet Machiavelli. Togetherwith U.S. nuclear legislation, the non-proliferation treaty will ensure that ourallies will remain unprepared to fight WorldWar III and therefore unable to contributeto its prevention. The European armed forc-es are oversized gendarmeries, not modernarmies; whereas the Red Army has been re-structured to fight nuclear battles."

Once again we have moralized ourselvesinto a situation of relative weakness, even as•when we promised to stop the testing of nu-clear weapons we abandoned the advantagesof a technical lead which, had we exploitedit, might have endowed us with such -a sci-entific breakthrough — a new weapons sys-tem, perhaps — as would have made unnec-essary our current concern with the multi-billion dollar ABM system. AH of this inorder to deny the atom bomb to a futureHitler. A remote concern, surely, consid-ering that the present Hitlers have the bombalready, and can, whenever they feel dis-posed to do so, give that bomb: to future Hit-lers. ' •-- •' • -••••• •••••••-»

MEW YORK TIMES, Saturday, 22 March 1969

U.S. DELAY IS SEEKON MISSILE TALKS

Western Envoys in MoscowExpect No Meetings Soon

By BERNARD GWERTZMANSpecial to The N«w YoUc Ittmo

MOSCOW, March: 21—West-ern diplomats believe that talksbetween the United States andthe Soviet Union on. missile re-duction are still several monthsaway.

Assessing^ the current stateof Soviet-American relations inthe light of talks both hereand in Washington, diplomatssaid today that the Nixon Ad-ministration had .indicated tothe Soviet Government that itplanned to take a long, hardlook at over-all security prob-lems of the United States be-|fore beginning substantivetalks with Moscow.

These diplomats also saidthere was no inclination on the

'part of' the United States torush into an agreement estab-lishing consulates in San Fran-cisco and Leningrad. The So-viet Ambassador, Anatoly F.Dobrynin, revived the questionof the .consulates on March 8when he met with Secretaryof State William P. Rogers inWashington. ' • .

Diplomat's said that Moscowfirst raised the issue before theSoviet-led invasion of Czecho-slovakia last August, and thatit had been shelved by theUnited States along with mostother matters at issue betweenthe two countries.

Border Clash Discussed• Diplomats also disclosed thatat the March 8 meeting, Mr.Rogers asked Mr. Dobryninabout the clash six days earlierthe Soviet-Chinese border.They said that Mr. Dobryninhad responded with the stand-ard Soviet explanation, thatthe Chinese had initiated theattack on the island in the Us-suri' River, which the Russiansand the Chinese both claim.. Two days later, Mr. Dobry-nin received a telegram sent tomost Soviet Ambassadors ask-ing them to explain the Sovietposition on the border disputeto the governments to which;they, were accredited, the .jdip;-;

. lomats said. ". ; - - -v^ / ; M

/. Because he had just spoken;• with:-'Mr. Rogers?, on- the'sub-

• ject, Mn Dobrynin did not ask, for an appointment. Soviet am-

bassadors in West Germany,France and other countries didmake calls to explain the Sovietposition. The meetings were be-

' lieved to be the first time thatSoviet diplomats officiallyraised the border problem withother countries.

The diplomats here say'theydo not expect Moscow to seekWestern support against theChinese, but that, in their view,the Soviet Government believesthere is a tacit understandingthat China poses a threat toworld peace.'

New Envoy to ArriveThe new United States Am-

bassador to the^ Soviet Union,Jacob D. Beam, is scheduled toarrive here on.April 1 and pre-sumably will present his cre-dentials to President Nikolai V.Podgorny by the middle of themonth.

' Mr. Beam could possi-. Dly bring fresh initiatives fromWashington with him, but dip-lomats said that next month.)seemed too early for serioustalks on the most pressingissue—the limitation and re-duction of offensive' and defen-sive missiles.

On a less crucial problem,,diplomats said that plans hadbeen completed here for anagreement on the constructionof a' new United States Em-bassy and living compound inMoscow, but that legal detailsfrom Washington concerningthe land for the new embassy'had held up final accord. *

NEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 2 April 1969

TEST-BAN DRAFTGeneva Talks Get Plan to

" ' ' / - " t '

:Ban Underground Blasts

.By THOMAS J. HAMILTON

Special to The iW York Timer*GENEVA, April 1 —Sweden

-submitted to the disarmamentconference today a preliminaryversion of a treaty prohibitingunderground nuclear tests.

Mrs. Alva Myrdal, the Swed-1 ish representative, declaredthat the time had come to"probe the readiness'' of the

'.; United States and the Soviet; Union to reach agreement. She.. said she had presented her': "working paper" as "an incite-:', ment" to Washington and Mos-ucow, to tell the conference

whether they are now willing totake the "political decision" toban underground tests1.

The Swedish proposal con-tains no provision for an in-ternational inspection systemand is silent on the long-stand-ing proposal to get around thisproblem by stationing un-manned seismographs on theterritory,, of nuclear powers.

. Notes DissatisfactionBut Mrs. Myrdal said at a

news conference that the sub-• mission of the Swedish propo-; sal symbolized the growing dis-1 satisfaction among Bother mem-bers of the conference overthe agreement by Washington'and Moscow to make the bar-,ring of nuclear weapons fromthe ocean flpor the principalitem at the current session.

United States and Soviet1spokesmen limited their com-ment on Mrs. Myrdal's appeal

i to statements that their govern-!ments wanted a test treaty andv'that only the disagreement over, \ verification had prevented its

conclusion.1 Mrs. Myrdal is the wife ofGunnar Myrdal, the economist!

'Sand writer whose works includeV studies of American; social' prob-•lleinki . . - ' . • v ' • ' • • • -

• Mrs;f Myrdal said that nb dis-arm'arasnt treaty, whatever 'its.subject, ^ could provide "100per' cent security." But shesaid that improved seismologi-

• cal instruments had increasedthe possibility of distingush-ing between underground nu-clear tests and earthquakes.

In departure from the Sovietline, Dr. Milan Klusal of Czech-

; oslovakia echoed'M.rs. Myrdal's'appeal for a "political deci-"sion." - - • ' • .

.Repeats Swedish Charges• The, Czechoslovak represent-

ative 'also repeated Mrs. Myr-dals charge of a few days ago

i'that the two superpowers wereunwilling to give up under-

\ground tests because theyneeded them to , perfect their

•nuclear weapons.The Myrdal plan contains no

-provision for an internationalJ. inspection 'system to verifycompliance with a ban on un

•derground tests.Instead, it- proposes a "veri

fication by\ challenge" , pro:cedure. Under this, Mrs. Myrdasaid, a government suspected p:violating the ban could "free itself of suspicions" in two waysby collecting information abouithe reported test, and by "inviting" outsiders to inspect itterritory.

Mrs. Myrdal .insisted thasuch suspicions arise very rarely, less than once in ten yearsaccording to Swedish scientistsBut if any other party to thiproposed treaty felt that thaccused .country had "failed ttcooperate to the fullest exten,for .the clarification of a particular event" it could submitthe case to the United NationsSecurity Council.

However, the plan makes noprovision for action by otherparties to the proposed treatyand is silent on what wouldhappe if a great-power veto pre-vented the Security Couhcilfrom acting. '•''' < ,,^

BOSTON GLOBE, Thursday, 3 April 1969

the nuclear bluffI Everyone readily will acknowl-edge there can be no control of nu-clear weaponry without the prioragreement of the two super powers..Yet the little powers persist in beingheard. Since the Geneva Disarma-ment Conference reopened twoweeks ago (Mar. 19), seven of the17 'participating nations haveinsisted the conference give im-mediate attention to the questionsof limiting nuclear missiles and ban-ning underground nuclear tests.

On both issues, the United Statesand the Soviet Union acknowledgean interest but say they want to con-centrate first on negotiating a treatybarring nuclear weapons from theworld's seabeds. Other delegates,though not belittling the needs forthe seabed treaty, argue there isgreater urgency for making peace

' secure in areas where men live.

Last week, representatives ofBritain, Canada, Nigeria, Sweden,Italy and Mexico echoed this de-mand. On Tuesday, Sweden wentone step further and tabled a drafttreaty prohibiting underground nu-

In doing so, Mrs. Alva Myrdalsaid that the time had come for theUnited States and the Soviet Unionto tell the conference if they were,in fact, willing to make the politicaldecision to ban underground tests.It no doubt surprised the Communistdelegates to hear Czechoslovakiasupport Sweden's demand.

Mrs. Myrdal, the wife of the notedsocial commentator, Gunnar Myrdal,told the conference that "we shouldno longer, by our permissiveness to-ward the tests going on silently, con-done the development of ever morediabolic megadeath machines." Sheaccused the two super powers of op-posing negotiations on a halt in un-derground tests because they wantmore time to perfect their missilesystems.

Such strong words may nettle theUnited States and the Soviet Union,but nuclear powers cannot expectnon-nuclear states to sign the non-proliferation treaty and foregomanufacture of nuclear weapons un-less they, too, show an equal andurgent willingness to limit their ownarsenals. Both should show thatwillingness. •..-.„..;..,

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, k April 1969

jFbreJgn War Games Opposed«.New Yo

^GENEVA, April 3-^Rumaniasaid at the disarmament con-ference' today that' Europeanstates should cease -to 'organizemilitary7' maneuvers; • and otfjerdemonstrations of force on theterritory of other states." 'I •Although the long statementby! 'Nicoiae -EcoKesco;:.' th;e Ru-;maraari delegate; ':endor,'i5ed the;Soviet doctrine of peaceful cp-exi'stence, seyerai "passages: ap-peared tq; be ^ ^rected\at;M&S-cow ; and . recent ""Wars'aw ifectmaneuvers as much" as atrnirem^bers of the Nerth AtlanticTreaty- Organization.-

Mr. Ecobesco also called forthe normalization of relationsbetween the Baykan countries,which appeared to be a gestureof support for Yugoslavia. Pres-ident Tito's relations with theSoviet Union deteriorated afterthe Soviet invasion,:,©! "CzetJho-slovakia last Augvjisfto siich anextent' that^siV:, "Soviet '"iniaye

f o r ; .Mr: Ecobe^cp,, whose Gov-

ernment,, h^d, already demon-strated its independent line to-ward the 'Soviet Union by es-tablishing diplomatic: relations'with: West Germany, .refrainedtoday from, singling- put, EitherMoscow;;;or:::.Washington- for,praise .or:.:blam^,-^.,-^^.-~. ]-•

NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, k April 1969

Disarmament DiversionTHe Soviet Union an(f-the United States moved

closer to agreement on. a treaty r to limit militaryiiises of the sea bed yesterday • when the Russians^elaborated oh proposals they introduced two weeks|ago. .Encouraging as any sign'of"flexibility in BigPower negotiations may be, the oQier i members of

disarmament conf ereiice are riot-6; react; with wild applause. ,:

^;: ; The.other participants in the Geneva talks complainthat the superpowers are using their sea bed discus-

' sions as a diversion to avoid coming to grips withmore urgent disarmament, issues. Sweden expressedthe general dissatisfaction the. other day when itsdelegate .submitted, a' "working paper" for, a treatyprohibiting underground nuclear tests, pointedly chal-lenging the Americans;and Russians to respond.

Agreements . to ban ;pbtential:, weapons of massdestruction from piater space, the ocean floor andother exotic places ;are all well and good. But it istime; the nuclear powers moved to fulfill their pledge

!;iri the: nonprplif era'tipn treaty to halt the multiplica-tion "of such weapons on dry ground where the threat

mdiikind'is herer and now. • : :':'.-'" .!.;,'/ ' -a'

HEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, 9 April

f *• / (. •*4 >

§• . • i~\ • 1 Mlion in Overkill

While debate rages over: whether to deploy a modi-fied ABM missile defense system, .the sharp Increasecurrently under way in spe'nding for off ehsive weaponsis 'being accepted almost unchallenged. i '. . "

Although the United States already has enoughnuclear warheads to destroy every major city in theCommunist bloc several times over, tax dollars thatmight really enhance the national security by solvingurgent social problems are being poured into theescalation of an overkill, destructive capacity.

Work is going forward to equip Polaris submarines—at a cost of $76 million per vessel—with largerPe/seidon missiles carrying MIRV (multiple independ-ently targeted re-entry vehicle) warheads. Minutemanmissiles also are to be bolstered with multiple war-heads able to strike separate targets as well as pene-tration aids to overcome enemy defenses. New navalconstruction includes faster nuclear-powered subma-rines, a nuclear-powered, guided-missile ship and anumber of more conventional vessels.

By'committing, the Government to huge expendi-tures for offensive weapons, the Pentagon would off-set any substantial savings that might accrue from areduction or cessation of hostilities in Vietnam.'Thathelps explain Defense Secretary Laird's drastic scalingdown of the Johnson Administration's estimates. ofhow much saving in military outlays will be possibleafter Vietnam. He insists that the savings will. be.closer to $7 billion than to the $19 billion estimatedby the outgoing Administration—an estimate manyanalysts considered too modest to start with.

The standard argument for-spending more on .offen-sive weapons is that the Russians are increasing theiroutlays and that the national security hinges on. main-taining America's margin of nuclear superiority. Buthow can either superpower's security be. enhancedby a nuclear arms race that increases the likelihoodof:mutual annihilation? '

Article VI of the nuclear nbnproliferation treatyobliges the signatories to work toward "general andcornplete disarmament.". It was in that spirit thatSecretary of State Rogers predicted this week a startby; summer on bilateral arms control, talks between'the United States and the Soviet Union. The nuclearescalation now in progress contributes nothing to thesuccess o f such talks. . , . . : ;

The United States, with its over whelming; superior-ity; is in a safe position to seize the initiative by .offer-ing to freeze offensive as well as defensive weaponsat present levels. The cuts in military expenditures thiswill permit are the key to, strengthening the American-social fabric by making possible a shift of resourcesto unmet domestic needs. • • ' • • . • • , > . • . - " . ' . .

NEW YORK TIMES, Wednesfl=" 9 April 1969

It Would Let InternationalUnit Verify Halt in Arms

Material Production

ISSUELONG DEADLOCKED

Move Challenges Soviet toAccept Formula Patternedon Nonproliferation Pact

By THOMAS J. HAMILTONSpecial to Tie New York Times

GENEVA, April S—The Unit-ed States, in a policy shift, pro-posed today that the Interna-tional Atomic Energy Agencyin Vienna take over sole re-sponsibility for verifying com-pliance with a cutoff in theproduction of nuclear materialsfor weapons.

Under previous American pro-posals the Vienna-based agencywould have played a role in thelong-proposed cutoff of produc-tion, but the United Stateswould have been primarilyresponsible for checking on[compliance by the Soviet Un-ion, and vice versa. Although acutoff has been under discus-sion for 13 years, the deadlockover inspection has blockedagreement.

j The revised proposal was'submitted to the 17-nation dis-armament conference here byAdrian S. Fisher, acting UnitedStates representative. In effect.it challenged the Soviet Unionto accept the same kind of in-spection to be required of non-nuclear parties to the treatyprohibiting the spread of nu-clear weapons.

Treaty Provisions Recalled! Mr. Fisher reminded the con-ference that that treaty, which.was drafted jointly by Wash-ington and Moscow, providesthat the International AtomicEnergy agency work out ar-rangements with non-nuclearpowers to verify their compli-ance1" with trieC treaty within,sis months after. It goes intojeffect.' '"•

Aleksei A. Roshchin, the So-:

viet representative, told news-men after the meeting that theUnited States proposal wouldbe carefully studied and that hedid not want to prejudice futurenegotiations by commentingprematurely.

The United States representa-tive indicated that his Govern-ment was now willing to accepta less rigorous inspection sys-:tem than the one specified in•its most recent proposal, in1964, for a nuclear cutoff.

'Declarations' AskedAt that time a United States

working paper proposed thatthe nuclear powers be required

i to "declare" to the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency the loca-tion and capacity of all nuclearmaterials production plants.

Similar information wouldhave been required for thechemical separation plants thatcollect plutonium from use'dreactor fuel, and the nuclearpowers would have been underobligation to allow the agencyto inspect all these plants tc-determine whether they had

riiorl, Ianyi':nuc']eai:.jsaity}&!ftli cufeifagreement would have beenauthorized to accuse another ofviolating the agreement andwould have been permitted towithdraw from the agreementif it did not obtain a satisfac-tory answer.

Under today's United States]proposal, no individual nuclearpower would be entitled tobring such charges, and the en-tire responsibility for verifica-!tion would rest with the Inter-national Atomic Energy Agency,a 101-member body that oper-ates under a special relationship:with the United Nations.

The agency, on the basis ofits current inspection system,!will assuredly not impose astough an inspection system forthe nonproliferation treaty asthat the United States had en-visaged under its 1964 cutoffproposal.

Washington's decision toraise the question of a cutoff inproduction of nuclear materialfor weapons is expected to im-prove the United States' stand-1ing with the nonnuclear partici-pants in the conference.

Some Nations ProtestSince the resumption of the

disarmament session here lastmonth, a number of these dele-gates have protested againstthe common stand taken byWashington and Moscow ingiving the question of regula-tion of the military uses of theocean floor top priority overthe -two issues emphasized bythe United. Nations General As-sembly last fall: a nuclear cut-off and the prohibition ofunderground nuclear weaponstests.

On the other hand, Mr. Fisherwas adamant in rejecting aplea made last week by Mrs.Alva Myrdal of Sweden for "apolitical decision" to accept herworking paper for the prohibi-tion of underground tests with-out an international inspectionsystem.

Rejecting Mrs. Myrdal's argu-ment that there would be onlyone suspected underground testin 10 years, Mr. Fisher assertedthat there would be many "seis-mic events" each year in theSoviet Union. He insisted thatseismographs placed outsideSoviet territory could not de-termine "whether they areearthquakes or nuclear tests upto tens of kilotons of explosiveyield." A kiloton is equivalentto the force of 1,000 tons ofdynamite.

Motives Challenged- Mrs. Myrdal had charged that

difficulties over inspectionwere not the real issue and thatboth the United States and

the Soviet Union wantea 10continue underground testingbecause it was necessary toperfect their missile defensesystems. In reply, Mr. Fisherdeclared:

"These are -the reasons forour decision—a political deci-sion based on scientific consid-erations—that adequate verifi-cation requires obligatoryon-site inspections in additionto seismic detection and iden-tification techniques."

Over the last year the jointefforts of the United States andthe Soviet Union to obtain wide'acceptance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty have elimi-nated the bitter exchanges thatused to characterize the dis-armament meetings.

In his discussion of the re-vised American position on anuclear cutoff, however, Mr.Fisher took a thrust at the So-viet Union, which used tocharge that American proposalsfor on-site inspection represent-ed an attempt to gather mili-tary intelligence.

Offer Is RepeatedAccording to an American

who was familiar with the,previous negotiations, the So-viet Union never expressed airopinion on a nuclear cutof"itself. It never indicated whetheit would consider matching thoffers made by the UniteStates to allocate part of thAmerican nuclear stockpile fopeaceful purposes. This offewas repeated today by M;Fisher.

The Soviet Union had assised Communist China in the eailier stages of its effort to produce a nuclear bomb. Howeveiit withdrew Soviet techniciansand nuclear physicists fromChina in 1959 and 1960, amsince then it has been unwillinjto supply other allies with nuclear materials or nuclear fuelseven on a , pledge that theswould not be converted intmaterial for weapons.

"The suitability of I.A.E.A.safeguards should be apparento all of us who have callecon other states to accepithem," Mr. Fisher said dryly.

This, an American official re-marked, was a polite way ofreminding the conference mem-bers that while the Soviet

.Unisn had joined the UnitedStates in urging nonnuclearparties to, the treaty to acceptinspection by the internationalagency, it had ignored appealsto accept such inspection itself.

Although the nonproliferationtreaty does not provide for anyinspection of the nuclearpowers, the United States andBritain responded in December,1967, to protests by the non-nuclear countries with an-nouncements that they wouldvoluntarily place their nuclearfacilities under the sameT.A.E.A. inspection as other»>ttrties to the treaty.

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1969

Concession at GenevaFor a country which fathered

, and perfected .the art of public rela-; tions. and- product promotion, theUnited States proves an abysmal-fail*

jure at : adapting, .ihe same succeissful: techniques to diplomacy. Tuesday's, presentatioin.to the Geneva Disarma-

ment Conference is the current casef i n point, . • • • ' • •

' .../>• - • •'•• •'

U.S. Delegate;. Adrian S. Fisher.engine'ei'«l: a/reial. coup1 by proposing

•'• that -the .International: Atomic EnergyAgenc^/:a,.Vi'erina-b.ased' U.N. bfgani-

: zationi' be given sole, responsibilityfor verifying compliance with any;

: agreejnen| restricting ihe productionof nuclear materials, .*:• , .;.

This proposal 'represents a com-olete, and encouraging, about-faceforthe-United States and puts--pres-sure on the Soviet Union to respondin as positive a way on the crucialissue of inspection, about which the;wo countries have been arguing for13 years. - ,••. . • _ •-,;.

Soviet Delegate eksei A.was quick to spot the advantage

ihis new position giy.es the UnitedStates, at least in the ejyes of theaion- i

luclear states, ^ riierely sajd: "Very"'interesting, we^nallistudy the matterclosely." He did not disnti88 the pro-posal out 6f .liand.'But'the U.S. dele-gate, in |irother ;part .of hissummari|ip!r^j;6icted an earlier !"iish pro^sal banning undergrciund

* • * • '''

How much better it would havebeen if Mr. Fisher had supported theSwedish proposal and implored the

"Conference to help find a solution to'fthe question of on-site inspection vs.remote monitoring. After all, it is the

• Soviet Union, not the United States,,. which has adamantly refused per-~mission for any foreigner to checkits nuclear facilities. This of course

-assumes that-the United States isin favor of promoting an agreement.on ^banning! underground nucleartests; an assumption which Sweden

- and others haye challenged.

In spite of our negative posture

;on underground tests, the-world., canonly applaud U.S. willingness to haltproduction of enriched uranium and

-plutonium for use in nuc.lear_weaponsand make such a halt subject to in-ternational inspection. Without thisagreement between the superpowersit is unrealistic to expect non-nuclearstates to .subscribe to. .the Nuclear

. Non-Proliferation Treaty, which sub-jects them to I.A.E.A. inspection butleaves1 present nuclear powers freeof inspection. This discriminatory in-

~ spection system is one'reason non-" nuclear states so far have withheld•ratification of the treaty..

(5' \The U.S. delegation should now•^press harder, and in a frank, positiveway, at least1 for preliminary agree-ment, in Geneva on limitation, of all ,nuclear .weaponry. lifETkoK V i, 2:

NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, 10 April

Brom Defense to Detente.The debate; about NATO's role inits /'third-decade >is less a cause-for concern than for .self-congratulation.Not.long ago many doubted that the North AtlanticTreaty Organization would' survive the twentiethanniversary it is celebrating this week in Washing-ton. Today .NATO can say, with Mark Twain, that"the report of my death was an exaggeration."

The alliance has been reported in disarray almostannually since its inception. But there always hasbeen more to unite it than to divide it. Despiteanguished .predictions less than .a year ago, not asingle member country is prepared now to exercisethe right the treaty gives all nations after twentyyears—to withdraw on one year's notice. The alliancegoes on. The need for military strength continues,as Czechoslovakia made clear. But the new questionof concern, as emphasis shifts from defense to detente,is Europe's function in the "era of negotiation" whichPresident Nixon is: trying to open.

A quarter-century after World War II, massivearmies equipped with nuclear weapons still face eachother in the heart of a divided Europe. The attain-ment of a European settlement remains the chiefunfinished business of a troubled world. But thatsettlement will not be achieved from one day to thenext or from one year to the next. It will come, ifat all, as a result of a gradual process in whichincreasing East-West contact will play as importanta role as direct negotiation.

Some of the East-West negotiating will be bilateral.President Nixon has announced his intention.of engag-ing in bilateral talks with Moscow on a broad rangeof issues, including Vietnam, the Middle East, Berlinand strategic arms- control. Britain and France areparticipating in the Mideast talks. The other alliesare promised close consultation. And they themselveshave been engaged in a widegrange of bilateral con-tacts with the Communist countries—economic, 'cul-tural and even political.

The allies are .determined not to trample each otherin the race to Moscow that seemed to be developingbefore Czechoslovakia. What the NATO ministers mustnow develop is multilateral East-West machinery thatwill represent a realistic alternative to the kind ofpropaganda conference on European security theSoviet Union is urging. The need is for concrete workon concrete problems such as mutual force reductions,arms control, access to Berlin, freer East-West travel,trade discrimination, currency convertibility and East-ern contact with existing European organizations.

The reply to the East's European security proposalcould make NATO's third decade not only a. decade ofnegotiation but r of progressive settlement" of theissues thatijpvide the continent. l:~i-i£s:LK'":W-:0'