TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/022690/02260010.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 6.0 KB | 123 lines

                                                                                WORLD, Page 19

A Rush to Sign New Accords


After years of dickering over details, the superpowers suddenly
make progress on four arms-control fronts


    The agreement between the Soviet Union and the U.S. that
will allow 30,000 more American troops than Soviet ones to be
stationed in Europe was announced last week in what has become
standard fashion in the fast-moving Gorbachev era: a casual
aside. During a discussion about German unification in Ottawa,
Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze interrupted himself,
looked across the table at U.S. Secretary of State James Baker
and said, "Oh, by the way." Shevardnadze then proceeded to
report that Moscow had approved George Bush's plan that would
permit the two superpowers to maintain 195,000 troops each in
Europe's central zone and for the U.S. to station an additional
30,000 elsewhere on the Continent. Only four days earlier in
Moscow, Baker had listened to Mikhail Gorbachev reject any
proposal setting unequal European troop deployments. The
turnaround was so complete, and so rapid, that top U.S.
officials pronounced themselves "astonished."

    The U.S. stuck to its guns on both principle and
practicality. Establishing a manpower parity sends out the wrong
message, Washington contends, since U.S. forces are in Europe
by the invitation of host countries and Soviet troops are
occupying forces. As a practical matter, additional American
forces are needed because, instead of pulling back a relatively
short distance across land as the Soviets will do, the U.S. will
be withdrawing thousands of miles across an ocean. Any future
troop buildup in Europe would thus require greater effort by
Washington than by Moscow. Most U.S. analysts read the Soviet
stand-down as one more sign that Gorbachev wants to reach a
quick -- and successful -- end to the year-old Conventional
Forces in Europe negotiations. "They are desperate for a CFE
agreement," said a senior Administration official. "It's a
matter of economic life or death." Some observers in the East
speculated less charitably that the Soviet leader wanted to cut
a troop deal to camouflage the impending eviction of Soviet
forces from several Warsaw Pact nations.

    As a result of recent progress not only on CFE but on other
negotiating fronts as well, the superpowers may be on the brink
of drafting several new arms treaties. Items:

    CFE. Even before the issue of force levels was settled,
U.S. and Soviet negotiators had reached agreement on the number
of tanks each side would be permitted: 20,000. The treaty calls
not merely for the withdrawal of both sides' tanks over and
above that level but for their destruction -- 10,000 by the U.S.
and 40,000 by the Soviets. Negotiators have narrowed, but not
closed, the gap between the proposed ceilings on artillery; the
U.S. has suggested a figure of 16,500 pieces, while the Soviets
have weighed in with one of 20,000. Says a senior U.S.
negotiator: "We believe we're really getting close."

    The two sides, though, are still far apart on aircraft. The
U.S. has proposed that its NATO allies be permitted to maintain
on European soil up to 4,700 general combat planes and 500
interceptor craft. These 5,200 planes would represent a cutback
of about 1,500 units. The Soviets, with as many as 10,000 more
planes in the landmass east of the Urals than NATO, have offered
a ceiling of about 8,700. That, says the U.S. negotiator, is a
"total nonstarter." There is growing speculation that the U.S.
will seek to exclude aircraft from the CFE table altogether.
With or without plane ceilings, a finished CFE treaty could be
ready as early as the end of 1990.


    START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks). On his trip to
Moscow, Baker met with Shevardnadze to discuss three longtime
sticking points in these eight-year-old negotiations and reached
accord on two of them. They agreed not to deny each other
certain missile test-fire data by encryption, or making it
unintelligible, and decided how to count and handle missiles not
yet deployed. The two sides are still at odds on how to define
a weapons category known as ALCMs (air-launched cruise
missiles). The U.S. wants air-launched rockets to have a range
of at least 930 miles or more before falling into the ALCM
category, and the Soviets insist that the range of 370 miles or
more has already been agreed upon. Predicts a top U.S. START
negotiator: "We'll get over it." U.S. negotiators hope to wrap
up START negotiations in Geneva in time for the scheduled June
summit meeting between Bush and Gorbachev in the U.S.

    CHEMICAL WEAPONS. The Soviets have revised their position on
this subject as well, in effect responding affirmatively to a
plan advanced by Bush in an address to the U.N. General Assembly
last September. It envisions an eventual treaty signed by all
producer nations banning the development, manufacture or use of
such weapons and promising to destroy existing stocks. In the
meantime, the U.S. and the Soviet Union plan to negotiate a
treaty between themselves calling for the destruction of most
of their chemical weapons. This agreement could also be ready
in time for summit signing.

    OPEN SKIES. Based on an Eisenhower-era proposal that Bush
resurrected last May, the proposed agreement would allow unarmed
aircraft from any NATO or Warsaw Pact country to overfly the
other side's territory. The purpose is to observe military
activity and installations. Detractors of the Open Skies concept
point out that the agreement provides for a notification period
of 16 hours, affording ample opportunity for the concealment of
many kinds of mischief. But the proposal is viewed as a useful
confidence-building device by all 23 nations involved.
Negotiators hope to have a document ready for signing at a
second foreign ministers' conference to be held May 12 in
Budapest.


By William R. Doerner. Reported by Christopher Ogden with Baker.