Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 13, 1971)
First ray of optimism shines on SALT By Chalmers M. Roberts (C) 1971, The Washington Post WASHINGTON—The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, now 23 months old, have produced for the first time such expressions of optimism from both Americans and Russians as to indicate that at long last a SALT agreement will be consummated. Some see it by the end of 1871, others not until sometime in 1972. Inquiry leads to the conclusion that SALT indeed is in the home stretch but that some tough bargaining remains. President Nxion as well as the Kremlin leaders will have some hard decisions to make before the resumption of the talks in Vienna on Nov. 15. Before going into details it is worth recalling that the initial American approach favored a comprehensive agreement on quantitative control of both offensive and defensive weapons systems. Qualitative control, essen tially control of the multiple warheads known as MIRVS, has been touched on but hardly more. Currently any con trols being considered are strictly quantitative. Not until last May 20 did the two super powers finally agree on the parameters of such a quantitative agreement. On that day they an nounced they had “agreed to con centrate this year on working out an agreement for the limitation of deployment on antiballistic missile systems (ABM).” Then the joint an nouncement added that “they have also agreed, together with concluding an agreement to limit ABMS, they will agree on certain measures with respect to the limitation of offensive strategic weapons.” Vague connection The verbal linkage on May 20 between controls over defensive and offensive systems was vague but there was a linkage. American officials insist the link is a must; there will be no agreement on ABMS, the Soviet priority item, without a hold-down on offensive missiles, landbased ICBMS and submarine-launched SLBMS, the American priority item. At the moment there is still disagreement on both items in the package. The Soviets concede the linkage but interpret it differently. Let us look at the basic premise and then at the details. The premise is parity, or equality to use the word most currently in style. Both nations agree but they differ on what constitutes equality. On the ABM issue Moscow wants to match its galosh system protecting the command and control structure of the capital (and peripherally protecting some of its offensive missiles in the area to a degree dependent on the ABM limits to be agreed upon) with an American ABM protection of one of the existing Minuteman I CBM systems. The United States (which has given up on a com parable protection of the Washington areas in part, because the ad ministration figures it cannot get the money from Congress) wants to protect at least two, maybe three, of its Minutemen fields. The simplest solution, of course, would be for each side to go to “zero ABMS” but this idea has been abandoned. Russians say they offered zero ABM but the Americans rejected it; some Americans say it was the Russians who refused but others concede that the real negative came from Washington. Jackson key figure A key figure in the American in sistence on protecting Minuteman missiles is Sen. Hanry M. Jackson, the budding Democratic presidential candidate whom President Nixon tried to recruit as his Secretary of Defense. Jackson says that “I’ve conveyed my views” to the administration “about the necessity to provide that protection.” But he won’t comment on a report that he wrote Mr. Nixon that the Senate would not ratify a SALT treaty unless it included protection for at least two Minuteman fields. Jackson has con sistently called for such ABM protection, rejecting the contention of ABM opponents that the system is worthless or next to worthless. Some argue that there can be no treaty without Jackson’s approval and they recall how President Kennedy had to agree to a big test preparedness program to win Jackson’s support for the partial nuclear test ban in 1963. Maybe Jackson could not stop a SALT agreement but he certainly could make it difficult. Hie ABM part of the SALT argument includes both the number of Minutemen sites to match against galosh and the kind of ABM deployment, both the number of missile launchers to be permitted and the scope and number of radars that are critical to the system. The United States is very insistent on limiting the radars. The argument is that additional missiles could be emplaced in a hurry if the radars are extensive whereas radar construction takes a long time and cannot be hidden. Strict control of radars thus is vital to prevent a sur prise Soviet shift in the ABM balance. The ABM part of the SALT package now seems to be bargainable provided the two nations can come to terms on the “certain measures” to control offensive missiles. It is now reliably said that Moscow has agreed to freeze the number of its ICBMS and to include in that a sub-ceiling of around 300, the current figure, on its giant SS-9S, a prime American goal for SALT. Most probably the freeze would be at the level of the day of signing the agreement. The big dispute is over submarine launched ballistic missiles, SLBMS. Moscow says that the May 20 reference to “certain measures” includes them. Jackson says that “we have to have an understanding” on SLBMS. That “we can’t leave that wide open.” Some U.S. officials say that the Soviets now have operational and under construction as many SLBM submarines as does the United States. The indications are that the U.S. would agree to let the Soveits complete subs now building if Moscow will accept an SLBM freeze as part of the offensive missile half of the SALT package. The problem of finding parity or equality in a SALT agreement ob viously is highly difficult. Currently the Soviets, their missile construction going ahead at full speed, are in a rather cocky mood. The Americans who deal with the problem sometimes wonder whether the Russians are trying to freeze the United States into a position of numerical inferiority in ICBMS (the Soviets lead by some 1,500 to 1,054) while demanding the right to build to equality in ALBMS. The Soviet answer to this numbers game is that the U.S. already is Mirving both its Minutemen and Poseidon SLBMS so that it has many more warheads. The American counter is that since any SALT agreement will contain no restraints on MIRVS the Soviets are expected to MIRV as quickly as they can. Since the May 20 agreement in dicates that any SALT aggreement will be an initial one, a limited rather than a comprehensive pact, there is a strong likelihood that some time limits will be written into the agreement. In short, the ABM part (expected to be in treaty form for Senate ratification) would be of limited duration pending a total agreement to limit offensive missiles. (The offensive missile part of the agreement is expected to be in non treaty form, perhaps an exchange of statements). The problem now facing Mr. Nixon and presumably the Kremlin leaders as well is how to strike a balance between an ABM pact and limitation of ICBMS plus SLBMS. The president, probably just before SALT resumes, will have to decide on what tradeoffs he is prepared to accept. With Senator Jackson, and others in and out of the administration, watching hawk-like, it is not going to be an easy choice. But the nettle will have to be grasped if SALT is to come to at least an initial success. I .os Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service Shawkat Hassan Benqal blood is on U.S. hands Shawkat Hassan is a sophomore in biochemistry at the University. The plight of the 75 million Bengalis has failed to arouse the humanity within the Nixon Administration. The U.S.A. who claims to be the champion of democracy has become a casual spectator to this heinous program Indeed, Bangladesh is a tragedy of nonchalance. Replenished with U.S. arms, General Yahya and his hawks have unleashed horrors to subjugate a nation to slavery. “Kill the Bengalis, loot their properties, burn their houses, rape their women” was the order on that fateful night of March 25. The brunt of this barbarity fell equally on men and women irrespective of their cast, creed and age. But with the advent of a guerrilla movement, the fond dream of permanent colonization of Bengal has become a nightmare to him. The blunt dictator failed to assess the determination of a nation compelled to fight for its existence. To the Bengalis, it is a fight to live with human dignity; it is a war for emancipation and liberation; it is a struggle to salvage their motherland and hoist her to the portals of honor. But it’s a pity that even when a nation is bleeding at the hands of barbarous hordes because of winning a free election, the conscience of the U.S. government remins remarkably unperturbed. Despite worldwide ostracism of the Yahya regime, the Nixon Administration has failed to discontinue its policy of arming Pakistan s blood-thirsty army. Instead Mr. Nixon is giving economic and military aid to the already berserk war-machine. Com mented Drs. N. Hirschhorm, R.A. Cash, W.E. Woodword of the U.S. Public Health Service; “ ... when will the U.S. ever learn that an immoral realpolitik always leads to destruction, despair and death?” Dr. Wali Khan of West Pakistan in an interview in London stated: “ .. . where is the humanity of Washington leaders . Is the U.S. condoning genocide in Bangladesh in the interest of stability rather than morality?” Indeed, it does seem that the U.S. is more interested in global strategy than humanitarian gestures. Nixon still claims the Bangladesh issue to be an “internal problem” of Pakistan and chooses to remain uninvolved. But as Senator Ken nedy testified before the Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee on May 11: * “We are involved. Our weapons have been involved in the violence. Our aid has contributed to West Pakistan’s develop ment for more than a decade.” The Guardian, Sept. 4 (comment) states: “American ships still deliver arms to stock the Punjabi army. American planes free PIA Boeings to ferry more troops east. American aid flows on.” Reliable reports from the Bangladesh government states that more than a dozen American experts are training Pakistanis in counter-insurgency measures at Quetta, Baluchistan and Dacca. American “Cobra” helicopters from Vietnam have been given to the military junta to quell the Liberation struggle. American relief vessels have been converted to gun-boats and trucks given for the transportation of foodstuffs have been incorporated into the artillery. The Hindustan Times Sept. 8, stated that the Nixon Administration had promised 1 million dollars to Pakistan to charter 18 coasters on a six months lease. One cannot fail to see that these will ultimately be used to destroy coastal cities and towns. In his statement before the U S. House of Representatives, Cornelius Gallagher states: “ . . . American boats supplied last winter to bring relief supplies to the victims of the hurricane and flood are presently being used to carry troops on murderous raids through the countryside. I contend that these and many other facts demolish the conception that it is solely a internal matter of Pakistan. Rather it has now become an internal matter for mankind.” The Bangladesh, Sept. 10 edition states: “The pro-American Pakistani officers trained by the U.S. army along the lines of “Green-Berets” are now in Bangladesh. These ‘toughs’ are specially trained for mass-murders, sabotage, assassination and torture. At present there are 200 U.S. Aid experts in Bangladesh training the "civilian population” in counter-insurgency methods.” All these go to prove Nixon’s myopic policies. Apparently, the U.S. has not learned anything from its experiences in Korea, Vietnam and Laos. The People, another Bangaldesh newspaper, recently stated that the U.S. Embassy in Dacca is embarrassed and disenchanted by Nixon’s policies. The entire staff of the embassy, except Mr. Archer Blood, has written a joint petition to Washington to reconsider its political decisions. In response, Am bassador Farland and a specially-briefed member of the Foreign Service from Washington flew to Dacca to inform the Embassy staff of their “political neutrality.” Katherine G. Kelley of American Embassy—US. Aid in Islamabad remarked: “ ... if the U.S. has to agonize over the question of supporting a democracy as opposed to a military suppressionist regime that has murdered a million of its citizens and driven more than 6 million from their homes, then the U.S. has forfeited the right to ever again purport to exercise moral leadership or promote democracy .” Indeed, it is high time that Nixon realizes the legitimate struggles of the Bengalis. Washington must realize too that the right to self-determination is the in born acquisition of a nation however big or small it might be. But the exigencies of the situation and political machinations more often than not pall the real issue and play hell with the existence and aspirations of a budding nation. History is replete with instances of the cogent nature wherein national aspirations are suppressed and the nation’s voice gagged to the detriment of the freedom spirit which is the birth right of a nation. vi Pane 11
