NATO Backs 2 Arms Control Goals of U.S.

BRUSSELS â€”  Foreign ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on Friday endorsed President Reagan’s goals of a 50% cut in offensive nuclear weapons and a ban on intermediate-range nuclear arms in Europe, but they distanced themselves from the President’s arms control objective of elimination of all ballistic missiles.

Secretary of State George P. Shultz conceded that some of the allied leaders were very skeptical of Reagan’s proposal, made at his Iceland summit with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev, to eliminate ballistic missiles over a 10-year period.

Lord Carrington, the NATO secretary general, said the alliance is engaged in a series of studies of various arms control options. According to Carrington, the European nations said, in effect, “Let’s see what all these studies bring forward before we commit ourselves wholly to agreeing with the United States about these things.�

Followed Defense Ministers

The foreign ministers, who set political policy for the 16-member alliance, generally followed the position staked out a week earlier by NATO defense ministers in urging U.S. arms control negotiators to give top priority to Reagan’s shorter-range missile proposals.

In their final communique, the ministers said that they “welcome the progress at Reykjavik towards agreement on 50% reductions in U.S. and Soviet strategic forces.�

They added that they “fully support the envisioned elimination of American and Soviet land-based (intermediate-range nuclear forces) in Europe.�

But there was no mention of Reagan’s Iceland proposal for a ban on all offensive ballistic missiles. The Europeans fear that such an agreement would leave the West at the mercy of superior Soviet conventional forces.

Although there were no open breaks between the United States and its 15 allies, the communique was, in the words of one veteran NATO watcher, “toned down by about one adjective a sentence� in its support for U.S. positions.

However, Shultz apparently succeeded in reassuring the Europeans that the Iran- contras controversy will not seriously impede U.S. foreign policy.

Shultz, who said earlier this week that he hoped to use the meeting to rebuild confidence in the United States, said Friday, “As it turned out, there wasn’t any rebuilding necessary.�

He said what other NATO members “want to feel sure about is that as far as America is concerned, we’re in business and we’re carrying forward our foreign policy and domestic policy.�

Carrington said none of the Europeans said anything about the Iran issue during two days of closed door meetings.

No Business of Alliance

“I don’t think it was mentioned by anyone else,� Carrington said. “After all, the Iranian affair is not the business of the alliance.�

Carrington, a former British foreign secretary, said of Shultz’s presentation, “I found the whole of the discussion very reassuring.�

Shultz said he told the allies that President Reagan’s strategy was to reveal all relevant information about the matter as soon as possible. He conceded that the strategy was damaged by the refusal by former National Security Council officials John M. Poindexter and Oliver L. North to testify to congressional committees. But he said that problem could be overcome.

“I think that as things move along it won’t place too much of a blockage in the getting out of information,� Shultz said. “Somehow or other, in our inquisitive society, information tends to emerge and the essence of what took place will become known and, perhaps in its broad and essential outlines, is already known.�

Shultz shrugged off CIA Director William J. Casey’s testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he did not recall misleading Shultz about arms shipments to Iran. While reaffirming his earlier statement that Casey and Poindexter told him last May that the operation had been terminated, Shultz said, “I don’t claim to remember everything I say, and so I don’t suppose other people necessarily do either.�

SALT Violation

Although the other 15 NATO members were unanimous in urging the United States to continue to abide by the unratified second strategic arms limitation treaty, the meeting virtually ignored Washington’s action last month in exceeding the pact’s limits on nuclear launchers.

“One or two people mentioned that,� Shultz said. “But, of course, this subject has been discussed before.� He said the allied leaders knew he was aware of their position.

Shultz ventured gingerly into British internal politics by denouncing the Labor Party’s policy, officially announced recently, to scrap Britain’s independent nuclear force and bar U.S. nuclear weapons from the country if the party wins the next parliamentary election.

“I have had drummed into me that as secretary of state for the United States, that I shouldn’t comment on party politics in other countries, and I don’t,� he said. “However, I can comment on substantive issues . . . and I think the idea of unilateral disarmament is a catastrophic idea. It doesn’t make any sense at all.�

Shultz also hinted the United States might pull out of its bases in Spain if the Madrid government insists on imposing new restrictions on U.S. forces there.

‘Good, Strong Talk’

“We had a good, strong talk,� Shultz said in reference to his meeting Thursday with Spanish Foreign Minister Francisco Fernandez Ordonez.

“Obviously conditions can be established by a host government that make it not very worth while to expend the resources necessary to maintain those bases,� Shultz said.

Fernandez Ordonez said earlier that Spain would refuse to renew the base pact when it expires in May, 1988, unless the United States agrees to substantial reductions in the 9,000 U.S. troops stationed at the four Spanish bases.

In the final communique, the ministers said NATO will give high priority to negotiating with the nations of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact new controls on conventional forces. The alliance announced new procedural proposals on the subject Thursday.

“Nuclear weapons cannot be dealt with in isolation,� the communique said. “We also look for progress in other areas of arms control, particularly since reductions in nuclear weapons will increase the importance of removing conventional disparities and eliminating chemical weapons.�