U.S. Offers Concessions to Clear Way for Missile Pact

GENEVA — Ambassador Maynard W. Glitman offered U.S. concessions at the arms talks here Tuesday in an effort to clear away basic obstacles to agreement with the Soviet Union on eliminating intermediate-range nuclear missiles worldwide.

Responding to last week’s decision by Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev to accept the “global double zero” option on all missiles of the 300- to 3,000-mile range, both in Asia and Europe, the new American concessions are designed to speed negotiations to an early conclusion, possibly by the end of the year.

“We have to move and we will expect them to move,” Glitman told newsmen outside the U.S. Mission as he waited to welcome the Soviet negotiating team for a special meeting convened on short notice on instructions from Washington. “It will not be a one-way street, but we now have an opportunity for a good agreement.”

Gorbachev’s offer of last week brought him to the global double-zero option--no mid-range or shorter-range missiles for either side anywhere in the world. The option does not include tactical nuclear weapons, those with a range of less than 300 miles.

Gorbachev’s offer appeared to remove a major obstacle from the talks. The Soviets had earlier insisted that they be allowed to retain 100 warheads on intermediate-range missiles in Asia and that the United States be permitted to keep 100 warheads on missiles of that range in the United States. The limited range of those missiles--600 to 3,000 miles--would prevent them from raining nuclear warheads onto Europe.

The major stumbling block now stems from Gorbachev’s proposal of last April to eliminate all shorter-range missiles, those with ranges of 300 to 600 miles. The United States has no missiles in this category, although it controls the warheads on 72 Pershing 1-A missiles operated by West Germany.

The Germans have resisted this part of Gorbachev’s proposal, and Glitman was adamant Tuesday in reiterating American opposition even to discussing the issue. He repeated that this new Soviet demand, involving one of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, is not an appropriate subject for bilateral talks between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Glitman’s superior, chief U.S. arms negotiator Max M. Kampelman, made the same point Tuesday in a press conference relayed by satellite from Washington to Europe.

Kampelman said the 72 Pershings are in a third-party system outside the scope of the superpower arms talks and that it was up to Bonn to decide what to do with them.

He added that the missiles, with a range of 460 miles, are becoming obsolete and present no military threat to the Soviet Union. “I have to assume they are a Soviet effort to cause some mischief within the Federal Republic (West Germany).

“I think their (the Soviets’) goal is now a political goal, and I see absolutely no reason why the United States should help them in trying to cause some angst or unsettling feelings within the Federal Republic,” Kampelman said.

Some Western diplomats have speculated that a compromise could emerge whereby the Pershings and their warheads would stay, but the United States would not modernize them, so that they would become unusable in a few years.

Asked to comment on that speculation, Glitman replied: “We will retain our right to continue our relationship with the Federal Republic on the Pershings which they acquired from us.”

He pointedly did not say anything about “modernization,” however.

The Pershing 1-As were one of the four issues cited in a Moscow press conference last week by the top Soviet arms negotiator, First Deputy Foreign Minister Yuli M. Vorontsov, as standing in the way of a final agreement.

It was to most of those issues that the United States apparently directed its response Tuesday. Although Glitman declined to disclose anything specific about the concessions, they are understood to deal with the following points:

-- New proposals on arrangements for verification and compliance with an agreement on elimination of the intermediate nuclear weapons, both longer and shorter range, which, as Glitman said, “becomes much simpler if you go all the way down to zero”.

-- An offer to destroy all U.S. land-based cruise missiles now in Europe rather than converting them to sea-based missiles.

-- Giving up the right, which the United States previously insisted on, to “convert down” its longer-range Pershing 2 intermediate missiles into shorter-range weapons. As Glitman noted, “If you ban all missiles from 500 to 5,000 kilometer (300 to 3,000 mile) range, you can’t convert to what is banned.”

-- Finally, new proposals on the timing of the process toward total elimination of the intermediate missiles. Since the Soviet Union has about 1,500 medium-range warheads against about 350 on the American side, the Americans have been insisting that the Soviets must start reducing first and at a faster rate. But the timetable is now open to negotiation.

The Soviet delegation, meanwhile, called a full session for today to present what aides said were new proposals on space weapons.

The arms negotiations are conducted in three separate groups, one on space defense systems, a second on long-range offensive strategic nuclear weapons and the third on the intermediate forces.