ABM Review Wrong on All Counts, Nunn Says

WASHINGTON —  Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), completing a three-day attack on the Administration’s legal case to expand its Strategic Defense Initiative under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, charged Friday that the strongest part of the White House’s argument is just as wrong as other parts that he already has rejected.

Nunn directed his final barrage at the Administration’s contention that the secret negotiating record on the 1972 ABM treaty with the Soviet Union permitted testing and development of a space-based missile defense system such as SDI, often called “Star Wars.”

Summarizing his three-part attack on a State Department legal opinion written two years ago, Nunn declared that the Administration was “wrong in its analysis of the Senate ratification debate, wrong in its analysis of the record of subsequent practice . . . and wrong in its analysis of the negotiating record itself.”

Restudying Position

The Administration has proposed adopting a broader interpretation of the treaty, which restricts development of anti-missile defenses, to allow testing of a “Star Wars” system. President Reagan announced last month that he would continue adhering to the current narrow interpretation until the Administration restudies its legal position.

Nunn, whose views on arms issues are widely respected, conducted his attack on the Administration’s legal reasoning at a time when some Democrats in Congress are requesting a decrease in “Star Wars” funding and are seeking to pressure Reagan for progress on strategic weapons reductions in arms control negotiations.

In his opening salvo Wednesday, the senator issued a scathing report on a 1985 opinion written by State Department legal adviser Abraham Sofaer that has been cited by the Administration in its arguments involving the treaty.

Sofaer, a former federal judge, conceded Thursday that his review of the Senate ratification record had been “incomplete.” But he continued to insist that the negotiation record showed that the Soviets never agreed to U.S. proposals for banning the testing and development of space defense systems now sought by Reagan.

‘Some Ambiguities’

On Friday, Nunn acknowledged that Sofaer identified “some ambiguities” in the treaty negotiating record as part of the opinion, which supported a broader interpretation.

However, Nunn asserted, the ambiguities were “not of sufficient magnitude to demonstrate that the Richard M. Nixon Administration reached one agreement with the Soviets (in private) and then presented a different one to the Senate” for ratification.

“Notwithstanding the ambiguities,” he added, “the negotiating record contains substantial and credible information which indicates that the Soviet Union did agree that the development and testing of (space defense technology) was banned,” allowing only research.

To contend that the Administration had built “a woefully inadequate foundation” for a more permissive reading of the treaty would be “a vast understatement,” Nunn concluded.

In response, White House and State Department spokesmen reiterated the Administration’s belief that a broader definition of the treaty was “fully justified.” However, they spoke deferentially of the influential Nunn and said the President would carefully consider his and others’ views in deciding whether to push for expansion of the space defense program.

Debating Points

Nunn’s studies are expected to figure prominently in the continuing debate over “Star Wars” funding and arms control negotiations with the Soviets, who have sought an end to the space defense program.

Nunn charged that the procedure by which the Administration decided on a broad reading of the ABM treaty was “fundamentally flawed.”