WEEKLY SUMMARY

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0005284701
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: June 22, 2015
• Document Release Date: December 15, 2008
• Case Number: F-2008-00942
• Publication Date: September 1, 1967

Secret
DIRECTORATE OF
INTELLIGENCE
WEEKLY SUMMARY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE DATE:
09-24-2008
Sccr et
4 9.
1 September 1967
No. 0305/67
 NONPROLIFERATION TREATY: THE NEXT PHASE
The US and the USSR have
introduced parallel drafts of a
nonproliferation treaty (NPT)
at Geneva, but there are still
problems to be worked out between
them. The Soviets have begun
the search for compromises on
these differences and for ways
in which they, together with the
US, can get around the remaining
objections of the nonnuclear
states.
Ambassador Roshchin, head
of the Soviet delegation, has
indicated that Moscow is willing
to consider a compromise on the
key question of safeguards--the
subject of Article III, which
was left blank in the draft sub-
mitted to the disarmament con-
ference last week. He told the
US delegate that the Soviet ver-
sion of Article III--calling only
for the International Atomic
Energy Agency (.IAEA) to verify
compliance with the treaty--could
be altered to help overcome ob-
jections raised by members of
EURATOM, which operates the safe-
guards system of the Common Mar-
ket countries.
Roshchin said the provision
could note that the IAEA can ne-
gotiate agreements "bilaterally
or multilaterally." Such a for-
mulation could accommodate EURA-
TOM in fact if not in name, and
clear the way for a compromise--
probably one in which the two in-
stitutions would work out the in-
spection problem between them.
The question of security as-
surances to nonnuclear countries
is another hurdle still to be
gotten over. After the US-Soviet
draft was tabled, Roshchin told
the US it was essential for Mos-
cow and Washington to reach agree-
ment quickly on this and the safe-
guards question so that the NPT
could be more easily defended at
the UN General Assembly. The Rus-
sians see eye-to-eye with the US
on the desirability of confining
consideration of the draft to the
Geneva forum until a text--a com-
plete one, if possible--can be
put before the General Assembly,
probably in October.
The Soviets have also indi-
cated that they will go along
with Washington's wish to make
separate statements on security
for nonnuclear states, rather
than writing these assurances
into the treaty. Before the
treaty is signed, however, ob-
jections from several quarters
must be overcome.
Moscow's delay in tabling
the treaty draft, apparently the
result of Rumanian foot-dragging,
Page 14 WEEKLY SUMMARY 1 Sep 67
 0
indicates that approval of a
final text by the USSR's allies
will not in every case be auto-
matic. As self-appointed spokes-
man for the nonaligned states,
India is giving the draft treaty
a cool reception and promises to
take an especially hard look at
the security guarantees. On the
Western side, West Germany and
Italy object to the proposed un-
limited duration of the treaty
and to the amendments provision,
which gives a veto power to the
IAEA board of governors--of which
they are not permanent members.
Moscow is least likely to
give ground on these latter two
points. The Russians are ob-
sessed with preventing West Ger-
man access to nuclear weapons,
and do not want to limit the
NPT's duration nor give the sig-
natories the riaht relect
amendments.
MOSCOW PAYS FOR SOVIET TROOPS IN EAST EUROPE
Recent research on the bal-
ance-of-payments deficits in So-
viet accounts since the late 1950s
indicates that Moscow reimburses
its allies for most if not all
costs of maintaining Soviet troops
in Eastern Europe.
The substantial deficits in
bilateral accounts with East Ger-
many, Poland, and Hungary are pro-
portional to the number of Soviet
troops billeted there. There is
no similar imbalance in accounts
with Rumania, Czechoslovakia, and
Bulgaria, where no Soviet troops
are stationed. This strongly sug-
gests that any contribution by
the Eastern European countries
toward the upkeep of Soviet troops
is small and in no case an eco-
nomic burden.
Against this background, Ru-
mania's grievances toward the
Warsaw Pact take on an overwhelm-
ingly political hue. The purported
Rumanian memorandum to other pact
members, published by the French
Communist Party newspaper L'Hu-
manite in May 1966, complained
about the expenses that arose from
the maintenance of foreign troops
on the territory of pact coun-
tries. Rumania was reported to
have argued that the country from
SECRET
Page 15 WEEKLY SUMMARY
1 Sep 67
A