AT almost the same time that the President of the U.S. took a pen from his pocket in the White House one morning last week to ratify the bound document before him, a similar bound document was placed in front of his Soviet counterpart in the Kremlin. At about 11 a.m. in Washington and about 7 p.m. in Moscow, Richard Nixon and Nikolai Podgorny affixed their signatures to the instruments of ratification of the nonproliferation treaty, which is designed to prevent the acquisition or development of atomic weapons by nations other than the five present nuclear powers (Britain, China, France, the U.S. and the Soviet Union).
Thus the two superpowers finally got around to ratifying the treaty that they jointly submitted to the 18-nation disarmament talks two years ago. Since then, 90 other countries have signed the treaty but only 22 of them have formally ratified it. One reason for the delay is that the other countries were waiting to see what the U.S. and Soviet Union would do. The U.S. was waiting for the Soviets. The Soviets, in turn, were waiting for the West Germans, who feared, among other things, that the treaty would handicap their development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. The breakthrough came three weeks ago, when West Germany’s new Chancellor, Willy Brandt, pledged to sign the treaty. True to his word, West Germany last week became the 93rd signatory.
Guarded Optimism. The forward movement on nonproliferation was certain to improve the already promising atmosphere in Helsinki, where the U.S. and Soviet Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) entered their second week.
Though both sides maintained a ban on news announcements, indications came through. TIME Senior Correspondent John Steele reported from Helsinki that U.S. Chief Delegate Gerard Smith seemed guardedly optimistic that the two sides would reach an early agreement in the exploratory stage of the talks. That would enable them to move on to a discussion of a moratorium on the testing or deployment (perhaps even both) of anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) and of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) .
In Washington, Secretary of State William P. Rogers buttressed the impression of progress or at least cordiality. He quoted U.S. negotiators in Helsinki to the effect that “the nature of the talks is the best of any discussions they have had with the Soviet Union.” The message from the other side, discreetly spread by Russian journalists, was that the Soviet delegation is “not discouraged” so far.
Military Balance. Both sides seem concerned that military pressure in the opposite camp could impede the talks. Reported Steele: “There is open speculation within the Soviet delegation about who is the real chief of the U.S. team. The Soviets suspect that it is not Smith but former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul H. Nitze, a relative hardliner who backed Nixon’s Safeguard program. The Soviets also remain preoccupied by fears that the U.S.’s so-called ‘military and industrial complex’ will torpedo the talks. In Helsinki, Soviet newsmen continually ask Americans, ‘Who has Nixon’s ear?'” Some Americans suspect that the Soviets are deliberately playing up their distrust of the Nixon Administration. Their object, according to this reasoning, is to force Washington to prove good faith by granting concessions greater than last week’s renunciation of bacteriological warfare (see THE NATION).
The Americans, similarly, are worried about how much influence the Soviet military may have on the Russian delegation. While the U.S. has only five officers on its 24-man team, the 24-man Soviet team includes five generals, two colonels and one admiral.
American worry increased a bit last week as several Soviet leaders issued hawkish statements intended perhaps to placate Soviet military men about the talks. If anything, the bluster suggested a split among Soviet leaders over the possible effects of the arms talks—not a planned effort to sidetrack SALT. In fact, the outlook was that after another week or so of sessions in Helsinki, the two teams would go home to prepare for more substantive negotiations.
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Donald Trump Is TIME's 2024 Person of the Year
- Why We Chose Trump as Person of the Year
- Is Intermittent Fasting Good or Bad for You?
- The 100 Must-Read Books of 2024
- The 20 Best Christmas TV Episodes
- Column: If Optimism Feels Ridiculous Now, Try Hope
- The Future of Climate Action Is Trade Policy
- Merle Bombardieri Is Helping People Make the Baby Decision
Contact us at letters@time.com