THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY

May 25, 1994
 
The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty is a fundamental element 
of U.S. arms control policy.  This fact sheet reviews the basic 
purposes of the ABM Treaty, describes recent ABM Treaty developments, 
and lists the central elements of the Clinton Administration's approach 
to the ABM Treaty.
 
President Clinton is strongly committed to the viability of the ABM 
Treaty.  Efforts on the part of this Administration to reaffirm the 
significance of the Treaty are described below.  First, however, it is 
important to recall the basic framework of the Treaty.
 
Basic Framework of the ABM D Treaty
 
The ABM Treaty, which was signed in 1972 by the United States and the 
Soviet Union, prohibits deployment of a nationwide defense against 
strategic ballistic missile attack.  In the Treaty, the United States 
and the Soviet Union agreed that each may have two precisely limited 
ABM deployment areas (later limited by mutual agreement to one): to 
protect its capital or to protect an ICBM launch area.
 
To promote the objectives and implementation of the Treaty, the Parties 
established the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC), which meets at 
least twice a year.  Also the terms of the Treaty specify that a review 
of the Treaty shall be conducted every five years.
 
In 1974, the Parties to the Treaty agreed by means of a Protocol to 
reduce the number of permitted ABM deployment areas to one for each 
side.  The Soviet Union chose to maintain (and Russia continues to 
maintain) an ABM defense of its national capital, Moscow.  The 
United States chose-Lose to complete its Safeguard ABM system designed 
to defend its ICBM silo launcher area near Grand Forks, North Dakota; 
however, this system was operational for a very short time and has been 
inactive since 1976.
 
Recent ABM Treaty Developments
 
In 1993, the Clinton Administration conducted a review of U.S. policy 
towards Ballistic Missile Defense and the Future of the ABM Treaty The 
Administration made a determination that the "traditional" or "narrow" 
interpretation of the Treaty is the correct one.  The Administration 
therefore reaffirmed that the ABM Treaty prohibits the development, 
testing, and deployment of sea-based, air-based, space-based, and 
mobile land-based ABM systems and components without regard to the 
technology utilized.
 
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the question of treaty 
succession arose.  The United States has made clear its position that 
it is willing to accept as Treaty Parties any of the New Independent 
States (NIS) that want to be Party to the Treaty.
 
At the same time, the growing threat posed by theater ballistic 
missiles, and the need to combine effective protection against such 
threats while avoiding development of an ABM capability, has prompted 
the U.S. to propose that the demarcation between ABM and non-ABM 
defenses be clarified.  The ABM Treaty itself does not provide clear 
guidance on this question.  This clarification is being negotiated in 
the Treaty's implementing forum, the Standing Consultative Commission.
 
The Fourth Review of the ABM Treaty
 
During the regular five-year ABM Treaty Review that took place from 
September 27 October 1, 1993, in Geneva, the United States explored the 
issues of ABM/non-ABM demarcation and succession with Russia and the 
other participating states, Ukraine and Belarus.  The United States was 
reassured during this review that other states shared the view of the 
Treaty's principal obligations and of the need to strengthen the 
Treaty.  In the Joint Communique that was adopted at the Treaty Review, 
the participating states concluded that:
 
     Commitment to the ABM Treaty was reaffirmed and it was agreed that 
     maintaining the viability of the Treaty in view of political and 
     technological changes remains important.  The delegations at the 
     Review advocated continued efforts to strengthen the ABM Treaty
 
The Standing Consultative Commission (SCC)
 
In the past, many issues related to theater and strategic defenses have 
been vigorously debated within a number of different fora, including 
the Standing Consultative Commission.  The Standing Consultative 
Commission, established by the ABM Treaty, remains the forum for 
negotiation of and agreement on ABM Treaty issues.  The United States 
and Russia, along with other potential successor states, are working 
together to develop an effective ABM Treaty regime that will provide 
for multilateral succession to the ABM Treaty, as well as clarify the 
dividing line between ABM and non-ABM defenses.
 
At recent sessions of the SCC, which were held in Geneva from November 
29 - December 17, 1993, January 24 - February 4, 1994, and March 21 - 
April 21, 1994, the United States presented proposals designed to 
preserve the viability of the Treaty in light of the political and 
technological circumstances of the present day The other participating 
delegations have also introduced their own positions and ideas.
 
Despite some differences of view, the negotiations have demonstrated 
that there exists a significant degree of commonality in the approach 
to theater missile defense among SCC participants.  There is general 
agreement (1) that the threat of ballistic missile proliferation is 
real; (2) that there is a shared interest in being able to defend 
against this threat; and (3) that the ABM Treaty must be clarified 
to allow for the fielding of adequate theater missile defenses.
 
The Clinton Administration's ABM Policy
 
The central points of the Administration's ABM policy are as follows:
 
President Clinton has reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the ABM Treaty.  
The Administration considers it indispensable to stability, to the 
START I and START II reductions, and to longer-term reductions in 
strategic offensive arms.
 
The Clinton Administration has reaffirmed the "narrow" or "traditional" 
interpretation of the ABM Treaty as the correct interpretation, i.e., 
the ABM Treaty prohibits the development, testing, and deployment of 
sea-based, airbased, space-based, and mobile land-based ABM systems and 
components without regard to the technology utilized.
 
The Administration has withdrawn the broad revisions to the Treaty 
previously proposed in the SCC which were intended to permit expanded 
deployment of strategic ABM defenses.
 
The Administration has recognized the need to specify a dividing line 
between ABM systems limited by the Treaty and non-ABM systems.  When 
the Treaty was negotiated, both parties understood that this 
demarcation was left undefined.  The time has come to define it.  This 
will be accomplished by agreement in the SCC, not unilaterally.  How 
the final agreement is formalized, as a legal matter, must properly 
await the outcome of the negotiations.  Finally, the President has 
directed the Administration to consult closely with Congress on these 
issues.
 
CHRONOLOGY
 
July 13, 1993: Narrow Interpretation of the ABM Treaty Endorsed by the 
Clinton Administration
 
        On July 13,1993, Thomas Graham, Jr., Acting Director of 
        the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency provided 
        Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI), Chairman of the Senate 
        Foreign Relations Committee, with the Clinton 
        Administration's reaffirmation of the "narrow" or 
        "traditional" interpretation of the ABM Treaty: the ABM 
        Treaty prohibits the development, testing, and deployment 
        of Sea-based, air-based, space-based, and mobile land-based 
        ABM systems and components without regard to the technology 
        utilized.
 
September/October 1993: Fourth Review of the ABM Treaty
 
        The Fourth Review of the ABM Treaty, held between September 27 
        and October 1 of 1993, reaffirmed the participants' commitment 
        to the ABM Treaty and advocated efforts to strengthen the 
        Treaty.
 
December 1993: U.S. Decision on ABM Treaty Succession
 
        The Clinton Administration announced its acceptance of 
        multilateralization of the ABM Treaty and directed that 
        negotiations begin on procedures to implement a multilateral 
        succession.
 
December 1993: U.S. Position on Theater Missile Defense
 
        The Clinton Administration announced its goal to seek a clear, 
        negotiated, demarcation between ABM and non-ABM systems in 
        order to clarify the ABM Treaty provisions.
 
November 29 - December 17,1993; January 24 - February 4,1994; and 
March 21 April 21,1994:
 
        Sessions of the Standing Consultative Commission were held in 
        Geneva, Switzerland, where Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and the 
        United States discussed proposals to provide for multilateral 
        succession to the ABM Treaty and to clarify the demarcation 
        between ABM systems limited by the Treaty and non-ABM systems.