S)
MEMORANDUM FOR- R. E. Hineman
Deputy Director for Science and Te
lo bo4
SUBJECT
K. Eckman
Director or" Research and Development UCLA Arms Control Verification Conference
the interest of maintaining relationships with centersexcellence and in advancing scholarship on theof verification of arms control agreement, ORD'i
support by andCLA proposal.
'nitiated steps to provideomerence on verification problems organized he Center for international Studies, UCLA. (See Attachment It and, ORD Project Approval Memo, The substance of the conference, conference arrangements, attendees, etc. were not influenced by ORD. ORD sponsorship and the conference was endorsed by SOVA (see Although UCLA apparentlyontract with the Government, no contract has been executed as of this date.(U)
Senior Analyst for Arms Controlthe conference. He felt it wasexpand understanding of verification
of
problems. The conference was attendod by leading academic and government experts on arms control, such as Ambassador Robert Buckheim, Ambassador to the ASAT talks; Warren Heckrotte, Deputy Chairman of the US delegation to the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations; and Arnold Horelick RAND. (U)
3. In connection with the conference, an alleged security incident described in the attached press clipping (Washingtonpparently occurred It involved an AFOSI security challengeaper prepared and delivered by Professor Jeffrey Richelson of American University on "Technical Collection and Arms Control." The AFOSI mistakenly believed that
FOH BfltASf1
SUBJECT: UCLA Arms Control Verification Conference
Richelson planned toaper they had already reviewed and thought should be classified. The talk Richelson gave is summarized by the SOVA attendee in Attachment 5. Richelson maintains his facts were all derived from open sources* In any case, no information was provided to Richelson by ORD, nor was his paper (or any other) reviewed by this Office. (U)
Philip K. Eckraan
4. Consistent with Agency policy, the UCLA administration was mindful of and approved Agency support. (U)
Attachments; as stated
attachment 1
mmm ipncoumuxivu rvir'l muu -
university of california. los
OFFICE Of COMPACT AND CHANT ADMINISTRATION
iortrt tor rosslyn station arlington, virginia
to* ANceixs.m*4
eyer drive
d^ar
on behalf of the regents of the university ofan pleased to present the enclosed proposal for your review. the _
proposaln supportonference entitled
"verification and arm control" to be held at ucla januaryr.z the conference will be coordinated by drs. michael intrillgator!
and ullliaa potter of the center for international and
requested byopy of the unl
6 current
your office, also enclosed indirect cost negotiation agreement.
order to facilitate your review, please contact cither dr. intrillgator or dr. potter4 with any questions about the proposed conference. please contact rae3 with any questions of an administrative nature. if an award is made, it should be issued in the nane of the regents of the university of california and forwarded to-chis office. your interest in this project is appreciated.
sincerely,
connie whitley
contract and crane officer
enclosures: latterrom dr.opy of referenced proposal negotiation agreement
nel:
cc: dr. mlchsel intrillgator dr. william potter
c
OF CALIFORNIA. LOS ANGELES
FOR INTERNATIONAL AND STRATEGIC AFFAIRS LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA (COS*
4
:ice or Kesearcn and Development Central Intelligence Agency Washington,
Dear^^
Attached is the formal proposal we discussed requesting supportonference on "Verification and Arms Control" to be held atppreciate your assistance in this matter.'
Sincerely,
William C. Potter Associate Director
9P
Enclosure
cc:
f
PROPOSALONFERENCE ON VERIFICATION AND ARMS CONTROL
Submitted by the Center for International and Strategic Affiirs University of California, Los Angeles
A. Conference focus and Rationale
Despite the centrality of verification to the eras ccntrol process, little serious discussion of the topic is available in the ccen literature. (One exception is the volume. Verification and SALTilliam C.) The conference on Verification and Arms Control, to be held at the University of California, Los Angeless designed to remedy, in part, this problem. The conference will bring -jcetber leading academic and governmental specialists on arms control and verification to identify what is known about the subject and tow research strategies
In the field. Papers presented at the conference will be publishedook
I
edited by Dr. Williaa Potter in the CISA book series. Studies in International
and Strategic Affairs.
Papers presently committed for delivery at the cor.^rsnce are:
TECHKICAL COLLECTION AND ARMS CONTROL Jeffrey Richelson American University
VERIFYING THE TEST BAN TREATIES Warren Heckrotte
Lawrence Llveraore National Laboratory
VERIFICATON OF COMPLIANCE IN THE AREAS OFICA. AND CHEMICAL. Cleminson
Canadian Government, Department of External Affairs
VERIFYING BOMBER AND CRUISE MISSILE LIMITATIONS Dean Wilkening The Rand Corporation
c
VERIFICATION OF TEST LIMITATIONS OF STRATEGIC SYSTEMS
Gordon Kane
The Rand Corporation
COOPERATIVE MEASURES FOR VERIFICATION: HOW FEASIBLE? HOW EFFECTIVE? James Schear Harvard University
VERIFICATION ANO THE RISK OF STRATEGIC BREAKOUT: THE SOVIET
PERSPECTIVE
Stephen Meyer
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
THE ROLE OF VERIFICATION ANO COMPLIANCE IN CONGRESSIONAL
DEBATES
Michael Krepon
The Carnegie Endowment
THE POLITICS OF VERIFICATION Mart Lowenthal
Congressional Research Service (on leave. Dept. of State) Joel Wit
Georgetown University
In addition to the formal paperubstantial portion of the conference will be devoted to discussion by other invited participants. It is anticipated that paper authors will revise their contributions for the book publication in light of this discussion. Individuals invited toIn thegeneral discussion include:
Lew Allen, Oet Propulsion Laboratory
Robert Barker, ACOA
Steven Brands, New York University
Robert Buchheim, Former SCC Chairman
Paul Davis, Rand
James Digby, Rand
Leon Fuerth, House Intellicence Committee
William Graham, ROA
Roland Herbst, ROA
Arnold Korelick, Rand
Gerald Johnson, TRW
Amrom Katz, RDA
Michael May, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Roger Molander, Roosevelt Center
(
Eric Newson, Senate Select Intelligence Committee
Riley Newman, UC Irvine
Robert Perry, Rand
Alan Piatt, Rand
George Rathjens, MIT
Jack Ruina, MIT
Herbert York, UC, San Diego
CISA will provideeliverable five copies of the'conference proceedings and five copies of the book based on the conference, as soon as It is published.
Investigators and Conference Coordinators:
Dr. Michael D. Intriligator Dr. William C. Potter
D. Budget
Travel:
8 East Coastest Coast airfares
Rcc-i:
ight
Meals:
4
4
14
Administration:
Telephones, xerox Secretary
(
NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT Colleges and3 Negotiation
DATE SG?
INSTITUTION: University ofREF.: This reple
LOS ANGELESAgreeme-
dated October
The indirect cost rates contained herein are for use on grants and contracts with the Federal Government subject to the conditions contained in Section II and III.
SECTION I: RATES
Type .
rom
-To""
To
Research
Research
Service
Service
1
Hall
General Clinical Research Center, Health Science Center
*8ase: Modified Total Direct Costs consisting
and Wages including tuition remission
to students as compensation.
*Benefits
and Supplies
"
ntxiREiT or frikge behefits aw pais asssn
of Other Frinc? PgnefiSs
Insurance
Insurance
Insurance
Plan Contribution
This organization charges the actual cost of eachenefit direct to Fedtrel projects. However"dgets fringe benefits on project proposals byomposite rate. The current composite fringe benefit rate nay be verified by celling the HHS negotiator identified in this agreement. Following is the list of fringe benefits at the University:
. Worker'sealth Planetirement SystemICA
Treitr.2rt_ of Paid Absences
Vacation, holiday, sic* leave pay and ether paid absences are included in salaries andre charged to federal projects as part of the normal charge for salariesg:s. Separate charges fcr the cost of these absences are not made.
II: GfcVOAL
Use of the rates contained In this agreement Is subject to anyadninlstratlve limitation applicableiven grant or contract and thefunds. Acceptance of the rates agreed to herein is predicated on the conditions: no costs other than those incurred by the grantee/contractor were Included incosts finally accepted and that such costs arebligations ofcontractor and allowable under theosthat thethat have been treated as Indirect costs are not claimed as -lirecttypes of costs have been accorded consistent accounting treatment, and orcetIon provided by the grantee/contractor which was usedasisof the rates asreed to herein is net subsequently found to beor Inaccurate.
CHANGES: The fixed rates contained in this agreement arc based onsystem in effect at the time the agreement was negotiated. Changes toof accounting for costs which affect the amount of reimbursement resulting fromof this rates require the prior approval of the authorized representativenegotiation agency. Such changes include but are not limited toarticular type of cost from indirect to direct. Failure to obtainmay result in subsequent cost disallowances.
f FIXED RATES: The fixed rates contained in this agreement are bssed on anost; which will be incurred during the period to which the rate applies. Whencosts for such period have been determined, an adjustment will bo made innegotiation to compensate for the difference between those costs usedthe fixed rate and actual.
ex
0. USE BY other federal AGENCIES: The rates contained herein was nesotf&ed-'f'nwith the authority set forth fn3 and shouIH be applied to the
tent provided In such Circular,i *-
3 of 3
SPECIAL REMARKS:
(1) Definition of On-Campus, Off-Camcus and Special Rates
of Off-Campus rate
The off-campus rate is applicable to those projects conducted at facilitis not owned by the University.
of On-Campus and Off-Campus rates
Projects conducted entirely on-campus or entirely off-camjijs;
Projects conducted entirely on-campus or entirely off-campus will be appli
the on-campus or off-campus rate respectively.
Projects conducted partially off-campus and partially on-camous: If the project involves work at both on-campus and off-campus sites, eith? the on-campus or off-campus rate generally should be applied,here the majority of the work is to*be performed. Salary cost is general acceptedeasure of work performed in terms of the total project.
The use of both on- and off-campus ratesiven project may be justif if both of the respective rates can clearly be identifiedignifies portion of salaries and wages of the project. For purposes of this provis significant is defined asr more of the total costs and project's total salary and wage costs
special rates
These'rates apply only to the facility or program to which they are identified. If any additional special rates become necessary the establishment of such rates should be coordinated through the cpgnirant negotiation agency.
the Institution
For the Regents of the University of California
By the Cognizant Negotiation Agency on behalf of the Federal Government
Dept. of Health and Human Services
4^
/s/
F. Cheit
TTT
cting ViceBusing*;'; Management
David S. Low
Director, Division of Cost4
SEOftti
2
4
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Research and
to Fund an Unsolicited Proposalonference on Verification of Arms Control Agreements - (U)
1. Summaryj
Thepermission
toand
Strategic Affairs, University of California at Los Angeles, onference on the verification of arms control agreements* The conference will bring together leading academic and government experts on verification to explore political and technical problems of verification and to identify fruiful new areas of research* (U)
proposed conference will costustomer for this project* COTR will be
2* Background
Center for International and Strategic Affairsesearch institute at UCLA. Scholars affiliated with the Center conduct research and teach courses in international conflict, strategic theory, nuclear proliferation, and arms control. Each year, the Center publishes dozens of books and monographs and holds one or two conferences on these subjects* (U)
*
A number of Agency analysts have attended these conferences over the past few years. They have been allowed to participate without charge. SOVA plans to send its Senior Research Analyst for Arms Control Issues to the proposed conference on verification of arms control agreements * (U)
Dr. William Potter* Associate Director of the Center, phoned me in November to see if Agency support would be available for this particular conference on verification and arms control* old him to sendhort proposaleceived in mid-December. opy to SOVA to see if they were interested.
Because of theid not hear from SOVA until early January* The attached memo to cl Ifromivision, SOVA, endorsed the proposal and pointed out that the subject of the proposed conference is of high interest to the Agency, and the publication of its proceedings will be useful for both Agency and academic personnel who study arms control.
In early January, before I Bdecided to recommend funding for the conference. Dr. Potter tol^me he would proceed with the conference even without Agency funds albeitmaller scale. evertheless recommend that we support this conference because of its value to SOVA, and because the Agency has benefited without cost from past conferences at the Center. Moreover, this is an opportunity for 0rd and the Agency to establish and maintain firmer tiesespected part of the academic community*
3. General Description of the Effort:
The purpose of the proposed conference is to explore whatat the unclassified level about verification and toand innovative approaches to the monitoring of arms Experts on arms control* strategic theory,and selected methodologists will be brought together Through the' presentation and evaluation ofwill identify fruitful directions for new researchand will propose new methodologies that can be usedresearch*
The conference shouldA participants up to date with the latest academic thinking in this field and should permit them to identify new methodologies that can be adapted or developed for use in their intelligence analyses* (U)
Conference proceedings will be published* (U)
4* Technical Risks/Issues:
None. (U)
OTR:
CustomerRationale for ORDis the customer for this project. (U)
The conference will focus on verification methodologies and explore ways in which new verification methodologies could be developed* It is, therefore, appropriate for ORD to sponsor it. (U)
of Costs:
The cost of the conferencewere no prior
costs. No follow-on work is anticipated* But, SOVA requests fort additional work in this field may be stimulated by this conference* (U)
8. Duration of the Contracts
The contract will run from January throughhe conference will be heldanuary but the proceedings will not be published until the end of the year. (U)
Expected Follow-ons to Proposed Vtor
further conferences are planned on this subject for the next few years. The conference may. however,OVA request for more research on the verification of arms control agreements"'
(U)
10. Security Requirements;
The conference and proceedings will be unclassified. All aspects of the proposed contract will be unclassified. (U)
11. Special Items: None. (U)
ATTACHMENTS:
Statement of Work
Sole Source Justification
SOVA Memo Requesting Support Unsolicited Proposal
APPROVED:
K.RD
ft4
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM
SUBJECT :
UCLA Arms Control"
on "verification and
1. He have received your memorandum andthe proposed conference at UCLA onControl." While SOVA is unable to offer resourcesthe meeting, the Office would endorse Win's offerthe funds needed by UCLA to complete preparationsand would be interested in_ -
any further arrangements be carried out between
of your has
and WillTam Potter understand that support of the Conference will and Intrillgator. ,jV>.,
ATTACHMENT 4
Officials Hinted Prosecution Over Speech, Professor Says
H
r
his material was obtained from public sources.
In addition, Ricbetaon and several colleagues at the too-day conferencetha investigators apparently were operating under the mistaken assumption that he was going toanother paper that they had obtained and thought should beeven though it. too. wea based eo public sources.
hought they were sort ofharassing me without any reallchelson said. "Although they said that wasnt theirhey wouldn't give me any specifics about what the problem wee...
The officiale reportedly Involved In tha episode,hasc of1 of the Air Force Office of Spedal Investigations fcn Lee Angilss and Lt Col. Bruce Weave, deputy security director for the Ah Force space division, were Dot available for comment
Space division spokesman CoL Geoff Bskar said last night, however, that the officials are far fromand have referred the matter to "higher authorities* who have ItinvTStigstion."
The wheat thing smacked ofand harassment toaid Michael Intriiigotor, director of UCLA's Center for International and Strategic Studies, where lhance look place- "It raises the legal issue of prior reetreint"
Center aasociau director William Potter, who arranged the conference, said heall from Shaad about were waiting instructions from Washington. He [Shaad] emphasized his office dealt with felonyotter said that he and FUhtboc called Shaad and that *il becamelhat they did not know the title of Mr. Riehebons paper."
Rlchelson said Shaad hada copyaper done by Ri-cheason Lestistory of the 'Keyhole Satellite Program' sioce. Richelaon said he thinks the'Air Force obtained the copy within the last few daysest Coast colleague, to whore he had sent it, left it on his deakecurity officer noticed it, decided It was classified and confiscated it,
Richolson said Shaad refused to discuss his objections over theand came to the center with Wee-vet. Rkheisoc'i talknd the officers appeared about fci5 but "didntwhat was wrong with thsthe professor said.
lchelson said, ihey 'tort of cautioned me about being careful about discussing classified inferaa-tion" in his presentation "and about being subject to FBI prosecution and investigation."
Mark Lynch, an American Civil Liberties Union eipen In national security law, said it was clearlyIn World War II that the espionage law cited to Rkhebon does not apply to mformationfrom public sources
Belter said Rlchelson onceovernment security classification that creeled enduring obligations after it expired.
ATTACHMENT 5
8. The presentation on "Technical Collection and Arms Con;yey Richelson (American University) was not weeceded by most of the participants. More than half oTTi s resentation consistedlaundry list- of Imagery and SK.INT resources drawn from data in Aviation Week. Congressional testimony, and other public sources, with little atfmot at assessing the capabilities of these systems to contribute to verification of compliance. He did note, however, that their capabilities are often exaggerated and cited the followlnq factors as eroding their performance:
intermittent coverage malfunctions of systems
darkness and cloud
" BOrehan the systems can be expected to coverorollary, he noted that arms control targets might riot be given high priority inegimen) Inability of SIGlNT satellites to collect as well as ground-based sitesran
l;*Sl5ed.irt closinS that the nation needed continuing developments in the technical capabilities needed for "
confidence to enter into
Original document.
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: