text: Today there is a serious threat to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which respected experts, including some in the United States, regard as the most important agreement between the two great Powers for continuation of the SALT process and for precluding the possibility of extension of the arms race into new areas. Highly responsible figures in the West qualify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as the corner.stone of the still unstable arc of security. In spite of murky assurances that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would be observed, it is already considered by many as one of the victims of.the strategic defence initiative. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty seems to be falling prey to the same policy which proclaims that the treaties on arms limitation would be respected as much and as long as they do not clash with the implementation of the military programmes of the Pentagon. Recently, various representatives of the United States Administration have begun to talk about "restrictive" and "broad" interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We are all familiar with the basic legal rule that any interpretation of a treaty should be done in keeping with, and not contrary to, the Principal purposes of the treaty. Hence, we cannot fail to concur with the ALW/cw A/C.l/40/PV.ll 73 (Mr. Kostov, Bulgaria) commentary of The New York Times of 17 october of this year, which pointed out that " ••• neither of the two interpretations of the treaty are really 'restrictive' or fully comply with the terms of the accord". The so-called "restrictive" interpretation "was clearly designed to permit the currently contemplated star wars programme to proceed without legal impediment for the foreseeab le future". (The New York Times, 17 October 1985, p.4) I would like also to dwell upon another exceedingly important question, that 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a political and diplomatic issue related to international relations and arms control, specifically the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and its potential implications for the strategic balance between nations. The language used is formal and technical, with references to international law and diplomatic agreements.