Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume IV, Soviet Union, January 1983–March 1985

352. Information Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs (Burt) to Secretary of State Shultz¹

Washington, undated

SUBJECT

• Your Meeting with Gromyko—Revised Scope Paper

Your Objectives at Geneva

The November 22 Joint Announcement characterizes the main purpose of your meeting with Gromyko as reaching “common understanding as to the subject and objectives” for new negotiations on nuclear and space arms.² Your primary goal is to reach agreement on the fora, dates and locations for the new talks and, if possible, on agreed formulations regarding the agenda for the talks. You will also present U.S. views on how to move towards a safer future.

While we should not be overly optimistic, it may be possible by the end of your two days with Gromyko to reach agreement on a joint communique announcing the opening of new negotiations. As part of that process, it will also be desirable to reach agreement with Gromyko on your next Ministerial meeting, preferably in Moscow. He is likely to be interested, so you will probably not be in the position of demandeur on this. The only variable is the timing of such a meeting: if we have failed to agree on formal negotiations, it should take place fairly soon after Geneva (late February); if we have succeeded, however, it could take place somewhat later (late March).

In any event, we will want to be in a position to secure Allied, Congressional and public support for our position in the succeeding weeks, when the campaign will move from the diplomatic to the public arena.

Tactics for the Geneva Discussions

You should structure your presentation in a manner which supports our objective of reaching agreement by the end of the two-day meeting on the initiation of formal negotiations. Gromyko is likely to take up considerable time with his opening presentations, which are likely to be long-winded restatements of familiar arguments and positions; translation time will slow the pace of the discussions further (our side will be equipped for simultaneous translation, but the likelihood that Gromyko will acquiesce in it is remote).

Although we may wish to explore the Soviet presentations, if we are to move beyond set-piece presentations to actual negotiation of a joint communique the second day, we will need to put our positions—on both format and substance—on the table at an early stage in the discussions. This will give the Soviets time to consider our ideas overnight and to obtain any necessary guidance from Moscow to negotiate agreed formulations of subjects and objectives for new talks that would form the basis of a communique. The sequence recommended below is designed to ensure this is the case. In brief:

—At the first session, you would present our conceptual thinking on the offense/defense relationship, using the approach developed by Paul Nitze.³ Following Gromyko’s initial remarks and your initial response to them, you would have the option of setting forth our opening position on the format for negotiations (alternatively, this could be done at the beginning of the afternoon session—pros and cons are discussed below).

—At the second session, you would proceed from the discussion of format to a presentation of our substantive ideas on START, INF and defensive arms. In particular, you would highlight the positive new ideas embodied in your instructions:⁴

—readiness to go beyond where we left off in START through one or more of the following approaches: asymmetrical limits and/or new forms of aggregation, such as you suggested at Stockholm;

—readiness to explore various approaches in INF;

—readiness to address space-related issues in both offensive and defensive arms negotiations; and

—(if Gromyko has raised ASAT) readiness to consider mutual restraints on ASATs in formal negotiations in the context of stabilizing reductions in offensive forces.

At the end of the session, following Gromyko’s remarks and his reaction to our ideas, you would return to the format question with the aim of moving toward agreement on the fora for new talks (presenting our fallback positions as necessary).

—Day one will, hopefully, have ended with a mutual understanding of each side’s position and the extent of its flexibility. At the third session, therefore, discussion would move from prepared presentations to real give-and-take. Your aim would be to nail down agreement on dates and locations—and to the extent possible, agreed subjects and objectives—for new negotiations, to reach accord on another Ministerial meeting, and to negotiate the text of a joint communique. You would also exchange thoughts with Gromyko on how each side intends to portray the meetings to the press.

The text of any communique will obviously have to be worked out on the scene (your talking points include notional drafts reflecting different possible outcomes, and these could be fine-tuned the night of January 7, based on that day’s discussions, and negotiated with the Soviets on January 8). At an appropriate time (either at the close of the Monday afternoon session or mid-way through the Tuesday morning session), you could suggest that one or two members of each delegation split off from the group to begin drafting a communique as a basis for final negotiation by you and Gromyko.

Depending upon the need for continued discussion on the communique or other issues, you would have the option of continuing in a brief session in that afternoon.

Issue: When to present our opening position on format?

As noted above, you have the option of presenting our opening position at the end of the first session Monday morning, or at the beginning of the afternoon session (your talking points currently reflect the latter alternative). There are advantages to both approaches:

—Presenting our ingoing formula on format (START, INF, defensive nuclear arms) in the morning would give the Soviets the lunch break during which to consider the proposal. With their reaction in the afternoon, we would perhaps be able to get into some give-and-take on negotiating fora, drawing on our fallback formulations as appropriate, so that the first day’s discussions would end with both sides’ cards all on the table. This would maximize the chances for successfully negotiating a joint communique the second day.

—Holding presentation of our ingoing formula until the afternoon session on Monday would ensure that there was plenty of time during the morning for an exhaustive exchange at the conceptual level on the offense-defense relationship. Moreover, presenting our ideas on format and substance at the same time could give the Soviets a clearer picture of where we are prepared to go in offensive and defensive arms talks. This could make them more receptive to an offense/defense format than they would be if they had heard only the procedural aspects of our approach.

Non-Arms Control Discussion

It would be extremely useful to be able in the aftermath of the meeting to point to exchanges with Gromyko on non-arms control topics, to counter the public perception that arms control is the whole US-Soviet relationship. (The President has asked that you reiterate his simulated space rescue mission proposal in Geneva, and we have included this under your defensive arms talking points).⁵

The two most urgent issues are Hebrew teachers, which you discussed with Shamir, and Shcharanskiy, which Mike Armacost has discussed with his wife here. Gromyko has been alerted that you may raise V-E Day commemorations, and he may well be interested. This could provide you some leverage to get such issues discussed, but since a heavy focus on arms control is at least partly to the Soviet advantage, Gromyko has so far deflected your suggestion that time be set aside for such exchanges on other topics.

Discussion will therefore be short in any event, and the best format would be the “headlines” you and Gromyko used in September. After the first morning session covering the two sides’ initial remarks on arms control, you will have the discretion of raising these non-arms control issues either at the second session that afternoon or at the third session on the following day at whatever point you believe it would be most appropriate.

1. Source: Department of State, Executive Secretariat, S/S, Memorandum of Conversations Pertaining to the United States and USSR Relations, 1981–1990, Lot 93D188, Shultz-Gromyko at Geneva, January 1985. Secret; Sensitive. Drafted by Vershbow on January 5; cleared by Simons, Palmer, Pifer, Schwartz (PM/SNP), Chain, Nitze, and McFarlane. Palmer initialed for all clearing officials. This memorandum was the first document in the Secretary’s briefing book for his trip to Geneva. The book also contains schedules and other papers to prepare for Shultz’s meetings with Gromyko.
2. See footnote 8, Document 314.
3. See Document 343.
4. See Document 348.
5. Reagan made this proposal in his statement on signing into law P.L. 98–562, October 30, 1984, on cooperative East-West ventures in space. See Public Papers: Reagan, 1984, Book I, p. 1687.