233. Electronic Message From William Cockell of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs (Powell)1
SUBJECT
- S-W-C Breakfast 5/6/87: Defense and Space Instructions
Weinberger prefaced his surfacing of this issue by noting that he was now turning to a nasty and highly contentious issue. He was concerned, he said, that we are going ahead with the idea of developing a joint working paper (JWP) in Geneva. “First we discuss it, then we negotiate prohibited and permitted activities,” he went on. “It’s a slippery slope . . . JWPs are a bad framework to work on anyway . . . We’ve protested directly to Kampelman before, but it still goes on . . . It brings the ‘prohibited activities’ approach in through the side door . . .” Frank replied that it appeared Weinberger’s briefing paper may have been written before the most recent Defense and Space instructions were promulgated.2 In Frank’s view, the instructions take care of Cap’s problem. They direct Max to negotiate off our treaty text. They don’t say he can’t have a JWP, but they play the idea down. Weinberger left the room at that point to take a phone call. Discussion continued, with all agreeing the issue had been largely resolved by the new instructions and that it was not worth spending a great deal of time on. When Weinberger returned to the room Shultz commented that he did not understand why “it’s impossible for us to find out anything regarding the SDI program . . . We take it that Defense has provided something to the President . . . We find out about it afterward, and have had no opportunity to discuss it . . .”3 Frank assured him that State could have a copy, and will have an opportunity to comment on any paper that goes up to Wallop on the subject. Shultz was not satisfied with this reply. State should have the opportunity, he said, to comment on Defense’s paper before it goes to the President. Turning to Weinberger, Frank asked if there were any reason that State could not have a copy. Weinberger began to unfasten a copy from his back-up book. Shultz said he would rather receive it “through channels.” Weinberger replied [Page 862] that “this is the most authoritative channel.” The paper had not been coordinated with State, he continued, because Defense construed the tasking in NSDD 2614 as requiring a report directly to the President. Shultz replied that State could have construed the tasking that Sofaer is working on relative to ABM Treaty construction in the same way, but it has chosen to coordinate Sofaer’s papers with other agencies; and, in fact, has received some valuable comments which have improved the papers. Frank asked how Abe’s reports are coming . . . “they keep getting dragged out . . . the people on the Hill are saying they must have them.” Shultz replied that, with regard to the paper on patterns and practices, “there are mounds of paper to go through. Having been stung by a half-baked report earlier, Abe feels an obligation to go through all the material personally.” Frank replied that if the result is to get a report out after both Houses have enacted restrictive legislation into law, the report isn’t much help. Shultz noted that Congress may do that in any event. Weinberger said his sense was that some on the Hill think that Nunn’s analysis of the Treaty was shallow. Our report could have some impact. (Weinberger then summarized the principal points in the Defense report to the President.) He then returned to the issue of JWP, and was told that others had concluded, in his absence, that the new instructions adequately dealt with that issue. Frank asked Cap to look at the instructions, “and if they are not satisfactory, let us know.”
- Source: National Archives, PROFS system, Reagan Administration, ID 71302. Secret. Copies were sent to Green, Pearson, Thompson, Linhard, Alison Fortier, Matthews, and Rodman. Sent through Green and Pearson. No minutes of the breakfast meeting were found.↩
- The Department of State transmitted Round VIII instructions to the Defense and Space delegation in telegram 134765 to NST Geneva, May 5. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D870618–0407)↩
- See Tab B, Document 232.↩
- See Document 218.↩