Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLIV, Part 1, National Security Policy, 1985–1988

268. Telegram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State¹

Moscow, July 25, 1988, 1714Z

17960. S/S: Please alert EUR/SOV immediately upon receipt. Subject: Soviet response on ABM Treaty review. Ref: (A) Moscow 17538² (B) Moscow 16721³ (C) Moscow 16367⁴ (D) State 213218.⁵

1. Secret—Entire text.

2. At 1915 hours Moscow time July 25, MFA USA and Canada desk acting chief Sukhodrev provided EmbOff with the Soviet response to the U.S. proposal for an ABM Treaty review (Ref D). According to Sukhodrev, the Soviet answer has been transmitted to the Soviet Embassy in Washington. Informal embassy translation of Soviet response follows below.

3. Begin text:

The American side has proposed to hold a meeting of delegations in Geneva July 14–20 at a high-ranking level to review the ABM Treaty.

We agree that such a meeting to review questions pertaining to the observance of the ABM Treaty should be held. The Soviet side has put forward many times to the American side the issue of the necessity of conducting the next review of the ABM Treaty, including in the framework of the Soviet-American Standing Consultative Committee. As regards the time period for carrying out the proposed meeting, for a number of circumstances it would be preferable to us to conduct it beginning August 1.

In our opinion, such a meeting should not itself replace the regular, second-this-year session of the Standing Consultative Committee. This session should be held, in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement related to the creation of the SCC dated December 21, 1972.

The review of the treaty requires a careful analysis of all circumstances and facts connected with the fulfillment by both sides of their obligations according to the treaty during the five years since the previous review, which took place in 1982. Here it is necessary to be guided by an objective and thoughtful approach, and not to permit one-sidedness and prejudice. This can be achieved only by means of a considerate attitude toward the concerns of both sides. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the American side intends during the ABM Treaty review meeting to focus attention on questions related to the radar in the region of Krasnoyarsk and to radar fragments currently located in the region of Gomel. Obviously, at a minimum, concerns of the Soviet side must be reviewed with regard to the deployment of an American phased-array radar at Thule (Greenland) and the construction of an analogous radar at Fylingdales-Moor (England).

We have proposed our solutions for the purpose of removing mutual concerns, but the American side refuses to review our proposals.

Of course, we would be prepared to discuss in the meeting other issues regarding observance of the treaty which might be raised by the sides.

We consider that the negotiations on nuclear and space weapons, which resumed July 12 in accordance with an earlier agreement by the sides, should proceed without interruption and should be independent of the dates of the meeting.

The chief of the Soviet MFA of Arms Control and Disarmament Directorate, V. P. Karpov, will be head of the Soviet delegation to the meeting.

As regards the length of the meeting, obviously it would be advisable to determine this by taking into account the speed and results of the review, but its length should not exceed two to three weeks.

End text.

Matlock

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D880642–0327. Secret; Niact Immediate; Exdis.
2. In telegram 17538 from Moscow, July 20, the Embassy reported that Matlock had met with Shevardnadze the previous day, and that Shevardnadze had promised a response to the U.S. proposal within two days. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D880625–0026)
3. In telegram 16721 from Moscow, July 9, the Embassy reported that Matlock had asked Shevardnadze that day about the U.S. proposal to hold the ABM Treaty Review July 14–20 in Geneva, and that “Shevardnadze replied that the Ministry was considering the U.S. proposal, but added that there were already two fora for addressing ABM Treaty related questions—the Defense and Space Talks and the Standing Consultative Commission; he was unsure there was much utility in a third.” The Embassy also reported: “Shevardnadze apparently was not briefed on the proposal or the fact that the Soviet side had been proposing to hold an ABM Treaty review since last fall.” (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D880586–0863)
4. In telegram 16367 from Moscow, July 5, the Embassy reported that Matlock had met with Bessmertnykh that day to propose to conduct the ABM Treaty Review from July 14 until 20, as per the Department of State’s instructions on July 2; see Document 262. The Embassy went on to report, “Bessmertnykh said the Soviets would carefully examine the U.S. proposal and provide an answer as soon as possible. He then offered some preliminary comments: —The dates proposed by the U.S. were very soon and could pose some difficulties for the Soviet side; they might prefer to hold the review later, perhaps in early August or early September.” (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D880571–0535)
5. See Document 262.