Foreign Relations of the United States, 1989–1992, Volume XXXI, START I, 1989–1991

73. Notes of a Meeting¹

Moscow, February 9, 1990, 11 a.m.–2:30 p.m.

Am forces in Germ after reunif—talk to Secy

G—ES good sub. Talks. Begin—Visit import.—not only for prog. But also each moving forward, reaching new levels of understanding. In Malta, spoke phil. About world events—then those phil. disc. became import. when events tested our understanding. Cannot say at end of last yr + 1st mo of this all US actions perfect, nor our, but during period, leaders have acted in balanced, prudent, responsible manner. More import. than specific accord negot w. Mr. Shev.

B—events test understanding + rel. up to those tests. Rel. has moved from comp. to coop more + more. Still some competit—

*G—In your admin, one or two still regard USSR as a enemy

B—yes but so do you

G—yes, they showed themselves recently

B—Came to do business. At Malta two Pres—3 issues at [illegible] Prepared to see if can’t dispose of these issues

G—fam. w. some details. Leave most to you + Shev. Welcome progress. Working on basis of understanding at Malta—by Summit—gen. understanding on all issues in START—work on treaty lang. right after Summit.

B—Get prog on 3 here so people will see making way to June. Ques. from press—reflect this. Want to prove them wrong.

G—Hope able to prove that—Some pts of concern remain in process of perestroika—one principle. don’t avoid problems. Suff. trust to tackle problems. We + you see both sides want to chg sit for better. New suggs on ALCMs reported to me. Think about those. Believe some elements can be import. part of agreement. Some elements of verif can note agreement. But one test—say firmly both sides confirm ceiling of 6000 warheads. W/in that limit, maneuvers possible. When I look at earlier proposals give US sig. adv. up to 2000 warheads—not equality. Not retreat from equality—neither Cong. nor S.S. ratify.

B—Have RB address issue of equality. ALCMs holding up progress. 3 issues—counting rule, distinguish, range. On disting.—US has adopted Sov pos. Range—600 vs. 1500 we propose 1000—move them halfway. Sig. move on counting rule—had wanted 10 to our a/c—no other restrictions—now propose 10 US, 8 USSR, over all limit double attributed to each a/c. Our a/c—10–20, 8–16. This app. each have ability to exceed 6000 limit—only for slow flying ALCMs subjc. to air defenses—equal ability to exceed 6000 limit. 3 issues—you one, more than half on 2nd, treat counting rule equally.

G—% approach—not work-range. Other issues can find solution.

B—If agree on range, agree on ALCMs.

G—Think can find solutions.

B—ES + I discuss range this afternoon.

G—Also, send Akhromeyev.

B—Hope A agrees US came a long way in Moscow.

A—Yes, some movement.

G—SLCMs—your cherished subj. Unlucky—Pres. a naval background.

A—Gen. Welch more object than Trost.

G—You’re realistic polit.—have to deal w. your position. Told about your SLCM pos—briefly. Disc. of SLCMs has begun—difficult to get started.

B—Altho P. navy. Sec State Marine

G—Diff. discussion. Let me be frank—1st imposs. to accept include SLCMs of any range. Thresh of 600 km should apply. All stuff below—why wrong about those [illegible] short range stuff—focus on strategic SLCMs. 2nd pt.—all arms control areas—work on verif—good prog. on ALCM verif. Must work on verif. of SLCMs too. Here again—key is range. 600 km Thresh apply here too—then consider your position.

B—Go w. deal app. if apply. only to SLCMs over 600 km?

G—Believe if agree on range, can discuss proposed declar. But what about verif.

B—On verif—informal disc. bet Burt + Nazarkin on problems inherent in verif.

ES—Yesterday, ideas on SLCM verif. Being discussed now.

G—Work on this. 600 km thesh. important.

ES—Spec. prop—types of ships, prod. facil., etc. identifiers

G—Not [illegible], not old stuff

G—Said final “no”—experiment on Black Sea—on distinguish? cient say is poss. Polit obj.

RB—Our spec—not a promising avenue.

G—I take note.

[Omitted here are discussions not related to START.]

1. Source: George H.W. Bush Library, Bush Presidential Records, Brent Scowcroft Collection, Robert M. Gates Files, Memorandum of Conversation Files, OA/ID 91166–007, I Bob Gates Memcons 1989–1992 [7]. No classification marking. Drafted by Gates, who handwrote the notes. No formal memorandum of conversation was found. The editor transcribed the portion of the text specifically for this volume. The memorandum of conversation of Baker’s 9–10 a.m. meeting with Shevardnadze on February 9 is scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1989–1992, vol. III, Soviet Union, Russia, and Post-Soviet States: High-Level Contacts. The memorandum of conversation of Baker’s 1–3 p.m. meeting with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze on February 9 is scheduled for publication ibid.