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

160. Telegram From Secretary of State Shultz to the White House¹

Stockholm, January 19, 1984, 0103Z

Secto 1032. White House Eyes Only for the President and McFarlane. SecState for S/S (Hill) (Only). Subject: Memorandum for the President: My Meeting With Gromyko in Stockholm, January 18, 1984.²

1. (S—Entire text)

2. As you know, Gromyko gave a very tough speech in Stockholm this morning,³ and as I expected I found him in a sour mood when our talks opened this afternoon. Nevertheless, the talks went two hours longer than anticipated, and during these five hours I inserted all the points I wanted to make into the record Gromyko will pass to the Soviet Politburo. For his part, Gromyko demonstrated that while there are basic differences between us, the Soviets see a need to be talking to us, and there may be some issues where they want to make progress. They are extremely sensitive about publicity, and if we publicize progress they will certainly retaliate by denying it and may well pull back on individual issues. But I am mildly encouraged by the meeting, assuming we can manage the follow-up wisely both within the government and publicly.

3. I began by restating your desire for a more constructive U.S.-Soviet relationship, based on private discussions that will be kept out of the limelight. Gromyko responded by criticizing both your speech of Monday and my speech here yesterday.⁴ There may be “some words” in both speeches that the Soviets can agree to, he said, but the basic problem is that we do not like socialist systems and want to change them. He said they feel the same way about capitalist systems, but if we base relations on these dislikes, we will be building a blank wall between us, and the Soviets prefer to look for points of contact. As concerns socialist systems, I replied, the problem of whether they are efficient—which I doubted—is different from the problem of whether peoples have the right to choose them, but I also reminded him that it is the differences in values and freedom that have created the tensions of postwar Europe. After all, they had built the only wall in Europe.

4. Gromyko then turned to specific issues, and made it very clear that if the Soviets are willing to talk, the conspicuous exception at this point is nuclear arms control, the Geneva negotiations. On arms control in general, he said the Soviets seek equality and want to avoid collision, and I told him we agree with both points. On INF and START in particular, however, he insisted that U.S. INF deployments have changed the situation, and that the Soviets are neither willing to return to the previous situation nor willing to engage in new talks on the subject matter right now. At the same time, the specific points he made concentrated on the history of U.S. forward-based systems (FBS) both in SALT II and subsequently, and his clear message was that if negotiations resume the Soviets will want to treat U.S. intermediate-range systems as FBS.

5. I responded that if ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing II’s are to be treated in negotiations, we will also have to address Soviet SS–20’s, because we and our allies are bound together, and if the Soviets hit them it is the same as hitting us. With regard to START, I conveyed your desire to move forward, and to explore the possibilities of trade-offs among systems where each side had advantages given the asymmetries in force structures. But I did not enter into any details, given Gromyko’s unwillingness to address the Geneva negotiations.

6. On other arms control topics, Gromyko took a more constructive tack:

—On MBFR, as Dobrynin had predicted he said the Soviets are willing to resume the Vienna negotiations on or about March 16, warning against exploitation of this proposal to prove that there is business-as-usual. I replied that although this sounded acceptable, we should work it out in diplomatic channels.

—On chemical weapons, Gromyko expressed what appeared to be genuine interest in moving forward, and especially in our plan to table a treaty draft in Geneva. He noted that the Soviets have made a regional proposal while we have a global approach, but said they are willing to discuss both, and focussed more on overcoming difficulties than on debating the merits of the two approaches.

—On the Stockholm Conference measures, he recognized the differences in approach but stressed several times that our negotiators should keep in touch and work together in businesslike fashion.

7. In our exchanges on arms control, I stressed the importance we attach to the compliance issue, its corrosive effect on the confidence needed to move forward in arms control and our desire to resolve compliance questions rather than use them as sticks to beat the Soviets. Although I expected an indignant rebuttal, Gromyko responded only that if we give heavy publicity to our charges the Soviets will retaliate with charges that the U.S. has violated arms control commitments.

8. Referring back to the emphasis I had put on human rights in my CDE speech yesterday, Gromyko then raised human rights as another alleged U.S. propaganda device, and this gave me the opening to make the points I had planned to make: your personal interest in these issues and commitment to quiet diplomacy as the best way to resolve individual cases; the cases of Shcharanskiy, Sakharov and Iosif Begun; the drastic decline in Jewish emigration from the USSR; and the upcoming visit to Moscow of World Jewish Congress President Edgar Bronfman to discuss Jewish issues, which I supported. Finally, I notified him that Ambassador Art Hartman would give his deputy our traditional lists of cases of (1) long-standing applicants for emigration with a claim to U.S. citizenship under our law; (2) people seeking reunification with family members in the U.S.; and (3) Soviet spouses of U.S. citizens seeking to join them in the U.S. (Gromyko’s deputy accepted the lists after the meeting.)

9. Gromyko then invited comments on bilateral issues with the familiar claim that our bilateral relations are in disarray because we have purposely torn down the structure of agreements built up in the 1970’s. I responded by pointing out certain topics on which we were making or hoping for progress: Hotline upgrade and other communications measures; nuclear non-proliferation, where we have scheduled another bilateral session in Vienna next month; the Pacific maritime boundary, where the Soviets have agreed to negotiations in Washington at the end of this month; and trade, where agribusiness is a good example of mutually beneficial exchange without military spinoffs. I pointed out that they could take some very useful technical steps, navigation aids and the like, to avoid a recurrence of the KAL tragedy, and that we stand by last summer’s agreement in principle to move forward on consulates in Kiev and New York and negotiation of a new cultural agreement, but that the timing must be right in terms of the overall relationship.

10. Gromyko then moved into regional issues, and delivered himself of an extended tirade on the theme of U.S. militarism and interference in the internal affairs of others, which swung from the Middle East through Southern Africa to Central America/the Caribbean:

—On the Middle East, he stressed Israeli agressiveness and our responsibility for it, given our “great influence” on Israel; and the familiar charge that we wish to emplace military forces in a region on the USSR’s southern borders;

—On Southern Africa, he stressed our support for “racist” South Africa, and our alleged withdrawal of support from UN Resolution 435 that we had both voted for;⁵

—On Central America/the Caribbean, he hammered on the familiar line that Nicaragua is no threat to us and that what we really object to is “socialism.”

11. Probably because he sensed just how weak his case was, he concluded with a discussion on Afghanistan in which he reiterated the well-worn claim that the Afghan Government had invited the Soviets in many times to defend its integrity before the Soviets agreed, and that we are egging on external interference from Pakistan and Iran, “your friends.”

12. On the specifics, I made a standard presentation on the theme that we should be talking more about issues whose destructive potential was very clear and present in our relationship, but could not resist saying that I expected we would have our forces out of Grenada and Lebanon before theirs were out of Afghanistan.

13. From that launch pad, I summed up by expressing the hope that we want a more constructive relationship and think it may be possible to fashion one if we can only get away from accusations and talk quietly about the issues. I then appealed directly to Gromyko, not only as the world’s most experienced diplomat but also as a human being, to review the current situation in our relationship carefully and see whether he did not see some way of moving forward toward a better day.

14. Gromyko’s response was somewhat disjointed, but also perhaps the most interesting part of the discussion:

—If I were suggesting the need for more frequent exchanges, he said, the Soviets support it, and are ready to talk on any issue except the Geneva negotiations;

—The Middle East is the regional issue we most need to talk about;

—Their proposal for Pacific maritime boundary talks is really an “alloy” (i.e. an amalgam) of the proposals of both sides.

—Proposals in the civil aviation field would be under discussion in ICAO; we should consider them, and our representatives should talk; and we should be able to make headway so long as U.S. representatives do not put forward “unacceptable” solutions (which I took to mean measures fingering the Soviets for KAL responsibility);

—The Soviets are awaiting concrete proposals on consulates and the cultural agreement;

—There are other bilateral topics which the U.S. has put into “hibernation,” and which should be looked at;

—This has been a “necessary” discussion, and it would be good if we took Soviet views into account in the future.

16. On balance, I think the meeting showed some modest forward progress on the course you have charted for U.S.-Soviet relations. It could scarcely have been worse than the Madrid session,⁶ and in fact it was better. At the same time, the prospect is very clouded. The Soviets clearly have not yet figured out how they wish to handle a resurgent U.S. For the time being, they wish to keep nuclear negotiations in a deep freeze. But they also seem prepared to embark on discussions concerning a whole range of other issues. However, even that inclination is very tentative. They have been impressed, as they should be, by our skill in conveying your tripartite approach of realism, strength and negotiations. By the same token, they are genuinely fearful that we will exploit any genuine dialogue to dismiss their concerns over rising tensions, and claim that life goes on as usual.

17. Much will therefore depend on how we manage the small openings toward dialogue Gromyko was holding it [out?] If we trumpet them as proof we have the Soviets where we want them, they will do what they have to do in order to prove we are wrong. That would be a pity, since progress on the substance of the issues will be the best gauge of whether our policy has been right all along. We should therefore be very close-mouthed about today’s meeting, and above all avoid any predictions about future results. That is the approach we are taking here, and I hope it will be the approach taken in Washington too.

Shultz

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D840037–0071. Secret; Niact Immediate. Sent for information to the Department of State.

2. See Document 159. In his memoir, Shultz wrote that this meeting with Gromyko “had provided a way to reengage the Soviets on what amounted to our four-part agenda and provide a quiet forward thrust to U.S.-Soviet relations.

   “This had been my best meeting with Gromyko by miles. In spite of the posturing, we had some real exchanges. He could sense that too, I was sure. About halfway through the meeting, I felt that I was in charge: the talk was about our agenda and our initiatives. ‘The Soviets feel the heat,’ I told my team on the aircraft going home. ‘No one is in their corner. But it would be a mistake to push too hard right now. They’re too tentative.’” (Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph, pp. 470–471)

3. See footnote 3, Document 159.
4. See Document 158 and footnote 5, Document 159.
5. See Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, vol. XVI, Southern Africa, Document 96, footnote 4.
6. See Documents 104 and 105.