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

209. Memorandum From Secretary of State Shultz to President Reagan¹

Washington, April 6, 1984

SUBJECT

• My Meeting with Dobrynin

I called in Dobrynin Monday afternoon to discuss the state of play of the relationship following your exchange of letters with Chernenko.² He held to the rigid Soviet positions on START and INF, but showed interest in other arms control issues. We agreed to go ahead on several bilateral items. We also agreed on discussions on regional issues, including the Middle East, and confidential preliminary discussions on outer space.

To start off, I professed to be puzzled about where things now stand, noting that we have been hearing things from Moscow that seem different from the confidential exchanges we have been having and your correspondence with Chernenko. I noted we were ready to move forward, questioned if Moscow was, and asked for his personal assessment of the last Chernenko letter, the “oral remarks”,³ and the recent Moscow line.

Dobrynin claimed the letters and “oral remarks” were self-explanatory. He said our dialogue covered three areas—nuclear arms control/security, regional, and bilateral issues—and proceeded to give his views. On nuclear issues, they had “invited” us to remove obstacles to negotiations, i.e., to reverse our INF deployments. They had also proposed concrete actions on other issues such as non-militarization of space (including ASAT), the nuclear freeze, test ban negotiations, and the “nuclear norms”—some vague declaratory measures including no-first-use. Dobrynin asserted the Soviets were very serious about this list which, he added, could be discussed in diplomatic channels or through special envoys.

He also noted that the Chernenko letter proposed discussion of regional issues, particularly the Middle East, and bilateral issues, including such things as the consulates, agreements that would soon expire, fisheries, and artificial heart research. Dobrynin said they were ready to sit down with a calendar and discuss these issues concretely.

In response, I made the following points: 1) We want reductions in nuclear arms, not a freeze which would be as complicated to negotiate as START. I pointed out that even they had come out for reductions from SALT–II in their START proposal. 2) We want to talk about INF but have no intention of withdrawing our missiles as a precondition. I again told him we have ideas on both INF and START and are ready to negotiate on these issues. 3) We were disappointed that Brent Scowcroft was not received by the Soviets at a proper level. There was no attempt to bypass anyone and we had used diplomatic channels to ask for a meeting. Summing up, I reiterated that we consider the nuclear issues to be of central importance for our two countries.

Dobrynin said he came to the conclusion from my comments that there is no way to make progress on nuclear issues. I told him I disagreed; we believe progress can be made.

Dobrynin returned again to outer space. I told him we were working on this issue and gave him a copy of our unclassified report to Congress.⁴ We are interested in achieving something in this area, I said, but do not now see a way to do so because of verification problems. I noted we had proposed discussions on space and strategic defense at START but they had not been interested. I said we continued to be willing to discuss this issue but it had to be recognized that there are real problems with verification.

Dobrynin said we need to discuss this issue now, adding that this question could become the most dangerously destabilizing factor in our relationship. I asked if he were willing to discuss this in private diplomatic channels, rather than begin negotiations in publicly acknowledged talks. Dobrynin said that they were willing. We both agreed to think about how to organize these exchanges and who should participate, and then discuss this subject again.

I turned aside his questions about the possibilities to discuss a nuclear freeze and the CTB, noting again that the former is simply not a good idea and that the latter has profound verification problems. When he pressed on the CTB issue, I told him I would inform you of any new ideas that the Soviets might have on the subject.

I then said we plan to table our CW draft in Geneva later this month and hope to have a new proposal in MBFR by the end of the round on April 16 in Vienna. In this regard, I told him that if the Soviet side reacted positively to our steps in MBFR, there could be some further motion in the Western position. On CDE, I said we were glad to see the substantive discussions between Ambassadors Goodby and Grinevskiy, noting Goodby’s invitation for Grinevskiy to come to Washington. Dobrynin said Moscow would decide on whether Grinevskiy should come.

On the Hotline talks, I noted we had recently conveyed technical information to them and looked forward to meeting at the end of April. (Dobrynin and his deputy seemed surprised we had not been informed by Moscow of a starting date.) I also told him we were working on a draft agreement that we hoped to pass to them before that meeting. Dobrynin said that sounded fine.

Dobrynin then again moved to the Middle East, saying we needed an exchange of views on steps to greater stability in the region and to work for a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli dispute. He noted these discussions could be “very secret.” I said we were ready for discussions on regional problems, but that we would need to set an agenda of the issues to be discussed and decide who would participate. I told Dobrynin we were interested both in sharing information and working on damage limitation to avoid potential crises between us, noting that the Iran-Iraq war was a good subject for discussions. We need to start modestly, I said, to see if progress can be made, indicating I had in mind something along the lines of Chet Crocker’s talks with them earlier on Africa.

Dobrynin and I agreed we would give them our ideas on an agenda for regional discussions and the level of the talks. I stressed that even if we have our experts conduct some of these talks, it would be important that Gromyko and I keep close control of these discussions through our respective ambassadors.

On bilateral affairs, I said that we would talk with them this month on our ideas for revitalizing some of the bilateral agreements (on agriculture, health, housing, and the environment) currently in effect. To Dobrynin’s questions about expiring agreements and fishing quotas, I said we would have to study them on a case-by-case basis. When I raised the Consulates issue, Dobrynin said they also wanted to talk about Aeroflot. I told him we would discuss that only as a separate issue. I also said that the shootdown of the KAL plane was still an emotional issue in the United States and they should take some positive steps on our suggestions in Montreal for improving the Pacific air routes.

When I asked about the building for our Kiev Consulate, Dobrynin noted that Art Hartman is planning a trip there soon and would be able to get an answer on the building question. I noted we would propose the text of an exchanges agreement in the next two weeks and suggested that the Consular Review Talks resume in Moscow in May. Dobrynin agreed. When I also mentioned we would propose a new time for the Coast Guard search and rescue talks, Dobrynin seemed unfamiliar with them but agreed to raise this with Moscow.

I noted his positive remarks to Art on the Maritime talks. Dobrynin said yes, he thought that progress could be made.

I then said that Dobrynin had suggested only three areas on the agenda, we had a fourth—human rights. I noted the positive reaction here to the emigration of the Pentecostalists, suggested it would be useful for them to take further steps on human rights, noting the case of Shcharanskiy. Dobrynin said his position on this was well-known. When I again suggested something in the human rights area would be helpful to the overall relationship, he said he had been telling American Jewish groups that an improvement in US-Soviet relations would help on the emigration issue.

Finally, Dobrynin asked if you would be responding soon to Chernenko’s letter. I said a letter would be forthcoming, but we wanted to hear what Dobrynin had to say and what Gromyko had to say to Art Hartman in Moscow the following day before discussing a reply. I then once again urged that the Soviet side reconsider its position on the START and INF talks, emphasizing the central importance of this issue.

When Art met with Gromyko on Tuesday,⁵ Gromyko seemed most interested in southern Africa and outer space. He read Art an oral statement on southern Africa, emphasized the value of past discussions of this subject, and seemed interested in having Chet Crocker talk with them further. He restated Dobrynin’s points on ASAT, suggesting we had no interest in discussing space issues. Art repeated my points that we do not want negotiations, but that we were willing to have confidential discussions. It was clear Gromyko was not completely informed of Dobrynin’s discussions with me of this issue.

I have attached a separate memorandum laying out next steps to be pursued in our dialogue with the Soviets.⁶

1. Source: Reagan Library, Jack Matlock Files, Chronological File, 1980–1986, Matlock Chron April 1984 (3). Secret; Sensitive. In a covering memorandum to Reagan on April 13, McFarlane wrote: “You will note that Dobrynin took a somewhat more receptive line on several issues than we have been hearing from Gromyko in Moscow—and markedly more positive than current Soviet public stance. I believe we should be cautious about accepting his attitude at face value, since he has a personal incentive to put the most favorable gloss on Soviet policy, and to push the idea that we can get further dealing exclusively with him. Nevertheless, we should not totally exclude the possibility that a policy debate continues in Moscow, and that Dobrynin’s more forthcoming comments on some issues may reflect that, at least in part.” (Reagan Library, Jack Matlock Files, USSR Subject File, US-USSR Relations (April 1984)) Reagan initialed the cover memorandum, indicating he saw it.
2. Monday, April 2.
3. Attached to Document 197.
4. For Reagans letter transmitting the report, see “Arms Control for Antisatellite Systems, letter to the Congress”, March 31, 1984, in the Department of State Bulletin, June 1984, p. 48. For the report, see Documents on Disarmament, 1984, pp. 204–219.
5. Telegram 4074 from Moscow, April 3, reported on Hartman’s April 3 meeting with Gromyko. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, N840005–0326)
6. Attached but not printed.