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

218. Memorandum From Secretary of State Shultz to President Reagan¹

Washington, May 11, 1984

SUBJECT

• My Meeting with Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin, May 10, 1984

I met with Dobrynin for a little over an hour this morning. He was accompanied by his No. 2 man, Sokolov, and Rick Burt was with me. He had asked to come in on instructions from Moscow to give some responses to proposals we had made.

The responses dealt with outer space arms control and opening new consulates in Kiev and New York, and he handed over papers (attached) on these two issues.²

After reading the paper on outer space, I commented that the two sides seem to have different ideas. We had proposed discussions without preconditions; they seemed to be proposing discussions linked to negotiations. While we were not necessarily negative on negotiations, he knew of our concerns on verification. But we would look at their paper and get back to them.

After reading the paper on the consulates, I commented that the Soviets seem to be making agreement on Aeroflot operations a precondition for moving forward. Dobrynin replied that this was not so; rather, they were proposing parallel or even later discussion of Aeroflot. They think they can satisfy our concerns on Kiev, and are prepared to help. At the same time, he said, opening consulates is more in our interest than theirs, since it would give us an “entirely new point” in the capital of the Ukraine. As a practical matter—and he stressed that it was a practical and not a political matter—opening up in New York would not make much sense without Soviet travelers to take care of.

I then pointed out that there is a range of other issues where we are awaiting Soviet responses. I mentioned our proposals for bilateral discussions here in Washington on chemical weapons; for experts’ talks on southern Africa; for an exchange on the Middle East; and for a concrete date to resume talks on consular housekeeping matters. I also noted we are awaiting a suggestion for a date to resume negotiations on the Pacific maritime boundary, and a lifting of their beach ban on our Moscow diplomats in response to the lifting of the ban on theirs in Glen Cove, New York. Dobrynin said answers would be forthcoming in due course.

Continuing, I said that on various other issues they had raised with us, our responses were pretty much in hand. However, I said, we have to ask ourselves whether it makes sense to move forward on them. We have to ask ourselves if Soviet policy is not to shut down meaningful U.S.-Soviet discussions at this point. If it is, so be it. In any event we are puzzled.

I then went on to raise three issues—the Sakharovs, the Soviet scholar in their Embassy, and the Olympics—where the problem is not just substance but what the Soviets are saying. On these issues, I said, we are not telling the Soviets what they should do, but we do expect them to stick to the facts.

On the Sakharovs, I pointed out that both I and Eagleburger had raised the issue privately with Dobrynin, and that these démarches were designed to encourage the Soviets to allow Mrs. Bonner to go abroad for medical treatment. In response, TASS had then alleged that U.S. Embassy personnel and Mrs. Bonner had coordinated a plan for Sakharov to go on hunger strike and for her to seek refuge in our Embassy. The fact is, I said, that U.S. officials did not at any time discuss either a Sakharov hunger strike or a Bonner temporary refuge with Mrs. Bonner. There is thus no foundation for the TASS statement.³ The facts in it are wrong. We had tried to handle the issue privately, not publicly, and the Soviets had blown it up. We think they made a mistake. Sakharov is a Nobel Prize winner, and Mrs. Bonner fought and was wounded in the War. But the point is that the facts the Soviets are stating are not correct.

On the Soviet scholar Kozlov, I said we have no desire to keep him in this country, and when we talked to him he did not indicate he wanted to stay. It was on that basis that we gave him permission to board the plane April 30. But the Soviets have now alleged through TASS that he was subjected to blackmail at the airport, isolated for a long time from their Embassy staff and ultimately prevented from departing.⁴ This is absolutely not the case, I said. The facts are that we talked to Kozlov to ensure that he was not being hustled out of the U.S. involuntarily; that there was at least one Soviet official present with him at all times; and that he himself decided not to board the plane despite repeated urgings by the Soviet official present. Once again, therefore, the facts are not as the Soviets allege.

On the Olympics, I said that this was once again a decision for the Soviets to make. If they changed their minds, their athletes would be welcome at the Games. But they have alleged through TASS that at the April 24 Lausanne meeting, the IOC found the complaints of their Olympic Committee to be just and substantiated; that U.S. authorities continued to interfere in affairs within the exclusive competence of the Los Angeles Committee; and that U.S. authorities were conniving with extremist organizations which aim to create “unbearable conditions” for their delegation and athletes.⁵

The facts, I said, are that the IOC did not make the finding TASS describes; that the U.S. Government has not interfered in LAOOC affairs (nor has the LAOOC ever claimed it has), but has worked with the LAOOC on issues within the sole competence of the U.S. Government at the committee’s request; and that there has been no connivance with nor encouragement of these groups, that we have bent over backwards to meet all Soviet concerns, and have met them. I said I could run through a long list of facts about the tremendous effort we had made to meet Soviet concerns. For instance, we would have 17,000 people involved in Olympic security, and we were prepared to spend up to $50 million to assure it, including $500,000 for the Soviet ship alone. We had taken every imaginable step to ensure that Soviet athletes were safe and able to compete in the Olympics.

Overall, I said, it was hard for us to see how the effort we had undertaken over a year ago to make progress in our bilateral relationship was going anywhere but downhill. The concrete efforts we had made had been pretty much rebuffed. There seemed to be a Soviet effort underway to close down the avenues of U.S.-Soviet discussion. I said that I assumed our diplomatic channel would stay open, but noted on the other hand that they were not even permitting scientists like Velikhov to talk with us.⁶

For our part we believe that the right posture is to be reasonable, ready to talk, and ready to make progress whenever the Soviets are. But, I concluded, the picture from our point of view is bleak.

Dobrynin objected to this analysis. I had asserted that the Soviets are trying to cut off efforts to create better relations, he said. That was not the Soviet intention. They wanted “better, even normal” relations with us. This was, is and will remain the goal, regardless of the Administration in power here.

He said he could not see a single issue where the Soviets are saying no. The single exception was temporary: the agreement between the American Council of Learned Societies and their Academy of Sciences, which Arbatov had received last-minute instructions not to sign as long as Kozlov was in the U.S. This agreement could be signed as soon as the Kozlov case was resolved. On all other issues, Dobrynin said, they think progress can be made.

On the comprehensive test ban, for example, all they were suggesting were negotiations, even if they did not reach conclusions, and the U.S. was refusing to talk. They are still awaiting our answer on the Long-Term Economic Cooperation Agreement. They are prepared to deal with the Administration on everything, if we are willing to meet them halfway. This was true of nuclear testing, of consulates, of the hotline.

Overall, Dobrynin said, it seemed to the Soviets that this Administration was seeking to cut all ties with the Soviet Union except in agriculture. My conclusion that the Soviets are seeking to cut ties is wrong: they are prepared for better relations; but he had to ask where we are prepared to move.

Turning to the specific points I had raised, Dobrynin started with the Sakharovs. Their “people” got the information that Mrs. Bonner had been to the Embassy and given us a letter asking to stay there during Sakharov’s hunger strike. Their government had to act on that information. It was a coincidence that it had acted while we were making our démarches. We had “three fellows” (i.e. U.S. Embassy officers) going around with this family. Mrs. Bonner was a Soviet citizen, not ours. And we are dealing with a woman with anti-Soviet intentions. The Soviets had treated Sakharov well. He was in a big city with all facilities. Mrs. Bonner had gone abroad three times for eye treatment, when everyone knows that Soviet eye doctors are the best in the world. And when she goes abroad she meets with people who are working against the Soviet Union.

On Kozlov, Dobrynin went on, Rick Burt had been there at the airport and asked him his intentions twice, and it was clear he did not want asylum here. The Soviets had now brought in two doctors, and appreciated our giving them visas. Kozlov had been in California on his own, and they had had no contact with him until he arrived in Dulles. Burt pointed out that he had in fact been with a Soviet official on his trip across the country. I cut this short by commenting that we were not trying to keep Kozlov, and that his case had been handled in the proper way. Nevertheless, Dobrynin went on, we are still insisting on an interview; he asked what our aim could be, and what we would do if Kozlov said he wanted to stay here. In the end, however, he suggested that Burt and Sokolov be in touch to work out the case, and we will continue to talk with the Soviet Embassy about this matter, ensuring that Kozlov’s rights are protected.

We also had a discussion of ratification of the nuclear testing agreements. I will be reporting to you separately on this issue.

Attachment

Summary of Papers Provided to Secretary of State Shultz by Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin⁷

Washington, May 10, 1984

POINTS HANDED OVER BY AMBASSADOR DOBRYNIN

The question of preventing the militarization of outer space, as was emphasized by the Soviet side in the course of recent contacts, is acute and urgent. Solutions to this effect must not be delayed. Hence, the need to hold appropriate negotiations with an aim of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.

In this regard, we would like to be clear as to the real position of the U.S. side. It is all the more necessary, since initially the U.S. side declared its negative attitude to an exchange of views on the issue of preventing the militarization of space, although later it did express in general terms readiness to discuss this problem without any preconditions. It is also known that two months ago the U.S. government in its report to the Congress maintained that it did not deem it necessary to enter into official discussions on the space issue. Should it be understood that the said position is now becoming invalid? For it is obvious that those two things are incompatible.

So, if the previously declared negative position of the U.S. is discarded, we propose that the two sides, in parallel and simultaneously, make an official statement to the effect that they have agreed to begin discussions of the problem of preventing the militarization of space.

The discussion through diplomatic channels should accordingly be focused on coming to an agreement, with no time lost, on the practical questions concerning the time of the negotiations, their venue and the level of representatives or delegations. We believe that no difficulties should arise in this respect.

It would seem that in the course of this exchange of views the agenda of the negotiations could be agreed upon in more specific detail. As has already been said, we prefer that there should be a comprehensive and full scope discussion and solution to the problem of preventing the militarization of space. Our specific views in this regard have been outlined to the U.S. side. At the same time, we do not rule out the possibility of discussing, for example, the question of a mutual complete renunciation of anti-satellite systems separately, in parallel with the negotiations on the problem as a whole.

It is clear that in order to ensure the necessary conditions it is important for the sides not to take actions contrary to the goal of the negotiations, that is, to refrain from launching anti-satellite weapons into space. For our part, we have been doing precisely that.

Regarding the consulates-general in New York and Kiev. On the question asked by the U.S. side with respect to the buildings earlier allocated for a U.S. consulate-general in Kiev, we can say that in principle this is a solvable problem. The main thing, however, as has already been indicated, is that the practical usefulness of the opening of the consulates-general will be considered in the light of the attitude of the U.S. side to the resumption of Aeroflot flights to the U.S. Again for purely practical reasons, this also applies to some other matters in the area of bilateral relations.

Accordingly, we shall be waiting for the results of the review of the question of Aeroflot flights, which was promised by the U.S. side.

1. Source: Reagan Library, Executive Secretariat, NSC Country File, Europe and Soviet Union, USSR (05/09/84–05/11/84). Secret; Sensitive. Reagan initialed the memorandum, indicating he saw it. On a covering memorandum to Shultz from Burt, a typed note reads: “Sec/Pres delivered by Secretary 5/11 cdj.” (Department of State, Executive Secretariat, S/S, Sensitive and Super Sensitive Documents, Lot 92D52, May 1984 ES Sensitive Documents) On May 11, Reagan had two meetings related to the Soviet Union. From 9:45 to 9:59 a.m., he met with Ambassador Hartman in the Oval Office. (Reagan Library, President’s Daily Diary) He wrote in his diary: “He believes there is friction in the Polit Bureau [Politburo] & Gromyko is much of our problem. He doesn’t feel I could have any success in appealing to the Soviets to come to the Olympics.” (Brinkley, ed., The Reagan Diaries, vol. I, January 1981–October 1985, p. 346; brackets are in the original) Later that afternoon, Reagan met with Shultz and McFarlane from 2:05 to 2:25 p.m. They were then joined by Casey until approximately 2:40 p.m. (Reagan Library, President’s Daily Diary) Reagan wrote in his diary: “George S. & I met with Bud M. It was mainly a report by George on his meetings with Soviet reps.—Ambas. Dobrynin etc. They are utterly stonewalling us.” (Brinkley, ed., The Reagan Diaries, vol. I, January 1981–October 1985, p. 347)
2. One paper, not two, covering both outer space arms control and the consulate issues, is attached and printed below.
3. The statement was released on May 4. (Serge Schmemann, “Tass Says Sakharov Wife Sought U.S. Haven,” New York Times, May 5, 1984, p. 7)
4. The statement, which reported that the Foreign Ministry delivered a protest to Hartman, was released on May 2. (“Moscow Charges U.S. With Detaining Soviet,” Washington Post, May 3, 1984, p. A36)
5. See footnotes 2 and 3, Document 217.
6. See Document 216.
7. Secret; Sensitive.