Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XI, START I

194. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Moscow, April 15, 1987, 2:10–4:10 p.m.

PARTICIPANTS

• US
• Secretary Shultz
• Amb. Nitze
• Amb. Matlock
• Amb. Lehman
• Amb. Glitman
• LTG. Moellering
• Mr. Adelman
• Mr. Ermarth
• Mr. Simons
• Mr. Parris
• Mr. Stafford (notetaker)
• Amb. Ridgway
• Amb. Rowny
• Amb. Cooper
• Amb. Holmes
• Mr. Perle
• Mr. Linhard
• Mr. Mobbs
• Mr. Timbie

SOVIET

• Foreign Minister Shevardnadze
• Vice-Minister Bessmertnykh
• Amb. Dubinin
• Amb. Karpov
• Amb. Masterkov
• Amb. Obukhov
• Mr. Mikol’chak
• Mr. Tarasenko

SUBJECT

• Final Plenary

Summary: The Secretary and Shevardnadze reviewed the results of the three days of discussions, focussing primarily on arms control. In each arms control area, they listed areas of agreement and key remaining issues. In INF, they agreed on the Reykjavik formula of 0/100, with reductions occurring in two or three phases over 4–5 years, and with strict verification provisions. On SRINF, the Soviets proposed immediate negotiations on the elimination of these missiles within one year. Areas of disagreement included conversion of LRINF missiles, the degree of concurrency in the reductions, and the location of the remaining LRINF missiles. On START, the sides agreed on 50% reductions to 1600/6000, on separate limits covering nuclear-armed SLCMs of longer range, on strict verification, and on the heavy bomber counting rule. Disagreements involved linkage of START to Defense and Space, sublimits, and the timetable for reductions. On Defense and Space, the sides agreed on nonwithdrawal from the ABM Treaty for an agreed period of time and strict compliance with the Treaty during that period. They disagreed on the timeframe for nonwithdrawal, the right to deploy after the period, and testing restrictions during the period. Starting dates for Round VIII of NST were set for April 23 for INF and May 5 for START and Defense and Space. On nuclear testing, the sides agreed to task experts to study alternative verification techniques. On CW, the sides agreed to reciprocal visits of CW destruction facilities. Shevardnadze handed over responses on several human rights cases that had been raised by the Secretary. End summary.

[Omitted here are discussions not related to START.]

Returning to arms control, the Secretary said the sides had agreed to restart INF on April 23. The U.S. side had suggested earlier that the other groups resume May 5, partly because it would give Ambassador Kampelman more time to recover and also because the U.S. side had a lot of work to do to prepare its draft START treaty, which it wanted to present at the next round. If May 5 was agreeable to the Soviet side, the sides could agree to that. The April 23 starting date for INF would indicate the urgency the sides lent to those talks. Shevardnadze said he could agree to those dates.

Shevardnadze continued that he should note a few things about START. The sides had agreed to 50% reductions to 1600 delivery vehicles and 6000 weapons. They would limit nuclear-armed SLCMs of longer range to a separate agreed level while assuring proper verification.

The Secretary said it was agreed that SLCMs would be treated separately; the greatest difficulty lay in how to handle verification. Ambassador Nitze interjected that the Reykjavik formula on SLCMs was that a mutually agreed solution would be found.

Shevardnadze said that it was also agreed that reductions in strategic offensive arms must be strictly verified. The following elements were unacceptable to the Soviet side: the U.S. attempt to isolate a START solution from an agreement strengthening the ABM Treaty; U.S.-proposed limits intended to disrupt the structure of Soviet forces; and a U.S.-proposed timetable that was not on the basis of the Reykjavik agreement. The sides would need additional study of a mutual restraint regime on strategic offensive arms. Their experts could discuss appropriate restrictions on building up arms while the sides negotiated in Geneva.

The Secretary said there was agreement on 50% cuts and the 1600 and 6000 levels. Also agreed were discussions on the SLCM question and the need for strict compliance. On the latter, the sides could learn from their INF effort. The sides disagreed about the possibility of delinking START from Defense and Space. On the question of force structures, the sides needed a path to reductions that recognized they had different structures, that neither side can force systems on the other, and that they need an equitable and stable way to come down. The U.S.-proposed sublimits came from the 50% idea, and from ideas the Soviet side had proposed last year, such as the 80–85% proposal. The U.S. had proposed other restrictions within the total. The sides had agreed on 50% reductions in Soviet heavy missiles, to a level of 1500 warheads. He would tell the press that the sides had discussed START issues, but had not made much headway. He would have to go then to the points he had just outlined. These were important markers derived from Reykjavik. The U.S. would continue to pursue its proposal. The General Secretary had said strategic offensive weapons were the root problem; President Reagan agreed, and the U.S. side would continue to work on it. The Secretary added that the heavy bomber counting rule had also been agreed.

Shevardnadze said there was not much point in debating these issues now. The General Secretary had said the Soviet side held to its Reykjavik position regarding levels and sublevels. The sides should let their negotiators debate these questions. With regard to Space, he could say that the sides had agreed on nonwithdrawal from the ABM Treaty for an agreed period of time and strict compliance with the Treaty during that period. There was no agreement on a specific timeframe, so the sides would need a general formula for now. The Soviet side disagreed with U.S. plans to deploy large-scale systems by 1994, which signified the collapse of the ABM Treaty by then. Perhaps the two Ministers would discuss the rationale for space-based defense systems next time. He had read the U.S. paper,² it was a fascinating document, but he categorically took issue with it. The Soviet side had a different approach; they wanted to eliminate nuclear arsenals. Space defense should not be deployed. He stood ready to discuss this question with the Secretary at greater length next time. He expected the U.S. side would carefully consider the Soviet proposal on the issue of ABM research, as well as their proposal for a list of devices whose introduction into space would be banned. These were new ideas which required study, and which could be discussed in the future. The Soviet side also expected responses to its proposals on ASATs and space-to-earth weapons.

Summarizing on arms control issues, Shevardnadze said the Soviet side would table a medium-range missile treaty in the next round. They proposed to accelerate work on a joint paper. He wished to underscore the importance of the paper the Soviet side had provided on Monday³ on key provisions of START reductions and space limitations. The Soviet side considered it possible to reach agreement at the summit level on an INF Treaty. He knew the U.S. side would be tabling a START Treaty, but thought, in practical terms, that there was insufficient time to agree on all strategic issues. The subject was too complex. The key provisions represented a framework scheme to address at the summit level, if a summit were to take place, along with an INF Treaty. The Soviet side also expected an answer to its proposal for a special SCC session at the level of Defense Ministers or deputies. Everything regarding the ABM Treaty had to be cleared out of the way, including the question of violations. The sides might raise the level of SCC negotiations; it would be a good idea for Defense Ministers or deputies to get together to discuss ABM Treaty issues thoroughly.

The Secretary said both sides had said that START was a matter of extra importance; it deserved a great effort. The question of a framework or set of statements on START could be decided at some time in the fall. The approach should be to have the negotiators work on the issues and do a summary statement at that time on where things stood. The sides should try to resolve as many issues as possible and see where they were when the time came. Regarding ASATs, the U.S. side had not heard how limits could be verified and still did not see how this could be done. The Soviet side had the only operational system. On space-to-earth weapons, the U.S. SDI program had nothing to do with this subject. Ballistic missiles that go through space to the earth were all too efficient for this job. The U.S. side had provided assurances about SDI. The SCC idea was interesting. It might be fun to have the Defense Ministers go at it. Weinberger had provided an invitation long ago to meet Sokolov, and had gotten no answer. He was sure Weinberger would welcome a chance to meet.

Shevardnadze suggested the two Ministers make the Defense Ministers get together and quarrel while they watch; it would be a switch in roles. Regarding ASATs, the Soviet side wanted a fundamental decision to ban them. Soviet scientists had come up with interesting ideas for verification as had some U.S. scientists. A decision in principle was needed on both ASATs and space-to-earth arms. On nuclear testing, he thought the Secretary had been a bit too optimistic the previous day. His associates proposed that the sides agree to a single forum with a view to limiting and terminating nuclear testing. Taking into account U.S. statements, the name for the negotiations could be Negotiations on the Limitation and Termination of Nuclear Testing. The first order of business would be yield verification and ratification of the existing treaties. The sides had agreed on the need to improve verification and would conduct agreed experiments at each other’s test sites.

The Secretary said he had thought, given the discussions and reports he had received from his delegation, that the sides might have the basis for getting negotiations going. He thought it was now too late to negotiate language. What Shevardnadze had said was quite a distance from what the U.S. side was willing to set out. It was important to get an understanding about the process of verification. It would be a good thing, if there were a summit in the fall, to complete the efforts on the two treaties. The sides needed to negotiate to make such an advance. Given the current emphasis on compliance issues, both sides needed to have confidence that verification was assured. The Soviet side had made interesting comments on Monday about CORRTEX, its views that seismic methods were better, and its readiness to use these methods at respective test sites to find out. He was willing to say now that both sides agreed that means of verification were important, and the sides would set out now to have experts work on this. He assumed the sides were ready to task experts for cross-testing experimentation. Shevardnadze agreed.

The Secretary said he was inclined to tell the press that the sides were prepared to seek the best methods of verification through joint work. Shevardnadze said he agreed with this formulation. The sides needed a decision in principle on negotiations. They could let their experts get together and continue in the same vein as in previous experts meetings.

The Secretary replied that he would say that experts will continue to meet on the subject of nuclear testing, that it would be useful to pursue the question of various means of verification and their relative accuracy, and that they would instruct their experts to investigate this subject. Shevardnadze said the U.S. experts were tough. The Secretary said Barker had been rewarded for his toughness; he had been promoted to ASD.⁴

[Omitted here are discussions not related to START.]

1. Source: Department of State, Executive Secretariat, S/S-IRM Records, Memoranda of Conversations Pertaining to United States and USSR Relations, 1981–1990, Lot 93D188, Moscow Trip—Memcons 4/12–16/87. Secret; Sensitive; Nodis. Cleared by Graze. The conversation took place in the Foreign Ministry Mansion. The full memorandum of conversation is printed in Foreign Relations, 1981–1988, vol. VI, Soviet Union, October 1986–January 1989, Document 45.
2. Not found.
3. April 13. Paper not found.
4. Reference is to Robert B. Barker, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy.