Reported remarks of Soviet SALT delegate Grinevskiy end advisor Kishilovonversation uith US SALT delegate Parsons end advisor Garthoff, Helsinki:
Garthoff" noted thac the US side did not find satisfactory Soviet objection to our proposed agreed interpretive statement.
He provided the text oftatement. The Parties understand that the center of the ABM system deployment area centered on the national capital and the center of the ABM system deployment area containing ICBM silo launchers for each Party shall be separated by no less than fifteen hundred kilometers. (Garthoff later advised Kishilov that. If"theilometers" proposedore significant restriction than the east of'thc Urals provision, we couldomewhat reduced radius.) The Soviet participants agreed to report this suggestion to their Delegation for consideration. They both asked whether, if it were acceptable, the US side remained ready tonilateral statement concerning deployment at Grand Porks. Garthoff confirmed the readiness of histo proceed on the basis proposed onimply substituting the new agreed statement for the one cited in quotation narks in the draft ofoth Grincvskiy and Kishilov expressed appreciation.
Reported remarks of Soviet SALT delegateadvisor Kishilovonversation uithParsons and advisor Garthoff. 22
Grincvskiy suggested chat if the US side couldie latest Soviet formulation on dismantling and replacement-of ICBM launchers, perhaps they could meet us on the question of OLPARs. He asked what the US position on OLPARs was, since wc had rejectedillionillion. Garthoff said that the US positionillion. Grincvskiy suddenly agreed that the Soviet side couldillion as the OLPAR level, if the dismantlingvero agreed upon, as an agreed interpretive statement ratherrovision in the text, and assuming agreement on the truncated version of the interpretive statement relating to Article II of the intcriR Agreement.
Grinevskiy and Kishilov tentatively agreed totl,at thc Russia" could remain
in' tnlrl ^ En8<is" remfli"
in space. In general, tho text would need to be con-
forried out there was agreement on thc basic text including chc levelillion.
Reportedof Soviet advisor Smolinmoating of thc Lditorial Working Croup. 23
The participants reached agreement inthe interpretive statement on OLPARs. Shaw noted that, in preparing the document on the ABM Treaty agreed statements (see Section U)tatement on thc location of ABM sites in defense of ICBMs did not mean that thc US side was withdrawing this statement. Smolin agreed.
Shaw gave the Sovietopy of
the English language US version (distributed oarlicr)
opy of thc English language Soviet version.
lie participants did not review these documents as
this nad already been done twice in the case uf the former.
Reported remarks of Soviet SACT delegate Crinevskiy and advisor Kishilovonversation with US SAL? delegate Parsons and advisor Carthoff, Helsinki:
Garthoff began by giving the Soviet participants the textsevised US proposal for the text of Article NT of,the Interim Agreement, and the text of an associated for;.ial Protocol. He noted that, in line with the interest Semenov had shownormal signed Protocol, the proposal had been cast in that form. Tn addition, there were differences inas the Soviet Delegation would see. and Kishilov read the texts attentively, but
did not discuss then in any detail. They took note of the fact that there was noeferenceaunchers or any other intermediate specified level. Garthoff confirmedact, and noted that thewas operational and under construction at date of signature. Grinevskiy noted the US leveltheubmarinesaunchers, and Garthoff confirmed that this was in keeping with the exchanges dealing with that subject, and narked no change from the position as it had been described by Ambassador Smith. Grinevskiy and Kishilov expressed understanding that the level would be so specified, and that other considerations to be discussed in that connection were unchanged.
Reported remark* of Soviet SALT delegateadvisor Kishilovonversation uith delegate Parsons and advisor Carthoff. 22
Carthoff asked for Soviet reaction co chs Mayproposed provision on replacement andGrinevskiy said that his Delegationmost of the morning and part of the dayover tms question and it continued toit necessary that replacement occur at thea replacement submarine becamethan at time of
Grinevskiy also reaffirmed Soviet objection co any provision on notification, other than agreeing toererence to notification in the partl ^atcment referring to procedures to be agreed in the Standing Consultative Commission.
During this discussion, various notes had been made on older texts, with the Soviet participants insisting that any possible changes of this kind must be in terms of tying dismantling lo the time Mien replacement suoearines become operational. At
rhtCarthoff said that Che US position might oe amended if the various changes discussed could be agreed, and on that basisurrent text reflecting the various points-which had been discussed:
"Dismantling or. destruction of SLBM and older ICBM launchers to be replaced by new SLBM launchers shall be accomplished by the time the replacement submarine becomes operational. Such dismantling or dcstrucciSn and prior notification thereof, shall being Con-
meat on dismantling and hadext on May t5 he hadoviet preference for an agreed statement.
Reported remarks of Soviet SACT delegate Grinevskiy and advisor Kishilovonversation niih US SALT delegate Persons and advisor Carthoff, Helsinki;
Grincvskiy agreed that the tentatively agreed interpretive statement would be: "The Partiesthat in the process of modernization andthere would be no significiant increase in the dimensions of land-basedilo launchers."
On dismantling and replacement, Grinevskiy said that his Delegation had considered the US proposal and wished toew drart which it hoped would be acceptable. He thenext:
Dismantling or destruction of ICBM launchers of older types constructed prior4 and ballistic missile launchers on older submarines being replaced by new launchers on modern submarines shall beat-the time of the beginning of sea trialseplacement submarine. Such dismantling or as well as notification therof, shall beunder procedures to be agreed in the Standing Consultative Commission.
Grinevskiy returned to Article IV of the Interim Agreement, noting that his Delegation had instructions to include ineference to modernization andof ballistic missile submarines, as well as the existing reference to launchers. He suggested something along the following lines: "The Parties may also undertake modernization and replacement of older ballistic riissile submarines with new ballistic missile submarines." Garthoff said that he thought consideration could be given to including reference to replacement of SLBM submarines, but he did noc think the language Grinevskiy had suggested was quite appropriate. Grinevskiy said the particular language he used was not important, but ic was important co his Delegation to fulfill itsand therefore they wanted this subject taken up in the modernization and replacement article.
Reported remarks of Soviet SALT delegate Crinevskiy and advisor Kishilovonversation with VS SALT delegate Parsons and advisor Garthoff, Helsinki:
Garthoff began by giving the Soviet participants the textsevised US proposal for the text of Article III of-the Interim Agreement, and the text of an associated formal Protocol. He noted that, in line with thc interest Semenov had shownormal signed Protocol, the proposal had been cast in that form. In addition, there were differences in formulation, as the Soviet Delegation would see. Grinevskiy and Kishilov read the texts attentively, but did not discuss them in any detail. They took note of the fact that there was noeferenceaunchers or any other intermediate specified level. -Garthoff confirmed that fact, and noted that the baseline was operational and under construction at date-of signature. Grinevskiy noted the US level specified theubmarinesaunchers, and Garthoff confirmed that this was in keeping with the exchanges dealing with that subject, and marked no change from the position as it had been described by Ambassador Smith. Grinevskiy and Kishilovunderstanding that the level would be soand thatonsiderations to be discussed in that connection were unchanged.
Submarines "under Construction"
Grinevskiy asked if thc US side was still seeking an agreed definition of "under construction". Garthoff confirmed that we are, and said that it was even more necessary now. He noted that the phrase was in thc Soviet draft, and was an essential element in the US draft. Grinevskiy again noted that the phraseand under construction" did not appear in the Soviet draft in relationship to the final levels.
Garthoff asked if the US sideorrectthat Semenov had indicated that there was no difference in the views of the two sides over the meaning ofut that thereifference with respect to "under construction". Grinevskiy and Kishilov confirmed that.
Turning to the proposed interpretive statement relating to Article II of the Interim Agreement, Garthoff asked for reaction of the Soviet side to the text he had given them on'May'20. Grinevskiy said that he had made clear the firm Soviet positionefinition of "heavy" ICBMs.
Garthoff pressed Grinevskiy for comments on the second half of the sentence, on which the Soviet side had made proposals. Grinevskiy'was at first wary about discussing it, but when Garthoff put brackets around the first part of the sentence, to mark theSoviet objection, Grinevskiy was prepared to discuss the second half. He began by asking the US position on the phrase "observed by nationalmeans of verification". Garthoff said it was not acceptable. Grinevskiy said that he would be prepared to take up with his Delegation theof the American formulation for the sentence minus the clauseeavy ICBM. Garthoff said he would report to his Delegation on the same basis, but hoped that Grinevskiy would be able to confirm whether his Delegation would be prepared tohe US formulation for the second clause if the first were omitted. He noted that the word "significant" had been used, rather than the earlier Soviet proposed word "substantial". Grinevskiy agreed to go back to his Delegation on that basis.
Reported remarks of Soviet SALT delegate Grinevskiy and advisor Kishilovonversation with US SALT delegate Parsons and advisor Garthoff, ay
Grinevskiy turned to the interpretive statement relating to Article II of the Interim Agreement. He asked first if the US side could not consider the phrase "observable by national technical means of verification." Garthoff said it could not. Grinevskiy then said that his Delegation was prepared to agree to the US formulation on significiant increase in silo dimensions, if thc US side agreed to drop the definitioneavy ICBM.
Garthoff said that the US side continued tothat it was important toommonon whateavy ICBM, that it maintained the position it had taken in defining "heavy" ICBMs, and that if it did agreeoint interpretive statement not including thatit would reserve the right to reaffirm its position. On that basis, he thought hiswould be prepared to consider the agreedrelating only to silo dimensions. But before going beyond that, he would want to hearof the Soviet side on other disagreed matters.
Grincvskiy appeared to be taken aback, and said that the discussion that morning had not"referred to any conditional package deal. Garthoff recalled that on May ZO Grinevskiy himself had proposed thcofS dropping of the definition of heavy ICBM in exchange for Soviet agreementevelillion as the OLPAR ceiling:* Grincvskiy said that he had understood that this proposition was not acceptable to the American side. Was Garthoff nowinkage to the OLPAR issue? Garthoff said that what thc American side had rejected was Grincvskiy's suggestion of agreeing on an OLPAR levelillion in conjunction withefinition of heavy ICBM from the agreedstatement relating to Article II. Hethat he had not explicitly made anythat morning, and repeated that was why he was now suggesting that other matters be addressed
so that his Delegation could consider thc Soviet suggestionompromise agreed statement on Article II roader context of reciprocal moyes by both sides to resolve the complex of open issues. Grinevskiy said he did not know how to proceed. He did not have instructions that would permit leaving the statement on Article II up in the air while proceeding on to try to solve other issues. Garthoff suggested that in that case Grinevskiy proceed on the assumption that the American Delegation would agree to the compromise on the Article II statement, although in fact this position would be reserved pending discussion of the other issues. Grinevskiy finally agreed to go forward on that basis. The tentatively agreedstatement was, "The Parties understand that in thc process of modernization andthere would be no significant increase in the dimensions of land-based ICBM silo launchers."
Grinevskiy said that heew questions to ask with respect to the new draft Article III and Protocol which Garthoff had given them that morning. He asked what was covered by the term "submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers" in the first clause of Article III. Garthoff replied that it referred to SLBM launchers on submarines, ^rinev-
skiv asked what kinds of submarines. Garthoff said it applied to old and new launchers on all kinds of
submarines carrying ballistic missile launchers. Specifically, the Polaris,lass,lass submarines. Kishilov nodded as though this was "the explanation they had expected to hear. Grinevskiy asked what the US side^considered to be "older" SLBM launchers, and what it considered to be "modern" SLBM launchers. Garthoff explained that we regarded as older SLBMs those of types originally deployedlass submarines, and still comprising thc great majority of launchers onof those classes, while modern SLBMs would be types initially deployed onlass and on any follow-on submarines.
Grinevskiy then raised one other question, initially in terms of the last words of Article III, but extended by Kishilov to also refer to paragraph
1 (b) of che Protocol. The question was whether che reference to modernization and replacementshould not apply only co older SLBM launchers. Garchoff said chac the language ofb) of che Protocol was definicely incended to apply tomodern as well as older types of ICBMand chcrefore che reference in Article III should .also be the same.
Crinevskiy then asked whether the US side stillefinition of submarines "underto be necessary. His Delegation continues to regard it as unnecessary. Garthoff said we did still consider it to be necessary. Grincvskiy said that he could confirm that his Delegation did not see anyof view over the quescion of what constitutes an operational submarine. However, there wassome difference" on submarines under construction, and the Soviet side did not think it was necessary to get into the problem of working out agreed definitions.
Grinevskiy suggested that if the US side could accept the.latest Soviet formulation on dismantling and replacemenc of ICBM launchers, perhaps they could meet us on the question of OLPARs. He asked what the US position on OLPARs was,ad rejectedillionillion. Garthoff said that the USpositionillion. Grinevskiy suddenly agreed that the Soviec side couldillion as che OLPAR level, if the dismantling provision were agreed upon, as an agreed interpretive state-menc ratherrovision in the text, and assuming agreement*"on the truncated version of the interpretive statemenc relacing to-ArCicle II of the Inccrim Agreement.
Grinevskiy returned to Article IV of che Interim Agreement, noting that his Delegation had instructions to include ineference to modernization andof ballistic missile submarines, as well as the existing reference to launchers. He suggested something along the following lines: "The Parties may also undertake modernization and replacement of older ballistic missile submarines with newmissile submarines." Garthoff said that he thought consideration could be given to including
reference to replacement of SLBM submarines, but he did not think the language Grinevskiy had suggested was quite appropriate. Grinevskiy said thelanguage he used was not important, but it was important to his Delegation to fulfill itsand therefore they wanted this subject taken up in the modernization and replacement article.
Reported remarks of Soviet advisor Smolineeting of the Editorial Working Group, Helsinki:
Shaw gave the Soviet participants clean copies of the US draft text in English of both the US and Soviet versions of the Interim Agreement (see Section U)
Smolin noted that, in accepting the documents, there was still some question about modifying Article IV. Shaw acknowledged this.
Shaw and Smolin exchanged new draft texts of statements on dismantling and on heavy ICBMs. No language'discrepancies were found. omposite US text -of the agreed statements was prepared. Shaw noted that the absencetatement regarding"under construction" did not mean that the US side was withdrawing this statement. Smolin acknowl-edued this.