Kissinger: Is there a weaker word?
Stoessel: "Preodolyenie."

Dobrynin: That makes no sense.

Gromyko: We cannot just play games in Russian. We will take the most flexible expression which shows a tendency and direction. Our intention is liquidation of the danger.

Kissinger: What you desire we understand. But this is a joint document. We understand what position you will take in the negotiation. Dobrynin: That is why we agree to a weaker word.

Gromyko: We won't give any official interpretation. But our intention is to act for peaceful purposes.

Kissinger: I don't know what the Russian will say. But the record could not be clearer. You are free to give your interpretation.

Dobrynin: The Foreign Minister said he won't give any interpretation.

Kissinger: All right. We accept.

Gromyko: I suggest the following: "Joint Statement," while we just delete the subtitle which follows.

Kissinger: I agree.

Gromyko: I will just read it through in Russian. [He reads it through aloud quickly in Russian.]

Kissinger: "Have agreed on the following: To advocate..."
Dobrynin: Infinitive.

Gromyko: "The United States of America and the USSR... to advocate." It doesn't make sense.

Hyland: "Have agreed on the following:"

Kissinger: You can say what you want in Russian.

Korniyenko: "Effective" instead of "broadest."

Gromyko: Let us say "effective."

Kissinger: "Most effective measures possible"? That is fine.

Gromyko: "To advocate the most effective possible measures,” I repeat "most effective possible measures to overcome the dangers of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes."

Kissinger: I suggest one modification. "Most effective measures possible." It reads better.

Dobrynin: We are for elegance.

Gromyko: All right. How about, instead of "experts" in the next paragraph, putting "representatives."

Kissinger: All right. I shouldn't agree so easily.

Gromyko: It is not too late to withdraw! Maybe scientists, diplomats.

Kissinger: It is more inclusive.

Dobrynin: Maybe one of his assistants will go.

Kissinger: I want to send my assistants to be observers of the nuclear tests.

The only thing is—it is purely stylistic—instead of saying "they decided," "they agreed," we will just say "to advocate," "to hold," and "to discuss."

Gromyko: All right.

Kissinger: All right.

Gromyko: Mr. Secretary, our opinion—I don't know what is your opinion-is maybe it is worthwhile to sign this document at the highest level.

Kissinger: I agree. That means all the documents tomorrow will be signed at the highest level, except the SCC.

Gromyko: Yes.

Kissinger: And SALT.

Gromyko: Maybe the angels will be invited too.

Kissinger: All right.

Gromyko: Now the technical verification.

Kissinger: Our Ambassador will consult with Korniyenko.

Gromyko: All right.

Kissinger: On the Consultative Commission, are the technical papers all done?

Dobrynin: All purified in Geneva.

Communiqué

Kissinger: All right. The Communiqué. [Tab D]3

Mr. Foreign Minister, there are a few stylistic things which the translators have found. We won't discuss here; we will only discuss the substance. Just to give an example, in paragraph 8, "the first U.S.-Soviet meeting in May 1972," we don't need "first." Because there were other U.S.-Soviet meetings. I won't bother you with that.

Gromyko: The Communiqué. The first page, nothing. On the second page, there was an American suggestion which we accepted. "Security and peaceful coexistence." It is now combined.

Kissinger: Why do we have a paragraph 9A?

Dobrynin: We will eliminate the numbers. This is a working paper.

Kissinger: All right.

Gromyko: Page 3, no remarks.

Kissinger: Just to show you the technical points, we took out "previous" and added "in 1972 and 1973."

Gromyko: Point four, beginning of second chapter. Something on strategic. Did you prepare the text?

Kissinger: Let's decide what we want to say.

Gromyko: Right now I think it is clear; the time is not ripe for signing some document here. Let's come to an idea put by you yesterday. It is not going against our desire. I wouldn't say we are filled with enthusiasm, because this is a direction. Aside from the desire to carry out a negotiation and find a common language, it seems both sides have it. So let us say so in an appropriate way in this paragraph: "The sides are completely determined to carry out negotiations to reach a long-term agreement." "Long-term," without specifying what we mean; maybe it will indicate it will be up to 1985; and further we will say...

Kissinger: Should we mention 1985?

Gromyko: This is just a suggestion to discuss.

Kissinger: I am not opposed.

Gromyko: "Both sides are convinced this would meet the interests of the two powers, the interest of further improvement of their relations, as well as the interest of further international détente and strengthening world peace. The sides agree to immediately begin negotiations with the purpose of concluding such an agreement, having in mind to reach agreement before the termination of the present agreement."

Kissinger: That means before 1977.

Gromyko: Right. This is a three-year period. This will seem enough time to carry out serious negotiations. In this we don't have any one-sided interest whatever.

Kissinger: My problem with this formulation for the United States is, first, it is a tremendous step backward from last year when we said we would conclude an agreement in 1974. Now we are saying we are going to conclude an agreement before 1977.

Gromyko: Let's say "not later than.”

Kissinger: But that makes no difference. Secondly, it is in the Interim Agreement already. I suggest we say, "to conclude a ten-year agreement within a year."

year.

Gromyko: When does that period begin? The departing point?
Kissinger: From 1975. From 1975 to 1985. Ten years starting next

Dobrynin: Then we will continue the Interim Agreement.

Kissinger: We can either replace the Interim Agreement or say that on the conclusion of the Interim Agreement, the next eight years will be governed by a new one.

Dobrynin: We can't write both variants.

Kissinger: It is not an issue of principle for us. We can say, "to conclude next year an agreement for a ten-year period.”

Gromyko: If we specifically mention 1975, it would be unrealistic. Doesn't it bother you?

Kissinger: It depends. I don't know if you had a chance to discuss the idea I proposed to you.

Gromyko: That will be the subject of further discussion.

Kissinger: Because if something like that were in mind, we could negotiate something fairly quickly. The idea I gave your Ambassador this morning. Not the figures, but the idea.

Gromyko: I mentioned the same idea. Yesterday evening we began to discuss it.

Kissinger: Right. We have this problem-how what we do here will be interpreted in the United States. It can be interpreted as meaning there is a total deadlock and we have simply agreed to replace the Interim Agreement in 1977. Some have said the Soviets will never settle until 1977 and let's just have a race until 1977. It won't give us a basis to attack the Jackson group. And therefore we have no basis for a domestic debate this year. Or we can lay out a more concrete perspective, like saying a ten-year program, to be concluded next year, to replace the Interim Agreement.

Gromyko: You can say it; we can't say it. "The sides will make efforts to conclude it next year," or "will do their best.”

[The U.S. side confers.]

Kissinger: I am trying to decide what it is that we can say we have achieved here or that we have agreed here. If we would say "we will immediately begin negotiations to replace the Interim Agreement with new arrangements through 1985,” then “keeping in mind,” and so on and so forth. I think something like that...

Gromyko: So it will be concluded in 1975?

Kissinger: We don't have to say that.

Gromyko: Would you say it is possible? We don't have any

one-sided interest.

Kissinger: I understand.

Gromyko: We will say what we have in mind.

Kissinger: Give me five minutes to edit this.

[Kissinger works on the draft in front of him.]

I have looked into the deployment of B-1. The device isn't finished yet that plays the national anthem automatically of the country it's flying over. If you were smart, you would require in the SALT agreement that we deploy the B-1 as rapidly as possible; we would go bankrupt. We will get this retyped [the draft of the SALT paragraph] and we'll go to other subjects.

Gromyko: I just read carefully this joint statement on environment. There is one stylistic correction. In the third paragraph it says, "to establish such measures." There arises a question of what kind. It has in mind the measures in paragraph one. In between there are two paragraphs, so we should say "the measures provided for in paragraph one."

Kissinger: I agree. "Referred to in paragraph one." But I don't like the word "establish." "To bring about."

Sonnenfeldt: "To institute."

Gromyko: Measures can't be instituted; they are brought about.

Kissinger: I would also propose taking out the word “also.” “To discuss what steps may be carried out to bring about the measures referred to in paragraph one."

Gromyko: We need "also" because there are other steps.

Kissinger: All right.

Gromyko: So, to the Communiqué. On page five, there are American and Soviet texts on the underground.

Kissinger: Our paragraph 18.

Dobrynin: Yes.

Kissinger: Yes, 18. What is the problem?

Gromyko: Would you take the end of this paragraph?

Kissinger: No.

Gromyko: What would you take?

Kissinger: "Comprehensive."

Dobrynin: There is no difference.

Kissinger: If there is no difference, we reject it on stylistic grounds.

If there is a difference, we reject it on substantive grounds.

We don't mind including all weapons; we do mind making an appeal to all countries.

Gromyko: "Comprehensive" means...

Kissinger: All weapons.

Gromyko: All right. We agree.

I will read the insertion on underground.
Dobrynin: This is new.