GROMYKO

Glad to see me.

HK: Historical -- more simplified proposal -- method and substance.

GROMYKO: Very little progress; new proposals -- not same as before
U.S. retrogresses.

GROMYKO: Nothing promising at Geneva

HK: What is obstacle?

GROMYKO: Lack of desire for agreements. Don't seem to want to
narrow differences. May have noticed we react with
restraint. Hope in final analysis administration will
change its mind. Frustration and disappointment. Determined
to continue talks.

HK: Rhetoric exhuberant - not necessarily policy

GROMYKO: Have noticed as soon as administration wants to have
global plan use your name. Central America. Also U.S.-
Soviet. Specific agreements must be sought.

Time may come when differences will become obvious. When
people who plan nuclear war will be smashed. Some under-
stand risk -- though not entirely. Use of nuclear weapons
will bring destruction. Responsible figures must give
consideration to concrete issues. Shouldn't joke about.

HK: Defends Reagan. Soviets present too many ideas in too short a
time as at Reykjavik.

GROMYKO: Of course we present a lot of ideas. Can make something
smaller out of lot. What seems to prevail is imperial
ambition. Last statement is like blowing dust off Monroe
Doctrine. What position is he trying to defend there.

GROMYKO - Page 2

GROMYKO: L.A. not vegetable garden of U.S.
Chernobyl - personal mistake. Cruel smile of atom.
What would happen if put to military use. Can't have
more staunch partner in building peace than USSR.
Plenum devoted to domestic affairs still confirmed
peaceful line.

HK: Statement about constant pressure

ARBATOV: Even arms control proposals can't go on as in past.
Not every proposal must stand. But serious attempt
to break out of vicious circle.

GROMYKO: Regional conflicts. No need to go into detailed
discussion. General view is that countries decide
what future is. U.S. administration denies this. Uses
all means including force. Must reject such view. Not
just from principle but as practicality. Hope U.S. will
take more sober approach. Any thinking person agrees.
Yesterday discussed in detail.

Your (HAK) potential is greater than what you are putting
into effect.

Any objective person must say that people want to live in
peace. Take back to wife best wishes. Wife should come.
Take both Kissingers next time.

## GORBACHEV

G: For foreigners many things unclear. But distinction between seasons. Snow already in November. Envious of Italy. In U.S. spring short and autumn long. Beautiful country - leaves imprint on human beings.

Easy to establish contact among people. What about politicians. Welcomes group. Is Arbatov responsible for distinction or more important reason. What is happening in U.S. and what will flow from it?

When I read views of various Sovietologists about S.U. - many things they don't understand. Can give him advice.

//obsequious Petersen quote//

G: Do we have to finish today?

V: What is happening? Where are we? Senate now Democratic.

Democrats indicated bipartisan support to see that business of country gets done.

G: Soviet leaders should not yield to temptation of playing democratic politics in U.S.

HK: 3 groups in U.S: 1) one for any agreement; 2) one against any agreement, 3) better agreement than Reykjavik basis. Belongs to latter group.

G: Not a fiasco at Reykjavik. Now there is a possibility provided there is a determination of moving forward. In connection with what you've said. Want to continue dialogue with present administration for better agreement. Do not think that stormy events alter basic trends.

PETERSEN: Competitive world. Must cut military budgets for resource.

Bold negotiation including conventional forces.

GORBACHEV continued - page 2

G: Brown may not agree. Take opportunity to express gratitude for lessons taught about American inconstancy. Agricultural production no longer count on U.S. Decided to make ourselves self-sufficient. Made our agriculture self-sufficient. U.S. not reliable partner in science. Had to develop own computer industry. 3) have come to see arrogance of U.S. We have closed gap. Mass produce technology.

Yesterday I visited facility close to Moscow. Thank you for better lessons.

No longer can count on these commercial relations. Were all destroyed in various administrations. Reagan culminated it. Kirkpatrick - evil empire.

Certain dependence on each other will improve relations. Not closed to exchanges. Recall these episodes to show U.S. retaliation did not hurt USSR but U.S. Attitude towards SALT II and other aspects have destroyed confidence which existed. Two sides should turn new leaf. Future historians will look with irony at our two leaders. Countries are building poorly. Once I and wife went to Italy we went to show to demonstrate how various nations greet each other. U.S. and Russia kept moving to each other until one stuck out hand whereupon other moved away.

Problem has been nagging me. Can this generation channel relations into broad joint course or are differences too deep?

V: No sense dwelling on past. Each can show own conclusions. You have mentioned bitter lessons. Not one-way street. Afghanistan.

GORBACHEV continued - page 3

G: I am sure we are not claiming truth. Expect similar understanding from U.S.

V: Therefore as to future. Trade and better relationship should be possible. Require effort and attention by both sides. Let both] sides do it.

G: State of Union address again lists G & SU as adversary. Designed to show President in control? Where do we go from here?

B: Have been attacked for sabotaging and for fermenting U.S./Soviet relations, nothing affects him. Post-SALT II not happy time; not gotten happier since. Most people in U.S. interested in domestic economy. Trade with SU plays small part. Would welcome world in which economic competition with U.S. were principal concern of US. Ambivalence of American public is regret. 1) Soviet military strength 2) Profound wish to avoid conflict and nuclear war.

Should build on second part of US attitudes - shared by Soviets.

G: As human being who benefits from fomenting hostility in U.S.

B: Lot of misunderstandings to be removed. Solve arms control - definitions of SDI and trade. Amerika not typical; but what about Soviet propaganda.

G: You can't find insulting attitude towards US

B: ABC will lose $20M on Amerika.

G: Somebody paid more to have it .

KIRKPATRICK: My first speech was on development. Gromyko attacked US for imperialism for 1.45 hours. Decided to reply. Then Tornayavsky stopped attacking; K stopped too.

GORBACHEV continued - page 4

K: We don't trust each other. But we believe in mutual advantage.

If we make agreement to mutual advantage can learn to trust each other.

MATHIAS: Where do you want to take your people?

G: Have reacted up to now. Have talking points.

JONES: Drivels on about military eager for arms control.

G: Professional military have better understanding than civilian secretary eager for business contracts.

JONES: Opposes complete elimination of nuclear weapons in view of Soviet conventional superiority.

G: Takes over floor. Satisfied by this meeting. Share views on domestic and foreign policy. We have presented our vision to our party congress based on objective assessment of reality.

Deeply convinced that pol. realities presuppose understanding of current stage of historical development.

We have been talking of need of new thinking. Reality result of new thinking.

Nuclear war would be total catastrophe. Nuclear war must be prevented. Can't afford adjustments brought by war; must make adjustments before conflict.

Real threat that arms race goes into outer space. Why? Misconception. Search for mil. superiority forcing USSR to lag so that US can impose its will. All negotiations will fail if SDI continues since we don't want to erase situation of US in that case. Will anyway catch up.

GORBACHEV continued - page 5

Newly developing people can't be ignored. Neither side can crush independence movements. Can't do it underhandedly. Contrary? because of nature of public opinion. If one fails to realize it confrontation between East and West unavoidable as are regional conflicts. Movements in various countries we view differently. Don't know which is worse danger nuclear bomb or international debt. Ability to observe balance of interest is required for realistic policy. Need new thinking. Needed to speak of responsible policy. Politicians are in difficult position. Need serious policy, not demagoguery. Have attempted to convey our philosophy. Possible to disagree. Can't separate our security from that of other countries, especially US. Free of illusions.

relations

Approaching U.S.-Soviet / from point of view of reality. Have 10% of world's population. Future of world depends on our relationship. Our two countries must show better alternative. Don't like each other's way of life. U.S. isn't shining city on hill to Soviets. Since we want small countries to have development of course U.S. can too/ By whose suffrance. If that is accepted, dialogue is possible. Believe agreement possible in disarmament. Artificial barriers must be removed if trade and other matters will flourish. Will watch U.S. administration for sign of curtailing it. Nothing will be gained if it is assumed G. needs agreement more than it. U.S. can't impose its will; nothing can be gained by unilateralism. Movement must be reciprocal.

Intend to do domestically. more socialism more democracy. Will use potential of systems more. Will never give us socialism.

GORBACHEV continued - page 6

Beginning to undertake structural change. Easier for us than
for you in your system. Not easy. Must make our processes more
dynamic. Reforms in interest of our country; eager to cooperate.
Hasty conclusion that Soviets being engaged in domestic affairs
must press them.

PETROFSKY

New concept of security in nuclear and space age.

Integral and new world. Need survival of mankind.

Practical terms conclusion: 1) only peaceful means can settle disputes.
2) Security and pol. class board not enough

3) value of peace above
class and ideological considerations
4) radical solution to all
international problems.
Abolition of weapons of mass destruction
before end of century. As to our determination to create end of
nuclear age by end of century, took into account concern of
non-nuclear forces. Reduction of 25% in 5 years. See hope of
convention banning chemical weapons this year. Along with solving
bilateral relations are trying to help solve regional issues.

Afghanistan - interference must stop. Support national reconciliation. Has withdrawn some forces from ____.

New approach permits solution of nuclear testing.

New style in conducting negotiations. Emerged at Reykjavik.
Abandon digital approach and go to heart of problem.

Exceptionally important to stick to agreement. We're within
sight of summit. Must not flag now. New style in Geneva.

Proposed raising level of negotiators to find political solution.

FYI: New approach to conducting talks: 1) Agreements to be reached ad referendum regarding each topic separately 2) Abandon formal format of meetings to avoid prepared texts. Working groups to prepare bracketed documents. New philosophy and new style. How can we analyze situation? Facing issues hardening of positions re space arms.

PETROFSKY - Page 2

Dodging commitments re waiving certain tests during moratorium.

50% reduction in strategic arms in 5 years - Next 5 agree
only to eliminate ICBM conversion of medium-range missiles to
short range ones.

U.S. obstacles - reserve right to station them 1000 mile
range in Alaska. Also want short range in 3rd.

We take into account that technology changes fast - must not
let evolution get out of control. Lesson from Chernobyl that
best planned safety system can fail. SDI must accelerate arms
race. Continue negotiations on Reykjavik basis. Attach exceptional
importance to maintaining framework of existing treaties for
future steps. Sine qua non to anything else. Hope common sense
will prevail.

If I understand history correctly, common sense key to U.S.
domestic policy.

HYLAND: Three-step approach

P: All can be initiated separately and must be signed together.

ME. - Both multilateral and bilateral talks. Challenge inspection
on chemical plants okay.

ME. Pol. solution - social and economic conclusions. Process
has its own logic. Freeze short-range weapons. We are at
0, they are at 850.

Propose meeting of NATO and Warsaw Pact commanders meet.

Hope in chemical weapons.

Talks between military commanders. Jones agrees. Can remove
misconceptions. Good international scam: say something outrageous

YAKOLYEV

Central Committee.

Publish record of meeting - regular practice from now on.

Radical reform.

Khrushchev - courageous about past. Lacking positive perspectives of what should be done in future.

Critical analysis only practical solution. Party must move
forward. Do we know everything. No. Many components in our system
work differently from yours. Plenum is a description of failure.
Panicky search for solution. Development of democracy - Socialist
democracy. No sense talking which democracy is better. Differences
are qualitative. Bedrock of our democracy is to involve as many
people as possible. Draft law in socialist enterprise. Farming -
state farming. New approach will run it by setting prices on
foodstuffs. Same for children's goods and housing subsidized.
Costs us billions. How do we change it? Something wrong if a
driver buys children's dresses at R1.50 to wipe windshield. But
how do you take care of family which needs it.

Plenum formulated tasks in our party.

General characteristic of political system is to enable broad
mass of people to participate in government.

Following your steps theory.

This is for scholastics. We have different concepts.

Genie of criticism once out of bottle will become difficult to handle.

Not everything going the way we want it to go. Not fast enough.

Load of inertia too great as of problems over years.

YAKOLYEV continued - page 2

Want to reassure you we will continue. No matter what obstacles,
internal or foreign.

Don't hasten to bury us.

Future of our relations. We have 10% of earth's population. If
we could cooperate, would do mankind a lot of good.

Situation can't go on much longer.

Events slipping out of control.

Lessons learned from our relations.

Others will have more difficult time. Road toward recognition
that nuclear war cannot be fought has been for too long.

Cooperation is imperative of age.

Is it tactic?

Is it sincere? - Line of least resistance
- serious change

Gorbachev focussed on domestic questions. Does not imply that
we are not prepared to improve our relations but emphasis is on
domestic affairs. Recent developments in foreign policy.

Geneva and Reykjavik - Soviets have done maximum - no real response.

Some think if under pressure - we'll make more concessions. Not real.

Policymaking art of possible. If we can't have foreign policy success,
will stress domestic policy.

You are not yet ready for serious agreement; we don't hold
truth by tact. Willing to hear your views; if you have idea, put it
forward.

YAKOLYEV continued - page 3

Societal Relations: Kirkpatrick

All problems are interconnected. This plenum focusses on
democratization. At plenary meeting having criticized planners
for underestimating value of cooperatives.

Brown: Elections - more candidates than offices. How elected?
What basis is choice made?

Y: Doesn't know. Various drafts - not yet clear. If there are
candidates. How to do better what must be done.

Vance: Pricing policy? Supply and demand.
openness

Y: Some changes in policy. Most complicated issues. Now effecting
transitions to self-financing, self-provision of enterprises.
Interaction of supply and demand. Can't dismantle central planning.
Focus it on main issues. At same time direct ties between
enterprises. Have to take care of shortages. Need time. Clear
recognition of that. Laws of supply and demand violated

K: Bureaucratic problem. Entities reporting to each other are
being asked to reform their own shortcomings.

Y: Frank ideas of how to solve problem. Various strata of officials.
Have tried to solve problem for 70 years. Visited U.S. Talked
about reorganizing. Birds on a birch tree. Clap hands and fly
away. When they come back. More than before. Natural that they
want to preserve this position.

If an official carries out our instructions, he becomes unnecessary.

YAKOLYEV continued - page 4

Why should he do it? Hundreds of thousands of officials
in this position. We are dealing with this problem slow(ly).

Hard to find alternative solutions.

Parkinson's law.

K: What if there is fundamental debate on principle?

Y: Openness goes on in human consciousness must mean some people
will 1) agree; 2) disagree, or 3) partially agree. Indeed there
are people in our country demoralized. Was everything in vain?
Will not lead them to this conclusion.

Objective issues - subjective conditions. I lost 16 relatives
in war. Painful. Emotional aspect - extreme conditions -
extreme solutions.

London movie - Stalingrad - small kids ragged walking through
streets. Americans started laughing. I was incensed.

MATHIAS: Asiatic majority soon.

Y: Demographic picture has been changing. Have not been worried about
it. Ukranians not different from Russians. Increasing inter-
mingling - no real challenge. 100 years European part will still be
in majority.

JONES: Will E. Europe follow?

Y: Different countries -- different evolution - Each country solves
problems as it sees fit. Don't say they are ahead of us
(Hungary & DDR ) - different evolution.

HYLAND: Intellectual freedom

Y: Read Tolstoy & Guki - much more with analysis of problem of
revolution than Pasternak.

YAKOLYEV continued - page 5

Still if writers want to publish Pasternak will be approved.

Many arbitrary decisions in past. 15 movies had been banned.

Can't understand why. Impression somebody didn't like something.

Some writers objected to a movie because it made writers look bad -
minorities veto.

Censorship. Sometimes books rejected because editor doesn't like.

so he blames censor.

GROMYKO

Glad to see me.

HK: What is obstacle?

**GROMYKO** - Page 2

**GROMYKO:** L.A. not vegetable garden of U.S.
Chernobyl - personal mistake. Cruel smile of atom.
What would happen if put to military use. Can't have
more staunch partner in building peace than USSR.
Plenum devoted to domestic affairs still confirmed
peaceful line.

**HK:** Statement about constant pressure

**ARBATOV:** Even arms control proposals can't go on as in past.
Not every proposal must stand. But serious attempt
to break out of vicious circle.

**GROMYKO:** Regional conflicts. No need to go into detailed discussion. General view is that countries decide what future is. U.S. administration denies this. Uses all means including force. Must reject such view. Not just from principle but as practicality. Hope U.S. will take more sober approach. Any thinking person agrees.
Yesterday discussed in detail.

YAKOLYEV

Central Committee.

Radical reform.

Following your steps theory.

YAKOLYEV continued - page 2

Don't hasten to bury us.

Is it tactic?

- serious change

YAKOLYEV continued - page 3

YAKOLYEV continued - page 4

Parkinson's law.

Y: Demographic picture has been changing. Have not been worried about it. Ukranians not different from Russians. Increasing interfering - no real challenge. 100 years European part will still be in majority.

JONES: Will E. Europe follow?

Y: Different countries -- different evolution - Each country solves problems as it sees fit. Don't say they are ahead of us (Hungary & DDR) - different evolution.

HYLAND: Intellectual freedom

YAKOLYEV continued - page 5

so he blames censor.

PETROFSKY

Afghanistan - interference must stop. Support national
reconciliation. Has withdrawn some forces from ______.

PETROFSKY - Page 2

HYLAND: Three-step approach

Hope in chemical weapons.

ARKEMEROV

Thank you for your contribution to arms control in '70's.

Not matched in '80's. U. S. administration largely responsible
for stalemate but since bilateral Soviet has some blame.

BROWN: Don't speak for U.S. government. Can only do some
influence. Offensive and defensive forces linked. Intermediate
forces not necessarily linked. But Soviets insist on delinking.

VANCE: Press forward now - don't assume no progress can be made.

Don't know whether something can be achieved but loss of momentum
would be a mistake. Whoever President in '89 more difficult if
come to a halt.

HK: Opposed Reykjavik. Pity we can't do better.

JONES: Impressed by previous Arkemayov meeting. Will work with
civilians on arms reduction. Concern with Reykjavik
framework. HK stress conventional disarmament. Discuss
conventional forces today.

VANCE: Congress would support major reductions but not down to 0.

V&B: Talk all the time - no comment yet from Soviets.

A: Take more time. Will of Soviet Union to continue with talks.

We'll deal with any administration. Whatever party in WH will
deal with it. Can't influence it any more than you can in
Kremlin. We can't even figure out how it is done.

Responsible re talks.

No doubt should come up vis-a-vis U.S. administration or talks.

Cardinal issue stands in way of agreement. SDI. Sometime in

ARKEMEROV continued - page 2

past relationship was emphasized even by HK.

New message by US is to reduce offensive weapons by 50%; ICBMs
and seabased ballistic missiles to 0.

Denial of any relationship between these two categories.

Not acceptable to reduce significantly offensive weapons and
leave deployment of SDI.

As soon as SDI is deployed, capable of destroying warheads -
real arms race would start.

Final two years. Is it possible to reach agreement?

Reduction of offensive and medium-range weapons very close.

If only sides would agree on space battle systems could agree on
rest of issues. Verification no longer pressing - ready for any form
of verification.

Details can be finalized during talks.

Complete elimination of strategic weapons. Reagan initiated
this proposal. We put on table familiar proposals. G put before
Reagan.

Reagan proposed eliminating ICBMs and seabased missiles. Break
at talks. Soviet delegation canvassed - decided to throw in
bombers. U.S. now recessed for 1 hr. 10 mins. U.S. agreed.

Conventional weapons: ready to reduce them. Allegations of U.S.
superiority. Four of you know this is not true. Strength approximately
same. Number of weapons and quality can debate indefinitely. Jones
had said wouldn't trade forces.

//Obsequious behavior Brown-Vance//

ARKEMEROV continued - Page 3

In fact conventional balance exists. Peculiarity of conventional
weapons. Not taking global approach. Between Atlantic and deals
equal. - 25% cut. Haven't started exchange of info on this issue.

My own thinking. Time comes when we should look at conventional
forces globally. 100 km missiles should also be treated globally.

JONES: Equivalence argued on basis of potential not actuality.

Necessary to have discussion on relative balance. As a prelude to
reduction Brown reinforces. Need for analytical framework.

A: Industrial potential? Brown: There will be no long war.

BROWN: Global reductions okay in Europe. How about rest of world?

No answer. 40th tanks. Should consider tanks in 2 aspects -- wartime
or peacetime. Mobilization resources of S.U. in European zone. This
covered by proposals.

U.S. mobilization resources outside of zone of reduction. How to count?

HK: Must other countries join?

A: Not possible now. Must be tackled. Must take global approach.

Conventional forces issue for future. Once deep nuclear reduction
has been achieved, everybody will favor conventional force reduction.

European reduction has its peculiar feature for USSR because of
importance of European Russia.

Issue for future: Land forces and tactical aviation. How about
15 carriers.

HK: Meaning of space battle systems.

A: Put together: Land component; space component; battle management
A vehicle equipped with weapon.

ARKEMEROV continued - page 4

HK: How about sensor?

A: We have it. You have it. Not issue. What is to be barred
is for talks to discuss. Don't understand attitude of U.S. Understand
INF, testing, etc. What does U.S. want with space issue beyond our
understanding? Kampelman cannot lay out coherent position.

BROWN: Evidently position being discussed by U.S. - obsequious.

Broad interpretation. Ridicules position. Lectures A regarding SDI
positions and possible breakthroughs. Stresses that testing
limitations will cause SDI to atrophy. Brown pleads for
negotiation; Vance agrees.

Soviet production capability in groundbased systems worries U.S.

What Soviet is ahead in is allowed. What U.S. is ahead in is
forbidden.

V: Believe narrow interpretation is correct. Nonetheless should
define what is permissible.

HK forces answer as to Soviet view.

A: We believe that any component of defense system cannot be allowed
in space. Even more once battle systems are in existence no reduction
possible. Can't speak for own government. Deeply convinced once
space systems come into existence -- any hope disappears. Have
not defined laboratory testing. Rule out agreement if space testing
occurs.

Okay to have sensors; lasers not capable of destruction.

BROWN: Tests in space of space based weapons should be banned.

Sensors which might be applicable to space defense would be all right.

ARKEMEROV continued - page 5

Lasers without destructive capability okay. U.S. should find out what is feasible. Intention may not exist. //Worst situation for us if feasible intentions won't be equal.// Urges Soviets to study feasibility.

A: We are calling on Americans to discuss this - then we can force issue. We solved issue how to count MIRV and ICBM. With both sides serious solution can be found. U.S. administration not yet serious. We'll continue even if U.S. is not serious.

BROWN: U.S. not proceeding along this line.

A: Start with formal position. U.S. has no formal position. We would be willing to discuss modalities - once U.S. position exists.

A: Work is going on while talks continue.

B: Both sides' mil. people strongest advocates of arms reductions.

## GORBACHEV

> When I read views of various Sovietologists about S.U. - many things they don't understand. Can give him advice.
> 
> //obsequious Petersen quote//

GORBACHEV continued - page 2

GORBACHEV continued - page 3

GORBACHEV continued - page 4

K: We don't trust each. But we believe in mutual advantage.

GORBACHEV continued - page 5

relations

GORBACHEV continued - page 6

SAKHAROV

Many people now in prison for same reasons press
rejects publicly. But regime wants act of submission.

Gorbachev meeting opposition. What we observe here is multilayered
aspect of problem. W. should hope process of democratization will
be successful. Would be factor of stability in world.

Other possibility that this will come to nothing -- not in
interest of W.

Country beset with serious economic and social problems. If G.
fails since mil. potential will be preserved will create extremely
dangerous situation.

My own experience mil. industrial system capable of meeting
any threat. Enjoys significant technical and military capability.
Attract best graduates. Therefore attempt to force country
to its knees hurts only people outside mil. system and would
fail.

Interests of Soviet leadership coincide with interests outside
in every significant respect.

What we need on regional issues is some sort of balance and
mutual restraint perhaps using economic potential.

Vance: What can we most usefully do?

S: Complicated question. Some pressure may be helpful to new
administration in Soviet Union. Correct line holds out hope
of easing of tensions.

SAKHAROV continued - page 2

HK: Is Soviet position - preserve advantages

S: G. willing to confront conservative forces even in foreign policy.
Hard to see where country will be in time frame you mention.
Possible that after democratization Soviet Union will pursue
more expansionist policy. Agree sudden changes possible. Situation
as now exists. Need insurance. Full disarmament would be foolish.

Brown: Have known mil. industrial leaders. Can hold up their end in
any competition. Are technologists and mil. leaders convinced
that competitions can't be won? Prepared to flatten it or even
turn it down?

S: Attitude that there can be no winners in a thermo-nuclear war very
widespread. G. needs no advice as to that. People he knew terrible
struggle to get to top. Very capable. Senior mil. leaders
also very impressive.

When we did nuclear testing, very impressed by captains. Clear to
them as to others who read literally even small thermo-nuclear
capability would mean mutual suicide. Effective defense not possible.
Cost of overcoming defense through offense less than defense. Many
ways to defend vs. space stations. Non-nuclear anti-satellite
techniques can destroy space station. Can destroy space stations
with lasers from ground. Destabilizing situation.

Political and space issue should not be linked to other arms
control issues. Does not have that much immediacy. Doesn't expect
quick development of system. Prolonged research place will dry up

SAKHAROV continued - page 3

by itself.

U.S. should not force pace of SDI. Disagrees
with Reagan that SDI insurance policy.

Petersen: If system is so useless and costly, why does Soviet
oppose it so much?

G?: Soviets forced to respond. Change course in mil. establishment.

Make strategic situation unstable. Propaganda aspect.

Jean: Do you still believe in same rel. between science, democracy
and peace that you describe in essay?

S: Still believe in this conception of your society. Democratization
could lead to more peaceful society -- maybe not. Maybe G's
views on foreign policy not as different as those of his opponents.
Objective factors - can lead to foreign policy adjustment.

Jones: Delinkage?

S: In a relatively short time Soviets will delink. U.S. restraint
essential.

Hyland: Other forms of insurance.

S: Great power like U.S. needs some insurance. Democratization and
need for insurance policy not incompatible.

HK: Chance of success

of
S: Once politician is on a certain course question/sincerity almost
irrelevant

Realistic chance of success. Would not embark on a suicidal course.

Khrushchev-Kosygin experience.

Purposeful policy if W. has major role to play here.

Ms. Bonner: Be careful.

S: Yes.

SAKHAROV continued - page 4

Tarnoff: How are you received at Academy? And by rest of public?
S: New immigration law is step backward. Contradictory nature of development(s) here. Have argued for emigration narrows -- new decree -- right to emigrate. Desire to leave may decrease.
Warmly greeted at Institute.

Upper echelons pretend nothing happen

ARBATOV

A: To run for local government need not be member of party.

Blast furnace foreman.

Editorial process. Doesn't know how it will work.

Some managers remember as best time of life when you had small
group of managers concentrating on one or two tasks.

Being one-party system has serious danger. In Hungary party has veto
over candidates. China works if at all because 80% of foreign capital
comes from Hong Kong.

Don't have eternal truth.

Chinese system worked like NEP because farm production. But
led to tremendous overpopulation. Decentralization of decisionmaking
is wager. Similar to Kosygin ideas of '65.

Balance of forces not so simple.

Vance: mistrust is basis of tension. Human rights at heart of it.

Congressional reaction.

ARKEMEROV

ARKEMEROV continued - page 2

ARKEMEROV continued - Page 3

In fact conventional balance exists. Peculiarity of conventional weapons. Not taking global approach. Between Atlantic and equal. - 25% cut. Haven't started exchange of info on this issue.

ARKEMEROV continued - page 4

HK: How about sensor?

BROWN: Evidently position being discussed by U.S. - obsequious.
Broad interpretation. Ridicules position. Lectures A regarding SDI
positions and possible breakthroughs. Stresses that testing
limitations will cause SDI to atrophv. Brown pleads for
negotiation; Vance agrees.

ARKEMEROV continued - page 5

SAKHAROV

SAKHAROV continued - page 2

SAKHAROV continued - page 3

by itself.

Jones: Delinkage?

HK: Chance of success

Ms. Bonner: Be careful.

S: Yes.

SAKHAROV continued - page 4

ARBATOV

Blast furnace foreman.

Don't have eternal truth.

Congressional reaction.