SALT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80T00294A000300090015-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 23, 2002
• Sequence Number: 15
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2007/02/24: CIA-RDP80T00294AO00300090015-6
SECRET/rXDIS
SALT TWO
SESSION I
A- 107
MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION
U.S. SALT DELEGATION
GENEVA, swITZERLAND
DATE: December 18, 1972
TIME: 12:20 p.m. to 12:45 p.m.
PLACE: Soviet Mission, Geneva
SUBJECT: SALT
PARTICIPANTS: US
Mr. Philip J. Farley Mr. 0. A. Grinevsky
Dr. Raymond L. GarthoffE Mr. V. S. Chulitsky
FBS
Grinevsky suggested that Farley and Garthoff had probably been
consulting in Brussels on the statement given by the US Delegation
today. Farley replied that this was not the case, and thought there
was probably little that was new in the statements by the two sides this morning.
Grinevsky said that he had been struck by the reference to a
need to "concentrate"on central systems. Garthoff noted that the
word used in English was "focus" (which Grinevsky had re-translated
as "concentrate"). He noted that the same word had been used in the
US statement on December 5. Grincvsky acknowledged that, and said
that he thought it did not rule out "consideration" of the other
matters in addition to those on which the US side would wish to
"focus". Garthoff replied that the US statement had been carefully
prepared, and did not mean either more or less than it said.
Communique and Work Proms
Grinevsky and Chulitsky provided the text of a slightly revised
communique, incorporating several editorial changes which Moscow
wished to make. Farley and Garthoff indicated that, on an initial
reading, the suggested changes did not seem to involve any difficulties.
Garthoff promised to advise Grinevsky as soon as possible after con-
sideration by the Delegation. (Grinevsky subsequently told Garthoff
that he thought it would help with other "things" -- implying the
differences over the SCC procedures paper -- if the US Delegation could
accept the non-substantive change, in the communique desired by Moscow.)
SECRET/EXDIS
State Department review
Approved For Release 2007/02/24: CIA-RDP80T00294AO00300090015-6
 Approved For Release 2007/02/24: CIA-RDP80T00294AO00300090015-6
SECREET/EXDIS
Garthoff asked if the Soviet Delegation had word from Moscow
on the Program of Work. He indicated that there were no difficulties
on the US side. Grinevsky said his Delegation had not yet heard from
Moscow on the Work Program. (Garth.off later advised Grinevsky that
Washington had in fact agreed on the Work Program with no suggested
changes, and he hoped Moscow would do the same.)
Final Plenary
Garthoff suggested, and Chulitsky agreed, that the final Plenary
meeting on December 21 be held at 10:00 a.m., rather than 11:00 a.m.
Chulitsky asked when the US Delegation planned to depart. Garthoff
said that tentatively the plan was to leave about 2:00 p.m. on
December 21.
Garthoff also advised Chulitsky that if the Soviet Delegation
wished to bring a few additional Advisors to the final Plenary meet-
ing, we would be happy to accommodate them. Chulitsky thanked
Garthoff and said he would let him know later the number who would
be attending.
SCC Arrangements
Grinevsky suggested there were still difficulties over the SCC
procedures paper. Garthoff said he thought a reasonable compromise
had been worked out by Graybeal and Smolin on Saturday. Grinevsky
was non-committal, and noted that Smolin and Graybeal were discussing
the matter at that very time. He questioned the need for reference
to the word "draft" both in the title and reference to a "joint
draft text". Garthoff replied that it was necessary in both places,
and reminded Grinevsky that their original understanding had been
to discuss such procedures "on the side", along with the development
of a Memorandum; the Soviet side had already pushed rather far in
attempting to raise the status of the draft provisions for the SCC
regulations. Garthoff noted that these draft provisions were, in
effect, ad referendum to the SCC itself in any case. Grinevsky did
not disagree.
SALDEL/EXO:RLGarthoff/res
December 18, 1972
SECRET/EXDIS
Approved For Release 2007/02/24: CIA-RDP80T00294A000300090015-6