STANDING CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80T00294A000300090019-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 26, 2002
• Sequence Number: 19
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2007/02/24: CIA-RDP80T00294AO00300090019-2
SECRET/EXDIS
MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION
U.S. SALT DELEGATION
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
SALT TWO
SESSION
A-102
DATE: December 18, 1972
TIME: 11:10 - 11:50 a.m.
PLACE: U.S. Mission, Geneva
SUBJECT: Standing Consultative Commission
PARTICIPANTS: US
Mr. Sidney N. Graybeal Mr. V. V. Smolin
Mr. John P. Shaw Mr. E. N. Kochetkov, Interpreter
Regarding the compromise "Draft Regulations" agreed to ad referendum
Saturday evening, Graybeal said he had consulted with his Delegates and
had encountered some difficulty regarding the compromise with respect to
our instructions on the Regulations. (In this connection, he referred
to the Talking Points introduced by him last Saturday.) However, the
Delegates decided that with the acceptance of the package overall, they
would request authority from Washington to initial the Joint Draft Text.
Smolin said that he was not so lucky in his consultations. There
is agreement on the Memorandum of Understanding, but regarding the Regula-
tions his Delegates did not agree to the package. They felt that there is no
need to include in the Regulations reference to the "Joint Draft Text" and
the "ad referendum" footnote. All of these were subsumed in the title.
He was further instructed to repeat what was suggested earlier, that
the Soviet Delegation would accept Paragraph 8 provided the U.S. accepts
the title, drops the reference to Joint Draft Text, etc., and agrees
to initialing.
Graybeal and Shaw declined to accept this proposition. Graybeal
said that if there was any hope of initialing the document this must
be done on the condition that the references to the Joint Draft Text
and "ad referendum"be retained as well as the agreement on Paragraph 8.
Under these conditions, his Delegates would also accept the Soviet
title. We must retain the package unless the Soviets are willing to
forego initialing. The: title and the format agreed to ad referendum
on Saturday serves mutual purposes. f .~
Smolin repeated the argument that the title was enough by itself.
The references to "basic" and "draft" indicated the preliminary status
SECRET/EXDIS
State Department review
Approved For Release 2007/02/24: CIA-RDP80T00294AO00300090019-2
 Approved For Release 2007/02/24: CIA-RDP80T00294AO00300090019-2
SECRET/EXDIS
of the document. Initialing, rather than signing, also indicates preliminary
status. Finally, the Soviet side agreed that the final agreement on Regula-
tions will. take place within the SCC.
Graybeal stated that his interpretation was quite different. Specifically
the "title" indicates what the document contains, whereas the "Joint Draft
Text" and "agreed ad referendum by Delegations" indicate the status of the
document. It is essential that this distinction be maintained. Therefore,
he was unable to agree with Smolin's interpretation or with his proposal.
Graybeal said his instructions on this point were clear and he had no latitude
for negotiation.
After some give and take between Smolin and the U.S. participants, with
neither side changing its position, Smolin asked whether the participants
should report to their respective Delegations or try to further reduce the
problems to a minimum.
Graybeal said that the U.S. participants had no latitude and suggested
that reports be made to Delegations.
Smolin said he had had no time this morning to present to his Delegates
other changes in the Regulations, namely those in Paragraphs 1 and 7.
Graybeal said that, if the package is accepted the U.S. side would agree
to put back the words which had been deleted in Paragraph 1, and delete the
U.S. addition to Paragraph 7.
There followed a discussion between Graybeal and Smolin on the de marche
to Bern. There was agreement between them as to what their respective
Ambassadors in Bern would tell the Swiss. The approaches could be made
either in parallel or simultaneously, depending on what had been the past
procedure, so long as the substance was the same. Graybeal called attention
to the short time remaining and suggested that he and Smolin ask their
respective Ambassadors to make a tentative approach to the Swiss either
today or tomorrow. Smolin did not object.
Graybeal said that his Delegates had decided against a public signing
ceremony of the Memorandum of Understanding. Signing will be done at the
last plenary session on Wednesday or Thursday, and the text will be released
to the press, along with the Communique at an agreed time.
The participants tentatively agreed to meet this afternoon at a time
to be set after consultation with Delegations.
Following the meeting, Shaw half jokingly suggested that in view of the
apparent impasse regarding the format of the Regulations, on which the U.S.
had no flexibility, that the best solution perhaps would be to sign the
Memorandum of Understanding and to set aside the Draft Regulations. In their
present form they could be used as informal guidelines by each side. Smolin,
as expected, cited the Soviet argument that the Soviet side regarded the two
documents as "closely connected."
SALDEL:JPShaw:SNGraybeai:wl:big
SECRET/EXDIS
Approved For Release 2007/02/24: CIA-RDP80T00294A000300090019-2