Unofficial translation His Excellency Ronald W REAGAlT The' P resident of the United states of America D C Washington June 10 1985 Dear Mr P resident I I I I noted the intention expressed ill your letter of A flril 30 to share thoughts in our correspondence with complete frankness This is also my attitude Only in this manner can we bring to each other the essense of Qur respective approaches to the probl ems of world politics and bilateral relations Saying this I proceed from the assumpt ion that in exchanging views we shall look to the need to move forward on the key matters otherwise one cannot count on a turn for the better in Soviet-American relations I undepstand that you agree too that such a turn for ' he better is required To aim at a lesser goal say a'l simply containing tensions within certain bounds and trying to make it somehow from one crisis to another - is not in my o pinion a prospect wor' hY of our two powers 'Ie paid attention 0 the fact that you share the view regarding the need to give an impetus to the process of normalizing our relations It is not insignificant of itself But to be candid a number of points in your letter perplex and puzzle and those are the points on which a special stress is made at I mean is the generalizations about the Soviet policy contained in your letter in connection with the Ci eplorable incident wibh an American serviceman 1 8 to the inciCi ent itself we would like to hope that the explanations which were given by us were' correctly understood by the American side f DECLASSlfli OjA' e eerseq NLS i r 2 aaL fltwI ' - ' 11 I 199 r----------------------- --t -O ·- l - ' _ 'i· 2 Now turning to major problems I also believe that agreement with regard to general principles alone is not sufficient It is important that such agreement were also reflected in the practical actions of each side I emphasize preciselY each side since it clearly follows from your letter that you see disparities between the principles and practice in the actions of the Soviet Union It is very far from reality There is not ng corresponding to the facts in the assertion that the USSR in its policy allegedly does not wish to conduct affairs with the U S on the basis of equality and reciprocity iTo matter what area of' our relations is tween it transpires from a really objective assessment that it is precisely the Soviet Union that comes out consistently for equality and reciprocity does not seek advantaGes for itself at the expense of the' 'legitimate interests of the U S And it was exactly when a similar approach was twren by the American side too that sub-' stantial agreements could be achieved It is not an acciCient that all agreements reached on the subject of arms limitation became possible only because the sides aCihered in working them out to the principle of ' equality and equal security At no point j n time did the Soviet side demand more for itself But as soon as the U S departed from that principle the process of' he arms limitation and reduc't ion was ruptured RegretGab Y this remains to be the case at present too ' 1 If nevertheless t question of equality d reciprocity is to be raised as a matter of principle then it is the Soviet Union that is surrounded by American military bases stuffed also' by nucleaI weapons rather th the U S - by Soviet bases Try to look at the situation tv ough our eyes then it will become clear who can have· a real subst '1tiat ed concern TWce then practically any issue from the sphere of our bilateral relations whethor trade or for example air or sea communication Is it that the actual ste te of afi'ai -s in those cases determi· net by the Soviet Union being a5ainst equality and rocipropity Quite the contrary the low level of those relations is a direct conseque of the Pmerican side's policy compatible neither with conducting I I 1 I I Il - I t I '- ' ' ' ' ' affairs as equals nor with reciprocity in the generally recognized meanings of these notions Or take the following as ect of the question wi l h respect to principles and adherence to theJJ Vith regard to third countries we impose neither our ideology nor our social system on anybody And do not ascribe to us what does nQt exist I f the question is to be raised without diplomatic contrivances as to who contributes to the international law a 'l d order and who act s in a different direction then it appears that it is precisely the U S that turns out to be on the side of the groupings working against Legitimate governments lind what about direct pressure on the goverJ l I lents whose policy does not suit the U S There are enough examples of both on various continents 'I addressed these issues frankly and in a rather detailed manner not to embark upon the road of mutual recrimina t ions but rather in the hope that it willl elp you to understand correctly our approach to principles and tb eir practical implementation to appreciate our willingness to build our relations with the U S on the basis of equality and reciprocity in a ositive and similar perception of these notions I think a lot about the shape the affairs between our countries can take And I ever more firmly believe in a point I made in my previous letter an im pro yement in the rela' ions between the USSR and U S is possible T ere is objective ground for ' hat 1 ' Of course our countries are different This fact cannot be changed There is also a 'l other fact however when ' he leaders qf both countries as the e 1 '1lerience of the past shows found in themselves enough vlisdom and realism to overcome bias caused by the difference in social systems in ideologies we cooperated successfully did quite a few useful things both for our peoples and for all other peoples Of course differences and different views reJJ ained but it was our irrt eraction that was the determining factor l d it openned up confident peaceful vistas • II I i' 4 I took note of the fact that you also express yourself in favor of each social system proving its advantages in peaceful competition• Yes we proceed from the assumption that in this yompetition the USSR and U S will de fend their ideals and moral values as each of our societies under rl ands them But it will result n nothing good if the ideological struggle should be carried over into the sphere of relations between states I believe you understand what I mean The main conclusion thaI naturally follows from the mutual recognition of the need for peaceful competition is that the attempts should be renounced to substitute the dispute of weapons for the dispute of ideas One can hardly count on serious shifts in the nature of our relations so long as one' side will try to gain advantages o ver the other on the Path of the arms I'ace to talle with the other side from the 1 0sition of' s·l rength Thw President for underst dable reasons the political leadership of both our countries must have a competent judgement regarding the existing and prospective weapon systems It is ej remely important to avoid miSCalculations whose irreversible consequences will manifest themselves if not today then after some time In the past a rigid but at the same time quite fragile relationship was established between the s'l rategic nuclear weapons and anti-ballistic missile systems The only correct conclusion was made - the Treaty of udefinite duration to limit ABM systems was concluded It is onl y due to that that it became possible at all to tackle as a practical matter the problem of the limital ion and reduction of nuclear weapons The attempts to 'develop a large-scale ABM s ystem inevitably set in train a radical destabilization of the situation Even the factor of uncertainty as such will not only prevent any limitation of nuclear weapons but will instead lead to their build-up and improvement Therefore when we resolutely raise the question and state that the militarization of space is impermissible it is not propaganda and not a consequence of some misunderstanding or fear of falling't ehind technologically It is a result of a thorough analisys of our deep concern about the future of relations between our countries the future of peace i There is also another aspect of the program of stratigic de enre'l which remains as if in a shadow for the broad public But not for responsible· leaders and military experts They talk in Washington ab'out the development of a large-scale ABIVI system but in fact a new strategic offensive weapon is being developed to be deployed in space And it is a weapon no less dangerous by its capabilities than nuclEiar weapons What difference does it make vihai5 'will be used in a first disarming strike-ballistic missiles or lasers If there is a difference it is that it will be possible to carry out the first strike by the new systems practically inst tly So from any point of view already the verybegi ing of the w rk to implement this progrmR is destabilizing regardless even of its final results And it is precisely for this reason that it ca ot fail to serve as an impetus to a further upswing of the arms race I think you will agree that in matters affecting the heart of national security neither side can or will rely on assurances of good intentions 1 weapon system is evaluated by its capabilities but not by public statements regarding its mission All facts unambiguously indicate ·that the U S embarks upon the path of developing attaclc space weapons capable of performing purely offensive missions And we shall not ignore that I must say this franlcly I ought to confess that what you have said about the approach of ·the U S • to the question of the moratorium on space and nuclear wea Qori enhances our concern The persistent refusal of the American side to stop the arms race ca ot -out put in' question the intentions of the U S And what is going on at the negotiations in Geneva The American side is try i ng to substitute only a part of the agreed mandate for the negotiations for the whole of it An integral element is being removed from the really agreed form la for the negotiations - the obligation to prevent an arms race in space to consider and resolve a Ll issues in their interrelationship The American side has so far done nothing to bring agreement closer On the subject of preventing an arms race in space the U S delegation did not present a single consideration at all I emphasize not a single one Vfuat for should l • ' - 6 after that one be surprised wb f ind eed there is no movement on the nuclear arms reduction I wish to mention in passing that the American representatives maix tain - this point is also containe d in your letter - that H is impossible to verify prohibition on scientific'research However ··a different thing is involved a federal program of research activities directly and specifically oriented towards the development of attack space weapons a large-scale ABM system with spaGe-based components The very announcement of such a program is in clear contradiction with the ABM Treaty Incidentally if one is to take the entire text of the Il a greed statement to the ABMTreaty and not only its part v ich is quoted in your letter it is easy to sea -that it is aimed not at wea enillg but at strengtl16ning the central provision of the treaty - dealing with the sides t renunciation of the development of large-scale ABM system As 'to the ascertions that the USSR is allegedly engaged in its own large research program in the area of strategic defense here as Americans put it apples are confused with oranges The Soviet Union does nothing that would contravene the ABM Treaty does not develop a l taclc space weapons Thus the question of verification is in tbis case a far-fetched question if one 'is clearly to proceed from the premise that nothing can be done no matter wnat names one can come up with for it that is unambiguously proh i 'bited by the ABf Treaty filr Pre sident I would lilce to hope that you will have another close look at the problem of non-militarization of space at its interrelationship with solving the problem of nuclear weapons and from that angle - at the prospects for the Geneva negotiations It is in this objective linkage that there lies a resolution of the problems of the limitation of nuclear arms a real possibility to get down to their radical reduction a l'J d thereby to proceed'to the liquidat iOOat'nuclear Vleapons as such ' 'Ie shall not be able to av id Nay haVing precisely tne complex of these issues as a determining factor both for our relations and for the situation in the world as a whole ' llis follows from the special responsibility of our two countries ' I am convinced thp t Vie must a '1d can be up to this responsibility In this connection I note with satisfaction your words to the effect th t our two countries have a common interest prevailing -over other things - to avoid war I fully agree with that How with regard to what other steps cou'ld be tal en among pther things to stimulate progress in Geneva We are convinced that of -very important - w'1 d practical - significa 'lce would be the cessation of all nuclear weapon tests In this area a lot can be done by our two countries Specifically we propose the following practical steps Putting into effect the up 'till now unratified Soviet-American treaties of 1974 and 1976 Coming to terms on the resumption of trilateral - with the participation of Britain negotiations on the complete and general prohibition of nuclear weapon tests and acting vigorously worldng towards their speedy and successful conclusio Finally we propose tha the USSR and V S interact in carrying out such a specific and very substantial step' on the part of all nuclear powers as a moratorium on any nuclear e k Posions would De We are in favor of introducing such a moratorium as soon as possible The problem of prohibiting Chemical weapons needs to be resolved But its resolution should be sought realistically I must say that the positions vnlich the U S has so far had on a number of important aspects of this problem do not meet this criterion We would like the American sid e to payi'rhe11'tion to the proposals we have put forward We agree that b'ilateral consultations between our representatives would be usei'ul i'or example within tIle i'ramework of the Geneva Conference on disarmament It should be recognized however that the efforts which al'e being made in the U S for the chemical rearuaIuent above all as concerns oinary v eapons are not a favo raole prerequisite at all for removing cheluical weapons completely and forever from the military arse als of states The state of things at tile Stockholm Conference leaves one w1th an ambisuous impression On the one hand i t would seem 'that there is co on understw'1 dinG regarding the need for an agreement on the basis of an optimlill comoination of major political obligations ' 8 and military-tecllnical confidence-building measures One the other hand the Western represen l aGives the American representatives first of all clearly do not hasten to fill this understanding wtth specific mutually acceptable - I emphasize mutually acceptablecontent Vie aJ 'e for having a substantial uIlderstanding really helping to enhance confidence Such are the instructions of our representatives They are prepared to' listen to constructive considerations which the l erican delegation may have To put it briefly we are for working towards a successful conclusion of the conference I would like j' 'fr President to draw your a'Gtention to the negotiations 01 1 the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe Sometimes we hear from the ilmerican representatives that our proposals made last February stimulate interest But it does not show aG all at the negotiations themselves It would seem that reaching agreeme t on initial reductions of the Soviet and American forces in that area' would be in your and in our interests in the interests of a military rel ation in Europe 'Could you look irrGo it to see whether you might find it possible to advance things in 'Ghis areai One of the sourses of tension in the relations between the USSR and U S is a difference in the aSsessment of vnlat is going on in the world It seems that the JlilleJ 'ican side frequently ignores the in-dep'Gh causes of eveD YI and does not take fully into account the fact that toda l a gres-t number of states operate - and most actively too - in world politics each wi'Gh its own face an d interests All this immeasurably complicates the general picture A correct understanding of this would help avoid serious mistakes and miscalculations In the past we used to have a positive experience of interaction in lowering tensions in some areas in preventing dangerous outbre aks But it worke d this way when the re adine ss Vias shown to talee irrGo account the legitimaGe irrGerests of each other and the • positions of all the sides involved in a certain situation • I I I I I I I ' le p03itively ascess the agr8e eD t of t he A'llerican side to have excha YJ Ges of vievn3 on Gome '0t ional robloJ1s ' 18 eXyect iti to accept au PI'OP08J J tl at 0 Vli l l'xl e of re ' 'Q lal 9 oblems be the sub iect o f j'l C l exc_' '' ngc3 ' lCL tnElt t 2 o e Gxcl J c ' OfJ look -GO r c8 cinS slx ci fJ c l ' -in -' -G' ll 8 1-1 ' 'i- on · ' ' I - OI t· -I'J ·1 -' 1 -' con 11 - · -j rID I oolr 1 i _ - 1 0 1 V -'_J v J u _'l _'lote -'v _ -J oJ -rJl ' ' ' · 'I ' ' _ '-' 0 •• _ l' _- 1 J '0 1' l __ _t 'lJ __ · 0 'C ··· -nr -- · ' 1 - '7 v VJO I' tO ' ltlHJ r li Ganistllil nov Lng v ith would bo toward a geacef _i l set ' le J 81'lt I - ould Ij e to have a aore clem' unCierstfu'1dillG of nOYj t J 8 l c icc 'D side is S€f illG it 0 Such an 9Pportunity is pL'ovided by·the upconinl co sultcr i ons of our eJ --perts HowlJver ov r opinions in t l i J i1 1t 2 ' as vlell will be be-sed u on prac'iJical deeds of' -tile U S ll'ron t 18 oint of vi-evl of' ach Levine 8 poli' ics l s8 J'cle 8nt and lot o nly frorJ thn point of view vIe C3J 1 Ylot acce t what yJU se j' iJ 1 your lette - with respect to Pakistan 'i0 9srceive -yile DellD viou r of - ha t countr3 lot only 0 8 not co rres onciillg to bile l oal 0 ' 8 political setit le J ent a-cound l i·G '1ist D n but also u s d3 D 'J' ous and rovoce tive We e rpec·t that the U9S acins closel T lint ed with el istcw l '1d £1 lso taJ ing into a ccount its ow n in t0rCErGS will e 8i G es-craini n s influence Oll i'ti ii'he curtailin _ of j ts l LJ ect support to a t 1 tigovernm ut Q T Q armed for ations ir rudins iJGO Ganistor from Pakist would be a pocitive Sig' 'lD l E' co n the It'iIDrican side o In otih0I' vlords the U S has the possibilities to confiru by actions its declal'ed readiness to ac i'lieve t l yolitical settleracJJ t a ' o1JJ d J fganistan on tile ba sis of a jU0t solution of t ho rp i c tions CODJ l8cted viith it ld to Dlimina te -·t ensiol1s in this region a a Jj lole l SlICh a mode at action 'will not be left UD110'ticed b y our side anCi ould clearly vI'orIc toward s Lirn istheni lg out Soviet- l lor5 c8 n ro L l tions 00me 1- incL of lOV8D ent SO nS to 0'3 C i ce ' t le in 'the area of s tiric 'cly bile t eral relntioI 8 DCtVi80' '1 0' l' c·JLt l't l ·ics You oViden bly have noticed t 8 at - 1e 3uPI ort t tl Ls 'trend However t oI'e should be no Vllsund ersto nlL l - conco 2 n i n no conc uct t_i ese -- elJ n c ' ci rt io lS OlW'-' l'on 'l _ ' _ v - relu cj n v L' COl ' l ' 1 ••• 1 1 1 - v _ ·i crt tl G 3 ct we d o llCit lT0end and YJill to hU-iJ EJll richtn 3 in the Soviet' Oll '-r dC1'11' 0 _ uv 'J '0 J d e ul ' l' -' b C V l 0 1S c r J _ J _ 0 - - ---- • ' 10 I' ' ' Let us l'llr Pre sident proceed from this in order not to iaggrava-pe additionally our relations The development of our ties canb based only' on mutual interest 'equality and mutual benefit respect i rtherights and legitimate interests of each other o ' ' We consider as positive the fact that in some instances '-' the once diversified structure of Soviet-l ll1erican relations starts ' ' although not very intensively 1 0 put it outright - to be restored' and to 'be filled with content In particular we consider usef-q l the talks between our ministers of trade which took place in Moscow recently We intend to look for mutually acceptablesolut ions in other areas as well which cons'l itute the subjt lct of 'clis ussion • betwe'en us and to expand the range of such areas 'It is encouraging that contacts including those between ' ' j parliaments of our two countries have be'come more active recerrl ly As i have already said tl the repre'sentatives f t he U s Congr s' we live in a time whe q people shaping the' policy of the VSS ' O ' the U' E must necessarily meet have con -I acts with each'o h e r ' j To ' ' pe ikin brOad terms we stand for building yigoro sl Y a' 'bri d f e to'mutual understanding and cooperation and for developing t 51 ' ' In' conclusion I would like to confirm my positive ' a t -l i t Jde - ' to a personal meeting wi'l h you I understand that you f iel'th ' saiJle way O-q pOi t 'of view on this matter was outlined by Andr'7li' l to MroSchuitz during their stay recently ip Vienna As to' i7he plS ce fop holding it I underq 1a nd that there are motives which mak ' • ' ' ' you prefer the meeting to oe held in the U S But I have llo iSS weighty motives due to which taking into account the pr ·s n'li state of Soviet-American relations this variant is unreai §tic ' j mportan'J international problems are involved and we should ' use the time to search for possible agreements which could be ' readied' for the mee'l ing For our part we are errl irely for this I' J ' Ii I I' 0 I 1 ' 'j i I I 'I ' I ' ' r ' ' l ' ' ' _ ' ' ' ' l' I Sincerely • M GORBACHffiV ' ' ' l j c L'll