NAJIBULLAH. Permit me to express gratitude to you, Mikhail Sergeyevich, and all the entire Soviet leadership for the constant aid and support.

M. S. GORBACHEV. Send our greetings to your comrades and wishes to firmly go along the chosen path.

Conversation between M. S. Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan regarding Afghanistan, 9 December 1987 (Excerpt)

[Source: Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow. Provided by Anatoly Chernyaev and translated for CWIHP by Gary Goldberg.]

R. REAGAN. The regional issues relate primarily to other issues, first among them-Afghanistan. This is, first of all, about the presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan. We know one another's point of view, and I would welcome it if you would announce a withdrawal of Soviet troops. I think such an announcement should have been made long ago. Without doubt, the situation in Afghanistan is difficult, primarily for you, and we could help you, guaranteeing that no other governments in this region would threaten you in Afghanistan. We will do everything in our power to guarantee that Afghanistan will be an independent, neutral country, and we hope that Soviet troops will be withdrawn from it by the end. of 1988...

M. S. GORBACHEV. Our order of priorities coincides with yours. Therefore I will begin with Afghanistan (...).

Regarding Afghanistan, within the framework of the Cordovez mission, there exists an agreement of principles about noninterference and guarantees from the US, the USSR, and Pakistan, and it would be good if Iran were on the list. There exists a plan for the return of the refugees, and guarantees are being given to the mujaheddin in Pakistan and Iran. All this will help. The issue of the timing of the troop withdrawal remains open. President Najibullah has suggested-and consulted with the Soviet Union about this, although this is his own suggestion-that Soviet troops leave over the course of 12 months with the understanding that this timeframe could be reduced by 2-3 months if everything goes smoothly, but from the very start the process should be tied to national reconciliation and the creation of a coalition government. But only the Afghans themselves should decide the issue of the nature and composition of such a government. I share your idea about an independent, neutral, multi-party Afghanistan. It is in this very framework that a society is now being formed in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not a socialist country. It is a semi-feudal pluralistic society. How they are to live and develop is for they themselves to decide. But you under

stand that the issue of Afghanistan is not a simple issue. We have a more than 2,000 km border with them and therefore we need a friendly neighbor. But I can assure you that the Soviet Union is not hatching plans to create bases in Afghanistan. We have not been thinking about this. We think that it is necessary to conclude the process begun there on the basis of national reconciliation. And the Afghans have even said they are ready to give half of the posts in a government of national reconciliation to the opposition, including the post of prime minister. We support this but the decision is to be made by the Afghans themselves. Neither you nor we can decide how to divide up these posts. I think that if we advised our friends to act in the direction of national reconciliation, and you also conscientiously [akkuratno] advised this to those with whom you maintain relations—we know you have such capabilities since not long ago you received some opposition leaders-this would not be bad.

Speaking of the withdrawal of our troops, I will say that we are interested in this and have already begun to withdraw our troops. But you ought to cease financial support and weapons aid to the opposition. I can say that on the same day as the withdrawal of Soviet troops is announced they will not participate in military operations except for self-defense purposes. You yourself understand that the situation can be most unpredictable. It would be good if you and we agreed about cooperation and demonstrated this to the world. We favor an indigenous [narodivshiysya] neutral regime in Afghanistan, a regime that would not be unacceptable to either of us, nor to the Afghans. Therefore let us agree about this and we will inform Najibullah and you, the opposition, about this.

R. REAGAN. We will try to exert influence on them. However, the president of Afghanistan has an army, and the opposition does not. Therefore it is impossible to ask one side to put down its weapons at the same time as the other keeps theirs. It seems to me that they need to meet together to find a political solution.

M. S. GORBACHEV. I think that there are real preconditions to solving this problem. Let our experts think about it......

By the way, Iran is also taking aim at Afghanistan. If we put too much pressure on Iran, then they could respond somehow in Afghanistan.

***

Conversation between M.S. Gorbachev and R. Reagan, 10 December 1987 (Excerpt)

[Source: Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow. Provided by Anatoly Chernyaev and translated by Gary Goldberg for CWIHP]

M. S. GORBACHEV. Yesterday I touched on the Afghan issue. I will say frankly: I have noticed from your side a certain restraint and unwillingness to get involved in discussing the ideas I expressed about solving the Afghan problem. Therefore I would like to stress that we are ready to talk seriously with you on this topic; moreover, to agree on several principal aspects.

If you want, then we will not make this agreement public. The Soviet Union would name a specific date for the withdrawal of its troops, and the United States would obligate itself to halt aid to known Afghan forces. That is, we would act synchronously. On such-and-such a day we would begin the withdrawal and on the same day you would cease aid to the forces in the opposition. When we name a day then it would simultaneously signify that from that date our forces would not participate in combat operations except in cases of self-defense. I again stress that we don't want Afghanistan to be pro-Soviet or pro-American. We think that it should be a neutral country.

It seems to me that such a suggestion provides a basis for our cooperation in resolving the Afghan issue. But I have developed the impression that the US takes the following position on this issue: the Soviet Union is "tied down" in Afghanistan, and let them get out of there however they want, and the United States will criticize all the time and then impede the withdrawal of our troops.

If you actually take such a position then it will be hard for us to find a common language. All the same, let's think together about some businesslike approach and joint practical steps. In our summary document we could write down in a general way that we discussed the issue about Afghanistan. (...)

R. REAGAN. In reply to the ideas you expressed I'll try to explain to you what difficulties we have in regard to, let's say, Afghanistan or Nicaragua. The present Afghan government has its own armed forces. If we agree with you that the Soviet Union withdraws its troops and we halt aid to the freedom fighters in Afghanistan, then they would end up disarmed before Afghan government troops and would be deprived of any opportunity to defend their right to participate in a future government. Therefore we think that within the framework of our decision with you the Afghan government troops should also be disbanded. This would allow both sides to take part in a discussion of the settlement process on an equal basis...

G. SHULTZ. Regarding the Afghan issue, we think the working group has made a step forward. The Soviet side let us know that the issue of troop withdrawal is not tied to the conclusion of the process of national reconciliation. This process will take quite a lot of time and the Afghan people themselves will determine through what stages it must pass. It means that one element that has been lacking until now can be included on the agenda at the next stage of the Geneva talks, namely the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

M. S. GORBACHEV. On condition that it is tied to the issue of American aid to opposition forces; that is, the day of the start of the troop withdrawal should be the same day that American military aid stops. If such an agreement is reached, then Soviet troops will cease participation in military operations and observe a cease-fire from the start of the withdrawal. The rest (creation of a coalition government, etc.) the sides will do and implement, whether by themselves or using the mediatory mission of Cordovez.

I can repeat what I said this morning - we want the new Afghanistan to be neither pro-American nor pro-Soviet, but a non-aligned, independent country. If we agree to withdraw our troops and the US does not stop financial and military aid to the opposition forces then the situation would only deteriorate further, which would make it impossible for us to withdraw troops. Therefore we tie troop withdrawal to the cessation of aid to opposition forces and outside interference.

I think that our discussion of this issue was good. I propose that henceforth we put this discussion on a more practical basis and begin a specific discussion about it.

G. SHULTZ. Yesterday in the working group the Soviet side welcomed US support of the Accords already reached in the Geneva talks. We said that one important agreement is lacking between us at present, namely the time of Soviet troop withdrawal.

M. S. GORBACHEV. [Translator's note: possible a word missed due to a spurious character at the beginning of the sentence] [More] about cessation of American aid to Afghan opposition forces. Let's agree on the time and announce it. But if you need additional time to think, please, think. But right now we are inviting you to make a specific joint step.

It would allow [us] to verify how sincerely the US administration is trying to ease the situation in Afghanistan. For us this verification would have great importance inasmuch as it would allow us to correctly assess US actions in other situations also.

G. SHULTZ. At the Geneva talks a proposal was made that the United States could halt deliveries of lethal weapons to Afghan freedom fighters 60 days after the start of the Soviet troop withdrawal.

One more issue remains unresolved, namely how the process of national reconciliation will proceed, in parallel with the Soviet troop withdrawal or whether the Soviet side agrees to include in the summary document a point that both sides support the Accords on Afghanistan which were reached at Afghan-Pakistani talks in Geneva.

Eh. A. SHEVARDNADZE. We are not tying the issue of the timing of the Soviet troop withdrawal to the process of national reconciliation, which naturally will be a long process. We confirmed this again yesterday.

M. S. GORBACHEV. Regarding the Afghan problem, I think your administration could contribute to a search for its solution. If you would say that you are halting aid to the opposition, the rebels, with the start of the Soviet troop withdrawal, we would name a specific time. If this does not happen, if the US acts according to the principle "you got yourself in, you can get yourself out," then the entire problem will be deferred. If we were to begin to withdraw troops while American aid continued then this would lead to a bloody war in the country. I don't know what we would do then. The Soviet Union does not intend at all to tie Afghanistan to a particular political system. Let it be independent.

G. BUSH. And we are not in favor of installing an exclusively pro-American regime in Afghanistan. This is not US policy.

M. S. GORBACHEV. And we are not in favor of a pro-Soviet regime. Let Afghanistan be independent. However, the American side should not continue deliveries of weapons and the financing of aid to the rebels. We ought to take this up seriously in order to ensure the establishment of a coalition gov

ernment in this country which would suit both you and us, and all domestic political forces in Afghanistan. Right now there is a chance for practical results.

(...)

Record of a Conversation of M. S.
Gorbachev with Indian Minister of
Defense Krishna Chandra Pant,
11 February 1988

[Source: Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow. Provided by Anatoly Chernyaev and translated for CWIHP by Gary Goldberg.]

M. S. GORBACHEV. Please pass to Rajiv [Gandhi] that I very much value our cooperation and our exchanges of information through various channels about the situation in the region where both we and you have very important interests.

I would also like to ask you and the Ambassador to send to Prime Minister Gandhi one observation having perhaps a global character, an observation which is not superficial but born as a result of serious analysis. We see that the reactionary circles in the West-as distinct from realistic circles—are very worried about that the pioneering [initsiativnaya] policy which the Soviet Union, India, the Non-Aligned Movement, and progressive forces are now following. These forces are trying to consolidate right now and are looking for ways to seize [perekhvatit ] the initiative and disrupt movement along the path which leads to strengthening security and improving international relations. This is not to the militarists' tastes.

Therefore they have begun to literally attack the Soviet embassy and the General Secretary personally and are doing everything in order to denigrate his policy both in domestic affairs and in foreign policy. We see that Rajiv Gandhi and other progressive figures have not been ignored. This is a very serious fact which needs to be considered. Right now the periods of euphoria and panic have passed for them, and they are consolidating. For example, the Soviet Union, India, and other progressive regimes for them are like a bone in their throats.

At the same time it is impossible not to see anything else. Our joint efforts and our peace initiatives are enjoying ever greater support in the world and are drawing all realistically-minded people to our side. This is a very important factor whose significance is growing. Therefore there is every reason to look at the future optimistically.

K. Ch. PANT. Thank you, Mr. General Secretary. I recall with great pleasure your visit to Delhi, the time we spent together, and the thorough conversations with you.

I recall not only your official statements but your numer

ous statements in personal conversations with me. A great impression was made on me by the fact that your words correspond so harmoniously with your actions both in Soviet domestic and foreign policy. Probably many of the thoughts you then expressed came hard. But you have not retreated from your chosen path and follow it firmly.

It should be said that I share your optimism in connection with the positive processes in the world which are the result of your efforts. A new generation is recognizing the imperatives of the nuclear age and it understands the need for changes in the world which would be in accord with the turbulent changes in science and technology. I think that you gave this new generation a charter of values, a charter of concepts which could touch chords in the souls of people.

that, after the latest steps we took, Najib is looking at the situation more optimistically. I think this man has great potential, and he will show himself in a new situation.

I think that we and you need to maintain contact, exchange opinions, and see to it that the situation does not get out of control and develop in an undesirable direction.

When I was in Washington I informed the Americans that we are ready to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and discuss practical steps in this regard; the Americans avoided discussing the substance of the issue. They would like to maintain the present situation in Afghanistan, for it allows them to maintain their presence in the region and strengthen their position, in particular in Pakistan.

K. Ch. PANT. The desire for peace was very strong earlier; however it was quite amorphous. But you have managed to put it on a clear path.

The [the December 1987] signing of the agreement on intermediate and shorter-range missiles [INF Treaty] was an important step forward. Now we await with impatience the next step you have been talking about the achievement of an agreement on strategic weapons.

M. S. GORBACHEV. You know the impression is being created that neither Congress-both the Democrats and especially the Republicans-nor even the closest circle of the President will allow him to reach this agreement.

K. Ch. PANT. Yes, this is also possible.

M. S. GORBACHEV. They evidently have already distributed roles among themselves. Nevertheless, we favor the achievement of such an agreement as soon as possible. We will drag them along the road of disarmament.

ernment with the issue of the presence of our troops in Afghanistan. It seemed to them that the presence of Soviet troops allows us to influence the situation in Najib's favor. But the Pakistanis are already saying now that they will not sign an agreement until a coalition government is created.

Earlier they thought that our announcement of our readiness to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan was only a propaganda slogan. However, now when we and Najib announced the troop withdrawal and when India supported this step they are openly interfering. They see that the Soviet Union, Najib, and India are acting confidently and think that they "have agreed on how to act." Therefore they have now begun to maneuver.

[Indian Diplomat] T[riloki]. N[ath]. KAUL. But you've taken the wind out of their sails with your step.

K. Ch. PANT. At the same time there are also grounds for concern. Earlier the Americans gave them, and now, first and foremost, Pakistan. In insisting on the interconnection of these two issues it is pursuing matters toward the creation of a government of fundamentalists.

selves. Is it impossible to arrange that these weapons be destroyed within the framework of the agreements? For if the

Record of Conversation of M. S. Gorbachev with US Secretary of State

civilian aircraft there will be chaos.

M. S. GORBACHEV. Yes, this is actually a difficult issue. But if we raise it then they can say—and what about Soviet weapons in Afghanistan? And then the process could be dragged down since we don't want to leave Najib naked.

Pass to Rajiv that we understand in the most serious way his idea about the need to strengthen the Kabul government in a military sense and consolidate its positions in Afghanistan. Everything possible is being done for this.

Of course, it is difficult to foresee everything. The Americans, and not only they, can also aggravate [the situation]. Why, we will think, how [are we] to behave in this case. Then they will completely unmask themselves.

K. Ch. PANT. Some words about the situation on the IndoPakistani border. Clashes occurred in September and October in the region of the Siachen Glacier. We repelled the attacks of the Pakistani forces; however there were casualties. Right now the situation is relatively quiet. But we have information that possibly they are preparing for new attacks.

M. S. GORBACHEV. I think that Prime Minister Gandhi expressed a very correct thought when he said that our countries should act so that Zia and the Pakistani regime have as little freedom of maneuver as possible.

K. Ch. PANT. There is one aspect causing very serious alarm which you know about. This is the problem of the creation of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

Pakistan is getting enormous aid from the US. Of $4 billion, $1.8 billion is military aid. Right now the Pakistanis are on the threshold of obtaining nuclear weapons. This is our assessment and yours, too. This creates a very serious problem. We have acted honestly and done everything in order to avoid a further aggravation of this issue. However, a situation is being created right now where blackmail is possible.

Of course, we don't want the resources needed for socioeconomic progress to have to be used for such ends. However our security is paramount. Therefore we have a dilemma before us. Our public is reacting to this very sharply. I could not fail to mention this in a conversation with you.

M. S. GORBACHEV. This is the continuation of a conversation which we had in Delhi. I think that it is very important to firmly hold a principled position. This will prevent the adventurers in Pakistan from realizing their plans. I think that the assessment of the situation which we gave in Delhi remains the same. But the situation needs to be to watched all the time.

[Source: Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow. Provided by Anatoly Chernyaev and translated for CWIHP by Gary Goldberg.]

G. SHULTZ. In any case we have discussed all the issues in detail as never before. We have not come to any special conclusions. But we have worked to advantage. Our discussions are becoming ever more sophisticated.

Regarding the problems of Angola and Cambodia we have agreed that there are opportunities for cooperation. We discussed the problem of the Iran-Iraq conflict. I would be interested to hear your ideas on this account. This also relates to Afghanistan

We welcome your announcement regarding Afghanistan. We think that the situation is quite promising right now. We want the upcoming round of Geneva talks to be the last. We see that there is movement in this process. We want this difficult process to finally be concluded.

At the same time it is completely natural that our side wants to obtain certain assurances regarding the substance of this process. Yesterday I tried to explain what this is about. Yesterday we discussed this issue in detail and I would be interested to hear your ideas.

I'd like to talk about the Middle East, the region where I will be going soon.

M. S. GORBACHEV. First an idea of a general nature about the role of our countries-the USSR and US-in efforts to settle regional conflicts. I think that we should show the world an example of cooperation in these issues. If we establish such cooperation then it's possible to hope that conflicts will be resolved considering the interests of all involved countries.

G. SHULTZ. I can agree with this.

M. S. GORBACHEV. We will not loose the acutely painful knots which have accumulated in the world with other approaches.

I am saying this because I feel that you have maintained a negative attitude toward our genuine desire to work with you in solving these acute problems. Possibly the problem is that you developed this attitude long ago. But possibly the problem is the channel which, as we understand it, comes from the National Security Council. As before, there they think that the Soviet Union both today and tomorrow will remain a power with which the United States will collide everywhere in the world and is "guilty" of everything everywhere. If such an attitude remains then it is hard to count on progress and collaboration.

But a completely different conclusion can be drawn from that fact and [the fact] that both you and we are everywhere.