Vance: 'The Ball Is in Their Court'

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance settled into a rocking chair in his hideaway study on the seventh floor of the State Department and discussed the Moscow SALT talks with TIME Correspondents Strobe Talbott and Christopher Ogden. Vance angrily denied that Soviet-American relations were now at their lowest point in years, stoutly defended the Administration 's "public diplomacy" and stressed that much in fact had been accomplished at the Moscow meeting. Excerpts from the interview:

Q. The Soviets seemed categorical in their rejection. What makes you still hope that the ultimate agreement will be within the general framework of the substantial-reductions proposal?

A. I think if you've been involved in negotiations before, whether in labor or in the international field, you find that parties may say one thing; then, as they reflect on it further, they decide that there are points on which they want clarification or to make suggestions. The fact one person says on a given day that he finds something unacceptable doesn't mean it cannot be discussed again. The Soviets wanted to resume the negotiations, and they suggested a specific time--late May in Geneva--for the resumption of the negotiations.

We think the ball is really in their court, in the sense that a constructive suggestion has been made that should be further explored. Let's wait and see what happens.

Q. Did the Carter Administration's decision to go public with its SALT positions before the Moscow visit have an adverse effect on negotiations?

A. The President felt that this was a matter of vital importance to the people of our country, indeed to the people of the world, so he set forth the general outlines of what was to be proposed. The people had a right to know what we were going to be talking about, and I must say I don't think the fact that the general outlines were set forward in that fashion had any negative or adverse effect on the discussions in any way whatsoever.

Q. What benefit is there in a comprehensive SALT agreement for the Russians?

A. There are several things that should benefit them. I believe they are seeking greater stability in the long run, and the comprehensive U.S. proposal will lead to that end. Our proposal also begins for the first time to get a handle on the problem of qualitative improvements. [The U.S. package would require both sides to forgo certain systems that are now in the planning stage.] Rather than letting the cruise missile run free, our proposal would put a limit on the range, and that's something that should interest the Soviets. I think the Soviets recognize that we really have to make real cuts. How deep they are prepared to go I don't know. We will have to wait and see.

Q. Were the Soviets abrupt and even rude in their treatment of you?

A. There was no rudeness, none at all. The discussions were businesslike and frank. General Secretary [Leonid] Brezhnev said he intended to be frank, and I said I appreciated that and would be frank too. I found him courteous and straightforward.

Q. Then what disappointed you?

A. It's a very human thing. Even though I didn't expect [an immediate agreement], I always hoped something constructive might occur.

Q. There's a widespread impression that Soviet-American relations are at their lowest point in years. Do you agree?

A. (Angrily) I think that is an exaggerated analysis of the relationship; I don't accept it, and I don't think the Soviets do either. Just look at Brezhnev's [conciliatory remarks last week at the Kremlin dinner for Fidel Castro].

Q. Have you been in contact with Henry Kissinger?

A. Yes, I've talked to him. He said he wasn't surprised [by what happened in Moscow]. He said he can recall times when he came back from Moscow that they hadn't reached agreement. I like to talk about these things with Henry. We're going to be meeting soon to chat about this and other matters. I have great respect for him.

Q. What if Geneva proves as disappointing as Moscow was?

A. We will continue to negotiate.

Q. What if there is no agreement by the time the present deadline expires in October--would that be the end of SALT?

A. No. It would be unfortunate, but not the end of SALT. I think people often tend to try to draw out of events too drastic a conclusion. You could go on negotiating even though the deadline had expired, or you could agree to an extension of the interim treaty.

Q. Isn't the ultimate object to eliminate nuclear weapons from the globe altogether?

A. That's the ultimate objective, but I'm afraid that I won't be around when that occurs. It's a long way off. Arms control is a long, hard business. I think we have to be patient and persevere.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.