USIA - Transcript: Secretary of State's Year-End Press Conference, 96-12-19

United States Information Agency: Selected Articles Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at <gopher://gopher.usia.gov>

TRANSCRIPT: SECRETARY OF STATE'S YEAR-END PRESS CONFERENCE

(Christopher covered a wide-range of issues Dec. 19) (5770)

Christopher announced the Ross trip at his final year-end news conference December 19 with invited State Department correspondents in the Benjamin Franklin room.

The Secretary said that he and President Clinton "have become concerned about the drift in the peace process," and the Ross mission is in part an effort "to reenergize the process." Ambassador Ross will also provide "a first-hand view ... of the attitude of the leaders there with respect to the peace process."

The Ross trip follows recent U.S. criticism of Israel's plans to increase its support to West Bank settlements and frustration over the apparent impasse in negotiations over the status of Israeli forces in Hebron.

"We think it is time for the parties to come into agreement on Hebron," Christopher said, and he called upon Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat "to reciprocate" moves made by the Israelis in recent Hebron discussions.

But he also said Israeli settlement activity complicates the peace process, and he repeated President Clinton's statement earlier that week that any step that preempts negotiations or "seeks to move ahead of where the parties are" tends "to be a problem."

Christopher said he still expects eventual agreement on a Hebron settlement, and, although he is very concerned about the possibility of an upsurge in terrorism by "the enemies of peace," he feels that the threat of all-out war in the region is remote. He stressed, however, that the United States is "indispensable" in the region in helping its peoples overcome deep mistrust, to build mutual trust and to help overcome the remaining obstacles to the peace process.

In the opening statement, a valedictory review of policy achievements during his tenure of office, Christopher sought to measure them against his definition of what the goals of U.S. foreign policy should be.

He said those goals should be to make the American people more secure and more prosperous and to advance U.S. democratic ideals.

"Looking back on the last four years," the Secretary of State said, "I am confident that we have met that test." He asserted that the Clinton administration had made "significant progress in resolving the critical problems that we faced when we took office, establishing an enduring basis for leadership in a more secure and more prosperous 21st century."

He said that among its "lasting legacies" will be the addressing of global problems such as crime, narcotics trafficking, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, damage to the environment and world-wide threats. He said overcoming these threats will be "a central aspect" of U.S. foreign policy in the next century.

Christopher asserted that significant progress was made on these problems during 1996, including the signing of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the removal of nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan and U.S. ratification of the START II Treaty. He also made reference to international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to combat arms smuggling and drug trafficking.

The Secretary of State noted that the United States is better integrating environmental considerations into its foreign policy, and that it has made economics a central focus of its foreign affairs efforts. In this regard, he cited successful U.S. efforts this year to promote greater free trade in the Asia-Pacific region, and the recent World Trade Organization decision to eliminate tariffs on all information technology by the year 2000.

"Our leadership has advanced our interest and ideals in every region of the world," Christopher said. He claimed that "we are closer today than ever before in seeking our goal of an undivided, democratic Europe." Christopher noted progress toward revising NATO's structure, expanding its membership and working out a new relationship between the alliance and Russia and NATO's role in bringing peace to Bosnia.

The Secretary of State noted the strengthening of ties with Japan and new market access agreements with that country, U.S. support for South Korea against North Korean provocations while moving ahead with the framework agreement, and the movement of U.S.-Chinese relations "onto a more positive footing."

In addition, Christopher cited U.S. efforts to head off a major war between Ecuador and Peru, to help end the 35-year-old Guatemalan civil war, U.S. assistance to stabilize the Mexican economy and the continued efforts to contain Iraq and Iran.

He also pointed to U.S. efforts to promote democratic market reform in Africa and to help end the conflict and ease the suffering in Africa's Great Lakes region.

Christopher said he was certain that in the future, people would look back on this period as one that was "decisive" in diplomatic history in which, with U.S. leadership, the world began to shape its plans for the twenty- first century.

"It's a world," he said, "in which no great power views any other as an immediate threat, a world in which institutions that we created after World War II are beginning to be adapted to meet the new challenges of the next century, a world in which open societies and open markets have a competitive advantage, a world in which America remains the indispensable nation and our leadership remains indispensable to the world.

It is a world in which our interests and values can thrive but also in which new threats like proliferation and terrorism make American leadership even more vital than in the past."

On the hostage situation at the Japanese Embassy in Lima, Christopher told questioners, "You'll understand why I don't want to confirm the presence of Americans there. It's been a long-standing policy that we do not do that, and I will not violate that today."

The Secretary of State pointed that "We have sent some security experts in to assist the Ambassador because of his concern about the security situation. They're going in there for the purpose of advising the Ambassador about security conditions in our Embassy. But we're following the situation as closely as we possibly can."

U.S. policy "against making concessions in this situation, Christopher said, "is well-known. At the same time, because so many people are involved, it's important the lines of communication remain open between those terrorists who have taken the embassy and the Peruvian government. We would encourage the maintenance of communications. But the United States, as I say, has a strong policy against making any concessions. We'd advise all of those involved to follow that policy. It is a dangerous and difficult situation, and I think you'll understand there are limitations on what I feel prudent to say."

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

YEAR-END PRESS CONFERENCE SECRETARY OF STATE WARREN CHRISTOPHER

CHRISTOPHER: Good afternoon and thank you all for attending this year-end press conference. I want to begin by commenting on an important breaking news story. As some of you may have seen this morning, my hometown newspaper in a story entitled, "Vanilla Man," said that on my many stops at the Shannon Airport, I made a habit of ordering Irish coffee but with no caffeine and no whiskey. I can confirm to you on-the-record here that that great piece of investigative journalism is exactly right. Even more than that, I want to tell you that Irish coffee tastes better that way, and to prove that when we finish here, I'm going to offer you all a "Christopher Special," so you can learn with me how good it is that way.

I'm very pleased to meet with all of you and pleased by the good turnout to have an opportunity to review what has gone on in this past year, 1996. Since this is my last year-end review, I'd like to take the opportunity to put this year in a somewhat broader context.

From the beginning of my tenure here, I've said that the fundamental test of American foreign policy has always been this: Does it make the American people more secure? Does it make us more prosperous? Does it advance our democratic ideals that we share with people around the world?

Looking back on the last four years, I feel confident that we have met that test. As I've said many times, there are no final victories in this business and success usually takes quite a lot of time. But step by step, we've made significant progress in resolving the critical problems that we faced when we took office and establishing and enduring basis for leadership in a more secure and more prosperous 21st century.

A lasting legacy of the President's first term will be the results we achieved in addressing global challenges -- challenges like proliferation, crime, narcotics, damage to the environment -- those global threats. I believe that overcoming these threats will become a central aspect of American foreign policy in the next century.

We made dramatic progress in these global areas in 1996. We signed a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a goal of American foreign policy for the last quarter century. The last nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan, and we also secured ratification of START II here in the United States. The G-7 adopted a large number of specific steps for shutting down money laundering, to prosecute fugitives, and to protect our borders against trafficking in guns and narcotics.

We forged an international consensus to develop a binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Following the initiative that I launched at Stanford University, we're better integrating environmental issues into the full range of American diplomacy, and there will be more to come on this.

Another hallmark of the last four years is the central focus we placed on economic diplomacy. By passing NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), by concluding the Uruguay Round, by gaining free trade commitments in our hemisphere and in the Asia-Pacific region, we've positioned ourselves to become an even more dynamic hub of the international economy.

This year, with our APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) partners meeting in the Philippines, we agreed to take concrete stops to move ahead with trade liberalization in the Asia-Pacific region. At the first ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in Singapore a couple of weeks ago, we agreed with our trading partners to eliminate tariffs on all information technology by the year 2000. Our leadership has advanced our interests and ideals in every region of the world. Across the Atlantic, we're closer today than ever before in seeking our goal of an undivided and democratic Europe. This month our allies agreed to President Clinton's proposal to hold a summit meeting to consolidate the agenda that the President launched at the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) meeting in January of 1994.

This summit will begin enlargement negotiations. It will launch those negotiations. It will strengthen NATO's relationship with all of Europe's new democracies, including Russia. It will complete NATO's adaptation to new rules and missions, and it will strengthen Europe's role in acting under the Alliance.

In 1996, NATO also fulfilled its initial mission in Bosnia, bringing peace to that war-torn country, separating the warring armies, providing great support for the fall elections and creating a stable environment so that reconstruction can move forward.

President Clinton has also placed an unprecedented emphasis on deepening our engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. 1996 here was a year of important achievement. We invigorated our core alliances, and the President signed a new security declaration with Japan to make sure that the next 50 years of our alliance is as productive as the last 50 years have been. We completed an important semi-conductor agreement with Japan, adding to the 22 market access agreements we reached over the last four years.

We also stood by South Korea in the face of provocations from the North, while moving ahead with the implementation of the Framework Agreement between the United States and North Korea.

This year, we moved our relationship with China onto a more positive footing. We made some progress on non-proliferation, although we continue to have in that area serious concerns. We reached an agreement on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. President Clinton and President Jiang have agreed to exchange state visits, giving us further opportunities to build on our cooperation, as well as to address our serious differences in such areas as human rights.

In the Middle East, we moved immediately in 1993, when we first came into office, to build on America's two decades of bipartisan leadership on behalf of peace. I will not certainly minimize the severe tests that have been placed in the road of peace in recent months through terrorist attacks and other matters, but we have made lasting achievements, and we are determined to move forward.

The role of the United States is not just to help the parties reach agreement but to stand by them in tough times. That's why President Clinton and President Mubarak brought together the region's leaders last March to stand against terrorism, and that's why President Clinton brought together here King Hussein, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat when violence threatened to disrupt the peace process.

Our goal remains indispensable in helping the countries in the region overcome their long history of distrust, to build mutual trust, and to overcome the obstacles that remain in the peace process, including, of course, Hebron.

The President and I have been concerned about the recent drift in the peace process. To re-energize this effort, we're sending Dennis Ross to the region this weekend to report on the status of negotiations there, to report on his discussions with the leaders, to return before Christmas in order that we can have an up-to-date assessment from Ambassador Ross.

In 1996, we also demonstrated once again our determination to prevent Saddam Hussein from threatening his neighbors.

We took office at a time of historic transformation here in the Americas, with democracy and open markets on the march. This year, we sustained that momentum. Our diplomacy was critical in bringing Ecuador and Peru to the negotiating table, was critical in averting a coup in Paraguay and in ending Guatemala's 35-year civil war. With our much needed assistance, the Mexican economy is improving, and Mexico is paying its debts ahead of schedule, and NAFTA is working.

We welcome also, in connection with this hemisphere, the tougher stand that the European Union is now taking in the Cuba situation and the tougher stand they're taking in the direction of bringing democracy to Cuba.

In the last four years, we've also sought to deepen America's engagement in Africa. We've made an unprecedented effort to encourage democratic market reform there and to promote trade and investment. Now we're deeply engaged in an effort to end the conflict and ease the suffering in the Great Lakes region. The situation in the Great Lakes region and my recent travels in Africa have underscored the need to create an African crisis response force, which would enable African countries to respond to emergencies in their region, with the backing of the United States and our allies.

In all of these areas, we forged a considerable record of accomplishment and set the stage for a memorable second term. I think the people will look back on this period as a decisive period in diplomatic history. It is in this period, with our leadership, that the world has begun to shape its plans for the 21st Century.

It's a world in which no great power views any other as an immediate threat, a world in which institutions that we created after World War II are beginning to be adapted to meet the new challenges of the next century, a world in which open societies and open markets have a competitive advantage; a world in which America remains the indispensable nation, and our leadership remains indispensable to the world.

It is a world in which our interests and values can thrive but also in which new threats like proliferation and terrorism make American leadership even more vital than in the past. I know that the President and Ambassador Albright will maintain that kind of American leadership. I also know that their ability to be effective will depend upon finding the resources we so urgently need to support our diplomacy.

I'll be glad to take your questions now.

QUESTION: On another current story, the Fargo Forum and the rest of us have been following, could you tell us, please, if there is any connection that you can discern between Cuba and the group that is taking hostages in Lima? Any financial, training or other connection? Any connection, in fact, between any foreign government and this terrorist group?

CHRISTOPHER: That's a very dynamic situation in Peru now at the present time. It's a dangerous situation, and I don't want to make any comment on the group that is involved there or any connection they might have to other situations around the world.

In doing so, let me emphasize, I'm not confirming or denying that. It's simply not the right time for me speculate or comment on that subject.

Q: Mr. Secretary, as you reviewed your list of diplomatic endeavors, you omitted any reference to the dual containment policy in Iran and Iraq. What would you say are the accomplishments and the results of that policy?

CHRISTOPHER: The dual containment of Iran and Iraq continues to be a primary goal and object of American foreign policy. We continue to regard Iran as a dangerous projector of terrorism, a country that's dangerous because they're trying to assemble weapons of mass destruction and a dangerous country because of their efforts to undermine the peace process.

With respect to Iraq, we continue to regard Saddam Hussein as someone who is a threat to his neighbors as well as to the minorities within his country, a leader who has not brought himself or his country into compliance with the U.N. resolutions.

I would say the goals of our policy have remained firm during this four years and, particularly, during the last year.

With respect to Iraq, I think we have once again made it clear that the United States will not stand by and watch Saddam Hussein threaten his neighbors through the buildup in the region. We have made it, I think, emphatic to him that the United States and our allies will resist any effort on the part of Saddam Hussein to move against his neighbors. That's one of the things that we have to be constantly vigilant about, and I think we have been.

With respect to Iran, we remain in the process of calling to the attention of our allies the conduct of Iran and urging them not to give financial material -- military support -- to Iran. I think that policy is one in which we've been firm throughout the course of the year. We still have some persuading to do. That's a continuing story.

We have also, though, made it clear to the countries in the regions who are threatened by Iran that the United States is firmly on their side against any efforts by Iran to threaten them or to exercise greater dominance in the region. Those are both areas where our efforts at containment continue, and I believe they have been effective in 1996.

Q: Mr. Secretary, Dennis Ross' trip to the Middle East sounds like an attempt to rescue something which seems to be in bad shape. The Palestinians have been saying that they now think that reopening any part of an agreed document then reopens the whole document to renegotiation. Can you or anybody reassure them that that is not the case?

The second part of that question, how badly do you think the settlement announcements have been affecting this negotiation process?

CHRISTOPHER: The President and I have asked Ambassador Ross to go back to the Middle East so that we could have a first-hand view from him of the attitudes of other leaders there with respect to the peace process to understand the status of the process. We've asked him to come back by Christmastime so we can have his report on the situation there.

As I say, we've been concerned about the situation and think it is time for the parties to come into agreement on Hebron. The Israelis have made some moves in connection with Hebron. We think it's time for the Palestinians -- for Chairman Arafat -- to respond to those moves, to reciprocate those moves. We're also concerned, though, about the effect of other issues on that negotiation.

As we've said many times, we feel that settlement activity does have the effect of causing problems for complicating the peace process. Indeed, the President spoke for the United States, of course, when he said just a few days ago that any step that pre-empts the negotiations or seeks to move ahead of where the parties are, in the way they have consigned various issues, tends to be a problem. We think that's not helpful.

I can say that we feel that it is time for the Hebron agreement to be reached and the parties to pursue the remaining issues under negotiation there and without further delay.

Q: Mr. Secretary, regarding Peru, since it's been announced by our Embassy down there -- it was announced last night -- that there are Americans involved, can you at least assure the American people that this government is doing what it can, and tell us as much as you can about what our government can do since this is essentially Japanese territory but also, obviously, the primary function is up to the Peruvian government?

And can you tell us where one should draw the line between the mediation that is under way and our long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists? What is the proper way of making that demarcation?

CHRISTOPHER: You'll understand why I don't want to confirm the presence of Americans there. It's been a long-standing policy that we do not do that, and I will not violate that today.

We have sent some security experts in to assist the ambassador because of his concern about the security situation. They're going in there for the purpose of advising the ambassador about security conditions in our Embassy. But we're following the situation as closely as we possibly can.

Just before coming up here, the assistant secretary, Jeff Davidow, talked to our ambassador there. There's nothing new in the situation. A little earlier this morning I talked to Foreign Minister Ikeda of Japan, in his stopover in Los Angeles, on his way to Peru, and we agreed to counsel closely together. I told him that our ambassador, Dennis Jett, is following the situation closely. I think Ambassador Jett is doing a fine job, and we'll work closely with the Japanese as well as we will with the Peruvian government, if we can be of some assistance. Obviously, the Peruvian government is taking the lead.

The United States policy against making concessions in this situation is well-known. At the same time, because so many people are involved, it's important the lines of communication remain open between those terrorists who have taken the embassy and the Peruvian government. We would encourage the maintenance of communications. But the United States, as I say, has a strong policy against making any concessions. We'd advise all of those involved to follow that policy.

It is a dangerous and difficult situation, and I think you'll understand there are limitations on what I feel prudent to say.

Q: Can you at least tell us what the condition, as far as you know, what the condition of the hostages is?

CHRISTOPHER: I only have radio reports on that. They're available to you as well.

Q: Hello, Mr. Secretary. Can I ask you about Russia and NATO? When you were in Brussels, Mr. Primakov said he was willing to negotiate with Mr. Solana on a charter in Brussels this week; the newly civilianized Mr. Rodionov, the defense minister, was much harsher. He said Russia would never accept NATO expansion and might take military steps to counter it. Dmitri Ryurikov, Mr. Yeltsin's personal foreign affairs advisor, was here last week and basically guaranteed there would be no conclusion of a charter negotiation before the July summit.

Do you think the Russians are trying to keep the West off balance in their reaction to this? Or are they off-balance themselves? Do you think they yet really know how to handle NATO's expansion plans?

CHRISTOPHER: I think it's reasonably clear that the Russians are not enthusiastic about and will not applaud NATO enlargement. But what was also made clear to me when I was in Brussels, the Russian government is prepared to pursue negotiations for some kind of an arrangement. Call it a "charter"; you might call it by some other name, but some kind of an arrangement between NATO and Russia. I have every confidence those negotiations will begin shortly after the first of the year.

I don't find anything inconsistent, really, with the statement of the new Russian defense minister, General Rodionov, with the idea that discussions will begin in January between Foreign Minister Primakov and (NATO) Secretary General Solana.

I would suggest that you'll not soon hear the Russians saying positive things about enlargement. But the change that took place at this year's NATO meeting in Brussels was an attitude on the part of Foreign Minister Primakov that they're prepared to start serious negotiations for the development of a kind of arrangement -- call it a "charter," if you will -- between NATO and Russia. I don't see anything to contradict that, and that is the course that I think will be followed.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you gave us a list of the achievements of the last four years of American diplomacy. I wonder if I could ask you about which you consider to have been your own personal keenest disappointment? Whether it would have been the failure of your many trips to Damascus to produce a peace or something in your relations with France? What particular area do you regret the most?

CHRISTOPHER: I'm going to disappoint you on that. I've had a tremendously enjoyable four years here, I think we've made considerable progress. I think with President Clinton's leadership, the American people are safer. I think the world is safer. We're better off in the sense of being more prosperous, and I think we've had an opportunity to advance our goals. So I take some satisfaction in the results of the four-year period. I don't intend to view it in terms of disappointments.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you made reference to Iran earlier. Twenty years ago or almost 20 years ago, you were thrust in your previous incarnation here into a role of negotiating indirectly with the government of Iran in a different situation. But I'd like to ask you how you feel at the end of this incarnation of your work at the State Department about the direction of U.S. policy and U.S. relationships with that important country in the Gulf. Should there be a change -- should there be a review of that policy, especially in light of what you referred to as Iran's role in supporting terrorism in the world and in light of recent reports about increases in Iran's role in southern Lebanon and in its relationship with Syria?

CHRISTOPHER: The future really of the relationship is in the hands of Iran, in the sense that if they're prepared to change their policies with respect to terrorism and if they're prepared to change their policies with respect to the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and hence to undermine the peace process, the United States would stand ready. We've always said we stand ready to have a dialogue with them -- a discussion -- as long as it's an official dialogue and all the issues are open.

But until that happens on their part, I see no basis for the United States to change its position. Wherever I look, I find the dangerous hand of Iran - - or at least so many places where I look around the world -- the projection of terrorism, of state-sponsored terrorism, so I regard them as a dangerous force in the world scene, one that the United States has to act to contain. If others want to have a different relationship with them, I would say that's an area where the United States should lead and try to persuade the other nations of the difficulties of doing anything to encourage, either financially or otherwise, Iran in the course that it's presently following.

So I don't see a basis until they change their policies for a change in the United States' relationship with Iran.

Q: Mr. Secretary, if I could take you back to the Middle East for a moment. For the last several years, this administration has been able to claim that the peace process, in spite of bumps in the road, is irreversible, that the possibility of renewed conflict is one that no longer needs to be seriously considered.

In recent weeks, I've heard non-governmental experts, both here and in the region, say that that may no longer be true, that the danger of war is growing. Would you care to say what you think the situation is going to be in the coming year?

CHRISTOPHER: I still have confidence in the peace process. I believe that if an agreement can be reached on Hebron, which I think it should be, that that will give a new sense of forward momentum. The peace process is not just one small discussion between parties. It's much broader than that. The economic situation has changed in the Middle East. The peace treaty between Jordan and Israel is in place. There are agreements between Israel and the Palestinians which are being respected.

So although this is a tense time -- there's no doubt about that -- I still have confidence in the peace process. What I would say about it is that U.S. leadership is indispensable there. It has been for 30 or 40 years now and maybe even more indispensable now. The United States cannot fail to assist the parties and to stand by the parties who have taken risks for peace. But I continue to have confidence that the parties in the Middle East, having seen some of the benefits of peace and having glimpsed a different kind of a future, will not abandon that but will remain with all of its difficulties on the road to peace. I hope that any of the countries there will back away from any threats or any efforts to try to achieve their aims through the use of those kinds of threats.

What I'm more concerned about is the emergence of terrorist acts. There are still people who are obviously hostile to the peace process, and that's one of the reasons why we need to try to regain and restore momentum in the peace process because of the risk in a hiatus of some kind of a terrorist incident. I hope and pray that that won't happen. I strongly urge President Arafat and all those who are involved to take every action that they can to ensure that there's no recurrence of violence, because violence can only aid the enemies of the peace process.

Q: Mr. Secretary, in the beginning of the year, Turkey was described as a front-line state which replaced Germany in importance by a State Department senior official. At the end of the year, Turkey still could not get any of the arms orders from the United States; and, as you know, there's a coalition government now in Turkey, trying to strengthen Turkey's ties with Islamic countries.

Mr. Secretary, is Turkey still a front-line state? How do you see the future of Turkish-American relations?

CHRISTOPHER: Is Turkey still a what state?

Q: Front-line state.

CHRISTOPHER: Turkey remains a country of great importance to the United States. It's a member of NATO, and it sits at a very strategic place in the world. The United States' friendship for Turkey is a very deep one, and we've worked together on a number of matters recently. They've assisted the United States in the evacuation of a number of Americans and others from northern Iraq. We continue to have an important dialogue with them on many, many subjects, and we have many matters to work on in the course of the next year, including an effort to resolve the problems in Cyprus.

So I think the United States continues to place the highest priority on maintaining good relationships with its Turkish allies, and I would say that my successor, Ambassador Albright, will be giving high attention to that.

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. We have another American official that's been arrested for spying for the Russians. Considering the amount of assistance we've put into Russia and the new relationship we have with them at the end of the Cold War, are you going to be lodging any protests with Moscow or making any demands that they have some type of new code of behavior in espionage?

CHRISTOPHER: That really is an area that is in current discussion. We've had not just one episode but a series of episodes, and it's really a matter that needs to be considered carefully between the various security agencies in the United States. But I don't have any comment for you on it at the present time. I would say it's a sad and tragic event to see these Americans who are selling out their country for financial gain. That seems to be the motivating factor in this new era rather than ideology, and it's certainly selling out your country for just a pittance, and I think we have to find some way to work with that issue more effectively than we have within our security agencies. But with respect to the direct question you asked, I don't have anything to report to you on that today.

Thank you very much.

(end transcript)

From the United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at gopher://gopher.usia.gov

United States Information Agency: Selected Articles Directory - Previous Article - Next Article