Albright makes announcements on USA - Iranian relations
Iran-USA, Politics, 3/18/2000

Here follows is US Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright's full speech on March 17 before the Conference on American-Iranian Relations, and a later Q&A seesion:

Thank you very much. (Applause) Wait 'till I
finish! Thank you very much, Professor Amirahmadi and Ambassador
Pelleteau, Excellencies from the Diplomatic corps, distinguished
colleagues, guests and friends.

Today's conference reflects a coming together of a real pantheon of
organizations. Not just the American-Iranian Council, but also the
Asian Society, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown School of
Foreign Service. The wealth of expertise in this room is enormous. And
it is testimony to Iran's importance.

As this audience well knows, Iran is one of the world's oldest
continuing civilizations. It has one of the globe's richest and most
diverse cultures. Its territory covers half the coastline of the Gulf
and on one side of the Straits of Hormuz through which much of the
world's petroleum commerce moves. It borders the Caspian Sea, the
Caucasus in Central and South Asia, where a great deal of the world's
illegal narcotics are produced, several major terrorist groups are
based, and huge reserves of oil and gas are just beginning to be
tapped. And it is currently chairing the organization of the Islamic
Conference.

There is no question that Iran's future direction will play a pivotal
role in the economic and security affairs of what much of the world
reasonably considers the center of the world. So I welcome this
opportunity to come to discuss relations between the United States and
Iran. It is appropriate, I hope, to do so in anticipation both of the
Iranian New Year and the start of spring. And I want to begin by
wishing all Iranian-Americans a Happy New Year, Eid-e-shuma-Mubarak.
(Applause.)

I extend the same wishes to the Iranian people overseas. Spring is the
season of hope and renewal; of planting the seeds for new crops. And
my hope is that in both in Iran and the United States, we can plant
the seeds now for a new and better relationship in years to come.

That is precisely the prospect I would like to discuss with you today.
President Clinton especially asked me to come to this group to have
this discussion with you. It is no secret that, for two decades, most
Americans have viewed Iran primarily through the prism of the U.S.
Embassy takeover in 1979, accompanied as it was by the taking of
hostages, hateful rhetoric and the burning of the U.S. flag. Through
the years, this grim view is reinforced by the Iranian Government's
repression at home and its support for terrorism abroad; by its
assistance to groups violently opposed to the Middle East peace
process; and by its effort to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

America's response has been a policy of isolation and containment. We
took Iranian leaders at their word, that they viewed America as an
enemy. And in response we had to treat Iran as a threat. However,
after the election of President Khatami in 1997, we began to adjust
the lens through which we viewed Iran. Although Iran's objectionable
external policies remain fairly constant, the political and social
dynamics inside Iran were quite clearly beginning to change.

In response, President Clinton and I welcomed the new Iranian's
President's call for a dialogue between our people. We encouraged
academic, cultural and athletic content. We updated our advisory to
Americans wishing to travel to Iran. We reiterated our willingness to
engage in officially authorized discussions with Iran regarding each
others principle concerns, and said we would monitor future
developments in that country closely, which is what we have done. Now
we have concluded the time is right to broaden our perspective even
further.

Because the trends that were becoming evident inside Iran are plainly
gathering steam, the country's young are spearheading a movement aimed
at a more open society and a more flexible approach to the world.

Iran's women have made themselves among the most politically active
and empowered in the region. Budding entrepreneurs are eager to
establish winning connections overseas. Respected clerics speak
increasingly about the compatibility of reverence and freedom,
modernity and Islam. An increasingly competent press is emerging
despite attempts to muzzle it. And Iran has experienced not one but
three increasingly democratic rounds of elections in as many years.

Not surprisingly, these developments have been stubbornly opposed in
some corners, and the process they have set in motion is far from
complete. Harsh punishments are still meted out for various kinds of
dissent. Religious persecution continues against the Baha'i and also
against some Iranians who have converted to Christianity.

And governments around the world, including our own, have expressed
concerns about the need to ensure the process for 13 Iranian Jews, who
were detained for more than a year without official charge, and are
now scheduled for trial next month. We look to the procedures and the
results of this trial as one of the barometers of US-Iran relations.

Moreover, in the fall of 1998, several prominent writers and
publishers were murdered, apparently by rogue elements in Iran
security forces. And just this past weekend, a prominent editor and
advisor to President Khatami was gravely wounded in an assassination
attempt.

As in any diverse society, there are many currents swirling about in
Iran. Some are driving the country forward; others are holding it
back. Despite the trend towards democracy, control over the military,
judiciary, courts and police remains in unelected hands, and the
elements of its foreign policy, about which we are most concerned,
have not improved. But the momentum in the direction of internal
reform, freedom and openness is growing stronger.

More and more Iranians are unafraid to agree with President Khatami's
assessment of 15 months ago, and I quote, "Freedom and diversity of
thought do not threaten the society's security," he said. "Rather,
limiting freedom does so. Criticizing the government and state
organizations at any level is not detrimental to the system. On the
contrary, it is necessary."

The democratic winds in Iran are so refreshing, and many of the ideas
espoused by its leaders so encouraging. There is a risk we will assume
too much. In truth, it is too early to know precisely where the
democratic trends will lead. Certainly the primary impetus for change
is not ideology but pragmatism. Iranians want a better life. They want
broader social freedom, greater government accountability and wider
prosperity. Despite reviving oil prices, Iran's economy remains
hobbled by inefficiency, corruption and excessive state control. Due
in part to demographic factors, unemployment is higher and per capita
income lower than 20 years ago.

The bottom line is that Iran is evolving on its own terms and will
continue to do so. Iranian democracy, if it blossoms further, is sure
to have its own distinctive features consistent with the country's
traditions and culture. And like any dramatic and political and social
evolution, it will go forward at its own speed on a timetable Iranians
set for themselves.

The question we face is how to respond to all this. On the
people-to-people level, the answer is not hard to discern. Americans
should continue to reach out. We have much to learn from Iranians and
Iranians from us. We should work to expand and broaden our exchanges.
We should engage Iranian academics and leaders in civil society on
issues of mutual interest. And, of course, we should strive even more
energetically to develop our soccer skills. (Laughter.)

The challenge of how to respond to Iran on the official is more
complex, and it requires a discussion not only of our present
perception and future hopes but also of the somewhat tumultuous past.

At their best, our relations with Iran have been marked by warm bonds
of personal friendship. Over the years, thousands of American
teachers, health care workers, Peace Corps volunteers and others have
contributed their energy and goodwill to improving the lives and
well-being of the Iranian people.

As is evident in this room, Iranians have enriched the United States
as well. Nearly a million Iranian-Americans have made our country
their home. Many other Iranians have studied here before returning to
apply their knowledge in their native land. In fact, some were among
my best students when I taught at Georgetown School of Foreign
Service.

It's not surprising, then, that there is much common ground between
our two peoples. Both are idealistic, proud, family-oriented,
spiritually aware and fiercely opposed to foreign domination.

But that common ground has sometimes been shaken by other factors. In
1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the
overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The
Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for
strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's
political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians
continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal
affairs.

Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the
West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much
to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also
brutally repressed political dissent.

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair
share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in
U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S.
policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have
been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent
experiences with Saddam Hussein.

However, we have our own list of grievances, and they are serious. The
embassy takeover was a disgraceful breach of Iran's international
responsibility and the trauma for the hostages and their families and
for all of us. And innocent Americans and friends of America have been
murdered by terrorist groups that are supported by the Iranian
Government.

In fact, Congress in now considering legislation that would mandate
the attachment of Iranian diplomatic and other assets as compensation
for acts of terrorism committed against American citizens.

We are working with Congress to find a solution that will satisfy the
demands of justice without setting a precedent that could endanger
vital U.S. interests in the treatment of diplomatic or other property,
or that would destroy prospects for a successful dialog with Iran.

Indeed, we believe that the best hope for avoiding similar tragedies
in the future is to encourage change in Iran's policies, and to work
in a mutual and balanced way to narrow differences between our two
countries.

Neither Iran, nor we, can forget the past. It has scarred us both.

But the question both countries now face is whether to allow the past
to freeze the future or to find a way to plant the seeds of a new
relationship that will enable us to harvest shared advantages in years
to come, not more tragedies. Certainly, in our view, there are no
obstacles that wise and competent leadership cannot remove.

As some Iranians have pointed out, the United States has cordial
relations with a number of countries that are less democratic than
Iran. Moreover, we have no intention or desire to interfere in the
country's internal affairs. We recognize that Islam is central to
Iran's cultural heritage and perceive no inherent conflict between
Islam and the United States.

Moreover, we see a growing number of areas of common interest. For
example, we both have a stake in the future stability and peace in the
Gulf. Iran lives in a dangerous neighborhood. We welcome efforts to
make it less dangerous and would encourage regional discussions aimed
at reducing tensions and building trust.

Both our countries have fought conflicts initiated by Iraq's lawless
regime; both have a stake in preventing further Iraqi aggression. We
also share concerns about instability and illegal narcotics being
exported from Afghanistan. Iran is paying a high price for the ongoing
conflict there.

It has long been host to as many as two million refugees from the
Afghan civil war. And thousands of Iranians have been killed in the
fight against drug traffickers. Moreover, Iran is now a world leader
in the quantity of illegal drugs annually seized. This is one area
where increased US-Iranian cooperation clearly makes sense for both
countries.

But there are numerous other areas of potential common interest, such
as encouraging stable relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
regional economic development, the protection of historic cultural
sites and preserving the environment.

So the possibility of a more normal and mutually productive
relationship is there. But it will not happen unless Iran continues to
broaden its perspective of America just as we continue to broaden our
view of Iran.

When we oppose terrorism and proliferation, the norms we uphold are
not narrowly American, they are global. These standards are designed
to safeguard law-abiding people in all countries and reflect
obligations that most nations, including Iran, have voluntarily
assumed.

When we strive to support progress towards a Middle East Peace, we
serve the interest and embrace the aspirations of tens of millions of
people, Arab and Israeli alike, of all backgrounds and faiths.

When we talk about human rights, we're not trying to impose our
values. We are affirming the principles enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights that people everywhere are entitled to
basic freedoms of religion, expression and equal protection under the
law.

And when we talk about the value of an official dialogue with Iran, we
have no secret agenda, nor do we attach any conditions. We are
motivated solely by a realistic interest in taking this relationship
to a higher level so that we may use diplomacy to solve problems and
benefit the people of both countries.

In recent months, Iranian leaders have talked about their nation's
policy of detente. And Foreign Minister Kharazzi said not long ago
that "Iran is ready to act as an anchor of stability for resolving
regional problems and crises."

The United States recognizes Iran's importance in the Gulf, and we've
worked hard in the past to improve difficult relationships with many
other countries -- whether the approach used has been called detente
or principle engagements or constructive dialogue or something else.

We are open to such a policy now. We want to work together with Iran
to bring down what President Khatami refers to as "the wall of
mistrust."

For that to happen, we must be willing to deal directly with each
other as two proud and independent nations and address on a mutual
basis the issues that have been keeping us apart.

As a step towards bringing down that wall of mistrust, I want today to
discuss the question of economic sanctions. The United States imposed
sanctions against Iran because of our concerns about proliferation,
and because the authorities exercising control in Tehran financed and
supported terrorist groups, including those violently opposed to the
Middle East Peace Process.

To date, the political developments in Iran have not caused its
military to cease its determined effort to acquire technology,
materials and assistance needed to develop nuclear weapons, nor have
those developments caused Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps or its
Ministry of Intelligence and Security to get out of the terrorism
business. Until these policies change, fully normal ties between our
governments will not be possible, and our principle sanctions will
remain.

The purpose of our sanctions, however, is to spur changes in policy.
They are not an end in themselves, nor do they seek to target innocent
civilians.

And so for this reason, last year I authorized the sale of spare parts
needed to ensure the safety of civilian passenger aircraft previously
sold to Iran, aircraft often used by Iranian-Americans transiting to
or from that country. And President Clinton eased restrictions on the
export of food, medicine and medical equipment to sanctioned countries
including Iran. This means that Iran can purchase products such as
corn and wheat from America.

And today, I am announcing a step that will enable Americans to
purchase and import carpets and food products such as dried fruits,
nuts and caviar from Iran.

This step is a logical extension of the adjustments we made last year.
It also designed to show the millions of Iranian craftsmen, farmers
and fisherman who work in these industries, and the Iranian people as
a whole, that the United States bears them no ill will.

Second, the United States will explore ways to remove unnecessary
impediments to increase contact between American and Iranian scholars,
professional artists, athletes, and non-governmental organizations. We
believe this will serve to deepen bonds of mutual understanding and
trust.

Third, the United States is prepared to increase efforts with Iran
aimed at eventually concluding a global settlement of outstanding
legal claims between our two countries.

This is not simply a matter of unfreezing assets. After the fall of
the Shah the United States and Iran agreed on a process to resolve
existing claims through an arbitral tribunal in The Hague. In 1981,
the vast majority of Iranian assets seized during the hostage crisis
were returned to Iran. Since then, nearly all of the private claims
have been resolved through The Hague Tribunal process.

Our goal now is to settle the relatively few but very substantial
claims that are still outstanding between our two governments at The
Hague. And by so doing, to put this issue behind us once and for all.

The points I've made and the concrete measures I have announced today
reflect our desire to advance our common interests through improved
relations with Iran. They respond to the broader perspective merited
by the democratic trends in that country, and our hope that these
internal changes will gradually produce external effects. And that as
Iranians grow more free, they will express their freedom through
actions and support of international law and on behalf of stability
and peace.

I must emphasize, however, that in adopting a broader view of events
in Iran, we are not losing sight of the issues that have long troubled
us. We looked toward Iran truly fulfilling its promises to serve as an
"anchor of stability," and to live up, indeed as well as were, to the
pledges its leaders have made in such areas as proliferation and
opposition to terrorism.

We have no illusions that the United States and Iran will be able to
overcome decades of estrangement overnight. We can't build a mature
relationship on carpets and grain alone. But the direction of our
relations is more important than the pace. The United States is
willing either to proceed patiently, on step-by-step basis, or to move
very rapidly if Iran indicates a desire and commitment to do so.

Next Tuesday will mark the beginning of a new year for Iran and the
start of spring for us all. And it is true that for everything under
Heaven there is a season. Surely the time has come for America and
Iran to enter a new season in which mutual trust may grow and a
quality of warmth supplant the long, cold winter of our mutual
discontent.

For we must recognize that around the world today the great divide is
no longer between East and West or North and South; nor is it between
one civilization and another.

The great divide today is between people anywhere who are still
ensnared by the perceptions and prejudices of the past, and those
everywhere who have freed themselves to embrace the promise of the
future.

This morning on behalf of the government and the people of the United
States, I call upon Iran to join us in writing a new chapter in our
shared history. Let us be open about our differences and strive to
overcome them. Let us acknowledge our common interests and strive to
advance them. Let us think boldly about future possibilities and
strive to achieve them, and thereby, turn this new year and season of
hope into the reality of a safer and better life for our two peoples.

To that mission I pledge my own best efforts this morning. And I
respectfully solicit the counsel and understanding and support of all.

Thank you very much.

End of speech.

----------------------

Q&A later:

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, good afternoon, and happy Saint Patrick's
Day. You all have this morning's speech, and I wanted to explain it
just a bit more: about why we're doing this, and why we're doing it
now, and what it means. And I also wanted to give you a chance to ask
some questions.

Iran is, obviously, a country of great strategic importance. We think
a better relationship would bring mutual benefits, and we want to
explore whether that's possible. What's important today is not just
the easing of sanctions on carpets and certain food products. The
story goes deeper than that.

Through the points we've made and the concrete measures that I
announced, we've taken an important step towards bringing down the
wall of mistrust that has existed between our two countries. This does
not reflect a new policy, but it does reflect a new phase of our
existing one.

The dramatic social and political developments in Iran merit, from us,
a broader and more forthcoming approach. At the same time, we have to
continue to take into account what has not changed. And that includes
our very serious concerns about proliferation, and about Iran's
support for terrorism and its impact on the Middle East Peace Process.

If we are truly to move forward from here, the U.S. and Iran must do
so together, in a balanced and mutual way. As I said this morning,
what is most important is the direction of our relationship -- not
necessarily its pace. We're prepared to move ahead, step-by-step, or
more rapidly if Iran indicates a desire and a commitment to do so. We
believe an authorized dialogue is the best way to proceed, and we're
also realistic enough to know that we are not likely to move from
near-complete estrangement to total engagement overnight.

Our purpose today is to make clear America's willingness to move
ahead, in a way that will advance the interests of both countries, and
to demonstrate in a specific and meaningful way that further progress
towards a democratic and open Iran will have an impact on our
policies. But that impact must be limited, until we begin to see those
changes reflected in Iran's actions abroad.

So, thank you. I'm happy to take your questions.

Q: Madame Secretary, the more I look at this, the more I realize it's
not about carpets and pistachio nuts. You talk -- you apologize for a
U.S. tilt -- not this administration -- to Iraq. You talk about how
bad the Shah was. You talk about mutual grievances against Iraq.
You've used the word "strategic."

May I ask you, please, can you sketch out for us: What kind of a
relationship the US is seeking to pursue with Iran; how far you think
the US can go in turning this important corner? And I attempt it, but
it's getting pretty long -- the question -- to ask you what have they
done in the last three years, in the way of foreign policy moves and
their treatment, as you pointed out today, of Baha'is and Jews, to
suggest that they're different?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I think that, as I said in my
speech, what has been going on in there, internally -- in terms of the
numbers of elections that they've had, the size of their voter
turnout, the results of those elections, in terms of getting more
reformers into place, a different attitude internally -- I think
allows us to see whether it's possible to have some kind of a new
chapter in our relationship.

The reason that I went back on some of the history is: I think that it
is important for the American people and the Iranian people to know
that there has been a difficult history in the past, on both sides.
But I also said that it was important not to be frozen by the past,
and to look towards the future.

If all our policies were simply based on past history, we wouldn't be
speaking to the United Kingdom. So I think that it's very important
for us to keep moving forward, and look at different relationships. So
I think history is something that one has to understand, and record,
and be able to move forward in a new way. That's one part.

The second part to your question is that, as I just said in these
remarks, and as I said in my speech, we need to see some effect on
their external policy. We haven't. And that is the point: that on
issues that are of major concern to us, it's important for us to see
some changes in terms of the policies on proliferation, their desire
to acquire weapons of mass destruction, their support for terrorism,
and their lack of support for the Middle East Peace Process.

And so the answer, specifically, is we haven't seen in foreign policy,
but we want to see whether something will --

Q: Before I made the question so complicated, the real question I have
is: How do you - what would you like the US and Iran to do together?
Are you looking toward - if everything goes right - a strategic
relationship, some alliance against Iraq, some mutual guarding of the
Gulf and its oil resources? Because there is some pretty strong - what
should I say - offers to Iran implicit in these remarks.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: No. What I was saying was that, basically, we have
a number of policy or national interest goals that happen to be in
common. We are concerned about Afghanistan, and would like to see a
moderate Afghanistan. We want to see the free flow of oil in the Gulf.
We're concerned about narco-trafficking. Those are kinds of issues
that two countries -- that actually had a relationship -- would have
something in common. But in no way am I even thinking about the kinds
of things that you're talking about. I think it's just an attempt to
show that we do have something in common.

But the whole point here, Barry, is that I have had the United States
take a step. I have made clear that we are open to further steps, but
on a balanced and mutual way; that we are either prepared to do it
step-by-step or more rapidly, depending upon their response; but that
I don't expect - frankly, I have to say I've just been shown some of
the original responses out of Tehran, and they are generally positive.
But I think -- it was a long speech. I said a lot of different things
in it. And they have to analyze it. And we're not expecting any rapid
kind of response to it. It's there on the table. We have to see.

Now, I do wish to clarify that there is nothing similar about our
relationship with Iran to ours with the United Kingdom's. So forget
that.

Q: A couple of questions. First of all, can you tell us whether
there's been any - whether you had any prior knowledge of any steps
that the Iranians might take in response to your speech, or was this
done completely blind?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: No, we didn't, I mean, I did not. And clearly what
has been happening is that they have been very focused, I think, on
what has been happening internally with them, as one might expect.
But, you know, I have not.

Q: OK. And second question is you said in your speech that fully
normal relations will not be possible until they address these
concerns on terrorism and proliferation. Could you expand a little on
that? When you say "fully normal relations," does that exclude normal
diplomatic relations, which is presumably one of the early objectives
of this initiative toward Iran?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think what's very important is that we keep,
front and center, the fact that we have very basic concerns on the
issues of proliferation, terrorism and lack of support for the Middle
East Peace Process. And we haven't seen positive action on those
foreign policy issues for them. And while what I have said is that we
would be prepared for diplomatic discussions, a fully normal
relationship has a whole host of aspects to it. And those are
obviously the kinds of things we're going to be talking about.

Q: Madame Secretary, can we say your speech -- is it fair to say it's
the end or the burial of the Dual Containment Policy, since there's no
longer containment, there's dialogue, and it's no longer dual, and
what applies to Iran doesn't apply to Iraq?

And my second question is you didn't come out and say it -- an apology
-- but does the United States apologize for supporting the coup
against Dr. Mossadegh?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all let me say: What I did
differentiate, I think, is our policy towards Iraq from what could
potentially be a policy towards Iran.

On the other hand, I'm sure it hasn't escaped anybody's notice that we
continue to have a whole host of sanctions in place, and are concerned
about some of the aspects, as I keep saying, of Iranian policy --
which does need to be stopped -- and that is the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. So to that extent, we want
to contain that aspect of their policy. But I think that a lot has
happened since that kind of rubric was used, and it's because of what
has happened internally in Iran.

I really wanted to keep as a central theme, here, that what we are
doing -- and this goes a little bit to your question -- is not that we
had any signals, but that there is something that happened inside
Iran, that indicates that conceivably -- maybe -- they might wish to
react to something where I took what is basically a step in loosening,
in taking away some sanctions.

So this is a period of a step-by-step approach, where we have to watch
it. I said, I think, everything that I needed to say on the Mossadegh
coup.

Q: Is there any reconsideration or consideration of the US attitude
toward pending World Bank loans? Will the United States be prepared to
permit those to go through without voting or trying to block the vote?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, no. I mean, you know, there are -- we have
certain regulations about not supporting loans for states that support
terrorism, and nothing has changed in that regard.

Q: Will you use your influence to stop those loans as opposed to just
basically stating no, that your vote by itself wouldn't stop a loan
from going through?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I'm not going to comment on the internal
workings of it.

Q: You've mentioned many times moving forward with Iran on the peace
process - moving together. Would a very significant signal be the US
and Iran moving to get the Israelis, without violence, out of Lebanon
in July? Would that be a significant signal of cooperation on the
peace process?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that the Israelis have said that
they are withdrawing. We have, all along, been concerned about the
violence in Lebanon created by the Hezbollah. So I think anything that
can be done to make clear that there is, that the violence is being
controlled, I think, is an important signal that is useful.

Q: Madame Secretary, public in the Czech Republic recently follows the
US-Iranian relationships closely, after Washington put pressure on
Prague regarding Czech exports to Iranian nuclear plant. People in
Prague now, maybe wrongly, assume that US is opening up to Iran while
shutting the door for the Czech exports. Could you comment on it,
please?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, it would be totally wrong if the Czechs
misunderstood what we were doing. Because I have made very clear that,
what we are concerned about is the desire to acquire weapons of mass
destruction and transfer of technology. And the case that we made to
the Czechs is as strong today as it was when I was there and made it
again in person.

We are very pleased that the Czech Government, and I believe the Lower
House -- I'm not sure the Senate has passed yet a law which would
prohibit the sale. I think it's very important, and it is a sign that
the Czech Republic is adopting a responsible approach to one of the
major problems of our time, which is the problem of proliferation.

Q: Madame Secretary, has the U.S. made any additional efforts on the
law enforcement, and to seek help with the Khobar Towers investigation
with Iranian counterparts?

And if I may also ask: The United States in the last few years
declassified a number of documents that had to do with American
involvement in Chile in the early 1970's. Since you mentioned some of
the American involvement in Iran's history, I wonder if the
administration would be willing to declassify documents that are
relevant to that era?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, on Khobar, the investigation
is ongoing, and we have not reached any conclusions about who all -- I
mean we have some information concerning Saudi nationals and Iranian
government officials and others, but we haven't reached any conclusion
regarding whether the attack was directed by the government of Iran.
And so we have -- it has not moved further than that. The
investigation goes on. I, frankly, will have to look into what you
asked.

Previous Stories:
  US views on the Middle East in the next milennium   (10/30/1999)
  Khatami speaks on US-Iranian relations   (1/8/1998)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search