Albright makes announcements on USA - Iranian relations

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.