30 September 1997
European commentators continued to follow carefully a medley of NATO- related issues. A number of analysts described the first meeting last Friday in New York of the NATO-Russian Permanent Joint Council as a qualified "success." Several editorialists noted that some progress had been made. Brussels' Catholic De Standaard, for instance, reporting that Russia approved an action plan aimed at building confidence between the Alliance and Russia, observed: "Before [the meeting], there was fear among the NATO allies that Russia would dare to use the council to exploit the simmering division within the Alliance to create discussions and 'to score points' for domestic use. That fear appeared to be unfounded." In Moscow, centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta said that the council's "subsequent work will provide an answer to many Russian politicians and military who can't decide whether the Founding Act [signed in Paris May 27, 1997 spelling out new NATO- Russia links and establishing the Council] is an effective document or a meaningless scrap of paper." Many commentators contended that, despite the convening of the council and the positive official Russian comments in the press after the meeting, Russian antagonism toward NATO enlargement remains unchanged. Other commentators dwelled on various operational aspects of the evolving NATO enlargement process. Noting that public support for NATO expansion is weak in several key quarters, some analysts criticized as "belated" the effort by prominent Americans united in their endorsement of NATO enlargement--a grouping called the New Atlantic Initiative. Brussels' independent Le Soir was incredulous that such a task should prove difficult. The paper asked: "How is it possible...that NATO, history's most powerful defense organization, having at its disposal an enormous propaganda machine...is unable to 'sell' its image and its ideas to public opinion? How is it possible that it is so difficult to convince the West's decision makers of the value of the enlargement project, the main fruit of NATO's victory in the Cold War?" Yet other commentators focused on the doctrinal and budgetary implications of NATO enlargement for the new would-be members. The Hungarian press was replete with NATO-related articles. Commentaries were particularly diverse and contentious because of domestic opposition to Hungary's joining NATO, with much of the discussion centering on the upcoming referendum in November on NATO membership. Pro-NATO media voices were adamant in their argument that Hungary must strive to become a NATO member. Influential Magyar Hirlap stressed that there are important underlying messages that Hungary will be sending out to the world in seeking to become a member of the Alliance: "A country aspiring for membership in NATO meets the conditions for membership, that is, builds up solid democracy and working market economy, respects human rights, has orderly relations with its neighbors, and implements democratic civilian control of the military." Opponents saw NATO membership only as a "yoke" being forced on Hungary by "foreign powers." Meanwhile, in Turkey, pundits chose to stress the country's unhappiness with its standing within NATO--a position recently dramatized by Ankara's decision not to participate in the "Dynamic Mix-97" NATO-led exercises. This survey is based on 32 reports from 10 countries, September 17-30. EDITOR: Diana McCaffreyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below EUROPE RUSSIA: "Council Avoids Points Involving Differences" Dmitry Gornostayev reported from New York for centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (9/27): "The first meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, it appears, avoided...points involving differences, but Bosnia and peacekeeping were, and are likely to remain, in the focus. The Council's subsequent work will provide an answer to many Russian politicians and military who can't decide whether the Founding Act is an effective document or a meaningless scrap of paper." FRANCE: "Chirac Suggests 'Preferred Partnership' Between Europe, Russia" Alain Frachon wrote in Le Monde (9/29): "At the dawn of the 21st century, President Jacques Chirac would ideally like to see an EU endowed with all the attributes of a genuine power and developing a closer association with Russia. The French president even thinks that it is up to Paris, which has long had friendly relations with Moscow, to be one of the leaders in this 'preferred partnership' between the EU and the Russian Federation. Setting out this point of view on Friday, 26 September, on the second day of his state visit to Russia, while speaking before the Institute of International Relations, Chirac undoubtedly won the sympathy of his audience. The Russians--be it back in Soviet times or today--always welcome any rhetoric giving them the impression, even wrongly, of a possible military-diplomatic cleft forming between Western Europe and the United States. That is one of the traditional objectives of their diplomacy. Standing next to his guest and talking to the press after the two-hour meeting, Russian President Boris Yeltsin reminded Chirac of this without beating around the bush. He repeated his categorical opposition to NATO enlargement- -any enlargement--and said there was no longer any point to U.S. military presence in Europe.... "Even if their first reflex is to discuss security in Europe with the United States, the Russians like nothing more than hearing the voice of small-scale French dissidence in the Western camp. Chirac gave them satisfaction when he told the institute: "I tell you quite strongly, the EU's mission is to be by far your leading partner in all areas. At the dawn of the 21st century, a genuine association must be created between Russia and the EU.' He added: 'The opening between Eastern and Western Europe is irreversible. Any kind of dividing line must henceforth be ruled out. There will be no European security unless Russia is completely on board and offers its full consent and active involvement.' Leading off from this latter conviction, Chirac suggested a year ago that NATO enlargement...should be preceded by the conclusion of an agreement between NATO and Russia. This was finalized in Paris on 27 May with the creation of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council.... Taking great care in each of his speeches to salute the vigor of French-Russian friendship, Chirac did not remind Moscow that France was still in favor of maintaining a U.S. military presence in Europe, in favor of NATO enlargement beyond the three countries already accepted, and so on. He simply said that if Paris actually intended the Europeans to take charge of a growing proportion of their security and defense, then it would be through the development of a pillar within NATO." CZECH REPUBLIC: "NATO Offers Too Many Opportunities" Defense specialist Michal Mocek commented in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES (9/26): "Now, when accession talks with NATO have started, the Czech Republic gets a new opportunity to prove its competence and its ability to assist others. But there is also a real possibility to lose credit due to provincial incompetence.... Czech aspirations to join NATO will logically introduce the Czech Republic to a global stage whose spotlights brutally reveal the mistakes and weaknesses of all participating actors. Spotlights on the Czech Republic will reveal to what extent the Czech attitude toward defense and cooperation is right or wrong.... Although Czech membership is almost certain after a ceremonial accession, Prague will face the day- to-day reality of membership and will be asked: Who are you? So far, Czechs can only offer the answer: We are a fifth wheel." "Satisfaction--Yes, Resting On Laurels--No" U.S. affairs analyst Kveta Buschova wrote in economic Hospodarske noviny (9/25): "The first round of accession talks between the Czech Republic and NATO finished satisfactorily for both sides. The Czech Republic's main envoy, Deputy Foreign Minister Karel Kovanda, suggested that as regards political and legal aspects, the Czech Republic's readiness in particulr to assume commitments ensuing from the Washington treaty, Prague was very well prepared for talks and explained its position 'to NATO's satisfaction.'... However, Czechs should not rest on their laurels because after the Tuesday meeting, Prague will face two more rounds of talks which will be substantial. They will focus on the military aspects of the Czech Republic's membership.... Prague will have to prove that it is able to fulfill the 'target tasks' on which it will agree with NATO, as well as to fund its membership and to contribute to the Alliance's common budget." HUNGARY: "The Paris Bastion" Influential Magyar Hirlap carried this op-ed piece (9/27) by Laszlo Sebok: "Yeltsin has established reliable relations with the United States, but it can still be perceived, primarily because of NATO's expansion, that Moscow would prefer to form its policy as one of the equals--which is not realistic at all. But it is still possible to get closer to Europe, especially to its central parts, even if by way of a little detour, through the patronage of a reliable supporter.... As the situation stands now, the Paris connection would be excellent for Yeltsin, since...both aspire to much more than their current achievements.... The big question, however, is how strongly the French want to shake the ever more openly offered Russian hand." "The Discovery Of Moscow" Influential Magyar Hirlap carried an op piece Csaba Szerdahelyi (9/25): "The Western part of the world is preparing to 'discover' Russia again--which will not be an easy task. At the moment, the Kremlin keeps repeating its well-known reservations and chastising NATO's expansion, but--as a new element--it declares that Washington cannot exclude Moscow from the Central European region. The policy of the United Sates and NATO is clear: Following the normalization of relations, their improvement is inevitable, since this is the only strategy which might lead to the next millennium. However, the West must make sure that Moscow, too, will keep mutual benefits in mind, since it is conceivable that Yeltsin, or especially his successor, when they feel too much at home might change their tone." "Why NATO Needs Us" Influential Magyar Hirlap carried this an op piece by the head of the Hungarian Atlantic Council, Miklos Derer (9/26), "Since the new type of security risks appear not in the center of Europe but on the peripheries of the continent...Hungary's geographical location makes it eminently suitable for the European community to handle these problems. Our contribution to the IFOR/SFOR mission has well demonstrated what skills and abilities the UN, CSCE, NATO, and the community of European states--including Russia--expect from us. It is not traditional military functions but rather peace implementation, a logistical, supplier, and assisting role, a technical contribution. Hungary's character as a [NATO] island [in Europe] proves, on the one hand, that NATO, at one point, does count on Austria. The other message of our character as an island is a clear proof for me that in case a country aspiring for membership in NATO meets the conditions for membership, that is, builds up solid democracy and working market economy, respects human rights, has orderly relations with its neighbors, implements democratic civilian control of the military, sooner or later will be admitted in to the Alliance, wherever that country is. "Hungary's NATO membership is a definite message to those who have been left out, that there are no new dividing lines, and neither will there be in the future: the now forming line between members and non- members is in a continually moving, temporary and organic relationship with the doctrine of 'enlargement and engagement.' During its thousand-year-old history, Hungary has been positively important for the West three times: at the time of founding the [Hungarian] state, then when the Turkish oppressors were driven out, and now. After the first two times a period of prosperity followed for Hungary." "Selling Out The Country" Gyula Fekete argued in extreme right-wing weekly Magyar Forum (9/25): "Squeezed between superpowers, the one-time Hungarian superpower had been crumbled up on the front line between the East and West. We were 'buffers' up until now, the third party that absorbed strikes of the warring parties from both directions, braking them with its living body mass. Now, at long last we would like to become what we are also predestined to be by our historical-geographical situation: a bridge and a link between directions, worldwide trends, between peoples who have finally made peace with each other. That is the only role, the only mission which could compensate us to some extent for our history. Question #1: Do I agree to stay on as a buffer? My answer: No, I do not!" "The Dance Goes On" Extreme left-wing weekly A Szabadsag contended (9/19): "What caused the sudden change in the government's position? It is a widespread opinion that they had very prosaic reasons, of which we'll list a few: Perceiving the critical mood of the public related to joining NATO, they were afraid that few people would attend a non-committal, advising referendum, and in this way they would not be able to show convincing results in support of joining; linking it with the issue of ownership of land, they are expecting a bigger turnout on one hand, and on the other, by the clever wording of the questions in the referendum they hope to come up with three yes votes; the referendum, preceding Parliamentary elections next year will also serve as a preliminary election campaign. The rhetoric of both the government and the opposition is already pointing to May 1998." "Ask The Honest Question" Top-circulation Nepszabadsag carried an op piece by political journalist Endre Bilecz (9/22): "Hungary's joining NATO is not contrary to the society's system of values; neither are there concrete conflicts of interests threatening the declaration of our intention to join. The media has made the public give a serious consideration to Hungary's accession to NATO. Can Hungary be 'independent,' 'neutral' in the smack in the middle of Europe? Ask the honest question." "New Front Lines" Influential Magyar Hirlap observed (9/20): "As long as the parties were arguing whether there should be one or not, whether it would be merely advising or one with binding force, one was able to think that the debate was going on about real issues. However, ever since everyone committed themselves to a referendum, new front lines have been opened, and the issue in the focus of attention is now: How the questions should be worded. If the issues themselves, that is, membership in NATO, or ownership of land, were important, normal people would be able to come to an agreement." "Meeting The Challenge On The Referendum" Popular elite political and cultural weekly Magyar Narancs carried this comment (9/18): "For Hungary, joining NATO means something different than for many other countries joining NATO: It is a break with an important tradition. Not only with the 1956 tradition of neutrality, but also with the one which, going back to 1848, is opposed to any kind of military commitment of the country to some external power. "Fidesz had to act this way [upsetting the consensus by demanding a referendum with a binding force] so that, once again, they could be the ones to say something popular, and also in order to link the referendum on NATO with the referendum against foreign ownership of land. The smallholders seriously believe that liberalization of the land market would put the country in mortal danger. However, the politicians of Fidesz and MDF have never believed that seriously. If, just like in many other questions, Fidesz stands up for just the opposite of what they preached before the elections in 1994, they have merely current political reasons to do so. Based on the mandate they have been given for four years by 3 million voters, the government also has the authority to initiate a referendum, and if a choice has to be made from two referendums on the same question, the decision, obviously, lies with the government. The solution is not elegant, but is not against the law either. The government had to do so also because the Fidesz-MDF initiative asks for the votes of the citizens on a question which looks upon foreigners not as partners, but as adversaries. This question, asked in a referendum, would inevitably convey the message to the world: Even if Hungary joins NATO and the EU, it does so out of necessity, out of speculation, and not because it really wants to be a part of the European community of free countries. By turning the question on land around, the government's politicians want to achieve that those who cast yes votes in the referendum, could say yes not only to NATO as a security integration, but to EU as an economic and political integration as well. Thus the three-question referendum could be made into a referendum committed to NATO and EU, completing the change of regime, if in the referendum campaign the governing parties do not lack the courage to emphasize the role integration plays in the country's progress, instead of continuously being on the defensive against accusations of opposition parties related to permitting foreign ownership of land." "Vote For NATO And Put Your Neck In A Yoke" Extreme right-wing Hungarian weekly Magyar Forum commented (9/17): "General Secretary Solana hit the table and said: "Enough of the fiddling on the referendum in the parliament!' Either a Hungary mature enough for joining is produced by mid-November, or they'll stop talking to the gang. This tone should not surprise anyone. That's the way they talked to Kadar and his men in Moscow, and that's how masters talk to their lackeys everywhere. With the help of NATO and the World Bank, the government has started an unprecedented campaign. Of course, they haven't met any serious resistance. The IMF has put a $560-million loan in perspective for the Horn government which they may recall and use as they see fit. Horn and his followers have figured out that the campaign for joining NATO and the financial assistance will give them power. That's why they had to snatch the initiative of a referendum from the hands of the opposition, and that's why--should the referendum fail to take place in time--they will put the blame on the opposition. On November 4 [in 1956] there had already been a NATO and a general command, but it never crossed anyone's mind to help Hungary; however, even then they could already preach about freedom. The murderers who had escaped hanging got back into power...and now their descendants, the same power-hungry families want to force NATO on us. So: just vote, Hungarians! Put your necks in the yoke, and prolong the foreign power of the bankers' cast over you! And hurry up. There were peace demonstrations in Israel, as soon as the U.S. secretary of state left Jerusalem. Great tasks are awaiting NATO: There might be a war again!" "Helms Support: Decisive Statement" Largest circulation Nepszabadsag reported (9/19) that Sen. Jesse Helms has expressed his support for the expansion of NATO, but at the same time he emphasized that he was expecting further arguments from the president. Nepszabadsag carried a quote from Sen. Helms's statement: "Although the Clinton administration has not presented clear strategic and military arguments to support the expansion, and although we must insist on a fair sharing of expansion costs, NATO's eastward expansion is a worthy undertaking which must be implemented in a way that's correct, and serves U.S. national interests." Nepszabadsag's comment was: "This is an important, perhaps decisive statement." "Political Dividing Lines Taking Shape" Conservative Magyar Nemzet opined (9/17): "Who has profited, or will profit, from the Horn government's decision [to hold a referendum with binding force on NATO membership]? Fidesz is popular with many citizens, since they stood up for the most democratic form, for the referendum, in two very important issues. MSZP was capable of something unprecedented in Hungarian politics since 1990: They accepted and assimilated the propositions of the opposition. The political fight between the two parties will, in many respects, be decided by who can prove that the other one is anti-Europe, or un- Hungarian. Consequently, it is to be feared that in the race between the parties in the fall once again the ideological features will be enhanced, which would hardly be useful for anyone. I think citizens will prefer the party which, both in the NATO and in the ownership of land issue, will try to pragmatically reconcile EU and NATO regulations with Hungarian economic and political interests." POLAND: "NATO-Russia Council: Alas, Without Us" According to commentary by Wieslaw S. Debski in leftist Trybuna(9/28): "Establishing the NATO-Russian Council was a prize Russia received for withdrawing its strong objection to enlarging the NATO Alliance by new countries, including Poland. The first meeting of this body has aroused our special interest--namely, we want to know whether the Council will remain a mere 'prize,' or whether it will become a real forum on which issues crucial to European security can be discussed and settled. "The timetable of coming meetings...seems to suggest that both sides treat their jointly established institution in a serious way. Time will show, however, what it will look like in practice.... The question of the [real] shape of the council is important especially to Poland because this body could serve as a forum to settle potential Polish-Russian disputes.... But Poland will become a Council member only after it is officially accorded membership in NATO.... For the time being, we can only observe what is going on.... This situation is not comfortable...and does not meet our requirements and expectations. NATO has consented to let us in on many of its secrets and organs, but it has refused us access to the most crucial body--the NATO-Russia Council. This is a real pity." BELGIUM: "First NATO-Russia Council A 'Success'" NATO affairs writer Bart Beirlant opined in independent Catholic De Standaard (9/27) and independent Catholic Het Nieuwsblad (9/27): "During the first NATO-Russia Council at the ministerial level in New York yesterday, Russia said that it is willing to cooperate seriously.... The West's impression is that Russia 'is in the boat' and prepared to play the game seriously--which seemed uncertain until recently.... Beforehand, there was fear among the NATO allies that Russia would dare to use the Council to exploit the simmering division within the Alliance to create discussions and 'to score points' for domestic use. That fear appeared to be unfounded. Russia approved the work program until the end of the year which must prevent the Founding Act from remaining dead letter.... At the same time, (Foreign Minister) Primakov continues to speak out against NATO enlargement and NATO itself. 'It is still two steps forward and one step backward,' (Belgian Foreign Minister) Derycke said. 'Yet, I have the impression that there is no other road for Russia than integrating itself in Europe--also in the security structures.' To illustrate that, Primakov offered cuff links to Derycke with the inscriptions 'NATO' on the left and 'Russia' on the right. Nothing is still as it used to be." "What Primakov Tone About NATO Enlargement?" Pierre Lefebre wrote in independent Le Soir (9/26): "The Westerners will listen, among other things, to Primakov about two issues. First, will he announce the dispatching to Brussels of a high military representative who would ensure a real cooperation at the military level? The appointment of the former Defense Minister, General Pavel Grachev, is expected. But Moscow hasn't decided yet. A confirmation would be considered as auspicious. "On the other hand, which tone will the Russian representative adopt regarding NATO enlargement and the Alliance's future opening to republics formerly belonging to the USSR? This is indeed the key question, the most explosive one, of future Russian-Western relations. The cooperation between NATO and Russia and Bosnia and the future of the SFOR should pose the biggest problem. The Russians have already announced that they were ready to maintain their presence in the former Yugoslavia beyond the present mandate of the SFOR which ends in June 1998. One could have feared that they would try to divide the Europeans and the Americans in this respect. Until recently, Washington pretended that it wanted to withdraw its troops by that date in any event, even if it amounted to leaving its allies deeply embarrassed. It won't be the case. An agreement has been reached, the day before yesterday in the U.S. Congress--particularly nervous about this issue--to let the president decide on a possible extension of the U.S. presence in Bosnia if the U.S. interest requires it." "Selling NATO Enlargement" On the occasion of the elections in Poland, Pol Mathil wrote in independent Le Soir (9/22) with reference to the 133 prominent U.S. politicians in favor of NATO enlargement (the group known as the New Atlantic Initiative): "How is it possible, people in wonder in Warsaw, that NATO, history's most powerful defense organization, having at its disposal an enormous propaganda machine...is unable to 'sell' its image and its ideas to public opinion? (How is it possible) that it is so difficult to convince the West's decision makers of (the value of) the enlargement project, the main fruit of NATO's victory in the Cold War which considerably extends its security borders? "An answer must be provided promptly to those questions. If the image projected by NATO and its prestige were commensurate with its fire power, Senator Helms would not have caused a surprise by asking President Clinton against which threat the enlarged NATO would have to protect the United States.... If, they observe in Warsaw, four years after the opening of the debate on enlargement, even Senator Helms does not know what it is all about, what do the senators of Ohio or of Minnesota know? The 133 wise men of American politics woke up somewhat belatedly. In Poland, they hope that it is not too late." BULGARIA: "Suspicions And Trust" According to the Bulgarian Socialist Party Duma (9/29): "Russia and the NATO Allies look a lot like partners who don't tell each other how badly they think of each other only because of good manners.... 'A big success,' was Solana's qualification of the first session of the Russia-NATO...Council that was held last Friday in New York.... The adopted working plan is good, however, its realization depends on the parties' readiness to observe the key principles of mutual trust and equality of rights, (Russian Foreign Minister) Primakov pointed out. As a matter of fact, whenever equality between Russia and NATO allies is mentioned, both Washington and Brussels get acid dyspepsia.... A similar trust filled with suspicion was demonstrated in connection with the documents signed by Madeleine Albright, Primakov, and their counterparts from Belarus, Kazahstan, and Ukraine. It was announced that these documents build the way towards radical cuts in strategic weapons. This time, the good effect was spoiled by an American congressmen who claimed that Clinton was too 'naive' in terms of his relations with Russia." LITHUANIA: "Primakov On Stability Of The Baltic States" Leading, centrist Lietuvos Rytas editorialized (9/25): "On Tuesday Russia's Foreign Minister Primakov stated at the United Nations General Assembly that Russia is interested in the stability of the Baltic States and would like to assure their security. So, Russia has started to demonstrate that the Cold War with the Baltic states is over.... Russia's constant threats were one of the arguments why Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were looking for the security guarantees not in the East, but in the West. "That led influential Russian experts to conclude that 'farsighted Russian politicians understand that, without a dialogue with the Baltic states, Russia might lose them forever, as has happened with Central and Eastern Europe.' New tactics have been proposed by the Russian foreign and defense council in a recently prepared, more modern conception, which corresponds to Russian foreign policy interests. Although the council's recommendations are not an official document of the Russian government, it is easily noticed that they do not contradict the ideas of Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin.... Russia's politicians, when speaking about the Baltic states' membership in NATO, have not softened their tone at all." SLOVENIA: "Have-Nots And European Security" Left-of-center, independent Dnevnik held (9/30), "American foreign policy anticipated problems in the countries which fulfilled the conditions for joining NATO but were not admitted in the first round. According to the American think-tank Rand, greater antagonism towards international integration, and increased nationalism were to be expected. The entire thrust of American diplomacy and NATO's bureaucracy is directed towards lessening the negative consequences of this decision. "The announced special session of the Slovene parliament on integration into NATO may be a good enough reason for a visit by a high American representative; or we may be cheered by another American military 'toy' in the port of Koper. Rand's analysis foresees such activities continuing for a long time, at least until the Americans and other members ratify the agreement on expansion. Promises about subsequent rounds of expansion are part of the same strategy. The authors themselves wrote that the promise is just a formality, which they have no intention of fulfilling. That this is true is evident from the fact that the Americans have passed a law on European security which is dedicated to NATO expansion and relations with Russia. With this law, America has received a legal basis for its financing certain defense projects in Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. If these countries continue to meet the conditions, they will eventually be admitted to NATO.... Besides the fact that Slovenia is no longer among the countries mentioned by the Americans as potential NATO members, the absurd point has to be emphasized that a non-European country has passed a law on European security.... NATO's decision not to accept Slovenia into its ranks is above all a signal to Slovene politics that Slovenia is strategically uninteresting for most NATO members." TURKEY: "Turkey's Decision Not To Take Part In Dynamic Mix-97" Hasan Mesut Hazar wrote in conservative, religious Turkiye (9/19): "The Chief of the Turkish General Staff, General Karadayi, paid a visit to (the United States in order to) participate in the change-of- command ceremony of SACLANT. During his stay in Washington, the main question from the media was why Turkey decided not to take part in the Dynamic Mix-97 exercise. He said that 'the situation contradicted NATO's regulations and usual practices,' and that that is why Turkey decided not to participate. It seems that Turkey's decision will be a point of discussion for some time. Everybody believes that NATO is inconceivable without Turkey. And the decision on Dynamic Mix is considered here in Washington as a 'very important development.' This is rather an interesting period. On one hand, efforts were made to eliminate Turkish-Greek disputes which could turn into armed conflicts; on the other hand, one of the members of the Alliance (Turkey) is treated very unjustly and is humiliated. Turkey's decision on the exercise was very firm. Let's see whether this decision will force NATO to revise its wrong decision, or will cause more concerns regarding the future of the Alliance. Let's hope that the wrong attitude will be reversed. Otherwise, both Turkish-Greek and Turkish-American relations will be seriously damaged." ## For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 9/30/97 # # #