Washington -- In a major foreign policy address on the Middle East, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright told the National Press Club August 6 that there is no place in the stalled Middle East peace process for violence and terror and "there is no room for using security cooperation in a negotiation." At the same time she emphasized that "the principle of refraining from unhelpful unilateral acts is central to maintaining mutual confidence."

Provided "there is some progress on security issues," Albright announced that she would be willing to go to the Middle East "at the end of this month" to consult with the leaders of the region, including Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Albright confirmed that the Middle East Special Coordinator Dennis Ross will be in the region at the end of this week. "The primary purpose of Ambassador Ross's visit will be to deal with the security dimension of the current crisis," she said.

The Secretary also called for Israelis and Palestinians to return to several basic principles which included "a mutual commitment to security and against violence," an agreement "to settle their differences over the subjects of negotiation at the bargaining table, and not somewhere else," and a demonstration by both parties "in word and deed, (of) their understanding of peace not as one option among many, but as the only option that will provide for the security and well-being of their people."

Reiterating U.S. concern about the Middle East, she declared, "Let there be no doubt, the United States will continue to do all it can to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians and throughout the Middle East. We will do so because progress towards peace serves our vital interests, helps protect our friends, reflects our values and because it is right."

Following the speech, the Secretary took several questions from the National Press Club audience. Among other points, she reported that the United States is "very interested" in making progress on the Israel/Syrian track and "prepared to assist" in getting it back in motion.

On Cyprus, she noted the appointment of Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke, the architect of the Dayton Peace Accords, and said that the U.S. believes the situation on the divided island is "in a place where there could be a solution."

Concerning North Korea, she reported that the situation was being watched very closely in light of the country's famine and starvation. As for the preliminary talks which took place August 5 among the North and South Koreans, China, and the United States, Albright said, "We had a good opening day." The U.S. goal for these Four Party talks is "peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula," she said. "We want this vestige of the Cold War ended."

As for Burma, Albright repeated the point she made to ASEAN leaders last week: Burma's military rulers should talk to democracy and human rights champion Aung San Suu Kyi. "There should be a dialogue."

Following is the State Department text of Albright's remarks followed by uestions and answers:

(Begin text)

The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process

Thank you, Mr. Samman. Members of the National Press Club, distinguished guests, colleagues and friends, good afternoon. It is gratifying that, with President Clinton's leadership, we have made progress during the six months I have served as Secretary of State in a number of areas of importance to the security, prosperity and values of the American people.

The United States has become party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

NATO has invited three of central Europe's new democracies to join and has forged historic partnerships with Russia and Ukraine.

Congress has approved an increase in funding for international affairs, and devised a plan to spur United Nations reform while paying back arrears.

We are moving ahead on implementing Dayton and backing the War Crimes Tribunal.

We have renewed normal trade relations with China while being forthright about our concerns on proliferation and our support for human rights.

We have forged new guidelines for our security cooperation with Japan, made progress towards Four Party Talks on Korea, strengthened our working relationships with Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean and unveiled a plan to increase trade and investment in Africa. Overall, this has been a remarkable period. Unfortunately, progress achieved between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East, an area vital to our interests, is now threatened.

Today, I would like to discuss the reasons why progress towards peace in this region has stalled and offer some suggestions for restoring positive momentum.

The urgency of that goal was underlined one week ago, when bombs exploded in the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem, killing 13 Israelis--one of whom was also an American citizen--and wounding 168. Behind those numbers are the faces of mothers, fathers, grandparents and children killed not for anything they had done, but simply for who and where they were. Sadly and tragically, the Israeli people--almost fifty years into the history of their state--are still the targets of a murderous campaign of terror.

No people should have to live this way.

At the same time, it says something very good and very right about the Israeli people that they will never grow used to such events; they will never fail to respond with outrage and grief, never fail to mourn the individual lives that have been cut short, never cease to comfort the families, never cease to demand an end to terrorist attacks--and never give in to them.

It also says something hopeful about the future of the Middle East that, as we speak, 162 Arab, Israeli and Palestinian teenagers are in a summer camp in the woods of Maine, a camp sponsored by the Seeds of Peace program, and that this tragic bombing has brought those young people closer together in shock, sorrow and determination to end the cycle of violence in their region.

Americans share each of these feelings and reactions. Our thoughts are with those who knew and loved the persons killed or injured last week. We stand by Israel in its fight against terror. We maintain our unshakable commitment to Israeli security. And we join governments and peoples from every part of the globe who have condemned last week's savage attack.

Our convictions are clear. Terrorism is evil. It can never be justified. It is the instrument of cowards. It kills the innocent not by accident, but by design. And its design in the Middle East is to murder the peace process by shredding security and destroying the hope for peace.

We do not yet know the identity of the bombers at Mahane Yehuda.

But we can be sure this crime was not a random event. Terrorists often strike when they believe the parties are poised to make progress. It may be more than coincidence that this latest attack occurred shortly after the announcement that negotiations of the interim committees set up by the Hebron agreement would resume, and on the eve of an American effort to share ideas on how to break the current impasse.

We have come too far in the process of Arab-Israeli peacemaking to allow the vultures of violence to shape the region's future.

The stakes are too high. Past sacrifices have been too great.

And the peoples of the region have been burdened for too long by bloodshed and strife.

We must respond to those who have declared war on peace by waging war on terror, understanding that forging peace and fighting terrorism are not separate struggles, but rather two halves of the same struggle. We cannot succeed in one if we do not prevail in both.

The path ahead is difficult, but so was the journey already made.

Over the years, the quest for peace in the Middle East has suffered multiple shocks, setbacks and traumas. We have watched in horror as busses and markets have been bombed, schoolchildren attacked, great leaders such as President Sadat and Prime Minister Rabin assassinated and innocent people gunned down even while in a house of worship.

Nevertheless, in Madrid, Oslo, Washington, Cairo and in the Arava, we have seen historic enemies come together, speaking the language of peace. We have seen ties between Arabs and Israelis expand and a process of regional cooperation begin to tackle tough issues such as water, the environment and refugees.

We have seen a series of economic summits bring Arab and Israeli business people together to lay the groundwork for increased trade, investment and prosperity.

We have seen extensive progress towards ending the secondary and tertiary boycotts of Israel, thereby opening Israel's products to the world and the world's products to Israel. We have seen substantive negotiations aimed at a comprehensive settlement between Israel and all her Arab neighbors.

And we have seen many nations that are outside the region but affected by it--nations such as Russia, Norway, Japan and members of the EU--lend their diplomatic, political and financial support to peace. We must ask ourselves why this process has survived all the traumas and how it has endured despite bitterness, sorrow, suffering and anger.

The answer is that the vast majority of the people of the region, Israelis, Arabs and Palestinians, have come to believe that the status quo is unacceptable, that the costs of conflict are too high, and that the effort to achieve peace holds at least the promise of a better future.

They understand that, without peace, their societies will remain shackled by the pre-occupations of the past; their region will fall further behind in the global marketplace; and their children will grow up in an environment of uncertainty, danger and fear.

The popular desire for peace is durable, resilient and strong.

This is what extremists and terrorists fear most. And this is why, despite the bombing this past week, and despite threats of further violence, the process of peacemaking has survived and will continue to survive.

When the Israelis and Palestinians came together in Oslo in 1993, the effort to achieve peace entered a new phase. The parties agreed for the first time on mutual recognition. And they agreed on a roadmap for transforming what had been an irresolvable confrontation based on clashing ideologies and violence into a solvable political negotiation based on shared interests. The leaders were able to agree to this because the Israeli and Palestinian people understood the need to recognize and deal with one another directly and to accept each other's political identity.

Now that the threshold of mutual recognition has been crossed, there can be no going back to mutual rejection, no going back to mutual denial. Neither party can return to an earlier time.

By agreeing to accept one another as partners, the Israelis and Palestinians took an irreversible step towards ending their conflict.

The question today is not whether the Israelis and Palestinians will reach a mutually acceptable agreement, but when. This question of time is an important one. With our help, Israelis and Palestinians can move steadily towards a better future or they can remain bogged down in mutual suspicion and recriminations.

The longer decisions are postponed, the more conflict and suffering will ensue. Prime Minister Netanyahu said recently that leading Israel was like a "bed of roses," but with "a lot of thorns."

I suspect that Chairman Arafat might describe his job in a similar way. One cannot talk fairly about the Middle East without recognizing the difficulty of the challenges the leaders face. But one cannot talk accurately about the region without recognizing how important peace is to both the Israeli and Palestinian people and without acknowledging that they have made the choice for peace.

It is important in each society that the center work hard to make its influence felt over that of the extremes. And it is vital that the message be conveyed that it is no longer acceptable to avoid the tough choices required to move forward the quest for peace. Unfortunately, in recent months, since the promising agreement over Hebron, progress has stalled. We now face a crisis of confidence that has put at risk past gains, rekindled old animosities, and left Israelis and Palestinians alike fearful about what the future may bring.

In order to break the current deadlock, Israelis and Palestinians must return to basic principles. These principles do not focus on the substance of negotiations, which the parties must resolve between themselves at the bargaining table, but rather on the even more fundamental question of how the parties should approach negotiations in order to create the best possible environment for success.

What are these principles? First, the sine qua non for progress is a mutual commitment to security and against violence. This is basic. This is common sense. There is no place in the peace process for violence or terror and there is no room for using security cooperation as leverage in a negotiation. That approach destroys confidence, fuels extremism and undermines prospects for peace.

In recent months, many Israelis have come to believe that the Palestinian Authority is not taking seriously its vow to combat terror; that Palestinian words are not followed by action; and that the words, themselves, are not consistent or clear. They are concerned that violence in the streets may be orchestrated. And they wonder whether the Palestinian Authority is doing all it can to prevent incitement to violence and terrorist attacks.

They fear that violence is being given a green light, or a yellow light, or a blinking light--when what is called for in Oslo and what is essential for peace is an unceasing red. We do not ask the impossible. With suicide terrorists, there can be no perfect system for guaranteeing security. We cannot expect 100 percent success. But there must be 100 percent effort both with regard to unilateral Palestinian Authority measures against terror and in Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation.

What does this mean specifically? It means sharing information and coordinating law enforcement actions. It means an unrelenting effort to detect and deter potential terrorist acts. It means identifying and seizing arms caches such as the one raided successfully by Palestinian police in Beit Sahour two weeks ago.

It means arresting and prosecuting those involved in planning, financing, supplying or abetting terrorism. And it means doing everything possible to create a moral atmosphere in which advocacy of violence and terror withers away. The terrorists are unrelenting, and so must we be unrelenting in our struggle against them. On this issue, there can be no winks, no double meanings, no double standards and with respect to the imprisonment of terrorists--no revolving doors.

Nor can the level of security cooperation ebb and flow with the ups and downs of negotiation. The Palestinian commitment to fight terror must be constant and absolute. This is essential to move the peace process forward. It is necessary, obviously, to create a climate of greater security and confidence within Israel. But it is also essential to Palestinians. Extremist violence is a grave threat to Palestinian society. Palestinians are sometimes the direct targets of this violence. And they are the ones who suffer economic and humanitarian hardships when Israel clamps down on access.

While Israelis have too often been the victims of terror, it is fair to say that attacks by Islamic Jihad and Hamas have made ordinary Palestinians pay a terrible price not only in their day to day well-being, but also in their long-range hopes and possibilities. Israelis and Palestinians must unite to defeat terrorism, which is their common enemy. They must unite to end violence, apprehend perpetrators and create an environment in which it is possible for all not simply to survive, but to thrive -- to go about the business of building secure and productive lives. This is the first principle of Oslo and it is the cornerstone of an enduring peace.

The second principle is that both sides agreed to settle their differences over the subjects of negotiation at the bargaining table, and not somewhere else. It is in the interests of each party to avoid steps that undermine the other's confidence and trust in the process. In practice, this means forgoing unilateral acts which pre-judge or pre-determine issues reserved for permanent status negotiations.

Let me be clear. There is no moral equivalency between suicide bombers and bulldozers, between killing innocent people and building houses. It is simply not possible to address political issues seriously in a climate of intimidation and terror.

But the principle of refraining from unhelpful unilateral acts is central to maintaining mutual confidence. Especially as we look ahead to permanent status negotiations, it is essential that the parties think through how their actions will affect the environment for those negotiations.

Palestinians argue that Israel has taken some actions in recent months that pre-judge issues reserved for permanent status negotiations. These include settlement activity, construction at Har Homa and the confiscation of land. These actions have generated uncertainty among many Palestinians about Israeli intentions, undermined for them the very logic of negotiations and caused a crisis of confidence in their Israeli partner. It is fair to ask: how can you create a credible environment for negotiation when actions are being taken that seem to predetermine the outcome?

To restore confidence, both sides must think seriously and in advance about the potential impact of what they do and say. They must do more than ask whether an action is technically legal; they must ask whether it is wise, whether it is consistent with the spirit of their partnership, and whether it brings them closer to the goals of their agreements.

The third rule of the road for the negotiating process is that both parties must demonstrate, in word and deed, their understanding of peace not as one option among many, but as the only option that will provide for the security and well-being of their people.

It was this mutual recognition that made Israel and the Palestinians partners in pursuing peace. And it is the logic of this partnership that has made it possible to overcome past obstacles and setbacks, as demonstrated by the Hebron agreement earlier this year.

Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have been consistent in stating their commitment to peace. But the success of the negotiating process requires more. They must reaffirm their commitment to partnership and to working together to solve problems.

They must re-iterate their understanding that the future of their two peoples is not a zero-sum game in which one party will win and the other will lose; or in which one will get up from the bargaining table with an advantage over the other. If two people are in a boat heading for the rapids, they should not be arguing about how they got there; they should be rowing together in the direction of security and shore.

Israelis and Palestinians will continue to have substantive differences in their negotiations, especially given the issues of permanent status that are yet to be addressed. The depth of these differences makes it all the more vital that the parties search for ways to rebuild mutual confidence and restore the momentum towards peace.

A spirit of partnership must motivate each side. And a recognition of their partner's legitimate needs must influence behavior. Indeed, the new mindset must be that "there is no problem too big that we cannot resolve it together."

As Israelis and Palestinians move to re-energize their negotiations, it is imperative that the international community do its share to support this effort and to recognize that prosperity is a parent to peace. Every nation with an interest in the region -- especially Israel -- has a stake in the social and economic progress of the Palestinian Authority and should contribute appropriately to it.

And Arab states have a responsibility to build peace through a normalization of relations throughout their region. Dialogue, business contracts and personal contacts should take the place of boycotts and hostility. This is the logic of the Middle East Economic Summit planned for Doha this November. Countries in the region will only hurt the peace process and their own economic future if they fail to attend that summit.

In this regard, I salute King Hussein of Jordan both for his direct contributions to the peace process, and for the effort he has made to persuade Arabs and Israelis alike of the economic and political benefits of peace.

For decades, the United States has been deeply engaged in the pursuit of a comprehensive Middle East peace. President Clinton -- like his predecessors -- has considered this to be a top priority and has worked hard to support the efforts of the parties to reach that goal.

Over the years, U.S. policy towards the Arab-Israeli peace process has been based on key elements which have underlined our approach.

These core elements remain valid today. Let me reaffirm them:

We seek a just and lasting peace achieved through direct negotiations based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, including the principle upon which every Arab-Israeli agreement has been built -- land for peace. We believe that peace must be accompanied by real security for Israel and her Arab neighbors both from external threats and from terror.

We believe peace must be just, lasting and comprehensive, leading to treaties based on normal relations and genuine peace between peoples, including between Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon, and we believe that peace must address the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. Principles, however, cannot produce agreements; the hard work of negotiation does. And the United States has tried through a variety of ways to promote that process.

We have worked at times to insulate and protect negotiations; we have moved to de-fuse crises both on the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Lebanon fronts; we have marshaled economic and political support; and, as was the case during the Israeli-Syrian talks at the Wye Plantation and during the Hebron negotiations, we have at times even gone beyond the traditional role of facilitator and played the role of mediator.

At the same time, the United States is not a party to the Arab-Israeli conflict. We do not assume the same risks and responsibilities as parties struggling with the issues of political identity and physical survival. As a consequence, we cannot, should not, and will not impose solutions.

Nor can we create the political will required for Arabs and Israelis to make the tough decisions for peace. These are their decisions--not ours. But given our indispensable role and the trust and confidence we have gained, we do have a responsibility during good times and bad to work with them in the pursuit of peace. Indeed, they want us to play this role. And we will continue to do so.

In the past several months, as the negotiations floundered, and Israeli-Palestinian recriminations intensified, we sought in several ways to put the process back on track. Working closely with President Mubarak of Egypt, our strategic partner in peace, we tried to define a basis on which the parties could re-engage. We promoted direct contacts to restore a practical working relationship between Israelis and Palestinians.

We focused on parallel steps each side could take to address the concerns of the other. We built on these contacts to renew discussions on the interim agreement issues and were developing ideas to overcome the differences that had prevented the permanent status talks from convening.

Indeed, on the eve of the July 30 attack in Jerusalem, the President and I felt it was time to send Dennis Ross to the region to convey U.S. ideas. That trip will now go forward at the end of this week.

The primary focus of Ambassador Ross's visit will be to deal with the security dimension of the current crisis. If the right kind of steps are being taken to improve the security environment, we will have a basis for going forward--as we must--with consideration of political issues, beginning with the need to restore trust and make progress towards fulfilling the terms of the interim agreement.

We must also, however, prepare to do more. The Israeli-Palestinian crisis of confidence has cost the peace process six months. Suspicions and mistrust are running high. The logic of Oslo, based on mutual recognition, is sound, but the incremental approach of the interim agreement needs to be married to an accelerated approach to permanent status.

To restore momentum, we have to increase confidence on both sides about where the negotiating process is leading and what the outcome of permanent status talks might be. If the parties have a clear, mutual and favorable sense of the ultimate direction of negotiation, it will be easier for them to overcome setbacks and avoid distractions along the way. This will require accelerating permanent status negotiations.

Today, this step is urgent and important. Accordingly, provided there is some progress on security issues, I am prepared to travel to the Middle East at the end of this month. I will consult closely with the leaders of the region and especially with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, to improve the climate for negotiations, and to discuss the procedural and substantive aspects of the permanent status issues.

Reenergizing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will not happen overnight. It will take time. But President Clinton and I remain committed to doing everything possible to help the parties succeed.

We will continue to play our role as a full partner. In this partnership, only the parties must make the decisions, but we can support them. In this partnership, only the parties must conduct the negotiations, but we can be with them at the table. In this partnership, only the parties must determine the shape of peace, but we can work with them to facilitate, protect and broaden that peace.

Let there be no doubt, the United States will continue to do all it can to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians and throughout the Middle East. We will do so because progress towards peace serves our vital interests, helps protect our friends, reflects our values and because it is right.

No region of the world has seen greater suffering or more persistent conflict than the Middle East. No generation has a better chance than the current one to replace the downward cycle of conflict with an upward ladder of opportunity.

As we approach the new century, there are no Cold War divisions fueling a regional rivalry. And the way to peace--once obscure--has been laid out first at Madrid, then more clearly at Oslo and in the agreements since.

So now the choice for Israelis and Palestinians alike is between two futures. They can shy from the risks of peace and ensure a future of more uncertainty, hardship and fighting or they can come together to renew their partnership and fulfill the promise of peace.

For Israelis, that is the promise of a bustling economy with Pacific Rim potential. It is assurance of a common front in the fight against terror, a steady growth in regional cooperation and the ability to raise children in security and peace. For Palestinians, it is the promise of an end to decades of strife.

It is the chance, as full participants in a growing regional economy, to use their energy and skills to create a future for themselves of steadily increasing prosperity, dignity and hope.

And for all the people of the region, it is the promise, as President Clinton has said, of "building a land that is as bountiful and peaceful as it is holy", and of offering to Israelis and Palestinians alike the "miracle of a normal life."

The United States cannot choose this future for Israel or for the Palestinians. That is their choice and their challenge. We do not underestimate the difficulties. We are cognizant of the dangers. But America was built on optimism and on the faith that the future can be made better than the past, not only within our own borders but within all the borders of the Earth.

It is in that spirit, and with that faith, that we ask of ourselves and of our partners a renewed and determined effort to transform from hope to reality the elusive dream of a Middle East peace.

Thank you very much.

MR. SAMMON: Thank you very much, Madame Secretary.

Q: Today, the PLO denounced Speaker Gingrich's comment on Fox Television on Sunday, supporting Israeli threats to enter Palestinian self-rule areas and fight and/or capture militant terrorists. Is this a nation the United States could adopt -- supporting Israeli efforts in the self-rule area, to capture terrorists? If so, would it contribute with troops or administrative assistance?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think, as we have discussed the whole problem of terrorists, it is absolutely essential that Chairman Arafat do everything that he can and must to control the terrorists. As I said in my prepared remarks, he must make a 100 percent effort. He must, in fact, make absolutely clear that he must work against the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations, develop information to share with the Israelis, also work on their bilateral security agreements. And I think that is the best way to deal with terrorists.

Q: Follow-up question regarding Yasser Arafat. How can the State Department claim that Yasser Arafat has renounced terrorism, ~when he praises, whether it is directly or indirectly, terrorist bombers? He glorified the engineer, as the man was called, responsible for 70 deaths in 1996. He expressed condolences to the family of the Tel Aviv bomber. He has given the green light to Hamas. Also, the Palestinian Authority still has not revoked its desire to eliminate Israel from its charter. Please comment.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think that I can't take as a given all the assumptions and statements made in ~~that question. I think we have made very clear that Chairman Arafat needs to speak out, unequivocally, against the terrorists. He did condemn this last attack. What we would like to see is as robust a reaction to the terrorists as he took in March 1996, where he undertook a series of very specific steps to deal with the terrorist threat. He needs to understand -- I have made this clear to him, as have a number of others -- that he needs to expend 100 percent of his effort to control the terrorists and give unequivocal statements, as I made clear in my statement

Q: Madam Secretary, when you go to the Middle East by the end of the month, do you plan to visit other Arab countries in the area, or will you concentrate only on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Is there any place for Syrian-Israeli conflict discussions during your coming visit?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I am not going to go into what my itinerary is at this stage. I think it will become evident as we move along. I do think, specifically, on the Syrian-Israeli conflict, we are prepared to assist there. There have been some discussions going on, and we are obviously very interested in having that track activated also, and we are prepared to assist where we can.

Q: Is Prime Minister Netanyaha living up to his commitments under Oslo, in your opinion?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu has made clear that he believes in peace and that he believes in the Oslo process. I made some comments in my statement about the necessity of rebuilding confidence -- that is what the problem is now, that we have a crisis in confidence; and that it is essential that whatever actions are taken by either side are taken and viewed in a way as to how they affect the whole environment and our desire to rebuild an environment of confidence, which would allow there to be some very serious talks that are required for peace.

I think the point that needs to be made -- and I tried to make this in my remarks -- is that the people have chosen peace. That is very evident in their actions and their reactions to the horrors that have befallen them. The days of avoiding hard decisions are over. It is absolutely essential that hard decisions be made. We cannot make them; the parties have to make them. The people of the area want peace.

Q: Because Congress has recessed for the month of August, will the State Department push for immediate approval of legislation providing the Palestinians with financial assistance when lawmakers reconvene in September?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we have a lot of things we have to do with lawmakers when they return in September, and we will see where the situation is at the time.

Q: We'll come back to some questions on the Middle East, but a number of people wanted to hear your take on how hard will the Administration fight for William Weld's confirmation as ambassador, and why should you bother helping a Republican? Was there not a Democrat that you could find for the position?

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think, as you know, President Clinton and I have believed very much in bipartisanship. Yesterday's budget signing, I think, was an excellent example of what happens when it works. President Clinton and I have believed, do believe, that Governor Weld is the best person for the job. We have supported him for it. We think it's very important that he have hearings and that the entire Senate be able to decide.

Q: Another Middle East hot spot waiting to explode is Cyprus. Does the United States have any plans to become more actively involved in helping the parties there to resolve their differences?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Richard Holbrooke.

(Laughter)

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: As you know, we have named Ambassador Holbrooke as special envoy on the Cyprus negotiations. He is taking an active role in that. We believe that this is an important time, as far as Cyprus is concerned. I have, in the past and now, taken a great interest in the Cyprus negotiations. I've been there a number of times. We believe that this very long-running dispute is in a place where there could be some resolution, especially as they move towards a desire to be part of the EU.

Q: Two quick questions on North Korea: Has the famine in North Korea reached a critical point? If yes, what will be the U.S. reaction? If the famine hasn't reached a critical point, how far are we from either a mass exodus from the North, or possibly a desperate invasion? Also in your answer, if you could assess the first day of the North Korea talks in New York, and do you plan on attending the opening of the substantive negotiations?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: We have obviously been watching the situation in North Korea very closely and carefully. The determination has been, by international observers, that there is famine and starvation going on in North Korea. There has been an attempt through international or~ganiza~tions to provide assistance to the North Koreans. We have done that. We have been a major donor, through the World Food-Program, and have done a great deal. We will see whether we can do more because we are concerned about the famine there for humanitarian reasons.

Obviously, our major goal as far as North Korea is concerned is for there to be a peaceful solution to the problems there. The talks that we started yesterday in New York were an initial beginning about how to have the substantive talks -- when and who should be at them. So I think we had a good opening day. I think that this is going to be a discussion that we carry on for some time. Our ultimate goal is obviously for there to be peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula -- a very important area to the United States, strategically.

Q: Why would you be willing to give humanitarian aid to a country, such as North Korea, that appears to be so inimical to the United States?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think that we have a record, frankly, of caring about people. We believe that often people are the victims of their government and that it is very important for us to do what we can to alleviate suffering, starvation I think that any of you that have seen the pictures of the staving people -- especially the children -- in North Korea understand that it is very important for us to do the job that only an indispensable nation can do, such as the United States -- which is to provide humanitarian assistance. Then, frankly, it is the right thing to ~ but it is also, I think, ~pragmatically important in terms of our long-term goals for the~ Peninsula.~

Q: Under what conditions would the President of the United States~ speak in person to Fidel Castro?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I can't think of any.

(Laughter.)

Q: Madame Secretary, recently signals of discontent were sent from the Congress and particularly from Senator Mitch McConnell -- regarding Egypt's role and attitude in the peace process. Do you agree with the critics? And what do you expect from President Mubarak regarding this criticism from Congress?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I do not agree. I think that Egypt has played an important role. And as I mentioned in my remarks, they have been our strategic partner. We are in very close consultation with the Egyptians. As we have made quite clear in our Administration statements on this amendment, we do not support it because we think that it's counter~-productive.

Q: Could you please comment on the role of Russia in the Middle East peace process? This is from Tass, the Russian news agency. Thank you for your question.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: As you know, Russia is a partner under the Madrid process and, in fact, is the convener of the multilateral steering groups. We have been discussing about how and when those can be re-invigorated. In my ninth public meeting with Foreign Minister Primakov, we have often talked about a number ~of strategic issues and compared notes and the Middle East is among them.

Q: In many parts of your career you have fought for the right of women as an international cause. I'd like to ask you about Burma, which is known for trafficking in women, and whether or not the sanctions that have been applied -- the economic assistance sanctions and loan sanctions -- have had any effect on Burma both in the issue in regard to the trafficking of women and also to the promotion of democracy there?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I'm so glad to have a question on Burma. I not only sang at the ASEAN, but made a big point of discussing the fact that we believe that Burma's new membership in the ASEAN should be used by the ASEAN members to make sure that in fact now there is some pressure on the SLORC to move towards a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the NED the democratic party there.

She is the rightful leader. We believe that it's important for the SLORC to talk with her in order to make sure that ultimately there is some ability for an elected party -- the ones who won in 1988 -- to be able to have a voice in the governing of their country.

We have imposed our set of sanctions. We believe that it was important to do because of what it underlines and emphasizes in our approach to Burma. I have to say that at this stage, I cannot tell you specifically what effect there has been on the specific subjects that you have discussed. But I think that it was vital, essential that the United States take this position because we believe that democratically~-elected governments should be allowed to run their countries, and that there should be a dialogue between the NLD -- Aung San Suu Kyi, specifically -- and the SLORC.

Q: Another part of the world that has a seemingly intractable dispute is Northern Ireland. Could we ask you for a report from what you hear from former Senator Mitchell, who is heading the U.S. efforts to have a peace in Northern Ireland?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: We were very glad that it was possible for there to be a resumption of talks and that there has been a cease-fire. We believe fully that it is important for the peace process there to go forward and for the very important role that Senator Mitchell is playing in trying to move the process forward.

We have to see how things progress over the next weeks, looking towards the Fall and the resumption of the talks. But at this stage, I think we are encouraged by the fact that there has been a cease-fire. And we are going to be following it very carefully through Senator Mitchell, who is playing a very key role in this whole process.

Q: Madame Secretary, one more question on North Korea. Any comment on the Chinese-North Korean request for U.S. troops to withdraw from the demilitarized zone?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I know that the North Koreans have made this request. I'm not aware that the Chinese have. We are not going to do that. This is the last area Of the Cold War. I don't know how many of you have been to the demilitarized zone. It is quite a stunning place where it is very literally chilling and figuratively chilling, in terms of the fact that people are still looking at each other through binoculars, and forces are arranged on both sides. We want very much for there to be an armistice on the Korean Peninsula. We want this vestige of the Cold War to be ended, and we are obviously prepared to do what we can to support that. The four-party talks that I discussed earlier are a sign of that.

Q: We have time for just two more, but we did want to ask you, do you think that it may be time to reconsider our uneasy relations with Iran, now that the new president, who is supposed to be somewhat more moderate, has taken office there?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think that what is important for all of us, whatever country we're talking about, is that there be actions and not words alone. We have very serious problems with Iran. They sponsor terrorism. They are undercutting the Middle East peace process, and we are concerned about their acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. So we are looking for actions, and that is what we're going to base our judgement on.

MR. SAMMON: Before the final question, Secretary Albright, a certificate of appreciation and the world famous National Press Club coffee mug.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you very much. Thank you.

Q: We have a question from a number of Capitol Hill reporters and foreign reporters. What is this mysterious chemistry that exists between you and Senator Jesse Helms? (Laughter)

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: It has to remain mysterious. (Laughter) Thank you all very much.

(Applause)

(End text)