asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom abstained from voting, following the recent debates on Cyprus at the United Nations.

The United Kingdom, together with most of its EEC partners, did not vote for the General Assembly resolution on Cyprus because it was not thought to be conducive to the resumption of intercommunal negotiations. My right hon. Friend welcomes the indications that, following a great deal of diplomatic activity, in which he and I have been closely involved, and a great deal of supporting detailed work by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, these talks may well soon be resumed under the auspices of Dr. Waldheim.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cypriot territory has nothing to do with the intercommunal talks? Does he further recognise that yesterday in the House the Prime Minister announced that West Germany would open discussions with the Turkish Government to resuscitate the Turkish economy and make it possible for Turkish troops to continue their occupation of the island? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is unpre- cedented in post-war history? The United Nations has called upon a Government to withdraw occupying troops, and yet here we have four major world powers making it possible for Turkey to continue that occupation, in denial of the decision of the United Nations.

I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend will agree that the preservation and health of democracy in Turkey is of great significance to the whole Western community. In that context I am sure he will agree that it is important that the Westtern community takes seriously its economic relations with Turkey. As for the situation in Cyprus, I point out to my hon. Friend that if we want results, in terms of the withdrawal of the Turkish army, this is most likely to be found in the context of an overall settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards recent events within Namibia; and what efforts are being made by the five Western powers to achieve a peaceful settlement in that country.

The Government welcome the visit which the United Nations Secretary General's special representative is currently paying to Namibia. The five Governments hope that, following South Africa's decision to co-operate in the implementation of Security Council resolution 435, United Nations supervised elections can be held in Namibia later this year.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it appears that the South Africans and the United Nations are agreed that the next elections will be held on 30th September of this year? In those circumstances, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to do his utmost to ensure that, first, there is no delay, and, second, that there is a cease-fire and an end to acts of violence within Namibia? Is he aware that all those circumstances, in their turn, could easily prevent the successful holding of those elections? Will he do his utmost to ensure that those two essential criteria are upheld?

I agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner elections are held the better, and that the sooner a new constitution and independence come to Namibia the better. A prerequisite of that, incorporated within the proposals put forward by the five Western powers, was the necessity to have peace—and to have no violence—in the territory. We all agree that in a violent situation it would be exteremeley difficult to hold democratic elections. Peace, therefore, is absolutely essential and we shall work for it as will, I believe, the other African States surrounding Namibia.

What credence does my right hon. Friend give to assurances given by the Government of South Africa that they are interested in seeing that there should be fair elections in Namibia when they do not have the slightest intention, in their lifetime, of seeing that there are any fair elections in South Africa?

There is a difference. There is no doubt that South Africa adopts a different stance to the rights of black Namibians—indeed, even black Rhodesians to a lesser extent—than it is prepared to countenance for black South Africans. I have to deal with the situation as it is and I have to work with the South African Government. The fact is that this position is a formidable advance on the situation as it looked in August and September of last year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Opposition Benches welcome the developments that have taken place concerning Namibia? Is it not the case that all the parties involved in Namibia now agree that elections on this basis—under United Nations' auspices—should take place, and, consequently, are not the omens good?

In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), may I ask the Foreign Secretary to make sure that he uses all his influence to ensure that there is no slip back in what has been proposed? Does he agree that it is most important that the supervising forces of the United Nations should be made up of disciplined and impartial military units drawn from countries which have taken a balanced view of this situation?

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I have spent a great deal of time on this issue because I believe that it has great importance for Southern Africa generally. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the question of the composition of the force is a matter for the Secretary General. It has always been the objective of the United Nations, in any of its peace-keeping operations, to ensure that a United Nations force is broadly acceptable to all those who will be in contact with it. It can never make an absolute commitment or give a veto to any one power or country. The United Nations has reconciled all the different views in every one of its peace-keeping operations, and I am confident that Dr. Waldheim will be able to do so with Namibia.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that SWAPO will have a free and unfettered opportunity to contest these elections, without any intimidation, harassment or interference from the South African authorities?

Yes, I am. I believe that Mr. Ahtisaari, whose involvement in this issue is long-standing, will ensure—this is one of the major tasks of United Nations supervised elections—that all parties have a fair chance of putting their case and of forming the new Government of an independent Namibia. I believe that, subject to some matters that still need to be negotiated and decided, SWAPO will decide to return to Namibia and co-operate fully in the elections.

Do the five Western demarche powers in the contact group regard the number of United Nations observers as being negotiable?

I believe that this has been clarified since the Secretary General put forward his proposals. Those clarifications which we undertook in Pretoria, but most importantly those undertaken in direct discussions between Dr. Waldheim and Mr. Pik Botha, the South African Foreign Minister, and in subsequent discussions, have ensured that everyone can live with the terms of the Secretary General's report.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he remains satisfied with the progress of negotiations towards a settlement in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the Rhodesian situation.

The situation in Rhodesia is deteriorating. The number of people who have lost their lives since the internal settlement was signed increases monthly, as does the number of people emigrating. There has been an escalation of the fighting and martial law now covers 90 per cent, of the country.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make a statement on the mission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) at the end of Question Time.

Order. In view of the Foreign Secretary's reply, I wonder whether it would help hon. Members if I said that instead of calling them now I shall call them when the statement has been made by the Prime Minister. That might make greater sense. I should point out that I shall not call later those hon. Members whom I call now.

Has my right hon. Friend seen a report in the South African Financial Mail to the effect that Britain is said to have been prepared to guarantee oil supplies to South Africa in return for South Africa's co-operation in dealing with Rhodesia? Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's oft-repeated statement that in our dealings with South Africa there would be no trade-off agreements, may I ask him emphatically to deny that report?

There is no question of Britain supplying oil to South Africa. As for a trade-off, I have always believed that the issues of Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa will have to be dealt with in different compartments. There is a certain linkage—it would be foolish to deny that—but I do not believe that we should trade off one against the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what diplomatic purpose he is seeking to advance in agreeing to the sale of military equipment to China.

As I have made clear on previous occasions, our aim is to develop a balanced relationship with China covering the political, trade, economic, scientific, technological and cultural fields. We see the sale of some defensive equipment as a natural part of this relationship.

Does my right hon. Friend take a similar view of the Soviet Union? If he does, may I ask whether he will sell Harriers to the Soviet Union, too?

There are major differences. The Soviet Union, in alliance with other countries, is part of a military pact—the Warsaw Pact—whose stated objectives are contrary to the national interests of this country and to which we have felt it necessary over the years—

Harriers are "defensive", not offensive.

Whether it be offensive or defensive, we do not sell weapons to people in organisations which threaten the security of our country and that of our closest allies.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that close relations between the West and China are not only consistent with detente but might encourage the Soviet Union to give some meaning to detente?

I have always believed that there is a difficult and complicated balance to strike between having good, constructive relations on detente with the Soviet Union and, on the other hand, not rebuffing China but trying to bring it more into the international world. I include in that aim a constructive dialogue with China about detente and disarmament, which I believe is in the interests of the Soviet Union.

Now that the Government have taken a decision on the sale of these aircraft to China, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is able to tell the House roughly what proportion of the overall trade package which the Government hope to negotiate in February will be arms equipment?

The negotiations are still taking place and will he carried further when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry visits China next month. There is still a lot of detail to be gone into.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what representations have been received on this issue from the Soviet Union and what reply has been sent? Have the Government made it clear that pressure from this source on this subject is unwelcome and will be firmly resisted?

What the Government have done in reply to representations from President Brezhnev is to make clear how we see this issue. How we see it and explain it in private letters to the Soviet Union is exactly the same as we are explaining it to the House. There is no difference. I believe that it is reasonable for people to make their views felt. I do not believe that it is reasonable for any country to accept the right of another country to dictate its foreign policy. Obviously we shall not accept that.

We shall listen to the views of others, even if we disagree with them, and we shall put our view constructively within the relationship, which we have made clear we wish to maintain, of good constructive relations with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union must recognise that detente is not a one-sided track and that it, too, has responsibilities. It ought to look at the policy of detente and at some of its actions around the world, in South-East Asia and Africa as well as in Europe.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread disappointment in the country over the Government's decision, yet again, to sell an advanced weapons system to a poverty-stricken nation in the Third World? Is he further aware that this policy contradicts both the spirit and the substance of the magnificent and encouraging speech made by the Prime Minister to the disarmament session of the United Nations?

The whole question of arms sales raises difficult issues. It would be absurd to believe that there are not occasions when selling arms buttresses and strengthens a country and can contribute to detente, to a country's security and to that country being able to feel that it can play a greater part in the world community and in world disarmament talks. A blanket ban on all arms sales would be detrimental to the cause of disarmament and arms control, which I know my hon. Friend holds dear.

Is it not the case that these arms sales maintain, or help to maintain, a more adequate balance of power between China and the Soviet Union? Is this not desirable, given the fact that China, so far as we know, is not attacking Western interests in other parts of the world, whereas the Soviet Union—whatever it might be saying about detente—is definitely doing so, not least in Southern Africa?

One should not look at these arms sales as changing the balance of power one way or the other. One reason why one is wary of offensive arms sales is that they affect the balance of power. There are dangers in trying to, manipulate the balance of power and to determine matters in that way. If we examine the issue on its merits we should recognise that when we are requested to supply arms, in the way that has happened on a number of issues, we should bear in mind that to refuse to do so is also an act of policy which will have certain consequences, some of which I believe would be adverse.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider withdrawing the question relating to a spouse's former marriage in the passport application form if a previous passport is being surrendered without any change of name.

Yes, Sir. This year's reprint of passport application forms will indicate that a United Kingdom-born woman surrendering a standard passport in her present name need no longer give details of a former marriage unless her application includes particulars of a child born outside the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that this Question follows correspondence which I have had with him involving a constituent to whom distress has been caused? How widespread is this problem, and will he confirm that this is another example of bureaucratic nonsense that tends to linger on? How many more examples has he up his sleeve?

I recall our correspondence very well. The hon. Gentleman should be gratified that, as a result of the correspondence, I have changed the regulations in the way he suggests in his Question. I do not think this has been a widespread problem, but there has been a slight difficulty, which will no longer exist.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty with verification since the speeches on the issue by British representatives at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in the summer.

The tripartite negotiations have continued to make progress towards a properly verifiable treaty. Many of the major issues have been resolved. The negotiations resume on 29th January, and the United Kingdom for its part sees no reason why outstanding issues should not be quickly settled.

Since both sides have now agreed on verification by black box monitors in each territory, why is the United States still stalling? Following the splendid speeches that were delivered in New York on this subject, should not Britain take the initiative, either by abandoning further tests, or at least by making specific proposals at the Geneva meeting to break the deadlock?

There are specific proposals on the table dealing with verification. There is a recognition that one can overcome some of the problems by having seismic devices. The siting of such devices, how many and the exact arrangements for them have still to be finally negotiated. However, a great deal of progress has been made.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in recognising the demands for world peace it might be a good idea, as hinted at by the Prime Minister yesterday, for meetings at Foreign Minister level to be promoted more often? Will he endeavour to see that such meetings with his colleagues across the world are promoted?

I believe that it is helpful for these issues to be raised more frequently at a political level. The United Nations special session was helpful in enabling Prime Ministers and Presidents of States to make commitments on behalf of their countries. I am a long-standing believer in the fact that the MBFR discussions in Vienna, which have become increasingly bogged down, need to be raised to a political level. I also see advantage in the follow-up conference to the Helsinki accords in Madrid at Foreign Minister level.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the most recent SALT talks between the President of the United States and Premier Brezhnev have had any bearing on his thinking on this subject?

I believe that it is fully compatible to have a SALT agreement limiting strategic arms and also to pursue a comprehensive test ban. What one is after in a comprehensive test ban is to try to persuade those countries which are on the threshold of becoming nuclear States not to cross that threshold. They wish to be convinced that the nuclear weapon States are themselves contributing to disarmament and that it is not merely a one-way process. We should not always ask the non-nuclear weapon States to exercise restraint while we, the nuclear weapon States, continue to test an increasingly sophisticated range of weapon systems.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire on 30th November, any firm arrangements have yet been made for a visit by the Commander-in-Chief of the Argentine Air Force.

We have now heard that this visit will not be taking place.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. But since the main purpose of any such visit, or proposed visit, would be to buy arms, may we have a categorical assurance that no such visit will take place in the foreseeable future by any member of the armed forces of Argentina, bearing in mind the possibility that those arms will be used to escalate the level of violence throughout South America and to increase and continue the reign of terror and the mass violation of human rights in Argentina itself?

I cannot give such a categorical assurance, because there is no general ban on the sale of arms to Argentina. Individual sales are dealt with under the criteria—be they political, security or financial—that we apply to sales of this kind.

What are the different human rights considerations in the mind of Her Majesty's Government which allow them to decide that it is possible to sell arms to Argentina but not to Chile?

During the last election the Labour Party made a firm political commitment that it would operate an arms embargo on Chile in the light of all the circumstances of the way in which the junta came to power and the way in which it has behaved in an abominable sense since.

Bearing in mind that 30,000 citizens of Jewish origin were allowed out of the Soviet Union and that nobody is allowed out of China, does my hon. Friend agree that China is a more repressive State than the Soviet Union? How does this tie in with the decision—

Order. It is a long way from the Argentine to China, and it is not connected with the original Question.

Is not this attitude typical of the unconstructive attitude of Her Majesty's Government in foreign affairs? Would it not be very much better to negotiate arms deals with the Argentine—because it has to get arms from somewhere—to the benefit of British employment and technology, and at the same time incorporate appropriate negotiations to secure the safety of the Falkland Islands?

The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my reply. I said that there was no general arms ban on the sale of arms to Argentina.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Bucharest.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent visit of President Ceaucescu to this country and the recent ministerial visits to Bucharest from this country have helped to contribute to good relations between Britain and Romania? Will he pay tribute to the sturdy independence of Romanian foreign policy?

I agree that our relations with Romania are excellent. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the relationship of Romania to her neighbours or the Warsaw Pact countries, but Her Majesty's Government fully welcome and support the right of every nation to hold its own views on matters of international concern and to express them freely and independently.

If my hon. Friend intends to write to the Romanian Government to congratulate them on their decision not to increase their arms expenditure, would it not be hypocritical if at the same time he enclosed some sales literature on the Harrier aircraft, since the Romanians might be coming into the category of a nation that could buy it?

I have no intention of addressing such a letter to the Romanian Government at present. If I do so, I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest proposals on the future of Belize.

I refer the hon. Member to the account of our proposals I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on 29th November and to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) on 14th December. Our proposals remain on the table and we intend to continue the negotiations.

In these discussions, will the Minister do nothing to damage the territorial integrity of this small country unless he has the full backing of the people of Belize? Some of us are anxious that the pressure from Guatemala might make the Government change their mind.

The commitment has been clear, namely, that no decision, arrangement or settlement can be made which is unacceptable to the people of Belize.

What consultations have taken place with the United States about its continuing supply of arms to Guatemala and its training of personnel in that country in order to threaten Belize?

We have regular discussions with the United States on such issues. Indeed, I had such discussions only last week. As I understand it, the United States is not selling any new arms or equipment to Guatemala.

Is it the case that Guatemala has not as yet rejected the proposals recently put forward about Belize by the British Government? If it has rejected those proposals, what progress, if any, has been made on the proposal put forward at the Commonwealth Heads of State meeting at Kingston, which was that there should be a Commonwealth defence contribution to Belize?

In his broadcast to the Guatemalan people the Guatemalan Foreign Minister said that he rejected our proposals. However, he left the way open for further negotiations. We intend to pursue the possibility of further negotiations. The door has not been closed on the negotiations. The other considerations which the hon. Gentleman mentioned do not come into play at this moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the extent to which those provisions of the Helsinki Agreement relating to freedom of religion have been observed by the signatory States during the last year.

These provisions have been observed satisfactorily by most signatory States, but during the past year serious difficulties continued to be encountered by religios believers in the Soviet Union and in certain East European countries.

Does the Minister recognise that priority is given in the principles of the Helsinki Agreement to freedom of religion and that that is a matter of great concern to many British people? What steps are being taken to monitor these aspects of the Final Act? Will the observance of religious freedom be given sufficient priority at the next review conference in Madrid?

We try to monitor the observance of this issue and all other aspects of the Helsinki Agreement. All human rights aspects of the Helsinki Agreement will be carefully discussed and examined at the next conference in Madrid in a year or two's time. According to our present information there is restriction because the number of places open for worship to religious believers remains artificially limited. There is discrimination and pressure against believers and their families, and the supply of religious literature remains inadequate.

Is my hon. Friend aware that of late there has been a welcome increase in the number of people of the Jewish faith who have been permitted to leave the Soviet Union? In the circumstances, will he prevail on the Soviet authorities to release Professor Alexander Lerner and those who have been held at home or in exile, such as Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak, who have been waiting for a long time to leave and who are held in Russia, totally contrary to the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act?

I am aware that there has been a welcome increase in the number of Jews allowed to leave the Soviet Union in the past year or so. We hope and trust that that trend will continue. It is not normally open to us to raise the cases of individual Jews who are not our own nationals, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend and all organisations that are concerned about this matter will continue to stress the importance of particular individuals being allowed to leave.

Is every opportunity taken by Ministers and by Her Majesty's missions in the countries concerned to draw to the attention of the Governments there the concern felt by the British people for the free practice of religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish Moslem or any other, and the effect that this has on relations and good feelings between the peoples?

The House knows that Ministers consistently express their concern about human rights in the Soviet Union, both in public, as in the House, and sometimes when we meet our Soviet opposite numbers. I shall try to ensure that this aspect is raised on suitable occasions.

Is the Minister aware that one Christian leader, Pastor Vins, has suffered serious persecution under the Soviet regime? Is he aware that action has been taken against his family, and that his son has been charged and is in prison? Will he make it clear to the Soviet authorities that believers in Britain are greatly alarmed, especially about the Vins family being picked out for such treatment?

I hope that the Soviet Government are very much aware of the deep concern that is felt among all sections of the British people and in the House about such restrictions on religion. I hope that the Soviet Embassy in Britain will report the hon. Gentleman's remarks to its Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the Middle East situation.

We continue to support negotiations aimed at building on the Camp David accords and widening these out into a comprehensive peace settlement.

As the new Government in Iran have made it plain that they do not intend to continue the Shah's role of policing the Persian Gulf, will the right hon. Gentleman say what discussions are being held with the United States and our other allies about providing some military protection for our friends and interests in that vital area?

I do not think that stability in that area will come from outside Western military interference. It is important for close contact to be established between the countries surrounding the Gulf, many of which have a strong commitment to the Muslim faith. That may well be found to be a binding and not a divisive influence.

There has been Western support for the Shah, and President Carter has ordered a review of American Intelligence to understand why he was not forewarned about lack of support for the Shah. Have we done the same with the British Foreign Office?

No. I do not feel that I was not forewarned. It was always difficult to determine whether the form of government that had been established by the Shah was to survive. It was well known that there were considerable criticisms. I do not think that we lacked Intelligence. The mistake that may have been made was to underestimate the cohesiveness of the various elements that agreed on the one issue, although often differing on other matters, that the Shah should not remain as monarch. That is a matter of judgment rather than Intelligence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only a comprehensive settlement will bring peace to the Middle East? What steps are the Government taking, in co-operation with our European partners, to ensure that the Camp David agreement is not confined to a separate peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, with all the potential dangers, but is linked and extended in a comprehensive manner to bring about an overall settlement.

The issues that have delayed a signature to the Camp David agreement relate almost exclusively to trying to ensure that it is not a purely bilateral agreement but an agreement set firmly in the context of a comprehensive peace settlement. If the issues that are still dividing the parties can be resolved we shall have laid the foundation on which we may go on to widen the agreement into a comprehensive peace settlement. The essence of the problem is still the West Bank and Gaza.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that he was adequately forewarned of the likely turn of events in Iran by lion. Members and by those inside his party who advised him that his course was ill-advised? Is it not a fact that by rejecting that advice he has lumbered himself with a large number of military orders that may never be fulfilled and put himself in the worst possible position from which to establish friendly relations with a more enlightened regime in Iran?

I do not dissent from the fact that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Friends made me fully aware of their point of view. It is a matter of judgment. With the benefit of hindsight it appears extremely easy. However, with the benefit of hindsight—

No, foresight.

Even with the enlightened foresight for which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is famed—there was still a fundamental issue. Did we withdraw support? Did we try to change the situation in Iran? We chose to stick with the status quo during a delicate and difficult period. When we look to the future and to relations with the future Government, I do not believe that that will stand against us. When we form relationships with Governments, I believe that they judge us, broadly speaking, on whether we float around on the waves and tides of circumstance or whether there is a certain solidarity. I do not believe that we should interfere with the Iranian people's decision, and we have never sought to do so. What we supported at one stage was the status quo, and I am not certain that that was so wrong.

Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman was taken by surprise, does he agree that it is a major British interest for us to maintain good relations with Iran? This is a difficult time for the people of Iran, and it is important that we should maintain good relations with them. Will he indicate to the House what steps he is taking in that regard? I am sure he will agree that events there have had their effect on the rest of the Middle East. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be rather surprised by the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). Is it not now a major interest of ours to do what we can to maintain stability in the Gulf? How that is to be done is a matter for argument, of course, but the need for it, and the risk that the area may not remain stable, clearly exists. It is important for us to do everything that we can to bring about stability.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to military involvement. I do not think that that is necessarily the best way of achieving stability. Some would argue that that is one of the lessons to be learnt from Iran. There is a strong argument that in trying to tilt the balance too much by military sales in any one region there is a risk of putting in an unstable factor. It is an important objective of this country to have good relations with Iran, whatever Government the people of Iran decide to choose. We have long supported democratic elections, and we hope that the civilian Government will be able to bring about democratic elections. But the choice of the Government is for the people of Iran, and at this stage I do not think that it would help for us to try to choose or to indicate which way the Iranian people should go.