TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN AT UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS ON 16 JULY

Press Release
SG/SM/6285

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN AT UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS ON 16 JULY

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that when I first took over as Secretary- General, at one of the early press conferences, you asked me if, as an insider, I could reform the Organization, and I think my answer was an emphatic "yes". Some of you believed me, others did not, and some took it on faith. I thank you all, particularly those who took it on faith.

I think today we have some answers, and you can judge our record. We have a record to talk about. The first time I did not, and you really did not know how to assess my statement that we can reform.

You heard my speech in the General Assembly earlier today, and you have seen the report and, I believe, also the press release. Today, we are launching a quiet revolution at the United Nations, and, as I said, we want to make the United Nations "reform-friendly", we want to accept change as an ongoing process, and I am pleased to say that I have had the support of the staff and the Member States and individuals within and without who have done serious work on the United Nations.

My reforms are intended to create a United Nations that embodies unity of purpose, coherence of efforts and the agility and ability to meet the mounting challenges of the nations and peoples of the world; a United Nations that is leaner and more cost-effective; a United Nations that is committed to solvency, that is better coordinated and more accountable; a United Nations staff that is committed to excellence while serving the world with pride; and a United Nations that is positioned to take on the new challenges and the global challenges as we move into the twenty-first century.

As you have heard me this morning, I do not think I should make a long speech. I will take your questions now.

RAGHIDA DERGHAM, President of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA): Thank you for making time to meet with the United Nations Correspondents Association. You have probably not had a great deal of feedback yet from the Member States, but some are saying that there is "not too much beef" in this, that there is a lot of layering -— once again layering the United Nations rather than restructuring and reforming -— and that the "quiet revolution", as you call it, from our point of view here in the press, has really not touched the media in relation to information as a priority in the new culture of the United Nations. How do you respond to this?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Let me say that, when one looks at the report and looks at it carefully, there is no layering: we are restructuring the way this place is run, and grouping our key efforts around the four key areas -— the four core activities -— and if you add human rights, it is five. We are requiring the managers in those sectors to come together, to work together, to pool their efforts, to have greater impact on the ground. We are, for the

- 2 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

first time in this Organization, offering a management group that will work like a cabinet. It is something we have never had before.

I am suggesting that an organization that is global and diverse, that has so many activities going, needs a Deputy Secretary-General. This is an issue we have discussed for 50 years, and I am glad we are doing it. I do not think that is layering.

I think the proposals are bold, but they are not suicidal. This is an exercise that required a keen sense of judgement, timing and understanding of the Organization, understanding of how the place works, and understanding of how one can get reforms done in the United Nations.

I consider it bold; others may not. But when you take the package together and you analyse it and read the document simply and sincerely, you cannot help but agree with me that it is ambitious, it is far-reaching, and it is perhaps the most extensive reform proposal this Organization has ever gone through.

When somebody asked me, "But can't you really be bold and get out there?", I told them that this reminded me of a story I had heard, where a bull was lying on the tracks and the train was coming at it. The engineer kept blowing the horn, but the bull would not move. Finally, the bull got upset and charged the train. And you know the result. Somebody was standing nearby and looked at the bull, and said, "I admire your courage, but I can't say the same about your judgement." I think that there is a bit of this in this exercise.

QUESTION: Can you explain how the development fund you proposed is going to work? The people in Latin America, for example, have the experience of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in which some operations are more expensive than going straight to the bank.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I do not know how UNDP operates in Latin America, but I hope it does not operate like a bank -— you are now comparing the rates of UNDP with a bank's. When you indicate that UNDP is more expensive than the banks, I begin to worry. But here is what we intend to do: there are two funds we are talking about here. One is the "development dividend", whereby we will apply savings from administrative overhead to economic and social activities. The estimates are that between now and the year 2002 we will be able to squeeze up to $200 million out of administrative overheads for economic and social activities.

The other fund we have talked about is that, given the demands on the Organization and the need to work with Member States to alleviate poverty, we need to come up with creative means of raising funds, mobilizing additional resources, to help governments and to let the United Nations do what it would

- 3 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

like to do and what the Member States expect of it. It is for that purpose that we are setting up a Development Finance Office, which will be under the Deputy Secretary-General, to mobilize resources for economic development.

QUESTION: Could you give us an idea of how quickly some of these things can be put in place, or are already being put in place, and in particular how you might try to move the Assembly on appointing a Deputy, and then when you might appoint an emergency relief coordinator? Will these cabinet sessions begin now? How often? Will this be a regularized thing? In other words, how soon, and how will it work?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: On the question of the Deputy Secretary-General, I need the approval of the General Assembly. The General Assembly will take it up at its next session, and I would hope that I will have the approval of the membership fairly early in the session. I would hope that we will have decisions on the package by the end of November, so that we can give them the budgetary implications -— for them to approve the package we need to do a revised budget for them. And we will begin implementing those decisions which require governmental decisions in January.

But there are lots of initiatives that I started earlier in the year which are ongoing. There are certain things in the proposals which we can also move ahead immediately because they come under my authority.

On the question of the humanitarian coordinator, I think we can begin redistributing the tasks of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, assigning the operational activities to other operational units. Ideally, I would prefer to have a new coordinator in place to work with me in doing this, and I think I will not wait for too long before we make some of these changes.

On the question of the management group, the cabinet, I would hope that we can start. We are meeting a lot. Since I came into office, we have established a Policy Coordination Group, where fortnightly I bring the managers and heads of programmes and funds together, and we meet. That will continue. And I meet with my senior officials in smaller groups and individually, and we will continue. We can begin that: it does not need General Assembly approval, so I will start that straight away.

QUESTION: I was wondering: at a time when several nations, particularly the United States, have been seeming to seek cuts in what the United Nations does, do you think that there is sufficient international support for the new department that you are proposing for disarmament affairs and arms regulation?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Yes. I think disarmament is one of the crucial issues facing the world today. I am not dealing only with issues of weapons of mass destruction, but we will also be dealing with arms regulation, and we

- 4 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

will need to be able to track the movement of lethal weapons, which these days get into hands which most of us would be worried about when we knew who those individuals were. We should also be able to track the movement of the small arms and the kinds of weapons that have really caused havoc in the Great Lakes region of Africa, in Albania and in other places around the world. We should also be able to work with governments to develop the political will for the banning of land-mines, for example. I think the United Nations should have a strong focal point that will work with Member States and move them in the right direction to tackle some of these disarmament issues.

I think the support will be there, I think it should be there, and I would be disappointed if it were not.

QUESTION: What kind of effective measures will you take to ensure your reform work goes smoothly? My second question is: Do you have any agenda for the reform of the Security Council?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think the effective measures that one needs to ensure that the reform is implemented effectively have already started. I started right from the beginning consulting the Member States, informing the staff and carrying the Member States with me. They have been associated; we have informed them; and I hope, now that the report is before them, once the report is approved, it is not Kofi Annan's report for reform; it is not the Secretariat's proposals for reform; I hope it will become our programme for reform and all of us -— the Member States, the Secretariat, the staff -— will move forward energetically to implement it. And so I think the basic work and the basic effort to move the reform forward has already begun.

With regard to the Security Council, I say very little in the report because the issue is firmly in the hands of the Member States and I am leaving it to them.

QUESTION: Going back to the question of disarmament, I understand the politics of it, but I wanted to know about the bureaucratic rationale. Why have you decided to recreate disarmament again as a department after it had been downgraded? And also, do you have a candidate in mind as Under- Secretary-General for this office?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think it was a mistake to have downgraded disarmament. I think disarmament is one of the crucial issues of our day and I am correcting that mistake. I think we have in the past sometimes been stampeded into making cuts to demonstrate that we are reforming. I think it is functions and tasks which should determine the type of people we have in senior positions to handle these issues. It is the importance and the complexity of the issue that should determine whom we bring in at the senior level to do our task. And I think disarmament is one of those issues, and I hope you agree with me.

- 5 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

QUESTION: And the candidate?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I am not prepared to discuss a candidate yet, but there are some very, very good candidates out there and you will hear about them soon.

QUESTION: One of the people who is likely to think that you have been too bold is probably Carol Bellamy [Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)]. How do you see this working out with her very strong public position on this?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think Ms. Bellamy and all my senior colleagues are on board. I think it was healthy and it was right that they spoke out and debated the issues when we were discussing options. But once the options were put to me and I took decisions, that was it. Everybody is on board, including Ms. Bellamy, and, as I have indicated, what I am doing is getting these programmes and funds and United Nations entities to pool their efforts to have greater impact. And by pooling efforts, we can also save some money.

I have also made it clear that you can pool your efforts without losing your identity or without losing your ability to raise money, go directly to your constituents. And, in fact, in discussing with some other colleagues in Geneva, I used the analogy of a team. I want us to be a team, I want us to work as a team, but I am not talking of a rowing team, for example, where you all have to do the same thing, or an army, where you march in lock step. I am talking of a team like soccer, where you play as a team, but there is room for individual brilliance, individual expression and for entities to do what they do best.

And if I may, I want to add something else. I know in this Organization, we are often worried about conflict. We go around believing that conflict must be avoided at all costs. I do not share that view. I am not a confrontational person, but I am not one of those who avoids conflicts. I think sometimes conflicts and open and serious discussions are healthy. They bring issues to the fore so that you can factor them into your decisions and reform process. And I think what happened was a very healthy one, rather than people keeping quiet and undermining the process later. And so I really admire the courage of my colleagues.

As I said, we met on Monday. They are aware of the decisions, and everybody is firmly on board. It is our plan for reform and you will hear them and you will see them pushing for it.

QUESTION: You are proposing the creation of a revolving fund of $1 billion to resolve the problem of cash flow. Could you be more explicit about it? Does it mean that you do not expect the Americans to pay their dues, finally?

- 6 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Oh! no, not at all. I expect Washington and every Member State to pay its dues. I think our rules are very clear. The only way this Organization is funded is through assessed contributions and Member States under our rules are expected to pay their dues 30 minutes upon receiving the bill. And if each Member State paid its dues in full and on time, we would never be talking of a financial crisis. Unfortunately, that has not happened. As we speak, of the 185 Member States, only 75 who are paid up.

In the past, suggestions that have been made for sanctions or incentives to induce Member States to pay have been turned down by the membership. We are also aware that the only sanction we have does not work, that if you are two years in arrears, under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, you lose your vote. But, if I owe $50 million, two years of arrears, I can make a token payment to stay under that ceiling. I wish we had a mechanism where Member States who get to that ceiling are required to clear the totality or at least half of it, before they get their vote back, thus not being allowed to circumnavigate the provision that, if you are two years in arrears, you lose your vote.

In the past few years, we have survived by borrowing from peace-keeping. Peace-keeping operations have decreased and so the facility, the ability to borrow from peace-keeping funds, is no longer there. If the Member States continue to maintain this habit, this lack of discipline of not paying their dues on time, we can get into a very serious cash-flow situation. This is why we have suggested a revolving fund of up to $1 billion and I have also challenged the Member States to come up with better ideas. They may not agree to the $1 billion. They may think there are better ways and we are not claiming any monopoly over brilliant ideas. And so we are open, but we do have a problem and they know it and we cannot face very, very serious cash- flow problems that might have dire consequences on the Organization. That is why we have made that proposal.

QUESTION: On the question of peace-keeping and peace-keeping reform, one of the ideas that was notably absent in the report -— some of the most dramatic ideas, such as a standing army and other more radical ideas that have been proposed over recent years. Is that sort of thinking being effectively dropped from your agenda? Is that one of those things that a properly cautious bull should now avoid? Where do you see the peace-keeping coming out over the next ... ?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: No, I think we did consider the issue of a standing army. You know, it has been around for a long time, but in the past few years we have been working very closely and constructively with Member States to develop the capability to deploy troops much more rapidly than we are able to do today.

- 7 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

For example, the Danish Government has created a 5,000-man brigade for international service. That unit can deploy headquarters staff offices within 48 hours if they decide to participate in an operation, and the main body can move in two to three weeks, compared with the three to four months we take at the United Nations to deploy. We are working with other Member States to go that route so that we can have stand-by capacities at home. These units can move fairly quickly and help the United Nations solve the problem of rapidity of deployment.

I think there are issues connected with a standing United Nations army. Here, the last question I was dealing with was the financial crisis and financial difficulties. It poses immediate budgetary issues. It poses legal issues; where do you station them? Under which jurisdiction do they come? So there are lots of issues connected with the establishment of a standing United Nations army that, given the situation we are in, I did not think it was appropriate to pursue.

QUESTION: Considering, as you said, that peace-keeping has gone considerably down in the last year, how important do you think peace-keeping is, or should be, or should it move into a different sort of dimension?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: It has always been understood that peace-keeping would go through peaks and troughs. It has now decreased, but it is not going to stay there. In fact, when you look at the figures, you will realize that United Nations peace-keeping has decreased. "Blue Helmets" under the United Nations flag have decreased. But at the same time, up until a year ago you had 60,000 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Implementation Force (IFOR) forces in Bosnia. Today there are around 35,000. You have about 18,000 Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) troops in Georgia and Tajikistan. You have the Economic Community of West African States' Monitoring Observer Group (ECOMOG) troops in Liberia. When you add it all up, peace-keeping has not decreased; it has diversified. But peace-keeping under the United Nations flag has gone down.

We also have to realize that some of the units, entities, CIS and NATO, cannot operate outside their region, and so if there are major crises that the international community believes something has to be done, they are more likely to turn to the United Nations than to NATO or the CIS. So we are in a trough, but we could go up again, and this is why we should take advantage of this lull to consolidate, to build on the gains we have made, to be ready when the time comes.

QUESTION (interpretation from French): Could you tell us about your expectations vis-à-vis Washington and Washington's financial contribution? What do you expect, now that you have put forward your reforms? Could you elaborate on that?

- 8 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

SECRETARY-GENERAL (interpretation from French): Well, I hope that Washington will pay up. They have already proposed to pay up $819 million. I think that now they should realize that we are serious and that the United Nations is undergoing a reform process. Member States have been asking for reform, and I think that it is quite clear that we are in the process of doing what we promised, and I hope that they will do their part.

QUESTION: To return to the billion-dollar revolving fund, the two questions about it are, one, do you have any indication that any governments will be willing to contribute towards this in advance, and secondly, the grinches on Capitol Hill, who keep trying to steal United Nations funds -— every previous move to diminish the leverage over United Nations funds has been vigorously resisted. Do you anticipate that the next finance bill will have yet another clause making any payments conditional on not having a revolving fund, since they are obviously clear what the intention is?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Let me say that, as far as pledges by Member States, we have no pledges yet, but we are going to start talking to supportive and friendly Member States who believe in this Organization, and I expect that they will be helpful.

I would also want to say that the purpose of the fund, as I have explained, is to help the United Nations. My report is also directed at the Member States, and there are 185 of them. I know that you keep pulling me back to the Congress, to the Hill and to Washington. I know they are interested in the report, but my report is to the Member States. I know there are people in Washington who would want to see a much stricter and much deeper cut, who have also in some ways made certain conditions -— or, in some instances, even threats.

But I am also in touch with a large number of the Member States, both here and throughout my travels, and I am not sure that our friends -— well, I do not know if friends is the word -— that some of the people on the Hill who are so strong against the United Nations and come with these conditions and really make these demands on the other 184 States, realize the impact of their actions. In my contacts and observations with the Member States, I can tell you that my assessment is that these unilateral demands do not impress, they do not intimidate; in fact, they offend.

QUESTION: In the light of what you have just said, you are obviously hoping that all the Members will take your report home with them, study it and come back in September in a very cooperative mood. But I suggest that particularly the United States, especially the Congress, is likely to be a problem for you. And other Members have criticized what the United States is doing, but this seems to be a very difficult job of (inaudible). Now how do you intend to reconcile the differing views and get moving on the reform programmes?

- 9 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Let me say that I took office promising reform, and I have followed through. I have done my part, at least up to this stage. I think that Member States will also have to do their part, and I hope they can find ways of working together to work to move reform forward. They have all agreed with me that the United Nations needs reform and that if we do not reform and make the United Nations more effective and able to tackle the challenges ahead, the United Nations may lose its relevance.

The final point I would want to make that you all keep asking me, "What are you going to say to Washington? What is Washington explaining to you?" In the final analysis, I think I have said where I stand, and you know where I stand on these issues. In the final analysis, the United States does not owe me an explanation. It owes an explanation to the other Member States, and there are 184 of them. Quite possibly, I will offer suggestions and proposals that may facilitate transactions among Member States. But the responsibility is theirs; it is between them. And the last time we spoke, when you asked me if the conditions would be acceptable to the Member States, I said it was a challenge for United States diplomacy, because it is the United States that has to go and explain and sell it to the other 184 Member States.

QUESTION: What kind of person would be a good Deputy-Secretary-General for you? Is it someone who will possibly threaten to keep you out of the loop, is it someone who is going to cut the ribbons, is it going to be the former Prime Minister of Norway? Who do you want, and what kind of person is it going to be?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I want the most competent candidate possible, and I think you have also judged by the appointments I have made that I am determined not only to reform the United Nations but to give it effective leadership. I have demonstrated that I am seeking competence, I am seeking people who can bring excellence to the Organization, people who can provide leadership and people who can assume responsibility and inspire others. And it is that kind of person that I am looking for, and I think the appointments I have made so far give you an idea of the standards I have set.

QUESTION: United States Senator Jesse Helms proposed to abolish United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). May I have your comments, please?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: For those of you who did not hear the question, he said that Senator Jesse Helms proposed to abolish UNMOGIP, and what is my comment on that. I think the proposal was not as direct as that. I think the proposal was that UNMOGIP and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) should not be funded from the regular budget, which implies that, if the Member States were to accept, it would either have to be shifted to the peace-keeping budget and the peace-keeping assessment agreed upon by the Member States. And if that were not to be agreed upon and it were

- 10 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

not to be funded by the regular budget, then of course UNMOGIP would be in trouble.

My own view is that UNMOGIP and UNTSO have played a very useful role. I think there are very useful signs in the Pakistani talks. The two Prime Ministers are determined to make progress and you have heard me applaud their efforts, and I do not think this is the time to interfere with the arrangements which exist today.

QUESTION: Two of the issues that have been discussed at the United Nations conferences have been gender concerns and sustainable development. How do your proposals impact on those two areas institutionally?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that is part of the reform that we have introduced in the economic and social areas and in the developmental areas. This is an area where we have indicated we are going to switch resources and we are going to raise additional funds. All our agencies are engaged on the ground in those areas and we intend to strengthen those programmes.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, one of the problems that other past Secretaries-General have had was how to operate under Article 99 of the Charter. How are you going to be able to operate under this Article? Are you going to be ...

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Can you be more specific?

QUESTION: Article 99 of the Charter only gives you authorization to address yourself to the Security Council. That is the only article in the Charter former Secretaries-General, like Secretary-General U Thant, used to refer to your job as a glorified clerk. Are you going to ask that your mandate [inaudible] so you can do something about it?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: No. I see the job as much broader than that, and I think in the last six months I have already demonstrated that. I think the Secretary-General can refer issues to the Security Council, but the Secretary- General can bring issues to the attention of the General Assembly. The Secretary-General can take initiatives under his good offices. The Secretary- General can intervene and mediate whenever and wherever he considers this helpful. So the job is administrative; it's political; it's diplomatic; it's good offices; and it's very broad and it's very wide. I do not see that kind of limitation to the job and I certainly do not feel it.

QUESTION: It seems as though the reforms today ... that "track one" and "track two" have largely been structural and cultural. I am wondering when we are going to see some programme reforms. It seems as though a lot of this has been delayed or put off to the Member States, and I am wondering when we can see some response to that. And, also, whether there were no programmes or

- 11 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

departments or projects within the United Nations at all that you wanted to see cut, by name.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: No. In fact, when you read the report, there has been quite a lot of consolidation and cuts and elimination. Apart from the three economic departments which were consolidated into one, there are expert groups, commissions and others which have been consolidated. About 10 of them have been consolidated into three in the management area. [Under-Secretary- General for Administration and Management] Mr. Connor and his team have almost 600 efficiency projects going, and that has led to lots of cut and lots of elimination.

Perhaps what I should do is, some time in the course of this week or the next, really have Mr. Connor and his team take you through the details and some of the cuts and the serious eliminations that we have made in other areas. And in the General Assembly area -— where there are 168 agenda items on the General Assembly programme -— we are asking them to review their agenda, to try and group the 168 agenda items around the eight main priority areas designated under the medium-term plan and to adopt a theme about two years ahead where we can prepare documents and, during the high-level segment, have a serious discussion on them. We even go further and say that if the General Assembly were to simplify and restructure its programme that way, it ought to be possible to reduce the General Assembly by three weeks.

We have those kinds of things in the report. But I know you just got it and you have not had time to study it.

QUESTION: Just to rephrase the question, perhaps. In terms of the focus of the United Nations, it seems as though certain things are being emphasized in terms of development, for example. But I am wondering if there are any specific agencies or departments that you would like to see "sunsetted" or abolished, anything by name, perhaps.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think, on the agencies, I do not have any direct authority over them. It is up to the Member States. And I do make a recommendation in the report that maybe the time has come for us to take a fundamental look at the agencies, what they do and what changes are required. And I have offered that I would also discuss this with the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) and work with the Member States to do it. But I am limiting myself at this stage to the United Nations proper -— the Secretariat, the programmes and the funds -— and I am not getting involved with the other agencies for which I have not direct responsibility.

QUESTION: How will your reform packet enhance the social and economic functions of the United Nations, considering that these have been an area of concern to developing countries in general and African countries in particular?

- 12 - Press Release SG/SM/6285 16 July 1997

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that is one area where what we've done, in a way, is a quiet revolution. We have consolidated policy groups and organizations at Headquarters. We are moving into the field stressing that all the United Nations entities must work as a team under a team leader -— the representative of the Secretary-General -— that they should pool their efforts and operate as a team and work with the Government on their national plan, and then determine which agency carries out which portion of the plan. This is a major revolution, and we are hoping to be able to get this structure in almost all the 134 countries in which we are operating. And I've also indicated the funds we've set up to try and give the economic and social areas additional resources.

The other interesting thing here is that several multilateral agencies and Governments have assured me that if the United Nations were to structure itself properly and effectively at the country level, they would much rather channel their funds through the United Nations rather than go to these countries trying to establish offices with all the complications. And so if we are able to gain the credibility that I'm seeking, we should be able to raise additional money from multilateral and bilateral sources for economic and social development.

Thank you very much, and I hope you agree with me that we have a story to tell, and I'm relying on you guys.

QUESTION: Can we ask you if you agree with an analysis that was made about Louis XIV and the battles being fought at Versailles? Do you see yourself in that light, as one of your aides described the new cabinet? Is this how you see yourself? Is this why you have a public relations firm to bring out the image of the balance or the ... ?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I don't see myself in that respect, and I don't think barons or baronesses are that difficult to deal with. I think, as I said, they are involved, they are very supportive, they are very modern men and women, and they know that if we play as a team we will make a greater impact. And so I don't have to go to that extent.

Thank you very much.

* *** *