HELSINKI, SEPT. 9 -- Following is a transcript of a news conference with President Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, whose remarks were translated, at the conclusion of their summit today: Will There Be a War?

I'd like to ask both presidents whether we're going to have a war in the Persian Gulf, and I'd like to follow up.

BUSH: Well, with your permission, I hope that we can achieve a peaceful solution, and the way to do that is to have Iraq comply with the United Nations resolutions. And I think the part of our joint statement, two short lines, said it most clearly: "Nothing short of the complete implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions is acceptable." As soon as {Iraqi President} Saddam Hussein realizes that, then there certainly will be a peaceful resolution to this question.

How about President Gorbachev, what do you think?

GORBACHEV (through interpreter): Replying to your question, I should like to say that the whole of our seven hours of meeting today was devoted to the quest for a political resolution of that conflict. And I believe that we're on the right road.

. . . You are indicating that hostilities could break out if this is not resolved peacefully?

BUSH: The question is what?

I said you are indicating that there could be hostilities.

BUSH: No, the United States is determined to see these resolutions enforced, and I like to feel that they will be enforced and that that will result in a peaceful resolution. The Palestinian Problem

. . . Do you think that the conflict of the gulf gives the opportunity to solve the Palestinian problem through an international peace conference for the Middle East? And my second question is if this problem was discussed today with Mr. Gorbachev.

BUSH: Well, let me say that I see the implementation of the United Nations resolutions separate and apart from the need to solve the other question. That question has been on the agenda of many countries for many years, and it is very important that that question be resolved.

The secretary of state said the other day -- and I strongly support that -- that, under certain circumstances, the consideration of a conference of that nature would be acceptable. Indeed, it's been a part of our policy from time to time.

But the thing that I feel strongly about is that these issues are not linked. And any effort to link them is an effort to dilute the resolutions of the United Nations. The U.S. Presence in the Mideast

. . . How long will United States troops be present in the Persian Gulf area?

BUSH: It will be present in the area until we are satisfied that the security needs of the area had been met and that these resolutions had been complied with. And the sooner they are out of there, as far as I'm concerned, the better. I made very clear to President Gorbachev, as I think he will confirm, that we have no intention of keeping them a day longer than is required. So, I'd leave it right there.

GORBACHEV: I'd like to add something and to confirm what . . . the president of the United States has just said to me in our conversation -- that the United States of America do not intend to leave their forces in the zone. And, in connection with the change or the normalization of the situation, the United States administration -- and personally, personally the president -- will do everything possible to ensure that the forces are withdrawn from the region, from the zone. That's a very important statement. Economic Aid for Soviets

I have a question for both presidents. The unity that you are expressing today doesn't ignore the fact that there's still some irritants between the two countries. President Bush, are you more sympathetic now to suggestions of Western economic aid to the Soviet Union?

And President Gorbachev, would you be willing to withdraw the Soviet military advisers from Iraq?

BUSH: For my part, I am very much interested in assisting, to be sure that perestroika is successful. We indeed have a mission of high-level businessmen on their way to the Soviet Union right now. They happen to be in Helsinki. This is but one manifestation of the fact that we are trying to encourage economic cooperation in as many ways as possible.

And we had a good long discussion in our expanded meeting this afternoon about that. And I am given the common stand that the Soviet Union and the United States have taken at the United Nations. It seems to me that we should be as forthcoming as we possibly can in terms of economics. And I plan to do that.

There are certain constraints, as you say, there are certain nuances of difference. There are certain differences, real differences. But on the other hand, I have said before and I'll repeat it here in front of all this -- journalists from all around the world -- we of course want perestroika to succeed. It is an internal matter of the Soviet Union. But I think this remarkable cooperation that has been demonstrated by the Soviet Union at the United Nations gets me inclined to recommend as close cooperation in the economic field as possible. And I will be saying this to the Congress when I get back.

We still have problems. Look, we got some big problems ourselves in our economy. And we are not in the position, operating at the enormous deficits, to write out large checks.

Having said that, there are many ways that we can endeavor to be of assistance to the emerging economy in the Soviet Union.

GORBACHEV: That was a question also addressed to me.

I would like nevertheless, on the question which did appear also to be addressed to me, the Western assistance to the Soviet Union -- I would like to continue. The conversation with President Bush is continuing on the Western assistance to the Soviet Union. There is an attempt being made to link, to establish a link between this and disagreements or the lack of disagreements -- and in response to that I would say the following:

We began our conversation today together by reviewing the situation and realizing that the whole of world society, and our two great states, are undergoing a trial; this is a test of the durability of the new approach to resolving world problems. And as we enter upon a new peaceful period and as we emerge from the Cold War, we see that no lesser threats are necessary in order to find ways and means in this period of peace to meet the new situation and to tackle all problems that may arise. I think if it hadn't been for Malta, it would have been very difficult for us to act in the very difficult situation which arose in Eastern Europe, in Europe, and in the situation connected with the unification of Germany.

I think that if, following that, there hadn't been Washington and Camp David and the other meetings on this level with other partners in international relations, we would now be in a difficult situation facing the crisis in the Persian Gulf. And the fact that today we have taken a common approach to such difficult problems, problems which may well have tragic consequences for the whole world, not just for the peoples of that region, demonstrates that we still are moving forward in the right direction and that we are capable of resolving the most difficult and the most acute problems and to find appropriate responses to the challenges of our time. And the greater part of our conversation together was devoted to this. And I believe that this is the most important point to bear in mind: differences, nuances in the differences of view, arguments -- these are natural; it's natural that those should arise. But what we have seen today is that we have confirmed the most important progress of recent times.

Now I should like to say something about the Iraqi question. But in fact I haven't quite finished on the first subject. I wouldn't want President Bush's reply to give rise to the opinion that the Soviet Union is going to align a certain sum with a certain behavior. We are acting in a difficult situation. We are finding a solution -- we shall find a solution which shall be satisfactory and, above all, which will remove the danger of an explosion. And this is becoming a normal element of the new kind of cooperation -- in trade, in technology and human exchange. All of these elements characterize the new peaceful period upon which we are just now embarked, which we have to get used to.

It would be very oversimplified and very superficial to judge that the Soviet Union could be bought for dollars because, although we do look forward to cooperation in this very serious time of far-reaching changes in our economy -- and that's normal. Let's remember the reforms of recent years in a number of states. They always, in addition to the principal efforts made by the peoples concerned themselves, they always involved also the participation of the world community in one form or another. So, if anybody wants to try to impose a different view, that's unacceptable to us; it's unacceptable to the United States, it's unacceptable to the Soviet Union and it would be unacceptable to any other state.

Now, to move onto the second part of your question concerning our experts in Iraq. They are not so much advisers as specialists or experts who are working under contract; and their number is being reduced. Where at the beginning of the contract, I think there were still 196 of them, there are now some 150 of them. And the Iraqi leadership looks upon the matter thus: that if they haven't completed their work, their normal work under contract, even though it may be a matter of weapons, then they are, nevertheless, leaving Iraq and the process is going forward. So, I don't really think there's a problem. Military Options Against Iraq

. . . Did you discuss any possible military options for curbing Iraqi aggression? And what would be the conditions -- and what would be the point where you would consider that the political options were exhausted and it was time to go to the Security Council and talk about -- through the Security Council, demanding an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait?

BUSH: No, we did not discuss military options. And the question is too hypothetical, and I would like to see this matter peacefully resolved.

GORBACHEV: I would like to support what was said by President Bush. And I stress once more that the whole of our time together was spent on talking about this conflict in a mutual search for a political solution. And I think we can look with optimism, in the final analysis, on the efforts being taken by the international community, working together within the Security Council at the U.N.

. . . You were just saying that if Iraq doesn't withdraw its forces peacefully, then it will be necessary to take military steps. What kind of Soviet contribution will there be to those military steps, and what will happen then to the Soviet citizens who are in Iraq now, and what will the Arab factor be?

GORBACHEV: Firstly, I did not say that if Iraq does not withdraw peacefully, we're going to have recourse to military methods. I did not state that. I do not state that.

And moreover, in my view, that would draw us into consequences which we can't, at this stage, forecast, and therefore, our country and the United Nations as a whole has a whole range of possibilities of finding a political solution to this problem.

Therefore, I would limit ourselves to that. And therefore the second part of your question is irrelevant. Soviet Relations With Saddam

If I could ask President Gorbachev, specifically -- Iraq has been your ally. What directly have you done in contact with Saddam Hussein to reverse the situation there?

And President Bush, what specifically have you asked Mr. Gorbachev to do directly? Have you asked him to make a direct contact with Saddam Hussein?

GORBACHEV: I should say that from the start of the crisis, we've been actively exchanging views and carrying forth dialogue, not only within the Security Council, not only with the administration of the U.S.A. These types of contact are of great importance to us, but we are also holding active dialogue with leadership of China, of India, of all the other European states, especially those which are members of the Security Council.

And in my view, it's this dialogue which has helped us towards the Security Council resolution, which was passed. On top of that we're also actively cooperating with the Arab states, the countries of the Arab world. And here our dialogue is no less intensive than with our partners in the countries I previously mentioned, including dialogue with President {Saddam} Hussein.

And I can state that what we have announced publicly is also being said to President Hussein in our dialogue with him. Which all means that the president and the leadership of Iraq are expected to show a reasonable approach to stop and to understand what is implied

by the position taken by the Security Council on this

issue.

This is the dialogue which we have undertaken with him. And we are trying to make sure that our arguments are convincing. We discuss various options for ending the situation with him. And we are also attempting, as I already said, to make it quite clear to Saddam Hussein that if Iraq were to provoke military action, then the result would be a tragedy first and foremost for the Iraqi people themselves, for the whole of the region and for the whole of the world.

You know, this is of course a dialogue in a very difficult situation, but we consider it's a very useful dialogue, and we don't exclude the possibility of establishing new contacts, of having new meetings at various levels. And the type of communication which we have had up 'til now with the Iraqis gives us hope that those links we have with them can be used positively for the sake of all of us, for the sake of finding a peaceful

solution to this problem, and especially of preventing

the situation from turning into aggression in the situation.

BUSH: My position would simply be that there is no need to ask President Gorbachev to contact Saddam Hussein. Clearly, from his answer, you see that they have been in contact . . . .

President Gorbachev answered the question about the contact with Saddam Hussein, and clearly your question to me is have I asked him to contact Saddam Hussein. The answer is no, but the Soviet Union is in contact; he {Gorbachev} himself received the {Iraqi} foreign minister, {Tariq} Aziz.

But I would just simply sum it up by saying the best answer to Saddam Hussein, or the best contact, is the contact that took place at the United Nations when there was worldwide condemnation of the aggression. And I happen to feel that this statement showing the Soviet Union and the United States in essential agreement here is another good statement for Saddam Hussein, and hopefully he will see that he is not going to divide us and divide other countries, and that he will do what he should have done some time ago -- and that is comply with the United Nations sanctions. But I did not ask him to do that, because they are way ahead of us on that: they are having contacts and trying to be helpful in that regard. Limits on Strategic Weapons

What is your position on the question of signing a treaty limiting strategic offensive weapons? And when do you think that such a treaty will in fact be signed?

BUSH: We still remain committed to a strategic arms treaty. We vowed that we would encourage our negotiators to move forward more rapidly on both the strategic arms treaty and the conventional force agreement, and I'm still hopeful that by the end of the year we will have such an agreement.

GORBACHEV: . . . I'd like to confirm what President Bush has just said -- that we really have agreed to make fresh efforts to give further instructions because we see there is a possibility successfully to complete the negotiating process in those two fora, and to come up with positive results in the course of this year. Implementing U.N. Resolution 242

. . . President Bush mentioned that you failed to see the link between the Palestinian question and the present situation. I would like to know how come it is so important to implement U.N. resolutions in this particular instance, when other standing ones have been frozen and overlooked and disregarded for so long. So, I'd like to know how come this aggression is so different from other ones. And I would also like to add that I personally feel that the Palestinian dilemma and question need the attention of the superpowers more than ever. . . .

BUSH: Well, I agree that it needs it, and we are very much interested in implementing Resolution 242 of the United Nations. We've been zealously trying to do that, as have many other powers for many years.

But the fact that that resolution hasn't been fulfilled when it calls for withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries -- and it should be, and hopefully we can be catalytic in seeing that happen -- does not mean that you sit idly by in the fact of a naked aggression against Kuwait.

And the United Nations has moved, and the United Nations' resolutions should be implemented on their face, without trying to tie it in to some other unresolved dispute. But I couldn't agree more that it is important. It is very important that that question eventually -- and hopefully sooner than later -- be satisfied, be resolved.

GORBACHEV: I think that everything that is taking place in the Middle East is a matter of concern to us, equal concern. Even more than in the case of the Persian Gulf, we need to act more energetically in order to resolve the complex of problems in the Middle East and to come up with decisions and to devise a system to devise guarantees that would ensure the interests of all peoples and of the whole world community, because it's a matter which is of vital concern to all of us. And it seems to me that there is a link here because the failure to find a solution in the Middle East at large also has a bearing on the acuteness of the particular conflict we've been talking about here. Full Compliance With Sanctions

. . . In your statement you pledge to work individually and in concert to assure full compliance with the U.N. sanctions against Iraq. May I inquire, what, if any, specific and concrete steps you have agreed to take in furtherance of that?

BUSH: We didn't agree to specific and concrete steps. I think President Gorbachev, in the contacts he's had with Saddam Hussein -- I mean, with the Iraqis -- and if they continue, will be a step in that direction. Clearly, this message itself will be a step in that direction. But we did not sit at this meeting and try to assign each other or ask each other to undertake specific measures in keeping with that particular paragraph.

GORBACHEV: I'd like to add to that that the emphasis here is on the significance of the political fact that we feel necessary to reflect in this statement and which testifies to our political will to act jointly or in parallel, independently, really, in search of these new steps towards a peaceful resolution of the problem. I think that for the meeting and the document that we've just adopted is of more importance than our enumerating the various steps that might have been taken here. That forms the basis for the further active quest for solutions. Mutual Understandings

. . . Since the last meeting, it seems to be that you had a good mutual understanding. Have you succeeded in deepening that mutual understanding in the course of today's meeting, and how in general, what bearing in general, is that factor having on the results of your negotiations?

BUSH: Well, I think clearly there has been a developing mutual understanding over the years. I like to feel, and I think President Gorbachev agrees, that our meeting in Malta had something to do with furthering that understanding. I'm convinced that our meeting in the United States, at Camp David particularly, furthered that understanding. But I think the world sees clearly that if this had occurred 20 years ago, there wouldn't have been this cooperative feeling at the United Nations, and I think it's very important.

So I don't know how one quantifies mutual understanding, but I feel we're moving on the right track. Neither of us, when we talk, try to hide our differences; neither of us try to indicate that we look at exactly every problem exactly the same way. But the very fact that we can talk with that degree of frankness without rancor, I think, enhances mutual understanding.

And then when we see us on a question of this nature standing shoulder to shoulder with many other countries at the United Nations, I think it is obvious manifestation of this developing mutual understanding. It's a very broad philosophical question. But differences still remain.

But the common ground, in my view at least, surges ahead of these differences. And we will continue to cooperate with President Gorbachev.

GORBACHEV: I don't know if I would be allowed to tell you a secret here. I haven't asked President Bush if he'll let me. But I must admit that I'm dying to take the risk and tell you, but it's too important to give you an answer to this particular question. But that last sentence does really give me the hope that we'll get by.

In our talks, the president said, "You know, there was a long time when our view was that the Soviet Union had nothing to do in the Middle East, had no business being there." This was something that we had to talk through during this meeting here in Helsinki. And what was said here is that it's very important for us to cooperate in the Middle East, just as it is on other issues of world politics. So that is an answer to your question.

It is very important that at each meeting we move forward, we enrich our relationship, and, I think I should say, that we increase our trust. If trust is engendered between the leaders of two such nations during meetings of this kind, then I'm sure you'll agree with me that that is to the good of all of us. Whether we want it or not, history dictates that a lot is going to depend on whether the two countries can work together. That's not our ambition; it's just the way that history has gone.

So, far from excluding such a possibility, we intend to cooperate with all sorts of other countries as well, more and more. That's how we see our role in the world developing.

And my last comment is also very important. It seems to me, that the world is -- the way the world is changing -- in today's world, no single country, however powerful, will be able to provide the leadership which individual countries formerly tried to provide, including some countries which are represented here. We can only succeed if we work together and solve our problems together. That is what is emerging from these negotiations, and that we consider the most important aspect. 'Are You Still the Friend of Saddam?'

Could I ask Mr. Gorbachev whether the Soviet Union is still Iraq's friend, as {Iraqi Foreign} Minister Tariq Aziz declared in Moscow last week? Are you still the friend of Saddam Hussein?

And another question, also directed to Mr. Gorbachev, President Saddam Hussein stated yesterday that the Soviet Union would demonstrate that it is a great power by resisting George Bush's pressure and by supporting the Baghdad regime. Could you indicate to me, if you would, what your reply would be to Saddam Hussein?

GORBACHEV: I want to reply to you, and so that I don't have to repeat it also to Saddam Hussein, the same reply that I've given to previous questions. My position is unchanged. We see our role and our responsibility; and within the framework of that responsibility, we shall act in cooperation with the other members of the Security Council. And in this instance, I can once again say, since we are sitting here, two presidents together, I shall interact and cooperate with the president of the United States.

I'd very much like to express the hope that President Saddam Hussein will -- will display, I really hope that he will -- will display sobriety, will look carefully at the whole situation, and will respond to the appeals and the demands of the world community, and that he will take steps that are suitable to the situation, that are carefully weighed in their worldwide implications and in their implications for the Arab world, too.

No one has any intention of trying to exclude Iraq from the community of nations, but what the present Iraqi leadership is doing is driving it into a dead end. And I hope that President Saddam Hussein will heed this appeal to him. Soviet Military Role in Mideast

I'd like to ask Mr. Gorbachev if you have ruled out the possibility of a Soviet military participation in this effort in any sense, either as part of the naval blockade or as part of some future peacekeeping force in the region.

And I would follow up with a question to Mr. Bush {as} to what degree that would be a disappointment to you if that's Mr. Gorbachev's position.

GORBACHEV: I don't see the point of doing that now, and we shall continue to act in cooperation within the Security Council and in strict compliance with all of its decisions.

BUSH: I'm not disappointed in that answer. The Message for Saddam

You said you are determined to see that this aggression ends and current steps are being considered. What does this mean? What comes next?

BUSH: It's too hypothetical. We want to see the message get through to Saddam Hussein. We want to see him do what the United Nations calls on him to do, and that statement can be interpreted any way you want to interpret it. But it's out there, and I would simply not go into any hypothetical questions that would lead me beyond what that statement says.

GORBACHEV: . . . In my view I have the impression that both the press and public opinion in some countries is in some ways saying that there is a lack of decision on somebody's part, that we're withdrawing in the face of those who are trampling on international law. I cannot agree with that view. In fact, it's a view which causes a certain amount of embarrassment to the leadership of nations which are acting through the Security Council in this respect.

What has been done up until now in answer to Iraqi aggression is very important, because action has been taken not only within the framework of the Security Council, but there has been unanimous world opinion, a kind of solidarity which has never been expressed before in the history of the world. And we have prevented the aggression going any further. We have preserved the functioning of the structures which are of economic importance, which would affect so many other countries as well. And, finally, the resolution has been taken on an embargo, which is a very stiff measure, in reaction to the aggression.

In my view, this is a strategic way of tackling the question which has been tackled successfully at the first stages. And we are convinced that the next stage of a political solution, achieved politically, to put an end to this acute international crisis and make sure that a political settlement should be possible, that in this situation decisiveness, will power and responsibility and political faith in the possibility of a political solution to this very difficult issue shows that the political leaders of the world are being responsible to their own nations and to the world.

And we do not want to get caught up in arguments about prestige and so on. Humanitarian Aid and the Embargo

Concerning the humanitarian aid, does your joint statement mean in practice that you consider that food should be now allowed to Iraq?

GORBACHEV: The president felt it necessary to reflect in our joint declaration that we see the need to uphold what was decided by the Security Council on this subject. And the Security Council was prepared to admit, for humanitarian purposes, the supply of medicines and of foodstuffs required first and foremost for children.

We've actually stated this quite plainly in our statement. And so we've taken a very clear-cut position on that. But we've also made it clear that this must take place within a framework of certain international organizations and being monitored by them at all stages of the operation.

So I think that this has been stated in the correct terms.

BUSH: I agree with President Gorbachev on that point, and the language is very good, because it does express the concern that both countries feel in the event there actually are children and others who are suffering because of lack of food.

I hope that nobody around the world interprets this as our view that now there should be wholesale food shipments to Iraq. Because I can speak only here for the United States when I would call attention to the fact that we need some kind of international agencies to see that there is this humanitarian concern, as expressed, this exception in the United Nations embargo for humanitarian purposes.

And not only is it required for this humanitarian circumstance, but that the food gets where it is supposed to go. So this should not be from the U.S. standpoint interpreted as a wholesale big hole in this embargo. It is not the -- it was not our intention, and I think the language is very clear on that point. Soviet Advisers in Iraq

. . . You seem to disagree on the military option. And when you talk about further steps being taken to implement the U.N. sanctions, President Bush, you seem to be saying the military option is still out there. President Gorbachev seems to disagree. Do you disagree on that?

Did you ask President Gorbachev to pull his experts out of Iraq? And did you ask him to send troops into the Gulf region?

BUSH: I did not ask him to send troops in. If the Soviets decided to do that at the invitation of the Saudis, that would be fine with us. But I did not ask him to do that. I believe there -- what the 23 countries are participating on the ground -- 23 countries that are participating on the ground and at sea, that the security of Saudi Arabia is close to safeguarded.

What were the other two points?

Did you ask him to pull the experts out of Iraq, and do you disagree on the use of military force? You seem to say it's still an option; he seems to say it's not an option, ever.

BUSH: We may have a difference on that. I'm just -- as I think I've answered over and over again at home -- I'm not going to discuss what I will or won't do. And President Gorbachev made an eloquent appeal at which I agree, that a peaceful solution is the best.

So I've left it open. He can comment on the other. But . . . I'm sorry, the second point.

The experts, pulling the experts out.

BUSH: Well, I think it would facilitate things. But on the other hand, he's given his answer here. And that is not a major irritant. You've said that he's already -- I think he said that he is reducing the numbers there. But I think I tried to make clear that this was a question that was widely being raised in the United States. And it would facilitate things if they were out of there in terms of total understanding.

But I heard his answer, listened to it very, very carefully. And must say that I would let it stand at that. If I was just saying, would I like to see them all out of there, I think I'd say absolutely. But I'd let him add to that.

GORBACHEV: In answer to these questions, which you gave us such a clear list of, I've already given answers. I really don't have anything to add to the answers I've already given. Regional Security Arrangements

You mentioned something about the security arrangements. Is the Soviet Union going to participate in any kind of security arrangement, and what is the role of the region and the countries of that region of the Middle East?

GORBACHEV: The first question, as we began, we intend to continue to cooperate closely and actively in the framework of the Security Council; and on the basis of the decisions that have been adopted, we shall act accordingly. That's the first point.

Secondly, as concerns the role of the countries of the region, yes, I think that generally speaking I would stress the importance of the Arab factor not yet really having been brought to bear in efforts to help resolve this crisis situation. I don't want to offer you analysis right now as to why that's the case. But, nevertheless, I am convinced that there is an obvious activization of the quest on the part of Arab states to find a response to the urgent situation which faces us all here. We cooperate with all the Arab countries -- and I might say not un-usefully. The outlines of possible steps are beginning to emerge, but it is too soon to be specific. We are continuing our cooperation with Arab countries; and, at a certain stage, when the situation has changed and has been somewhat -- when the tension has been reduced, then perhaps we might carry this further.

But we shall continue in the Security Council and with the permanent members of the Security Council to guarantee security. I have no doubt that we shall succeed in resolving the problem by political means.

BUSH: . . . I am very glad that the Arab states, at the Arab League and in other ways, {have} stated their condemnation of Saddam Hussein. He is trying to make this a contest between the Arab world and the United States, and it is no such thing, if you will look at how the United Nations has overwhelmingly condemned him.

So, the Arab states have a very key role in this. Many Arab states have responded in the defense of Saudi Arabia -- Syria, Morocco, Egypt, to say nothing of the GCC {Gulf Cooperation Council} countries. So it is not Saddam Hussein and the Arab world against the United States. It is Saddam Hussein against the United Nations and against a majority of the Arab League. And that is a very important point that I will continue to make because the Arab League itself has stood up to him and urged his compliance with the sanctions and condemned his aggression.

So, in this case, I see the Arab states as having a very important role to play in the resolution of this question. And they have not been taken in by his attempt to make this the Arab world versus the United States of America when it is nothing of the kind.

GORBACHEV: I wanted the president and myself to conclude this press conference by expressing our deep sympathies and feelings for the people of Finland, for the hospitality extended to us on this soil, and we appreciate highly the contribution made by the president of this country and his wife who made these excellent arrangements for this meeting.

BUSH: May I simply add that {Finnish} President Koivisto and Mrs. Koivisto have been most hospitable, and I agree with this. We owe them a great debt of gratitude, and the people of Finland. Thank you.