I think, first of all, that the Helsinki agreement has played a useful role. We've never acknowledged, as you know, the absorption by the Soviet Union of the groups to whom you refer. My wife's brother—his wife is an Estonian; she was born and raised there. And we've had a chance in the last few months at Belgrade to specify particular violations of human rights which were in conflict with the Helsinki agreement. As you know, the Soviets wanted to minimize the so-called third basket and not discuss human rights, but talk about military and political interrelationships. I think we're making some progress. In my private discussions with foreign leaders-and I set a record last year by meeting with 68 heads of state—hardly ever do we have a 10- or 15-minute or, certainly, not a 3-hour discussion that the subject of human rights doesn't arise. In most instances, they raise it. My guess is that 2 years ago, the subject of human rights would be a rarity among heads of state. But now, even the most abusive governments, there is a concern—"what does the rest of the world think about me, what will happen if I persecute this group or bring a legal charge against this person?" I think we are making success in a very slow, tedious way.

What It Means

This is a placeholder explanation generated by the low-overhead model. It interprets "I think, first of all, that the Helsinki agreement has played a useful role. We've never acknowledged, as you know, the absorption by the Soviet Union of the groups to whom you refer. My wife's brother—his wife is an Estonian; she was born and raised there. And we've had a chance in the last few months at Belgrade to specify particular violations of human rights which were in conflict with the Helsinki agreement. As you know, the Soviets wanted to minimize the so-called third basket and not discuss human rights, but talk about military and political interrelationships. I think we're making some progress. In my private discussions with foreign leaders-and I set a record last year by meeting with 68 heads of state—hardly ever do we have a 10- or 15-minute or, certainly, not a 3-hour discussion that the subject of human rights doesn't arise. In most instances, they raise it. My guess is that 2 years ago, the subject of human rights would be a rarity among heads of state. But now, even the most abusive governments, there is a concern—"what does the rest of the world think about me, what will happen if I persecute this group or bring a legal charge against this person?" I think we are making success in a very slow, tedious way." in the context of "" to mean that wisdom is timeless.