Images (99)
Showing first 60 of 99 pages.
Document
| id |
id
255221107
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 992F9C0F53.FIN
Page 1 of 1
MSMail
DATE-TIME
24 April 95 13:45
FROM
Suettinger, Robert L.
CLASSIFICATION
UNCLASSIFIED
SUBJECT
Subject: RE: Macke's Q&As [UNCLASSIFIED]
TO
Seaton, James B.
CARBON_COPY
Bell, Robert G.
Roth, Stanley O.
Sestak, Joseph A.
TEXT_BODY
Jim -
Public affairs guidance looks OK, but we considered it thin on question 15,
concerning the Spratly Islands. Suggest revision as follows (new section in
///brackets///):
Q15. What is the U.S. position concerning the Spratly Islands?
A14. The U.S. strongly supports a peaceful resolution to the disputed
claims in that region. ///We take no position on the legal merits of the
conflicting territorial claims, and support peaceful resolution because
conflict could affect freedom of navigation in critical sea lines of
communication. Keeping these free of interference is a major U.S.
interest.///
From: Seaton, James B.
To: @ASIA - Asian Affairs
CC: /N, NonRecord at A1
Subject: Macke's Q&As [UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Monday, April 24, 1995 12:11 PM
OSD Public Affairs sent over proposed public affairs guidance/Q&As for
CINCPAC's trip to the PRC. The guidance looks fairly straight-forward, but
they asked for our chop on it by 3:00 pm today, as they seek to release the
message at 4:00pm. I put a copy of the message in your box in Secretariat.
Thanks. Jim
Relations
belongs_to