THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Atlanta, Georgia)
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 3, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN CNN TELECAST OF
"A GLOBAL FORUM WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON"
The Carter Center
Atlanta, Georgia
7:00 P.M. EDT
MR. JOHNSON: Good evening, and welcome. There is a
special appropriateness in President Clinton meeting with us at
this time. He presides over the United States at the dawn of a
new information age. He is as attuned to this new era as
President John Kennedy was in his time to the new television age,
and as President Franklin Roosevelt was to radio.
Along with CNN founder, Ted Turner, many of you are
the architects of the global electronic superhighway of tomorrow.
Through global television, you are building new bridges among the
many nations represented here tonight. We are fortunate, indeed,
to have a dynamic political leader, a forceful communicator, an
enthusiastic booster of technological innovation, and a loyal CNN
viewer all in one. (Laughter.)
Please join me in welcoming the honorable Bill
Clinton, President of the United States. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Turner, and ladies and gentlemen, good evening.
I want to welcome those of you who are here at the CNN
conference, and the millions more who are watching all across the
world tonight.
I also want to thank the Carter Center for hosting
us for this pathbreaking discussion of world events.
Throughout the history of the United States, and
particularly after major conflicts, America has had to reexamine
how we define our security and what kind of world we hope to live
in and leave our children, and what our responsibilities for that
world are. With the Cold War over we have clearly come to
another such moment -- a time of great change and possibility.
The specter of nuclear annihilation is clearly receding. A score
of new democracies has replaced the former Soviet empire. A
global economy has collapsed distances and expanded opportunity,
because of a communications revolution symbolized most clearly by
CNN and what all of us are doing this evening all around the
world.
We are front-row history witnesses. We see things
as they occur. I remember when I was a young man watching the
news on television at night. There was only a small amount of
coverage allotted to the world scene, and very often, the footage
I would see as a boy would be a whole day old. Now we're
impatient if we learn about things an hour after they occur
instead of seeing them in the moment.
The Berlin Wall has been toppled. A handshake of
hope has started the series of peace news that will be necessary
at long last to bring peace to the troubled Middle East. And
this week, we saw those glorious and unforgettable scenes of
millions of South Africans of all races lining up with joy and
courage to give birth to their new multiracial democracy.
But all of us know that this era poses dangers as
well. Russia and the other former communist states are going
through wrenching transitions. The end of the superpower
standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union lifted
the lid off a caldron of smoldering ethnic hatreds. And there is
now so much aggression within the national borders of countries
all around the world. Indeed, all of us feel our humanity
threatened as much by fights going on within the borders of
nations as by the dangers of fighting across national borders.
There are regimes, such as Iraq, Iran and North
Korea, who persist in working to develop weapons on mass
destruction. We see brutal human rights abuses from Haiti to
Rwanda, and dire humanitarian and environmental problems from the
sweeping AIDS epidemic and desertification in Africa, to
deforestation in Latin America and Asia.
In the face of so much promise and trouble, we have
a chance, a chance to create conditions of greater peace and
prosperity, and hopefully more lasting peace and prosperity, but
only if the world's leading nations stay actively engaged in the
effort.
With the Cold War over there are pressures here in
America and in other nations around the world to turn inward, to
focus on needs at home. Here at home for us that means things
like job creation and reducing crime and providing health care to
all our citizens. It is right, and indeed imperative, for us to
address these needs.
But the United States cannot turn our back on the
world, nor can other nations. I know our engagement costs money
and sometimes it costs lives. I know well that we cannot solve
every problem, nor should we try. But in an era of change and
opportunity and peril, America must be willing to assume the
obligations and the risks of leadership. And I am determined to
see that we do that.
It is important that we have a clear road map in a
new era based on our national interests and our clearly stated
values; a road map that charts where we're trying to go. Tonight
let me briefly sketch it out before taking questions.
Our highest priority -- and my highest priority as
President -- must continue to be simply and clearly to protect
our land, our people and our way of life. That is the core of
our national interest. We also must seize opportunities that
will enhance our safety and our prosperity; acting alone when
necessary, acting with others whenever possible.
We have an interest in continuing to serve as a
beacon of strength and freedom and hope. For we all, after all,
a unique nation. We are the world's most powerful arsenal, its
oldest democracy, its most daring experiment in forging different
races, religions and cultures into a single people.
Since taking office, my strategy to advance those
interests has been based on three priorities: first, developing
policies to meet the security challenges of this new era, and
then shaping our defense forces necessary to carry out those
policies; second, making our nation's global economic interests
an integral and essential part of our foreign policies; and
third, promoting the spread of democracy abroad.
Let me discuss each of these briefly. First,
ensuring that we have strong policies and ready defenses for a
new security environment. Thankfully, we no longer face the
prospect of Soviet troops marching into Western Europe. But the
world is still a dangerous place, and the skill and the power and
the readiness of our men and women in uniform remains a bulwark
of our freedom and freedom in many places abroad.
Last year, we completed a sweeping assessment of
what military forces we now need in order to meet this era's
threats. We concluded that we must have forces that can fight
and win two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously.
These forces will cost less than what was needed during the Cold
War, but we must not cut too far. And I have fought against
deeper cuts in our defenses that would weaken our ability to be
ready to defend our interests.
We're taking other steps to meet the threats of this
new era. At the NATO Summit convened in January, we and our NATO
allies adopted the concept of the Partnership for Peace to help
draw former communist states and other states in Europe not
presently aligned with NATO into closer security cooperation with
Western Europe. We're working to increase regional security in
areas like the Middle East where we hope tomorrow Israel and the
PLO will sign an important accord that builds on the promise of
their breakthrough last September.
We're continuing to reduce the world's nuclear
dangers, working to end North Korea's dangerous nuclear program.
We started negotiations on a comprehensive test ban. When I took
office, four former Soviet republics had nuclear weapons. We
succeeded with three of them in nailing down commitments to
eliminate their entire nuclear arsenals. And we are proceeding
in that important work. And now, for the very first time, our
nuclear missiles are no longer targeted at Russia, nor theirs at
us.
The second part of our strategy is to place economic
progress at the center of our policies abroad. For too many
years there was a dangerous dislocation here in America between
our international policies and our economic policies. We were
strong militarily when we became economically weak because of our
dangerously high deficits and low productivity -- things which
contributed to the weakening of nations all around the world and
dried up much of the capital needed in less developed countries
for development and growth.
We advocated free trade, but often we practiced just
the reverse when under the pressure of poor economic performance.
And even when we pushed free trade, we often here in our own
country lacked the policies we needed to make sure that it
benefited ordinary American citizens.
My goal has been to reduce our deficit, increase our
investment, increase our competitiveness, improve the education
and training of our people and keep pushing for agreements to
open world markets for no special treatment for the United States
but more open markets so that all of us may grow and compete
together.
This past year, there was important progress. We
enacted the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and
Mexico and secured the biggest market opening agreement in
history with the GATT world trade talks -- agreements that will
create American jobs for us here in the United States while
spurring significant global economic growth. We hosted a summit
of leaders from the Asian Pacific region, the fastest growing
region on Earth.
This year we will seek enactment of the GATT round
in the Congress and convene the first summit in a generation of
our hemispheric neighbors. We work to promote environmentally
sound forms of economic development both here and abroad. We
have to remember that many of the civil wars we have seen and are
seeing today, tearing apart societies across Africa and
elsewhere, are caused not only by historic conflicts, but also by
the abject and utterly terrifying deterioration of not only the
economy but the environment in which those people live.
The third key to our policy is fostering democracy.
The new progress of democracy all around the world resonates with
our values and our interests. It makes us safer here in the
United States. We know democracies are less likely to wage war,
to violate human rights, to break treaties. That's why we fought
two world wars, to protect Europe's democracies; and why we stood
firm for a half a century to contain communism.
Now the greatest opportunity for our security is to
help enlarge the world's communities of market democracies; and
to move toward a world in which all the great powers govern by a
democratic plan. If we do, we'll have more valuable partners in
trade, and better partners in diplomacy and security. That's why
I have given a lot of attention to promoting democratic and
market reformers in Russian, in Ukraine, the Baltics and other
former communist states.
We saw that strategy pay off again just last week as
Russia and Latvia reached an historic accord to withdraw Russia's
military from Latvian territory by the end of August.
Our goal is to foster the success of new democracies
like those in Latin America and now in South Africa, and to apply
pressure to restore democracy where it has been overthrown, as in
Haiti.
Security, prosperity, democracy: These are the
pillars of our strategy in the new world. These building blocks
do not answer every question we confront. In particular, this
era has seen an epidemic of humanitarian catastrophes, many
caused by ethnic conflicts of the collapse of governments. Some,
such as Bosnia, clearly affect our interests. Others, such as
Rwanda, less directly affect our own security interests, but
still warrant our concern and our assistance.
America cannot solve every problem and must not
become the world's policeman. But we do have an obligation to
join with others to do what we can to relieve suffering and to
restore peace.
The means we use will and must vary from
circumstance to circumstance. When our most important interests
are at stake, we will not hesitate to act alone if necessary.
Where we share an interest in action with the international
community, we work perhaps through the United Nations.
This week we will unveil a set of policies to reform
U.N. peacekeeping -- to help make those operations both less
expensive and more effective. In other cases we will work in
partnership with other nations. In Bosnia, for example, we have
stepped up our diplomatic involvement, along with Russia and
others; we supported NATO enforcement measures; and committed to
provide United States forces as a part of a NATO enforcement
mission if and when the parties can reach a workable peace
agreement.
Although that conflict continues, we should never
forget that there are tonight people in Sarejevo, Tuzla and
Mostar who are alive because of the actions taken with NATO
working with the United Nations. The safe areas, the no-fly
zone, the longest humanitarian airlift in history -- all these
efforts and others are contributing to a resolution of a very
difficult problem.
This is a pivotal moment in the affairs of our world
-- a moment when we can expand the frontiers of freedom, create a
more prosperous global economy, give millions in war-torn lands a
chance to enjoy a normal life, when we can make the people in
each of our lands safer from the world's deadliest weapons.
On each of these, I believe the leadership of the
United States is indispensable. My commitment is to exercise
that leadership so that we can pass onto our children a world
that is safer, freer and more livable for their future.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. President, nice to see you again.
Thank you. This is for you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MS. WOODRUFF: You're going to get a chance to use
that in just a minute.
As you know, or as you may know, there have been
over 200 countries and territories that have listening to your
remarks and then they're going to be hearing your answers to the
questions you're going to be hearing this evening.
We have in this room more than 160 countries -- or I
should say more than 160 World Report contributors from about 80
countries. They are going to be asking you questions. We're
also going to be having questions form four remote locations
around the world, from Sarajevo, from Jerusalem, from
Johannesburg, and from Seoul, South Korea. And I may along the
way throw in a few questions myself.
But first we do want to hear from journalists here
in the room. And I should say by way of setting this up that we
wanted to start with some current stories that were in the news.
And as you well know, there were some new statements that have
come out in the last few days from your administration on Haiti;
and in particular, about your willingness to tolerate the
military leadership in that country. And in that regard, we want
to recognize first a journalist from Trinidad. Go ahead, sir.
Q Good evening, Mr. President. Your predecessors
had initiated various policies to deal with democracy in Latin
America and the Caribbean and, as I recall, the Good Neighbor
policy of Franklin Roosevelt, the Alliance for Progress by John
F. Kennedy human rights philosophies. And Ronald Reagan and
George Bush seemed to have preferred gunboat diplomacy, as we saw
in Grenada and in Haiti, no doubt reaffirming the Monroe Doctrine
of 1823 in the context of manifest destiny.
You changed that somewhat when you took to the
campaign trail before your elections, and you said that you will
attempt to prevent American intervention in Third World
countries. It seems as though Haiti is testing your patience as
far as that is concerned.
My question to you is, in specific terms, what is
the current or contemporary U.S. foreign policy posture as far as
the region is concerned? And I'm talking about the Caribbean and
Latin America.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, our policy has not changed. I
believe in the Good Neighbor policy; and we've tried to be a good
neighbor. We have worked with our friends in Mexico on trade and
democracy. We have worked with many other countries. The Vice
President has been to South America a couple of times to work on
developing the information superhighway and many other things.
We're trying to bring democracies into closer trade relationships
with us in the Caribbean, as well as in Central and South
America. And I have made it very clear that the United States
wishes to be a partner, not a dictator, about the internal events
of other countries.
On the other hand, every country in the region is
governed by a democratically elected government but two. One is
Cuba, the other is Haiti -- which voted two-thirds for President
Aristide when he was then thrown out. We had an agreement -- the
Governors Island Agreement -- made by the military, the Aristide
faction, in cooperation with the United States and the United
Nations. It was abrogated by the military rulers of Haiti. We
went back to the drawing board. We have worked for months since
Governors Island was abrogated to try to find other solutions.
Meanwhile, innocent civilians are being killed and
mutilated. We are doing our best to avoid considering -- to
avoid dealing with the military option. We are now pursuing --we
put on the table at the United Nations today -- stiffer
sanctions. We're working for tougher enforcement of the existing
sanctions. But given how many people are being killed, and the
abject misery of the Haitian people, and the fact that democracy
was implanted by the people and then uprooted by the military
rulers there, I think that we cannot afford to discount the
prospect of a military option.
I want to work with our friends and neighbors in the
Caribbean and in all of Latin America. And I hope that whatever
we do from here on out will have their support. The United
States never will interfere in the affairs of another country to
try to seek to thwart the popular will there. This is a
different case.
MS. WOODRUFF: If I may follow up, Mr. President,
when you say you wouldn't rule out a use of military force,
you're saying U.S. troops on the ground. What would be their
mission if they were to go there?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say what our policy is.
Our policy -- and we have not decided to use force, all I've said
is we can't rule it out any longer. Our policy is to restore
democracy to Haiti and then to work to develop Haiti with a
functioning government and a growing economy. The people who are
now in control in Haiti have thwarted democracy, they have
brought down the economy, they have visited abject misery on
their people, and they are now once again killing and mutilating
not just sympathizers of Aristide, but other innocent civilians.
And it is wrong. And we've got to do what we can to try stop it.
That is our policy, and we are going to pursue that policy as
vigorously as we can.
I want to make it clear -- this is the
responsibility not of the United States, but of the people who
are running things in Haiti tonight. They abrogated the
Governors Island Agreement. They have started killing, first the
allies of President Aristide and now innocent civilians. They
have brought this reign of terror and poverty on their people.
They can change it tomorrow if they will. And I hope they will.
Q But you wouldn't say at this point what the
mission would be if we were to go in?
THE PRESIDENT: The mission of the United States,
whatever means we choose to pursue that mission, is to restore
democracy, to start a multinational effort to help Haiti function
and to grow again and to crawl out of this enormous hole that the
present rulers of Haiti have illegally driven the people into.
MS. WOODRUFF: All right, Mr. President, we want to
turn now to another troublesome spot in the world. And for that,
I would ask you to look in this direction to Seoul, South Korea,
and to a journalist there.
Go ahead, sir.
Q I am from Seoul. I am very happy to meet you.
My first question is: Many people refer the current situation in
the Korean Peninsula and it's nuclear -- to a crisis. Do you
agree? If you agree to that, what are the U.S. options to
overcome this crisis?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it is a very serious
situation. And let me say, first of all, it is a very serious
situation because North Korea has agreed to be a nonnuclear
state, to follow nonproliferation policies. Because it has
nuclear resources, it has agreed in the past to submit to the
international inspections of the IAEA. There has been a lot of
trouble about that, as you know, as well as about how to resume a
dialogue between North Korea and South Korea.
I would say to you, sir, that the options we have
are largely again in the hands of the North Koreans themselves.
North Korea can choose -- and I hope they will -- and I would say
this to the North Koreans, believe we have North Koreans
watching us tonight, I would say to you: The United States
wishes to have friendly and open relationships with you. We wish
to have a constructive relationship. We want you to have a
constructive relationship with South Korea. You in North Korea
have pledged yourselves to a nonnuclear Korean Peninsula. That's
what we want. If there is a policy of isolation pursued by us,
it will only be because you decide not to follow through on the
commitments you have already made -- to honor international
inspections and to be a nonnuclear state.
The options are, I think, clear. But they are not
easy. No one wishes this confrontation. But neither does one
wish to have a state not only with nuclear power, but with a
capacity to proliferate nuclear weapons to other nations. It is
a very serious potential situation. We intend to stand firm and
to keep working with our allies -- the South Koreans, the
Japanese, working with the Chinese and others -- to reach a good
solution to this.
Our hand is still out to the people of North Korea
and to the leaders of North Korea. But we expect the commitment
that North Korea made to be a nonnuclear state to be honored.
MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. President, if I may just quickly
follow up here. With all due respect to what you said, if North
Korea wants to go ahead and develop a nuclear weapon, what is to
stop them from doing so? You're not saying that the United
States is prepared to go to war if they continue with this
program that they've begun.
THE PRESIDENT: At a minimum North Korea will be
much more isolated and a much more tenuous position. And they
relationships between the North Koreans and South Korea will be
strained, I think, irrevocably in many ways. And the problems
that North Korea will then have with their neighbors in Japan as
well as with their friends in China will be very significant.
The least that would happen is that they would be
much, much more severely isolated, and they would run a risk of
having more difficult things happen. And their rhetoric has
recognized that.
I think this is another one of those issues --it's
in the hands of the North Koreans. But we have reached out the
hand of friendship and cooperation, and we know the South Koreans
wish to do the same. It does not really make sense for the North
Koreans to pursue this path of isolation. They can have more
prosperity, more security and more prestige by abandoning this
nuclear program that they have already promised to abandon than
by going forward with it, and I hope they will.
MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
We're going to take a break now. And when we come back we'll
have a question from Sarajevo.
MS. WOODRUFF: Welcome back. As I said before the
break, we're going to take a call from Sarajevo. We will be
doing that in just a moment, but first we have a question right
here in the hall from the CNN World Report contributor from
Belgrade. Go ahead, sir.
Q television of Serbia-Belgrade. Mr.
President, are you considering any change of strategy in Bosnia?
Instead of shock politics, would it be more productive to treat
equally all three sides in the civil war, to negotiate without
oppression, threats, media -- of Serbs, and without the United
Nations sanctions against Serbian people?
THE PRESIDENT: I guess the short answer is no; but
not entirely no. Let me explain what I mean by that. The United
States does not believe that we can or should, alone or through
NATO, enter into your war on the side of the government of Bosnia
and its new partnership with the Croats.
When we supported creating the safe zone around
Sarajevo, we made it absolutely clear that anyone caught
violating the safe zone would be subject to the NATO air strikes,
including weaponry of the government. We also have made it clear
to the government that they should not look to us to change the
military balance on the ground, and that there has to be a
negotiated settlement. We have said that to the government, just
as the Russians have said that to the Bosnian Serbs. And we
intend to undertake a very intense effort to restore diplomatic
negotiations.
Now, having said that, I do not favor lifting the
sanctions while that is going on for the very simple reason that
the United States supported and recognized Serbia when it became
an independent country, Croatia, and Bosnia. The United Nations
decided to keep the arms embargo on all of the former Yugoslavia.
But the arms embargo was a mockery in Bosnia because Serbia was
next to the area occupied by the Bosnian Serbs. And, as you
know, Yugoslavia was a great manufacturer, even an exporter, of
arms before it broke up.
So the necessary effect of the arms embargo was to
give an enormous strategic advantage to the Serbs in heavy
weaponry, to facilitate ethnic cleansing when we were trying to
support a peaceful solution that would enable all the people of
Bosnia -- the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims -- to live
together.
So I could not support lifting the embargo. But I
agree with you to the extent that there cannot be a military
victory here. There must be a negotiated settlement. That is
why I thought it was a mistake for the Serbs to press their
advantage around Gorazde. We only seek to use NATO air power to
protect safe areas, to keep the Brcko area stable, to stop this
fighting on the ground, let's go back to the negotiations, let's
make a peace so that we can all return to normal peaceful
relations. I want that, and I want that with Serbia as well.
But we have to do it in the right and moral way.
MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. President, our next question is
from Sarajevo from a CNN correspondent.
Go ahead.
Q Mr. President, it's a privilege to address you
from Sarajevo. You tonight just said that Bosnia was just a
humanitarian catastrophe. Surely, sir, you would agree that it
is so much more than that -- a fundamental question of
international law and order. You also said that it is clearly in
your national interest, the U.S. national interest.
So my question is, as leader of the free world, as
leader of the only superpower, why has it taken you, the United
States, so long to articulate a policy on Bosnia? Why, in the
absence of a policy, have you allowed the U.S. and the West to be
held hostage to those who do have a clear policy, the Bosnian
Serbs?
And do you not think that the constant flip-flops of
your administration on the issue of Bosnia sets a very dangerous
precedent and would lead people such as Kim Il-Sung and other
strong people to take you less seriously than you would like to
be taken?
THE PRESIDENT: No, but speeches like that may make
them take me less seriously than I'd like to be taken. There
have been no constant flip-flops, madam. I ran for President
saying that I would do my best to limit ethnic cleansing and to
see the United States play a more active role in resolving the
problem in Bosnia. And we have been much more active than my
predecessor was in every way from the beginning.
I also said very clearly that I did not believe we
should inject American ground forces on the ground in Bosnia to
try to affect the strategic outcome, to take part in the civil
war.
When I became President, I argued to our European
allies that we ought to lift the arms embargo or at least be
caught trying in the United Nations because of the unfairness of
the situation on the ground. They argued back to me that they
were on the ground as part of the U.N. peacekeeping force and
that if we lifted the arms embargo, we would lengthen the war,
make it more bloody and subject their people to being shot or
taken as hostages. So, we could not prevail.
I then worked to get NATO, for the first time in its
history, to agree to an out-of-area operation, which we did in
August. We have enforced a no-fly zone, we have had the longest
humanitarian air lift in history, we have succeeded because of
the NATO air power, I believe, in getting a lot of the lines of
communications for humanitarian aid open again there, and, of
course, the safe zone around Sarajevo and elsewhere. I wish it
could have been done overnight, but fundamentally, Bosnia is in
the -- it's in the American interest to limit the conflict to
Bosnia, to try to restore humanitarian conditions, to see that a
bad example is not set, and to limit the refugee outflow. Those
are the things we are trying to do.
We have troops in Macedonia. We have used our air
power. We have pushed NATO. And we have pushed the United
Nations. But I don't think you can say that the world community
could have intervened and changed the course of this war or
should have intervened on one side or the other. What we need to
do is to stop the conflict from spreading, which I think has been
done; try to stop the military escalation within Bosnia, which I
think has been done; and then get the parties back to negotiate a
decent peace.
I believe that was -- as a practical matter, the
only option open to me after I became President, and I have
worked very hard on it for a year. I do not believe I should
have injected American ground forces there into the conflict.
We, after all, had at the time I became President, several
thousand forces in Somalia. We have obligations in Korea and in
other places in Asia. We have obligations potentially in the
Middle East because of the work we are doing there. And the
United States has done the best it could.
I think we have done a very great deal. Do I wish
we could have done more earlier? Do I wish the Europeans and our
other allies had totally agreed with me? Of course, I do. But I
also respect their differences and their long experience in this
area. I did the best I could. I moved as quickly as I could. I
think we have shown a good deal of resolve. And I think what
this Bosnian situation shows is that if you can get NATO agreed
to act with resolve, NATO can have an impact.
I will still say in the end we have to resolve this
through negotiations. Air power cannot change the course of the
civil war either. They're going to have to negotiate a peace.
What we're going to try to do is to make it less bloody, and less
productive to pursue aggression, so that the parties will want to
go back to the peace table.
MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. President, just a quick followup.
Would you not acknowledge that given what you said during
the campaign about it being timed to end Serb aggression, that it
is much easier to make these statements in a campaign than
actually to carry them out as President?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I also said -- what I will
acknowledge is that I underestimated the difficulty of putting a
coalition together all agreeing on one policy. And that -- her
question to me was right if she were to ask me, do I think it too
long for all of us to get together? Yes, I do. But we worked at
it very hard from the beginning. I don't think it's fair to say
we've gone back and forth. We tried one area, it didn't work, we
try another.
There were people who said to me, don't get involved
in Bosnia; leave it alone; let it go; it's a sinkhole; you can
have no influence; walk away from it. If you try to do
something, you can't dominate it, you'll just be attacked for
that. I thought that was bad advice. The United States
sometimes has to try to make a difference where it cannot control
events, but can influence them. That is the situation with
Bosnia. We are not in control; we have some influence; we're
doing our best to exercise it, and I think we're better off.
I think during the campaign, when I made it clear
that I didn't think we could or should send ground forces in
unless there was an agreement, I underestimated the difficulty of
getting broad agreement through NATO and then getting the U.N. to
use the NATO force. I did underestimate that. It took longer
than I wish it had. But if you think about what an unprecedented
action NATO has taken -- the first time we have ever acted
together out of the NATO area -- I think still it's something
that's remarkable and very much worth doing.
MS. WOODRUFF: All right, Mr. President, to another
part of Europe; a question from Polish television.
Q Don't you think, Mr. President, that the
decision that you don't allow Poland and other Central European
countries to become NATO members just because of pressure -- of
Russian pressure, which Russia exerted, is a mistake? Especially
if you consider that it is a very unstable situation in Russia
now, and if you consider the Russian growing nationalism?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I fully expect NATO to
be expanded eastward. At the time we formed the Partnership For
Peace and asked Poland to participate -- which it agreed to do --
along with Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, all the former
Warsaw Pact countries, Ukraine, all the former republics of the
Soviet Union, there was at that time no consensus within NATO
about which countries to take in, in what order, and what the
obligations of NATO membership would be for a new country coming
in. So it wasn't, with all respect, in response to Russian
pressure that no membership was offered to Poland or any other
country last summer.
What I argued for in the Partnership For Peace was
the beginning of joint planning, joint maneuvers, joint
operations with military cooperation with any country that wanted
to join the Partnership For Peace, including, I acknowledged
Russia if they wished to join. Because I thought at the end of
the Cold War, we had a chance which we ought to take; a chance to
see Europe united for the first time since nation states began to
dot the European continent -- a chance. And it seemed to me that
the Partnership For peace offered us the best of both worlds.
That is, if everyone would agree to observe and respect their
neighbors territorially and to see their neighbors' territory as
integral to their own security, then we might succeed.
If, in fact, imperialist tensions in Russia
reasserted themselves, then we could always, by planning for
NATO, take in other countries into NATO membership at an
appropriate time without any risk to their security whatever.
That is my hope and goal.
If you're asking me the big question is, does the
United States have an interest in the security of the people of
Poland and Hungary and Central Europe and Eastern Europe, the
answer to that is yes. But don't assume that NATO has walked
away from Poland. NATO is walking toward Poland, not away.
MS. WOODRUFF: Thank you. Now, Mr. President, a
question from our remote location in Jerusalem; a correspondent
from Israeli television.
Q Yes, Mr. President. Now that we seem to have
agreement with the Palestinians, looking ahead to the next big
challenge, Syria, after your Geneva Summit with President Assad,
you spoke of a strategic change in President Assad concerning
peace. Following Secretary Christopher's visit and talks with
Assad, what evidence do you find of a strategic change in
President Assad regarding peace with Israel and regarding
terrorism, including in Lebanon?
THE PRESIDENT: The evidence I find is that he has
welcomed a very frank and candid and explicit exchange of views
and ideas about how to make a lasting peace and achieve normal
and peaceful relationships with Israel.
Secretary Christopher has been asked by President
Assad, and approved by PRime Minister Rabin, to serve as an
intermediary at this point in having what I believe are the most
serious conversations ever held since the creation of this
terrible divide between Israel and Syria, between a leader of
Syria and a leader of Israel.
I have had several conversations with President
Assad and of course with Prime Minister Rabin, with whom I talked
just this afternoon about the ongoing progress of Middle East
peace negotiations. And all I can tell you is that all of us
believe that we have a greater chance to achieve a breakthrough
agreement than ever before. And obviously, that breakthrough
agreement ultimately would have to include an agreement with
Lebanon recognizing the territorial integrity of Lebanon and
excising terrorism from Lebanon. And I believe we are on that
road, and we have a real chance to make progress this year.
Obviously, since their conversations are private, I
can't say more. But all I can tell you is I honestly believe
that, and I think the other major actors in this drama believe it
as well.
MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. President, I've just been told
that just in the first few minutes that a Palestinian delegate,
PLO delegate, has announced in the Middle East that the Israelis
and the PLO have wound up their talks and they have reached an
agreement on Palestinian autonomy, which was something you
referred to just a few moments ago.
We want to go -- continue in our Jerusalem location
now with a question from a Palestinian journalist.
Go ahead.
Q I work for the Jerusalem Times. Mr. President,
the agreement will be signed soon. There is a need for a real
economic development for the occupied territories. There was a
donors conference in October in Washington, and the countries
provided about $2 billion for the Palestinians. It's one-fifth
of the need for the Palestinians. Do you consider a Palestinian
demand to support -- to have any extra support?
I have another part of the question. Would you
consider a Palestinian demand also to give Palestinians loan
guarantees, the same way the American administration gave Israel,
for example, the loan guarantees for housing? Will you consider
that? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, let me say, I agree it
will take more than $2 billion to totally construct a successful
economy on the West Bank and around Jericho and in other places
-- in Gaza and Jericho -- excuse me. But I think the $2 billion
is a very good start. That's what we might call real money. I
mean, it's a pretty good beginning.
And let me say, in anticipation of -- I've not
checked this today, but I asked if we could have in Cairo when
the agreement is signed between the PLO and Israel a delegation
of American business people, American Jews and Arab American
business people who have pledged themselves to work together to
bring private capital and private investment in to support the
other commitments that the governments have made at the donors
conference.
So, I believe you can look forward to a significant
increase in private investment from the United States from both
Arab Americans and Jewish American business people in these areas
because of their common determination to work together to see
that you are able to work and live together.
MS. WOODRUFF: Alright, Mr. President, now we come
back to one of our world report contributors here in the hall, a
journalist from Japan.
Q Thank you, Judy. Good evening, Mr. President.
I am with the Japanese television -- Japan and the United States
have very tough negotiations, trade negotiations. But they
stopped in February without reaching any agreement. Now, what
are your requirements in order that we can start new talks again,
and when do you think both parties can sit at the negotiating
table?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me answer the first
question first -- the what. If you go back to the agreement I
made on my trip to Japan as part of the G-7 Conference last
summer with the then-Prime Minister Miyazawa and the
conversations I had with Prime Minister Hosokawa and with your
new Prime Minister, Mr. Hata, when he was in his previous
position, what we wish to do is to simply continue to make
progress within the framework of the agreement that Japan and the
United States both made last summer.
The big hang-up is over the question of the use of
numerical targets, and does this amount to managed trade, does
this amount to quotas. I want to emphasize, if I might, two
things. Number one, I have ever asked for any access to the
Japanese market for the United States that I have not sought for
every other country. It would be wrong. I have not asked for
that.
Number two, I have pledged my efforts to ensure that
the use of numerical quotas would not be used -- or numerical
targets -- would not be used to establish trade quotas or managed
trade for the Japanese people. I know that we cannot require
your people to buy products they do not wish to buy, or we cannot
overcome price or quality problems our products or services might
have.
On the other hand, the Japanese government, both
when Prime Minister Miyazawa was in office and when Prime
Minister Hosokawa was in office, always agreed that Japan needed
a more open trading policy; that your consumers were paying 37
percent more for consumer goods than they would pay in a more
open economy; that is was in you long-term interest not to have a
permanent trade surplus, not just with us, but with the world, of
over $100 billion a year.
So we have to know, are we making progress or not.
The only reason we wanted to use numbers was because that will
show some aggregate worldwide trend. I do not want you to
promise the United States any specific part of your markets. And
I think if we can overcome that misunderstanding, we can begin
again.
As to when it happens, I think that depends in part
on how things go with your attempt to develop a new government
and new policies. You have a new Prime Minister now. I hope he
can work out arrangements so that we can resume this dialogue. I
must say I have a very high regard for all three of the Japanese
Prime Ministers with whom I have worked. And I believe we can
work this out.
I also think I should say -- I don't mean to abuse
your time, sir -- but for the benefit of the whole rest of the
world who look to the United States and to Japan for leadership,
I think sometimes people are worried about our relationship
because they think we're fighting over trade too much. We are
basically not only partners but friends. We share common
strategic interests; we share common political values; and we
share common economic interests. We will not allow -- we must
not allow -- these differences which reflect a mature discussion
and debate to spoil the relationship that I think is so important
for the whole world.
MS. WOODRUFF: Thank you, Mr. President. When we
come back -- we will take a break now -- when we come back we
will come have a question from China.
MS. WOODRUFF: Back, now, with the global forum
questions for President Clinton. Mr. Clinton, a questioner from
China.
Yes, sir.
Q Thanks, Judy.
Mr. President, in your meeting yesterday with our
Vice Premier Zou Jiahua, you said, I quote, "The United States
wants to see a strong, stable and prosperous China." My question
is, do you foresee some sort of significant change in the
relations between our two countries? And my second question is,
do you think a cancellation of China's most favored nation
trading status would run counter to your good wishes for China;
and that would be detrimental to China's economic reforms and
open policy? Because there's no denying that China's open policy
and economic reforms have greatly improved the living conditions
of the Chinese people in general. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me answer the second question
first, and then I'll answer the first question. Yes, believe if
we were to withdraw Most Favored Nation status from China it
would undermine what I hope to see in terms of our relationship,
and it would be detrimental to the economic progress in China and
to the standard of living which has come to so many millions,
indeed, hundreds of millions of Chinese people. So I do not wish
that to happen.
As you know, relationships between our two countries
became very strong again after a period of difficulty starting in
1972 with President Nixon's trip and then in 1979 with President
Carter's actions to recognize China, and all the things which
have come after that. Then there was a great strain on our
relationship after the difficulties in 1989 and China at
Tiananmen Square.
What I have sought to do is to find a balanced way
for our two countries not simply to be partners, but to restore
our genuine friendship -- which is very much in the interest of
the whole world as well as our two people -- by trying to
establish conditions that would permit that partnership and that
friendship to go forward. Those are the criterion I set forward
in order to continue the most favored nations status next month.
I do not seek nor would it be proper for the United
States or for any other nation to tell a great nation like China
how to conduct all its internal affairs or to treat all its
citizens or what laws it should have. That would be wrong.
The criteria in the executive order I issued are
those things recognized in all universal declarations by all
countries as essential to human rights. I will say we have made
real progress in our relations with China on the immigration
issue, on getting a prison labor agreement, in many other areas.
As you know, Wang Juntao was released last week. There have been
some progress there, too, in the area of political dissidents and
human rights.
We still have a way to go. And I told Vice Premier
Zou that I would work personally very hard and that our
government work very hard in the next month to try to work out
our differences so that we could go forward together. I think
that is in your interest and ours and in the world's interest.
But human rights is very important to the United States. And
there are some issues that I believe the United States has
perhaps an extra responsibility to stand up for -- human rights,
nonproliferation, other things that if we didn't do it, it would
be even more difficult for other countries to do.
So I'm doing what I think we must do, but I am doing
it in the spirit of genuine reconciliation and hope that in the
next month our two great nations can work this out.
Thank you.
MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. President, is Most Favored Nation
trading status -- just to be clear about this -- is it seriously
in jeopardy of being withdrawn from the Chinese?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, under the present -- under the
present facts, China has made significant overall progress in
several of the areas outlined in my executive order of last year.
But not in all of them. There are still areas in which we are
different. And that is obviously clearly an option on the table.
Yes, it is a possibility. But he asked me the question, would it
be a bad thing for China and would it be consistent with the
relationship I hope we have with them. And the answer is, yes,
it would be a bad thing; and, no, it's not consistent with the
relationship I hope we have. But we have to keep working to get
over these last humps. And I hope and pray that we will in the
next month.
MS. WOODRUFF: All right, Mr. President. A
questioner from Uganda.
Go ahead, sir.
Q Mr. President, America and the United Nations
intervention in Somalia saved very many lives. From that
perspective, it was a very positive development despite the loss
of some American lives. What lessons were learned in Somalia?
And can these lessons be used to save lives in a very similar
situation in Rwanda and help the refugees in neighboring
countries?
THE PRESIDENT: That, sir, is a brilliant question.
I mean, it is the question of the day in Africa and in some other
places.
Let me say, first of all, thank you for
acknowledging the work of the Americans and the others there.
While we are gone there are still several thousand United Nations
forces in Somalia from all around the world working to continue
to save lives.
What lessons did we learn. First of all, I think we
learned that it is very difficult to have the forces of the
United Nations, and certainly the forces of the United States, go
in for any prolonged period of time and say that this is only a
humanitarian crisis. In other words, the people of Somalia were
starving and dying not because they couldn't grow food, but
because of the political and military conflicts within the
country; not because no one would send them food, but because it
was hard to deliver before we went there.
So I think we learned -- lesson number one is, don't
go into one of these things and say, as the United States said
when we started in Somalia, maybe we'll be done in a month,
because it's a humanitarian crisis; because there are almost
always political problems and sometimes military conflicts which
bring about these crises.
Lesson number two is that when the United States
handed over its mission to the United Nations it was quite
appropriate for there to be someone who would take action,
military action if necessary, to protect the lives of the United
States and the United Nations troops there. But the United
States in its role as a superpower cannot be caught in the
position of being a policing officer in a conflict like that when
there is not political process going on.
Because what happened was, the police operation --
which was a legitimate one, that is to protect the lives of the
soldiers who were there trying to save the lives of the Somalis
-- became viewed as a way of choosing sides in the internal
conflict of the country because there was no political dialogue
going on.
So I think those are the two great lessons. If
we're going to go in and try to save lives, we must know that in
the beginning, everyone will be glad to see the U.S. or the U.N.
or anybody because they're starving and dying. But after a
certain amount of time, it will be obvious that it wasn't just a
natural disaster. It was a political problem, a military
problem.
And secondly, we must never give up the political
dialogue, then, so that everyone in the country knows that we are
there -- all of us -- to make peace and be peacemakers. Yes, we
will fight to protect the lives of our people, but not to try to
solve your problems for you. Those are the two lessons, I think.
MS. WOODRUFF: Now to a question -- were you going
to follow up just quickly, sir?
Q Can these lessons be used to save lives in a
similar situation now in Rwanda?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps. We're looking at
that with the states that border Rwanda. We released another $15
billion today for aid. And we have to provide more aid; we have
to try to deal with the refugee problem; we have to try to get a
political process going again; and we have to try to marshall the
resources, it seems to me, of nations all around the world who
care very deeply about this. I think the conscience of the
world has grieved for the slaughter in Rwanda, and just a few
months ago in Burundi in almost the same proportions.
But we also know from not only the Somali
experience, but from what we read of the conflict between the
Hutus and the Tutsis that there is a political and military
element in this. So I think we can take the lessons we learned
and perhaps do a better job there over a longer period of time,
and perhaps head off the starvation and do those things which
need to be done. I hope so.
MS. WOODRUFF: Now a question from another part of
Africa, from Johannesburg, a live remote there; a correspondent
from Nigerian television.
Go ahead. Go ahead, sir, you're on.
Q Mr. President, since the end of the Cold War,
the United States' aid and assistance to Africa has been on the
decline. There's no doubt because American foreign policy are
focusing more to the East. Now, can this now be rightly
interpreted to mean that the American foreign policy is on the --
side for clients and ignoring its friends.
MS. WOODRUFF: Could you repeat the last part?
THE PRESIDENT: Just the last part. Can this be
interpreted to mean what, sir?
Q Can the American foreign policy -- is it on the
line by such for clients rather than staying with friends.
THE PRESIDENT: The search for clients rather than
friends? No, it is true that there has been a reduction in our
foreign aid assistance to Africa going back before I became
President, but continuing. But the reason for that, sir, is that
in the aftermath of the Cold War, our government's deficit was so
high we have been cutting almost all kinds of spending.
And foreign assistance has not had a great level of
support in our country. It's not that we're looking for clients
or we'd rather give the money to someplace else. It is that one
of the things that I still have to do as President is to do a
better job of persuading the American people that we have an
interest, long-term interest in the success of South Africa and
in the success of Nigeria and all points in between; that we have
a long-term interest that requires us to invest modest amounts of
our great treasure in foreign assistance so that we can be in a
more secure world, a more peaceful world, and that the American
people actually benefit from it.
In our country, many of our people think we spend
much more money than we do on foreign assistance and they say we
have problems at home we should deal with. But that's what
caused the decline in assistance. Their has been no
discrimination against Africa in my judgment, although I think we
don't emphasize Africa enough, and we should do more.
MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. President, we have another
question from Johannesburg from CNN's own Bernard Shaw.
Go ahead.
Q Mr. President, I suppose I have a damned if you
do, damned if you don't question. If you double aid to the South
African government, to the Mandela government, how are other
nations on this continent to avoid feeling slighted by
Washington?
THE PRESIDENT: I think other nations may feel
slighted. But I think if you look at the potential of the
government of national unity, Mr. Mandela, after all, has
committed himself to a government of national unity for five
years involving Mr. de Klerk and his supporters and presumably,
Mr. Buthelezi and the Inkatha supporters. We haven't gotten the
final numbers yet, but I think that will be the case.
And if we can help to restore South Africa's economy
in a multiracial environment, after all, we had a billion dollars
in trade this year, just ten years ago we had $10 billion in
trade with South Africa in the U.S. alone. And South Africa can
be a beacon of economic development and prosperity for all of
Southern Africa, can help to build interest in American and other
business people in investing in all of southern Africa and can
help to build a constituency for expanded assistance throughout
Africa.
So I think that this is an opportunity which in the
short run benefits South Africa, but has the capacity in the near
term to be of immense benefit to Africa. And it's not as if we
could double aid to someplace else if we didn't do this. There
is no possibility. So I think this is an enormous opportunity we
should seize it and use it to build a broader and deeper
relationship with the rest of Africa.
MS. WOODRUFF: We turn our attention now back to the
hall, Mr. President, to a journalist from Brazil, from TV Globo.
Q At this moment, Mr. President, a leftist and a
moderate leftist is running far ahead in the public opinion polls
for the Brazilian presidential elections to be held in October.
And in Mexico, a moderate leftist is a strong challenger for the
presidential elections to be held in August. I would ask you if
you are ready to do business with a leftist or a moderate leftist
president in the two largest Latin American countries?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are ready to do business
with the democratically-chosen leaders of any nations who are
willing to deal with us on honorable terms consistent with
international law. And we are certainly ready to do business
there. Let me say that -- you may know that my Secretary of
Commerce has identified 10 nations which he estimates will be
growing rapidly and will provide great economic opportunities for
the United States in the years ahead. Both Brazil and Mexico are
on that list.
And we know that if people govern with an eye toward
the interest of their people, they can govern well coming from a
wide range of democratic parties. If you look next door in
Argentina, when President Menem was elected, coming out of the
Peronest legacy, people said, oh, my goodness, what will this
Menem do? Well, he got the economy straightened out, he opened
up the economy to trade, he maintained a strict adherence and
support to democratic principles, and he's largely been quite
successful by bringing the sort of left and center together, if
you will.
So whatever decision the people of Brazil make is
fine with me as long as we can have that kind of working
relationship when the election is over.
Q Do you believe that if that happens, these two
countries will be on that list?
THE PRESIDENT: It depends entirely, sir, on what
policies are pursued. They still have to be committed to growing
the economy, to participating in a market economy and to giving
their people a chance to compete and win in the global economy.
If they do that, they can be. It depends on what you do with
power once you get it, not so much what the name is, what your
label is when you come to power, but what do you do after you
assume office.
MS. WOODRUFF: We are going to stay in the Western
Hemisphere. And now a question from a journalist from Cuba.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I am from the Cuban
Television. As you say, the world marched to a global economy.
At the same time, the U.S. policy toward Cuba is based on a
strict economic blockade. The reasons for that blockade 30 years
ago don't exist anymore, if you read the law of 1962.
At the same time, the U.S. government has shown a
great sense of wisdom and respect and maintained normal
relations, economic and political, with difference countries with
very peculiar political systems. My question is, why is it
different with Cuba?
And let me tell you something personal. I refuse to
accept that a wisdom and intelligent government that you preside
take that measure only, like the experts say, for winning the
political votes of Florida.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but I didn't win in Florida,
so you can't hold me -- (laughter.)
Q I know. I know. (Laughter and applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: I mean, I like them very much, but I
didn't win there. (Laughter.)
I do support, however, the Cuban Democracy Act,
which reinforces the blockade, but also calls for greater
communications contact and greater humanitarian aid to Cuba.
I think, in much the way I answered some of the
previous questions, that the isolation of Cuba is largely the
result of the policies of Cuba and the history of 30 years. I
mean, just recently -- just in the last few days -- someone in
Cuba was sentenced to several years in prison for simply talking
to foreign journalist.
And maybe we do have higher standards for Cuba
because we have a large Cuban American population and because
Cuba is close to our borders, even though there's no longer any
prospect of Russian missiles there, but that is our policy. And
Cuba continues to stand in isolation to the democratic winds
which has swept through every country in the Caribbean and South
and Central American, and even through Haiti. Even though the
Haitian President was ousted, he was at least elected.
And I think that Mr. Castro has it within his own
power to change the nature of the relationships between our two
countries by moving toward a more open and democratic system.
And that is up to him to do. And our country, meanwhile, has
simply reaffirmed its policy in 1992 with the passage of the
Cuban Democracy Act. And I don't expect that policy to change
anytime soon.
MS. WOODRUFF: Another question from Latin America,
a journalist from Colombia.
Q Mr. President, your administration's policy on
drugs is focused on reducing consumption domestically. But the
flow of drugs, the flow of illegal narcotics on the streets is
constant. It seems to many that your administration might be
looking the other way. And I would also like to know what you
think of Colombia's policy on the war on drugs, and if Colombia
is not doing enough, what should be done.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me answer the question
slightly differently. It is true that we believe, more strongly
than we have in the past, that the drug problem in America is a
problem of demand as well as supply. That is, we have about five
percent of the world's population -- actually, a little less. We
consume about half the world's illegal drugs. Now, part of that
is because we have a good deal of money, but we have only 22
percent of the world's wealth, and we consume half the world's
drugs. So, obviously, we want drugs more than some other places.
There are things unique to the United States that we
cannot blame on Colombia or Mexico or anyplace else that we have
to deal with. So we have invested a lot more money in this
budget in drug education and drug prevention and drug treatment;
in dealing with the problem -- and in enforcement here on our own
streets.
There are two other things that we should focus on.
One is, can you stop the drugs in transit? That has been a big
emphasis of the U.S. government in the past -- getting drugs
coming into the air into our country, or at the borders. The
other is, can we help countries deal with drugs at the source --
moving farmers into other products, helping deal with the drug
cartels in their own countries.
It is true that we have reduced the former. That
is, we have reduced emphasis on stopping drugs in transit. But
we want to increase our efforts to work with you in Colombia and
other countries to stop drugs at the source. We want to do more
with you if you are willing to take the steps necessary to deal
with it. And of course, I have seen your country's legitimately
elected judges and prosecutors and political leaders who have
taken on the drug problem have done it at terrible risks. Many
of them have been murdered. All of them have put their lives at
risk.
And I understand that when the United States says to
Colombia, we're not satisfied with the efforts you're making,
it's a little hard to take sometimes because of the terrible
risks that are associated with taking it on. All I can tell you
is that we will do more to help stop the drug problem in the
countries where the drugs are produced or processed if the
governments are willing to work with us. That is our commitment,
and we will do more.
It seems to us we can be more efficient by
emphasizing the source countries and reducing demand in our
country, even if we have to spend a little less in trying to stop
the drugs in transit.
MS. WOODRUFF: We're going to skip all the way
across the Atlantic Ocean, we have a questioner from Finland.
Q As U.S. President, you were elected based on
your views on domestic policy for the most part. Yet, once in
office you have to handle crucial international issues, and it's
on this that most of the criticism in this room comes from, and
you have had quite an earful tonight, too.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm used to it -- (laughter).
Q Do you feel you have received unfair criticism
on your foreign policy?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I don't know. I wouldn't say
that in the sense that in our country, at least, there's a great
tradition of freedom of the press. And part of the job of the
press is to criticize whoever's in power. (Laughter.) I mean,
that's part of the job. So to pick out the things that are going
wrong.
I think what I would say is that we have had a lot
of successes that perhaps have not been as noticed as they should
have been, some of which I mentioned earlier tonight. And
secondly, that the problems that we have had are a result of very
difficult issues which do not have an easy solution. I just
would mention two very briefly -- we've already talked about.
The first is Haiti. Two-thirds of the people voted
for Aristide. Enormous numbers of people participated in
democracy. He'd kicked out. The military leaders promised to
leave; they don't. But we want to be good neighbors. We don't
want to be the big bully going around using our power in a
destructive way. How do you solve that? The other is Bosnia
where I do not believe we should have intervened in the war on
one side or the other, but I do believe we have an interest in
trying to work with Europe. And working with Europe meant in
this case working both with the U.N. and with NATO in areas sort
of unfamiliar to each, and certainly working together was
unfamiliar. So it took longer and it was more ragged and more
frustrating than I wish it had been. But that is part of the
reality of the post-Cold War world, when we're all searching for
new arrangements that work.
I don't mind being criticized, but I do think it's
not fair to say that we have been unprincipled or vacillating.
That's just not true. We have been quite clear, and we've tried
to work through these problems, but not all problems have easy
solutions.
MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think you underestimated, Mr.
President, the complexity of some of these issues.
THE PRESIDENT: -- I saw an interview the other day
with President Kennedy, about a year before he was assassinated,
and they asked him what he had learned as President. And he said
the problems were more difficult than I imagined them to be.
(Laughter.) And at least on the international front, I would
say, the problems are more difficult than I imagined them to be.
MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think you've had the right
foreign policy team to help you tackle them?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think they're quite up to the
job, it's just that they're plowing new ground. We could have
gotten less criticism in a way if we had just said this problem
and this problem, this problem, don't involve our vital
interests, therefore we will not commit our prestige or our
efforts. But President Roosevelt once said he'd rather be part
of a government that made a few mistakes in the cause of activism
than be part of one that was frozen in the ice of its own
indifference. I do not believe we can afford to be indifferent.
But as we venture out in these new areas, we have to risk error.
And so I have been willing to risk error. And when you do that,
you get more criticism.
MS. WOODRUFF: And when you're accused of
vacillating, it doesn't bother you, right?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, sometimes it really bothers me.
(Laughter.) But I think, first of all, all leaders sometimes
have had to back and fill and alter their course throughout
history. But there is no vacillation in the principles of the
policies here. It's just that we don't know what will work
within the limits of our ability to deal with some of these
problems.
Not every issue is one that you can put the entire
wealth, the entire military might, the entire prestige of the
United States on the line for. But many issues are things that
are worthy of our best efforts within the limits of our ability
to proceed. And that is where all these gray areas are the areas
of frustration, particularly for the people who are on the
receiving end of the problems. I didn't -- I was waiting for my
lecture from Sarajevo tonight, and I rather enjoyed it because
that poor woman has seen the horrors of this war. And she has
had to report on them.
MS. WOODRUFF: Christiane Amanpour.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, she's been fabulous. She's
done a great service for the whole world on that. (Laughter.) I
do not blame her for being mad at me, but I'm doing the best I
can with this problem from my perspective. (Applause.) I didn't
know -- I would have to look at her, now blush -- (laughter).
Anyway, go ahead.
MS. WOODRUFF: That's a good note to end on. Thank
you very much, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much all of you.
(Applause.) Thank you. (Applause.)
MS. WOODRUFF: On behalf of CNN, good night.
(Applause.)
END8:30 P.M. EDT
|