NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(San Francisco, California)
_______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release February 26, 1999
REMARKS BY
PRESIDENT CLINTON
ON FOREIGN POLICY
Grand Hyatt Hotel
San Francisco, California
February 26, 1999
11:20 A.M. PST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you and good morning. Mr. Mayor, we're delighted
to be here in San Francisco. We thank you for coming out to welcome
us. Senator Boxer, Representative Pelosi, Representative Lofgren,
members of the California legislature who are here. I'd like to
especially thank two people who had a lot to do with the good things
that have happened in the last six years in our administration, our
former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, and Mrs. Perry, are here; and
General John Shalikashvili, thank you for coming. We're delighted to
see you. (Applause.)
I very much appreciate this opportunity to speak with all of you, to be
joined with Secretary Albright and Mr. Berger, to talk about America's
role in that century to come; to talk about what we must do to realize
the promise of this extraordinary moment in the history of the world.
For the first time since before the rise of fascism early in this
century, there is no overriding threat to our survival or our freedom.
Perhaps for the first time in history, the world's leading nations are
not engaged in a struggle with each other for security or territory.
The world clearly is coming together.
Since 1945, global trade has grown 15-fold, raising living standards on
every continent. Freedom is expanding; for the first time in history,
more than half the world's people elect their own leaders. Access to
information by ordinary people the world over is literally exploding.
Because of these developments, and the dramatic increase in our own
prosperity and confidence in this, the longest peacetime economic
expansion in our history, the United States has the opportunity and, I
would argue, the solemn
responsibility to shape a more peaceful, prosperous, democratic world
in the 21st century.
We must, however, begin this discussion with a little history and a
little humility. Listen to this quote by another American leader, at
the dawn of a new century: "The world's products are exchanged as
never before, and with increasing transportation comes increasing
knowledge and larger trade. We travel greater distances in a shorter
space of time, and with more ease, than was ever dreamed of. The same
important news is read, though in different languages, the same day, in
all the world. Isolation is no longer possible. No nation can longer
be indifferent to any other."
That was said by President William McKinley a hundred years ago. What
we now call globalization was well underway even then. We, in fact,
had more diplomatic posts in the world than we have today, and foreign
investment actually played a larger role in our own economy then than
it does today.
The optimism being expressed about the 20th century by President
McKinley and others at that time was not all that much different from
the hopes commonly expressed today about the 21st. The rising global
trade and communications did lift countless lives then, just as it does
today. But it did not stop the world's wealthiest nations from waging
World War I and World War II. It did not stop the Depression, or the
Holocaust, or communism. Had leading nations acted decisively then,
perhaps these disasters might have been prevented. But the League of
Nations failed, and America -- well, our principal involvement in the
world was commercial and cultural, unless and until we were attacked.
After World War II, our leaders took a different course. Harry Truman
came to this city and said that to change the world away from a world
in which might makes right, "words are not enough. We must once and
for all prove by our acts conclusively that right has might." He and
his allies and their successors built a network of security alliances
to preserve the peace, and a global financial system to preserve
prosperity.
Over the last six years, we have been striving to renew those
arrangements and to create new ones for the challenges of the next 50
years. We have made progress, but there is so very much more to do.
We cannot assume today that globalization alone will wash away the
forces of destruction at the dawn of the 21st century, any more than it
did at the dawn of the 20th century. We cannot assume it will bring
freedom and prosperity to ordinary citizens around the world who long
for them. We cannot assume it will assume it will avoid environmental
and public health disasters. We cannot assume that because we are now
secure, we Americans do not need military strength or alliances, or
that because we are prosperous, we are not vulnerable to financial
turmoil half a world away.
The world we want to leave our children and grandchildren requires us
to make the right choices, and some of them will be difficult. America
has always risen to great causes, yet we have a tendency, still, to
believe that we can go back to minding our own business when we're
done. Today we must embrace the inexorable logic of globalization --
that everything, from the strength of our economy to the safety of our
cities, to the health of our people, depends on events not only within
our borders, but half a world away. We must see the opportunities and
the dangers of the interdependent world in which we are clearly fated
to live.
There is still the potential for major regional wars that would
threaten our security. The arms race between India and Pakistan
reminds us that the next big war could still be nuclear. There is a
risk that our former adversaries will not succeed in their transitions
to freedom and free markets. There is a danger that deadly weapons
will fall into the hands of a terrorist group or an outlaw nation, and
that those weapons could be chemical or biological.
There is a danger of deadly alliances among terrorists, narco-
traffickers, and organized criminal groups. There is a danger of
global environmental crises and the spread of deadly diseases. There
is a danger that global financial turmoil will undermine open markets,
overwhelm open societies, and undercut our own prosperity.
We must avoid both the temptation to minimize these dangers, and the
illusion that the proper response to them is to batten down the hatches
and protect America against the world. The promise of our future lies
in the world. Therefore, we must work hard with the world -- to defeat
the dangers we face together and to build this hopeful moment together,
into a generation of peace, prosperity, and freedom. Because of our
unique position, America must lead with confidence in our strengths and
with a clear vision of what we seek to avoid and what we seek to
advance.
Our first challenge is to build a more peaceful 21st century world. To
that end, we're renewing alliances that extend the area where wars do
not happen, and working to stop the conflicts that are claiming lives
and threatening our interests right now.
The century's bloodiest wars began in Europe. That's why I've worked
hard to build a Europe that finally is undivided, democratic and at
peace. We want all of Europe to have what America helped build in
Western Europe -- a community that upholds common standards of human
rights, where people have the confidence and security to invest in the
future, where nations cooperate to make war unthinkable.
That is why I have pushed hard for NATO's enlargement and why we must
keep NATO's doors open to new democratic members, so that other nations
will have an incentive to deepen their democracies. That is why we
must forge a partnership between NATO and Russia, between NATO and
Ukraine; why we are building a NATO capable not only of deterring
aggression against its own territory, but of meeting challenges to our
security beyond its territory -- the kind of NATO we must advance at
the 50th Anniversary Summit in Washington this April.
We are building a stronger alliance with Japan, and renewing our
commitment to deter aggression in Korea and intensifying our efforts
for a genuine peace there. I thank Secretary Perry for his efforts in
that regard. We also create a more peaceful world by building new
partnerships in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Ten years ago we were shouting at each other across a North-South chasm
defined by our differences. Today, we are engaged in a new dialogue
that speaks the language of common interests -- of trade and
investment; of education and health; of democracies that deliver not
corruption and despair, but progress and hope; of a common desire that
children in all our countries will be free of the scourge of drugs.
Through these efforts to strengthen old alliances and build new
partnerships, we advance the prospects for peace. However, the work of
actually making peace is harder and often far more contentious.
It's easy, for example, to say that we really have no interests in who
lives in this or that valley in Bosnia, or who owns a strip of
brushland in the Horn of Africa, or some piece of parched earth by the
Jordan River. But the true measure of our interests lies not in how
small or distant these places are, or in whether we have trouble
pronouncing their names. The question we must ask is, what are the
consequences to our security of letting conflicts fester and spread.
We cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be everywhere. But
where are values and our interests are at stake, and where we can make
a difference, we must be prepared to do so. And we must remember that
the real challenge of foreign policy is to deal with problems before
they harm our national interests.
It's also easy to say that peacemaking is simply doomed, where people
are embittered by generations of hate, where the old animosities of
race and religion and ethnic difference raise their hoary heads. But I
will never forget the day that the leaders of Israel and the
Palestinian Authority came to the White House, in September of 1993, to
sign their peace accord. At that moment, the question arose, and
indeed, based on the pictures afterward, it seemed to be the main
question, whether if, in front of the entire world, Prime Minister
Rabin and Chairman Arafat would actually shake hands for the first
time.
It was an interesting and occasionally humorous discussion. But it
ended when Yitzhak Rabin, a soldier for a lifetime, said to me, "Mr.
President, I have been fighting this man for a lifetime, 30 years. I
have buried a lot of my own people in the process. But you do not make
peace with your friends."
It is in our interest to be a peacemaker, not because we think we can
make all these differences go away, but because, in over 200 years of
hard effort here at home, and with bitter and good experiences around
the world, we have learned that the world works better when differences
are resolved by the force of argument rather than the force of arms.
That is why I am proud of the work we have done to support peace in
Northern Ireland, and why we will keep pressing the leaders there to
observe not just the letter, but the spirit of the Good Friday Accord.
(Applause.)
It is also why I intend to use the time I have remaining in this office
to push for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, to encourage
Israelis and Palestinians to reach a just and final settlement, and to
stand by our friends for peace, such as Jordan. The people of the
Middle East can do it, but time is precious, and they can't afford to
waste any more of it. In their hearts, they know there can be no
security or justice for any who live in that small and sacred land
until there is security and justice for all who live there. If they do
their part, we must do ours.
We will also keep working with our allies to build peace in the
Balkans. Three years ago, we helped to end the war in Bosnia. A lot
of doubters then thought it would soon start again. But Bosnia is on a
steady path toward renewal and democracy. We've been able to reduce
our troops there by 75 percent as peace has taken hold, and we will
continue to bring them home.
The biggest remaining danger to this progress has been the fighting and
the repression in Kosovo. Kosovo is, after all, where the violence in
the former Yugoslavia began, over a decade ago, when they lost the
autonomy guaranteed under Yugoslav law. We have a clear national
interest in ensuring that Kosovo is where this trouble ends. If it
continues, it almost certainly will draw in Albania and Macedonia,
which share borders with Kosovo, and on which clashes have already
occurred.
Potentially, it could affect our allies, Greece and Turkey. It could
spark tensions in Bosnia itself, jeopardizing the gains made there. If
the conflict continues, there will certainly be more atrocities, more
refugees, more victims crying out for justice and seeking out revenge.
Last fall, a quarter of a million displaced people in Bosnia were
facing cold and hunger in the hills. Using diplomacy backed by force,
we brought them home and slowed the fighting.
For 17 days this month, outside Paris, we sought with our European
partners an agreement that would end the fighting for good. Progress
was made toward a common understanding of Kosovo's autonomy -- progress
that would not have happened, I want to say, but for the unity of our
allies and the tireless leadership of our Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright. (Applause.)
Here's where we are. Kosovar Albanian leaders have agreed in principle
to a plan that would protect the rights of their people and give them
substantial self-government. Serbia has agreed to much, but not all,
of the conditions of autonomy, and has so far not agreed to the
necessity of a NATO-led international force to maintain the peace
there.
Serbia's leaders must now accept that only by allowing people in Kosovo
control over their day-to-day lives -- as, after all, they have been
promised under Yugoslav law -- it is only by doing that can they keep
their country intact.
Both sides must return to the negotiations on March 15, with clear
mandate for peace. In the meantime, President Milosevic should
understand that this is a time for restraint, not repression. And if
he does not, NATO is prepared to act.
Now, if there is a peace agreement that is effective, NATO must also be
ready to deploy to Kosovo to give both sides the confidence to lay down
their arms. Europeans would provide the great bulk of such a force,
roughly 85 percent. But if there is a real peace, America must do its
part as well.
Kosovo is not an easy problem. But if we don't stop the conflict now,
it clearly will spread. And then we will not be able to stop it,
except at far greater cost and risk.
A second challenge we face is to bring our former adversaries, Russia
and China, into the international system as open, prosperous, stable
nations. The way both countries develop in the coming century will
have a lot to do with the future of our planet.
For 50 years, we confronted the challenge of Russia's strength. Today,
we must confront the risk of a Russia weakened by the legacy of
communism and also by its inability at the moment to maintain
prosperity at home or control the flow of its money, weapons and
technology across its borders.
The dimensions of this problem are truly enormous. Eight years after
the Soviet collapse, the Russian people are hurting. The economy is
shrinking, making the future uncertain. Yet, we have as much of a
stake today in Russia overcoming these challenges as we did in checking
its expansion during the Cold War. This is not a time for complacency
or self-fulfilling pessimism. Let's not forget that Russia's people
have overcome enormous obstacles before. And just this decade, with no
living memory of democracy or freedom to guide them, they have built a
country more open to the world than ever; a country with a free press
and a robust, even raucous debate; a country that should see in the
first year of the new millennium the first peaceful democratic transfer
of power in its 1,000-year history.
The Russian people will decide their own future. But we must work with
them for the best possible outcome, with realism and with patience. If
Russia does what it must to make its economy work, I am ready to do
everything I can to mobilize adequate international support for them.
With the right framework, we will also encourage foreign investment in
its factories, its energy fields, its people. We will increase our
support for small business and for the independent media. We will work
to continue cutting our two nations' nuclear arsenals, and help Russia
prevent both its weapons and its expertise from falling into the wrong
hands.
The budget I have presented to Congress will increase funding for this
critical threat reduction by 70 percent over the next five years.
The question China faces is how best to assure its stability and
progress. Will it choose openness and engagement? Or will it choose
to limit the aspirations of its people without fully embracing the
global rules of the road? In my judgment, only the first path can
really answer the challenges China faces.
We cannot minimize them. China has made incredible progress in lifting
people out of poverty, and building a new economy. But now its rate of
economic growth is declining -- just as it is needed to create jobs for
a growing, and increasingly more mobile, population. Most of China's
economy is still stifled by state control. We can see in China the
kinds of problems a society faces when it is moving away from the rule
of fear, but is not yet rooted in the rule of law.
China's leaders know more economic reform is needed, and they know
reform will cause more unemployment, and they know that can cause
unrest. At the same time, and perhaps for those reasons, they remain
unwilling to open up their political system, to give people a peaceful
outlet for dissent.
Now, we Americans know that dissent is not always comfortable, not
always easy, and often raucous. But I believe that the fact that we
have peaceful, orderly outlets for dissentis one of the principal
reasons we're still around here as the longest-lasting freely elected
government in the world. And I believe, sooner or later, China will
have to come to understand that a society, in the world we're living in
-- particularly a country as great and old and rich and full of
potential as China -- simply cannot purchase stability at the expense
of freedom.
On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves, what is the best thing to
do to try to maximize the chance that China will take the right course,
and that, because of that, the world will be freer, more peaceful, more
prosperous in the 21st century? I do not believe we can hope to bring
change to China if we isolate China from the forces of change. Of
course, we have our differences, and we must press them. But we can do
that, and expand our cooperation, through principled and purposeful
engagement with China, its government, and its people.
Our third great challenge is to build a future in which our people are
safe from the dangers that arise, perhaps halfway around the world --
dangers from proliferation, from terrorism, from drugs, from the
multiple catastrophes that could arise from climate change.
Each generation faces the challenges of not trying to fight the last
war. In our case, that means recognizing that the more likely future
threat to our existence is not a strategic nuclear strike from Russia
or China, but the use of weapons of mass destruction by an outlaw
nation or a terrorist group.
In the last six years, fighting that threat has become a central
priority of American foreign policy. Here, too, there is much more to
be done. We are working to stop weapons from spreading at the source,
as with Russia. We are working to keep Iraq in check so that it does
not threaten the rest of the world or its region with weapons of mass
destruction. We are using all the means at our disposal to deny
terrorists safe havens, weapons, and funds. Even if it takes years,
terrorists must know there is no place to hide.
Recently, we tracked down the gunman who killed two of our people
outside the CIA six years ago. We are training and equipping our local
fire, police and medical personnel to deal with chemical, biological
and nuclear emergencies, and improving our public health surveillance
system, so that if a biological weapon is released, we can detect it
and save lives. We are working to protect our critical computer
systems from sabotage.
Many of these subjects are new and unfamiliar, and may be frightening.
As I said when I gave an address in Washington not very long ago about
what we were doing on biological and computer security and criminal
threats, it is important that we have the right attitude about this.
It is important that we understand that the risks are real and they
require, therefore, neither denial, nor panic. As long as people
organize themselves in human societies, there will be organized forces
of destruction who seek to take advantage of new means of destroying
other people.
And the whole history of conflict can be seen in part as the race of
defensive measures to catch up with offensive capabilities. That is
what we're doing in dealing with the computer challenges today; that is
what we are doing in dealing with the biological challenges today. It
is very important that the American people, without panic, be serious
and deliberate about them, because it is the kind of challenge that we
have faced repeatedly. And as long as our country and the world is
around, unless there is some completely unforeseen change in human
nature, our successors will have to do the same.
We are working to develop a national missile defense system which
could, if we decide to deploy it, be deployed against emerging
ballistic missile threats from rogue nations. We are bolstering the
global agreements that curb proliferation. That's the most important
thing we can be doing right now. This year, we hope to achieve an
accord to strengthen compliance with the Convention against Biological
Weapons. It's a perfectly good convention, but, frankly, it has no
teeth. We have to give it some. And we will ask our Senate to ratify
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to stop nations from testing nuclear
weapons so they're constrained from developing new ones.
Again, I say: I implore the United States Senate to ratify the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty this year. It is very important for the
United States and the world. (Applause.)
Our security and our safety also depends upon doing more to protect our
people from the scourge of drugs. To win this fight, we must work with
others, including and especially Mexico. Mexico has a serious drug
problem, increasingly affecting more of its own young people. No one
understands this better than President Zedillo. He described it as the
number one threat to his country's security, its people its democracy.
He is working hard to establish clean government, true democracy and
the rule of law. He is working hard to tackle the corruption
traffickers have wrought.
He cannot win this battle alone, and neither can we. In any given
year, the narco-traffickers may spend hundreds of millions of dollars
to try to suborn Mexican law enforcement officials, most of whom work
for under $10,000 a year.
As I certified to Congress today, Mexico is cooperating with us in the
battle for our lives. And I believe the American people will be safer
in this, as in so many other ways, if we fight drugs with Mexico,
rather than walk away.
Another global danger we face is climate change. As far as we can
tell, with all the scientific evidence available, the hottest years our
planet has ever experienced were 1997 and 1998. The two hottest years
recorded in the last several -- excuse me -- nine of the ten hottest
years recorded in the last several centuries occurred in the last
decade.
Now, we can wait and hope and do nothing, and try to ignore what the
vast majority of scientists tell us is a pattern that is fixed and
continuing. We could ignore the record-breaking temperatures, the
floods, the storms, the droughts that have caused such misery. Or we
can accept that preventing the disease and destruction climate change
can bring will be infinitely cheaper than letting future generations
try to clean up the mess, especially when you consider that greenhouse
gases, once emitted into the atmosphere, last and have a destructive
environmental effect for at least a hundred years.
We took a giant step forward in 1997, when we helped to forge the Kyoto
agreement. Now we're working to persuade developing countries that
they, too, can and must participate meaningfully in this effort without
forgoing growth. We are also trying to persuade a majority in the
United States Congress that we can do the same thing.
The approach I have taken in America is not to rely on a whole raft of
new regulations, and not to propose big energy taxes, but instead to
offer tax incentives and dramatic increases in investment in new
technologies, because we know -- we know now -- that we have the
technological capacity to break the iron link between Industrial Age
energy use patterns and economic growth. You're proving it in
California every day, with stiffer environmental standards than other
states have.
We know that the technology is just beginning to emerge to allow us to
have clean cars and other clean forms of transportation; to
dramatically increase the capacity of all of our buildings to keep out
heat and cold, and to let in more light. We know that the conservation
potential of what we have right now available has only just been
scratched. And we must convince the world, and critical decision-
makers in the United States to change their minds about a big idea --
namely, that the only way a country can grow is to consume more energy
resources in a way that does more to increase global warning.
One of the most interesting conversations I had when I was in China was
with the Environmental Minister there, who thanked me for going there
to do an environmental event, because he was having trouble convincing
the government that they could continue to lift the Chinese people out
of poverty and still improve the environment. This is a central, big
idea that people all over the world will have to change their minds
about before we will be open and free to embrace the technological
advances that are lying evident all around us. And all of you that can
have any impact on that, I implore you to do it. (Applause.)
Our fourth challenge is to create a world trading and financial system
that will lift the lives of ordinary people on every continent around
the world. Or, as it has been stated in other places, to put a human
face on the global economy. Over the last six years, we've taken giant
steps in opening the global trading system. The United States alone
has concluded over 270 different trade agreements. Once again, we are
the world's largest exporting nation. There is a lot more to be done.
In the first five years of my presidency, about 30 percent of our
growth came from expanding trade. Last year, we had a good year, but
we didn't have much growth from expanding trade because of the terrible
difficulties of the people in Asia, in Russia, and because of the
slowdown in growth in Latin America, and because we did not reach out
to seize new possibilities in Africa. Those people are suffering more,
and our future prospects are being constrained.
The question is what to do about it. Some of the folks outside who
were protesting when I drove up were saying by their signs that they
believe globalization is inherently bad and there's no way in the wide
world to put a human face on the global economy. But if you look at
the facts of the last 30 years, hundreds of millions of people have had
their economic prospects advanced on every continent because they have
finally been able to find a way to express their creativity in positive
terms, and produce goods and services that could be purchased around
the borders of their nation.
Now, the question is, how do we deal with the evident challenges and
problems that we face in high relief today, and seize the benefit that
we know comes from expanding trade. I've asked for a new round of
global trade negotiations to expand exports of services, foreign
products and manufacturers. I am still determined to reach agreement
on a free trade area of the Americas. If it hadn't been for our
expansion in Latin America, from Mexico all the way to the southern tip
of South America, we would have been in much worse shape this last
year.
I have urged Congress to give the trade authority the President has
traditionally had to advance our prosperity, and I've asked them to
approve the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act because we have special responsibilities and special
opportunities in the Caribbean and in Africa that have gone too long
unseized.
But trade is not an end in itself. It has to work for ordinary people;
it has to contribute to the wealth and fairness of societies. It has
to reinforce the values that give meaning to life, not simply in the
United States, but in the poorest countries, struggling to lift their
people to their dreams. That's why we're working to build a trading
system that upholds the rights of workers and consumers, and helps us
and them in other countries to protect the environment, so that
competition among nations is a race to the top, not the bottom. This
year we will lead the international community to conclude a treaty to
ban abusive child labor everywhere in the world. (Applause.)
The gains of global economic exchange have been real and dramatic. But
when the tides of capital first flood emerging markets, and then
abruptly recede; when bank failures and bankruptcies grip entire
economies; when millions who have worked their way into the middle
class are plunged suddenly into poverty -- the need for reform of the
international financial system is clear.
I don't want to minimize the complexity of this challenge. As nations
began to trade more, and as investment rules began to permit people to
invest in countries other than their own more, it became more and more
necessary to facilitate the conversion of currencies. Whenever you do
that, you will create a market against risk, just in the transfer of
currencies. Whenever you do that, you will have people that are moving
money around because they think the value of the money itself will
change, and profit might be gained in an independent market of currency
exchange.
It is now true that on any given day, there is $1.5 trillion of
currency exchange in the world. Many, many, many times more than the
actual value of the exchange of goods and services. And we have got to
find a way to facilitate the movement of money -- without which trade
and investment cannot occur -- in a way that avoids these dramatic
cycles of boom and then bust, which have led to the collapse of
economic activity in so many countries around the world.
We found a way to do it in the United States after the Great
Depression. And thank goodness we have never again had a Great
Depression, even though we've had good times and bad times. That is
the challenge facing the world financial system today.
The leading economies have got a lot of work to do. We have to do
everything we can -- not just the United States, but Europe and Japan -
- to spur economic growth. Unless there is a restoration of growth,
all the changes in the financial rules we make will not get Asia, Latin
America, countries -- Russia -- out of their difficulties.
We have to be ready to provide quick and decisive help to nations
committed to sound policies. We have to help nations build social
safety nets so that, when they have inevitable changes in their
economic conditions, people at least have the basic security they need
to continue to embrace change and advance the overall welfare of
society.
We have to encourage nations to maintain open, properly regulated
financial systems so that decisions are shaped by informed market
decisions and not distorted by corruption. We also have to take
responsible steps to reform the global financial architecture for the
21st century. And we'll do some more of that at the G-7 summit in
Germany in June.
In the meanwhile, we have to recognize that the United States has made
a great contribution to keeping this crisis from being worse than it
would have been by helping to get money to Brazil, to Russia, to other
countries, and by keeping our own markets open. If you compare, for
example, our import patterns with those of Europe or those of Japan,
you will see that we have far, far more open markets. It has worked to
make us competitive and productive. We also have the lowest
unemployment rate in the entire world among all advanced countries now,
something that many people thought would never happen again.
On the other hand, we cannot let other countries' difficulties in our
open markets become an excuse for them to violate international trade
rules and dump products illegally on our markets. We've had enough
problems in America this year and last year -- in agriculture and
aerospace, especially -- from countries that could no longer afford to
buy products, many of which they had already offered. Then, in the
last several months, we've seen an enormous problem in this country in
our steel industry because of evident dumping of products in the
American market that violated the law.
So I want you to know what while I will do everything to keep our
markets open, I intend while this crisis persists to do everything I
can to enforce our trade laws.
Yesterday, we received some evidence that our aggressive policy is
producing some results, and I think proof that it wasn't market forces
that led to what we saw in steel over the last year. The new figures
from the Commerce Department show this: Imports of hot-rolled steel
from countries most responsible for the surge -- Japan, Russia and
Brazil -- have fallen by 96 percent from the record levels we saw last
November.
That is not bad news for them, that's good news. If American markets
are going to stay open, we have to play by the rules. We have to
follow lawful economic trends, not political and economic decisions
made to dump on the American markets in ways which hurt our economy and
undermine our ability to buy the exports of other countries.
Our fifth challenge has to keep freedom as a top goal for the world of
the 21st century. Countries like South Korea and Thailand have proven
in this financial crisis that open societies are more resilient, that
elected governments have a legitimacy to make hard choices in hard
times. But if democracies over the long run aren't able to deliver for
their people, to take them out of economic turmoil, the pendulum that
swung so decisively toward freedom over the last few years could swing
back, and the next century could begin as badly as this one began in
that regard.
Therefore, beyond economics, beyond the transformation of the great
countries to economic security -- Russia and China-- beyond many of our
security concerns, we also have to recognize that we can have no
greater purpose than to support the right of other people to live in
freedom and shape their own destiny. If that right could be
universally exercised, virtually every goal I have outlined today would
be advanced.
We have to keep standing by those who risk their own freedom to win it
for others. Today we're releasing our annual Human Rights Report: The
message of the Human Rights Report is often resented, but always
respected, for its candor, its consistency for what it says about our
country and our values. We need to deepen democracy where it's already
taking root by helping our partners narrow their income gaps,
strengthen their legal institutions, and build well-educated, healthy
societies.
This will be an important part of the trip I take to Central America
next week, which has prevailed against decades of civil war only to be
crushed in the last several months by the devastating force of nature.
This year, we will see profoundly important developments in the
potential transition to democracy in two critical countries --
Indonesia and Nigeria. Both have the capacity to lift their entire
regions if they succeed, and to swamp them in a sea of disorder if they
fail. In the coming year and beyond, we must make a concentrated
effort to help them achieve what will be the world's biggest victories
for freedom since 1989.
Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. Tomorrow, it holds its
first free presidential election, after a dictatorship that made it the
poorest oil-rich country in the world. We are providing support for
the transition, and if it succeeds we have to be prepared to do more.
Because we count on further progress, today we are also waiving the
sanctions we imposed when its government did not cooperate in the fight
against drugs.
Indonesia is the fourth-largest nation and the largest Islamic country
in the entire world. In June, it will hold what we hope will be its
first truly democratic election in more than 40 years. Indonesia
desperately needs a government that can help it overcome its economic
crisis while maintaining the support of its people. We are helping to
strengthen the social safety net for its people in providing the
largest contribution of any nation to support the coming elections.
Whether these struggles are far or near, their outcome will profoundly
affect us. Whether a child in Africa or Southeast Asia or Russia or
China can grow up educated, healthy, safe, free from violence, free of
hate, full of hope, and free to decide his or her own destiny, this
will have a lot to do with the life our children have as they grow up.
It will help to determine if our children go to war, have jobs, have
clean air, have safe streets.
For our nation to be strong, we must maintain a consensus that
seemingly distant problems can come home if they are not addressed, and
addressed promptly. We must recognize we cannot lift ourselves to the
heights to which we aspire if the world is not rising with us. I say
again, the inexorable logic of globalization is the genuine recognition
of interdependence. We cannot wish into being the world we seek. Talk
is cheap; decisions are not.
That is why I have asked Congress to reverse the decline in defense
spending that began in 1985, and I am hopeful and confident that we can
get bipartisan majorities in both Houses to agree. I hope it will also
agree to give more support to our diplomats, and to programs that keep
our soldiers out of war; to fund assistance programs to keep nations on
a stable path to democracy and growth; and to finally pay both our dues
and our debts to the United Nations. (Applause.)
In an interdependent world, we cannot lead if we expect to lead only on
our own terms, and never on our own nickel. We can't be a first-class
power if we're only prepared to pay for steerage.
I hope all of you, as citizens, believe that we have to seize the
responsibilities that we have today with confidence -- to keep taking
risks for peace; to keep forging opportunities for our people, and
seeking them for others as well; to seek to put a genuinely human face
on the global economy; to keep faith with all those around the world
who struggle for human rights, the rule of law, a better life; to look
on our leadership not as a burden, but as a welcome opportunity; to
build the future we dream for our children in these, the final days of
the 20th century, and the coming dawn of the next.
The story of the 21st century can be quite a wonderful story. But we
have to write the first chapter.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END: 12:10 P.M. PST