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
(Denver, Colorado)
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 22, 1997
PRESS CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT
Colorado Convention Center
Denver, Colorado
2:25 P.M. MDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Please be seated. Let
me say I have a brief opening statement, and then I will open the floor to
questions. I know we also have some members of the international press here,
and I'll take several questions from the American press first, and then I'll
try to alternate a bit. And I think I have a general idea of where everyone
is.
Let me begin by saying that over the past four years I have
worked with our partners in these summits to focus the major industrial
democracies of the world on both the opportunities and the challenges that we
face as we move toward the 21st century. Together we worked to prepare our
economies to meet new transnational threats to our security, to integrate new
partners into our community of free market democracies.
The summit communique I summarized just a short while ago
demonstrates that here in Denver we have actually made real progress on
problems that matter to our people. To prevent financial crises from one
country from sending shockwaves around the world, something we have seen on
two different occasions in the last few years, we've strengthened our network
of banking and market officials to monitor financial policies and police risky
practices.
We moved forward in our fight against new security threats
that confront all our people. We intend to step up our collective efforts
against the growing international problem of high-tech and computer-related
crime. We agreed to work more closely to stem the spread of materials of mass
destruction that could be used in terrorist attacks.
To help ensure that as we dismantle nuclear weapons dangerous
materials don't fall into the wrong hands, we'll tighten control on plutonium
stockpiles and establish a rapid response network to prevent nuclear
smuggling.
Together, we've begun to tackle another very dangerous threat
we'll all face together in the years ahead: infectious diseases that can span
the planet in the space of an airline flight. We've agreed to create a global
early warning system to detect outbreaks and help us to get the right
medicines where they're needed quickly.
And in all of these efforts, we believe we are stronger
because we now have Russia as a partner. I'm pleased that for the first time
Russia took part in our summit from the start and that this week we reached
agreement on Russia's joining the Paris Club for creditor nations -- evidence
of Russia's
emergence as a full member of the community of democracies.
The progress we've made here in Denver demonstrates
again what I have said so many times in the last five years. In
this new era, foreign policy and domestic policy are increasingly
intertwined. For us to be strong at home, we must lead in the
world. And for us to be able to lead in the world, we must have
a strong and dynamic economy at home and a society that is
addressing its problems aggressively and effectively.
To continue that path, let me say, there are some
things we have to embrace on the home front and on the
international front. First, Congress must pass a balanced budget
plan consistent with the agreement we made and with our values.
The balanced budget must include a tax cut that is as far as
possible to middle class families and meets their real needs,
providing help for education, for child rearing, for buying and
selling a home. I will also insist that any tax cut be
consistent with a balanced budget over the long run. We cannot
afford time-bomb tax cuts that will explode in future years and
undo our hard-won progress.
This will be a crucial test of our will to continue
the economic strategy that has produced American prosperity in
the last few years -- balancing the budget and investing in our
people as we move into a new century.
Second, after our own Independence Day, I will
travel abroad for a NATO Summit where we'll take a historic step
to lock in freedom and stability in Europe. In Madrid, we'll
invite the first of Europe's new democracies to join our
Alliance, to advance our goal of building a continent that is
undivided, democratic, and at peace for the first time in
history.
Third, we'll move ahead with our leadership of the
world economy and with the obligations and the opportunities that
come with it. I urge Congress to vote next week to continue
normal trade relations with China so that we can maintain our
ties with one-quarter of the world's people, advance human rights
and religious freedom there, continue our cooperation for
stability on the Korean Peninsula, and to prevent the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, and keep Hong Kong's economy strong
as it reverts to Chinese sovereignty.
Then I will ask Congress for the fast track
authority that every President for two decades has had to
negotiate smart new trade agreements so that we can open new
markets in Latin America and Asia to American goods and services
to complement the African initiative I announced just a few days
ago.
In closing, let me again thank the thousands of
people who put this summit together for their hard work. I thank
the people of Denver for the warmth of their hospitality, the
power of their optimism, and the strength of their example. And
especially I want to thank Harold Ickes and Debbie Willhite, and
our whole team for all the work that they have done over the
last several months.
And now I'll be happy to take questions. And I
think we'll start with Ken.
Q Mr. President, in the last year there have been
various efforts led by the United States to try and move the
Balkan states, the former Yugoslav states, into adhering to the
Dayton Accord. Can you tell us why you believe this summit is,
in fact, going to move those leaders to do that? And also, while
you have said to try and focus on what's taking place now, can
you tell the American people whether or not the U.S. troops will
remain in the former Yugoslavia beyond June 1998?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I will reiterate American
policy on that. Our policy is that the SFOR mission should be
completed by June of '98, and we expect it to be. But to answer
your first question, which is the far more important one, I made
it very clear that I think that we have all made a terrible
mistake in dealing with Bosnia to spend all of our time focusing
on June of '98 instead of focusing on tomorrow and the day after
tomorrow and the day after that.
We have seen some successes in Bosnia, not only in
the work done by IFOR and SFOR and the absence of bloodshed, but
in the recent -- just in the last few days we've had the Serbs
agreeing to proceed with the setup of common economic
institutions and to do other things which will make them eligible
for economic aid. We expect there to be local elections -- Madam
Agnelli from Italy is doing a good job in raising the money there
to conduct these local elections.
And what I urge the parties to do and what our
statement reflects here is our determination to spend the next
year trying to implement the Dayton Accords, and taking each of
the seven areas -- there are roughly seven areas of activity
where Dayton is critical to pulling this together -- and trying
to make headway on all fronts, and especially on the economic
front.
We have pledged a lot of money, but we need to
release the money as soon as it's pledged if the parties commit
to do what they're supposed to do. And I'm convinced that --this
whole thing is always going to be a race against time and hatred
and limitations to try to get people to feel and visualize the
benefits of peace and living together.
I'm not ready to give up on Dayton. I believe in
it. And I feel that you will see over the next several months a
number of specific examples where the people who are in the Group
of 8 are trying to energize this peace process.
Terry.
Q Mr. President, the communique says that the
Middle East peace process faces crisis and that you're determined
-- all the leaders are determined to re-inject momentum into it.
The United States has tried. Egypt has recently tried. Yet, the
process remains stalled on all fronts. What is it that the
United States and all the partners here can do to re-invigorate
this process to get things going?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, let me emphasize
something. You should never believe that just because you don't
see high-level air transport between Washington and the Middle
East that nothing is going on from our point of view. We spend
-- I spend quite a bit of time on this every single week. And
I'm very concerned about what's happened.
But let me say in a nutshell, here's what we have to
find a way to do: We have to find a way to persuade the
Palestinians that there is a basis for returning to the
negotiating table and that all the Final Status issues are not
going to be resolved out from under them. But we also have to
find a way to persuade the Israelis that the Palestinians are
serious about security.
In other words, the Palestinians will have to return
to security cooperation with the Israelis, and will have to
manifest an opposition that is clear and unambiguous to
terrorism, the unauthorized injury or murder to innocent
civilians, and to continuing the peace process. The Israelis,
for their part, have got to find specific things that can be done
that show that there's a commitment to Oslo in fact, not just in
words, and a commitment to getting this process going.
Now, there are several different potential scenarios
that might achieve that, and we've been working very hard on
trying to figure out what the most effective way to do it is.
For all of us who are outsiders, including the
United States, it is not self-evident what the most effective way
to exercise whatever influence you have is. And I am prepared to
do anything I reasonably can to keep this peace process from
going awry. I think that it's in a pivotal moment, and I think
that all of the friends of Israel and the Arab states and the
Palestinians need to bear down and do what we can to persuade
these people that they need to get back to the work of the peace
process.
Gene.
Q Mr. President, even before next week's
reversion of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty, there are some
ominous signs that China plans to roll back some of the rights
and freedoms that the people of Hong Kong now enjoy. I know that
the communique here in Denver addressed that issue, but what can
the United States and the other industrial democracies do if
China fails to deliver on the 1984 agreement?
THE PRESIDENT: It's interesting, we spent a lot of
time talking about that this morning, and mostly we were
listening to Prime Minister Blair, who obviously has the highest
level of knowledge about this and the deepest experience, and a
lot of personal involvement with Hong Kong, I might add.
Our sense is that, obviously, we don't exactly what
will happen, but that we have all committed to work with the
British to try to continue to insist on and preserve the
integrity of the '84 agreement, and we also do not want to assume
the bad faith of the Chinese. I think that would be an error.
China made a commitment in 1984, and they asked our country when
President Reagan was in office to actually bless or endorse the
commitment when China and Great Britain made the commitment to
have one China, but two systems. And that definition clearly
included political as well as economic differences.
You know, I hate -- I don't like to answer
hypothetical questions, and I think anything we do will only make
it worse. I think what we want to do is to encourage the Chinese
to remember they have a unique, almost unprecedented place now
that is reverting to their sovereignty, and that part of the
fabric of what makes Hong Kong work is not just open markets and
industrious people and a haven of hope for people who flee the
lack of opportunity and often oppression elsewhere, but a lively
and open society. And it needs to be maintained, and I hope that
it will be.
Yes, Ann.
Q When the tobacco deal was announced, you
indicated you'd be listening for reactions from some, like Doctor
David Kessler, who said this morning that he finds, in reading
the fine print, that there are some hurdles, some impossible
burdens. And he called parts of it, a step backwards. Is there
some way you can assure people that this agreement will not
simply be proposed and then die? Is there something your
administration can do follow through to make sure that this
represents a time of real change for the tobacco industry?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- I think the answer to that
is, yes. And let me say, obviously, I have not, myself, had a
chance to review this in any detail. Bruce Lindsey has briefed
me on its major provisions. And that's why I asked to have the
chance to have it reviewed. I don't think any of us -- at least
I hope none of us are reviewing it with the view toward either
saying we're going to embrace it or kill it, and there's no other
option.
I was impressed by some of the comments of members
of Congress in both parties that they were hoping that if they
couldn't completely embrace it, that at least it could be
salvaged; and by Attorney General Moore from Mississippi who said
that he thought the agreement would come apart if what he called
-- I think he said, radical changes or something were made in it,
which would undermine its fundamental understandings.
But I think -- here's bottom line for me: When two
sides make an agreement -- an honorable, principled agreement --
they, obviously, both conclude that it's in their interest to
make the agreement. And what we have to -- those of us who are
on the outside of this who represent the public interest have to
do is to make sure that those things which made the tobacco
interests conclude that it was in their interest to make the
agreement do not compromise or undermine our obligation and our
opportunity to protect the public health and especially
children's health and reduce child smoking.
Now, that will particularly bear on the specific
language relating to the jurisdiction of the federal Food and
Drug Administration, and exactly what it means. And I just urge
you all to read it carefully. We're going to be reading it
carefully. And we're going to read it carefully against what the
tobacco companies have already admitted about the addictive
qualities of nicotine and what was known.
So you have to not only look at the legal language,
but you have to look at the factual basis that's out here. We're
going to work through. But I can tell you, I'm going to do my
best to see that this whole endeavor, which is massive, results
in something positive for the American people. But we have to
have those tests -- public health, child smoking.
George.
Q Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, just a minute. I
called on this man, then I'll call -- just hold on.
Q Mr. President, as you prepare to leave for
Madrid, NATO is undergoing a rather public division over the
number of nations that should be asked to join. Were you able to
bridge the gap here at all with President Chirac or the Prime
Minister of Italy? And, secondly, do you see any lasting damage
to the Alliance from this split?
THE PRESIDENT: I think my answer would be no to
both questions. That is, we still have differences of opinion
about whether in the first round there should be three or five
nations admitted, or some favor four. But I do not expect it to
do lasting damage to the Alliance, if -- this is a big if -- we
maintain the integrity of the process we set up. That is, if we
say, this is not the first entrance, there will be an open door,
and if we continue to intensify the work of the Partnership for
Peace, which has been wildly popular with all its members, and we
have an extra outreach to those who are good prospective members.
For example, if you just take the two countries in
question, Romania and Slovenia, I believe that they are excellent
candidates for admission to NATO membership if they stay on the
path of reform and they continue to build up their partnerships
with us militarily through the Partnership for Peace, preserve
democracy. Romania has resolved its problems with Hungary, has
two Hungarians in the Cabinet. It's the second biggest country
in Central and Eastern Europe. Slovenia is a key nation
geographically, if for no other reason, between Italy and some of
the other countries in Europe and Hungary and some of the
difficult spots that we're likely to have trouble in.
So I think that there is not as much difference over
where we think this will be 10 years from now as there is how we
should proceed now. And I'm hoping we can resolve these things.
I'm confident that our position is the prudent, the disciplined,
and the right one for this military alliance at this moment. But
I don't think we should in any way discourage or dash the hopes
of two countries that clearly are moving in the right direction
and strategically located in an area where it will be very
important for NATO to maintain stability in the years ahead.
Now go ahead.
Q Mr. President, two days ago the representative
for the Red Cross in Pyongyang announced that there were about 5
million North Koreans in imminent danger of starvation. I was
wondering if this issue was discussed at the meetings in the last
two days, and if you as Chairman of the G-7 cannot mobilize the
other countries to contribute what is necessary and to create the
logistical means of getting it to North Korea before a
catastrophe hits.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I discussed this actually
personally, one on one, with a number of the leaders. And the
United States has pledged more food aid to North Korea. I am
very concerned about it as an humanitarian matter, and I believe
you will see more action on this front. And I'm certainly
committed to doing it; I'm deeply troubled.
And I also would say that, in addition to that,
we're hopeful that the latest statements by the North Koreans
indicating that we can have a meeting to discuss how to get into
the four-party talks with the Chinese and the South Koreans --
that's also very hopeful. But I'm profoundly troubled by the
reports that I have read about the scope of human suffering in
North Korea. And whenever we've been asked, we've come up with
some more food, but I'd like for us to do more and I think you'll
see these other countries willing to do more as well.
John.
Q Mr. President, your administration has been
criticized for cutting China a break in terms of how you deal
with it, using a policy of constructive engagement; that there's
a double standard. You are tougher on other countries for
similar transgressions; with China you think talk is best. The
basic criticism comes down to the notion that for the sake of
trade, the administration will compromise its principles. Can
you respond to that, please?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yes. I don't think it's fair.
For example, if you look at our policy toward Burma, which,
unlike China, had a democratically-elected government and
reversed it, and represents the most severe abuses of political
and civil rights that we've dealt with recently in terms of our
actions, we've been for sanctions against Burma, but we haven't
repealed MFN.
And when you look at China, we still have Tiananmen
Square sanctions on China that we haven't gotten rid of. We have
given up a lot of business in China, clearly -- and they've made
it clear that we have -- by continuing to press our human rights
concerns in the human rights forum. What we don't believe would
be fruitful is to withdraw normal trading status from China --
something we have with virtually every country in the world -- in
a way that would estrange us further from them, prevent us from
working together on problems like North Korea, weapons
proliferation and other issues, and endanger the ability of the
United States to be a partner with China in the 21st century.
That's what we don't believe.
We have paid quite a price from time to time for our
insistence on advancing human rights. I just don't think taking
normal trading status away from them is much of a way to
influence them over the long run. I think it's a mistake.
Wolf.
Q Mr. President, Senate Finance Committee,
including the Democrats, by and large, have supported legislation
they want you to sign that would do two very dramatic things to
Medicare -- raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67, and impose
what's called means testing, making sure that millionaires and
richer Medicare recipients pay more for the premiums than poorer
Medicare recipients. Could you tell us specifically right now
how you will come down on these two very sensitive -- politically
sensitive issues?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's take them differently --
separately. First of all, both of them are clearly outside the
budget agreement. And if -- because I felt so strongly about
honoring the budget agreement, I did not try to help the
advocates of the Kennedy-Hatch bill pass their child health plan,
even though I strongly support it. I didn't try to help them
pass it because I wanted to honor the budget agreement. So I
think I can be forgiven for asking that other people honor the
agreement is they voted for it. Now, if any of these senators
didn't vote for it, I can't expect them to honor it. But if they
voted for it, it was very specific. And that's what concerns me
about it.
Now, let's take them independently on their merits,
because I wouldn't say that the administration and the leaders of
both parties in Congress couldn't come back during the course of
this endeavor and agree, in effect, that this should be
considered as consistent with the budget agreement -- not this
issue, but just any particular issue. So let's take these two
issues.
Number one, on the question of raising the
eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67, when that was done on a
phase-in basis for Social Security back in '83, I supported that,
on the grounds of increased life expectancy, changing demographic
balance and because it was part of a bipartisan process. My
question here would be, apart from the fact that it's outside the
agreement, is, do we know that this would not lead to increased
numbers of people without any health coverage? Has there been
sufficient study here? Do we really have adequate evidence that
we won't have increasing numbers of people without health
insurance?
On the means testing for -- not for the premiums,
but for the co-pays, which is what was done in the case of the
cash -- I have said repeatedly that, philosophically, I was not
opposed to means-testing Medicare. And I told Senator Lott that
on the phone the other day. What my concerns are, are the
following.
Number one, it's outside the agreement. Number two,
we have an agreement which has a lot of reform in Medicare and
will realize $400 billion worth of savings and put 10 years on
the trust fund right now. And will this imperil it because
people will be opposed to it? Or would this endanger the whole
Medicare deal in the House, for example, where I have reason to
believe, based on our preliminary negotiations over the budget
agreement, that there would be broad opposition in both parties?
Thirdly, Mr. Reischshauer and others have said that this
particular proposal is probably not capable of being
administered, that there are a lot of practical problems with it.
So, again, I say, I have said to leaders of both
parties and to the American people, I want to take care of more
of the long-term problems of the entitlement, both Social
Security and Medicare. I am amenable to doing it in any
bipartisan process. I have the specific problems I mentioned on
these two issues, but the number one thing is, we have got a
great budget agreement; we should not alter it unless there is
agreement among all the parties who made the budget agreement
that it's acceptable to do because, otherwise, we risk
undermining the prize that we have when we could achieve these
other objectives as soon as the budget's done in an appropriate
bipartisan forum.
Bill and Mara. Go ahead. We'll do one, two here.
Q Mr. President, there's a report out today that
your administration has chosen to ignore information that China
is sending missiles to Pakistan, selling them in contravention of
its 1994 agreement, and also helping Pakistan to build a facility
to manufacture the missiles. Is it true? If so, why did you
ignore it? And will it have any effect on your MFN decision?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, you know I can't
comment on intelligence reports or alleged intelligence reports.
I would remind you that when we had clear evidence that China was
providing ring magnets to Pakistan in ways that we thought were
plainly violative of our law and our national interest, we dealt
with them about that and were satisfied. And I think it's fair
to say that on all these issues we will not overlook them, we
will not walk away from them, and we will make appropriate
determinations and take appropriate action. The national
security of the country is always going to be the most important
thing.
Mara.
Q -- your initial take on one of the aspects of
the tobacco deal. You've said that you're concerned about the
ability of the FDA to regulate tobacco as you have proposed
allowing it to do in the rule. Can they do that if they have to
prove that regulations would not create a black market? Some
critics say that's an impossible thing to prove; the deal does
require it. And isn't that just giving away the court victory
that you just won?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see, I don't know the
answer to that. But it concerned me, because the first thing I
thought was, what happens if they go to a zero nicotine ruling,
and the technology is available -- obviously, the technology has
to be available to do it since it's otherwise a legal product --
how could you prove there wouldn't be a black market? What's the
definition of black market? Is a one percent penetration a black
market or does it have to be 10?
That's why I've been so reluctant to answer these
questions. Not -- I'll be happy to give you my opinion when I
have a chance to study it, but that's why I want to take 30 days
and look at this.
I've also -- let me tell you, I've been involved in
these agreements. It's like this long budget agreement we did.
And one of the things I can tell you is, when you're dealing with
something with this many complex elements, if you are dealing in
complete good faith and the other side is dealing in complete
good faith, it is entirely possible that there were three or four
things that were put in here that will have likely consequences
that neither side anticipated.
So that's why I would -- I know that we're all in a
hurry to sort of rush to judgment on this, and I understand that,
but that's why we need to take the time to really analyze it and
make sure there's not something there that would have an
unintended consequence that, for all I know, neither party meant
to have.
Peter, I'll take you next. Go ahead. We'll do both
of them.
Q Mr. President, you said that you want to avoid
time-bomb tax cuts in the budget deal, that you would insist on
avoiding them. Would you also insist on including the $500 child
care tax credit for the 4 million working families? Is that
something that you would insist upon?
And number two, regarding the budget agreement, is
it made more difficult to get it done by the Republican
in-fighting?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me deal with the questions
separately. First of all, on the tax credit, my position is that
all working people should be made eligible for it -- the Senate
bill in that regard is better than the House bill -- and that we
shouldn't have some other offset, like reducing the child care
credit as well as the children's tax credit in the new bill.
I understand the Republicans are arguing because
they want to save money on this to pay for the capital gains and
the other things that they want. They're arguing that this is,
in effect, a welfare thing because you're giving a child care
credit to people who aren't paying income taxes -- now, that's
their agreement -- because of the other tax credits people are
entitled to.
But let's just take the income group they are
dealing with -- working families with incomes between $22,000 and
$25,000. Now, suppose you've got a rookie police officer in a
medium-size city in the South, the average entry-level salary is
about $23,000 -- and it's a woman or a man with two kids at home.
This police officer is paying federal taxes, a considerable
federal payroll tax. And to treat -- to characterize them as
welfare recipients because they would be made eligible for the
same help that people making $31,000 a year would get to raise
their children, I think is wrong.
So that's an area where we simply have a
disagreement. I was encouraged that the Senate moved closer to
us than the House. This is something I expect to work out.
On the other question, I wouldn't -- do I think
we're not going to make an agreement because of reported
divisions within Republican ranks? No, I do not expect that to
be prohibitive. I think that there was a lot of tension within
their caucus, obviously, over this disaster aid bill, but in the
end they did the right thing. And the leaders did the right
thing. And I think that nobody likes to go through that and have
your position not prevail. And so that was understandable.
But I think as time passes, they will see that their
leaders did the right thing and that the country is better off
and that were moving in the right direction. So I don't expect
splits to paralyze us.
Peter.
Q Sir, I'd like to ask you about an aspect of
this tobacco deal where you do have some expertise, the legal
aspect. What's your view of this concept of protecting the
tobacco industry from lawsuits, from liability? What kind of
legal and what kind of constitutional precedence would that set?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I understand it, it does
not protect them from liability for actual damages. It protects
them from liability for past punitive damages, and still permits
punitive damages if there is misconduct from the date of the
agreement forward.
Now, in the law, the purpose of punitive damages is
to deter future destructive behavior. And the concept of
punitive damages is provided not because the person suing is
entitled it because of his or her injuries, but because you think
the injuries are not enough -- compensating this person is not
enough to take the profit out of whatever anti-social conduct and
illegal conduct the defendant was engaging in. So you enable
--you have punitive damages to take the sting out of it.
The people negotiating on behalf of the public --
the attorneys general and the lawyers -- as I understand it, got
another $20 billion or so -- Mike Moore described what it was --
in a kind of advanced penalty fund -- say, we're doing to make
you pay up front for the things you've done wrong. And that's
how they -- in the last few weeks, the agreement went from
involving about $300 and something billion to almost $370
billion.
So, that -- I think -- I can't answer you question
except to say, I'll sit down there and I'll try to evaluate that.
I will evaluate -- it's an unusual and unique resolution. They
got several billion dollars more out of the tobacco companies
than they had been talking about getting. Can you have, in
effect, an advance payment for punitive damages? Does it sort
of -- does that, plus all the other things that would be good
from a consumer's point of view and the public's point of view,
would that be enough to kind of off-set the troublesome areas?
You and this man and then Bill, the three of you
-- I'll take you real quick. And then I'll take some foreign
journalists back there.
Q Mr. President, the hearings on campaign
fundraising will begin soon. And a number of key figures --
people who worked for you or old friends have either fled the
country or have said they would take the 5th Amendment. Is there
anything you can or should do to get them to come clean?
THE PRESIDENT: What we can do is to control what
we're asked to do. We tried to be very cooperative and all that
we have asked is that the hearings be fair and bipartisan. And
if they are, I think they'll serve a valid public purpose.
Go ahead.
Q President Clinton, some of the critics of your
decision to renew Most Favored Nation trade status for China say
that perhaps watching the transition of Hong Kong should have
been taken into consideration before granting that status. Was
that ever a consideration? And in your opinion, how realistic is
a one-country, two-systems policy?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the answer to the first part
of your question is, we have to make this decision now, and I
think we should now. This thing will obviously be revisited
within a year. I think if we look like we were -- again, I would
say to you, China is a very large country. It has great ties
with the rest of the world. If we were to basically say, the
United States believes we can keep you on probation all by
yourself, and we're going to see what you do, we're like assuming
their bad faith. I think that would be a mistake.
On the one-country, two-systems thing, I think it is
realistic, but I think there will be some tensions there. And
what we, of course, in the United States hope is that the
tensions will steadily be resolved over time in favor of freedom
and openness, free speech, personal freedom and democracy.
But let me remind you, 25 years ago, when President
Nixon went to China, or in 1979 when President Carter recognized
China and worked out the understandings of how we relate to China
and how we would relate to Taiwan. There is plainly a lot more
personal freedom and mobility and personal well-being in China
today than there was then. In other words, our frustrations with
China today are not measured against the standard of 1979 or
1972; they're measured with our deep disappointment and
disagreement with 1989 and Tiananmen Square and our lack of
success in persuading the Chinese to, in effect, go back to the
status quo before Tiananmen Square and keep moving forward.
In the life of a country like China, that's not such
a long time. And I'm just not prepared to give up on our
engagement policy. So that's all I can say about it.
Bill.
Q Mr. President, now that you have a U.S. tobacco
agreement, would you favor and encourage some sort of
international regulation of tobacco? And wouldn't this be a good
G-7 issue?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it might be. But the problem
is, you know, the G-7 nations are not the primary place where the
market is growing. I will say this, I hope that other countries
around the world that are concerned with their own public health
and who have primary responsibility for the well-being of their
own people, will look at what we've been trying to do here and
ask themselves whether they should take some similar steps if
they want to avoid very high death rates, very high disease
rates, and enormous social costs.
Could we have a few questions from the international
press now? Would someone just stand up over here -- anybody from
the international press? Go ahead. We'll take a few there.
Just stand up and I'll get around to you. Go ahead.
Q Mr. President, in your meetings here with the
leaders of Japan and Russia, did you get the sense that the
Northern Territories dispute between those two countries could be
resolved? And do you see any U.S. role in that resolution
process?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think -- well, first of all,
I think the only appropriate United States role is to try to talk
to each party on behalf of the other from the point of view of
being friends with both. That is, this is an area where we
plainly have no personal, tangible interest of any kind. We have
no territorial interest, we have no financial interest. Our only
interest is seeing two friends of ours get along, and trying to
stabilize one more -- the future of the Asia Pacific region by
removing one more deterrent to an alliance between a free and
democratic Russia and our great ally in Japan.
So I have talked to both Prime Minister Hashimoto
and President Yeltsin about this on several occasions. They are
beginning to talk about it among themselves. They will have to
work it out. But, obviously, I'm very hopeful that it can be
worked out.
Yes, sir -- the gentleman standing there.
Q Mr. President, I think you have been waiting
for too long for Japan's achievement of deregulation and
administrative reforms. Could you tell us your opinion, as
frankly as possible, on this matter?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I agree with you. (Laughter.)
I agree with you.
Here's the problem we're going to run into with
Japan on the trade issue. We have made real progress over the
last four years in our trading relations with Japan. It's become
a real joy to be able to meet and work with Japan where trade was
an issue, but not the only issue, and where we really thought we
could identify the issues and make progress on them, that there
was no big structural war going on, economic war, between the
United States and Japan. And I think it has obviously not been
bad for Japan either. I think it's been good for both of us.
Now, the Prime Minister has reaffirmed his
commitment to a domestic demand-led growth strategy for Japan,
and has put forward a very ambitious plan for internal reform and
deregulation and opening of the Japanese economy. At the same
time, he says, quite rightly, that all these advanced economies
are going to face serious challenges from the aging of our
populations. That's true. You've heard all the questions that
were just asked of me about our medical programs. And Japan has
an even older population than the United States, aging even more
rapidly.
So the decisions by the Japanese government to try
to pursue a path of fiscal austerity driven in part by the desire
to prepare for the retirement and the aging of the Japanese
population runs the risk of going back to the old export-driven
strategy of growth. And we'll just have to work through those
two conflicts. We can't tell the Japanese government or the
Japanese people that they can't prepare for the aging or their
population; we have to do the same.
On the other hand, I think they know that if we
resort -- we return to the time when we've got exploding trade
deficits, then that will once again move front and center into
our relations in a way that won't be good for either country, I
don't think.
Q Mr. President, the Russian President Yeltsin
has played an important role in the Denver Summit. What's your
reading -- when will Russia be totally completed into the G-7
circuit as a new member?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me say, this year our commitment
was to have Russia be a complete member of the Group of the 8 and
to have the old G-7 meet only on issues that we had unique
responsibility for because of our present financial standing. So
I think it's fair to say that all of us look forward to the day
when we don't even have to do that.
But just, for example, we've got this project going
on to help Ukraine deal with Chernobyl, and Russia is not
responsible for what we committed to do before, nor would it be
fair to ask Russia to bear any responsibility for that. So we
had to meet and discuss it, and we did. There was nothing secret
or esoteric about it; we just had to do what we were required to
do, and we did that.
But I think you will see continuing integration of
Russia into full partnership. The next thing I want to see is
Russia into the WTO, and we're working on that. So we'll just
keep working at it, and as long as Russia keeps moving as it is
under President Yeltsin, and those reformers and the people of
Russia keep supporting the direction they have, I think that
you'll see more and more good things ahead.
This gentleman has been here a long time, and then
this gentleman, and then we'll move over here.
Q Mr. President, what do you think, is Russia
ready economically and politically to be a full member of the 8?
THE PRESIDENT: I think, yes, they're ready
politically, and ready economically in terms of what's -- like
the Paris Club membership. But I think there are still some
things that the old G-7 have to do that it wouldn't even be fair
to ask Russia to participate in, like this Chernobyl thing that I
just mentioned. So there will be a smaller and smaller role for
the seven as we go forward, and a bigger and bigger role --
basically, this time we had a Summit of the 8, with a small,
little afterthought for what the seven still had to do to clean
up our old business. But I think that, with great prosperity, I
think you'll see any last little dividing line blurring.
Yes, sir. These three gentlemen there are fine.
Just take them in any order.
Q Mr. President, I was wondering, how do you
think Russia will change the balance of forces -- or maybe I
should say, the balance of interest -- within the group now that
Russia has joined, specifically between U.S. and Europe.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope that Russia will change
in two ways that I would consider to be immensely positive. One
is, I think the participation of Russia here, just like the
NATO-Russia Founding Act, increases the chances that we can
maintain stability in Europe in the 20th century, and that we can
deal with any problems that arise like we're dealing with them in
Bosnia, to prevent the outbreak of widespread war in Europe.
The second thing I think is very positive is,
Russia, don't forget, is also a great Pacific power. So in
bringing Russia into this partnership, along with Japan, you will
see a little more emphasis, I think, on what we can do as a group
to deal with what's going on in Asia in preserving stability and
freedom and opportunity there. So in those ways, I think you'll
see the texture of this change.
And you could see it just in the way President
Yeltsin operated here at this meeting, where I might say I
thought he did an extraordinary job.
Q Mr. President, can you assure us that by the
time of the next summit, the main war criminals in Bosnia will
finally have been arrested?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't promise you that, but I can
tell you that's what I support. And I support -- generally, I
think that it's going to be difficult to implement the full
spirit of the Dayton Accord unless you see some progress on the
war criminals front, number one. And number two, as you may
know, I have felt for some time, with so much ethnic and racial
and religious and tribal hatred in the world, that there probably
should be an international war crimes tribunal that is
permanently established and goes forward, because I think that
what we see in Bosnia is just one example of a whole set of very
serious problems.
This young man in the back has been very patient.
Let me take his question.
Q Good afternoon, Mr. President. My name is
Colton Alton. I am a student taking an international course on
the summit for the University of Colorado CU On-Line. There are
450 students internationally, from each of the countries. On
behalf of the 450 students, what do you feel was the most
significant accomplishment with this year's summit?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the most significant thing
we did here was to commit ourselves to a growth strategy that
would include not only our own countries, but other countries
around the world, and that would be pursued while improving, not
undermining, the environment. And that's quite significant.
We've said these things specifically before, but
here we said, look, we're coming up to Kyoto where we're all
bound to adopt legally-binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. So that means we have to grow our economies while
improving our environments, number one.
And then we said, we're going to reach out to
Africa, we're going to reach out to the developing countries of
Asia and Latin America, that our prosperity depends upon their
prosperity.
And, to me, I would hope that the students who
follow this on-line would look at the world in that way, would
see America as a unifying, not a divisive force in the world and
would embrace the fact that our prosperity should depend upon
others and upon living in harmony with our environment.
I'll take one more -- this gentleman here.
Q The communique, just as you said, will test the
importance of four-party talks. Why didn't you urge North Korea
to participate in the four-party talks? And I would
like to ask you what is your prospect of the four-party meetings?
THE PRESIDENT: Why does the communique not urge
North Korea to participate? Is that the question you asked?
Q Yes --
THE PRESIDENT: I would say that it is an oversight
and we should have, because I do every time I can. And secondly,
I'm fairly optimistic now because North Korea has agreed to
participate in a meeting to determine the conditions in which
they would meet with the South Koreans and the Chinese and the
United States to set out these four-party talks. So I'm fairly
encouraged by that.
Go ahead.
Q -- over China will definitely try very hard to
sell the so-called one-county, two-system formula and hope Taiwan
will be on board. And the leaders in Taiwan made it clear that
that formula is not acceptable for them. So I wonder what will
be the U.S. policy on Taiwan after Hong Kong is turned over, and
whether the U.S. will buy this one-country, two-system formula on
the issue of Taiwan.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the most important element of
United States policy will not change as it relates to Taiwan, and
that is that there can be no forcible resolution of that issue,
and that while we accept the idea of one China, it has always
been our policy, for some years now, as you know, we also -- a
critical part of that policy is that the people of Taiwan and the
people of China must resolve their differences in a peaceable
way, agreeable to all.
So that's the only really critical element that we
have to reaffirm there. I think the people of Taiwan are going
to be -- and the leaders of Taiwan will be watching how the Hong
Kong transition goes, and I think that their attitude about what
their own position should be will probably be affected by that.
Thank you very much.
END 3:15 P.M. MDT
[end of document]
Return
to the DOSFAN Home Page
This is an official U.S. Government source
for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links
does not imply endorsement of contents.