[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992, Book I)]
[July 2, 1992]
[Pages 1063-1069]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 1063]]

The President's News Conference With Foreign Journalists

July 2, 1992
    The President. Thank you very much. And let me read a brief 
statement before responding to your questions.
    Before I leave for Europe, I want to say just a few words about why 
I believe it is so important to the American people that I make this 
trip. Thanks to the courage and the sacrifice of millions of Americans, 
we've won the cold war, we and our allies standing shoulder-to-shoulder. 
Our task now is to secure the peace, to build an expanding world 
economy, one that opens new markets abroad and creates new jobs here at 
home. Our task will not be completed on one 5-day trip. But we can, at 
these meetings, advance the well-being of all of our countrymen, my 
countrymen.
    In the new global economy now emerging, America's economic interests 
don't stop at the water's edge. And we will not prosper in a world 
stifled by trading blocs and tariff barriers. Seventy percent of our 
economic growth in the last 5 years has come from exports. And I will 
continue to fight for more economic growth, and that means free trade. 
Our progress so far has been substantial. Already the new democracies of 
the East are becoming attractive sites for U.S. investment, and nearly 
$2 billion committed this year alone. Those investments will help our 
allies secure democracy's great gains and create jobs for American 
workers. And that's my mission, to secure these benefits for America and 
the world.
    In Warsaw, birthplace of the Revolution of '89, I will stand with 
the Polish people, show our support for their efforts to consolidate 
their hard-won freedom. In Munich, I will work with leaders of the 
world's great industrialized democracies to build a new world economy. 
I'll also meet with President Yeltsin to build on the historic steps 
that we took right here at the White House and to underscore our strong 
support for Russia's reforms. On this one there can be no doubt: An 
investment in Russian democracy is an investment in world peace. And 
finally, in Helsinki, I will meet for the first time with members of a 
CSCE not divided East from West but united in a democratic community of 
more than 50 nations.
    So let me just add one point here on the eve of the Fourth of July: 
We must not forget, must never forget, that in Europe today rests 20 
million American bodies--excuse me--20 American military cemeteries. 
I've been to a couple of them. And we must ensure that there will never 
be a 21st.
    Look at how far we've already come. When I took office 3 years ago, 
adversaries faced us across a divided Europe. Today, the new democracies 
of Central and Eastern Europe are our partners. And the threat of 
nuclear war is more distant now than at any time since the advent of the 
nuclear age. And think of what that means, not for presidents or prime 
ministers, not for historians or heads of state but for parents and 
their children. It means a future free from fear.
    For much of this century, it's been America's destiny to stand for 
liberty and against intolerance and to fight for freedom against 
oppression. And now at long last the moment has come for the lovers of 
freedom around the world to reap the rewards of our vigilance. The 
opportunity we face is historic, the first chance in more than a half 
century to build democratic peace and prosperity for America and for the 
world. This trip will, in my view, bring us just one step, but another 
step, closer to our goal.
    Now I'd be glad to take some questions.

Polish Reforms

    Q. Mr. President, Secretary Baker the other day said that you would 
be discussing with President Walesa some new ideas on advancement of 
Polish reforms. What will they be?
    The President. I can't give you the exact detail. I think it would 
be inappropriate before meeting with the President. We have some ideas 
that would help stimulate investment. We salute President Walesa for 
what he's been able to do in reform already. It has not been easy. And 
there are serious questions that remain. But I'd prefer

[[Page 1064]]

not to go into the details of what we might be discussing with him. As 
you know, the government's in transition, and I think it would be most 
appropriate to talk the specifics with him.
    But let me just reaffirm the interest in the United States not only 
in reforms but the reforms that lead to further American investment. So 
it will be along the lines of what we can do to further stimulate trade 
but also U.S. investment in Poland. I think we've had a good start, but 
we need to go further. Stabilization is the subject that we'll be 
talking about, too.

Aid to Russia and G-7 Membership

    Q. Mr. President, could you tell us, please, what will be your 
agenda for meeting with President Yeltsin? Will it be just an update of 
what you discussed here in Washington, sir, a month ago, or there will 
be new proposals, new initiatives? And secondly, this is the second time 
a Russian leader has been invited to a G-7 summit. The last time, it was 
back, of course, last year when Gorbachev was still the President of the 
Soviet Union. Do you think that Russia will be a permanent member of the 
G-7 sometime soon?
    The President. On your first question, yes, there will be an update, 
because we've really spent a lot of time. The time we spent floating 
around on that boat on the Severn near Annapolis was total work time. In 
other words, we reviewed not just the things we talked about in our 
formal meetings, but we reviewed a wide array of other subjects. So 
there's some updating that needs to be done. One of the things I want to 
update him on is where we stand on what we call the ``FREEDOM Support 
Act.'' And I hope there will be action on that before I leave, in the 
Senate. He is not expecting that the full Congress act on that before we 
meet in Munich.
    So we'll talk about the ``FREEDOM Support Act.'' And it'll really, I 
would say, be a followup on the discussions we had. He gave me a review 
of all the problems and the gains and the different crosscurrents in the 
former countries of the C.I.S., of the Soviet empire. We discussed a lot 
of these things. So I'm anxious to get updated from him on all of that.
    And on the G-7, I will be prepared to discuss this, making it the G-
8, if you will. These are, as we all know, meetings of the major 
economic powers. And certainly with Japan there and with the current 
members of the G-7, European members and Canada as well, that's what 
it's been up to date. Well, Russian economy is enormous. And they have 
big problems. But their size gives them a unique standing. So we'll have 
to see. I know other countries want to be in there. But Russia, because 
of its size and because of Yeltsin's coming at the invitation of Helmut 
Kohl, certainly we'll have that subject on the agenda. I can't say how I 
think it's going to work out because I just don't know.
    Q. Do you support it?
    The President. That's right.

Multilateral Trade Negotiations

    Q. Mr. President, in the last summits in Houston and London, there 
were nice words and beautiful commitments on the GATT negotiations, but 
no results. Do you expect the same in Munich?
    The President. Well, I don't think the Munich summit will be 
dominated by the GATT talks. In fact, I talked to Chancellor Kohl in the 
last couple of days, and it is neither his desires nor mine, nor the 
desire of any of the European leaders or indeed Brian Mulroney or indeed 
Prime Minister Miyazawa, to have that happen. I think it will be talked 
about, but it isn't going to be the major area of discussion. I am still 
not giving up on trying to get something done before then. But there's 
very little time left. And we are still in constant discussion with 
various European leaders about this.
    I'd like to have seen it worked out before then. But definitely 
progress has been made in closing the gap since the last--I believe you 
put it in the timeframe of the last G-7 meeting. And a lot of the 
differences have been narrowed. But we still have some big ones, 
differences, and agriculture as you know remains the major stumbling 
block. But we're not going to give up on it. If we don't get something, 
some major breakthrough today or tomorrow, we're just going to keep on 
going because it is in the interest of the whole world. And I'll tell 
you

[[Page 1065]]

the major beneficiaries of this would be the Third World. Trade for them 
offers them far better opportunities than just aid. So, we'll keep 
pushing on it.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons

    Q. Mr. President, with regard to your announcement this morning 
about the completion of the withdrawal of land and sea-based tactical 
nuclear weapons, what is its policy implication for the Asia and Pacific 
region, particularly in regard with your ``neither confirm nor deny'' 
nuclear weapons transfer principle?
    The President. What announcement are you referring to, sir?
    Q. It's a statement.
    Q. Tactical weapons.
    The President. What?
    Q. It was out of NATO.
    Mr. Fitzwater. That they completed the pull-out of the tactical 
nuclear weapons.
    Q. It's a worldwide withdrawal.
    The President. Oh. Well, I mean, that's just a progress report, and 
I don't think it has anything beyond what's on the face of it. We've 
said what we were going to do, and we've done it. And that's a good 
thing. But I don't think it has any implications for the old nuclear 
presence argument that affected many of our friends around the world. I 
mean, that's up for them to decide. I mean, we've made this statement; 
it seems to me that it might clear the way for resolution of differences 
we've had with some countries, but that's up for them to decide.
    Our statement is still ``neither confirm nor deny,'' but where we've 
said we don't have these weapons on board, we mean it. And they're not 
there. So, if that opens the doors for others, so much the better. I'm 
thinking of New Zealand and other countries where we've had, everyone 
knows, great differences on this.

Korean Peninsula

    Q. Do you think it will have a positive impact on the Korean 
Peninsula?
    The President. Oh. Yes, I would hope it would. Excuse me, that's a 
very important point, and yes, I think it would. I think it should. I 
don't think there's anything new on them. In other words, I think that's 
been discounted. But I think it's evidence of our good faith. I am 
convinced that the move should be up to North Korea to meet the 
international standards, to comply with IAEA and other rules. But the 
main thing is they've got to dispel the mistrust that exists regarding 
North Korea, and the way to do that is to be open, openness in terms of 
inspections.
    This is an international press conference, and I'm trying to favor 
those who come from other countries or are accredited here from foreign 
journals of one kind or another. And I would only ask understanding and 
forbearance from the American White House press corps, championed by the 
front row here. They are very understanding as a rule, and in this time 
I would appeal to them to understand when I drift off and recognize 
others than the illustrious dean sitting in the front row.

North American Free Trade Agreement

    Q.  Mr. President, will you be signing a North American free trade 
deal in San Diego in a couple of weeks, as reported today by the Journal 
of Commerce, with Prime Minister Mulroney and President Salinas? And can 
you comment on the negotiations?
    The President. One, I don't know about what we'll be signing. That 
is not a scheduled event at this time. I'd love to think we can get the 
differences ironed out by then, but I don't want to set artificial 
timetables. We've had some differences with Mexico, but I'll tell you 
one thing: The negotiations have been serious. Again, I'll give the same 
answer I gave on the Uruguay round, the differences have been narrowed 
considerably. They know the areas that we're having difficulties with, 
and we know theirs, but I just don't know about any timetable of that 
nature. It has not come to me that we are going to be ready. What has 
come from me to our negotiators is to get politics out of the way, if 
any is in there, and sign a good agreement so I can sign or initial a 
good agreement as soon as possible.
    So I want to take this opportunity to say there isn't any politics 
involved in this. I keep reading, ``Well, the President may not want to 
take a deal up to the Hill or have it

[[Page 1066]]

on the Hill,'' and that is not true. It is in the interest of the United 
States of America to get a good free trade agreement with North America, 
with Canada and Mexico. So that's all. So we have no timetable set, but 
again it's like GATT. I'd like to just keep pushing and get it done as 
soon as possible. I talked to President Salinas about 10 days ago and 
then subsequently talked to our negotiators. He's done the same thing. 
Jaime Serra, I believe, has been here. I know others have. And we're 
just going to keep on working on it.

Yugoslavia

    Q. Mr. President, after some months of effort by various European 
institutions including the European Community, the CSCE, there is still 
fighting and bloodshed in Yugoslavia and particularly in Bosnia. Are you 
disappointed with the performance of these European institutions so far, 
and how do you think this speaks of those who say it's time for a 
European security pillar to replace NATO?
    The President. Well, I don't think it has anything to do with the 
replacement of NATO. I don't believe that. I believe that the United 
Nations and individual European countries have made strong efforts to 
bring about peace. We started by backing Cyrus Vance as the negotiator 
for the United Nations. Lord Carrington, in my view, has tried very, 
very hard. He started off against enormous odds. He's still engaged. And 
so I can't fault anybody for the fact that we do not have peace there. 
We have been, as you know, supportive of the peace efforts but not 
trying to have taken the lead in the peace process. But I would resist 
saying I think this shows a failure to utilize NATO earlier on or 
anything of that nature.
    We remain committed to NATO. I think it is absolutely in the 
interest of the United States that a strong American presence be in 
NATO. As these different organizations are considered, I keep talking to 
our friends in Europe that NATO should be the prime organization there. 
And I think most of them, if not all, agree with that. So in this 
failure to bring tranquility to a troubled land or certainly failure to 
get in the humanitarian supplies that are necessary, I don't see any 
diminution of NATO's overall standing--if that was your question; I may 
have misunderstood it--at all. I salute the French President for what he 
did. That was not a multilateral approach; that was something that he 
tried to do on his own.
    Some supplies are going in there now. I was very pleased to note, of 
all things, a private American venture went in there. The Americares, 
which is a wonderfully humane organization, had a plane land there at 
9:05 this morning, or maybe it was 9:05 their time. But nevertheless, 
some supplies are getting in there.
    The U.S. role has been to say, look, we want to help with the 
assistance, on a humanitarian basis. And that's the role we're in. We 
are not in a forward-leaning role as terms of saying our objectives is 
to bring lasting peace to this troubled land. That's what I'd like to 
see happen. But I think the immediate goal should be relief effort to 
the people that are suffering. And the environment one time looks 
benign, and then it looks a little more hazardous. So we've got to 
thread through it, and we'll do our part.
    Q. To follow up, sir. You said that in the past we've supported and 
not tried taking the lead. Should we interpret Mr. Cheney's statement 
this week as the Americans are now prepared to start taking the lead?
    The President. Well, no. I don't think it was so much as taking the 
lead but doing our part. As you know, we have a substantial military 
presence in the area. And my position, and I know it's Cheney's, is 
we're not ruling anything--or out. When I was talking about substantial 
presence, I'm talking primarily about the presence of our fleet there. I 
believe there's two carrier battle groups in the Med, one of them now up 
in the Adriatic. But nobody should interpret that as other than the fact 
that we're there. And beyond that, I can't say what we will or won't do. 
I don't think Cheney was signaling an increased, aggressive military 
presence there. And I think he'd answer the question the same way I do: 
that we're not going to rule anything in; we're not going to rule it 
out.
    But I would say, we don't want to appear to be kind of, quote, 
taking the lead, unquote, when all this activity is going on.

[[Page 1067]]

The French have been active, the Italians at the EC were very forward 
leaning and active, and that's good. As far as we're concerned, that's 
fine.

Japanese Constitution

    Q. On the occasion of the Japanese Prime Minister's visit here, the 
Heritage Foundation issued a report recommending that to include Japan 
as a full and responsible, respected member of the international 
community, the Bush administration should privately urge Japan to start 
writing its own constitution. The report argues that the present 
Japanese Constitution, American-drafted one, particularly its 
renouncement of the use of force for even just and international and 
collective cause, makes Japan an exception to every other nation and 
somehow discourages responsible debate by the Japanese on international 
security issues. Some Japanese political leaders already advocate the 
constitutional revision for a similar reason. And I know this is a 
matter that only the Japanese can decide; but from the standpoint of 
Japan's ally and global partner, would you be inclined to discourage or 
encourage a movement towards such constitutional revision?
    The President. I would be inclined to let Japan decide that by 
Japan's self, if you will. I wouldn't particularly like it if the 
Japanese Prime Minister told me what revisions we ought to have to the 
American Constitution. We're fighting that out all the time on the 
domestic scene. And I wouldn't like it. So I would butt out of that.
    I will say we salute Japan for what they did in the Diet the other 
day, which moved a little more forward towards, I guess, the position 
that this foundation has advocated. But I'd leave it there. I've always 
been a little bit constrained when it comes to intervening in the 
internal matters of another country.
    I can see why the question is addressed. Some have criticized Japan 
for not doing more, but they're coming along. They're feeling their way 
along, and, in my view, they were very supportive in terms of Desert 
Storm, not with troops but of fulfilling their obligations. They've been 
very supportive of host country matters when we have military presence 
over there. They've taken this step in the Diet. And we support that, 
salute that. And I would leave the pace of change strictly up to the 
Japanese themselves. They have constitutional problems. They've got a 
keen sense of history. And they'll figure it out. And I'll stand at 
their side and be supportive.

Canada-U.S. Trade

    Q. Mr. President, did you give the steel case that was recently 
filed by the industry the top-level attention you promised Prime 
Minister Mulroney when it came to Canada before the case was filed? And 
as a followup, did you agree with the industry filing and including 
Canada?
    The President. We give all these cases top-level consideration. We 
have laws in this country where people are allowed to bring their case 
to the various agencies. But, yes, I think that Prime Minister Mulroney 
had the distinct feeling that American politics were causing us to pull 
back into some kind of a protectionist mood vis-a-vis Canada. And I see 
enough of these cases to be able to say to myself that this is not the 
case. And when there's unfairness, the proper procedures will be 
followed. But I won't go into any specific case, but I owe him that kind 
of reassurance.

Yugoslavia

    Q. Mr. President, you said that you're not ruling anything in or out 
with regard to Yugoslavia. However, very senior people in your 
administration have made it clear that you do not intend to commit 
ground forces. You have many tens of thousands of troops in Europe. That 
is a very major crisis taking place in a new Europe. If the United 
States is not prepared to commit ground forces in such a context, would 
it not be reasonable for Europeans to say, why are the Americans here, 
and for American taxpayers to be saying, what are we doing there?
    The President. I don't know what spokesman you're talking about, but 
I've said nothing here about what I will or won't do. And under our 
system, the President of the United States makes those decisions on the 
commitment of forces or not to commit forces. That's one of the 
decisions that rests with me, not with anybody else, not the

[[Page 1068]]

Congress, not anybody else.
    So no decision has been taken on that. And I have had no pressure, 
to try to respond fully, from the United States Congress or any citizens 
here, to say why aren't we putting more troops into Sarajevo right now, 
for example. I haven't had any feeling that there's a great demand for 
that. What we want to do is play our part in the fulfillment of the 
mission to bring humanitarian relief in there. But I don't think there's 
a great eagerness to put American troops there on the ground or to send 
NATO in there. The United Nations has a role; they're fulfilling the 
role.
    So I think you raise a good point. But I don't think it will 
diminish support for NATO on the part of the American people. Or even 
from the Europeans, I don't think it'll diminish support.

NATO

    Q. The question is, sir, if you're not going to intervene or not 
prepared or not very much inclined to intervene in a conflict of that 
nature even in theory, then what are you doing in Europe?
    The President. We're there to guarantee the peace. And we're there 
to say, we know history. And if we'd have stayed there in the past with 
some presence, maybe we could have averted some of the disaster that 
befell Europe. We're there because Europe wants us there, too. Not only 
do we want to be there in a presence in the most efficient organization 
of its kind, NATO, but I think the Europeans all want us there. In fact, 
I keep asking to be darned sure I'm right on that question. And they do.
    And so NATO is there. But that doesn't mean when you have a 
humanitarian problem here or you have internal divisions in any 
countries, and there are many turmoils based on ancient ethnic rivalries 
and hatreds that are cropping up, that automatically NATO goes to 
general quarters. That's not NATO's mission. There's ways to decide 
whether NATO should be involved or not. And I tried to recite the 
history here of the United Nations role. And in this instance the United 
Nations has taken the lead. Some individual European leaders have taken 
the lead.
    But I don't see it as diminishing NATO's standing or certainly as 
diminishing NATO's commitment, the American people's wanting NATO to 
still have a strong U.S. presence. Because the fact that they're not in 
this crisis, you might turn to me after I finish answering that one and 
say, what about some of the other areas where there are trouble spots 
going on right now in what used to be the Soviet Union? There's a lot of 
trouble spots. And my answer would be to that question, that because 
NATO is there and it is the most efficient peacekeeping organization 
that exists, that doesn't mean that it's going to be injected into every 
single crisis area. So there's other mechanisms set up for this one, and 
it's a very complicated problem when I look at it.
    Somebody asked me, how is it different from, say, Desert Storm or 
from the invasion of one country from another? And as these countries 
sort out these enormously complicated problems, I make the point that 
that is different. They're internal to a degree, and yet they're new 
countries. But I make a point that it is quite different than the overt 
invasion of one country by another. I'm sure some in Sarajevo might not 
agree with that, but I think the mission for NATO has to be looked at in 
terms of each crisis or each outbreak of hostilities. And in this one, 
we've had other organizations that are trying to solve the problem. And 
you've had other countries that have been, on their own, trying to solve 
the problem.
    But I will do my level-best to see that this does not diminish NATO. 
I am absolutely convinced not only do we have a role there, but it's an 
insurance policy, if you will, against the kinds of conflagrations that 
we've seen in the past. And so it will stay strong. And there will be 
some bumps in the road, but NATO is going to be the major organization 
of its kind anywhere in the world, I think.
    This is the last one, and then I really, according to Marlin, must 
be off. Twenty-three minutes, .47 seconds.

Yugoslavia

    Q. Mr. President, but the impression is that United States are maybe 
too cautious, too uncertain on the Yugoslavia crisis; they don't exactly 
know what to do. Can you tell

[[Page 1069]]

me if it's correct or wrong?
    The President. Well, I don't think that it's that we don't know what 
to do. I can understand somebody saying, well, why doesn't the United 
States use its magnificent military power one way or another to end all 
this suffering? But it's not that we don't know what to do; it is that 
we were trying to work with others in the ways I've outlined here to try 
to bring about an environment in which we can bring relief to the area. 
So, that's the way I would answer the question. Did I get it?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. Yes, that's about it. I mean, the United States is 
not going to inject itself into every single crisis, no matter how 
heartrending, around the world. And where we try to work with the United 
Nations, for example, we have no apologies for that. There will be times 
when we have to take the lead, when we have to move forcefully, when we 
have a clear mission. I am not interested in seeing one single United 
States soldier pinned down in some kind of a guerrilla environment. We 
go in there, we're going to go in there and do what we said we're going 
to do and get out. And this environment is a little complicated so that 
I could certify to the American people that's what would happen.
    Q. Sir, what have you told Prime Minister Mulroney about the 
Canadian troops? Have you sent any special message to him as the 
Canadian troops went to----
    The President. I gave him an 'atta boy. I saluted him for doing what 
they're doing with the United Nations.
    Q. Have you offered U.N. air cover for the convoy or any further 
convoys?
    The President. Well, we have not been asked to do that. But they're 
doing a wonderful job over there. And I think the Canadians who have 
stepped forward deserve a great vote of thanks from the entire world for 
what they're doing. And when you see those pictures on the television 
and you see those courageous people there, why, we salute them. But he 
has not asked for that.
    Let me put it this way: Canadian forces get in trouble, they've got 
some friends right here, right here, strong friends that are grateful to 
them and who respect them and have stood at their side before, and we're 
not going to let a lot of Canadians get put into harm's way without 
support. Put it that way.

                    Note: The President's 133d news conference began at 
                        2:21 p.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive 
                        Office Building. In his remarks, he referred to 
                        Jaime Serra, Secretary of Commerce and 
                        Industrial Development of Mexico; Cyrus Vance, 
                        Special Negotiator for the United Nations on 
                        Yugoslavia; and Lord Peter Carrington, Special 
                        European Community Negotiator on Yugoslavia.