    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [July 9, 1992]
    [Pages 1037-1043]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference in Tokyo
    July 9, 1992

        The President. Good evening. The summit we have concluded today
    sends a message of hope to America and to the world. Some have called
    this a jobs summit, and they are right because the creation of new jobs
    in the United States and in all the other countries here present was at
    the center of all of our discussions.
        All of us are mindful that we have a long way to go to restore real
    growth and opportunity to the global economy, but we have made a serious
    start. We reached an agreement here that can open manufacturing markets
    to American products and to all other products in ways that we have not
    seen in many years. Indeed, the agreement if finally concluded could
    bring the largest reduction in tariffs in world history.
        While tough negotiations still remain, this world trade agreement
    captures the momentum that we have needed in these negotiations for a
    long time. We now can move toward completion of a broader trade
    agreement that could spur the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs
    over the next decade in the United States and millions throughout the
    world.
        We also agreed that the other industrialized nations will send their
    top education, labor, and economic ministers to Washington in the fall
    for a serious conference on the creation of jobs. All the advanced
    nations are having difficulty creating new jobs even when their
    economies are growing. This was a constant cause of concern in all of
    our conversations, and we are now going to make a serious effort to
    examine the problem from every angle and to try to come up with new and
    innovative solutions which can be helpful in the United States and
    throughout the G-7 countries. We have to figure out how to unlock the
    doors for people who are left behind in this new global economy.
        I want to say a special word of appreciation that the other
    industrial nations expressed their support and praise for the United
    States' economic plan to reduce our deficit dramatically and invest in
    our future.

    [[Page 1038]]

        Ever since 1980, whenever these meetings have occurred, the
    statements issued at the end have either explicitly or implicitly
    criticized the United States for our budget deficit. This statement
    explicitly supports the United States for our effort to bring the
    deficit down and to bring growth and investment back into our economy.
        Other nations clearly welcome our resolve. I might note that the
    fact that both Houses of Congress had passed the economic plan greatly
    strengthened my hand in the discussions and the negotiations which have
    taken place here this week.
        This summit also held out fresh hope for other peoples of the world,
    especially those involved in democratic reform in Russia, led by
    President Yeltsin who joined us here today. The $3 billion program we
    announced here to help Russia move to a market system will not only
    bolster prospects for freedom there, it is a very solid investment for
    the United States. Funds to move state-owned industries to private hands
    to make the free enterprise system work, funds to make available
    operations for new enterprises, funds from the World Bank, and funds for
    credits for export, all these things will help Americans to do more
    business in Russia and will help Russia to succeed in a way that will
    continue the path charted by the end of the cold war, fewer nuclear
    weapons, fewer defense investments, more opportunities to invest in
    people and jobs and a peaceful future.
        American leadership has been indispensable to growth and to freedom
    throughout this century. In partnership with others, we will now be able
    to continue to meet that responsibility in the years ahead. I have said
    before and I will say again, I came to this summit in the hope that we
    could get an agreement to open more markets to manufactured products, in
    the hope that we could get a strong program for Russian aid, in the hope
    that together we would demonstrate resolve to restore the ability of all
    of our countries to create jobs and opportunities for our people. I
    believe those objectives were achieved. And I am pleased at the first of
    these G-7 meetings which I was able to attend.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

    Japan

        Q. Mr. President, a host of Presidents have tried to convince Japan
    that trade is a two-way street. What makes you think you can convince
    them? What is the chance of getting an agreement on trade talks? And
    what did you learn at the summit that you didn't know before?
        The President. You ask a lot of questions. What did you say? You
    have a followup? [Laughter] No, Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News], you get the
    followup.
        I think we do have a chance to get an agreement, and I think in part
    it is because we are coming to a common understanding that the serious
    imbalance in trade between our two nations cannot continue and that, in
    the end, it is not in the interest of either country.
        I met this morning with several hundred members of the American
    Chamber of Commerce here in Tokyo, people who are selling their products
    and services in this country. They pointed out and illustrated to me
    once again why more sales of American products in the Japanese market
    would be good for both countries. When these people come here, they hire
    Japanese people. They create jobs here in Japan. But as the market is
    opened up, the price of products and service and their variety is
    dramatically expanded--the price is driven down; the variety and number
    of services and products are expanded. So the Japanese people will win
    if we can correct this imbalance. And of course, the American people
    will win. It will mean lots more jobs for our folks.
        That's what I tried to say at Waseda University. I think that we are
    now coming to a common understanding that it is in the interest of both
    countries to change this policy. I think we're also coming to a common
    understanding that we have to try some new approaches, that Americans
    have had real increases in productivity and quality--we are now the
    high-quality, low-cost producer of many products and services--and that
    that alone is not going to be sufficient to change the market imbalance.
    And I think those two realizations give us a shot. And I'm hoping that
    we can move forward.
        What did I learn that I didn't know when I got here? I learned a lot
    more about the other world leaders. I got to know them all better. I got
    to understand more about where they're coming from, what their
    countries' problems and opportunities are, and what we can achieve
    together. I'm, frankly, more optimistic about our potential for common
    action than I was before I came here.
        I also feel much better about our long-term

    [[Page 1039]]

    capacity to make some progress in our relationships with Japan. I was
    glad to be the first American President ever to address a university
    audience and to answer questions there. And I feel much more positively
    about that relationship than I did when I came here. And it is, perhaps,
    our most bilateral relationship. So that's very good.

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, Boris Yeltsin said today that sooner or later
    Russia would make the G-7 a G-8. My question is why not sooner than
    later? What are the arguments against keeping Russia out of the G-7?
        The President. Well, I don't want to make the argument against
    keeping Russia out of the G-7. I do believe that you will see him here
    every time we meet as long as he is President of Russia, which I think
    will be quite a while. And I think that's a very good thing.
        I think that when the G-7 was organized, it was organized as a group
    of the world's most powerful economic interests and not just political
    interests. And I think that there will come a time when Russia will
    probably join this group when there is a consensus that that time has
    come.
        To be fair to all the people who are here, there was really no
    serious discussion of that. But for the first time, President Yeltsin
    was invited to come next year before he ever even made a statement. That
    was part of the Chairman, Prime Minister Miyazawa's opening statement,
    to make sure he would know that he was going to be invited to come and
    participate in next year's meeting in Italy.
        Brit.

    Multilateral Trade Negotiations

        Q. Mr. President, you mentioned that further negotiation must be
    done toward a new world trade agreement. One of the major sticking
    points for a number of years has, of course, been the issue of
    agriculture subsidies and agriculture generally. I wondered what, if
    anything, you may have heard here from your counterparts from Europe and
    the EC and from Japan that renews your hope, if it does, that such a
    thing may be possible by December, as you've suggested.
        The President. Well, if all the Europeans will adhere to the Blair
    House accords, I think there's a good chance we can have an agricultural
    agreement.
        As you know, France has some problems with it and has expressed
    those. And it was an issue in the last election in France. But as I
    pointed out, the United States cut our agricultural subsidies
    unilaterally and substantially in 1990, and we have proposed further
    reductions this year as part of the deficit reduction package. If we
    were to reopen the Blair House accord, our farmers would want us to go
    in the opposite direction on these issues from the direction that some
    of the European interests would take.
        Because the European Community is made up of diverse nations, they
    have a mechanism within the Community to make adjustments among the
    countries if they adhere to an agreement like an agricultural agreement
    that affects some countries more adversely than others. So I'm still
    hopeful that as these negotiations resume--and they will resume in
    Geneva soon--that the Blair House accord will stand and that we'll be
    able to work out a balance of trade agreements that will enable it to
    stand.
        If that happens, then much of what we need to do in agriculture will
    have been done. This market opening agreement, if it can be embraced by
    the other nations at the GATT, will be nailed down, and then we'll just
    have a few issues left to go. I remind you the majority of the issues
    have been resolved although some of the tough ones remain.
        Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].

    North Korea

        Q. Mr. President, a week ago before leaving for Asia, you said that
    North Korea was perhaps the scariest place in the world. And many
    analysts including Larry Eagleburger have said that North Korea already
    has the bomb; others believe that it is at least very close to having
    the bomb. Would you consider a preemptive strike? Would you rule that
    out? And what message do you want to send in your trip to South Korea
    about our military interests in the region and about the role of our
    American troops?
        The President. Well, first of all, I don't answer hypothetical
    questions, especially as they relate to national security, for obvious
    reasons. But the message should be clear. Even as we move into and
    through the 6th year of defense cuts, we are not reducing our base
    presence in Japan; we are not reducing our base presence in Korea. We
    are strengthening our military presence in Asia and in the Pacific, and
    we reaffirm our

    [[Page 1040]]

    security commitments to Japan and to Korea and to all our other allies
    in this region. And we intend to press to see that the Non-Proliferation
    Treaty's regime is fully observed, including having the international
    observers there.
        That is the position that the United States takes. And I think we
    have to adhere to it very firmly.
        Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News].
        Q. So what should we do about North Korea, sir?
        The President. Well, we don't--North Korea has not yet declined to
    comply. And we're going to have to--let us continue the negotiations.
    Until there is a rupture that seems final, I don't think we should talk
    about what would happen at that point.

    Approval Ratings and the Economic Summmit

        Q. Sir, before the summit started it was noted widely that your own
    approval ratings, as unhappy as you may sometimes be with them, were
    higher than those of any other political leader here. Virtually all of
    these people are either on the way out or in some great difficulty at
    home. How did that diminish this summit? And having been to one now and
    seen how bureaucratic they can be, do you really think in these days of
    modern communications that these sorts of extravaganzas are necessary at
    all?
        The President. Well, first of all, I think that it did not diminish
    the summit. In fact, there was more done here and there was more energy
    and more zip in it than I thought there would be. And I think part of it
    was, apparently, this summit is less bureaucratic than its predecessors.
    We ended two of our meetings an hour early, which I liked awful well.
    And there was an amazing amount of open, free flow of honest exchange.
    It was very, very good.
        I think that any time you have the major economies of the world in
    the doldrums, combined in some of these countries with a real impetus
    toward political reform and a felt need of the people to make their
    political systems work better, you can't expect to see high poll
    numbers. When people are having a tough time making ends meet, they
    don't tend to be very happy with their political leaders. So that is a
    given.
        Notwithstanding that, this summit produced real substantive benefits
    for the people who sent these leaders here.
        Now, there was a reaffirmation, a unanimous reaffirmation on the
    part of the heads of state in this meeting to make this process less
    bureaucratic, less expensive, and less cumbersome. And I think you will
    see an even more streamlined summit next year in Italy, one in which all
    the delegations are smaller and in which there is more flexibility. I
    hope that something was learned out of this summit, that if you focus on
    one or two objectives and really work at it and work at it, you can get
    something done.
        Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network] and then David [David
    Lauter, Los Angeles Times].

    Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, even as you were meeting here with these other
    world leaders, there seems to be another standoff in Baghdad with U.N.
    weapons inspectors and the Iraqi Government. Double-pronged question:
    How serious is this, and what, if anything, is the U.S. prepared to do?
    Is there a unilateral response, or would it be only multilateral this
    time?
        The President. First of all, I think it is serious. And secondly,
    the response should be a multilateral one. The action we took in
    response to the plot to assassinate President Bush was a unilateral one,
    and it should have been, clearly provided for under international law.
    This action is a violation of the United Nations resolutions, and we are
    going to keep pushing on it. Hopefully, the Iraqis will relent. If they
    don't, then we'll go back to the U.N., to the Security Council, and
    decide where to go from there.
        David.

    Economic Summit and Job Creation

        Q. Mr. President, if I could follow up for a moment on your answer
    to Susan's question, I wonder, given that these things tend to be very
    scripted and set out ahead of time, was there any moment in this thing,
    any event that happened over the last few days that told you something
    that you didn't know, that presented things in a new light that might
    give us some insight into how this process works?
        The President. Well, first of all, there were moments that were not
    at all scripted. The first time we met everybody went around the table
    and sort of described the condition of the economy in each country and
    what the government was attempting to do about it. And that was somewhat
    scripted in the sense that everyone was told in advance we'd be asked to
    do that. After that, only the topics were basically

    [[Page 1041]]

    scripted. Very few of us carried a lot of notes around. Very few people
    referred to them. We really talked about these issues.
        I think the thing that impressed me the most--maybe it's just
    because what I'm most concerned about--was the high level of rather
    sophisticated knowledge that all these people had about the stagnation
    of their own economies when it comes to creating jobs. For example, it
    was pointed out that the French economy was actually, by every other
    measure, very, very strong in most years of the eighties and several
    years had a higher growth rate than the German economy. And they still
    never got their unemployment rate below 9.5 percent, even when they were
    just really chugging along. The Japanese economy which still enjoys
    quite a low unemployment rate, in part because of the structure of this
    economy, still is having quite a lot of difficulty creating jobs.
        Most of these countries have very low population growth rates,
    rapidly aging population, and they're very worried that unless they can
    turn this situation around that 10 years from now they're going to have
    two people working for every person that's retired. And they're really
    quite concerned about it. I think the fact that they're all thinking
    about it and they all had a little bit different take on it, gave me
    some hope that we might be able to find some solutions.
        Q. Did anyone offer solutions?
        The President. Well, there were lots of different solutions offered.
    But one of the things--Helmut Kohl is a very wise man, I think, and one
    of the things he said that was interesting was that if we could come to
    grips with this in the same way we try to come to grips with trade
    problems, for example, that if there are tough decisions to be made, it
    will be easier for each country to make them if the people who live in
    each country are aware that this is a worldwide problem and that there
    have to be some new and different directions taken.

    Hillary Clinton

        Q. Mr. President, your wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has caused
    quite a stir in Japan, and yet she's followed a very traditional wives'
    schedule here which, frankly, doesn't seem much like her. I wonder if
    she's been muzzled here perhaps to avoid offending Japanese
    sensibilities?
        The President. No, she did what she wanted to do. She thought about
    it quite a lot, and I've been, frankly, impressed and gratified by the
    response that she's gotten from just the people in the street,
    especially the young working women as well as the students at the
    university the other day. And I think it's a real indication of the
    aspirations of younger Japanese people to see that everybody here has a
    chance to live up to their potential. I was really very pleased by it.

    Economic Program

        Q. You return home in a few days. You're going to be facing kind of
    a do-or-die situation with the budget bill which got you so much play
    here. How do you relate your accomplishments from this week to what
    faces you when you get back next week?
        The President. Well, it certainly ought to strengthen the resolve of
    the Congress to carry through on this. There's no question that the
    other countries were very much encouraged by the determination of the
    United States to reduce its deficit, that they believe that's one of the
    things that has distorted the world economy for the last several years.
        And likewise, there is no question that some of our job growth we're
    going to have to do on our own. So a lot of these investments, both the
    private and the public investments in the economic plan, to create jobs
    should be adopted.
        So I am hoping that what happened this week will strengthen the
    resolve of the Congress to go ahead and pass the economic plan and to do
    it in short order so that we can go on to other things. We all, after
    all, have a lot of other things to do. We have to get the health care
    cost controls in and provide basic health care security to American
    families. We have to continue to deal with the transformation from a
    defense to a domestic economy and try to help people accommodate all
    those changes. We've got an enormous amount of work to do. We've got a
    crime bill we need to pass. We've got a lot of other things on the
    agenda. So we've got to get this economic plan passed.
        Q. Mr. President, you came here----
        The President. Go ahead. I'll take both of you. Just stand there.
    That's called splitting the difference.
        Go ahead.

    Korean War

        Q. Mr. President, with regard to your forth-

    [[Page 1042]]

    coming trip to Korea, I wondered, first of all, do you have any personal
    recollections of the war? I know you were quite young when that
    happened. And secondly, knowing your views on the Vietnam war, is the
    Korean war one that you would have felt comfortable fighting in, where
    you were not so with Vietnam?
        The President. Absolutely. We did the right thing there, and I don't
    really think we had any choice, given the way it began. And I think the
    years and the aftermath have certainly validated the decision which was
    made to contest the forces of communism where we did and when we did.
        And yes, I do have quite a vivid memory. I remember mostly, even
    though I was very young, President Eisenhower's campaign and what he
    said about going to Korea. It's almost my first political memory, that
    campaign.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Russian Nuclear Powerplants

        Q. Mr. President, we were told that you came to this summit with
    growing concerns about the condition of former Soviet nuclear
    powerplants that are deteriorating. Will you broach this personally with
    Yeltsin tomorrow? Is there another Chernobyl out there? In other words,
    how imminent of a crisis is this, and what's the West going to do about
    it?
        The President. Actually, we talked about it today at some great
    length. And there were two issues raised. The first is, President
    Yeltsin thanked the West for the assistance which has already been given
    to try to help them make those plants either safer or decommission them.
    What he called the first generation of their nuclear plants, they're
    actually trying to decommission them all, just take them out of
    commission so they won't run the risk of another Chernobyl. He said they
    had virtually completed that task. And he talked a little bit about his
    plans for energy and for nuclear power specifically. And I think the
    conversation was quite reassuring to the others who were there. I say to
    the others because I had talked about it a little bit with him before.
        The second thing that came up, which I was very impressed by, raised
    by President Mitterrand, was the question of whether the Russian plans
    for decommissioning these plants, as well as technical assistance to do
    it ought to be made available to other Republics of the former Soviet
    Union who had similar plants, and he agreed to do that. He said that if
    other Republics that had these kind of nuclear plants wanted the plans
    and wanted the technical assistance, he would be very happy to do it.
    And the rest of us said we'd be glad to support that. So that was the
    resolution that I thought quite good.

    Unemployment

        Q. Do you have any concern that the jobs summit may turn to looking
    like it's a union-bashing event in that a lot of the work rules that are
    established in Europe that a lot of people think caused the problems
    are, in fact, union related?
        The President. They could, but there's a serious factual problem, if
    that's the total slant on it, which is the experience of Germany before
    the East was integrated into it. That is, if you split out East Germany
    from West Germany and you look just at the unemployment rate in West
    Germany for the last year or two, you'll see that's the only country in
    Europe with an unemployment rate as low as ours. Ours is too high. And
    their is too high, but theirs is much lower than all the other European
    countries. And yet they have very high costs in terms of mandatory
    vacations, in terms of mandatory worker retraining, in terms of general
    education investment in workers, in terms of mandatory health care
    coverage. Although their health care is much less expensive than ours,
    all employers have to undertake it.
        So it's a hard case to make in the case of Germany where they have
    rather high labor costs and manufacturing wage costs, higher than the
    United States on average, terrifically productive workers, and they have
    managed to keep their unemployment fairly low. Now their overall
    unemployment is higher because of the very high unemployment in East
    Germany.
        So we're going to have to be a little more sophisticated than that.
    I mean, there are some things that may add to unemployment or may
    prohibit job creation and some that aren't.

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, you said in your political communique that
    stronger measures could be taken against Serbia to end the war in
    Bosnia, but you didn't say what those measures were, nor under what
    conditions they might be taken. Given your inability to bring the
    Europeans along on your efforts before in the fighting there

    [[Page 1043]]

    regarding air strikes and lifting the arms embargo, why should we think
    that action will now be taken as a result of your communique?
        The President. The discussions that I had at this meeting about
    Bosnia were almost all, not all but almost all, one-on-one with other
    leaders. And frankly, I counseled against raising hopes unnecessarily
    and focusing more on what we might do and saying less until we were
    prepared to do something.
        I will say this: The one new statement that is in this policy that I
    am absolutely convinced that all the leaders of the other countries
    meant, that should have some impact on the situation, was the one
    proposed by Chancellor Kohl which says that, essentially, that if Serbia
    and Croatia carve up Bosnia in the absence of an international peace
    agreement to which the Bosnian Government freely subscribes, that the
    rest of us have no intention of doing any business with either of them
    if that happens.
        That would have a very serious detrimental economic consequence on
    both Croatia and Serbia. And it had never been said exactly like that
    before, particularly as it relates to Croatia. So I think that is the
    new part of this statement.
        Yes.

    Japan

        Q. Mr. President, the last time an American President was in this
    city the Japanese Prime Minister said he pitied the United States. It
    was a remark you cited often in the campaign. In your talks with the
    Prime Minister did you detect any change in that attitude, or did you
    think there's still pity for the United States?
        The President. I did detect a change. But I have to tell you, I have
    tried very hard to move this dialog into a constructive frame of mind.
    When I spoke at Waseda University, I acknowledged that one of the
    reasons that there was such a big trade deficit with Japan in the 1980's
    was that we had such a huge Government deficit, we needed a lot of
    Japanese money to pay for our debt, to keep our interest rates down.
        In other words, I tried to go beyond the rhetoric and finger-
    pointing of both sides. I also pointed out, however, that we have now
    had 10 years of high manufacturing productivity growth, that we really
    are the high quality, low cost producer of many goods and services, and
    that we have to recognize we have to have a new relationship.
        I think we should focus on things that are positive for both of us
    and be very, very firm about the need to change. But I don't sense a lot
    of ridicule here. And as a matter of fact, what I was hoping was that
    the Japanese would not be too concerned about all the changes going on
    in this country. A lot of the political changes are without precedent in
    the postwar era, post-World-War-II era. But they are the inevitable part
    of growing in a democracy and changing. And I sense a real sense of
    anticipation and openness here that's perhaps a little greater than it
    has been in past years and pretty uniformly throughout the people that I
    met and talked with.
        I must say a special word of appreciation to our host, Prime
    Minister Miyazawa, who, even though his party is facing elections, as
    you know, in just a few days, displayed a great vigor and willingness to
    discuss a lot of these issues and to try to bring them to closure, and
    clearly had to sign off on the market access agreement and had to make
    some changes to do so in his government's position.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 22d news conference began at 8:10 p.m. in the
    garden of the U.S. Ambassador's residence.