    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [April 4, 1993]
    [Pages 401-403]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Question-and-Answer Session With Russian Reporters in Vancouver
    April 4, 1993

    Aid to Russia

        Q. I had two questions for both Presidents, so you could probably
    answer for Boris, too. [Laughter]
        The President. I'll give you my answer, then I'll give you Yeltsin's
    answer. [Laughter]
        Q. The first is that this is the meeting of the Presidents. So the
    money that's being promised is Government money, and naturally it's
    going to be distributed through the Government. But you've indicated
    that three-quarters are going to be going to businesses. So the question
    is how the Russian businesses themselves are going to be consulted, if
    ever? What are the priorities, because there are several association of
    Russian businessmen existing already. So will they be invited to
    participate in setting up priorities for investment? This is the first.
        And second, to you: We know that polls, public polls in America do
    not show that Americans are very enthusiastic about giving this aid.
    Like Newsweek polls say that about 75 percent don't approve it, and New
    York Times published that 52 percent support if it just prevents civil
    war, 42 percent if it fosters democratic reform, and only 29 percent if
    it just personally supports Yeltsin. How are you going to sort of handle
    this problem that Americans themselves are not very enthusiastic?
        Thank you.
        Q. I have a question. I'm sorry, is there going to be a translation
    of everything into Russian? No, just the answers. Just the answers.
    Okay.
        The President. The answer to the first question is, it depends on
    what kind of aid we're discussing. For example, the funds that will be
    set up for financing new businesses will obviously go to those
    businesses who apply and who seem to be good risks and make the
    application. The privatization fund will be used to support the
    privatization of existing public enterprises. Then there are some other
    general funds in the Democracy Corps and other things which people in
    Russia will have some influence over the distribution of.
        With regard to your second question, let me say that I would think
    that there would be people in both countries who would not feel too
    warmly toward simply the American Government giving money to the Russian
    Government. There's opposition to that in Russia. And in our country,
    throughout our whole history, there has been an opposition to foreign
    aid of all kinds. That is, this has nothing to do with Russia. If you
    look at the whole history of America, any kind of aid program has always
    been unpopular.
        What I have tried to tell the American people is, this is not an aid
    program, this is an investment program; that this is an investment in
    our future. We spent $4 trillion, trillion, on armaments, on soldiers,
    and other investments because of the cold war. Now, with a democratic
    government in Russia, with the newly independent states, the remainder
    of them, working on a democracy and struggling to get their economies
    going, it seems to me very much in our interest to make it possible to
    do whatever we

    [[Page 402]]

    can for democracy to survive, for the economy of Russia to grow because
    of the potential for trade and investment there, and for us to continue
    the effort to reduce nuclear weapons and other elements of hostility on
    both sides, on our side and on the Russian side. So I don't see this as
    an aid program. This is an investment for the United States. This is
    very much in the interest of the United States. The things I announced
    today, the second stage of the program which I hope to put together next
    week, in my view are things that are good for my country and for the
    taxpayers and workers of my country.
        Russia is a very great nation that needs some partnership now, some
    common endeavor with other people who share her goals. But it would be a
    great mistake for anyone to view this as some sort of just a charity or
    an aid issue. That's not what it is. It's an investment for America, and
    it's a wonderful investment. Like all investments, there is some risk.
    But there's far less risk with a far greater potential of return than
    the $4 trillion we spend looking at each other across the barrier of the
    cold war.

    Ukraine and Trade Restrictions

        Q. Mr. President, first of all, thank you very much indeed for
    coming here and talking to us. In the memory of the living
    correspondents, this is the first time an American President is doing
    this to the Russian press corps, so it's kind of a very measured
    breakthrough.
        I have two questions. One, in your introductory remarks of the other
    press conference, you mentioned in brief that you discussed the START II
    and START I issues. Could you tell us, did you reach an agreement with
    President Yeltsin as to what might be done in order to have Ukraine join
    the ratification of START I and the NPT regime? And my second question
    is, how confident you are that the United States Congress would be eager
    to support you in lifting Jackson-Vanik and other restrictions inherited
    from the cold war?
        The President. First, we discussed the issue of Ukraine with regard
    to START I and NPT and generally with regard to the need to proceed to
    have the other independent states all be non-nuclear but also to have
    the United States develop strong relationships with them. We know that
    one thing that we could do that would increase, I think, the willingness
    of the Ukraine to support this direction is to successfully conclude our
    own negotiations on highly enriched uranium, because that would provide
    not only an important economic opportunity for Russia but also for
    Ukraine, and it would show some reaching out on our part. But we agreed
    that basically the people who signed off on the Lisbon Protocol have got
    to honor what they did, and we agreed to continue to press that.
        I, myself, have spent a good deal of time trying to reassure
    Ukraine's leaders, specifically the President and the Foreign Minister,
    that I want strong ties with Ukraine, that the United States very much
    wants a good relationship with Ukraine, but that in order to do what we
    need to do together to strengthen the economy of Ukraine and to have the
    United States be fully supportive, the commitment to ratify START I and
    to join the NPT regime is critical.
        With regard to Jackson-Vanik and COCOM, I would make two points:
    First, I have agreed with the Republican and Democratic leaders in the
    Congress that we will, as soon as I return, have a list of all the
    legislative and other restrictions--some of them are regulatory in
    nature--imposed on relations between the United States and Russia, that
    are legacies of the cold war. And we will see how many of them we could
    agree to do away with right now, at least among the leadership of the
    Congress.
        With regard to Jackson-Vanik, I think there will be an openness to
    change the law if the Congress is convinced there are, in fact, no more
    refuseniks, no more people who wish to emigrate who are not being
    allowed to. If the fact is that there is no one there who the law was
    designed to affect, then I think that the desire to keep the law will be
    much less.
        With regard to COCOM, my guess is, and it's nothing more than a
    guess, that the leadership of Congress and indeed my own advisers might
    prefer to see some sort of phased movement out of the COCOM regime. But
    I think they would be willing to begin it in the fairly near future.

    President's Interest in Russia

        Q. Mr. Clinton, when I read your speech in Annapolis, I got the
    impression that you have a completely different personal--and I stress
    that, personal, not political--approach towards Russia, compared to the
    approach of Mr. Bush. Could you formulate in a few words what is the
    difference between you as a personality and your approach, the
    difference between your ap-

    [[Page 403]]

    proach to Russia and the approach of Mr. Bush? And why did you cite
    Akhmatova in the last part of your speech?
        The President. Let me say, first, I do not wish to compare myself
    with President Bush or anyone else. I can't say what was in his heart
    about Russia. I can say that since I was a boy, I have been personally
    fascinated with the history, the music, and the culture and the
    literature of Russia. I have been thrilled by Russian music since I was
    a serious student of music, for more than 30 years now. I have read
    major Russian novelists and many of your poets and followed your ballet
    and tried to know as much as I could about your history.
        And I went to the Soviet Union, but it was then the Soviet Union--
    you may know, it was a big issue in the last Presidential campaign that
    I spent the first week of 1970 alone in Moscow--and did not return again
    until 3 days before Mr. Yeltsin was elected President. But all that time
    I was away, I was following events there very closely and hoping for the
    day when we could be genuine partners. So I have always had a personal
    feeling about Russia.
        I remember, for example--a lot of you know I like music very much--
    one of the most moving experiences for me as a musician was when Leonard
    Bernstein took the New York Philharmonic to Moscow and played
    Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony to the Russians. And he played the last
    movement more rapidly than anyone had ever played it before because it
    was technically so difficult. That is something I followed very closely
    when it occurred.
        These are things that have always had a big impact on my life. And I
    had just always hoped that someday, if I ever had the chance to, I could
    play a role in seeing our two countries become closer partners.

    Note: The question-and-answer session began at 2:46 p.m. at Canada
    Place.