    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [July 2, 1993]
    [Pages 983-989]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Foreign Journalists
    July 2, 1993

    Economic Summit and GATT

        Q. Mr. President, I want, first of all, to thank you very much for
    this opportunity that, let me tell you, we have not had for several
    years. So, I thank you.
        And first of all I want to ask you, this Tokyo trip, it's for you
    the first appearance on the international scene. But at the same time,
    the expectations have never been so low for a G-7 summit. You know the
    difficulties of the different countries and no trade agreement; Soviet
    aid, we don't know how much, how it will go. So, sir, what do you really
    think to accomplish?
        The President. Well, let me say, first of all, I think the direction
    of the G-7 meeting is more important than the declaration. I think you
    put too much, sometimes, stock in the statement. I think it's very
    important that as world leaders we recommit ourselves to a strategy of
    global growth, to a strategy of open trade, to seriously examining the
    problems we are all having with creating jobs, and to dealing with the
    common security issues that we face. I predict that we will have a very
    successful meeting as regards Russia. And I still believe that we can
    make a lot of headway on the issues of trade and global growth.
        You know, what we really need to do with all the economic problems
    our nations have and the political problems is to remind ourselves that
    these are still very great countries with enormous possibilities and a
    great future. And we need to sort of lift the spirits of the people and
    focus on what we can do instead of what we cannot do.

    Security Issues

        Q. With regard to the political issues, we still, as you said so
    many times, Mr. President, we live in still a very dangerous world with
    so many challenges and crises. For example, you probably knew that today
    three Italian peacekeepers have been killed in Somalia, a dozen injured.
    Sir, you go to Tokyo; have you some new ideas on how to confront this
    dangerous world, the challenges?
        The President. Well, first of all, let me say that my trip to Tokyo
    is a trip to the G-7 but also to Japan and to Asia. So one of the things
    that I intend to do is to make absolutely clear the United States'
    continuing commitment to engagement in Asia. I hope that we will have
    some time to talk at the G-7 about some of our other problems. But I
    would point out that the greatest security challenge we have faced in my
    judgment in the last 5 months was the threat to democracy in Russia. And
    the G-7 met the test. We rallied behind Yeltsin. We rallied behind
    democracy. We supported a free market economic reform in Russia. And I
    hope we will do so again at the G-7.
        We have not solved the problem in Bosnia, and our nations are
    somewhat divided about it. It is a very difficult problem. But I do have
    some ideas about those things that I will be discussing with the other
    leaders.

    Japan

        Q. Mr. President, let me start my question with your view on Japan.
    Since you took office you've mentioned Japan several times. At times you
    were somewhat stern, expressing its remote-

    [[Page 984]]

    ness from an open market. At times you were generous for expressing the
    relationship of the most important bilateral one for the United States.
    Which of your assessments is true to your feeling?
        The President. Both. And let me explain why. First of all, I
    probably have more admiration for your country in more ways than any
    President who has ever served. I've had the privilege of traveling to
    Japan many times. I actively sought Japanese companies to come to my
    State when I was a Governor. I believe you have a very great country
    with an even brighter future than your past.
        I think that our relationship is based on our ability to stand up
    for our common security interests, to promote the values of democracy
    and free markets, and to have a reasonable trade relationship. I think
    that there are things that we need to do in our trade relationship that
    will benefit both of us.
        I do not want to create American jobs at the expense of Japanese
    jobs. I think that changing the nature of the trading relationship is in
    the interest of both countries, and I don't think it's fair for an
    American President to ask another country to do something that's good
    for America but bad for the other country. If I didn't think it was good
    for both of us, I wouldn't push that. But I think we'll work that out.
        And the main thing I want to say to the people of Japan is that this
    period of political turmoil is not a bad thing for Japan. I know it's
    different from what you've experienced in the last few decades, but
    Japan has had an astonishing amount of success with the certain
    political arrangement. But as the global economy changes, as the people
    of Japan themselves change in their aspirations, the political system
    will have to alter to reflect that. It is not a bad thing. It is a good
    thing. And the people of Japan should be, I think, very hopeful about
    their future.
        Q. If I may follow-up, Mr. President, how and how soon this economic
    present strain be solved do you think?
        The President. Well, I think it depends in part on the development
    of ideas in Japan, both within the government, both elected and civil
    servant personnel, and among the people themselves. But I think you will
    see a resolution of this. I'm not pessimistic at all about it, I'm very
    hopeful that we will work these things out in ways that are good for
    both countries. I want to emphasize that.
        I've seen some of the press reports in Japan of some of my
    statements as if I want to protect American jobs and take Japanese jobs
    away. It's far more complex than that. I think that both of us have to
    undergo changes. Every nation represented in this circle, with the
    possible exception of Russia, has hounded the United States, has asked
    the United States for years to do something about our big Government
    deficit, saying that that caused a big imbalance in global trade. We are
    doing that. So we are trying to change. And change is not easy, and I
    think all of us will have to make some changes.
        Q. How soon?
        The President. I think it won't be long. I think we'll see--my hunch
    is that the capacity for adjustment in both countries is greater than we
    sometimes think, and I think we'll resolve this pretty quickly.

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, may I begin by asking you about Bosnia? There's an
    impression that the indecisive way in which you have handled this issue
    is an illustration of the widening gap of trust between America and
    Europe. You advocated lifting the arms embargo on the Muslims and
    striking at some Serbian positions. And then you appeared to back away
    from that. Then you moved to a compromise plan for setting up safe
    havens. Now, that's a concept which you, yourself, described as a
    shooting gallery. My question is this: Are you preparing now to wash
    your hands of this whole affair and possibly to blame the Europeans for
    the failure?
        The President. No. Neither one. Let me, first of all, point out what
    the United States has done just since I've been President. We spent a
    great deal of money on humanitarian aid; we have pushed hard for
    strengthening the embargo against Serbia; we have pushed for a number of
    other things to try to help resolve the situation that we have all
    agreed on.
        I did not back away from my position, sir. Britain and France and
    Russia said they would not support that position within the United
    Nations. The United States cannot act alone under international law in
    this instance.
        Q. It is their fault?
        The President. No, they disagreed with me. It's not their fault.
    They disagreed. We had an honest disagreement about what the right
    policy to follow was. I expect as we go through time

    [[Page 985]]

    we'll disagree about other things. I thought I could persuade them that
    we ought to try this because I was convinced that the reason Milosevic,
    Karadzic and others were making concessions to try to bring this
    conflict to an end is because the West was turning the pressure up.
        There was an honest disagreement. The leaders of Britain and France
    and Russia honestly did not believe that lifting the embargo would make
    things better, would hasten the day of peace. We had an honest
    disagreement. The German Government agreed with the position I took. But
    it was an honest disagreement within the most complicated foreign policy
    problem that any of us have faced in years. I don't seek to place blame
    anywhere. I don't think that is productive.
        When my position did not prevail and when I did not have the power
    to implement it unilaterally because of the U.N. embargo on arms----
        Q. Sure.
        The President. ----all I could do is do what we did last week. I
    voted with many of the nonaligned nations in the United Nations, and we
    didn't win the battle.
        Q. But Mr. President----
        The President. But then I went back--when you talk about changing my
    position, what I did was I went back to the British, the French, and the
    others and I said, ``Okay, what can we agree on? We don't want to say,
    `Well, we didn't get our way; so we're going to go home.' We will work
    with you. What can we agree on?'' They proposed a course that we then
    embarked on, and they agreed not to totally rule out lifting the arms
    embargo at a later date.
        So I, frankly, was pleased to try to work with and to support the
    efforts of Europe in this regard. I didn't point the finger or blame.
    But we can't deny the fact that there was an honest disagreement. That
    doesn't mean that we should all give up.
        Q. So may I, as a followup, press you on this? You see, as you say,
    you voted at the United Nations with Djibouti and Morocco and Pakistan
    and the Cape Verde Islands on this issue about the arms embargo against
    Britain and France. Now, the impression still, though, is that nothing
    very much is happening and that it's felt it's very different when the
    issue, say, is Iraq when the job can be done with unmanned Tomahawk
    cruise missiles fired from a safe distance. There seems to be a
    difference of emphasis there in the urgency in the way these matters are
    handled.
        The President. Well, I disagree with that. The difference is this:
    that in Iraq we had clear evidence that the government planned a
    terrorist attack and an assassination of a former President of the
    United States for actions he took as President. We clearly had the right
    to take action under international law, clearly.
        Secondly, if you forget about that action and you look at other
    actions against Iraq, they were taken within the framework of the United
    Nations and United Nations resolutions. The United Nations operates
    against, if you will--the governing resolution of the United Nations is
    against the policy that I have advocated in Bosnia. Therefore, it would
    take a change in the United Nations posture to effect that policy. The
    United States cannot go out and violate international law or go out on
    its own. That is not--we have never been for that.
        And we are well aware that even though our military establishment is
    the biggest and we are the most powerful country in the world
    militarily, we are well aware that when we commit ourselves to working
    with our neighbors, through NATO, through the U.N., through the
    Organization of American States, through any other group, that we have
    to be prepared not to always have our way just prevail overnight. That's
    all that happened. I care just as much about those Muslims in the heart
    of Bosnia as I do about any other group of people in the world. I would
    give anything to somehow bring an end to the ethnic cleansing, to
    somehow have a resolution of that. And I think that we are still talking
    to one another and working in good faith and trying to come to grips
    with that.
        I do not believe, if you meant to ask me this, I do not believe that
    the United States or Europe should send huge numbers of soldiers there
    to get involved in a civil war on one side or the other. I do believe
    that we should use as much muscle as we can muster to try to bring a
    humane end to the tragedy.
        But this is a tough problem. I think that's the real answer here.
    This is not an easy problem. And I don't want to get into finger-
    pointing or blame-making; that's not the point. And as far as our
    willingness to commit troops, you know we put troops into Somalia, and I
    would say to the people of Italy and to the family members of those
    three soldiers, you have my

    [[Page 986]]

    gratitude and my deep condolences. But this is a difficult world. A lot
    of these problems are not going to be easily solved.

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, Russian television. It looks like in both of our
    countries, in the United States and in Russia, what you see over the
    last few months or maybe in a short time is a growing awareness that, in
    spite of the fact that the cold war is over, we still have a lot of
    differences, that our national interests don't coincide as often as
    somebody would like them to do, to coincide. Now, when you meet
    President Yeltsin in a few days in Tokyo, on these lines what would your
    posture be there? How would you address these issues? And let me remind
    you that our Prime Minister Chernomyrdin was unable to come here because
    there were some differences unresolved yet.
        The President. I would say first, we have a lot more in common than
    we have which divides us, that I am very proud of the support that the
    United States and, indeed, that the G-7 gave to the movement toward
    democracy and the fact that President Yeltsin stood up for the
    democratic process in Russia. And I'm proud of the courage shown by the
    Russian people in trying to move toward a market-oriented economy as
    well as to preserve democracy. And our overriding interests at the G-7
    meeting in my judgment is to continue to provide assistance to Russia in
    that effort. And I will strongly support it.
        Now, are we going to have differences of opinion from time to time?
    Yes, we are. I called President Yeltsin about that matter. We're trying
    to work it out. I still think we really need this bilateral cooperation.
    I want the Vice President and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin to meet and to
    talk about what we can do on cooperating in space, cooperating on
    nuclear issues, cooperating on environmental issues. And I think that
    will proceed. I still think all that will be done. But we're going to
    have differences from time to time. People disagree. That happens in
    life.
        Q. You're talking about support. Can we expect anything significant
    and concrete at the G-7 concerning the aid to Russia?
        The President. I certainly hope so. The United States committed $1.6
    billion at Vancouver. Over half that money has now been obligated. We
    have another bill moving through our Congress that deals largely with
    energy and nuclear issues and environmental issues, as well as student
    exchanges and the attempt to privatize--assistance to privatize industry
    in Russia. That's $1.8 billion. It has passed one House of our Congress
    overwhelmingly and will pass the other shortly.
        The IMF, 2 days ago, released the first $1.5 billion in authority to
    Russia. And I think you will see the G-7 agree that we ought all to
    contribute to a fund to help privatize industry and to start new
    enterprises and to do things like that. I think this G-7 meeting will be
    good for Russia.
        Q. You think they will be cooperative, the rest of the countries?
        The President. Absolutely. We're all having economic trouble, so
    there won't be probably as much money as I would like because of the
    economic difficulties that all the nations have. But I think given the
    problems that the people of these countries have, the commitment to do
    more for Russia will be clear, substantial, and generous because of all
    the problems all of our countries have at home.

    Economic Summit and GATT

        Q. Mr. President, Prime Minister Balladur has warned there will be
    no world trade agreement unless U.S. penalties on steel are lifted. What
    can the United States do in Tokyo to try to diffuse the confrontation?
    And do you think there is any room for a political compromise?
        The President. Well, let me say, first of all, the White House had
    no involvement in that case. That case was developed earlier. We have a
    process here which is almost like a judicial process in a court for
    dealing with these things. Clearly, it's legal to have this kind of
    operation under GATT. So the legality is not in question. If the Prime
    Minister believes that the facts are different from the facts that were
    found here, obviously, we can discuss that.
        My attitude about that is that all these issues ought to be subject
    to discussion at the G-7 meetings. I mean, one of the things that really
    bothers me about some of these meetings in the past is that we have all
    been so afraid of making a mistake, that we have all of our aides
    around, and we've got everything written down on paper. And if you spend
    all your time trying to avoid making a mistake, it's hard to make
    anything good happen. And so one of the things that I'm really working
    for at G-7 is a totally open framework where we can honestly share

    [[Page 987]]

    with each other what we feel and how we can resolve this.
        France, if I might say, France has had some truly astonishing
    economic accomplishments in the last 10 years, many years in which the
    productivity growth in France was higher than any other European country
    and higher than the United States' growth. And yet France has had some
    continuing problems with persistent high unemployment, even with high
    growth.
        So my own view is that it's very much in the interest of France to
    have a GATT agreement which opens trade and gives the incredible
    productive capacity of France broader outlets around the world. And I
    don't want to do anything to stand in the way of that, but we're going
    to have to work through some of these issues. I think we can.
        And I realize how hard it is in France or in any other country with
    a high unemployment rate to conduct a trade agreement, because people
    are afraid of change. But when you're in trouble, that's when you need
    to change. That's the moment when you need to change.

    Global Economy

        Q. Sir, you've been elected to put America back to work. Do you
    think the United States has a leadership responsibility in helping the
    world economy get back to work?
        The President. Absolutely. And I do not believe that Americans can
    go back to work in sufficient numbers until the world begins to work
    more.
        For example, we've created in this country in the last 5 months
    about 960,000 jobs. That's about the same number we created in the
    previous 4 years. So it looks pretty good. But our unemployment rate is
    still quite high here, and the wages are not growing very much. In the
    last 5 years, two-thirds of our jobs have come from exports, two-thirds.
    So it is obvious that we can't grow unless Europe grows, unless Japan
    grows, unless Asia grows, unless Russia becomes a market.
        It is not simple generosity. Even though I think it is the right
    thing to do, it is not simple generosity that prompts me to try to put
    this money into Russia. I think who is going to be the United States
    customer in 5 years or 10 years? Who is going to be Europe's customer?
    Who is going to be Japan's customer? Look at all the people who live in
    Russia. Look at all the people who live in Ukraine. Look at all the
    people who live in the other Republics. My job is not just to go to the
    G-7 meeting and negotiate for the United States. My job is to try to
    help us all do something that is good for the world.

    U.S. Leadership

        Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you talked a lot about
    American leadership. So far we haven't seen it. Europeans are confused
    about your direction in foreign policy, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia. You
    didn't solve any of these problems really. How would you define your
    leadership role?
        The President. First of all, the central challenge that we have
    faced since I've been President was the crisis in Russia. And the United
    States did lead and Europe participated in and Japan participated in an
    aggressive response from the advanced nations of the world in standing
    up for democracy and market reform in Russia. That overshadowed every
    other challenge that we have faced in terms of what it's going to do for
    our long-term interests.
        And let's not be confused about that. Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia, these
    things are very important. That was the central challenge that will
    affect our interests. And we did respond, not just the United States,
    all of us did. And we did the right thing and so far it's had the right
    consequence.
        With regard to Somalia, I frankly just disagree with you about that.
    I think the United States, under my predecessor--I can't take credit for
    it--he led the way for a multinational coalition to go into Somalia. We
    saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We restored order. Children can go
    to school again. People can eat. They can sleep. There are hospitals.
    Life is better.
        Now, Somalia did not have the infrastructure of a nation. And if we
    stay there--we are still there; the Italians are there; others are still
    there--there are going to be problems. Aideed presented us a problem. We
    did our best to break the back of his military capacity to disrupt
    Somalia without appearing to go after him personally. And I think that's
    the right thing to do. I would like it if he were arrested but without
    trying to just take him out personally. I think we are on the right path
    in Somalia, but we have to have patience in nation-building.
        With regard to Iraq, the action I took in Iraq was specifically
    designed to respond to the attempt to assassinate President Bush. It was
    the

    [[Page 988]]

    right thing to do, I think. There are a whole set of other issues which
    have to do with Iraq's defiance of the U.N. resolutions. The Security
    Council issued a very stern warning to Iraq, and I think there will
    either be more compliance or some sort of appropriate action.
        But again, I would say to you if you look at Iraq and you say we
    didn't solve that, it seems to me that the west did the right thing in
    not being obsessed with deposing Saddam Hussein. We acted against him
    because he invaded Kuwait. So he was removed from Kuwait and has been
    confined in a lot of the mischief he might have otherwise have wreaked.
    So I don't know if you can tout that as a failure.
        Bosnia is a disappointment, but it is the most difficult problem,
    not only in Europe but in the world. We have honest disagreements among
    ourselves. I still have every hope that something can be done. And I
    have said repeatedly that the United States would be prepared to
    contribute to a genuine effort to maintain the peace if an agreement can
    be signed.
        I had thought, as you know, that lifting the arms embargo would
    accelerate movement to a genuine peace. I still believe that. Others
    disagreed. That's the way it is in the world we're living in. But I am
    prepared to make a contribution to maintaining a genuine settlement in
    Bosnia. I do not believe the West should send in huge numbers of troops
    to get involved in trying to fight all three sides in a civil war.
    That's not what I think we should do.

    Germany

        Q. The German Bundestag decided today that Germans also can stay in
    Somalia.
        The President. I'm very grateful for that.
        Q. Do you expect Germany to make their troops available for
    peacekeeping and peacemaking missions, or is this perhaps the price
    Germany has to pay for a seat at the Security Council?
        The President. Well, as you know, I favor a seat for Germany and for
    Japan in the Security Council. I think they are great economic powers. I
    think they have been responsible international political citizens, and
    they are leaders. I do not think I should involve myself too much in the
    internal politics of Germany over this issue except to say that as
    President I am profoundly grateful for the position that Chancellor Kohl
    has taken on these issues and the willingness of the German people to
    support involvement in Somalia, to try to help insofar as they could in
    Bosnia. And I think it is very hopeful for the future.
        I think all of us will have to get into more of these difficult
    situations like Somalia that have no easy immediate answer if we're
    going to try to help. If we can reach an agreement in Bosnia and we wind
    up sending troops there as a result of a peace agreement, there still
    will be ragged edges to it and difficult moments.

    NAFTA

        Q. Mr. President, I'd like to turn if I could to the issue of the
    North American Free Trade Agreement. As you know, there was a U.S. court
    ruling this week that said that NAFTA could do serious damage to the
    environment and ordering your administration to conduct an environmental
    impact review. You've decided to appeal that decision. What happens if
    you lose the appeal? Are you going to at that point bull ahead with
    NAFTA and ignore the court order?
        The President. Well, in our country we can't ignore court orders.
    But, first of all, we announced that we would appeal within the hour of
    the decision. And we believe we will win. We also are exploring other
    options for compliance that would not delay the treaty, and we are
    proceeding full-speed ahead.
        But the irony of this is that, as you know, this administration has
    taken some extra time with NAFTA to try to conclude environmental
    agreements that would make it absolutely clear that the NAFTA agreement
    would improve the environment on both sides of the border. So this is a
    delaying tactic but does not square with the facts. NAFTA will help us
    to improve the environment on both sides of the border. That's what
    we're negotiating so hard with the Mexicans on, and the Canadians have
    been supportive of the idea that we ought to try to make sure that
    there's no environmental degradation. So I still think we can pass it.
    And we're going to work on it.
        Q. In more general terms, I think you'd agree that NAFTA's in
    considerable trouble in Congress and with American public opinion. At
    what point are you going to get out and start aggressively selling this
    agreement, rather than leaving it to Ross Perot and other critics of
    NAFTA to make the running on it?
        The President. Well, first of all, I've had a very consistent and
    clear public position on it. But I can only undertake one major battle
    at

    [[Page 989]]

    a time. And right now, I've got to pass this big budget and economic
    program. It's a dramatic change from the last 12 years of economic
    policy in the U.S. It's tough. It's controversial. We're going to do it,
    I think. But that will be over soon.
        Then the second thing is, in order to sell it, we have to define
    exactly what ``it'' is, which means that we have to conclude our
    negotiations on the supplemental agreement. We'll do that soon. And then
    I'll be out there working hard to sell it. We have the votes, I believe,
    in the Senate to pass it. We do not have the votes in the House to pass
    it. I think we can get the votes when we point out it will create jobs,
    not cost jobs. If we don't do it, it will really be difficult. And all
    the things people worry about, you know, jobs going to Mexico, that can
    all happen today. It has nothing to do with NAFTA.
        Q. Mr. President, our time is over. We thank you very much.
        The President. Thank you.

    Note: The interview began at 11:30 a.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the
    White House. In the interview, the President referred to Slobodan
    Milosevic, President of Serbia; Radovan Karadzic, leader of the Bosnian
    Serbs; and Somali warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed. Journalists
    participating in the interview were Hidetoshi Fujisawa, NHK, Japan;
    Trevor McDonald, ITN, United Kingdom; Sergei Goryachev, Ostankino,
    Russia; David Halton, CBC, Canada; Jean-Marc Illouz, France TV II;
    Jochen Schweizer, ARD, Germany; and Giuseppe Lugato, RAI TV I, Italy.