    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book II)]
    [September 14, 1993]
    [Pages 1491-1496]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1491]]

    The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Paul Keating of
    Australia
    September 14, 1993

        The President. Good afternoon. It's a great pleasure for me to
    welcome the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Keating, to Washington and
    to have this opportunity to make a couple of statements and then answer
    some of your questions.
        Despite that vast ocean which separates us, Australia and the United
    States share essential values and interests rooted in our frontier
    heritages, our shared commitment to democracy, our status as Pacific
    trading nations, and our efforts across the years to ensure and
    strengthen our common security. It's a pleasure for me to have the
    opportunity to personally reaffirm those bonds today.
        The Prime Minister and I exchanged views on a wide variety of
    issues. I'd like to emphasize the importance of one in particular, the
    Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. We agreed that
    strengthening GATT's trade rules is a top priority for both our
    countries. As a founder of the Cairns Group of free trading agricultural
    nations, Australia is working closely with us to bring the Uruguay round
    to conclusion this year. So that we can achieve agreement this year, the
    Prime Minister and I strongly urge the European Community not to reopen
    the Blair House accord on agricultural trade as has been suggested. We
    need to move forward, not backward, to complete the round and to give
    the world economy a much-needed boost.
        We also discussed the importance of economic relations in the new
    Pacific community that both our nations are committed to help build. We
    discussed the building blocks of that community: bilateral alliances,
    such as the one we share; an active commitment to supporting the spread
    of democracy; and support for open and expanded markets. We discussed
    the important role of the Organization for the Asian Pacific Economic
    Cooperation, APEC. Both the U.S. and Australia are members. Both of us
    have been active proponents of regional trade liberalization. And I look
    very much forward to working with Prime Minister Keating to make the
    November APEC ministerial meeting and the leaders conference in Seattle,
    Washington, a big success.
        Australia and the United States also share mutual security
    interests. Australia has been our ally in every major conflict of this
    century. Today we share an interest in bolstering the region's security
    and in supporting its movement toward democracy. I expressed my
    particular admiration for the crucial role Australia has played in
    fashioning and implementing the international effort to promote
    reconciliation in Cambodia. I told the Prime Minister that we look
    forward to many similar partnerships in the years ahead.
        This meeting was to have occurred yesterday, but Prime Minister
    Keating and I agreed that we should delay it because of the signing of
    the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. That historic breakthrough
    reminds us that we live in a momentous time when the old walls of
    division are falling and new vistas are opening. Our success in seizing
    these opportunities will depend in large measure on how well the
    community of democracies can respond to work together towards shared
    goals. Today this meeting with the Prime Minister reaffirms that our two
    nations will continue to work together closely to turn the promise of
    this era into reality.
        Mr. Prime Minister.
        Prime Minister Keating. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I'd like to
    say firsthand that our meeting was most worthwhile, from my point of
    view and Australia's point of view, for the quality of our discussions.
    And our close agreement on a wide range of issues I think demonstrates
    the vitality and the relevance of the Australia-U.S. relationship at a
    time of great change internationally. Let me say, I'm very favorably
    impressed by the vigor and imagination with which the President and his
    team are addressing the new challenges we now face in the world.
        Australia is a country which puts great importance on its
    relationship with the United States. Our longstanding friendship which
    the President has just referred to is based on shared values of
    democracy and freedom. And as he remarked, we fought in five major
    conflicts together over the course of this century. And in the post-
    cold-war period, I'm happy to say that our alliance remains very strong,
    indeed. In commerce

    [[Page 1492]]

    and diplomacy we do a great deal together.
        I was impressed in our discussions today by the priority which now
    attaches to fundamental questions of international trade structures. I
    welcome the strong support that President Clinton has given to APEC as
    an organization for promoting trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific
    area. I congratulated him on his truly historic initiative of inviting
    other APEC leaders to join him at an informal meeting in Seattle this
    November. This will allow APEC leaders to discuss ways of moving towards
    an Asia-Pacific community which brings benefits of closer economic
    integration to all members. This step also recognizes the increased
    importance of the Asia Pacific in world affairs.
        We agreed on the importance of achieving a successful and balanced
    outcome of the Uruguay round by the mid-December deadline. No other
    joint action by governments this year could do more to boost the
    prospects of world growth and jobs, both subjects which the President
    and I are intensely interested. We agreed that any move by the European
    Community to reopen the Blair House accord on agriculture seriously
    risks jeopardizing the whole Uruguay round. The Blair House accord
    already represents a minimum outcome acceptable to those countries
    seeking to establish fair rules of trade for agriculture.
        Finally, I should like to thank the President for his gracious
    hospitality and to congratulate him on the leadership he is showing on
    the United States international and domestic agendas.
        Mr. President, thank you very much for having us in the White House
    from Australia. And we appreciated the arrangements, particularly the
    difficulties of the--the opportunity presented by signing the Middle
    East accords and the arrangements today. It's been great to be here with
    you.
        The President. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press], I'd like to
    call on you first, and then if we could, I'd like to alternate between
    one question from an American journalist and one question from an
    Australian journalist. So we'll have to go on the honor system, although
    I think most of the Australians are here on the right. Okay, Terry, go
    ahead.

    NAFTA

        Q. Mr. President, you said today that you don't want to personalize
    the NAFTA fight, but I'd like to ask you about remarks made today in
    this room by Presidents Carter and Bush. They both spoke about
    demagoguery in NAFTA, and President Carter spoke about a demagog with
    unlimited financial resources, obviously Mr. Perot. Do you think that
    Mr. Perot is playing loose and fair with the facts?
        The President. Well, I'm going to reiterate what I said before. I am
    for this agreement because I think it will create more jobs. I think
    anyone who wants to enter the debate should do so. I think we should be
    very careful that if we make an assertion, that we know that it has some
    factual basis. And if any of us make a mistake we ought to say so.
        You know, my office has already put out a statement because I
    inadvertently made a factual error today, not a big one, but it was an
    error, and we corrected it. And I just think that the people of this
    country and of most of the wealthier countries in the world have seen
    such enormous pressure on the middle class--our folks have really been
    hurt--that they want this to be an open debate. But we don't need to
    prey on their fears, we need to really work through all the various
    arguments and the issues and the facts. And I'm going to do my best to
    do that, and I'll be glad to argue, debate, or discuss with anyone who
    has a different opinion. But I think, as President, I should take the
    position that I'm going to try to bring this country along with this and
    leave that other business to others to fight.
        Someone from Australia. Yes?

    Pacific Community and Human Rights

        Q. Mr. Clinton, could you comment on Australian concerns that the
    U.S. push on human rights in countries such as China and Indonesia could
    threaten Asia-Pacific economic cooperation? Could Mr. Keating also
    comment on that? And Mr. President, could you also flesh out exactly
    what you want to see coming out of the leaders summit in Seattle in
    November?
        The President. Let me mention, first of all, the United States does
    have a very strong position on human rights, and I think we should. I
    also think your government has a good position on human rights, which it
    has not been reluctant to express in dealing with other nations. But
    that has not undermined our relationships, commercial relationships and
    political relationships with countries that we think are making an
    honest effort to shoot straight with us and to work

    [[Page 1493]]

    with us.
        You mentioned Indonesia. I went out of my way to ask President
    Soeharto to come to Japan and meet with me when I was there, because
    he's the head of the nonaligned nations. Indonesia, I think, is one of
    the most underestimated countries in the world. Most people have no idea
    how big it is, that 180 million people live there, that it is a vast,
    enormous potential partner in a global economy. We have questions about
    the issues of East Timor, as you know, and I think you do, too--your
    country does, too. But we have had good contact with Indonesia.
        With regard to China, the United States has, after all, an $18
    billion trade deficit with China. It would be hard to say that we are
    not doing our part to aid the Chinese economic revival. We have very
    strong commercial relationships with them. But it is our responsibility
    in the world in which we live, I think, to try to restrain the
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to try to stand up for
    human rights, and to try to engage the Chinese across a whole broad
    range of issues, so that we can't simply have a commerce-only
    relationship.
        I am going to do what I can to build the Pacific community and not
    to undermine it, and that's what your Prime Minister spoke so eloquently
    about today.
        I think you wanted him to comment on this, too.
        Prime Minister Keating. Neither the United States nor Australia will
    ever compromise its shared sense of democracy, its commitment to human
    rights and the respect of human values. And we put them forthrightly
    wherever we see those values under threat or seeking to be compromised.
    And this is true in Australia's case with Indonesia. It's been true in
    respect of China, as has been the case with the United States. But I
    think it's true for me and I'm certain for the President that we see
    these issues as part of a total relationship where we seek to have an
    influence on these countries and where the influence may be diminished
    if the totality of the relationship only involves the human rights
    questions, and beyond that, that is on these other issues like
    proliferation and other issues and commercial questions, where the
    relationship must be seen in its totality.

    Middle East

        Q. Mr. President, a day after the historic signing ceremony here on
    the South Lawn yesterday, the Israelis appear to be establishing a
    relationship with Morocco, a formal relationship, and there is this
    agreement between Israel and Jordan. What specifically are you doing
    now, to try to promote the establishment of formal diplomatic relations
    between Israel and other Arab nations, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, good
    friends of the United States? And do you think that is in the cards in
    the immediate future?
        The President. Well, let me first say that I am very, very pleased
    that Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Peres have been received
    by King Hassan in Morocco. When we learned of this development
    yesterday, and we talked about it in some detail--Prime Minister Rabin
    and I talked about it--I was very pleased, because I think that the King
    may have set an example, which I hope other Arab states will consider
    following now, to try to continue now to just establish dialog.
        We are at this moment focusing on three or four aspects of what we
    can do to implement this relationship. One is, what about all the
    practical problems that are still out there? You know, elections have to
    be held. Economic endeavors have to be undertaken in the Gaza, and there
    are lots of things that just have to be done practically. So we have a
    team now looking at all these practical problems to see what can the
    United States do to facilitate this.
        The second thing we're doing is looking at what we can do to try to
    organize an appropriate level of investment. And in that regard, we're
    looking primarily at maybe having a donors meeting and trying to bring
    in the interested European countries and Asian countries and Arab
    countries to talk about how we can put together the kind of package we
    ought to have. Yesterday I met with a couple of hundred American Jewish
    and Arab leaders from around the country, and I asked them to
    participate from the point of view and private sector and partnerships
    and helping to develop these areas so we could really move this
    relationship forward.
        And then the third thing that we're going to do is to discuss on a
    political level what we should do to try to facilitate further political
    contacts. The announcement between Israel and Jordan today is very
    helpful. And I hope that will give further encouragement to other Arab
    countries.
        Is there another--yes?

    [[Page 1494]]

    Agricultural Subsidies

        Q. Mr. President, you made a very eloquent appeal for support for
    your NAFTA proposals today, asking for the middle class to understand
    what it could provide in jobs for your NAFTA initiative. Yet you're
    still providing massive subsidies, $90 billion a year, in the
    agricultural sector. When are we going to see some change in that?
    Because that is hurting free traders like Australia.
        The President. I'm sorry, I didn't hear--change in what?
        Q. Your agricultural subsidies, particularly the Export Enhancement
    Program.
        The President. Well, perhaps the Prime Minister would like to
    comment on this, too, but what we are trying to do with the Export
    Enhancement Program is to have it run, if you will, only against or in
    competition with countries that have done things that we believe
    constitute unfair trade by governmental action. That is, we intend to do
    what we can to avoid using the program in ways that undermine
    Australia's interests. And we're going to work very hard on that because
    Australia basically is a free trading country in agriculture. And in a
    larger sense, if we could get a new GATT agreement that includes
    agriculture, that would be of enormous benefit to Australia, to the
    entire Cairns Group, and to the whole principle of reducing subsidies in
    agricultural trade and opening up more competition.
        So I think if you will just watch the way that thing is applied,
    that program over the next year, you will see that we are going out of
    our way not to have it conflict with the trade targets and interests of
    Australia, which is a country that does practice what it preaches in
    terms of free trade and agriculture.

    NAFTA

        Q. Mr. President, what is your estimate now of how many jobs would
    be lost, net jobs lost, under the North American Free Trade Agreement?
    Can you better describe your proposal for reemployment? Is it job
    training? Are they subsidies? What kind of proposal----
        The President. First of all, our administration is convinced that,
    net, more jobs will be gained than lost. If we didn't think that, we
    wouldn't be pushing it. But we know that some jobs will be lost. How
    many will be lost really depends upon things that are almost impossible
    to calculate. Let me just give you one example. We know right now that
    certain agricultural sectors will be helped and others over a period of
    time will lose some of their tariff protections in America over a period
    of several years. We know right now that certain manufacturing sectors,
    particularly high-end manufacturing sectors--higher wage, more
    sophisticated manufacturing will be helped. Other manufacturing will be
    subject to more competition and fewer import limits.
        What we don't know, and this is why it's hard to answer your net
    question, is how many jobs will move to Mexico from somewhere else and
    will then use American products. Let me just give you one example.
    Someone told me yesterday about a company that's making toys now--no
    offense, Prime Minister--in China that intends to open a plant in Mexico
    because it will cost so much less to send the toys from Mexico to the
    U.S. than China to the U.S. And if they do, they will all of a sudden
    begin to buy all their plastic, which is over 80 percent of the
    component parts, from Du Pont or some United States company.
        So it is hard to know how many jobs will be lost. Net, we believe,
    there will be a big plus. But there will be jobs lost. There are now
    jobs being lost in defense cutbacks. And what I want to do is to
    completely reorganize the unemployment system into a reemployment system
    in which people who lose their jobs who are not likely to get that same
    job back within a reasonable amount of time can get a wide range of
    training opportunities based on two things: What do they want to do,
    first, and secondly, based on the best information we have, what are
    they most likely to get a job doing? And so we are now--the Secretary of
    Labor is designing a program. We intend to present it to the Congress,
    and I think it will have broad bipartisan support.
        Q. How will you finance it?
        The President. We plan to finance it now through economies
    associated with implementing the reinventing Government report.
        An Australian journalist. Yes, sir?
        Q. You've just acknowledged that some of the gains of NAFTA might be
    at the cost of East Asia. How do you see NAFTA, which seems to be
    essentially a preferential arrangement within the North American
    context, being able to operate within that broader APEC framework, which
    is meant to be nondiscriminatory?
        I would ask Mr. Keating to also respond,

    [[Page 1495]]

    please.
        The President. If you look at it from our point of view, what we're
    trying to do is to further lower our trade barriers against Mexico and
    against Canada. They're going to lower more of theirs against us. That's
    not inconsistent with what my overarching goal is, which is to get a
    freer trading system worldwide, which is why we're pushing the GATT
    round. But meanwhile, it is very much in the interest of the United
    States to have a stronger, more stable, more democratic, and more
    prosperous Mexico on our southern border, able to buy more of our
    products. And most of what we do there would have marginal or no impact
    one way or the other on anything that could happen, for example, in
    Southeast Asia in the next 4 or 5 years. I would also say that if this
    works, what I think you'll see is more open trading systems and fewer
    tariffs in many other Latin American countries which are changing
    politically and economically as well.
        So I am not for a discriminatory system, but what I am trying to do
    is make those systems less closed in their relationships with us now in
    the hope that over the long run, the GATT round and the worldwide
    trading rules will really come to dominate the trading policies of all
    nations. And then, when we have regional groups like APEC, they'll be
    for the purpose of putting more arrangements together that create jobs
    rather than dealing with trade rules and regulations.
        Yes, would you like to answer that?
        Prime Minister Keating. I don't think that there is anything
    necessarily inconsistent between either the United States trading into
    the Asia Pacific, Canada trading with the Asia Pacific, or Mexico
    trading with the Asia Pacific individually or collectively as part of
    NAFTA. I think what is important in terms of the view of the Asia-
    Pacific economies of NAFTA is that there is perhaps more flesh on the
    bones of APEC before NAFTA goes beyond Mexico, perhaps into South
    America. But the concept of NAFTA integrating with the Asia Pacific is
    one where I don't think there is any conflict of concepts. And as the
    President has said, both things are going to increase the velocity of
    trade, both within the Americas and within the Asia Pacific.

    APEC Meeting in Seattle

        Q. Mr. Keating, could you tell us if you've determined who will
    represent China at the leaders conference that follows the ministerial
    meeting and if you've given the President any idea of other issues that
    might be discussed at that time and what the objectives actually are at
    that conference?
        Prime Minister Keating. Well, I think the President naturally is the
    host of this conference, and therefore, the invitees and the acceptances
    are primary a matter for him. But I know that China is now considering
    who they might send.
        The key thing about the conference is that it provides definition to
    a new world economic community, and that is the Asia-Pacific economic
    community. So by having a leaders conference, by the APEC member states
    attending at leadership level, it's providing a definition of that area
    that formerly wasn't so.
        APEC, in terms of its intrastate trade, is in fact more integrated
    than is the European Community or even NAFTA. So there's a great
    naturalness about APEC, and I think the President's historic initiative
    of inviting the leaders together gives it form, substance, and as we
    ourselves adopt an agenda, a work program for the trade-liberalizing
    agenda of APEC. Not only is that body having form and definition, but it
    will actually proceed along the path of trade liberalization, the very
    thing that the President is committed to.
        The President. If I might, let me just say, first of all, on the
    economic issues, Asia is the fastest growing part of the world. Latin
    America is the second fastest growing now. About 40 percent of our
    exports are now going to Asia. And more and more of our trade-related
    jobs are tied there. It is a very important thing that we are not only
    hosting this economic conference, that--and the Prime Minister has been
    too modest. He played a major role in convincing all these countries
    that their leaders should come to Seattle to be a part of this. But the
    fact that all these leaders are going to come here and we're going to
    have a chance to sit one-on-one and in groups with no sort of
    bureaucratic apparatus, no preset agenda, nothing to weigh us down, and
    talk through a whole range of economic and political issues, is an
    enormous opportunity for me to follow up on what we did at the G-7,
    where we reestablished clearly and publicly the dynamics of our
    relationship with Japan which we're working on now, our security
    obligations in Korea. Now we'll have a chance I'm not sure a United
    States President has ever had before, to talk to the

    [[Page 1496]]

    leaders of all these countries at one time and to try to map out an
    agenda. But I don't want to prewrite what's going to happen there
    because it might get a little better as we go along.
        Q. Who will represent China, sir?
        The President. Well, we don't know yet. But I'm hoping that they'll
    be very well represented, and I kind of think they will be.
        We owe the last question to an Australian journalist because we
    promised 50/50. Go ahead.
        Q. I appreciate it. For both of you gentlemen, do you see that the
    NAFTA----
        The President. He's not an Australian journalist. [Laughter]
        Q. No, for the ABC, the Australian Broadcast Corporation.
        The President. Oh really? Okay, go ahead.
        Q. You talked a lot about----
        The President. I thought we'd get an American trying to mimic an
    Australian accent. [Laughter] I didn't realize we had--go ahead.

    Multilateral Trade Negotiations

        Q. You've talked a lot about the NAFTA process and GATT. And for
    both of you, do you see any positive impact of having alternatives of
    NAFTA and APEC for the GATT process? Is there a certain political
    leverage that you get out of it? I believe Ambassador Kantor had talked
    about that during one of the congressional hearings. Is there a positive
    impact going back to the GATT process?
        Prime Minister Keating. Well, I think APEC and NAFTA, too, end up
    being GATT-plus options. They are GATT plus. But in the event that GATT
    did fail, they do define themselves as freer trade areas, in the case of
    NAFTA, in the case of APEC, defining an area which has got enormous
    mass, an enormous weight--economic mass and economic weight and economic
    growth. So the United States locking into that, all of us locking into
    that, lifting the velocity of that means that in defining a new economic
    and trading community, in getting that growth up, this is at least some
    alternative than where we'd have been in the unhappy position of the
    GATT round failing.
        Now, frankly, I don't think the GATT round will fail. I don't think
    the Europeans can let the French decide that the world's trading round
    should fail. I don't think the French will want to carry the odium of
    the round failing at their expense. And therefore, I believe there's
    much in the GATT round succeeding. But I do see NAFTA and APEC as GATT-
    plus overlays or overlays to the GATT. But you can also see them in
    place thereof, in part, as discrete area communities where we can all
    benefit by freer trade.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        Prime Minister Keating. Well, I think you've got to say this, that
    APEC equals growth, equals jobs. I think NAFTA equals growth, equals
    jobs. And that's the point the President was making earlier.
        The President. I couldn't give a better answer than that. Thank you
    very much.

    Note: The President's 25th news conference began at 3:11 p.m. in the
    East Room at the White House.