[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book I)]
[July 9, 1994]
[Pages 1224-1229]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference in Naples
July 9, 1994

    The President. Thank you very much. First, I would like to thank 
Prime Minister Berlusconi for his able leadership of this meeting over 
the last day and an evening and to say that Secretary Christopher and 
Secretary Bentsen will also be here to answer your questions in a few 
moments.

[[Page 1225]]

    I'd like to read a brief statement, and then I'll take questions.
    This G-7 meeting opened in an atmosphere of much greater optimism 
than the meeting we held last year. Last year the G-7 had a record of 
meeting but not accomplishing very much, and the meeting occurred 
against the background of a global economic slowdown, recession in the 
United States, Europe, and in Japan.
    We made a commitment last year to pursue a coordinated strategy of 
global growth, to try to get an agreement on the GATT, and to begin to 
help Russia in a constructive and cooperative way. We have done all 
those things, and most importantly, our growth strategy has worked. In 
the United States, the jobs are up, growth is up, Europe and Canada are 
beginning to recover, Japan has committed itself to policies that will 
enable it to contribute to the global economic recovery. We have much to 
build on, and there was a real sense of confidence at this year's 
meetings.
    Before the summit began, I outlined four principal goals on which 
progress was made, in fact, at this meeting. First, I said we would 
continue our focus on growth and to be more specific about what we would 
do in a cooperative way. It is significant that the leading industrial 
nations gathered here today jointly pledged that we would actually 
ratify the GATT agreement this year and that the new World Trade 
Organization would be up and running by January 1st.
    Immediate enactment of the GATT agreement would be a vital shot in 
the arm for the world economy. It means more trade, more jobs, higher 
incomes for all our countries. Indeed, we have set aside any new trade 
efforts to focus on this paramount goal. The Congress, I hope, will take 
note of the world community's unanimity on this issue and will ratify 
the GATT in the United States this year.
    I am particularly pleased that for the first time the G-7 committed 
to work cooperatively on the issues of lifetime learning, job training, 
and skills that are so central to what we are trying to accomplish in 
the United States. Before we held the Detroit jobs conference, a lot of 
our colleagues were actually reluctant to engage in the kind of 
conversation that dominated the dinner table last night and to begin to 
work together on what we can do to prepare our people for the 21st 
century.
    Second, we're taking steps to build a new infrastructure for the 
information economy. The G-7 nations will convene a conference on 
telecommunications issues to lay plans for a global information 
superhighway. I'll be asking Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to head our 
delegation.
    Third, we are deepening our commitment to the economies and 
transition from communism to free markets. In particular, we agreed that 
the international community, led by the IMF and the World Bank, will 
provide more than $4 billion in financial assistance to Ukraine as that 
nation carries out a fundamental economic reform program. And we pledged 
a total of $300 million, actually a little more, to pay for the initial 
stages of shutting down and cleaning up the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl 
and to enhance reactor safety there. If this plan is successful, that 
facility will be closed forever.
    Fourth, we continued our commitment to the environment and to 
sustainable development. This is an important issue not only in the 
developing world but also among the G-7 nations themselves, important 
not only as an opportunity and an obligation to clean up the environment 
but also as a source of new jobs for our people. We're putting our words 
to the test by agreeing to report back next year on our respective 
successes in living up to the clean air agreements and the treaties we 
have signed.
    Last year in Tokyo, at the first G-7 summit I attended, I became 
convinced that these meetings would be more effective in the long term 
if they were less formal and more open to genuine discussion. To a 
greater degree than has been the case in the past, the leaders in Naples 
had the opportunity to take a long-term look at the issues we face 
together, to focus on tomorrow's opportunities as well as today's 
problems.
    Starting last night, we had an excellent discussion about this 
moment of historic, economic, political, and social change. As an old 
world gives way to the new, it is up to the leading economic powers to 
renew and to revitalize our common efforts and the institutions through 
which we make them, including the G-7, so that the world economy works 
for the people we represent.
    To that end, the communique commits us to focus on two questions in 
Halifax next year. First, we will ask how we can assure that the global 
economy of the 21st century provides the

[[Page 1226]]

jobs, the growth, and the expanded trade necessary for us to continue to 
provide a high quality of life for our people. Second, we will ask what 
framework of institutions will be required to meet these challenges and 
how we can adapt existing institutions and build new ones to ensure the 
prosperity of our people.
    Finally, just let me say, I was struck by the degree to which the 
vision and the goals of the United States are shared by our partners. We 
all recognize that jobs and wages at home must be paramount, that we are 
tied to each other in fundamental ways in our ability to achieve our 
national goals, that our nations will only thrive if we have an 
environment of open and continually expanding trade, and that for 
advanced nations especially, the skills, the education, and the training 
of our workers is the key to our future prosperity.
    Now, in addition to that, there was a new emphasis this year on the 
idea that long-term prosperity requires us to lead the world in 
developing a concept of sustainable development. That will help not only 
the economies in transition from communism to free markets but also 
developing nations with their problems of population, environmental 
destruction, violence, and other problems.
    This kind of comprehensive approach and the extent to which we have 
agreed across our national lines, it seems to me, give us a real chance 
to keep going now after two summits in which there were specific 
forward-looking achievements into the future, to make sure that the G-7 
is always a place where we're pushing forward, not just looking backward 
or talking about things that happened in a reactive way.
    So we have some good aims for next year and beyond. We had a good 
summit this year. And most importantly, the world is well underway to a 
significant economic recovery. And I think we all understand that we 
have to continue to work together if we're going to keep that recovery 
going.

North Korea

    Q. Mr. President, do you know anything about Kim Il-song's son? And 
do you think you can continue to do business with North Korea in view of 
the developments? Have you learned anything today that might enhance 
your knowledge of this?
    The President. Well, I can tell you what we've learned today. We 
have learned today that, apparently, the North Koreans desire to 
continue on with the summit with South Korea and that, while they did 
ask that we suspend our talks with them, they asked that our 
representatives stay in Geneva. And we agreed to do that. So we believe 
that they will stay with their policy and stay with their course, that 
this reflects the feelings of the leadership in North Korea and not 
simply the feelings of Kim Il-song.
    Now, I'm only telling you what I know today, and all I know today is 
that they said they wanted us to suspend the talks. We understood that, 
but they asked that we remain in Geneva. And they communiqued to the 
South Koreans that they wish the summit to go forward. So I think that 
is a piece of good news. And that is the only news I have about it.
    Q. And Kim Il-song's son?
    The President. I don't know how to answer that. I know some things, 
obviously, about him. But I haven't met him. And one of the things that 
we're trying to do in North Korea, that I've tried to do from the 
beginning, is to open the prospect of a continuing and a personal 
dialog. I don't think we want to be isolated from each other. And as I 
said, the preliminary indications in what must be a very difficult time 
for them and a sad time have been encouraging.
    Q. You say the North Koreans have suggested they're ready to start 
this dialog with the South Koreans and have this summit. Does that mean 
North Korea would be represented at the summit by Kim Jong Il, the son, 
the heir apparent? And following up on that, if you--do you think it 
would be appropriate at this moment for you to reach out and to meet 
with Kim Jong Il and start some sort of new relationship between the 
United States and North Korea?
    The President. First, let me reiterate: I can only tell you what I 
know. It is our understanding that the North Koreans have communicated 
their desire to continue with the summit, and they did ask our people to 
remain in Geneva. I do not know anything else, and I do not think I can 
really say anything else today. But I think you have to view those two 
signs as hopeful.
    The biggest problem we've had in the past, I think, is that, the 
sense of isolation and misunderstanding which can develop. So I am 
hoping that we'll be able to continue to talk, but I know only what I 
said. I can't comment on anything else yet.
    Q. Mr. President, as a gesture of this new openness and willingness 
to work, are you going

[[Page 1227]]

to offer to send an official U.S. delegation to the funeral, and have 
you got any idea of who would be in such a delegation?
    The President. It is my understanding that they want to have a 
funeral that has no foreign visitors and that is a personal thing for 
North Koreans only. That is our understanding.
    Q. Would you send a delegation if one were welcome?
    The President. If they were inviting foreign dignitaries to the 
funeral or receiving them I would certainly send someone there.
    Q. Mr. President, the German official said that this was discussed 
by the leaders this morning. Can you share with us what some of your 
colleagues at the G-7 felt about the nonproliferation issue and how this 
might affect it and what steps U.S. summit leaders might be taking to 
make sure that you remain on track on nuclear nonproliferation?
    The President. We didn't really discuss it in that level of detail. 
What they wanted to know from me was what happens now. So I can only 
tell them what I've already told you. And one or two said that what I 
have reported to you was consistent with what they understood to be the 
facts. And that's about all we could say at this time. We don't have any 
more information; when I have some more I'll be glad to give it to you.

South Korea

    Q. You made a decision already, sir, today, your military made a 
decision, which we were told was approved by you, not to increase our 
state of alert.
    The President. We did do that; absolutely, we did.
    Q. Can you tell us what our situation is in South Korea, where we 
have 38,000 men?
    The President. General Luck, General Shalikashvili, and the 
Secretary of Defense all recommended, based on General Luck's personal 
on-site observations, that we continue as usual in Korea and that there 
was no evident, alarming change in development and that we should, 
therefore, proceed as we ordinarily would on any other day. And that was 
a decision made that I approved, based on General Luck's recommendation 
and the strong recommendation of General Shalikashvili and the Secretary 
of Defense.

Economic Summit

    Q. Mr. President, last year you had what everybody seemed to think 
was a pretty successful summit in Japan. This year, you've had to 
abandon your trade proposal, and your comments yesterday about the 
dollar caused great fluctuation or drop in the currency markets. How do 
you judge this summit as compared to that summit in terms of your 
personal----
    The President. I feel good about it for two or three reasons that I 
might--that are very important to me over the long run, especially. One 
is the leading statement in this summit is a reaffirmation of what we 
did at the Detroit jobs conference and a commitment that is without 
precedent among the industrial nations that we will work collaboratively 
on these people-oriented issues, the investment in our work force.
    We had an amazing conversation last night that I've never heard 
among world leaders before where the leaders of these various countries 
were trying to analyze whether there was a traceable relationship in 
their unemployment rate to their investment policies and what the 
differences were. This is unprecedented--countries are not used to doing 
this.
    Now, in the United States, American Governors do this all the time; 
that's what they do when they meet. But among the nations of the world, 
this sort of thing had never happened before. And I wanted to make sure 
that we have good, strong language about that. I felt good about it.
    The second thing that I felt very strongly about was that we ought 
to be as forthcoming and explicit as possible in our discussion of 
Ukraine. After what happened in Russia last year, I don't think there is 
any question that the strong, explicit, and forthcoming statement by the 
G-7 leaders and the subsequent endeavors to make those commitments real 
in Russia helped to keep reform moving and made a contribution to what 
you see now in Russia, which is, even though the economy is still 
troubled, you see inflation down, you see a deficit that is smaller as a 
percentage of their income than many European countries had, you see 
over half the people working in the private sector.
    So I felt very good about that, because there were some here who 
thought we should not be so explicit about what we were going to do for 
fear that we might not be able to do

[[Page 1228]]

it if a reform program did not take place. Well, everybody understands 
that. We can't just throw money at a problem, we have to have a reform 
program.
    The third thing that happened here, actually happened here but that 
I think is very important, and that is commitment to discuss in Halifax 
what we want the world to look like 20 years from now and what kinds of 
institutional changes we're going to have to make to get it there. And 
let me explain why this is important, if I might, just very briefly, 
because I did not--I came here with this in my mind, but I had no 
earthly idea that we could reach even a limited agreement among 
ourselves. And it turned out all of them were worried about it, too.
    But let me try to just quickly distill the significance of that. 
That's the commitment to what we're going to discuss in Halifax about 
the institutions. All of you from home at least have heard me say a 
dozen times that at the end of World War I, America made the wrong 
choice. After the war, we became isolated. We withdrew. Other countries 
withdrew. The Depression came. We wound up with World War II. At the end 
of World War II, we made the right choice. We got together; we created 
all these institutions. At the end of the cold war, everybody has made 
the right choice in general. I mean, you can see that in what we've done 
with NAFTA, with China, with you name it, trying to reach out and work 
together.
    But there are a relatively small number of new institutions. The 
European Union, basically it came into effect finally in 1992. It's 
essentially a post-cold-war institution, and it's reaching out to the 
East. The World Trade Organization is a new institution. The Partnership 
For Peace is a new alliance tied to NATO. Otherwise, we are still 
working with the institutions that we settled on at the end of World War 
II.
    Are they adequate for the problems we face today and tomorrow? And 
if not, how do we need to change them? This is a very practical thing. 
You see it hear when we--you see the first example of it here when 
tomorrow Russia comes here as our partner in a G-8 for political 
purposes. But that's just one example of a whole slew of questions that 
have to be asked and answered if we're going to get from where we are to 
where we want to be 20 years from now. So I would say all those things 
make a lot a sense to me.
    In terms of the trade issue, every member of the G-7 except one 
affirmatively said they agreed with my trade proposal. One country said 
that this could complicate--if we raise another trade issue now, that 
approval of GATT in his country was not a foregone conclusion and 
approval of GATT in one or two other European countries was not a 
foregone conclusion and we shouldn't do anything that would impair the 
near certainty that we can drive through GATT approval in all the major 
countries this year. I clearly agree with that. That has got to be our 
number one goal. So I still felt very good about this G-7 summit.

Japan-U.S. Trade

    Q. Mr. President, a year ago, we began the framework talks with 
Japan. It's a year later, four Japanese governments later, nothing's 
happened on that track at all.
    On another track, we've twice threatened trade sanctions, once on 
textiles with China; we got immediate results, once on cellular phone 
with Japan; we got immediate results. Is there a lesson there? Is it 
time for us to start acting on our interests and not waiting for Japan 
to finally get a government that can deal with us in a serious way?
    The President. Well, I think the answer to your question is, yes, we 
should begin acting in our interest on specific issues. But we should 
also continue to pursue the framework talks, because they embrace large 
structural issues which will enable us to have a more normal trading 
relationship with Japan. And I think, in fairness to our people and to 
theirs, it is difficult to face those very tough structural issues with 
the kind of political changes that have occurred there.
    If I might, though, we have had a lot of progress in Japan. You 
mentioned the cellular phone issue. We've also had a contracting issue, 
a public contracting issue. We're also selling rice in Japan for the 
first time--the people, the rice farmers in northern California think 
that there's a new day in relationships with Japan.
    So we're making some headway here, and I think now if what we heard 
from the new Japanese Prime Minister and his team was an indication that 
they're going to pursue an aggressive growth strategy, so they'll be 
able to buy more of their own products and other products and they are 
determined to stay in this thing for the long run and they want to 
reengage, then

[[Page 1229]]

I think we may be able to make some progress on the framework talks. But 
I agree that we also have to pursue specific issues.
    Press Secretary Myers. Last question.
    The President. I'll take two. And I'll take one from you, but let 
him go first.

North Korea

    Q. We now have a country with a succession problem, a succession 
question, and a military where we're not really sure who controls it and 
maybe who controls nuclear weapons. Recently, your administration has 
made statements like it's more important that they not develop further 
nuclear weapons and maybe not as important that we deal with their 
current nuclear capability if they have one.
    You've said you're committed to a nuclear-free Peninsula, but can 
you tell the American people what your state of knowledge is about what 
nuclear weapons the North Koreans might have and how committed you are, 
what steps you will take, besides going to negotiations of trying to 
make certain that any nuclear weapons are eliminated?
    The President. Well, I think it only--let me just go back to what I 
said. I think it only stands to reason that we would all be more 
concerned about the prospect of any country producing large numbers of 
nuclear weapons in the future which might be transferred to other 
countries. That's just a practical statement of fact.
    However, North Korea is a member of the NPT and has made commitments 
to a nonnuclear Peninsula, and because of its membership there and 
because of its commitments, we still care very much about what's 
happened since 1989. And what we hoped to do is to resolve these 
questions in these talks. And we think we can safely proceed with these 
talks with absolutely no downside to our allies in South Korea, to our 
friends in Japan, to the Chinese, to the Russians, to any others in the 
neighborhood, and to ourselves, as long as North Korea maintains its 
commitment to freeze the important elements of its nuclear program, the 
reprocessing and the refueling. And so we are proceeding ahead on both 
fronts, as I think it should.
    Q. [Inaudible]--nuclear weapons----
    The President. We are engaging in the talks. One of the issues in 
the talks is what's happened to the fuel since 1989. That's the subject 
of the talks and part of the request for the inspections. What has been 
reported in the press, varying opinions of intelligence agencies, 
represents their best judgment, their--I don't want to use the word 
``guess,'' but there are differences of opinion based on best judgment. 
No one knows that for sure. That's what the talks are for, in part.

Terrorism in Algeria

    Q. Mr. President, could you explain to us your reluctance to clearly 
condemn Islamic terrorism in Algeria, and is it a part of the global 
strategy vis-a-vis the Arab world?
    The President. First of all, I don't think we've been reluctant at 
all to condemn Islamic terrorism in Algeria or anyplace else. We deplore 
it, and we condemn it.
    What we have sought to do in Algeria is to support a process which 
would enable the government to successfully govern and to limit 
terrorism while recognizing any other legitimate concerns of opposition 
in the country. That is our position. We do not condone terrorism, we 
condemn it, and we will continue to do so.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 63d news conference began at 6:20 p.m. in the 
Palazzo Reale. In his remarks, he referred to Gen. Gary E. Luck, senior 
U.S. commander in South Korea. A tape was not available for verification 
of the content of this news conference.