[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book I)]
[May 19, 1994]
[Pages 950-956]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference With Prime Minister 
P.V. Narasimha Rao of India
May 19, 1994

    The President. Good afternoon. I have just completed a very 
productive meeting with Prime Minister Rao. It's an honor for me and for 
the United States to host the leader of the world's largest democracy, a 
nation of almost 900 million people.
    It was a distinct pleasure for me to meet the Prime Minister who has 
led India through what to me is an absolutely astonishing period of 
economic transformation. He's kept a steady hand on the helm of Indian 
democracy through many challenges. India has sustained its commitment to 
representative government for many decades now. And I expressed my 
admiration to the Prime Minister for the remarkable achievement of 
India's people in social, cultural, and scientific areas.
    Today we began what I hope will be a very close working relationship 
as our two countries forge stronger partnership. Our nations share many 
common values. And speaking as friends, we explored ways to deepen our 
ties and to expand cooperation.
    The Prime Minister and I shared our concerns and our hopes about 
world events. We talked about the many challenges facing international 
community and discussed how each of us is working through the United 
Nations and other organizations to solve those problems. In particular, 
I expressed my appreciation to the Prime Minister for India's 
contributions to peacekeeping in Somalia, Cambodia, Mozambique, and 
elsewhere.

[[Page 951]]

    I told the Prime Minister that we heartily support his ambitious 
program of economic reform that brings India's economy into the global 
marketplace. This important reform plan will be the engine of growth in 
our relationships. Our Commerce Department has identified India as one 
of the 10 biggest emerging markets around the world. We are pleased at 
the rapid expansion of trade and investment between our two countries. 
We are now the largest bilateral trading partner and investor with 
India. We're proud of that, and we want that relationship to grow. We 
also discussed some of the obstacles to trade, and we pledged that we'd 
work hard to resolve those.
    We talked about security issues that affect India in the post-cold-
war era. We discussed common efforts to curb weapons of mass destruction 
and their means of delivery. We pledged to intensify our efforts to 
achieve a comprehensive test ban treaty and a verifiable global ban on 
the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. I told the 
Prime Minister that I hoped that India and Pakistan would continue their 
constructive dialog on ways to resolve their differences, including 
their differences over Kashmir.
    In our talks today, we also agreed to increase the frequency of 
high-level visits and exchanges between our two countries. I've asked 
our Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary, to visit India in July to 
further our talks on renewable energy. And I've asked the Secretary of 
Commerce, Ron Brown, to go to India in November to continue our 
important discussions on trade and to promote further growth in trade 
and investment.
    Today's visit was the first between Indian and United States leaders 
since Rajiv Gandhi came to the White House in 1987. I hope that the 
promising future in our relations will permit more frequent exchanges. 
Along with the United States, India is one of the world's great 
experiments in multicultural democracy. Its people share our love for 
freedom, entrepreneurship, and self-expression. And they have fought for 
more than four decades now to keep their democracy alive under the most 
amazing challenges.
    India's freedom was born out of a remarkable struggle led by Mahatma 
Gandhi and others whose courage and vision still inspires us and people 
all around the world. The Prime Minister has been part of that struggle 
and that history from the beginning of his country and since he was a 
very young man. Today he struck me as a leader of great wisdom and 
experience. He shared some of that with me today. And under his 
leadership, India is taking its rightful place as a major world economic 
power and a partner in world affairs. We look forward to working with 
India in that way.
    Mr. Prime Minister.
    Prime Minister Rao. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I am greatly 
pleased to be here today and to have had an opportunity of meeting you. 
My fellow citizens of India join me in conveying to you, Mr. President, 
and to the citizens of this great country our warm greetings and 
friendship.
    As the President has already told you, our talks today were held in 
an extremely friendly atmosphere. They were constructive, useful, and 
candid, as discussion between friends should be. We discussed 
international issues of concern to both sides, as also ways and means of 
strengthening bilateral ties.
    The President and I agreed that we have an unprecedented opportunity 
to free India-U.S. bilateral relations from the distortions induced by 
the cold war, to look for areas of converging interest in the changed 
international situation, and work together for our mutual benefit.
    We reviewed the tremendous economic opportunities thrown up by the 
sweeping economic reforms in India. I thank you, Mr. President, for your 
administration's strong support to our endeavor. The U.S. is India's 
largest trading partner. India is one of the big, emerging economies of 
the world, offering vast opportunities for trade and investment. 
Corporate America, too, is attracted by the prospects that have opened 
up in India. We will continue steadily along this path of economic 
liberalization. There will be no turning back.
    The United States has a crucial position in promoting international 
cooperation. As the first post-cold-war President of the United States, 
you, Mr. President, have a special role to play in this regard. I'm 
happy to note in this context that Indo-U.S. cooperation flourishes in 
many areas, bilateral and multilateral, ranging from cooperation in U.N. 
peacekeeping and our joint advocacy of nuclear test ban treaty to our 
rapidly expanding economic ties.
    As the growth and size of the Indian economy expands with the 
stimulus of international linkages and competition, we expect India to 
be in a position to make increasingly important con-


[[Page 952]]

tributions to the shaping of the world in both its political and 
economic dimensions. We look forward to working with the U.S. 
administration on the many areas in which our interests converge.
    The United States and India are the world's largest democracies. We 
share many cherished ideals and values. None are more important than 
democracy, individual liberty, and rule of law. My discussions with 
President Clinton have strengthened my conviction that our two nations 
can work together closely for international peace and development.
    Mr. President, I thank you for your gracious invitation and your 
generous remarks. I shall cherish your warm hospitality, your vision, 
and our stimulating discussion. I look forward to working with you to 
further strengthen Indo-U.S. relations. I would also like to take this 
opportunity of wishing you success in your very important tasks.
    And finally, Mr. President, I had the pleasure to invite you to 
visit India. You graciously accepted it. Please come at the time of your 
convenience.
    Thank you.
    The President. Thank you.
    Let me say I'd like to alternate questions between the American and 
the Indian press. So we'll begin with Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press 
International] and--Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press], are you 
next? Go ahead, go ahead.

North Korea

    Q. Mr. President, U.N. inspectors in North Korea say there's 
evidence that spent fuel rods are being withdrawn from a nuclear 
reactor, raising these concerns that it's going to be reprocessed into 
plutonium for a nuclear weapon. How serious is this development? And is 
it still your position that North Korea must not be allowed to make a 
nuclear bomb?
    The President. Let me tell you, first of all, I have nothing to add 
to what I said when I met with the Joint Chiefs this morning about that. 
I want to make sure that I have the facts from the inspectors and that 
the facts are there. When I know what the facts are, I will then make a 
statement about them.
    I think it would be an error for North Korea to continue to thwart 
these inspections after they have agreed to comply with them. But I want 
to know what the facts are. And when I do, then I will make a more 
definitive statement.
    Yes, sir.

India

    Q. Mr. President, would you say after your talks with the Prime 
Minister that some of the problems which have dogged Indo-American 
relations, there have been no outcome, but in other words, the areas of 
agreement are so large that you can afford to play down the areas of 
disagreement or leave them aside for future reference? And also, you 
mentioned the global partnership, and in that connection I'd like to ask 
you about the statement made by the new Ambassador--Ambassador-
designate--that if India is included in the Security Council, it will 
undermine cohesion. When you have a strong partner like India, why 
should it undermine cohesion? And if the largest democracy in the world 
cannot be a member of the Security Council, then who can be?
    I also have a question for the Prime Minister--wait, wait--the 
question is that in India, people said that President Clinton is going 
to twist your arm. I want to ask you what is the state of your arm after 
your talks today? [Laughter]
    The President. I can answer you the three questions very quickly, or 
two, and then you had one for the Prime Minister.
    First of all, when two nations are friends, it doesn't mean that 
they agree on everything or that they should. But in the context of 
their friendly relationships, they are then able to discuss differences, 
problems, or issues between them. We discussed in a very, I think, open 
way all the things that you might imagine we discussed today. But I have 
been disturbed by the apparent either strain or perhaps the better word 
is limitation on the relationships between the U.S. and India as 
reported in the press, not only here but in your country.
    We have a very great stake, it seems to me, in the end of the cold 
war in having not only a friendly relationship but a constructive and 
operating relationship--we, the two great democracies, with a great 
future together. And we emphasized that positive today, not in any way 
not dealing with other issues of difficulty, but knowing that it all has 
to be put in a proper context in the interests of the American people 
and in the interests of the Indian people.

[[Page 953]]

    Secondly, with regard to the Security Council issue, that is an 
issue that I think the United States should keep an open mind on. We 
have been on record--I have personally and our administration has--for 
some considerable amount of time favoring permanent membership for 
Germany and for Japan, who were our two principal opponents in World War 
II and who since then have built enormous economic superpowers in the 
context of peaceful countries, not on the backs of military domination, 
not even with the development of nuclear weapons but basically because 
of their enormous ability to develop the capacities of their people.
    That does not mean that I think we should have a definitive position 
prohibiting anybody else from participating in that way. I think that's 
something we should keep an open mind on.
    Prime Minister Rao. I think I owe you an answer. My arm is 
absolutely intact. The President didn't even touch it. [Laughter]
    The President. I'm very grateful you said that, Mr. Prime Minister, 
in more ways than one.
    Go ahead, Helen.

Human Rights

    Q. You've met with your foreign policy advisers today, and maybe 
it's misunderstood, but there's a widespread perception that you really 
don't have a definable, resolute foreign policy, that it's ad hoc, 
crisis to crisis, village to village. Is that true?
    Mr. Prime Minister, there are widespread allegations of Indian human 
rights violations in Kashmir. Are they true?
    Prime Minister Rao. No. They're not true.
    The President. No.

Foreign Policy

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. No, the answer is no. Let me--wait--if you want to 
say that this administration has not waved a magic wand and solved all 
the problems that I dealt with, that I was given when I came to office, 
that's one thing. But to say that we don't have a clear policy which 
says our first priority is the safety and security of the American 
people; in that context we need to continue the work that we are doing 
with Russia to denuclearize the other former republics, the republics of 
the former Soviet Union, and to reduce the nuclear threat--and we are 
doing that; that we then have a serious issue in terms of maintaining 
our security commitments in the Asian-Pacific region and dealing with 
the Korean issue--we are doing that--and we have done it, I think, with 
remarkable consistency in the face of attempts, rhetorical attempts by 
others to try to tilt the balance one way or the other; that we have a 
new national security interest, or a renewed national security interest 
in promoting economic growth and democracy and partnerships which we 
have manifested with NAFTA, with GATT, with the APEC meeting, with the 
Summit of the Americas; that from the beginning of my campaign for 
President, I said that we should not introduce ground troops into Bosnia 
but that we should try to do what we can to stop ethnic cleansing and to 
increase the multinational efforts, led by the Europeans who have 
primary interests there, to bring an end to the fighting on honorable 
and decent terms--we have certainly done that. And the initiative taken 
by the Americans and by my administration led to the actions that NATO 
has taken, has funded and carried out the longest humanitarian airlift 
ever in our history, and is in large measure responsible for the 
progress that has been made there.
    Now, the fighting in Bosnia continues; the fighting in Haiti 
continues. I continue to try to look for new solutions. If we look for 
new solutions when old solutions don't work, does that mean we don't 
have a coherent foreign policy? I don't think so. So I dispute that.
    I think we have made remarkable progress in the Middle East, another 
place where our national interests are plainly at stake, where the 
Secretary of State has plainly done a very good job and has the dialog 
between Syria and Israel further along than it has ever been, as far as 
I know. And we have played a very constructive role in the progress that 
has been made in the agreement between the PLO and Israel with regard to 
Jericho and Gaza. So I feel good about those things.
    Do we still have some problems that we had the day I showed up? Yes, 
we do, and I guess the day I leave office we'll still have some 
problems. And if we last another 218 years, we'll still have some 
problems. But I think we are moving aggressively to address these. So 
that's still--no is as good an answer as that.

Kashmir

    Q. My question is, Mr. President, to you regarding Kashmir, and it 
is in two parts. Recently a report was released by State Department in

[[Page 954]]

which it said, and I quote, ``There were credible reports in 1993 of 
official Pakistani support to Kashmiri militants, who undertook attacks 
of terrorism in India-controlled Kashmir,'' unquote. Last year, the 
House Republican Task Force on Terrorism branded Pakistan as a terrorist 
state. My question is, will U.S. now put Pakistan back on the list of 
states that sponsor terrorism? With all the radical statements made by 
State Department, what is your stand, Mr. President, on Kashmir now?
    The President. Well, since the spring of last year, based on our 
best evidence, official Pakistani material support to the Kashmiri 
militants has dropped. The Secretary of State concluded last July and 
again this past January that the available evidence did not warrant a 
finding that Pakistan--and I've got the exact language here--has 
repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. Plainly 
there is still assistance to the militants by private parties in 
Pakistan. And all I can tell you is we will have to continue to monitor 
that situation and deal with it based on the facts as we see them.
    The ultimate answer there is for these two great nations to get 
together and resolve that.

China

    Q. This kind of follows the question that Helen raised before. At 
one point, you made it sound as if giving China most-favored-nation 
status was going to be a pretty easy decision. Why has it taken so long 
to come to this decision, and what are some of the factors that are 
going into your decisionmaking on this right now? And can you tell us 
about Mr. Armacost's mission a little bit?
    The President. First of all, it's the decision of great moment for 
this country that involves not only the economic interests of the 
American people and the people of China and the human rights interests 
of the people of China and the human rights commitments of the American 
people and our Government but also enormous national security interests 
and international security considerations for a long time to come across 
a broad range of areas. So it is a very important issue.
    Secondly, the decision is due to be made based on facts as they 
exist moving up to the deadline of June 3d; so that it would have been 
inappropriate to make a decision in January, February, or March based on 
that, based on the Executive order, and also the ongoing contacts we had 
with China.
    Thirdly, I can't comment on the question you asked with regard to 
Mr. Armacost, because we have had a number of people who have gone to 
China, who have discussed the issues relating to this matter with the 
Chinese. And we are continuing to have discussions with the Chinese. 
That's the final answer to your question. The reason that I have not 
made my statement yet is that we have not concluded our discussions with 
the Chinese. And I think anything I say about them until we have 
concluded them would be inappropriate.

India

    Q. How far advanced do you think India's nuclear program is, and how 
many bombs do you think India possesses?
    The President. I think you asked the wrong person that. [Laughter] I 
don't think I can or should comment on that.

Haiti

    Q. Mr. President, you have said that all options are open with 
regard to Haiti. Can you tell us if that's correct or what the American 
interest would be in using military action inherent in that threat and 
how that differs from Rwanda, say, or Bosnia, where you have 
specifically ruled out the possibility of using U.S. troops?
    The President. In Bosnia, since February of 1993, I have said that 
the United States should contribute to a multinational NATO effort to 
enforce a peace agreement, if one is reached.
    Q. In a possible combat situation----
    The President. The difference is, first of all--again, I say, I 
think it is a mistake for an American President to discuss hypothetical 
uses of force. But we plainly have a significant interest in Haiti. 
First, it's in our backyard. Second, we've got a million Haitian-
Americans. Third, we've got several thousand Americans in Haiti. Fourth, 
we believe drugs are coming through Haiti to the United States. Fifth, 
we face the possibility, continuous possibility, of a massive outflow of 
Haitian migrants to the United States; they were free to do so because 
of conditions in Haiti. So we have a lot of very significant interests 
there. Sixth, Haiti and Cuba are the only two nondemocracies left in our 
hemisphere, and unlike Cuba, Haiti at least had an election

[[Page 955]]

and voted overwhelmingly for a democratic government, which has been 
denied.

India

    Q. After this summit, are there differences between India and the 
U.S.? NPT and human rights, have they narrowed down, or does it stand 
where it is?
    The President. I wouldn't say they have narrowed down, but I think 
they should be seen in the context of the whole relationship. We both 
support a comprehensive test ban treaty. We both support an end to the 
production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. If we did both 
those things, that would dramatically reduce the prospect of nuclear 
development anywhere in the world if, in fact, those treaties were 
adhered to by everyone and enforced.
    We have some things that we have agreed to continue to discuss with 
regard to the human rights issue and the proliferation issue, and we 
will continue to discuss them. But I think what you should say is, the 
differences remain, but in the context of our common interests and our 
common values, we believe they can be managed in a very constructive way 
and still allow this relationship to grow and strengthen.

Welfare Reform

    Q. Mr. President, if I could ask you a domestic question. Welfare 
reform, which has been delayed repeatedly over these months--so many of 
your colleagues, or so many Democrats in Congress say health care reform 
should have the priority now, that if you do go forward with the welfare 
reform package, in terms of financing, that that would muddy the waters, 
make it more difficult to get health care reform. Since welfare reform 
is dependent, as you often say, on health care reform, why not simply 
delay welfare reform a little bit longer so you get health care first?
    The President. Well, first let me say, Congress, just as it did last 
year when we had the most productive first year of a Presidency in 40 
years, I guess, Congress has a lot to do. They've already passed major 
education reform, school-to-work, Goals 2000, Head Start expansion. They 
still have to deal with lobby reform, campaign finance reform, most 
importantly to me, the crime bill, as well as the health care issue.
    But as you have seen with health care or with welfare reform, 
introducing a piece of legislation starts a process that does not finish 
in a week or a month. And I think the outlines of the principles that I 
have embraced on welfare reform are very well known. Indeed, my own 
views on this are not markedly different from the bill introduced by Mr. 
McCurdy and others except for the way that I would propose to pay for 
it.
    And so I think that putting out in the late spring--we're a little 
later than I thought we'd be; I thought we'd have this bill out around 
the first of May--but putting out the bill so that the Congress can see 
it and see what I think ought to be done and how I would propose to pay 
for it and so the Democrats and Republicans alike can evaluate it, is an 
appropriate thing to do. It might catch fire; the whole thing might 
catch fire. We might have a bipartisan consensus to move the bill in a 
hurry and get it this year. I wouldn't write that off. But I don't see 
that that will undermine health care.
    It is, however--the flipside is true. Until you find a way to 
provide health coverage for all workers, you will never have full 
welfare reform because you're going to have people staying on welfare 
because that's the only way their kids can get health care. And you're 
going to have the anomaly of people getting off welfare, taking low-wage 
jobs, giving up their health coverage so they can earn taxes to pay for 
the health care of the people who stayed on welfare. So that is the more 
important issue for the long run. But I don't believe that my 
introducing my plan will undermine our ability to achieve health care 
reform this year.

Nuclear Nonproliferation

    Q. Mr. President, Israel is known to possess nuclear arms, but the 
U.S. doesn't seem to be doing anything about it, while there is a lot of 
pressure on countries like India. Why this double standard?
    The President. Well, first of all, sir, we are trying to deal with 
the international nuclear problems. But we also believe very strongly 
that the fewer countries who become nuclear powers, the better off we're 
all going to be.
    And if there is a system in which the security of nations who think 
they may have to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves can have 
their security guaranteed in other ways, we think that that's our job to 
try to put the system out there, to put those alternatives out there, so 
that people will see it is not in their long-


[[Page 956]]

term security interest to develop such weapons. That's our position.
    What we're trying to do is to keep the number of people in the 
nuclear club as small as possible and then reduce the nuclear arsenals 
that they have, including our own. As you know, we've worked hard to 
reduce our own with the Russians.
    So that is our position. But our position further is that no one 
should be asked to put their own security at risk to achieve that. So 
any dialog we have with India on this would be in the context of what is 
pivotal for India's security: How can we enhance your security, not 
diminish it? It would be wrong for the United States to tell your great 
nation, or the smallest nation on the face of the Earth, that we 
recommend a course of action for them that would reduce security. We 
should be in the business of increasing security.
    But I believe you can increase your security and avoid becoming a 
nuclear power. Japan did it. Germany did it. A lot of other countries 
have done it. We can do it together.
    Thank you.

Note: The President's 57th news conference began at 2:04 p.m. in the 
East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Michael 
Armacost, Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University.