    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book II)]
    [September 14, 1994]
    [Pages 1548-1553]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Wire Service Reporters on Haiti
    September 14, 1994

        The President. I asked you in here today because I want to talk a
    little about Haiti. As you know, I am going to address the country
    tomorrow night, and I will have more to say then. But I wanted to
    emphasize the interests of the United States and the values of the
    United States that are at stake in this situation and to just remind you
    and, through you, the American people of what the United States has done
    here for the last 3 years.
        Let me begin by saying that the report of the Assistant Secretary of
    State for Human Rights, John Shattuck, yesterday highlights the interest
    we have there that has gotten so much worse. This is plainly the most
    brutal, the most violent regime anywhere in our hemisphere. They have
    perpetrated a reign of terror in Haiti, and it is getting worse.
        I just had a long meeting with John Shattuck, and he left me, just
    for example, these pictures as illustrative of what is going on there
    that you may want to look at, of people who have been killed: This man
    killed in the slums, in Port-au-Prince, disemboweled in the--
    [inaudible]; this man, a distinguished supporter of the elected
    President, dragged out of church and murdered; this woman horribly
    disfigured. And we have examples now of the slaughter of orphans, the
    killing of a priest, in small towns killing people and dismembering them
    and then burying them and leaving parts of their bodies to stick out to
    terrify people. We have clear examples of widespread use of political
    rape, that is, rape against wives and daughters to intimidate people,
    children included. We now know there have been over 3,000--well over
    3,000 political murders since the military coup occurred.
        So the human rights violations and the situation there, right on our
    back door, is very, very significant.
        The second point I'd like to make is that the United States clearly
    has an interest in preventing another massive outflow of refugees, which
    are plainly going to flow from this if the international community does
    not act to put an end to it. We already have over 14,000 Haitian
    refugees at Guantanamo; many thousands of others have come----
        Q. How many?
        The President. Over 14,000. Many thousands of others had come to the
    shores of the United States or attempted to, as you know. We're going to
    have a massive immigration problem that we will have to pay for, with
    thousands of dislocated people.
        The third thing I want to emphasize is a point that has been made
    repeatedly to me by leaders in the region, in the Caribbean, and has
    been echoed by the person who was in charge of Latin American policy
    under the previous administration, and that is that we have a decided
    interest in seeing democracy succeed in Haiti. We have now 33 of the 35
    countries in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America are
    democratic governments. Cuba is not and has not been for a very long
    time. But Haiti is the only one where there was an election and then a
    military coup negated it. Ninety percent of the people in Haiti voted;

    [[Page 1549]]

    67 percent of the people voted for President Aristide.
        As the leaders in the region, particularly in the Caribbean, have
    pointed out to me repeatedly in my conversations with them, democracy is
    not a done deal all over this region. And if this is allowed to stand
    after all this brutality, all this evidence of violations of
    international law and human conscience, then democracies elsewhere will
    be more fragile.
        That is important to us, not only because of security concerns. We
    look toward the 21st century, and we know what our problems are going to
    be. We know we're going to have problems with small-scale weapons of
    mass destruction. We know we're going to have problems with terrorism.
    And we know that democracies are far less likely to tolerate that sort
    of thing than dictatorships are. Furthermore, we know that an enormous
    percentage of our economic growth and prosperity is tied to the growth
    of democracy and an open trading system south of our borders. And we
    have to keep it going. So those three things, human rights, immigration,
    democracy, are very important.
        I'd like to mention just one other thing that is equally important,
    and that is the reliability of the United States and the United Nations
    once we say we we're going to do something. And let me go through the
    chronology here. You will remember, first of all, when this coup
    occurred, President Bush said that this was a serious threat to our
    national security interests. Secretary of State Baker said that the coup
    could not be allowed to stand.
        We worked hard on a nonviolent solution, on a peaceful solution to
    this with the United Nations called the Governors Island accord, which
    was signed in the United States. It was an agreement, in effect, all the
    parties made with the United States and the United Nations. On the day
    it was supposed to be carried out, the military leaders broke their word
    to the United States and to the United Nations.
        We then went back and pursued sanctions and the tightening of
    sanctions. We did everything we could to avoid any kind of confrontation
    of force. And what has happened? The sanctions have made the Haitians
    poorer. They have not undermined the resolve of the dictators to keep
    milking the country dry in perpetrating their reign of terror. They have
    instead led to continued terrorism, the expulsion of the U.N. human
    rights monitors, the refusal of the dictators to see the representative
    of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. All that has happened.
        Meanwhile, the Security Council Resolution 940 has approved all
    necessary measures to restore democracy and has called for a two-phase
    process, one in which the leaders would be removed and there would be an
    immediate beginning of retraining the police force and a period when a
    multinational force would attempt to stabilize the situation there,
    restore President Aristide, and establish a security force that is
    reliable. And then within a matter of a few months, the mission would be
    turned over to the United Nations itself to stay until the Presidential
    election in '95 and the inauguration of a new President in '96. The
    multinational force mission, in other words, that the United States is
    called upon to spearhead is a limited one.
        The international community is exhausted. Not very long ago--I mean,
    their patience is exhausted. The Secretary-General of the U.N. himself
    said the time for diplomacy had finished.
        Now, just in the last few weeks, we have had more than 20 countries
    say that they would participate with us in the first stages of this, in
    the multinational force, in retraining the police force, operating as
    police monitors, trying to maintain security while we normalize the
    situation there. More countries are willing to come into the U.N.
    mission to stay for a longer period of time, until the election is held
    and a new President is installed.
        The United States has an interest, it seems to me, in the post-cold-
    war world in not letting dictators break their word to the United States
    and to the United Nations, especially in our backyard. We have supported
    other countries taking the lead in other areas of the world where their
    interests are directly at stake. The Europeans overwhelmingly,
    principally aided by the Canadians, have been in Bosnia. The Russians
    sent a force into Georgia at the request of the Government of Georgia
    but willing to abide by United Nations standards.
        Here is a case where the entire world community has spoken on a
    matter in our backyard involving horrible human rights violations, the
    threat of serious immigration dislocation in the United States, the
    destabilization of democracy in our hemisphere when it's going along so
    well, and the total fracturing of the ability of the world community to
    conduct business in the post-cold-war era. Those are the things that are

    [[Page 1550]]

    at stake here. And it seems to me that we have literally exhausted every
    available alternative. And the time has come for those people to get out
    of there.
        Now, there is still--they can still leave. They do not have to push
    this to a confrontation. But our interests are clear; the support is
    astonishing. We have countries all over the world on every continent
    willing to come to be a part of this because they are appalled by what's
    going on.
        But the flipside of this is that the United States must not be in a
    position to walk away from a situation like this in our backyard while
    we expect others to lead the way in their backyard, as long as the
    United Nations has approved of an operation. And yet, people are coming
    from all over the world to be a part of this, to rebuild Haiti because
    they understand the significance of it.
        That is my case. There is no point in going any further with the
    present policy. The time has come for them to go, one way or the other.
        Q. Why give them the pass, Mr. President, if they're responsible for
    such horrific deeds as this, to allow them at this stage free passage
    out of Haiti?
        The President. Well, I happen to have two answers to that. First of
    all, we are interested in bringing an end to the violence; violence may
    tend to beget violence. And secondly, President Aristide himself
    supports this. Keep in mind, President Aristide has been willing all
    along to follow the spirit and the letter of the Governors Island
    Agreement. In the Governors Island Agreement the military leaders and
    the police leaders were promised safe exit. And yes, this is horrible,
    but the most important thing we can do is to quickly create a spirit of
    reconciliation and to try to move to a point where we can do that.
        Now, if they don't leave, of course, then they are vulnerable to
    being handed over to the authorities and being held accountable for
    whatever their role was, their respective roles were, in the kinds of
    things that have occurred. But anyway, those are my two answers.
        Q. Mr. President, are you going to fix a deadline by which they must
    leave or the United States is going to take action? How imminent is
    something?
        The President. Well, I'll have a little more to say about that
    tomorrow night. But I don't want to talk about any specific date. All I
    can tell you is that the time is at hand. They need to leave, and
    they're going to leave one way or the other.
        Q. Does that mean you are going to give a deadline?
        The President. That means that it wouldn't be responsible for me to
    discuss that question at this moment.
        Q. Is it a matter of days or weeks?
        The President. I don't want to get into the time.
        Q. Are you going to--is this an ultimatum? You've said they must go,
    they have to go, they have--and so forth. All of these words amount to,
    in fact, that you have made a decision to invade Haiti.
        The President. No, that decision is up to them. My decision is that
    it's time for them to go. We have tried every other option. We now have
    an enormous array of international support for a problem that is on our
    doorstep.
        Q. But you don't have any support in this country.
        The President. Well, you know, it's interesting. When we had the--
    let me just remind you about the--let me say first of all what's
    important.
        I am concerned about that, and I am sorry that the polls are the way
    they are. But my job as the President is to take the information that I
    have and the facts that I know and do what I believe is best for our
    national security interests. And I believe it is best--in fact, I think
    it is very important, for the reasons I have stated, for us to resolve
    this matter and to do it now. That is what I believe. And I hope that I
    can persuade the American people that I am right. But my job in this
    case, where I have access to a lot of facts and evidence, is to make
    that decision and to go forward.
        I also would remind you that these polls come and go. There was a
    poll at the height of the immigration crisis which said, by 51 percent
    to 17 percent, the people of America would support our going in there to
    restore democracy if it were part of a United Nations effort. And
    clearly, when the immigration crisis abated, it abated not simply
    because we established safe havens outside the United States, it abated
    because it was part of a process that the Haitian people thought was
    going to lead to a resolution of this crisis.
        If we walk away from this and these things keep happening, you're
    going to see another

    [[Page 1551]]

    explosion of immigration, I am convinced, with far, far more people than
    the 14,000 that are at Guantanamo today that the American taxpayers are
    supporting, that are in a terrible situation. And we will have to see--
    it's going to be a very difficult situation.
        Q. So you'll move even if you don't have Congress or the American
    people behind you because you think that they will rally once you have
    made them?
        The President. No, I think my job--look, I have taken on a lot of
    tough fights since I have been here, and I believe that the country is
    going to be better off because of them. And in a matter like this, I
    believe that if the American people knew everything that I knew on
    this--and I think as they know more, I think more of them will agree
    with me. But regardless, this is what I believe is the right thing to
    do. I realize it is unpopular. I know it is unpopular. I know the timing
    is unpopular. I know the whole thing is unpopular. But I believe it is
    the right thing. I have been working on this hard since the day I took
    office. Indeed, I began to work on it before I took office. I was trying
    to continue the policy not only that I felt was right but that my
    predecessor said was right. He said it was a serious threat to our
    security.
        We were very reasonable. We went through that whole Governors Island
    thing. We agreed, because they wanted it, to lightly arm our soldiers
    and the French and the Canadians, the others that were part of Governors
    Island. And then we showed up to implement the Governors Island
    Agreement. And because we were lightly armed, because we had agreed to
    do that, and because we had agreed to come on conditions of mutual
    willingness, they broke the deal while we were literally on the point of
    landing, the United Nations.
        We did not invade them then; we did not resort to violence then.
    Instead, we went back and got a consensus of the international
    community. We dealt with the refugee crisis. We ended the policy of
    direct return of refugees. And we went to the sanctions, and we did
    everything we could. And all of our efforts resulted in more of this,
    more of this. And it is wrong for us to permit more of this when the
    United Nations authorized us 50 days ago to act--50 days ago they
    authorized us. I have tried for 50 more days. And when we got support
    from countries--we will talk about it some more tomorrow, but we have an
    amazing array of countries who believe this is right.
        I think when the American people know the facts of this, they will
    be supportive. And as I said, no decision has been made to use force.
    That decision is in the hands of the people in Haiti; they can still
    leave. But they've got to go.
        Q. Is there any signal from Port-au-Prince saying that General
    Cedras could leave?
        The President. What?
        Q. Is there any signal coming out of Port-au-Prince saying that he
    could leave?
        The President. I don't know what's going to happen there.
        Q. Have you had any signals?
        Q. Before the Persian Gulf war, President Bush sent Secretary Baker
    for one final, last meeting, an emissary, with Tariq 'Aziz and said,
    ``This is it. You've got to go within''--I think he prescribed some kind
    of deadline. Some of your supporters say that you should make one last
    stab at this; send an emissary. Is that something--do you endorse that
    idea?
        The President. I don't want to say anymore today about all of that.
    I just want to say that I think I have shown already extreme good faith
    and forbearance in the face of dictators who broke their word to
    America, broke their word to the United Nations, permitted gross
    brutalization of their own people, and are exercising a destabilizing
    force in our region when we need to be supportive of democracy. I have
    shown forbearance.
        We will deal with those questions--that question and questions like
    it--in an appropriate fashion. And they, I hope, will make the right
    decision.
        Q. Well, are you sending President Carter, by any chance, who seems
    to be a world peacemaker? I mean, giving him a chance to meet with
    Cedras?
        The President. There is nothing to meet about, unless they are
    leaving. If they are leaving and they want to discuss things, well,
    that's a different issue.
        But the time has come for them to go. I am not interested in sending
    anybody down there to try to talk them into doing something that they
    plainly will not be talked into doing in a reasonable, fair, humane way.
        They broke their word on Governors Island. I was prepared, fully
    committed, to see that the amnesty provision was honored, that they

    [[Page 1552]]

    and the people that they were associated with were protected. I had no
    intention of supporting any international aid to Haiti if the Governors
    Island Agreement was not honored. We still are committed to a spirit of
    reconciliation and to putting an end to this. I know that there will be
    pressures for other kinds of violence when the change occurs. People
    don't suffer this kind of thing and not want to retaliate. We are
    committed to--the international community is, the U.N. is, all these
    countries that are willing to go in are committed to trying to put an
    end to this.
        Q. Even at the price of American lives?
        The President. Well, I hope there won't be a loss of American lives.
    But the United States went into not only Desert Storm but went in--in
    our hemisphere, where we have a special interest--went into both Panama
    and Grenada in a conflict without United Nations support, without United
    Nations--an outright request and certainly without 20 other countries
    supporting an endeavor.
        I think that, therefore, our interests are clear and certainly as
    compelling here as they were there.
        Q. Have there been any signals at all, any feelers from--[inaudible]
        The President. You've seen enough from the films to know that we
    have been doing preparations. And we will do everything we can under all
    circumstances always to minimize any risk to American lives.
        Q. Have there been any signals at all, any feelers from Cedras and
    the others, that at long last they're ready to go?
        The President. All I can tell you is that the issue as we stand
    tonight is how I have presented it to you. And I'll have more to say
    tomorrow night.
        Q. What about a congressional vote? If that happens, if there is a
    congressional vote and it goes against you, would you ignore that?
        The President. Well, we've had--first of all, I'm not convinced that
    that's going to happen, but secondly, we have had seven debates about
    it. The 1994 appropriations bill actually provided--if you will
    remember--provided a procedure by which the United States could move,
    along with the U.N., and file a detailed report about what was going on.
        I do want to emphasize this, because I think this is a legitimate
    concern of Congress and the American people: What is our mission? If we
    lead this multinational force, what is our mission? Our mission is to
    get the dictators out; bring the police monitors in from these other
    countries to help maintain the peace; begin to retrain a Haitian police
    force to be responsible, supportive of democracy, and to prevent
    violence, not participate in it; restore the elected President; and turn
    the mission over to the U.N. as quickly as we can. Then there would be a
    U.N. mission in which the United States would participate but at a much
    reduced level, which would stay there until the election occurs next
    year and the new President is inaugurated early '96.
        In other words, we have very limited objectives. We are not trying
    to win military conquest. We have no interest in that at all. And we are
    not responsible in any way, shape, or form for rebuilding Haiti. This is
    not a nation building operation. It is not a traditional peacekeeping
    operation. Our responsibility would be limited to removing the
    dictators, bringing in the police monitors from other countries,
    retraining the police force, restoring the President, turning it over to
    the U.N.
        The nation building, so-called nation building, would have to be
    done by the international aid institutions. You should know, by the
    way--because one of the questions that will be asked is, how do we know
    that we'll be on a more positive path--there was a meeting in Paris a
    few days ago. There was a commitment to give over $1 billion in aid to
    Haiti when democracy is restored, when the dictators leave, if
    conditions of reconciliation exist.
        Q. If force has to be used, how many troops would be involved and
    how long would they have to----
        The President. I'm not going to discuss the details of that. It
    would not be responsible. I'll have some more to say about it tomorrow
    night.
        Q. Your exit strategy?
        The President. Absolutely.
        Q. I was going to say that----
        The President. Absolutely, a disciplined and clear one. There is.
    That's what I'm trying to say. This is, there is--first of all, the
    whole U.N. mission will be over when the next Presidential election is
    held in '95. That's when the U.N. mission is over. The U.S.
    responsibility as head of a multinational force would be over in a
    couple of months, as soon as we could do those things I said, remove the
    dictators, retrain the police, let the police monitors main-

    [[Page 1553]]

    tain order, restore the President, turn it over to the U.N. It could be
    done in a matter of a couple of months.
        You know, it is very important that it be limited. The nation
    building must done by the international financial institutions. They
    have a plan that I think will work.

    Baseball Strike

        Q. Mr. President, a purely domestic issue, as you probably know, Bud
    Selig has announced that the baseball season is over with no World
    Series. Do you think the antitrust exemption should be removed from
    baseball at this point because of the situation?
        The President. I don't want to give you a definite answer, but it's
    something that I think ought to be looked at. The reason I don't want to
    give you a definite answer is that I have not had a chance to study that
    issue in detail or to get any kind of advice from the Justice
    Department. But I think that if for the first time in history we're not
    going to have a World Series, and if we have ended what could have been
    the best baseball season in 50 years--I might say, you know, we tried.
    We had the Federal Mediation Service in there. The Secretary of Labor
    worked very hard. The White House worked very hard. We did everything we
    could. If this has just turned into another business in America, then
    that's an issue, it seems to me, that has to be examined. But I cannot
    give a definitive answer at this moment for the simple reason that I
    have not had adequate time to study it or get a recommendation from the
    Attorney General, so I should not do that. But I don't see how we can
    avoid a serious examination of it in light of what has happened now to
    the American people.
        Press Secretary Myers. Next question.

    Haiti

        Q. You sound very angry.
        The President. Well, I believe that the United States--I think
    there's no question, about what you said, about the whole issue about
    the public support--but that's because immigration has gotten off the
    front page and the nature of the U.N. commitment got off the front page.
    And I understand that, and I'm sympathetic, and we were doing a lot of
    other things in America, you know, a lot of things at home. But, you
    know, we asked for this report from the Assistant Secretary for Human
    Rights. He gave it to me. Just in the last few days we had the New York
    Times story on the orphans being killed. It's just getting worse, and I
    am--I am very angry.
        Those people gave their word to the United States and the United
    Nations at Governors Island. And we gave our word to them. We kept our
    word to them. They broke their word to us. They went about committing
    this kind of atrocity. And I have bent over backwards. I have used
    sanctions and everything else. I have also not had the United States be
    the Lone Ranger. We had the U.N. come in here. The United Nations has
    asked us to move, and we have all these other countries. And it is--this
    is senseless, and it needs to stop.

    Note: The President spoke at 4:45 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White
    House. Participants in the interview were Helen Thomas of United Press
    International, Terence Hunt of Associated Press, Gene Gibbons of
    Reuters, and Sophie Huet of Agence France-Presse. A reporter referred to
    Bud Selig, acting commissioner of baseball.