    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [February 28, 1995]
    [Pages 276-281]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Wim Kok of
    The Netherlands
    February 28, 1995

        The President. Please be seated. Welcome. It's indeed a pleasure to
    welcome Prime Minister Kok to the White House. Since the days of our
    Revolutionary War when The Netherlands gave shelter to John Paul Jones'
    ships, The Netherlands has consistently been one of our most valued and
    trusted allies.
        I also have warm personal recognition, Mr. Prime Minister, of your
    country. I last visited it a few years ago when I was Governor of
    Arkansas, and I hope I have a chance to visit it again. In the
    meanwhile, I'm glad we had the opportunity to return the hospitality
    today.
        The Prime Minister comes here at a very important time, when we are
    seeking to work together to meet the challenges of the post-cold-war
    era. One of the most vital issues we discussed is the effort to build a
    more integrated, more secure Europe, to ensure that democracy and
    prosperity grow strong in the years ahead. We reaffirmed our intention
    to press

    [[Page 277]]

    ahead with the enlargement of NATO to include Europe's new democracies.
        The Netherlands is playing a leading role in building bridges to
    these new democracies. It was the first NATO nation to host a
    Partnership For Peace exercise on its own soil, something for which we
    are very appreciative.
        We also agreed that in parallel with this expansion NATO must
    develop close and strong ties with Russia. We share a vision of European
    security that embraces a democratic Russia.
        The Prime Minister and I discussed a broad range of issues,
    including our interest in continuing to expand trade between our two
    nations. Not many people know just how rich our partnership is. The
    Netherlands is our eighth largest trading partner. And the Dutch people
    obviously think the American economy is a good bet because they have
    invested more in the United States than anyone except Britain and Japan.
    I hope this trading relationship will continue to grow with our
    friendship in the years ahead.
        During our talks, we also agreed on the importance of indefinite
    extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to prevent the spread
    of nuclear weapons. We reviewed our joint efforts in the Caribbean where
    we are working together to combat narcotics trafficking.
        I want to thank the Prime Minister and all the people of The
    Netherlands, especially, for the support they have given to our common
    efforts to restore democracy in Haiti, a truly remarkable success story
    to date. No other European nation has been as forthcoming at every stage
    of this endeavor, from sending ships for sanctions enforcement, to the
    police monitors in the multinational force, to the Dutch Marines, who
    are part of the U.N. mission. Like their involvement in the peacekeeping
    in the former Yugoslavia, this vital help to the people of Haiti writes
    yet another chapter in the great Dutch tradition of supporting
    humanitarian relief efforts and human rights around the world.
        When I spoke 2 weeks ago at the Iwo Jima Memorial commemoration, I
    admired once again the wonderful gift that The Netherlands gave us in
    thanks in part for our part in liberating their country in World War II,
    the wonderful Netherlands Carillon. Today, I want to thank the Prime
    Minister and the people of The Netherlands for renovating and updating
    the Carillon, which is now receiving a 50th bell. This is the gift that
    I have here. Now, as the Prime Minister reminded me, some of the bells
    are as big as he and I are. But this 50th bell, which I assure you--it's
    been over in the Oval Office for a day or so, and we have all lifted it.
    It's quite heavy and quite wonderful, and we thank him for this.
        Bells have rung out the news of victory and liberty for centuries.
    As we move forward to meet the challenges of this new century, it is
    fitting that we and our Dutch friends will be reminded of the common
    cause we shared 50 years ago by the sound of this beautiful new bell.
    May it also be sounding 50 years from now and even beyond.
        Mr. Prime Minister.
        Prime Minister Kok. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Let me,
    first of all, express my gratitude and the gratitude of Minister for
    Foreign Affairs Van Mierlo to be here. Having been here at this official
    working visit, this visit underlined once and again the close links and
    the excellent cooperation and relation between our two countries, both
    on a bilateral basis and also in the international framework. And so I
    want to thank you for that occasion.
        You said a few words about this bell. Indeed, this is one of the
    smallest ones we have, but it's number 50, number 50 on a row. And this
    symbolizes, with the words ``Freedom'' and ``Friendship'' on it, it
    symbolizes how grateful we still are and ever remain for the way in
    which the United States and the United States soldiers participated in
    liberating our continent, liberating our country. And I will be proud to
    see and to hear from far away, from in The Netherlands when, on the 5th
    of May of this year----
        The President. We will ring----
        Prime Minister Kok. ----at the day where, 50 years ago, The
    Netherlands were freed, that the bells will ring, all the bells will
    ring, and that symbolizes then, again, our friendship.
        Coming back to the main purpose of our talks and our visits, the
    President indicated the subjects that have been discussed. I think we
    live in a world where cooperation, partnership, and leadership is more
    necessary than ever before. In this world, we in The Netherlands
    participate in European cooperation. We want to strengthen the European
    Union. We want to expand the European Union. We want to offer
    perspective to the peoples of the Central and Eastern European countries
    that they can be part of our integrated European Union. And we want to

    [[Page 278]]

    work on the security architecture together with the United States.
        We are convinced--Europeans--but I'm even more convinced that
    without transatlantic cooperation, European integration at the end will
    not be successful. So we need each other. We need the United States in
    that role, and we want to strengthen our identity in Europe also in this
    field, foreign policy, security policy, but together with the United
    States.
        And I want to end by saying that especially in this time, the role
    in which you, Mr. President, use the word ``leadership,'' the way in
    which you are prepared to take the lead in going the way into the right
    direction in the universal context is impressive and encouraging,
    because we need each other. We need strong and good cooperation between
    Europe and the United States. We need leadership.
        Sometimes I'm a little bit concerned about tendencies in American
    society where you get the impression--but I'm only here for a few days--
    you get the impression that there is a certain tendency towards
    isolationism, stepping somewhat back from the international scene. And
    that would be very riskful, to put it mildly. That would be very
    riskful, because responsibility and leadership is a necessity now and
    forever.
        Thank you very much.
        The President. We'll begin with one question from an American
    journalist, and then we'll alternate between the American and the Dutch
    journalists who are here.

    Iran

        Q. Mr. President, what can you tell us about the presence or
    nonpresence of missiles at the opening of the Persian Gulf?
        The President. I can tell you that basically what General
    Shalikashvili said is accurate, and it's a situation that we're
    monitoring very closely. The missiles are rather old. As you know,
    they've been here for some time, in the possession of the Iranians. And
    we are monitoring them, trying to evaluate exactly everything we need to
    know about them. But we're on top of the situation, and we think there
    is no undue cause for concern at this moment.

    United Nations Peacekeeping

        Q. I have a question for the Prime Minister and the President.
    First, the President. The Prime Minister has expressed deep concern
    about the debate in this city of scaling down the American contribution
    to U.N. peacekeeping operations. Especially the Republicans are pushing
    hard this idea. But when it comes to this point, who is responsible,
    though, the Republicans on Capitol Hill, or the President of the United
    States?
        And to the Prime Minister: Which Washington did you like the best,
    the Washington of Dole, who you met yesterday, or the Washington of
    President Bill Clinton?
        Prime Minister Kok. I will have to think about my answer. So, first,
    perhaps the President. [Laughter]
        The President. You asked him the right question in the wrong way, so
    I'll try to fill up some time so he thinks of a clever answer.
    [Laughter]
        Well, let me say our Congress has voted already. It's a matter of
    American law to reduce our peacekeeping contribution from 31 percent
    down to 25 percent, more in line with our world share of GDP, although
    it's smaller than that.
        Nonetheless--and that was done before the last elections. And it was
    a part of an agreement I reached with the Congress that at least secured
    the money that we owed when I became President in back debts to the U.N.
    The United States was the biggest debtor to the U.N. We owed money, and
    I was trying to get the money and trying to move forward.
        Now, we have been very active in supporting reforms of U.N.
    practices, in which I think we are in accord with, with The Netherlands
    on that. And we wanted to pay our dues, and we want to stay active in
    peacekeeping--at least our administration does. I appreciated what the
    Prime Minister said. A lot of Americans are understandably concerned
    about their own problems in the economic and other challenges we have
    here at home. But we cannot afford to walk away from not only the
    obligations but the opportunities to work together with other countries
    to solve problems before they get more severe and before the United
    States could be dragged in at greater costs in treasure and in human
    life.
        So I very much support the comments the Prime Minister made. I have
    tried to keep the United States actively engaged with Europe, with Asia,
    with Latin America, and indeed with the entire globe in pursuing an
    aggressive strategy of promoting democracy and freedom and peace and
    prosperity. And that will continue to be my policy. It is a policy that
    under our

    [[Page 279]]

    Constitution I can pursue as long as I am the President. But the
    Congress does have the ability to appropriate or fail to appropriate
    money. That is their job under our Constitution.
        So that will answer most of your questions when you think about
    these conflicts coming up and what the United States can and cannot do.
    If I have a difference of opinion with them, if it relates to the
    appropriation of money, that's their first job. If it relates to the
    conduct of foreign policy under the Constitution, that's my primary job.
        Prime Minister Kok. Now comes a difficult question. Well, let me
    tell you this. I'm not here to compare. I'm here to listen and to
    debate. And I'm grateful that the President of the United States
    explains his policies and his position in the way he did in our meeting.
        In addition to this, I want to say this: We, to a certain extent,
    also see in other parts of the world, including The Netherlands, these
    tendencies of--in the period where the old enemy, communism, is not
    there anymore, after the cold war--certain tendency where perhaps a
    responsibility for international solutions of international problems is
    not always put high enough on the agenda. So it's not just an American
    discussion. Of course, in America, the discussion is more important than
    elsewhere because of the size of your country, you're a continent in
    itself, and because of the consequences if the United States would
    abstain from playing that active and prominent role.
        So the lesson I draw from this short visit, and also from the short
    meeting yesterday with Senator Dole, is that we have to discuss and
    debate much more also with the Republicans, because I could imagine that
    quite some Senators and Members of the House are just a little bit
    unaware of the responsibility that has to be taken in order to solve the
    number of huge international problems.
        Perhaps some Senators and Members of the House are not fully aware
    of what is the real situation in former Yugoslavia, what the situation,
    for example, of Dutch troops, Blue Helmets, is, and what the
    consequences would be of a unilateral arms embargo lift, where of course
    we here again today heard that the American President would not agree
    with.
        But I think this type of debate, of debate with the Americans, also
    the Americans from the Republican side, is necessary. And I'm ready with
    my government to invest also in that type of contact, because the
    wrongest solution for problems is drawing your back to each other. We
    have to discuss. And I'm glad, as I said before, that between the
    President of the U.S. and the Dutch Government there's a close
    similarity in view, vision, and perspective.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. One, two, three. I'll get to all of you. Go ahead.
    [Laughter]

    Balanced Budget Amendment

        Q. Virtually every major economist, with the exception of Milton
    Friedman, has said, in effect, that the balanced budget amendment is, in
    effect, a crackpot idea that could bring back the kinds of policies that
    triggered the Great Depression. Yet it seems to be benefiting from a
    political stampede on Capitol Hill. How do you account----
        The President. Not yet, hasn't passed yet. It's hanging in the
    balance.
        Q. If it does pass in the Senate later today, will you lead a
    campaign to block ratification by the States?
        The President. Well, first of all, I will say--I will keep on saying
    what I've been saying. The only argument for it is the argument that
    many people who helped to create the problem we've got are making, which
    is that we can't help ourselves unless the Constitution makes us make a
    change.
        We never had a chronic deficit problem before 1981. Our country was
    not into the business of permanent deficits, although we slipped into--
    we were undisciplined in the seventies, but not chronically so. Then in
    '81 and '82, and then again in '86 we made a series of decisions which
    gave us a permanent deficit. That needs to be corrected. We've made
    major steps in the last 2 years in correcting it.
        The American people are right to want it corrected. But if we solve
    the so-called structural deficit problem, the permanent deficit problem,
    with the balanced budget amendment, then the next time we have a
    recession, it could make it much worse. That's why all the economists of
    all political stripes are against it.
        And I'll just keep making that point and keep urging the
    Republicans--tomorrow, what happens tomorrow, however this vote comes
    out today? I've been here 770 days, and I want the members of the other
    party to propose and vote for something that will reduce the deficit.
    That has not happened yet. And I want them

    [[Page 280]]

    to work with me. I will work with them in good faith to do more. That's
    what we ought--that's what the people hired us to do. They want us to
    make the decisions. If we do that, we can demonstrate that the amendment
    is not needed, but that we must get rid of this sort of permanent
    deficit that we built into our economy starting in the early eighties.

    United Nations Peacekeeping

        Q. Mr. President, I have a question on balanced budget of the United
    Nations. The obvious question of your leadership in foreign policy will
    be whether you will veto that nation that will diminish contribution to
    a U.N. peacekeeping. Will you do that?
        The President. First of all, it's already in our law that we
    cannot--that we must ratchet down our contributions on a regular basis.
    Now, we also do other things, like what we did in Haiti with the
    multinational force, that we don't believe should be counted against
    that. But I will do everything I can to keep the United States involved
    in the United Nations in peacekeeping and to keep us supporting an
    active role in the world.
        I believe the American people understand that we're better off
    having these burdens shared with all the nations of the world, trying to
    nip these problems in the bud and that if we walk away, as some suggest
    we should in our Congress, and don't spend any money on this, all we're
    going to do is make the world's problems worse, make other countries
    behave in a more irresponsible way, and wind up dragging American
    soldiers and American wealth into deeper and deeper problems that could
    be avoided if we have a responsible, disciplined approach to burden
    sharing and peacekeeping. So that's what I'm going to try to do.

    Iraq

        Q. I wonder if you've had a chance to talk about the sanctions
    against Iraq and whether or not there's a sense out there that the
    international community is willing to stand with the U.S. to keep them
    in place, especially because of what we're hearing from Russia and
    France on pulling back.
        The President. Actually, we did not discuss that today.
        Prime Minister Kok. No.
        The President. You know what my position is. My position is that
    there are a whole set of rules that Iraq must comply with before the
    sanctions could be lifted, and they haven't been. They shouldn't be
    lifted. That's what my position is.

    ``Apache'' Helicopters

        Q. Mr. President, did you convince the Dutch Prime Minister that The
    Netherlands should buy the Apache helicopter? [Laughter] And Prime
    Minister, have you already made a decision after your talks with the
    President?
        The President. Well, maybe I can let him off the hook. He said that
    the decision had not been made, and I reaffirmed my conviction about two
    things: one, the high quality of the American helicopters, and second,
    the importance of having very good and interoperable equipment for NATO
    allies generally. I made the appropriate points in the appropriate way.
    The Prime Minister listened, made some good responses and made it clear
    that no decision had been made yet.

    Bosnia and Croatia

        Q. Did you assure the Prime Minister that the U.S. would take part
    in any possible withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers from Croatia, if
    necessary?
        The President.  Croatia and what?
        Q. Croatia with U.S. troops? Would U.S. troops help bring them out,
    if necessary?
        The President. Let me, first of all, say, we did not discuss that
    explicitly. You know, the United States has--I guess we ought to get
    this clear--the United States has committed explicitly and has a plan
    for helping on the troops in Bosnia. And one of the reasons that the
    Dutch have been so strong in believing we should not unilaterally lift
    the arms embargo is that they have troops in and around Srebrenica, I
    think----
        Prime Minister Kok. Right.
        The President. And perhaps the most vulnerable of all of the United
    Nations troops are the Dutch. They have really been brave. They've stuck
    their necks out. They have prevented much more bloodshed and saved a lot
    of lives. And that's why they're against the unilateral lift of the arms
    embargo, because they know what could happen not only to their own
    troops but, if they are compelled to withdraw, what could happen in that
    fragile area. And we all remember it wasn't so long ago when that whole
    area was given up for lost and now hasn't been.

    [[Page 281]]

        Now, we have gone through that. We're still doing our best to
    preserve the U.N. mission and presence in Croatia. We may not be able to
    persuade President Tudjman and his government to do that. We have,
    therefore, not articulated a clear position. Obviously, we feel a great
    obligation to all of our allies who are in UNPROFOR who are in
    vulnerable positions. But I want to say that we have not at this moment
    explicitly embraced a plan, consulted with the congressional leadership,
    and ratified it. But obviously, we are just as concerned about the U.N.
    forces in Croatia as those in Bosnia, but the decisionmaking process is
    at a different point.

    Foreign Policy

        Q. The Prime Minister is very concerned about what he perceives as
    isolationist tendencies in American society. Do you share those
    concerns? Do you think there is a danger that the United States may
    abdicate its role as a world leader?
        The President. Yes, I share the concerns. No, I don't think the
    United States will abdicate its role as a world leader. I share the
    concerns because--for two reasons: One is, a lot of our people here know
    that the cold war is over, know that most Americans have worked hard for
    more than a decade now without any appreciable increase in their living
    standards, and would like to see us focus on our problems here at home
    in ways that make progress on our economic and social problems.
        I believe that we have to make progress on our economic and social
    problems, but I don't believe that over the long run we can really solve
    our own problems at home unless we are also operating in a world that's
    more peaceful, more democratic, and more prosperous. The only way a
    wealthy country like The Netherlands or the United States grows
    wealthier is if there is growth in the world, and we trade into it, and
    we work our way into it.
        So we have a very clear personal interest that does not permit us to
    be isolationists. And if we--we could get away with being isolationists
    for a couple of years, and then pretty soon we'd be spending even more
    of our money on military involvement, cleaning up foreign problems and
    dealing with the consequences of our neglect.
        So I believe that we will resolve these tensions and debates by
    reaffirming America's leadership in the world. And that is my
    determination. That is what I'm committed to doing and why I'm so
    grateful for the Prime Minister's presence here in the United States and
    for his words and for the leadership and the example that The
    Netherlands have set in this area.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 87th news conference began at 12:55 p.m. in the
    Cross Hall at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to President
    Franjo Tudjman of Croatia.