    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [June 16, 1995]
    [Pages 893-899]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference in Halifax
    June 16, 1995

        The President. I'd like to begin my statement with an American
    issue. I want to congratulate Salt Lake City on their successful pursuit
    of the Olympics in 2002. This will be an historic event for Salt Lake
    City--[applause]--there was good applause there, maybe a native or two
    back there. It's a great event for Salt Lake City. They sought the
    Olympics many times over the

    [[Page 894]]

    last several years, and I congratulate them. It's a great thing for the
    Western part of the United States and, indeed, for our whole country.
        I want to particularly congratulate Governor Mike Leavitt; the mayor
    of Utah--of Salt Lake City, Dee Dee Corradini; and Tom Welsh, the
    president of the Salt Lake City Bid Committee, for their efforts and a
    job well done.
        From the beginning of our administration I've worked hard to make
    the global economy work for the American people. We live and work in a
    global market. Our living standards depend upon our ability to compete
    and to keep one step ahead of economic change.
        In the past 2\1/2\ years, we have fought at home for a comprehensive
    economic strategy that would create jobs and lift the incomes of our
    people, focusing on reducing the deficit but investing in our people, in
    their education and their future. My new budget proposal continues to
    reflect these priorities.
        At the same time, we have worked to open more markets around the
    world to our products in free and fair competition from others, through
    NAFTA, GATT, our work with the Asian-Pacific countries and with the
    countries of the Americas. We've also worked hard to encourage the
    global trend toward market democracy in the former Communist countries.
        I am pursuing this strategy, above all, for one reason: to renew the
    promise of America in the 21st century. But I also want to preserve the
    leadership of America as a force for peace and freedom, for democracy
    and prosperity.
        This G-7 meeting has moved us a step closer to these goals. We've
    taken concrete steps to strengthen the international financial system,
    something we promised to do last year in Naples. And let me give you one
    and perhaps the most important example.
        Earlier this year, we in the United States were confronted with a
    serious financial crisis in Mexico. It posed a risk to markets
    throughout the world, and it certainly threatened our own economic
    health as well as our long-term relationships with Mexico, involving a
    number of other issues. We led the effort to stabilize Mexico, and from
    all signs, it seems to be working. President Zedillo and his team have
    worked hard to live within the discipline the markets have imposed and
    to move Mexico to a brighter and better future.
        But we learned two important lessons in dealing with the Mexican
    crisis. First, the world clearly needs better tools to identify problems
    like this so that they can be prevented, and second, the international
    system must have a stronger way of resolving these crises once they do
    occur.
        We were fortunate in the Mexican instance that the United States had
    access to a fund which could permit us to make some guarantees and move
    to put together an international approach to this problem. But the U.S.
    will not be able to be the lender of last resort in other crises of this
    kind. So here in Halifax, we have begun to forge the tools to deal with
    these kinds of problems in the future.
        We agreed to create an early warning system that will sound the
    alarm when nations begin to encounter real problems, before the severity
    of the Mexican crisis develops. We call for early and full disclosure of
    critical monetary and financial information. We'll establish tougher
    reporting standards for nations so that markets will react more quickly
    and nations will be pressed to implement sound policies in a timely
    manner. This may be the best discipline for preventing future crises.
        When these problems do occur, we must respond decisively. And
    leaders of the G-7 have taken crucial steps toward that end. We've
    called upon the International Monetary Fund to establish a new mechanism
    to ensure that we can act swiftly when one nation's economic crisis
    threatens the world economy. We propose to double the funds available
    for this purpose to more than $50 billion from those nations with a
    stake in a stable international financial system. That will require
    loans from the United States which must be authorized by Congress. I
    know a lot of you are thinking about that, but they are scored as cost-
    free to the American taxpayers, because they're viewed as risk-free
    because they go to the international institutions.
        The G-7 leaders have also agreed that the international financial
    institutions, the World Bank, the IMF, and the agencies of the United
    Nations, must continue on a path of reform. These institutions have
    served us well for half a century. We will continue to support them, but
    they must adapt for a new era. We put forward new principles that will
    focus their work on addressing vital human needs: the alleviation of
    poverty, supporting private sector development, promoting sustainable
    development, environmental protection alongside economic growth. The
    resulting economic growth will bol-

    [[Page 895]]

    ster democracy and stability in developing nations and, of course,
    create future markets for American exports.
        The leaders at Halifax are also discussing new security threats that
    no nation should face alone. And we'll have more to say about that
    tomorrow. But let me say we have agreed that the G-7 must work together
    far more energetically and comprehensively to counter the growing
    dangers posed by terrorists, international criminals, nuclear smugglers,
    and drug traffickers. We must cooperate more closely to counter
    terrorism and criminal activities sponsored by states, groups, and
    individuals. These are among the foremost challenges of the post-cold-
    war world.
        These are issues which affect the lives of the American people in a
    very direct way. How we deal with them, whether and how we strengthen
    the international financial system and reform its institutions and how
    we fight challenges like terrorism will in no small way determine our
    citizens' future prosperity and security, how they feel about themselves
    and the future their children will enjoy.
        To create new high-wage jobs, to raise incomes, to expand economic
    opportunity, the United States must continue to lead, even as we work
    hard on these matters at home. We cannot--I will say again--we cannot
    walk away from our global leadership responsibilities. In Halifax we've
    taken another solid step along that road. It will make the economy work
    better for the American people, and I believe it will help us to prevent
    future Mexicos and to deal with those crises in a much more effective
    way when they do occur.

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, the United States has told the United Nations that
    for budgetary reasons it could not be counted on to pay the lion's share
    for a rapid response force in Bosnia. My question is, can a rapid
    response force in Bosnia be effective without the major financial
    backing of the United States?
        The President. Yes. I'd like to review for a moment how that
    decision was made, however. I want to begin by saying I strongly support
    the rapid reaction force. It will give some muscle, some support, some
    security to the United Nations troops there. It will be staffed
    primarily by the British and French, with contributions from other
    countries that are on the ground there. It will have the mission of
    preserving the integrity of the U.N. force, being able to rush in and
    help to redeploy them when necessary, to support them in fulfilling
    their mission, and to take the necessary action if they are under
    threat. This offers the promise of making the U.N. mission more
    effective. I strongly support it.
        Because the financing of this would have to be, obviously, approved
    by the Congress, I consulted with the Senate majority leader and with
    the Speaker of the House. And because President Chirac was in
    Washington, he went by to see them as well. They sent me a letter saying
    that they supported the concept of the rapid reaction force and they
    understood why President Chirac wanted a vote in the United Nations
    right now, because things are pretty tense in Bosnia and because he was
    coming here, and that they would certainly understand if I voted for the
    resolution in the United Nations but that in the absence of appropriate
    and thorough congressional consultations, they could not agree to pay
    for it through an assessment.
        So Ambassador Albright last night was able to get a modification of
    the resolution which simply leaves open the method by which the rapid
    reaction force will be funded, either through assessments or through
    voluntary contributions. We and others have made several voluntary
    contributions to the United Nations in the past for other important
    missions.
        I believe the United States should pay a share of this. I will
    support that, and I will do my dead-level best to argue that case in
    Congress. This rapid reaction force gives these countries the power that
    they have lacked to protect their troops and to preserve the honor of
    their country and to pursue the U.N. mission in a way they have not been
    able to since they have become more vulnerable to being taken as
    hostages.
        Yes.
        Q. Mr. President, how much are you hamstrung in the discussions on
    Bosnia here at the summit by the fact that you can't make a firm
    commitment on U.S. support for the rapid reaction force and the fact
    that the United States does not have troops on the ground in Bosnia?
        The President. Well, I have made some firm commitments for support.
    We have promised some equipment. We have promised some strategic lifts.
    We have promised the kind of air cover which we have given to other U.N.
    missions.

    [[Page 896]]

        The United States has spent a lot of money and provided a lot of
    support to the United Nations mission in Bosnia, through NATO, through
    participating in the humanitarian airlifts, which are now by far the
    largest humanitarian airlifts in history. I urge you to remember that
    not only has the death rate gone way, way down in the last 2 years, but
    there are now about 2.8 million Bosnians dependent upon the humanitarian
    aspect of this mission. Just because it hasn't succeeded in ending the
    war does not mean it has been a total failure in keeping people alive
    while we search for a political solution.
        So I was able to make those commitments based on the resources we
    have now. And I have made it clear from the beginning that we would not
    be involved with ground troops in this U.N. mission. I have made it
    clear the circumstances under which we would help our NATO partners and
    our U.N. partners to withdraw or to help them if they were in a terrible
    emergency. And I think that everyone understands that and is more or
    less not only reconciled to it but supportive of it.
        This is something that the Europeans wanted to take the lead on and
    decided to take the lead on before I became President. And we have
    taken, I think, a very vigorous and aggressive position through NATO.
    But I do not believe the United States should send ground forces into
    the U.N. mission as it is constituted, and I certainly don't believe we
    should send our ground forces into some sort of combat situation in
    Bosnia.
        Our vital interests, I will reiterate, are in keeping the conflict
    from spreading. That's why we do have forces in the Former Yugoslav
    Republic of Macedonia. That's why we have worked very hard to see that
    Bosnia and Croatia have an agreement which has shut down a big part of
    the war. In minimizing the human loss, in supporting our NATO allies,
    and preserving the integrity of this operation, we have done everything
    we could to those ends. I do not believe that this is a situation which
    warrants the introduction of America's ground forces.

    Federal Budget

        Q. You mentioned your budget, and it has been out for a little while
    now. It seems to be garnering more support from Ross Perot than some of
    your fellow Democrats. What is going on?
        The President. First of all, I think that--I think there are two
    things going on. First, I think the Democrats are still in the position
    where the Democrats in Congress do not have to offer an alternative. And
    a lot of them could not possibly have had the opportunity to study this
    budget resolution in any detail. And frankly, there are some political
    feelings among some of our Democrats which are entirely understandable.
    I mean, they're--so what some of them are saying is, ``Look, the
    Republicans won the Congress with a `just say no' position. They refused
    to participate in deficit reduction. They put forward a health care plan
    and then walked away from their own plan. And they were rewarded somehow
    as the party that was responsible on the economy and health care and
    other things with a `just say no,' organized, heavily financed attack,
    attack, attack, attack position. Why shouldn't we do the same thing?''
        My answer to them is we may have failed to communicate to the
    American people that what we did was good for the United States in the
    last 2 years, that we would have a balanced budget today were it not for
    the interest we have to pay on the debt run up in the 12 years before I
    showed up, but our job is to do what's right for America. And the
    President, particularly, is in a different position.
        I thought that I owed it to the country and to the Republicans to
    give them the opportunity to make their budget proposal first. I always
    said to the American people that we could not balance the budget without
    reducing the rate of growth of health care expenditures, but we ought
    not to be cutting services to elderly people who needed it. What we
    ought to be doing is reforming health care. My proposal reflects that. I
    think I have done the responsible thing. And I hope, as time goes on,
    I'll be able to persuade more and more Democrats and Republicans that I
    did the right thing. And I thank Mr. Perot for his support.
        Yes.

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, back on Bosnia for a moment, sir. Despite your
    support for the peacekeeping forces, the U.N. peacekeeping forces in
    Bosnia, are you at all moved by the appeal made at the White House the
    other day by Bosnian President Haris Silajdzic, who called the arms
    embargo an instrument of genocide? How do you answer him when he asks,
    ``Why won't

    [[Page 897]]

    the U.S. let the Bosnian Muslims defend themselves?''
        The President. First of all, the arms embargo would be an instrument
    of genocide if the U.N. mission weren't keeping more people alive. In
    1992, 130,000 civilians, more or less, died in Bosnia. In 1994, the best
    figures we have indicate that fewer than 3,000 people died.
        When NATO was working with the U.N., we were able to create some
    safe areas around Sarajevo and the eastern enclaves which have since
    been eroded by the taking of U.N. hostages. But that's why the rapid
    reaction force is so important, to put some real steel back into the
    U.N. mission.
        On principle, you know that the sympathies of the United States are
    with the Bosnian Government, and more strongly than some of our allies
    feel. But the question is, will this thing ever be settled on the
    battlefield? I think the answer to that is no. If that's true, shouldn't
    we support the Bosnian Government's position that it has accepted the
    Contact Group proposal, do everything we can to strengthen the U.N.,
    keep as many people alive as possible, not allow an erosion of their
    territorial position insofar as we can prevent it, and keep pushing for
    a diplomatic settlement? That's what I believe is the best thing to do.
        Lifting the arms embargo cannot be seen in an isolated circumstance.
    And I want you all to consider this. This is not an example where you
    can just kick the can down the road; this is the most complex problem in
    foreign policy today. If the United States--first of all, our European
    allies simply disagree with lifting the arms embargo. If we were to lift
    the arms embargo unilaterally, what would happen? The U.N. mission would
    immediately collapse and withdraw. We would have immediate
    responsibilities to send our people in to help them withdraw if they
    asked for it and needed it.
        After that happened, then what happens? There are a lot of people in
    the United States, including many in Congress in both parties, who say,
    ``That is no concern of ours; all they have asked us for is to lift the
    arms embargo and let the arms flow in there.''
        But I ask you: If the United States--if the United States cratered
    the U.N. mission by a unilateral lift of the arms embargo and then the
    lift of the arms embargo did not produce the military results on the
    ground that the Bosnian government hoped and if, instead, they began to
    lose more territory and more and more people started to die because of
    our unilateral action ending the U.N. mission, what would we do then?
    The chances that we would be drawn in are far greater than that the
    United States could walk away from an even greater mess that we had
    created all by ourselves with our European allies pleading with us not
    to do it.
        Therefore, I will say again, if the U.N. mission does fail, if our
    allies decide to leave, I would strongly support lifting the arms
    embargo. It's the best alternative at that moment. But I cannot in good
    conscience support a unilateral lift of the arms embargo when the
    British and the French and the others are willing to say, ``We'll send
    more troops there; we'll stiffen our capacity to keep the peace and to
    work for the peace.'' I cannot do that.
        Yes.
        Q. Mr. President, how can you push for a diplomatic settlement if
    every proposal that's been made, including the U.S.-backed proposal to
    give half the country to the Serbs, is rejected by the Serbs? What ideas
    are out there? There's nothing going on; there's no diplomatic
    initiative in the air right now. So what do you mean when you say push
    for a diplomatic settlement?
        The President. There's nothing--there will never--they will not make
    peace, sir, until they get tired of fighting each other. I agree with
    that. Now, that is also true of Northern Ireland. How long has this war
    been underway? Four years. How long has this peacekeeping initiative
    been underway? A little less time than that. How long did they fight in
    Northern Ireland before they began to do what they're doing now? Twenty-
    five years. How long have they been fighting in the Middle East? Over
    four decades before we made the progress we're making now. You cannot
    simply say, given--how deeply rooted are the conflicts between the
    Bosnians of--that are Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim? At least, at least
    going back to the 11th century.
        So I say to you, there is nothing great going on right now. What is
    the answer? To do something else that might make it worse? Or to try to
    minimize human life, ensure that it doesn't--the loss of human life--
    ensure that it doesn't spread, and keep working for what I think is,
    based on the historical evidence, the only way fights of this kind ever
    get settled, which is when they--people decide that's it's better for

    [[Page 898]]

    them to make a deal than to keep killing each other.
        Yes.
        Q. Mr. President, it is the President of France who has pushed the
    hardest on the rapid reaction force, and he has described it in terms
    of, ``We can't be humiliated.'' These terms sort of harken back to the
    Vietnam quagmire, if you'll forgive that word, and I was hoping that you
    could outline exactly what you think the mission is--would be of this
    force. Could you give it in the most specific terms possible? Because as
    many people have said, unless we know exactly what the mission is, there
    could be a disaster.
        The President. Well, in fairness to the President of France, I
    thought that Americans might hear that in his rhetoric. But keep in
    mind, when the argument was made in Vietnam that we couldn't be
    humiliated, the argument was there that we had to do more to Americanize
    the war, that is, we were involved in Vietnam supporting the side of the
    South Vietnamese government in a conflict with the Vietcong and North
    Vietnam on the other side.
        In this case, the French President is taking the position that the
    honor of the country is eroded when U.N. personnel in blue helmets can
    be taken prisoner at will and they have no capacity to defend
    themselves. So he is not suggesting that they should get involved in
    this conflict in a military way on one side or the other. He is
    suggesting, however, that they ought to be able to move on the roads at
    will, that they ought to be able to do what they're supposed to do under
    the U.N. mandate without being taken prisoner, being shot at, being
    victimized; and that the rapid reaction force is supposed to be able to
    get them out of tights if they get in it and to support them when they
    need the support. He is not suggesting that the rapid reaction force
    would increase the level of military conflict or that there would be any
    military initiative taken by that force.
        Yes.
        Q. The British have said that you here at this summit have committed
    the U.S. to paying its fair share of that rapid reaction force. Since
    the Republican leadership has said that they don't want Congress to pony
    up the money, just what options are available to you to come up with
    that money? And secondly, by the Republican leadership doing what they
    did in advance of the U.N. vote, does it unnecessarily tie your hands in
    the conduct of foreign policy?
        The President. No, in this case, I think, what they did was to make
    it possible for me to vote for an initiative that they agreed with in
    principle but weren't prepared to say they would pay for. That is--let
    me back up and say--there are two issues here. One is, under our law,
    the President is plainly required to consult with the Congress before
    agreeing to a course of action that would require the expenditure of
    money. You don't have to agree with the Congress, but at least you have
    to consult with them.
        President Chirac came in and said, ``Look, timing is of the essence,
    and we need a vote on this, and we need it now.'' So I called Senator
    Dole and Speaker Gingrich, and I have no--we had a good conversation,
    and I have no quarrel with the letter they sent, because I said, ``I
    don't have time to do the consultations if he is right and we need the
    vote now.''
        So the letter they sent to me said two things. But the most
    important thing, apropos of your point is, ``You can do this, but our
    committee chairmen have very serious reservations about this mission,
    what its role is going to be, what its function will be, and whether we
    should pay for it. So if you do it, you have to know that we are not
    committing in advance to appropriate the money.''
        Now, what I told the British was, and what I told all of my
    colleagues last night was, that I would make my best efforts to secure
    funding for it because I believe it's the right thing to do.
        Now, the second issue I want to say is, as you know, the leadership
    of the Republican Party disagrees with our policy. They favor a
    unilateral lift which would collapse the U.N. mission. That's what they
    think the right thing to do is. But they know that the President has to
    make foreign policy and that I have no intention of pursuing that for
    the reasons I have already explained.
        Q. [Inaudible]--and funding----
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. We're working on that.
        Q. Since UNPROFOR is now unable to carry out its mission to deliver
    humanitarian relief to Sarajevo or to maintain the weapons exclusion
    zone around the city and Sarajevo is once again being strangled, why
    have you urged the

    [[Page 899]]

    Bosnian government not to use force to defend itself?
        The President. Well, first of all, my sympathies are with them. I
    agreed to the statement that we all signed off on last night because the
    French and the British are doing their best to get more troops there
    through the rapid reaction force, which would permit the U.N. to fulfill
    its mandate which includes opening Sarajevo, and because I believe that
    has the best chance of opening Sarajevo without other adverse
    consequences to the Bosnians.
        In other words, I tried to make sure that resolution was carefully
    worded to say, right now don't increase hostilities, because I don't
    believe this is a good time to do that when we are trying to strengthen
    the rapid reaction force and when, if we are successful, they will be
    better able to guarantee the openness of Sarajevo.
        My sympathies with them are complete. They have a right to want
    their city to be open. And the Serbs have been shelling it on and off
    for 4 years whenever they could get away with it. So I don't agree with
    what's going on. But if the rapid reaction force works and the U.N.
    mission can work again and Sarajevo can be protected again, then I
    believe we're better off, and I believe, more importantly, they're
    better off if it can be done that way. I think there will be fewer
    casualties, and I think their political position will be stronger.
    That's why I agreed to support the settlement.
        Q. [Inaudible]--lift the siege?
        The President. I'm saying, no, that's not their job. Their job is to
    back up and protect the U.N. mission. But I think it will show that the
    U.N. mission will have a greater capacity to do what the U.N. has
    authorized it to do, which is to be able to get in and out of Sarajevo.
        Now, that is not the same thing as saying they will take a
    unilateral military action to lift the siege, but then the Serbs and
    everybody else, for that matter, will have to think about the Blue
    Helmets in a little different way before they just say, ``I'm sorry, you
    can't cross this road; I'm sorry, we're going to take you a prisoner;
    I'm sorry, we're going to treat you like dirt; I'm sorry, we're going to
    ignore the U.N.''
        That is what President Chirac and Prime Minister Major want to avoid
    having happen to their troops again. And if it is seen in that light,
    then I think at least we have to give them a chance to try to make the
    U.N. mandate work again.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 99th news conference began at 4:20 p.m. at
    Dalhousie University. In his remarks, he referred to President Jacques
    Chirac of France and U.S. Representative to the United Nations Madeleine
    K. Albright.