    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book II)]
    [July 27, 1995]
    [Pages 1155-1159]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With President Kim Yong-sam of South
    Korea
    July 27, 1995

        President Clinton. On this day, as we remember the sacrifice of
    those who built the great alliance between the United States and Korea,
    President Kim has come back to the White House to look forward. In our
    discussions, we focused on the clear and common goals that our nations
    have pursued together for decades: to strengthen our alliance, to stand
    together against threats to our shared ideals and interests, and to
    increase the safety and prosperity of our peoples. Over the past 3
    years, President Kim and I have worked closely together to advance these
    goals. And in him I have found an ally whose courage is matched only by
    his commitment to freedom.
        Our talks centered on the critical strategic challenges facing Korea
    and the United States. Forty-two years have passed since the Korean war
    ended, but for the people of South Korea the threat is present every
    day. Through all these years, America's commitment to South Korea has
    not wavered. And today I reaffirmed our Nation's pledge to keep American
    forces in Korea as long as they are needed and the Korean people want
    them to remain.
        President Kim and I discussed the strategy our nations, along with
    Japan, are using to confront a new, but no less terrible, threat to his
    people, North Korea's dangerous nuclear program. Already, thanks to our
    efforts, North Korea has frozen its existing program under international
    inspection. Today President Kim reaffirmed his strong support for the
    framework and for the understanding reached in Kuala Lumpur that
    confirmed South Korea's central role in helping the North acquire less
    dangerous light-water reactors.
        I also told President Kim that the United States regards North
    Korea's commitment to resume dialog with the South as an integral
    component of the framework. President Kim expressed to me his
    determination to enter into meaningful dialog with the North, and the
    United States stands ready to support his efforts.

    [[Page 1156]]

    As North Korea fulfills its nuclear commitments and addresses other
    concerns, it can look forward to better relations with the community of
    nations.
        I emphasized to President Kim, however, that until South and North
    Korea negotiate a peace agreement, the armistice regime will remain in
    place.
        President Kim and I also touched on a number of regional and global
    security issues: efforts to ensure stability in Northeast Asia, Korea's
    commitment to peacekeeping, and our commitment to work together on
    issues facing the United Nations Security Council.
        Finally, we reviewed a wide range of economic issues, including
    APEC, and we talked about efforts to expand our bilateral trade. Korea
    is already our country's sixth largest export market.
        One hour from now, the President and I will look to the past as we
    dedicate the new Korean War Veterans Memorial on The Mall. This monument
    is a long overdue reminder of what Americans, fighting alongside the
    people of South Korea, sacrificed in the defense of freedom. Today's
    meetings remind us that the people of South Korea have built a nation
    truly worthy of that sacrifice, the eleventh largest economy in the
    world and a thriving, vital, vibrant democracy. It is a country America
    is proud to claim as an equal partner and ally, a reminder that the
    strength of democracy and the power of a free people to pursue their own
    dreams are the strongest forces on Earth.
        Let me now invite President Kim to make opening remarks.
        President Kim. Today President Clinton and I exchanged wide-ranging
    views and opinions on the situation on the Korean Peninsula and in
    Northeast Asia and agreed to further strengthen cooperation between our
    two countries to preserve the peace and stability of the region.
        President Clinton reaffirmed the United States firm commitment to
    the security of the Republic of Korea, and I supported the U.S. policy
    of foreign deployment, of U.S. troops to maintain peace in East Asia.
    President Clinton and I reconfirmed that maintaining and strengthening a
    firm, joint Korean-U.S. defense posture is essential to safeguarding the
    peace and stability not only of the Korean Peninsula but also of the
    Northeast Asian region.
        We share the view that improvement of relations between the United
    States and North Korea should proceed in harmony and parallel with the
    improvement of relations between the Republic of Korea and North Korea.
    We also agreed that our two countries will cooperate closely with each
    other in encouraging North Korea to open its doors in order to ease
    tensions on the Korean Peninsula and promote peace in Northeast Asia.
        With regard to this issue, I noted that the issue of establishing a
    permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula should be pursued through
    dialog between South and North Korea, under the principle that the
    issues should be resolved between the parties directly concerned.
    President Clinton expressed the U.S. total support and resolve to
    cooperate with the Republic of Korea regarding this issue.
        Korean Government supports the results of the Geneva agreement and
    Kuala Lumpur agreement. And President Clinton and I affirmed that the
    Governments of our two countries, while maintaining close coordination
    with regard to the implementation of the U.S.-North Korean agreement,
    will continue to provide the support needed by the Korean Peninsula
    Energy Development Organization.
        President Clinton and I express satisfaction over the fact that the
    economic and trade relations between our two countries have entered a
    mature phase in terms of the size of our bilateral trade, the trade
    balance, and bilateral investments and should continue to develop
    further on a well-balanced basis. At the same time, we reaffirmed that
    our two nations will further expand mutually beneficial bilateral
    cooperation under the new international economic conditions being
    created by the inauguration of the World Trade Organization. We also
    agreed that any bilateral trade issues arising out of increasing volumes
    of trade between two countries will be resolved smoothly through
    working-level consultations.
        President Clinton and I concurred that our two countries need to
    further improve bilateral relations, both in terms of quality and
    quantity, so that in the forthcoming Asia-Pacific era of the 21st
    century, our two nations can assume leading roles in enhancing
    cooperation and the development of the Asia-Pacific region.
        In this context, President Clinton and I agreed to coordinate
    closely with each other to ensure that the upcoming APEC summit con-

    [[Page 1157]]

    ference in November of this year in Osaka will be a success.
    Furthermore, we agreed that our two countries will bolster multipronged
    collaboration in the United Nations and other international
    organizations.
        We are fully satisfied with the results of our talk, which we
    believe will provide added momentum to the efforts to develop the five-
    decade-old Korean-U.S. relations forged in blood further into a future-
    oriented partnership between allies for the next half a century.
        I would like to express my appreciation once again to President
    Clinton and the U.S. Government for their warm hospitality and kindness
    extended to me and my delegation.
        Thank you.
        President Clinton. Thank you.

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, your administration said that if the Congress
    voted to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia that that would almost
    guarantee that U.S. ground troops would have to be sent in. The Senate
    voted that way yesterday by a margin that suggests you couldn't sustain
    a veto. The House looks like it's going down the same road. How close
    are we now to having to send U.S. ground troops in? And do you feel this
    is a vote of no confidence in your foreign policy?
        President Clinton. I think it's a vote of no confidence in the fact
    that the United Nations did not move to do anything when Srebrenica fell
    after Srebrenica had been declared a safe area and the fact that the war
    seems to be dragging on without resolution. But I also wouldn't be so
    sure we couldn't sustain a veto. I think that depends entirely on the
    vigor and the strength of the response of the U.N. forces in Bosnia and
    their NATO allies.
        And we are working hard in that regard. I have been very encouraged
    by what Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali said yesterday, and I have been
    very impressed by the determination of President Chirac and Prime
    Minister Major to set up this rapid reaction force and to fight back if
    attacked, not simply to be taken hostage.
        So we're going to see what will happen in the days ahead. But I
    wouldn't be so presumptive about what would happen in the Congress. I
    noted that the French Prime Minister, Mr. Juppe, said not very long ago
    that if--just a few hours ago--that if, in fact, the Congress took this
    action and it became U.S. policy, that they would withdraw from Bosnia
    and that would require us to send our troops in to help them get out,
    which is exactly what I said. And if we do it alone, if we unilaterally
    lift the arms embargo, that means that the rest of the world will
    consider that we are responsible for what happens from then on, solely.
    And I think that we need to consider that.
        Mr. President.

    North Korea

        Q. Looking back to the attitude of North Korea in the past, despite
    the fact that the Kuala Lumpur agreement is there for us, still we can
    expect more difficulties coming from the North Korean behavior in the
    future. Have the two Presidents, through the meeting this time in
    Washington, had a chance to discuss how to secure Korea's central role
    in the process of dealing with North Korea?
        President Kim. Yes. In fact, we had a chance to mention this issue
    in my statement of the press conference today, and also yesterday in my
    congressional speech, I mentioned this issue as well. We entirely
    support the result of the Kuala Lumpur agreement. Concerning the
    question, our position is that between the United States and Republic of
    Korea, we have had very full and complete agreement on our joint
    position towards North Korea, and we are in full and thorough accordance
    with each other and how to deal with North Korea.
        I think that if we do our best in trying to persuade North Korea
    that it is in their interest to faithfully implement the contents of the
    agreement, I think that, in fact, we can see a good result. And I firmly
    believe that we can achieve that goal.
        Together with that agreement, I think the fact that the KEDO had its
    executive meeting, which has confirmed Korea's central role in the
    nuclear light-water project, in addition to President Clinton's letter
    given to me, which was a letter of assurance that Korea's central role
    will be guaranteed, I think, enough for us to believe that we would not
    be faced with major problems in the future negotiations. So in our
    position, there is no change at all.

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, there is a perception that U.S. leadership,
    prestige, has really suffered under this devastating debacle of Bosnia.
    You wanted to bomb--more than 2\1/2\ years ago--

    [[Page 1158]]

    heavy bombing to stop--that peacekeeping per se, despite the
    humanitarian side, is a misnomer. What do you think are the lessons of
    Bosnia? And do you think that the U.S. leadership has gone down the
    drain?
        President Clinton. No. Keep in mind, when I became President, a
    decision had been made--a decision, by the way, that I couldn't
    criticize--that in the aftermath of the cold war, the Europeans should
    take the lead in dealing with the first major security crisis on the
    European Continent at the end of the cold war and that they would do
    that under the umbrella of the United Nations, that our role would be to
    support that with airlifts of humanitarian goods and then later with
    enforcing a no-fly zone and then later with enforcing the peace
    agreements that the United Nations had made through the use of air
    power. That happened when I was President.
        And we also would support this effort to some extent from the sea as
    well and through enforcing the embargo and through putting our troops in
    the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That was the agreement.
        And I still believe that, on balance, it was working better than the
    other alternatives, considering there was no peace to keep a lot. The
    death rate went down breathtakingly from 1992 to 1994, and there was a
    long period of time there where we had a chance to make a peace.
        Then what happened--and as you know, I believe that a multilateral
    lift of the arms embargo early on would have helped us to make a quicker
    peace. I still believe that that would have happened. What happened was,
    along toward the end of last year--well, there was an agreement for a
    cease-fire. Then it expired. Since it expired, the Bosnian Serbs
    concluded that the United Nations would not keep its commitments to the
    safe areas if it took peacekeepers as hostages and that under the rules
    of engagement in which the peacekeepers were there, and given their
    fairly lightly armed nature, they could be easily taken as hostages.
    Now, that happened.
        That, I think, when that happened and the threat of hostage-taking
    and the effect of hostage-taking caused Srebrenica to fall without a
    terrific response in terms of air punishment, that collapsed the support
    for the United Nations. And all of us, including the United States and
    NATO, who had supported it suffered in prestige, if you will, not
    because we didn't win but because the U.N. didn't do what it said it was
    going to do. You can't go about the world saying you're going to do
    something and then not do it.
        So I--that's why I spent all that time, leading up to the London
    conference and, since then, working with NATO to say, look, we have to
    reestablish the fact that we will have a strong--not just close air
    support but a strong air response to raise the price of Serbian
    aggression. Secondly, I strongly support the decision of the French and
    the British to establish this Rapid Reaction Force so that they just
    can't be taking hostages at will.
        But I would remind you that this was--the question of whether a lot
    of people still say, ``Well, America ought to fix it.'' But we don't
    have troops on the ground now. And this distribution of responsibility
    all grew out of a decision made prior to my Presidency--which I am not
    criticizing, I say again--to try to say that, okay, here's a problem in
    Europe, the Europeans ought to take the lead, they would put people on
    the ground. We have had troops since I have been President, I would
    remind you, in Somalia, in Rwanda, in Haiti. We have not been loath to
    do our job. But we have tried to support the base commitment of the
    Europeans there. And it has not worked. No one can say it has worked.
        So I decided we're either going to do what we said we were going to
    do with the U.N. or we'll have to do something else. This is the last
    chance for UNPROFOR to survive. But I do believe if it can be made to
    work, it has a greater chance of securing a peace and minimizing death
    of the Bosnians. That's what I believe. And I also believe it would be a
    very great thing for Europe if the Europeans can take the lead in
    resolving the first post-cold-war security crisis on the European
    Continent.

    Inter-Korean Summit

        Q. When does the Korean President expect to hold inter-Korean summit
    meeting? And to Mr. Clinton, what is your--[inaudible]--plan to hold the
    South and North Korean summit?
        President Kim. Actually, this is not an appropriate stage to discuss
    this issue because in North Korea there isn't still an official
    leadership of succession. Of course, we know that there isn't any other
    alternative to the leadership than Kim Jong Il. However, we don't know
    when this inter-Korean summit meeting can take

    [[Page 1159]]

    place, and I think it is not desirable for use to discuss this issue
    now. I really didn't have the opportunity to discuss this one in depth
    with President Clinton specifically on the possibility of an inter-
    Korean summit meeting.
        President Clinton. But, sir, I think the important point for me to
    make, on behalf of the United States, to the people of Korea is that it
    is still our position that the armistice will remain in effect until the
    Korean people themselves reach an agreement for a permanent peace. And
    in that, our position is 100 percent behind the position taken by the
    President and the Government of South Korea.
        Yes. Go ahead, Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].

    United Nations Peacekeeping

        Q. Mr. President, has this difficult experience that the United
    States has had in getting the U.N. to do, as you put it, what it has
    said it would do, shaken your confidence in the U.N. as an institution
    through which the United States and with which the United States can
    work toward its various foreign policy aims?
        President Clinton. No. But I think what it has done--let me--I would
    say there should be two lessons that we draw out of this as Americans.
    Number one, the United Nations cannot go to a place with a limited
    peacekeeping mission if there is no peace to keep, without considering
    what it's going to do if it can't fulfill its original mission. That's
    really been the fundamental problem here. The rules of engagement for
    the forces there have made them very vulnerable to be taken hostages
    and, therefore, to become the instrument in the last few months of
    Serbian aggression, Bosnian-Serbian aggression.
        The second lesson I would ask the American people, all of us, to
    think about is, that if we determine that in various parts of the world
    at the end of the cold war it is appropriate for other countries to take
    the lead, and they have troops on the ground and people at immediate
    risk and we don't, then we have to be willing to accept the fact that we
    may not be able to dictate the ultimate outcome of the situation.
        The difficulty for the United States is this: We are still the
    world's only superpower; people want us to fix things or at least say
    we're absolutely not involved in them. And here's a case where we
    decided to let someone else take the lead in a, to be fair to them, very
    difficult problem, but to be involved in a supporting role. And that, to
    some extent, has put our own prestige, the prestige of NATO, and the
    prestige of the United Nations all at risk. And because we don't have
    the large segment of troops on the ground, our ability to dictate the
    course of events has been more limited.
        Now, having said all that, keep in mind, we are trying to work our
    way through, in this post-cold-war era, sort of an uncharted field in
    which the United States can lead the world, can be, in effect, the
    repository of last resort, of responsible power, but still give others
    the chance and responsibility to take the lead where they can.
        So I think we have learned the hazards of that policy. And I think
    that the kinds of problems we have had here have led us to learn things
    that we won't repeat. But I would caution the American people that that
    does not mean they should give up on the U.N. The U.N. is doing dozens
    of things today that you will not be able to show on the news tonight,
    Brit, for the precise reason that they are working and they won't rise
    on the radar screen.
        So it's important that we not throw out the baby with the bathwater
    here. We need to learn what went wrong in Bosnia, why it didn't work,
    what the limits of our partnership are. But we shouldn't give up on the
    United Nations, because it still has great capacity to do important
    things.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 100th news conference began at 1:12 p.m. in Room
    450 of the Old Executive Office Building. President Kim spoke in Korean,
    and his remarks were translated by an interpreter.