    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book I)]
    [March 21, 1997]
    [Pages 331-340]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With President Boris Yeltsin of Russia
    in Helsinki
    March 21, 1997

        President Clinton. Please sit down, everyone. Don't make me all
    alone. [Laughter] Let me say that President Yeltsin and I will have
    opening statements, and then we'll begin alternating questions, first
    with a question from the Russian press and then the American press and
    then back and forth.
        I would like to begin by thanking President Ahtisaari, Prime
    Minister Lipponen, all the people of Finland for their very gracious
    hospitality to President Yeltsin and to me and for the extremely
    constructive role that Finland plays in a new era for Europe.
        This is my first meeting with President Yeltsin in each of our
    second terms, our 11th meeting overall. At each meeting we have
    strengthened our nations' relationship and laid a firmer foundation for
    peace and security, freedom and prosperity in the 21st century.
        Here in Helsinki we have addressed three fundamental challenges:
    first, building an undivided, democratic, and peaceful Europe for the
    first time in history; second, continuing to lead the world away from
    the nuclear threat; and third, forging new ties of trade and investment
    that will help Russia to complete its remarkable transformation to a
    market economy and will bring greater prosperity to both our peoples.
        A Europe undivided and democratic must be a secure Europe. NATO is
    the bedrock of Europe's security and the tie that binds the United
    States to that security. That is why the United States has led the way
    in adapting NATO to new missions, in opening its doors to new members,
    in strengthening its ties to nonmembers through the Partnership For
    Peace, in seeking to forge a strong, practical partnership between NATO
    and Russia. We are building a new NATO, just as the Russian people are
    building a new Russia. I am determined that Russia will become a
    respected partner with NATO in making the future for all of Europe
    peaceful and secure.
        I reaffirmed that NATO enlargement in the Madrid summit will
    proceed, and President Yeltsin made it clear that he thinks it's a
    mistake. But we also have an important and, I believe, overriding
    agreement: We agreed that the relationship between the United States and
    Russia and the benefits of cooperation between NATO and Russia are too
    important to be jeopardized.
        We didn't come here expecting to change each other's mind about our
    disagreement, but we both did come here hoping to find a way of shifting
    the accent from our disagreement

    [[Page 332]]

    to the goals, the tasks, and the opportunities we share. And we have
    succeeded.
        President Yeltsin and I agree that NATO Secretary General Solana and
    Russian Foreign Minister Primakov should try to complete negotiations on
    a NATO-Russian document in the coming weeks. It would include a forum
    for regular consultations that would allow NATO and Russia to work and
    to act together as we are doing today in Bosnia. It would demonstrate
    that a new Russia and a new NATO are partners, not adversaries, in
    bringing a brighter future to Europe.
        We also agreed that our negotiators and those of the other 28
    participating states should accelerate their efforts in Vienna to adapt
    the CFE Treaty to the post-cold-war era by setting new limits on
    conventional forces.
        The second area of our discussion involved our obligation to
    continue to lead the world away from the dangers of weapons of mass
    destruction. We have already taken important steps. We signed the
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. We extended the Non-Proliferation
    Treaty. We stopped targeting each other's cities and citizens. We put
    START I into force. And we're both committed to securing ratification of
    the Chemical Weapons Convention before it goes into force next month, so
    that we can finally begin to banish poison gas from the Earth.
        Today President Yeltsin agreed to seek the Duma's prompt
    ratification of START II, already ratified by the United States Senate.
    But we will not stop there. The United States is prepared to open
    negotiations on further strategic arms cuts with Russia under a START
    III immediately after the Duma ratifies START II. President Yeltsin and
    I agreed on guidelines for START III negotiations that will cap at 2,000
    to 2,500 the number of strategic nuclear warheads each of our countries
    would retain, and to finish the reductions of START III by the year
    2007. Now, think about it. This means that within a decade we will have
    reduced both sides' strategic nuclear arsenals by 80 percent below their
    cold war peak of just 5 years ago.
        We also reached agreement in our work to preserve the Anti-Ballistic
    Missile Treaty, a cornerstone of our arms control efforts.
    Distinguishing between ballistic missile systems restricted by the ABM
    Treaty and theater missile defenses that are not restricted has been a
    very difficult issue to resolve. Today, after 3 years of negotiations,
    we agreed to preserve the ABM Treaty while giving each of us the ability
    to develop defenses against theater missiles.
        Finally, we discussed our economic relationship and the fact that
    the strong and secure Russia we welcome as a full partner for the 21st
    century requires that the benefits of democracy and free markets must be
    felt by Russia's citizens.
        President Yeltsin recently demonstrated his determination to
    reinvigorate economic reform in his State of the Federation Address and
    with the appointment of a vigorous new economic team. His bold agenda to
    improve the investment climate and stimulate growth includes
    comprehensive tax reform, new energy laws, and tough anticrime
    legislation.
        To help American companies take advantage of new opportunities in
    Russia, we will mobilize support to help finance billions of dollars in
    new investment. We will work with Russia to advance its membership in
    key international economic institutions like the WTO, the Paris Club,
    and the OECD. And I am pleased to announce, with the approval of the
    other G-7 nations, that we will substantially increase Russia's role in
    our annual meeting, now to be called the Summit of the Eight, in Denver
    this June.
        Here in Helsinki, we have proved once again that we can work
    together to resolve our differences, to seize our opportunities, to
    build a better future.
        Before I turn the microphone over to President Yeltsin, let me say
    one word about the bombing today in Tel Aviv, which we have both been
    discussing in the last few minutes. Once again, an act of terror has
    brought death and injury to the people of Israel. I condemn it, and I
    extend my deepest sympathies to the families of those who were killed or
    injured.
        There is no place for such acts of terror and violence in the peace
    process. There must be absolutely no doubt in the minds of the friends
    or of the enemies of peace that the Palestinian Authority is unalterably
    opposed to terror and unalterably committed to preempting and preventing
    such acts. This is essential to negotiating a meaningful and lasting
    peace. And I will do what I can to achieve that objective.
        Mr. President.
        President Yeltsin. Esteemed journalists, ladies and gentlemen, the
    first meeting of the Presidents of Russia and the United States has been
    held after our reelection. Naturally, it was a

    [[Page 333]]

    difficult one because difficult issues were under discussion. But as
    always, our meeting was quite frank, and on the whole, it was
    successful. And I am completely in accord with what the President of the
    United States, Bill Clinton, just said.
        We have opened a new stage of Russian-American relations. We
    discussed in detail the entire range of Russian-American issues--issues
    of Russian-American partnership, which is quite broad in scale. After
    all, our countries occupy such a position in the world that the global
    issues are a subject of our discussions.
        Both sides defended their national interests, and both countries did
    not abandon them. However, our two great powers have an area--a vast
    area--of congruent interests. Chief among these is the stability in the
    international situation. This requires us to develop our relations, and
    there has been progress in that direction.
        Five joint statements have been signed as a result of our meeting--
    President Bill Clinton and I just concluded signing these--on European
    security, on parameters of future reductions in nuclear forces,
    concerning the ABM missile treaty, on chemical weapons, and we also
    signed a U.S.-Russian economic initiative. But we have not merely stated
    our positions. We view the signed statements with the U.S. President as
    a program of our joint action aimed to develop Russian-American
    partnership.
        I would say that emotions sometimes get the upper hand in assessing
    Russian-American partnership. This is not the approach that Bill and I
    have. Let's not forget that establishing the Russian-American
    partnership relations is a very complex process. We want to overcome
    that which divided us for decades. We want to do away with the past
    mistrust and animosity. We cannot accomplish this immediately. We need
    to be decisive and patient, and we have both with Bill Clinton.
        I firmly believe that we will be able to resolve all issues which,
    for the time being, are still outstanding. Today's meeting with Bill
    convinced me of this once again. We will be doing this consistently,
    step by step. We will have enough patience and decisiveness.
        And now I ask you to put questions to us.

    Russia and NATO

        Q. Boris Nikolayevich, our first impression is that there was no
    breakthrough on NATO here in Helsinki. Tell me, can there be some kind
    of movement forward before the Madrid summit?
        President Yeltsin. I don't agree with you. It was today that we had
    progress, very principled progress, and they consist of the following--
    that, yes, indeed, we do maintain our positions. We believe that the
    eastward expansion of NATO is a mistake and a serious one at that.
    Nevertheless, in order to minimize the negative consequences for Russia,
    we decided to sign an agreement with NATO, a Russia-NATO agreement. And
    this is the principal question here. We've agreed on the parameters of
    this document with President Bill Clinton.
        This is the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, to those new
    members of NATO to not proliferate conventional weapons in these
    countries. We agreed on non-use of the military infrastructure which
    remained in place after the Warsaw Pact in these countries of Central
    and Eastern Europe. The decision of joint actions with Russia alone,
    this, too, will be included in the agreement with NATO.
        And finally, we've come to an agreement that this document will be
    binding for all. For that reason, everyone will sign this, all heads of
    state of all 16 member nations of NATO. This is a very principled issue,
    and we came to agreement on this with President Bill Clinton. That is,
    all states, all nations--and this will take place before Madrid--all
    heads of state will sign this document we sign together with Bill
    Clinton. And then there will be a signature of the General Secretary of
    NATO. And we believe that this document indeed is binding for NATO, for
    Russia, for all states whose leaders signed this document. So this is a
    very principled progress.
        We didn't talk about this just yesterday and the day before. We
    couldn't have. We can only talk about this now, during these minutes,
    once we've signed the statements with the President of the United
    States.
        President Clinton. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    NATO Expansion

        Q. President Yeltsin, after all that you've been told about how the
    world has changed and that there will be no nuclear weapons in Eastern
    Europe, do you still regard NATO's enlargement as a danger to Russia?
        And to President Clinton, this exclusion of nuclear weapons from
    Eastern Europe and the promise that there will be no big troop buildup

    [[Page 334]]

    in the new states, does that mean that NATO's new members will be
    second-class citizens, second-class members?
        President Yeltsin. No, of course not, no one will think of these as
    being secondary states. No one is calling that. That's not what's
    involved here. However, I believe and Bill believes the same thing, Bill
    Clinton believes the same, that these decisions that can be taken, they
    will be taken by all leaders of these nations, which is extremely,
    extremely important. I already mentioned this.
        President Clinton. Let me say, Terry, in answer to the question you
    raised to me, emphatically no, this does not mean any new members would
    be second-class members. That's one of the things that we have committed
    ourselves to. There are no second-class members.
        What are the two most important things that you get if you're a
    member? One is the security guarantee, the mutual security guarantee.
    The other is a place in the military command structure. These will be
    available to any new members taken in.
        Now, we also want to make it clear that in addition to the security
    guarantee and participation in the military command structure, NATO is a
    different organization today than it was. We have a different mission.
    What is the most important thing NATO is doing today? Working in Bosnia.
    NATO has a major partnership with Russia in Bosnia. And a partnership, I
    might add, with a number of other nonmember nations who are in our
    Partnership For Peace, where we've done joint military exercises and
    other things.
        Now, on the two questions you mentioned--on the nuclear question,
    the NATO military commanders reached an independent judgment that, based
    on the facts that exist in the world today, they have no reason,
    therefore, no intention and no plan to station any nuclear weapons on
    members' soil. Look, we just announced an agreement here that will
    reduce nuclear weapons, if we can implement it, within a decade by 80
    percent below their cold war height, number one.
        Number two, the NATO members have just tabled a proposal on
    conventional forces in Europe which would put strict limits and would
    freeze the conventional forces we could have in Europe now, along with
    having strict limits in the Visegrad countries themselves, which would
    be the areas where you'd might expect an old difficulty to arise in new
    circumstances.
        So I think we are doing the right thing, the sensible thing. If it
    is reassuring to Russia, so much the better. We have a clear, new, and
    different mission for NATO in the 21st century, but clearly not second-
    class membership.

    Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

        Q. President Clinton, it is known that in your Congress there's some
    criticism frequently that you are a supporter of the ABM Treaty. Today's
    meeting, did that convince you to strengthen the ABM Treaty?
        President Clinton. Some people have criticized me in my Congress
    because I do support the ABM Treaty. Yes, that's accurate; they have. I
    do support the ABM Treaty. I think it's important. I believe in it. And
    we have, I believe, strengthened the chances that the ABM Treaty will
    survive by the agreement we have made today and the distinctions we have
    drawn between the missiles that are covered by the ABM Treaty and by
    theater defense missiles. I believe that very strongly.
        There are those in the Congress of the United States, but they are
    not a majority--let me emphasize, they are not a majority--who would
    undermine the ABM Treaty because they don't believe it's in our
    interest. I believe they're wrong. I believe that the ABM Treaty has
    served us well and will continue to serve us well, especially in view of
    the questions that we have clarified today between us.
        Laurie [Laurie Santos, United Press International].

    Terrorist Attack in Israel

        Q. In light of today's attack on Tel Aviv, sir, you just said the
    Palestinian Authority is unalterably opposed to terror. Are you saying
    that there was no green light for terrorist attacks like Prime
    Minister----
        President Clinton. No, no. What I said is--let me clarify what I
    said. What I intended to say, what I believe I said was that the
    Palestinian Authority has to make it clear to the friends and to the
    enemies of the peace process that it is unalterably opposed to terror
    and must take all possible steps to make that clear and to prevent any
    terror from occurring. This is a formulation that has frequently been
    used in the Middle East, but everyone knows that no

    [[Page 335]]

    one in the Middle East can guarantee 100 percent protection against
    terror. But all the people who participate in the peace process should
    guarantee 100 percent effort against terror.
        Q. What about what Prime Minister Netanyahu--[inaudible]?
        President Clinton. Well, I can't--first of all, I can't comment
    decisively, one way or the other, on exactly what was or wasn't done
    because I don't think any of us know. What I think is very important is
    that no matter how strongly Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian people feel
    about the Har Homa decision, nothing--nothing--justifies a return to the
    slaughter of innocent civilians. It cannot be justified. And we have to
    have a clear and unambiguous position.
        And in the past, when Mr. Arafat has taken that position, I believe
    it strengthened him. I also believe that acts of terror undermine him
    because he, in the end, is the popularly elected leader trying to lead
    the Palestinian people to a peaceful resolution of these differences.
        So I have made that very clear just in the last couple of days, and
    we will continue to work to that end.

    Russia-U.S. Relations

        Q. The question is to the Russian President. Boris Nikolayevich, you
    said that this meeting started a new phase for these U.S.-Russian
    relations. What precisely new was introduced into these relations?
        President Yeltsin. Well, first of all, we finally were able to
    determine our positions on issues of European security. We've come to
    settle our position on NATO, and we have described for ourselves the
    parameters of the NATO-Russia agreement.
        Secondly, there's an unprecedented reduction of nuclear weapons,
    that is, of START III--that's 85 percent of the overall arsenal of
    warheads is being reduced in connection with that. That is significant.
    This is a very principled issue, and this encompasses the interests of
    not only our two countries but of the entire European Continent and the
    whole world.
        And the question on economics reflects a completely different
    approach. We won't conceal this. And I think that Bill Clinton will
    excuse me if I perhaps am incorrect here, but I think that a certain
    restriction on questions, holding back on the American side on the
    Russian economic relations--there was, along the lines of the Ministry
    of Energy, on antidumping laws and also the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and
    many other items speak of the fact that the United States has not been
    that interested in developing a strong economic Russia or that trade
    would grow in a healthy way between Russia and the United States.
    Finally a breakthrough has been made. A joint statement has been signed.
    We've discussed these issues in great deal with President Bill Clinton.
        And on chemical weapons, that, too; any issue we handled, we've been
    able to manage a major breakthrough. We didn't discuss small issues. We
    talked only about strategic issues, and on all five issues we were able
    to find an answer, we were able to find our common point of view. And
    that's what is reflected in our joint statements.
        President Clinton. If I might just support that question, because I
    think that's a question all the Americans and all the Russians and
    others will be interested in. What came out of this meeting that was
    different? One, the idea that there will be a NATO-Russia agreement that
    all the leaders will support. That's a significant thing. We agreed to
    disagree about the question of expansion, but we agreed that there must
    be a partnership between NATO and Russia going forward into the future.
        Two, the notion that Russia should play a larger role in
    international economic institutions and that if certain internal changes
    are made, which President Yeltsin has already announced his support for,
    then the United States will make a more vigorous effort to facilitate
    investment in Russia.
        And third, and I think almost unexpected even among us--we were
    working along here hoping this would happen--we resolved a number of
    roadblocks relating to START II and other related issues which permitted
    us to say that President Yeltsin would seek prompt ratification of START
    II and we would together support guidelines for START III, which we
    would hope could be negotiated quickly after that, which would reduce
    the cold war arsenals by over 80 percent from the cold war height, to
    more or less 80 percent. These are dramatic and very substantial
    results, and I'm very pleased with them.
        Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].
        President Yeltsin. Just a moment, I'd like to continue for a second
    longer. You've touched

    [[Page 336]]

    on a very current issue which has to be clarified all the way.
        Well, you understand, of course, why it is that the State Duma has
    not yet ratified START II--because ABM was suspended. There was no
    belief that the treaty from '92 on ABM is not only being complied with
    by the Russian administration but in the future, conditions are being
    created which would not allow circumvention of the treaty. In other
    words, we, for the State Duma, were able to prepare grounds so that the
    Duma could positively look at the issue of ratifying START II.
        President Clinton. Wolf.

    Russia-NATO Agreement

        Q. Mr. President, Mr. President, one of the most contentious aspects
    of a potential agreement or charter between NATO and Russia was whether
    or not it would have to be legally binding on the 16 members of NATO or
    would simply be a political statement of intent. This agreement that you
    hope to forge with NATO, do you expect that the legislatures, the U.S.
    Senate, for example, would have to ratify this agreement, or it would
    simply be a statement that President Clinton would support?
        President Yeltsin. As far as Russia is concerned, we intend to send
    this treaty and send this agreement to the State Duma for ratification.
    That's what our intention is.
        At the same time, we understand that if 16 states will have to
    coordinate this issue with their parliaments, this will take up many,
    many months. And therefore, we've come to an agreement that, given these
    conditions, it will be quite enough, of course, given the good will of
    these states, simply a signature of the leaders of these countries that
    would be affixed to this agreement. How the U.S. would act in this
    regard, let President Bill Clinton respond.
        President Clinton. If you look at the language, President Yeltsin
    has basically said it accurately. We think it's important to get this
    agreement up, get it signed, and get it observed--have it observed. And
    there are so many of the NATO countries. What we have called for is for
    each and every member country to make--and I believe the exact language
    of our agreement is--an enduring commitment at the highest political
    level. And President Yeltsin described to you how we will manifest that.
        If our Secretary General, Mr. Solana, and Foreign Minister Primakov
    succeed in negotiating this agreement within the timeframe that we all
    anticipate they will be able to, then we would expect to all meet
    somewhere and publicly affix our signatures and reaffirm our commitment
    to the terms of the agreement.

    Changes in NATO

        Q. The question is to the U.S. President. Mr. President, you, both
    today and on earlier occasions, said that you intend to transform in
    some way the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. After today's meeting
    with President Yeltsin, what specifically do the United States plan to
    do to change the current structure of NATO? Thank you.
        President Clinton. Well, first let me point out we have already
    transformed NATO. When I became President there was no Partnership For
    Peace, for example. There were no joint exercises where you had Russian
    troops, American troops, Polish troops, French troops, others. We didn't
    have these sorts of things. We didn't have a Partnership For Peace with
    more than two dozen other countries regularly participating with us now
    in military planning and training and sharing and working together. And
    we certainly had nothing like our cooperation in Bosnia.
        I believe that the old NATO was basically a mirror image of the
    Warsaw Pact, and that's why I've been very sensitive to why the Russian
    people or the Russian leaders would wonder about what the new NATO is .
    There is no Warsaw Pact. There is no cold war. We just made an agreement
    to work to cut our nuclear arsenals by 80 percent from their cold war
    height, which I would remind you existed just 5 years ago.
        And what we need to recognize is there will be new security threats
    to Europe. And you can see them. You have dealt--we've seen them in
    Bosnia. We've seen them in the other ethnic, religious, and racial
    traumas that you have dealt with along your borders. You see it in the
    continuing disputes between nations within the European community.
        What we want to do is to provide a way for more and more countries,
    either as members or as members of the Partnership For Peace--Finland is
    a good example of an active member of the Partnership For Peace--or
    because of the special relationship of Russia and the special role
    Russia will play in the future of Europe and security in the context of
    the Russia-NATO

    [[Page 337]]

    agreement, we want to provide an opportunity within which all of us can
    deal with the security aspects of trying to create a Europe that is
    undivided and democratic for the first time in history.
        I would remind you, go back and read from the dawn of nation-states
    on the Continent of Europe, there has never been a time when all the
    people were living under democratic governments and were free of foreign
    domination. That has never happened. So we are simply trying to create
    the conditions in which we can grow together.
        Will there be questions? Will there be skepticism along the way?
    Will there be uncertainty? Of course, there will be. But we are not
    attempting to draw a different dividing line in Europe, just somewhat
    further to the East. What we are trying to do is to develop structures
    that can grow and evolve over time so that there will be a united effort
    by free people to join their resources together to reinforce each
    other's security, each other's independence, and their common
    interdependence. And I believe we will succeed at that.
        Let's see, someone else in the back row here. Alison [Alison
    Mitchell, New York Times].

    Ratification of Agreements

        Q. To both Presidents, both of you have had problems with your
    individual parliaments, and yet----
        President Clinton. Seems to be a curse of democracy.
        Q. Yes. You each have made arms control agreements here that, you
    know, the parliaments will want a say in. To Mr. Yeltsin, can you
    guarantee that the Duma will follow your lead and ratify this? And to
    Mr. Clinton, how can you assure Mr. Yeltsin that you won't have a
    rebellion in the Congress over the antimissile defense agreement?
        President Yeltsin. As far as Russia is concerned, I expect that the
    State Duma will make a decision based on my advice. [Laughter]
        President Clinton. Boy, I wish I could give that answer. [Laughter]
    Let me answer--you give me an opportunity, actually, to point out the
    full elements of this timetable on START III. And for those of you--if
    you haven't had time to study it, I want to make full disclosure here.
        Number one, I expect that our Congress, those who believe in the ABM
    system but who want us to be able to develop theater missile defenses,
    which may someday protect all of our friends in different circumstances,
    including our friends in Russia--who knows what use we will put to
    theater missile defenses when we have troops that have to be protected
    in the future--I would think that the Members of Congress who believe in
    the ABM Treaty but want us to be able to develop theater missile
    defenses will be quite pleased by this agreement. I think that that is
    not where the problem could come.
        Let me explain what we agreed to today--and I did it, I might say,
    with the full concurrence of General Shalikashvili and Secretary of
    Defense Cohen, who is not here today, but we checked with him. In order
    to implement START II in a way that is economically feasible for Russia
    but does not in any way compromise the security of the American people,
    what we agreed to do in this framework is to set a date of 2007 for the
    full implementation of the reductions in START III but to delay the date
    of all the destructions in START II to 2007. We also agreed to move from
    the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2003 the time that Russia would have
    to deactivate the warheads covered by START II.
        Now, since our Congress ratified START II based on different target
    dates for the deactivation of the warheads, on the one hand, and the
    destruction--ultimate destruction of the missiles, on the other, we will
    have to go back to them, either separately or in the context of a START
    III agreement, and ask them to ratify that. And they will have a full
    opportunity to debate and discuss this.
        But I have to tell you, when the Russians advanced this
    possibility--when President Yeltsin advanced this possibility with me
    today, the thought that the American people might be able to live in a
    world, within a decade, where the nuclear arsenals had been reduced by
    80 percent, and the thought that, in addition to that, accelerating the
    time we had anticipated it would take us to meet the START III targets
    would save our Department of Defense precious dollars that we need to
    secure our defense in other ways and will therefore enhance our national
    defense as well as reducing the threat, caused General Shalikashvili to
    recommend this to me, caused Secretary Cohen to sign off on it, and made
    me think it was a very good arrangement, indeed, for the Russian people
    and

    [[Page 338]]

    for the American people and, indeed, for anybody else who would be
    affected by what we do on this issue.
        So, yes, I've got to go back to the Congress. I believe they will,
    once they have a chance to fully review this, support the decision I
    have made today. It may take us a little longer than President Yeltsin
    indicated it would take him with the Duma, but I think we will both get
    a favorable result because this is so clearly in the interests of the
    Russian and the American people.
        Would you like to take one more?

    Russia-U.S. Economic Initiative

        Q. Boris Nikolayevich, what's your thought on the version that the
    Russian giving way on the issue of NATO's expansion to the East will be
    paid by financial generosity of the West?
        President Yeltsin. First of all, I don't see it that way at all. I
    don't see this generosity at all. If in the statement on economic issues
    which we had just signed, if there are formulas in there that
    investments will be supported, investments going to Russia, and certain
    sums of money will be appropriated by the American side, that does not
    mean that this is assistance to Russia. This is assistance to the
    private sector for making investments in Russia. This is assistance to
    American citizens, not to Russia. Why do you see an exchange here?
    There's no exchange. And I categorically disagree with that formulation
    that in place of one we sort of bartered here and as a result of that we
    have come up with these ideas. I don't agree with that.
        I should say that even the order of looking at these issues--and
    we've held four tours lasting from 45 minutes to an hour and a half
    each--the order of looking at these issues was as follows: First, we
    looked at Europe security and NATO. Secondly, the ABM issue. Then we
    took up chemical weapons. Then we talked about START III, that is, the
    reduction of further strategic weapons. And only after that, we started
    talking of economic issues. I did not know that the American side was
    preparing this. But you see, first we resolved and discussed all of
    these issues, and only then we approached the economic question. This
    should tell you that this was not a case where we used this as a poker
    chip.
        President Clinton. I'd just like to support that. And let me say,
    first of all, what President Yeltsin said about the order in which we
    took these issues up is absolutely right, first. Second, I believe that
    the economic announcements which were made today are in the interest of
    the American people, both directly and indirectly. Let me deal with the
    indirect question first.
        Russia, in the end, cannot be the strong partner that we seek in the
    21st century and cannot be free to help create a very different future
    for Europe and for itself--a future in which we define our greatness by
    the way we treat other people and by our success in our free dealings,
    rather than our ability to dominate them--Russia cannot build that kind
    of future unless ordinary Russian citizens receive the benefit of free
    markets and democracy. That will not happen.
        Secondly, I believe that Russia has the potential to have enormous
    economic growth in a short period of time by attracting large flows of
    investment from around the world, if the elements that President Yeltsin
    outlined in economic reform and the legal changes which he has proposed
    to the Duma can be embraced. I would be irresponsible as President of
    the United States if I did not bring into play the Export-Import Bank
    and our other mechanisms for investing our money to make American
    investors competitive with investors from around the world for new
    economic opportunities in Russia. It would be irresponsible of me.
        If we do that and we put a lot of money in Russia, billions of
    dollars, will your people have more jobs and higher incomes? Yes, but so
    will Americans. And all the time I have to be looking at--it would be
    just like I can't walk away from Latin America. I would be irresponsible
    if we didn't try to invest in our neighbors in Latin America in the
    future. So that's the way I feel.
        A lot of the areas where you're going to grow in Russia--in the
    energy sector, just for example, just to take one area--are areas where
    American businesses have enormous expertise and literally decades of
    experience. We would be foolish if we walked away from the opportunity
    that you present to make money and have opportunity.
        So I entirely agree with what the President said, but I want to
    reinforce it from our perspective.
        The lady in the back there in the red dress, go ahead.

    [[Page 339]]

    Finland's Nonaligned Status

        Q. I would like to ask something from both of you. How would you
    react, sir, if Finland would express its willingness to join NATO?
        President Clinton.  Maybe I should--you asked both. Since I
    discussed this with the President--he brought it up with me. President
    Ahtisaari said to me that he thought Finland had made the right decision
    to be a member of the Partnership For Peace and to maintain its
    independence and its ability to work constructively with Russia and with
    NATO nations and not be a member of NATO and that he had no intention of
    asking that Finland be considered for membership. But he thought that
    the policy of being able to be considered was a good one because it
    reinforced the feeling of independence and the security that Finland and
    other nations who decide to maintain relative independence and
    membership in the Partnership For Peace had. So I can do no more than to
    support the statement that your own President has made about this.
        President Yeltsin. I, too, would like to respond on this issue. I
    should say that the reason we respect Finland as a state--its nation,
    its people, and leadership--is the fact that Finland is implementing a
    course of a neutral state, of nonaligning itself to any bloc. This is
    very important. This creates a very stable and calm balance within the
    country. This facilitates good neighborly relations with Russia.
        We, with Finland, have a turnover of trade of 4.7 billion U.S.
    dollars. This is 40 percent of the entire turnover of trade. Find me
    another country that could equal this sort of turnover in trade with
    Russia. There is no other country. And for that reason, I believe--and,
    of course, this is the matter entirely of the people of Finland and its
    government, but that which the President of the Finnish Republic,
    President Ahtisaari, stated very clearly that he is not joining any
    blocs. This calls for the feeling of respect for him.
        President Clinton. Let me say, since we took an equal number of
    questions from the Russian and the American journalists but we took a
    Finnish question, let me, in the interest of fairness--Mr. Donvan [John
    Donvan, ABC News], you have a question. We ought to take one more
    question from an American so we'll be even here.

    Russia-NATO Agreement

        Q. Thank you. I'll make it two questions, one very focused and one
    somewhat broader. [Laughter]
        President Clinton. No good deed goes unpunished here.
        Q. The focus question is this: In the Russia-NATO agreement, as
    envisaged, if there is disagreement--Russia disagrees with something
    NATO wants to do--does Russia have a veto power? The broader question is
    this. In the Second World War, it was very simple: We were enemies--we
    were allies, I meant to say. During the cold war, it was very simple: We
    were enemies. Today, what word describes this relationship where the
    situation is not so clear and not so simple?
        President Yeltsin. I can respond by saying that the way we solve
    these issues is by consensus. That's how it is today, indeed, among the
    NATO countries. And that's how it will be once we conclude an agreement
    between Russia and NATO, already with the participation of Russia.
        President Clinton. The short answer to your question is, a voice but
    not a veto. And the answer to your second question is that we are
    partners, and like all partners in any partnership, starting with a
    society's most basic partnership, a marriage and a family, and going to
    business partnerships, there are sometimes disagreements. But
    partnerships are bound together by shared values, shared interests, and
    the understanding that what you have in common is always more important
    than what divides you.
        And so you work for the consensus that President Yeltsin outlined.
    And that's where we are, and I think that's exactly where we ought to
    be. And that's why we are not going to have the kind of cataclysmic
    bloodshed in the 21st century that we saw through three world wars, the
    cold war, and countless others in the 20th century. If we can stay with
    that attitude and work on it, we will have a Europe that's not only
    peaceful but free and undivided.
        Thank you very much.

    Presidents' Health

        Q. How are you both feeling?
        President Yeltsin. Thank you. [Laughter]
        President Clinton. Great. I can tell you he feels great. He looks
    great, and he feels great. And I feel fine.

    [[Page 340]]

    Note: The President's 139th news conference began at 6:45 p.m. at the
    Kalastaja Torppa Hotel. In his remarks, President Clinton referred to
    President Martti Ahtisaari and Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen of Finland;
    NATO Secretary General Javier Solana; Foreign Minister Yevgeniy Primakov
    of Russia; and Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority. A
    reporter referred to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel.
    President Yeltsin spoke in Russian, and his remarks were translated by
    an interpreter.