    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book I)]
    [May 29, 1997]
    [Pages 672-682]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Tony Blair of the
    United Kingdom in London
    May 29, 1997

        Prime Minister Blair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The
    President and I have ranged over many subjects in the hours we have had
    together, and we intend to continue those discussions later today.
        We've discussed Bosnia and our continuing efforts to work together
    in addressing one of the most pressing crises on the international
    agenda. We've discussed, obviously, Northern Ireland and our
    determination to do all that we can to bring about the cease-fire that
    will allow all-party talks to proceed in the best possible climate and
    that a cease-fire is genuine and credible with all the parties there. We
    agreed that NATO is and will remain the cornerstone of Europe's defense.
    And I was grateful, too, for the President's expression of continuing
    support on Hong Kong. We agreed, too, that Britain does not need to
    choose between being strong in Europe or being close to the United
    States of America but that by being strong in Europe we will further
    strengthen our relationships with the U.S.
        President Clinton will have more to say on these and other issues in
    a moment. But we agreed, too, and have for some time, that this is a new
    era which calls for a new generation politics and a new generation
    leadership. This is the generation that prefers reason to doctrine, that
    is strong in ideals but indifferent to ideology, whose instinct is to
    judge government not on grand designs but by practical results. This is
    the generation trying to take politics to a new plateau, seeking to rise
    above some of the old divisions of right and left. It is what, on my
    last visit to the United States to meet the President, I described as
    the radical center of politics.
        The soil is the same, the values of progress, justice, of a one
    nation-country in which ambition for oneself and compassion for others
    can live easily together. But the horizons are new; the focus and agenda
    are also new.
        We discussed how this is the generation that claims education,
    skills, and technology as the instruments of economic prosperity and
    personal fulfillment, not all battles between state and market. This is
    the generation that believes in international engagement, in our nations
    being stronger by being open to the world, not in isolationism. This is
    the generation that knows that it will fall to us to modernize the New
    Deal and the welfare state, to replace dependency by independence. This
    is the generation, too, searching for a new set of rules to define
    citizenship for the 21st century, intolerant of crime but deeply
    respectful and tolerant towards those of different races, colors, class,
    and creed, prepared to stand up against discrimination in all its
    guises. This is the generation, too, that celebrates the successful
    entrepreneur but knows that we cannot prosper as a country unless we
    prosper together, with no underclass of the excluded shut out from
    society's future. It's a generation that puts merit before privilege,
    which cares more about the environment than about some outdated notion
    of class war. New times, new challenges, the new political generation
    must meet them.
        So yes, we discussed the pressing issues of diplomacy and
    statesmanship and peace in troubled parts of our world. But perhaps just
    as important was our discussion of this new agenda for the new world in
    which we find ourselves. We agreed that our priority as political
    leaders must indeed be education, education, education, flexible labor
    markets, welfare reform, partnership with business.
        In Europe in particular, we need to reduce long-term and youth
    unemployment, both of which are unacceptably high. The U.S. has been
    more successful in creating jobs, but it too faces

    [[Page 673]]

    new challenges in seeking to assure opportunity for all its citizens.
        The United States has the presidency of the G-8 in 1997. In 1998,
    Britain has the presidency both of the European Union and the G-8. We
    have agreed today to a common agenda and a shared determination to
    identify what action needs to be taken to tackle the problems we all
    face, to identify what reforms have worked where, what reforms have
    failed, and how we can learn the lessons both of success and of failure.
    As part of this process, Britain will host a G-8 conference of finance
    and social affairs ministers in the early months of our G-8 presidency
    next year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be announcing
    further details today.
        We have a shared language. We have a shared outlook on many of the
    issues that face us. We are determined, too, to share our ideas, our
    expertise, and our commitment to a new era of cooperation and of
    understanding.
        Thank you.
        President Clinton.
        President Clinton. Thank you very much, Prime Minister. First, let
    me say it's an honor and a pleasure to be here today. I've looked
    forward to this for a long time. I have read countless articles about
    how Prime Minister Blair and I have everything in common, and I'm still
    looking for my 179-seat majority. I have been all ears in trying to get
    the advice about how such a thing might be achieved.
        On a more serious note, let me say that one of the most important
    and meaningful responsibilities of any American President is to carry
    forward the unique partnership between the United States and the United
    Kingdom. Over the last 50 years, our unbreakable alliance has helped to
    bring our people unparalleled peace and prosperity and security. It's an
    alliance based on shared values and common aspirations.
        In the last 4 years, I was privileged to lead the United States in
    pursuing that partnership. I had a good and productive relationship with
    Prime Minister Major, and I am very much looking forward to working with
    Tony Blair. I have asked him in pursuance of this to come to Washington
    as early as is convenient for both of us, and I expect that there will
    be an official visit pretty soon. And I know that the people of the
    United States are looking forward to having him there.
        I have been impressed by the determination of the Prime Minister and
    his Cabinet to prepare this nation for the next century, to focus on
    economic growth, to make education the number one priority because,
    without it, you can't guarantee every person in any country the chance
    to compete and succeed in the world toward which we're moving. I have
    been impressed by his understanding that in order for the United Kingdom
    to fulfill its historic leadership role in Europe and the rest of the
    world, the needs and concerns of the people here at home have to be
    adequately addressed.
        As you know, this corresponds with my own views. Our first task must
    always be to expand opportunities for our own citizens, to expect them
    to behave in a responsible manner, and to recognize that we have to
    maintain a community in which people's differences are respected but in
    which their shared values are more important.
        We talked about how we could work together to shape a peace for the
    coming generation. We reviewed our efforts to complete the work that
    began 50 years ago with the Marshall plan: building an undivided,
    peaceful Europe for the first time in history, through NATO's
    enlargement through its new partnership with Russia, its new agreement
    with Ukraine; a strengthened Partnership For Peace; an expanding
    European Union that reaches out to Europe's newly free nations.
        We agreed on the importance, as he has already said, of helping the
    parties in Bosnia fulfill their commitments under the Dayton accord and
    continuing our support for all elements of it.
        We discussed Northern Ireland. As all of you know, when I visited
    Northern Ireland 18 months ago, I was profoundly moved by the palpable
    desire of people in both communities for peace. I applaud the Prime
    Minister's initial efforts in this regard. There is a sense of hope and
    reassurance that has been conveyed here. And I know that he is committed
    in partnership with the Irish Government to bring about a lasting
    resolution to the conflict.
        The goal of this peace process is inclusive talks because they are
    the ones most likely to succeed. But I have said before, and I'd like to
    say again, that can only succeed if there is an unequivocal cease-fire
    in deed and in word. Again, I urge the IRA to lay down their guns

    [[Page 674]]

    for good and for all parties to turn their efforts to building the peace
    together.
        The concerns we share extend far beyond our borders. Today's global
    challenges require global responses. Indeed, one of the reasons that we
    are working so hard to organize NATO in the proper way, to unify Europe
    in the proper way, is so that our nations will all be prepared to meet
    the challenges to our security in the new century which cross national
    lines: terrorism, international crime, weapons proliferation, and
    obviously, global environmental degradation. More and more, we are
    focusing our attention on these challenges. Again, we are going to
    deepen our cooperation between our two nations and in the forums in
    which we're members. I am very pleased with the proposal that the Prime
    Minister has made to pursue an economic agenda within the Group of
    Eight, and I intend to support that.
        Let me say, finally, that we discussed Hong Kong, and I commended
    the United Kingdom to work to implement the word and the spirit of the
    1984 agreement. All of us who care about the future of Hong Kong have a
    stake in making sure the agreement is fully met. We will keep faith with
    the people of Hong Kong by monitoring the transition to make sure that
    civil liberties are retained, that democratic values and free market
    principles are maintained. Those are the things for which the United
    Kingdom and the United States stand, and those are the things that the
    agreement guarantees.
        This is a hopeful time for the people of the United Kingdom and for
    the people of the United States. It is a hopeful time for the world.
    More people live free and have the chance to live out their dreams than
    ever before in human history. But we face daunting new challenges, and
    we have to face them together. I say repeatedly to the American people,
    we may be at the point of our greatest relative influence in the world
    after the cold war, but we can exercise that influence only if we
    acknowledge our interdependence on like-mined people with similar
    dreams. I feel that very strongly here today with Prime Minister Blair,
    and I intend to act upon it.
        Thank you very much.
        Prime Minister Blair. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
        Right, gentlemen, questions? Michael.

    New Generation of Political Leaders

        Q. Mr. President, Michael Brunson of ITN [Independent Television
    News]. As you probably know, during our recent election here, there was
    a good deal written on both sides of the Atlantic about Mr. Blair being
    the ``Clinton clone,'' or the ``British Clinton.'' I wonder, now you're
    here, how the American original thinks that the British version is
    shaping up. [Laughter]
        President Clinton. Well, I have a couple of reactions to that. First
    of all, a lot of the columns that were written about that were not
    altogether flattering to either one of us, and I had half a mind to call
    Mr. Blair during the election and offer to attack him in the harshest
    possible terms, if he thought it might free him of an unwanted yoke.
    [Laughter] And now, I also told you today that there is one big
    difference, and that's the enormous parliamentary majority that the
    Prime Minister enjoys. So I should be here learning from New Labour
    instead of the other way around.
        Let me just give you a serious answer. I believe that the people--
    free peoples in the world are interested in democratic governments that
    work, that have constructive economic policies, that try to reconcile
    the imperative of growth with the imperatives of family and neighborhood
    and community, that do not accept the fact that our social problems will
    always worsen and cannot be made better, that do not promise to do
    things which responsible citizens must do for themselves but which don't
    run away from their own responsibilities. That's what I think people
    want.
        And I think that requires us to move beyond--I don't think that it's
    the end of ideology, but I think it's the end of yesterday's ideology.
    And I think the more people see the issues framed in terms of attacks of
    parties on each other and yesterday's language that seems disconnected
    to their own concerns, their own hopes, and their own problems, the more
    faith is lost in politics. The more people see the political process is
    relevant to their lives and their future, the more energy you have. And
    what I sense in Great Britain today is an enormous amount of energy.
        So if you're asking me to rate the beginning, I'd say that's a great
    thing. It's a great thing when the people of a democracy believe in its
    possibilities and are willing to work for them. That is about all you
    can ask. No one has all

    [[Page 675]]

    the answers, but you want people to believe in the possibilities of a
    nation and be willing to work for them.
        Yes, Ron [Ron Fournier, Associated Press].

    Northern Ireland Peace Process and Iran

        Q. Sir, you told us this morning that the Northern Ireland peace
    process is an article of faith in your life. Given that, is there
    anything more the U.S. can do to nudge the process along? And what's
    your take on Iran's new President, a moderate cleric who won in a
    landslide?
        President Clinton. Well, let me say, first of all, we have a new
    British Government that has taken what I think were wise and judicious
    steps and made statements that I think are clear, unequivocal, and
    appropriate. There is about to be an election in Ireland. The United
    States--I have restated what the polestars of our position are today: an
    unequivocal cease-fire, inclusive talks. But I think before I say or do
    anything more, as with every peace, this is a peace that has to be made
    by the parties themselves, and we need to let this unfold a little. But
    we'll be there, active and involved, along the way.
        Now, as to Iran, obviously it's a very interesting development, and
    for those of us who don't feel privy to all the details of daily life in
    that country, it's at least a reaffirmation of the democratic process
    there. And it's interesting, and it's hopeful. But from the point of
    view of the United States, what we hope for is a reconciliation with a
    country that does not believe that terrorism is a legitimate extension
    of political policies, that would not use violence to wreck a peace
    process in the Middle East, and would not be trying to develop weapons
    of mass destruction.
        I have never been pleased about the estrangements between the people
    of the United States and the people of Iran. And they are a very great
    people, and I hope that the estrangements can be bridged. But those are
    three big hurdles that would have to be cleared, and we'll just have to
    hope for the best.
        Prime Minister Blair. Robin.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Robin Oakley, BBC. Mr. President, you've appealed again strongly
    today for the IRA to call a cease-fire. How soon after the calling of an
    IRA cease-fire would you want and expect to see Sinn Fein in inclusive
    talks? How long a verification process would you see as being correct?
    Would this be a matter of months or weeks or days?
        President Clinton. I don't believe I should make a public comment on
    that at this moment. Tony Blair's government has just come into office.
    As I said, I think they've taken some very impressive and appropriate
    steps. There's about to be an Irish election. I think, at this moment,
    for the American President to start specifying that level of detail
    would be inappropriate.

    Defense Cutbacks and NATO Expansion

        Q. Mr. President, Gene Gibbons of Reuters. This may be a time of new
    politics, but there are some immutable old laws, like the military
    doctrine of not stretching your forces too thin. Both of you are
    involved in downsizing your militaries. How do you do that and at the
    same time credibly make a vast new defense commitment that is involved
    in NATO expansion?
        And the second part of the question for President Clinton, there are
    reports that NATO enlargement will cost American taxpayers as much as
    $150 billion over the next 5 years. What is your estimate of the cost?
        President Clinton. Well, first--and I think the Prime Minister and I
    both should answer your first question--so let me answer the second
    question very briefly. Our last estimate was--or more than an estimate--
    in the last defense report we got, the estimate was more in the range of
    $150 to $200 million a year. They are reviewing our defense commitments
    now.
        I should point this out. The cost will be important because for most
    European countries, the relative costs will be greater than for the
    United States because we've already done some of the structural things
    that European countries have to do, most of them. So I do not expect
    that the larger figure is anywhere close to the ballpark.
        Secondly, the security umbrella we have is really no longer
    dependent upon stationing large armies along the eastern frontier of
    NATO. What kept any NATO nation from being attacked, in my judgment, was
    the larger nuclear deterrent that was present during the cold war. Now,
    we are also trying to reduce that, but keep in mind--see the NATO
    expansion in the context of the following things: There's an agreement
    between NATO and Russia about what our relationship is going to be.
    President Yeltsin just agreed to detarget the nuclear missiles

    [[Page 676]]

    against all the NATO countries. We will have an agreement on
    conventional forces in Europe which will further reduce those forces.
    And after the Russians ratify START II, we will move on to START III
    which will involve an 80 percent reduction in nuclear forces from their
    post-cold-war high.
        So, in that context, I think the expansion of NATO is quite
    affordable and really should be seen not only as a cooperative security
    guarantee but as a cooperative commitment to try to deal with the other
    security problems of our times, like Bosnia.
        Prime Minister Blair. I agree very much with that, and I think what
    is important is to see NATO enlargement, and indeed, the Joint Council
    between NATO and Russia, as part of building the security and defense of
    our countries and, indeed, making sure that the commitments that we have
    are fully realizable.
        Now, we announced just a couple days ago a strategic review of our
    defense, which is foreign policy led. It's not about downsizing our
    armed forces, but it is about making sense of the commitments that we
    have. But I think that NATO enlargement is a very, very important part
    of bringing in those emerging countries in Eastern Europe and ensuring
    also, through cooperation with Russia, that we're doing it in a way that
    preserves the security of the world. And I can't think of anything more
    important than that. So I don't see these as conflicting objectives. On
    the contrary, I see them properly implemented as entirely complementary.
        Yes, Charles.

    European Economy and the President's Visit

        Q. Charles Wright, the Evening Standard. Mr. President--
    [inaudible]--want cooperation--[inaudible]--with Northern Europe there
    is a conflict--[inaudible]--on the way being pushed by the Prime
    Minister for more flexible labor markets and a call from Brussels for
    more social legislation. Is the Prime Minister right to warn against the
    dangers of this? And secondly, while you're in London, you said you
    wanted to go out and about a bit. What is it you're looking forward to
    see most?
        President Clinton. Well, I've already seen part of what I want to
    see most, which is the unique and unspeakably beautiful British spring.
    I was so hoping it would be sunny today.
        Let me say on the other question, there is not a simple answer. The
    great challenge for Europe--and more for other countries even than for
    the United Kingdom because your unemployment rate is already lower than
    some--but the great challenge you face is how to create enough jobs to
    be competitive and to promote not only economic growth but to have a
    good society. A successful society requires that able-bodied adults be
    able to work. Successful families, successful communities, low crime
    rates all require that able-bodied adults be able to spend their
    energies a certain number of hours a day at work, quite apart from the
    economic considerations.
        So the question is, how do you do that? How do you become more
    flexible? How do you have more entrepreneurs, more flexible labor
    markets, and still preserve the social cohesion that has made community
    life strong in Europe, justifiably?
        In the United States, we've had enormous success--and I'm grateful
    for this--in creating jobs--and more in the first 4 years of my term
    than in any previous 4-year term in history--but we're struggling to
    come back the other way. We're struggling to find a way to give these
    working families--make sure they can all afford health care for their
    children, make sure they can have some time off when there is a baby
    born or a parent sick. You know, we're trying to deal with the arguments
    from the other way.
        But the imperative of reconciling work and family and providing some
    social safety net so that the conditions of community can be met while
    having growth, that is the balance-striking that every advanced economy
    has to do.
        And I think what the Prime Minister has said that I thoroughly agree
    with is, the one option that is unacceptable is denial. That's the only
    unacceptable--there is no perfect answer. I would be the last person to
    tell you that we've drawn the perfect balance. We're better at creating
    jobs than nearly anybody, but we don't have quite as much family
    security and support as I'd like to see in the area of child care and
    family leave and other things.
        The one thing there is not an option to do is to deny that this is
    an issue anymore. The United States wants a higher growth rate in
    Europe. We don't feel threatened by it. We think it would help us, and
    we hope you can achieve it.
        Prime Minister Blair. If I could just add one thing to that--I mean,
    I think what is absolutely essential is to realize this is part of the
    reason

    [[Page 677]]

    for the G-8 initiative that we want to take. We are all facing, as
    modern, developed countries, the same challenges. Work is changing.
    Industry is changing. We live in a new type of world economy. There are
    different pressures putting together work and family life. Now, what
    we're all trying to do is to make sure that we can be fully competitive
    as we need to be in this new economy while preserving the essential
    foundations of a humane and decent society. Now, that is the very goal.
    That's why education and welfare are important. That's why the type of
    different agenda that I think that a different generation of politicians
    is reaching towards is actually what is necessary not just here, not
    just in the United States, but all over the developed world. And if we
    can bring together some of those lessons from the U.S., from Britain,
    and from Europe, then we'll find better ways of going forward in Europe
    as well as the U.S.A.
        President Clinton. John [John Donvan, ABC News]. I'll take both of
    you, but only one at a time.

    New Generation of Political Leaders

        Q. Mr. President, Prime Minister, as you've said already, a lot has
    been made of the notion that the two of you are similar. My question
    is--sometimes the press gets a story and keeps going with it; are you
    just a little bit sick of this story line? How far can this thing go?
    [Laughter]
        President Clinton. Yes, I'm sick of it because he's 7 years younger
    than I am and has no gray hair. [Laughter] So I resent it. But there
    doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it.
        Prime Minister Blair. Look, I think it's a perfectly healthy thing
    if we realize that these are common developments the world over. I mean,
    this isn't just something that's to do with the United States or to do
    with Britain. There is a different generation of political leaders. I
    mean, I grew up--was born 10 years after the end of the Second World
    War. I grew up with Eastern Europe on our doorstep. I never thought that
    the politics of my type of political aspiration was the politics I saw
    in Eastern Europe. But what I took from my own political traditions was
    a belief in community, in justice, in a hatred of discrimination. But I
    want to apply those types of values in the different world.
        Now, if you take the welfare state, which we're trying to reform now
    here in Britain and which President Clinton has done so much to reform
    in the United States, we believe in the values of that, but 1997 is not
    1947 or 1937. So that's why the New Deal has to be updated for today's
    world, the welfare state has to be updated for today's world. And in
    Europe, you'll find the same issues being addressed today.
        Q. Mr. Prime Minister, are you the student in this relationship?
        Prime Minister Blair. Well, I think we can both learn from each
    other and develop together. I think this is good. But I would pay
    tribute to the way that Bill Clinton blazed the trail in this area.
        President Clinton. Let me say on that point, as all of you know--all
    of the American journalists here know--before I became President, I was
    not a Member of our Congress. I was a Governor for a dozen years. And
    the Founding Fathers of the United States wrote in the ``Federalist
    Papers'' that they expected the States to be the laboratories of
    democracy, which is an elegant 18th century way of saying that all
    Governors should be students of one another. They should borrow from
    each other shamelessly. They should learn from each other without
    arrogance.
        And what I think is--if you get a generation of leaders--and it's
    not necessarily determined by age; I consider Prime Minister Kok in the
    Netherlands in this category, a little bit older than we are, the young
    Prime Minister of Portugal, a little younger than we are, a number of
    others who are thinking in the same way and trying to move toward the
    same place and have a common understanding of the kind of changes that
    are sweeping through the world--then we should fairly be expected to--in
    fact, our people ought to demand that we do the best we can to learn
    from each other and cherish that, celebrate that, and say that nobody
    has got all the answers, but if we can get our countries headed in the
    right direction, free people usually do the right thing if they're going
    in the right direction. Eventually, they figure it out.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Ken Reid, Ulster Television in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister,
    what role do you envisage the President playing in furthering the peace
    process? And Mr. President, you were obviously

    [[Page 678]]

    very disappointed when the IRA cease-fire collapsed. Do you think the
    other parties should now move forward without Sinn Fein if another
    cease-fire is not forthcoming?
        Prime Minister Blair. I'll answer the first part of your question,
    Kenneth. The United States has played, and I've no doubt will continue
    to play, a helpful role. And we obviously are carrying forward the
    process. We want to make sure that we can get into all-party talks.
    We've laid down the conditions for that, and I know that the United
    States is fully behind that. And I think that that is always helpful.
        I remember, too, the visit that President Clinton made some 18
    months ago, when the huge optimism and hope that he ignited there in the
    province was tangible. And we want that back again. We want that sense.
    Peace in Northern Ireland and ensuring that we get a lasting political
    settlement that endures is what the vast majority of people in Northern
    Ireland want. This is the great burning frustration of it, that we are
    so keen to make sure that the voice of that majority that wants a
    lasting settlement, that doesn't want to do it by anything other than
    democratic means, is heard.
        Now, I believe it's possible that we can move this process forward,
    but it's got to be done with care. And I'm sure, as they've played a
    helpful role before, the United States will play a helpful role again.
        President Clinton. Obviously, I think that Sinn Fein should
    participate in the talks. And I think the IRA should meet what I think
    has to be the precondition. You can't say, ``We'll talk and shoot; we'll
    talk when we're happy and shoot when we're not.'' And every political
    process in the world is a struggle for principled compromise, which
    means when it's over, no one is ever 100 percent happy.
        So that is the decision that obviously all of them will have to
    make. But the people there do not want to be led in a destructive path
    anymore. I'm convinced the Catholics don't. I'm convinced the
    Protestants don't. And I'm convinced the young are more insistent than
    the old. And to trap people in the prison of those past patterns--we
    talk about changing economic policy--a far greater tragedy is to move
    into the wonders of the 21st century with the shackles of what can only
    be characterized as almost primitive hatred of people because they are
    of different religions than you are.
        I promised you next; I'm sorry. Then we'll go on. Go ahead. I
    apologize. My memory is not what it used to be.
        Q. You're older now.
        President Clinton. That's right. [Laughter] I've got a cane.
    [Laughter]

    Centrist Politics

        Q. John Harris with the Washington Post. As a followup to some of
    the previous questions and answers, Mr. Prime Minister, your party won
    election by promising no new taxes and by endorsing many of the
    privatization policies of your Conservative predecessors. Mr. President,
    you've just signed off on a budget deal that has tax cuts but basically
    precludes any large new spending initiatives over the next several
    years. Both of these compromises have made people within your own
    parties--a lot of them have great misgivings about them. How can you
    convince these people that what you've described as the radical center
    is not really just the dead center and this new pragmatism isn't just
    another name for old-fashioned expediency?
        Prime Minister Blair. Well, I think you can do it very easily, by
    sharing how it derives from conviction and principle. What we decided to
    do when we created New Labour was to be honest with people. There were
    certain things the 1980's got right, an emphasis on enterprise, more
    flexible labor markets. Fine; accepted; they got it right. There should
    be no mileage in trying to undo things that are basically right. But
    there were some very fundamental things that we got wrong, education,
    the creation of a large pool of people of underclass cut off from
    society's mainstream, a negative isolationist view of foreign policy--
    these things we change--overcentralized government. These things we
    change.
        And what is different about it, and I think potentially exciting and
    radical about it, is that it does try to get past a lot of the divisions
    of the past. And you got out there, and you talk to people in the street
    about what concerns them--I often think the people are a thousand miles
    ahead of the politicians. They know that what matters to them is to get
    their schools right, their hospitals right, tackle crime in their
    streets. They know that there are certain things that government can't
    do about jobs and industry but certain things they can do. They want us
    to do those things.

    [[Page 679]]

        Now, I don't think that's a dead center, I think that is a radical
    center. And it's--the big changes that we were able to make in the
    Labour Party, we made out of principle. It was electorally necessary,
    but it was also the right thing to do. If it hadn't been the right thing
    to do, it would never have taken root in the way that it did.
        Now, sure, whenever you make changes, there are people that
    disagree, and there will be those that say we just want to go backwards.
    Well, the job of political leadership is to explain to people why that's
    not sensible, why you should move forward.
        President Clinton. First of all, let me just remind you of what it
    was like when I took office. We had high unemployment, low growth, a
    country with rising crime, rising welfare, and increasing social
    division. We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years, the
    biggest decline in income inequality--something the progressive party
    should care about--in over 30 years. We have declining crime rates. For
    every year I've been President, the crime rate's gone down, and our
    crime bill is fully funded and is implementing that. We've got the
    biggest decline in welfare rolls in history. And we have fought against
    the divisive forces of race, religion, and all the other forces that are
    used to divide people in a complex society like ours.
        So I think that what we have done is both progressive and effective.
    And yes, we have a smaller Government; we have the smallest Government
    since the Kennedy administration. But we're spending more money on
    education, more money on medical research, more money on technologies. I
    think we're doing the right thing. That's first.
        Second, on the budget agreement itself, to my fellow Democrats--
    before they criticize me, I would ask them to read what the conservative
    Republicans have said about the Republicans for signing off on the
    budget agreement. One conservative periodical accused the moderate
    Republicans of being Clintonites, which is a fate worse than death for
    them, you know, and then said that, ``I guess we're all new Democrats
    now.''
        Look at what this budget does. You say it has no--it leaves no room
    for big spending; it has the biggest increase in education in a
    generation, a big increase in environmental protection. It has enough--
    $17 billion to insure half the kids in America who don't have health
    insurance.
        Now, beyond that, does it allow for big spending, new programs? No,
    it doesn't. If we want to spend any more money, big money, in the next
    3\1/2\ years, what do we have to do? We either have to grow the economy
    or we've got to raise the money. That's what a balanced budget is for. I
    support that. I support that. I want the American people--if I could--we
    would come closer to solving our social problems if we can maintain
    unemployment at or under 5 percent for the next 4 years than nearly
    anything else I could do.
        And I want us to be in a position--as the progressive party--where
    we can't launch a big new program unless we raise the money for it or
    grow the economy to fund it. That's the way we ought to do it. That is
    the fiscally responsible way to do it. So I am happy with that
    criticism, and I plead guilty, and the results are good.
        Prime Minister Blair. I like that. I like that very much, indeed.

    Lessons of the U.S. Economy

        Q. Mr. Blair, you talked early on about lessons that you can learn
    from America, and you said that they've been better at creating jobs. I
    just wondered why you thought they had been better at creating jobs,
    what lessons specifically we could draw from that--their attitudes to
    it?
        Prime Minister Blair. I think there is a very strong commitment to
    entrepreneurship there, which is very important. They've pursued, of
    course, a stable economic management policy. That is very important. And
    Bill said something there just a moment ago that I think is very, very
    important, that the progressive parties today are the parties of fiscal
    responsibility and prudence. You don't do anything for anybody by making
    a wreckage out of the economy.
        Now, I think these are all things that we take to heart. And what is
    interesting to me is, again, if you look around not just the U.S.A. or
    what we're doing with New Labour here in Britain, but if you look around
    Europe, there are center--center-left parties there, again, as the
    parties of fiscal prudence and responsibility. And what you can do is
    make changes within the budget.
        You see, the questioner a moment ago was saying, ``Well, you know,
    you're not going for big tax increases and all the rest of it''--but

    [[Page 680]]

    people have had large tax increases. You know, state expenditure has
    grown to a very large extent. Why has it grown? Well, it's grown here
    because you've got massive welfare bills that you're paying out, often
    with people who would like the chance to get back into the labor market
    if we have the imagination and vision to try and give them the chance to
    do so, so that they're not any longer reliant on state benefits but are
    standing on their own two feet, raising their family in some type of
    decent set of circumstances.
        So I think that these elements of job creation, of economic
    management, of creating the type of enterprises and industries of the
    future, they're interlinked. And we see those links very, very clearly,
    indeed.
        President Clinton. If I could just say one thing. I would like to
    give credit where I think credit is due, which is not primarily to me in
    this. And I think we have been successful in creating jobs for several
    reasons.
        One is, we maintained, earlier than a lot of other countries, a
    reasonably open economy, not perfectly open but reasonably open, so that
    we suffered a lot of painful restructuring in the 1980's due to
    competition. But as a result of that, both our business managers and our
    working people have dramatically improved their productivity--first.
        Second, America is a relatively easy place to start a small
    business, and we get a lot of our new jobs from starting small
    businesses.
        Third, we have been blessed by having sort of incubators of the
    future in computers, in telecommunications, in electronics, increasingly
    in biotechnology. That is important.
        Fourth, we've had a good, stable monetary system. I think the Prime
    Minister did a good thing by--and he'll be criticized for it the first
    time interest rates are raised, but he did a good thing, I think, by
    trying to take the setting of interest rates out of politics, because it
    will create the feeling of stability and make Britain more attractive
    for investment. That's been a big factor for us.
        And finally, we've had good Government policies, which were: reduce
    the deficit, expand trade, invest in people. So I think all those
    things, together, will give you a job creation policy.
        Prime Minister Blair. We'll take one more each, shall we?
        President Clinton. Yes.
        Q. Thank you. That was shameless. Ann McFeatters with Scripps-
    Howard.
        President Clinton. That's good.

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, you have promised to withdraw our troops from
    Bosnia a year from now. And yet the British Prime Minister's Foreign
    Secretary says if you do that, the British will withdraw their troops,
    too, and that could lead to renewed fighting. Is there a dispute between
    Secretary of State Albright and Defense Secretary Cohen, and are you
    going to keep your commitment to withdraw?
        President Clinton. Well, when we--first of all, when we adopted the
    second mission, the SFOR mission, after our first full year in Bosnia,
    we cut all the forces in half and stayed; we said we expected that
    mission to last about a year and a half. I still accept that.
        Here is the problem, the basic issue. I think we would all admit
    that a lot of the elements of the Bosnian peace process, the Dayton
    process, are not going as fast as they should. We have just completed a
    comprehensive review of our policy. We've identified a number of things
    we want to do better. The Prime Minister and I talked about, for
    example, the police training and the placement of police there.
        If you look at what our military people do today, since we are not
    presently today actively involved, for example, in escorting and
    protecting refugee returnees, a lot of that could be done by civilian
    police, if we were on schedule. We're not on schedule. We're not on
    schedule in the economic implementation. We're trying to put--very hard,
    all of our allies--we're trying to put together a team that will get us
    back up and going.
        And so I would agree, to this extent, with the Prime Minister, which
    is that I don't think we ought to be talking about how we're going to
    leave. I think we ought to be talking about what we're going to do
    tomorrow and next week and next month. And if we work like crazy in the
    next 13 months, do I believe we can fulfill our mission and that they
    can go forward? Yes, I do. But I think we're going to have to make some
    very tough decisions. We can't play around with this. We can't just sort
    of hang around and then disappear in a year and expect the Dayton
    process to go forward. We have a lot of work to do in the next year. And
    so what I want to do is stop talking about what date

    [[Page 681]]

    we're leaving on and start talking about we're going to do on the only
    date that matters, which is tomorrow.
        Prime Minister Blair. I agree with that very strongly, indeed.
        Last question.

    Advice for Prime Minister Blair

        Q. President Clinton, I know you're reluctant to offer advice to our
    Prime Minister, but could I tempt you? You became--I want to be polite--
    rather unpopular during your first term after a brief honeymoon. Which
    mistakes do you think you made that our Prime Minister could avoid?
        Prime Minister Blair. Well, he did one thing very right, which was
    to win again, and I hope I repeat that. [Laughter]
        President Clinton. Well, for one thing, it was a brief honeymoon; it
    lasted about 35 seconds. [Laughter] So, again, I don't know that I have
    any advice to offer. I think that the errors that we made, or at least
    the political decisions we made that caused us problems, are fairly
    well-known.
        Also, keep in mind, we have a different system than you do. I had to
    pass my first economic program with only Democrats, but the Democrats
    basically got credit for being divided in their support of me when the
    facts are that they have supported me more strongly than they supported
    the last three Democratic Presidents before me. But our friends on the
    other side were opposed in even more unified fashion.
        So the things that happened to us were so unique, I hope, to the
    American political system--I wouldn't wish them on anyone else--that I
    don't really think it's very instructive for me to give advice.
        Prime Minister Blair. If I could, I just say one final thing to you.
    I think when you heard President Clinton speak about the record that he
    has achieved in Government earlier, I think that is the reason why he
    was reelected. And the important thing is that that record stands as
    testimony to the leadership that he gave.
        We'll have one last question then, shall we?
        President Clinton. My only advice on that would be to try to keep
    people focused on the policies and the consequences and that we should
    all be willing to work on that basis, because real people out there who
    have to get up every day and wonder how they're going to feed and
    educate their children and whether they're safe in their neighborhoods
    and what the future is going to be like for their kids, they want to
    know that we're at the task. And so my only advice would be to maintain
    the same level of concentration in the administration that was shown by
    all of Labour in the campaign, that relaxing concentration is fatal in
    this business. It's an important thing, and it's complicated. You got to
    concentrate all the time.

    Representative Richard A. Gephardt

        Q. Mr. President--I'm sorry, Rita Braver with CBS News. Bearing in
    mind your comments on the budget, I was wondering if you had been
    listening to your own minority leader. He is against you on the budget.
    He is against you on MFN. He is against you on expansion of NATO on a
    fast track. And I wondered if you could explain maybe whether you think
    it's you or he who represents the hearts and minds of the Democratic
    Party and whether maybe you think it's time for a new minority leader,
    or maybe you don't really want that Democratic majority you talked about
    at the beginning of the news conference.
        President Clinton. No, I think--for one thing, I think--you know, I
    disagree with him about the budget and MFN for China, and we've had some
    trade differences since I came here; otherwise, he's supported me on
    just about everything. I would point out, however, that well over 60
    percent of the Democratic caucus in the House voted for the budget
    agreement and that 82 percent of the Democratic caucus in the Senate
    voted for it. We had a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans
    voting for it in the Senate, a higher percentage of Republicans than
    Democrats voting for it in the House, and a two-to-one majority overall.
        So that's something--the American people ought to feel comfortable--
    we had an overwhelming bipartisan agreement. Individual people will have
    differences on individual issues. They'll see the world in different
    ways. But I think I did the right thing, and I think we're going to--I
    think the country will be immensely benefited by it. And I think
    everybody that voted for it, in retrospect, will be happy and those who
    didn't vote for it will be pleased that what they thought was wrong with
    it, wasn't. That's what I think will happen.
        Prime Minister Blair. Okay, thank you very much indeed, ladies and
    gentlemen. And thank you, in particular, to President Clinton.

    [[Page 682]]

        President Clinton. Thank you.

    Note: The President's 147th news conference began at 3:05 p.m. in the
    Winter Garden at 10 Downing Street. In his remarks, he referred to John
    Major, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; President Boris
    Yeltsin of Russia; Prime Minister Wim Kok of The Netherlands; and Prime
    Minister Antonio Guterres of Portugal. A reporter referred to President-
    elect Mohammad Khatami of Iran.