    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [October 17, 1997]
    [Pages 1391-1395]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Argentine Reporters in Buenos Aires
    October 17, 1997

    MERCOSUR Trade and the World View

        Q. I will begin with a question about one of the main aspects of
    your visit to Brazil and Argentina, which was the MERCOSUR question.
    During several months it appeared that there were controversial views in
    the U.S. concerning MERCOSUR. Since you strongly backed, both in Brazil
    and Argentina, MERCOSUR, the question is how you built up your
    conclusion or your position over the MERCOSUR, and did you consider,
    eventually, other approaches before taking a final decision,
    particularly in Brazil the other day?
        The President. Well, I think that the impression developed--first of
    all, let's talk about how the impression developed.
        Q. Yes.
        The President. I think the impression developed because some people
    in the Government and in the press in America I think had the impression
    that MERCOSUR might be used as a vehicle to limit the growth of trade
    and investment with the United States in ways that would have adverse
    consequences for our long-term political as well as our economic
    cooperation. Now, let me say, at the end of the cold war there were
    Americans who felt that way about the European Union as well. When I
    became President, there was a group of people, good people, in our
    Government, permanent civil servants, who had the same feeling about the
    European Union.
        But I have a very different view. I believe that the United States
    should do whatever it can to promote the political and economic
    cooperation of democracies, not simply to grow the economy but in a
    larger sense to lift the conditions of ordinary people and to strengthen
    democratic institutions so that they cannot be reversed, and finally,
    because the threats we face today at the end of the cold war are much
    more likely to be threats that cross national borders, like terrorism,
    drugs, organized crime, as opposed to threats from other nations. So we
    all have to adjust our thinking.
        What I'm trying to do is to promote a process of reorganization of
    the world so that human beings are organized in a way that takes
    advantage of the new opportunities of this era and permits them to beat
    back the problems. If you start with that presumption, instead of a
    political organization in South America that doesn't include us is a
    threat to us, then you come to a very different conclusion. My
    conclusion is that MERCOSUR has been good for the countries that are
    members of it because they've torn down barriers among each other. That
    helps them all economically. At the same time, our trade with all the
    MERCOSUR nations has increased.
        And it permits other things. For example, Brazil and Argentina
    worked with us to stop the interruption of the democratic process in
    Paraguay. We now have the problems of potential terrorist activities in
    the tri-border--the

    [[Page 1392]]

    countries are now better equipped to do that. So to me this is a
    positive thing.
        Now, having said that, what I had hoped to do on this trip is to
    convince the leaders, not just the Presidents but the leadership
    generally, that it is also in our interest to follow through on the
    commitment we made at the Summit of the Americas in Miami to work toward
    a free trade area of the Americas, and to see MERCOSUR, NAFTA, Andean
    Pact, CARICOM as building blocks in this. This is very important,
    because if the rest of the world should happen not to agree with us
    philosophically, then having a big trade area will be a great insurance
    policy for all these countries. And if we can prove that you can merge
    integrated economies and integrated democracies, then we'll be more
    likely to build a global system of this kind.
        So that's a long answer, but anyway it's important that you
    understand that this MERCOSUR issue for me is part of a very big world
    view. I just never felt as threatened by it as a lot of people who saw
    it in terms of this particular negotiation over this tariff or this
    custom or that sort of thing.

    Social Inequity

        Q. Mr. President, in this era of free market in the region, the
    problem of social inequity is a great deal for our countries and also
    for the strength of our democracy. I would like to have your views about
    that.
        The President. First of all, I think it's important to point out
    that this problem of social inequity is a problem that every country in
    the world is facing, even countries with very robust growth. No country
    has solved the problem perfectly of how to grow the economy and preserve
    more equality and at the same time move more poor people into the middle
    class.
        Let me just give you a couple of examples. Look at France, which has
    a very strong social contract but pays for it with very high
    unemployment. Great Britain has opted for a policy more like ours, where
    they're generating lots of jobs now--their unemployment rate is 6.5
    percent, only about a point and a half higher----
        Q. Five-point-nine yesterday.
        The President. ----5.9 yesterday, so it's only a point higher than
    ours. And they're open to immigrants now, as the United States is. But
    as a result of that, because the modern economy favors technology and
    education, they've had increasing inequality there, just as we have.
        I think it's important to point out that most of this is due to the
    structural changes in all advanced economies driven by technology. Trade
    is a part of it, but mostly it's the changing of the paradigm, if you
    will, away from the industrial society to the information age. And I
    believe the answer is to have the Government have less destructive
    involvement in the economy, but the Government should have more
    constructive involvement in the society.
        Basically, you have to do, I think, three things. You have to, first
    of all, have a system of lifetime education and training so that
    everybody can participate. Secondly, you have to have a strategy to
    bring the benefits of free markets to the places that are untouched.
    Technology can help. Investment can help. I think that is very
    important. And thirdly, you have to have adequate protections for people
    who, through no fault of their own, are not participating. This is easy
    to say and difficult to do, because if it costs too much to do this you
    will weigh down the economy. But essentially that is what must be done.
        So the challenge in Argentina, the challenge in Brazil, the
    challenge in Latin America is, in a different way, the challenge that we
    in America face--in the United States--and that the Europeans are trying
    to do--even the Japanese now are having to deal with it. So this is the
    new social challenge of the 21st century. The answer is not to withdraw
    from the trade or to pretend that the technology doesn't exist, the
    answer is to get all the benefits.
        Argentina, for example--I will make you a prediction here. If you
    can maintain these levels of growth that you have now, your unemployment
    will go down, but it will not go as low as you want unless you have real
    systems to create more small businesses, to hook small business into
    technology and exports, and to create much more universally effective
    education systems. But that's no criticism of the last 7 years; you had
    to fix all the problems of the past before you can confront the
    challenges of the present.

    Integrity in Government

        Q. Mr. President, to follow up what you just said, corruption makes
    inequality even worse. You said that the applying of the term ``endemic
    corruption'' to Brazil has been a mistake. What's

    [[Page 1393]]

    the precise meaning of widespread corruption that had been implied in
    the same document to the Argentine situation?
        The President. Well, first of all, I wasn't even familiar with this
    document. I didn't know it was issued. I don't know who wrote it.
        But let me back up and say, when you are in a period where the
    Government has had heavy-handed involvement in the economy and then
    things start to change and arrangements are unsettled, that's a point
    where, in general, civil societies are vulnerable to corruption. Also,
    human nature being what it is, there will nearly always be someone
    somewhere who is doing something wrong.
        So what you want, however, is a system where the incentives are to
    be honest; where there are disincentives, sanctions, for being
    dishonest; and where you're moving in the right direction. I told
    President Menem--we had a talk about this last night. I was
    complimenting President Caldera of Venezuela because he took the lead in
    making sure that our hemisphere--we have, basically, the only convention
    against corruption of any hemisphere in the world.
        And I said to President Menem, and I said to the young people at the
    townhall meeting yesterday, what my experience is, just from my life in
    politics. And that is that if a civil society can maintain a vigorous
    free press, an economy that works, and you can just preserve democracy,
    time takes care of a lot of this. That is, I believe that 20 years from
    now, an American President will be sitting here and either you will be
    sitting here or your successors will be, and I will predict to you that
    if democracy survives in Argentina, which I believe it will, there will
    be less corruption, but you could still ask a question about corruption.
    Do you see what I mean? You could still ask.
        So what my advice would be here, because this country has come so
    far so fast, moving away from some of its darkest moments not very long
    ago and also moving away from the heavy-handed control of the state over
    the economy, that the focus should be on maintaining a vigorous and safe
    free press, making sure that the economy operates according to
    internationally accepted norms, and preserving democracy.
        I had a great talk not very long ago with Senator Dole, who was my
    opponent in the last election. We have quite an interesting and good
    relationship, I think, and he was in Congress for 35 years. So I said to
    him, ``Bob''--the Washington press was full of something at the moment,
    I can't even remember what it was--I said, ``Bob, is Washington more
    honest today, or less, than 30 years ago?'' He said, ``It's not close.
    They're much more honest.''
        Q. Much more honest?
        The President. Much more. And the same thing is true everywhere. In
    other words, barring some unforeseeable development, it always gets
    better if you can keep the press free and vigilant and if you can keep
    the economy operating with some integrity. And just the passage of time
    strengthens the presumption of democracy and freedom and accountability.
    So it will get better here if that can happen--everywhere.

    Education

        Q. Mr. President, in your trip here and in Brazil and Venezuela, was
    there anything that was striking or that surprised you, that changed
    your idea of these countries or what American policy should be towards
    them? I mean, what did you learn on this trip?
        The President. Well, first of all, I would say that I feel that the
    potential for both growth and greatness in these societies is even
    greater than I had imagined. I think that the potential for America to
    have a constructive partnership and actually help deal with some of
    these challenges that countries face--and they're different in all three
    countries--is even greater than I had imagined, as long as it's clear
    that we are dealing in an atmosphere of mutual respect and equality.
        And I think that the potential for solving at least some of the
    worst social problems is greater than I had imagined. That is, when I
    was in Brazil I went to a school in a very poor neighborhood in Rio,
    where the children came out of circumstances that were very difficult,
    and they were doing quite well. And it seems to me that one of the
    obligations that the United States has through our business community
    here is to do more throughout Latin America to give that kind of
    educational experience to children. If I could do one thing in sort of a
    crash way, it would be to try to revolutionize the quality and reach of
    education for all the children of the region.

    Free Press and Civil Society

        Q. You spoke about the freedom of the press. You might be aware that
    in Argentina there's a coexistence between freedom of the press and

    [[Page 1394]]

    then serious threats and actions against the press.
        The President. I'm very aware of that.
        Q. For example, the assassination of Jose Luis Cabeza, a
    photojournalist. This morning the papers inform, quite, I hate to say,
    unprecisely about some initiative you probably told the government about
    supporting the press in an international, American, Pan American----
        The President. Again, on this issue, I can't comment on the
    specifics of, because I don't know. I'm aware that the photographer was
    killed, and I know a lot of your reporters have been threatened and that
    the problem from your point of view must be the question of whether this
    can be stopped in specific cases.
        But what I said to President Menem yesterday was that, again, this
    is something that--Argentina is building a civil society, and it has to
    be built brick by brick. And the fact that the press is free is a good
    thing. The fact that some people feel free to at least threaten and
    perhaps harm members of the press is a bad thing. So to get beyond that
    you have to build even more bricks in the house of civil society.
        What I suggested was that the OSCE, the Organization on Security and
    Cooperation in Europe, actually has a press ombudsman, which has become
    quite important because we have all these countries converting from
    communism to free societies--again, coming to grips with this from a
    different background, but it's the same sort of issue. And most of our
    people who deal with it think this has been quite a good thing. So I
    suggested that perhaps he and other leaders here might support an
    initiative to do the same thing within the OAS, so that we could help
    every country where this is an issue, through an ombudsman who could
    say, not only this particular case has to be dealt with, but here are
    institutional changes that could be made in this, that, or the other
    country, that would make it better. That was my precise suggestion.
        Q. But that ombudsman, what kind of questions would it deal with?
        The President. Well, it would deal with whatever questions the OAS
    was willing to refer to it. But I think the idea would be to be able to
    take specific cases and build a system where those kinds of cases didn't
    come forward. Of course, the individual case would still have to be
    handled through the justice system, but the point is maybe a press
    ombudsman would say, ``Look, here's the sort of judicial system every
    country in OAS should have,'' or ``Here's the kind of judicial training
    center we ought to have.'' That's another one of our proposals, battling
    around the OAS--to set up a common judicial training center so that
    every country could send their judges there, and we could have generally
    accepted systems which would help to build a civil society.

    Attacks on Buenos Aires Jewish Community

        Q. Mr. President, are you aware or were you requested any kind of
    classified information from the FBI or the CIA by the Jewish
    organization that interviewed you yesterday regarding the attack at the
    Embassy and the AMIA?
        The President. Well, the press report on that was a little bit
    misleading today--I don't think on purpose. But let me explain what I
    said.
        Q. That's why I was questioning.
        The President. Yes, I'm glad you asked. What I said was that the
    judge with oversight on the case had already talked to both the FBI and
    the CIA. The families of the victims and their advocates believe that
    perhaps there are some people in our Government or some people who've
    been involved in this who have some information that has not been turned
    over. What I said was that I would go back to our sources, our people,
    and see if we could get any more information; I would do everything I
    could.
        I think there was a little misunderstanding, perhaps in the
    translation, when I simply pointed out that when we operate in other
    countries we sometimes talk to people who deserve the right to be
    protected, and we have general rules that we follow--not in Argentina,
    everywhere in the world--to try to make sure that we never put anyone at
    risk who is helping us. But we're going to see if we have information we
    have not turned over that we can give to the appropriate authorities so
    we can go forward with this.
        This would be a very good thing, not only for the families of the
    victims but for Argentina, if we could actually resolve the cases of the
    bombing of the Embassy and the community center.

    Argentina-U.S. Relations

        Q. Argentina and U.S. relations were not always like today. What
    really changed, according to you, and when you first perceived that such
    a change was underway?

    [[Page 1395]]

        The President. Well, I think in the nearest term what has changed is
    that Argentina moved away from military governments that oppress and
    kill its people, toward not only a democracy but a democracy under
    President Menem that has genuinely reached out to the rest of the world
    and tried to open not only the economy but the society. Even the debates
    you are having about the government here are evidence of that. So I
    think that's the first and most important thing.
        Then I think the United States--I would hope that this is true; it's
    self-serving for me to say this, but I hope it's true--the United
    States, since I've been President, we have had a genuine interest in
    establishing a new kind of partnership with Latin America. President
    Roosevelt wanted to do it. He wanted to be a good neighbor, but the cold
    war intervened. He died. The cold war intervened. Things happened.
    President Kennedy wanted to do it. He wanted an Alliance for Progress.
    But there were difficulties which made it impossible to have a
    continuing effort. And then some of our Presidents just simply
    disagreed. They saw every development in Latin America as a
    manifestation of what was happening in the cold war between the United
    States and the Soviet Union.
        I saw, as the first President who would govern completely at the end
    of the cold war, an opportunity essentially to go back to the vision of
    Bolivar. And we are becoming more alike, not only because of the
    globalization of our economy and the universality of our communications
    but because Spanish-speaking Americans are our fastest growing group and
    because we share now these values of democracy and peace and security.
        So I think all these things have played a role. I hope that I have
    played a role. I was the first President, I believe, to appoint an envoy
    to all of the Americas, Mack McLarty, my former Chief of Staff. I don't
    think any President has ever done anything like that before. So I have a
    person that is very close to me actually in the region all the time,
    knowing the leaders, knowing the people working with this.
        But I think none of it would have been possible if first you hadn't
    had the changes in Argentina. Because if we are totally at odds with a
    country over its human rights policy, over its political policy, over
    whether it's open to the United States in a genuine partnership, then
    even our ability to lay down the mistakes we've made in the past as a
    country would not have made it possible. So the two things happened
    together.

    Note: The interview began at 11:05 a.m. at the Sheraton Hotel. In his
    remarks, the President referred to President Carlos Menem of Argentina
    and President Rafael Caldera of Venezuela. A tape was not available for
    verification of the content of this interview.