    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [July 3, 1997]
    [Pages 904-910]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 904]]

    Interview With European Television Journalists
    July 3, 1997

    NATO Expansion

        Q. Mr. President, thank you for having us and granting this
    interview with this group of European television stations. The Summit of
    Madrid marks the first expansion of the NATO to the Eastern European
    countries. Mr. President, it is perceived by the public opinion in
    Europe that the United States limits this expansion. It is perhaps a
    misperception from Europe?
        The President. First of all, let me say that the expansion itself is
    historic, and we should not minimize it. Of course, Spain was the last
    new member of NATO, and that was an historic thing as well. But to
    expand NATO in a way that enables us to move closer to our goal of a
    united, democratic Europe for the first time in history is very
    important.
        I don't want to limit NATO expansion; I want to leave the door open
    to all democracies that would like to be a part of it. But keep in mind,
    NATO is not simply a political alliance. It is primarily a military
    alliance, and we've done a lot of work to try to adapt NATO to the
    security challenges of the 21st century, to the Bosnias, if you will,
    rather than to the cold war.
        So it seems to us, after having consulted with all of our allies and
    after having looked at the capacity of those that would like to become
    members, that the three members from Central Europe, Poland and Hungary
    and the Czech Republic, are clearly ready to assume the responsibilities
    of NATO membership and ready to integrate militarily with NATO. That
    does not mean that the door should not remain wide open to others and
    that we shouldn't make every effort over the next couple of years to do
    what it takes to help others qualify for NATO membership.
        I don't want to exclude anyone, but I think it quite important on
    principle that we not admit anyone until we're absolutely sure that
    their democracy is stable and that they are militarily capable. And this
    is just a difference of opinion. Some of the NATO members agree with us;
    some would prefer four; some would prefer five.
        Q. But, Mr. President, does that mean that when you go to Madrid, in
    effect your mind is made up, and those who disagree in the alliance will
    have to join your view?
        The President. NATO has always made decisions by consensus. For
    example, suppose we were for five and the British were for three--alone.
    In order to achieve a consensus, since that's the only way we can
    proceed, three would still prevail. In other words, it's not because
    it's America; it's because we have to reach a consensus.
        But we have spent a lot of time with this. I've personally visited
    with President Chirac about it. I've personally talked with Chancellor
    Kohl about it. I've personally talked with President Aznar and with Tony
    Blair about it and many other European leaders. I had a long talk with
    Prime Minister Prodi about it. Then Madeleine Albright went to Sintra in
    Portugal and talked to all of the people about it before we announced a
    public position, and I have spent a long time with our military leaders
    talking about it. And others had announced their position before ours,
    so I don't foresee any circumstances under which I would change my
    position that today we ought to have three.
        But keep in mind, my position also is--and some of the members don't
    agree with this--that we should leave the door open, that we should have
    a review, we should take another look at it in 1999, and even at 1999 we
    should keep the door open. That is, I see NATO as a way of continuing
    the process of European integration, which I have supported. I have
    supported the European Union; I have supported the independent security
    unit, the ESDI within NATO, which is something that's been important to
    France and others. I want to see Europe integrated and strong and
    secure. So I'm looking forward to other meetings like Madrid. I don't
    think this will be the last one by a long shot.

    France

        Q. Mr. President, NATO is a bone of contention between you,
    President Chirac, and his Socialist Prime Minister Jospin. Concretely,
    why do you refuse the French, but any other European countries, to have
    the command of the South NATO flank? And I would like to add, is the
    communist presence inside the French Government a problem in the NATO
    context?

    [[Page 905]]

        The President. Oh, no. First of all, I hope that France will become
    integrated into the military structure of NATO, and I hope that Spain
    will be as well, and I think we're quite close with Spain. And I hope
    that both will be.
        Secondly, I believe that more command positions should be open to
    Europeans, and I have supported that. That is--so, in the adaptation of
    NATO internally, the United States has favored the integration of France
    and Spain into the military command structure, has favored an
    independent European security defense initiative within NATO, and has
    favored more command positions going to French and to European officers.
        The particular command, the AFSOUTH Command, is--the real problem
    there for us right now is that right now, the AFSOUTH Command is
    essentially command of the 6th Fleet of the United States Navy. And
    except for, and maybe even including--I'd have to check the numbers--our
    presence in South Korea, it's the biggest single deployment of United
    States military assets anywhere. So if we were to divide the AFSOUTH
    Command, it wouldn't, from our point of view, be a sensible thing to do
    militarily because that's essentially the central asset of AFSOUTH.
        We have offered to revisit this--even that position with the French
    in a few years, because it may be that we decide to change the
    composition of what makes up AFSOUTH. But in terms of the command
    structure, we believe the Europeans should have more command positions.
    We believe the French should if they come in. And we hope that we can
    resume these discussions and work this out.
        Q. And the communists, no problem?
        The President. No. Look, France is a democracy, and they elected a
    new leadership for the Parliament, and that's up to the government. As
    long as the Government of France is a great democracy, standing for
    freedom and participating, I don't have a problem. The French people
    should make their own decisions over that; the United States shouldn't
    make a judgment about that.

    Germany

        Q. Mr. President, one could say that the main beneficiary of the new
    security structure in Europe is Germany. Our country is not a front line
    state anymore; the Bundeswehr, which has been trained and equipped to
    fight a war on its own territory, defining the Eastern flank of NATO,
    won't have to do that anymore. So when the new, the next Gulf crisis,
    Somalia crisis, Bosnia crisis come about, what would America expect from
    Germany to take over in terms of burden from the Americans?
        The President. I don't know that I would expect them to take over
    anything from the Americans, but I would make two points. One and most
    importantly is that the Germans are in a position to be partners with us
    now because of decisions which have been made by your supreme judicial
    body, and because of the vision of Chancellor Kohl--we are in a position
    to be partners in Bosnia, for example--that the Germans can participate
    and are not only trusted but relied upon to participate in cooperative
    security challenges beyond the German borders. That's the first thing.
        The second thing I would say is that the Germans have supported the
    French and others in being for a European security defense capacity
    where Europe can act alone without the United States and Canada in
    appropriate circumstances within NATO as part of our adaptation.
        So that's what I would expect, if you will. I think that there will
    be continuing partnership, and now we'll be able to worry not about the
    eastern border of Germany but about the stability of all of Europe, and
    we'll be able to do that together now.
        Q. But it will also mean an increased military role, probably.
        The President. It could, but it may not require an increased
    military budget. That is, all of our militaries are doing different
    things. On the budget, let me say--this is one other point I should
    make--there are costs for Europeans and costs for Americans in expanding
    NATO, and it's important, therefore, to make a good military decision
    because you have to justify the costs to the public. That's why it can't
    simply be about politics, because we have to--we're all obliged to do
    certain things to keep the military able to work with one another; the
    term of art is ``interoperability.'' So that's another thing we have to
    consider.

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, I think it would be interesting to know how you
    did convince President Yeltsin three instead of five. Is it the price
    that you paid to get yes from Mr. Yeltsin?

    [[Page 906]]

        The President. I wouldn't say that, but I think that it's important
    to note that we made an agreement with President Yeltsin to have an
    agreement between NATO and Russia that would make it crystal clear that
    NATO is no longer an organization designed to contain Russia; NATO is an
    organization designed to work with all free countries to respect the
    territorial integrity of its members, to protect the security of its
    members, and to work with its members and their allies, Russia, soon to
    be Ukraine, and those in the Partnership For Peace, on common security
    problems like the problem in Bosnia.
        I think the great contribution Boris Yeltsin has made to the
    integration of Europe is his willingness to say, Russia is not going to
    define its greatness in terms of territorial domination, Russia will
    define its greatness in terms of the achievements of its people and its
    partnerships with other countries. That was the contribution, that's
    what he did, and he deserves a lot of credit for that.
        Now, should we expand NATO in a way that is at least aware of the
    nationalist elements in Russia, the people that don't feel the same way?
    Of course we should. Should we be sensitive to that? Of course we
    should. But I think as NATO and Russia continue to work in partnership
    as we have in Bosnia, the continued expansion of NATO will not be seen
    as a threat to the Russian people but will be seen as something that
    reinforces our partnership and therefore makes the Russian people more
    secure.
        Q. You decided for a slow start?
        The President. No. The main reason I decided this is I really
    believe that these three countries are the only three countries right
    now that can start tomorrow and within a reasonable time meet the same
    standard of membership militarily that the other NATO countries met.
        We have to remember, this alliance is the most successful alliance
    in history because it's had military as well as political integrity. But
    these other nations, I believe, that are either developing their
    economies and their military capacity, are stabilizing their
    democracies, should all be considered for future NATO membership. And
    the irony of this is, right now a lot of the European countries say
    five, and I say three, but over the long run we may find the United
    States in favor of considering more countries than a majority of
    Europeans would be. If that happens, the Europeans will prevail.

    Spain

        Q. Mr. President, the government of Madrid wants to remain in the
    chain of command of NATO. Is Spain's petition to maintain under its
    control of the Canary Island territory acceptable for the United States?
        The President. I think the Spanish position is certainly
    understandable, and it's my understanding that Spain is at least close
    to being satisfied with the discussions that have been held. The
    position the United States has taken on this is that the military
    experts should resolve this, that only Spain can decide whether its
    concerns about sovereignty and leadership have been satisfied. But for
    all of the rest of the countries, what we should do is to make this a
    military decision and see if we can resolve the issue with Spain in a
    way that is consistent with the way NATO should operate. And they're
    working very hard on it, and I hope and believe they will resolve it
    soon.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. On another security matter, Mr. President, you've nurtured the
    peace process in Northern Ireland personally, but things are looking
    very ominous, coming up to this weekend with the scheduled Loyalist
    march in Drumcree. Are you pessimistic that a collision cannot be
    avoided?
        The President. No, I'm not pessimistic, but frankly, the ball is in
    the IRA's court right now in terms of declaring a cease-fire, and then
    there is also a ball in the court of the Protestant Loyalists and
    whether they will continue to exercise restraint.
        But let me say, to me the most hopeful thing is that we've got this
    meeting, I believe, today between Prime Minister Blair and Mr. Ahern,
    the new Irish Prime Minister. There has been sort of a reaffirmation of
    the position of the British and Irish Governments about how
    decommissioning should operate in a fashion parallel with the peace
    talks. And so I think that the British and Irish Governments are right
    on track and doing what should be done, and the Irish people should be
    heartened by the new leadership in both countries, reaffirming the peace
    process and trying to invigorate it.
        But the truth is that in order to get all the parties involved and
    do it without bloodshed, the IRA will have to renounce violence and
    reinstitute the cease-fire. The United States had

    [[Page 907]]

    been very forward-leaning. We've tried to involve Sinn Fein; we've tried
    to reach out, as you know. But two young men were brutally murdered in
    what is clearly an assassination recently in Ireland. That is
    unacceptable, you know; we can't do that. The Irish people want the
    peace process, the British and the Irish Governments want the peace
    process, and the IRA ought to give it a chance to work.
        Q. But would you favor the Loyalists calling off their march,
    postponing things?
        The President. I think that is a matter best left to the people of
    Northern Ireland and to the British and Irish Governments. I have tried
    to be very disciplined in the role the United States has played in this,
    and I just don't think that's a matter on which I should express a view
    at this moment. Let's see what Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister
    Ahern say after their meeting today.
        What I would favor is that they do nothing to try to provoke
    violence. I think--you know, these marches are a regular thing. If it
    happens, there are marches and there are marches; we all know that. So I
    hope that we can--whatever happens, it won't be an occasion for further
    violence.

    France

        Q. Mr. President, going back to the French, President Chirac and the
    Socialist government are often quoted, and it's true--as criticizing
    the--what they call, I quote, ``the arrogance of the U.S. superpower
    which wants to rule the world politically and economically,'' and they
    add that they criticize the United States for wanting to oust France of
    Africa. What do you answer to this double accusation from the French
    authorities when they talk to the French press or that got quoted in the
    American media, too?
        The President. The one on Africa is a new one on me, but the other
    two--I've heard people say things like that. I've read it in the press
    with regard to economic issues and with regard to NATO. First of all,
    let me restate what I said. I don't know whether we would be where we
    are in Bosnia today if it hadn't been for the leadership of President
    Chirac and the French. The United States and the French--there have been
    words in the press for decades now, but the truth is that when the chips
    are down, we're almost always allies.
        Jacques Chirac supported NATO expansion when some European leaders
    didn't. He was instrumental in getting the agreement with Russia. He was
    instrumental in forging our common position in Bosnia. All I can say is,
    I don't want America to dictate to Europe; I want--I have supported
    European integration. When other Americans were afraid of it, I said--
    because Europe would be bigger than the United States then--I said,
    ``No, we want a democratic, free, strong, united Europe, and the next
    100 years will be different than the last 100. Let it go. We have to
    work together.'' So that's the first thing.
        On economics, we have been very fortunate in the United States in
    being able to discipline our spending, invest in our people, and create
    a lot of jobs. But we have problems here, too. We have--a lot higher
    percentage of our children are poor than in France or Germany and other
    countries. We don't have the kind of health care and child care supports
    that you provide to your working families.
        So the challenge that we all face, I think, is more a common
    challenge: How are we going to create jobs, raise incomes, and hold the
    social compact together in a global economy? We just happen to be in
    different places in meeting the challenges.
        In Africa, let me say I'm very grateful for what the French and we
    have done together to help each other's citizens get out of harm's way
    in African countries in trouble. We have offered an initiative on Africa
    because we've been repeatedly challenged to do more, and we think there
    should be aid, and I don't think we've given enough aid to Africa. The
    French have said that we haven't, and they're right. But we think we can
    do more to expand trade as well. So I hope we'll be working with France
    on that.
        I do not want to push France out of Africa. I want to lift Africa
    up. And if we would lift Africa up, the fact that the French were there,
    caring about Africa all along, will only redound to France's benefit.

    Europe-U.S. Relations and NATO Expansion

        Q. Mr. President, in line with what the French colleague just said,
    there is--especially I feel it after Denver--a growing feeling in Europe
    that America leans toward something like grandstanding or patronizing
    toward Europe. And then when it comes time to make sacrifices,

    [[Page 908]]

    like in firm commitments to reduce greenhouse gases or to make
    compromises like in extending NATO and not risking a rift within NATO
    over the question of these two countries who will join in addition to
    the three who are not, America says, this is what our interest is and
    pushes through. Do you feel that there is a little imbalance in the
    transatlantic relationship?
        The President. First of all--let's deal with the two things
    separately. I do not think that's a fair characterization of what
    happened when we had the Summit of the Eight in Denver. Before the other
    leaders arrived, I gave one speech in Colorado in which I said, 7 years
    ago when the other countries met in the United States, Europe criticized
    America, 7 years ago, for dragging down economic growth in the world
    because our budget deficit was so high, for taking money away from
    worthy investments in Europe and in other places in the world by having
    high interest rates in America to finance our deficit. And we have
    changed that. So now we can't be criticized by our friends in the Summit
    of the Eight, because we have changed that and we're better off than we
    were then.
        But I said in the same speech, we still have a lot of problems at
    home and we have no cause for arrogance, and I outlined what those
    problems were. When I met with the other leaders, I said clearly we've
    been fortunate; we've created a lot of new jobs. The British also have
    now created a lot of new jobs. But what happens in this global economy
    is, as you create more new jobs, the more open the economies are, you
    have more difficulty in avoiding greater inequality among your people.
        So the trick is how to preserve the social compact and create jobs.
    This is a problem we share together; that's what I said. And anybody who
    was there in those private meetings will say that. So I simply don't
    think that's fair.
        Now, in NATO, let me say again--I want to say two things. Number
    one, a lot of the members of NATO have told me they do not favor five,
    that they understand that politically it's good to say----
        Q. Though quietly----
        The President. ----that there are five, but quietly they say, ``We
    know that you're right, that this is the right thing to do.'' Not all of
    them--I don't want to be--the Italians and the French and others clearly
    want five. Some would favor four; I think Chancellor Kohl is genuinely
    open to that. But there is more difference of opinion within Europe than
    you might think.
        But the most important thing is not that. The most important thing
    is, if we were for five and France was for three, if that were the case,
    then the French position would prevail because three is a smaller number
    than five, and we have to do that. This is not an American win; this has
    nothing to do with me. I am trying to keep NATO's integrity intact from
    the military point of view, and that's what I want to do.
        Do I believe that we should consider expanding to the south when
    next we meet in '99? I certainly do. I certainly do. Do I think that
    Romania and Slovenia could be strong candidates? Yes. Do I think that we
    should exclude the Baltics? No. Would it be a good thing if Austria were
    interested in coming in? Might Bulgaria be ready in the future? Yes.
        So I think that--this is not--this doesn't have to be done in a day.
    Keep in mind, 3\1/2\ years ago when I proposed this, it was a
    revolutionary idea. Now we're talking about how many and when. So I'm
    not trying to impose this. I'm just trying to do what I think is best
    for the military alliance, and it just happened that we strongly believe
    that if you look at the conditions of membership, that these three
    clearly meet those conditions, and no one else does now.
        But I am for--I am very sympathetic with the French and the Italian
    position that we have to consider moving to the south, and I'm
    sympathetic and interested in the new interest in Bulgaria and in
    Austria, and the Baltics are moving very--forward. We shouldn't tell
    anyone they can't be part of it. But if you look at it, everyone agrees
    that at least three should be in, and that's what we ought to do. We
    always go to what everybody agrees on.

    Baltic States

        Q. May I ask about the Baltic States because you mentioned them
    three times? Nobody is as desperate to get in psychologically as the
    Baltics, and nowhere are the Russians as adamant as in the Baltics not
    to let them in. Will they come away from Madrid with something more than
    a vague promise, ``We will consider you in the future''?
        The President. Well, that's not just a vague promise. Keep in mind,
    the Baltics are in the Partnership For Peace. Let's not overlook that.
    That has been--I think one reason we have

    [[Page 909]]

    so many people wanting to be in NATO now is that the Partnership For
    Peace has been so successful. It is not an insignificant thing. The
    Euro-Atlantic alliance that we have with these Partnership For Peace
    countries will continue to be strengthened.
        And I think what we plan to do is to offer to work with the other
    European countries to try to--to set the stage for what we will do 2
    years from now, and also to keep going into the future, to keep
    integrating these Partnership For Peace countries more and more and more
    into the military and other operations of NATO. So I think the Baltics
    should feel reassured by that.
        I worked very hard, you know, to work with President Yeltsin to get
    the Russian troops out of the Baltics, to keep them on the path of
    reform and democracy, and they've done very well. So I think they should
    be considered in the future like everyone else, and we should make that
    clear.

    Slovenia and Romania

        Q. Mr. President, you said that the Italians definitely want five.
    Don't you think----
        The President. Well, they certainly want Slovenia. I think they
    would favor five; they would take four.
        Q. Romania--isn't the reason of this, isn't that the real threats
    are there coming from the south, no more from the east?
        The President. Absolutely. Well, we certainly hope that, yes.
        Q. And, sir, don't you think that Romania and Slovenia will
    guarantee more stability in the crucial area of the Balkans?
        The President. Yes, I do think that. My problem with Romania and
    Slovenia is I believe, compared to the other three countries, we can't
    say that they are clearly ready now to assume NATO membership. Let's
    take Romania. There's a terrific case you can make for Romania--it's the
    second biggest country in Central Europe. I mean it has--it's very
    large, and it has a lot of people, strategically located, and the people
    want to be in NATO. But they've been on this path now for a little less
    than a year. The countries that are getting in have already been through
    ups and downs in their economy, in their political systems. They've had
    elections. They've really been through all the tensions that happen when
    you move from communism to freedom.
        The Romanians have done an amazing job in a few months. They have
    resolved their differences with Hungary on the border. They've got two
    Hungarians in the Cabinet. It is an amazing thing. But it has still been
    less than a year. So my position is, give them a couple of years to
    stabilize their democracy, to develop their economy, and then let's take
    a look at it.
        Would it be better if, going into the 21st century, we had a NATO
    that had more membership in the southern flank to deal with those
    problem areas that are just beyond our borders? Of course, it would. Do
    we have a good chance to get there? Yes, we do. That doesn't mean that
    we should do it now because people might feel bad if they don't get in,
    because I think what we have to do is have a mature relationship with
    all these countries and keep working with them to get them ready--to get
    them ready.
        I hope that eventually we will have many more countries in NATO and
    a much closer relationship with the countries beyond our borders that
    choose not to seek membership, like Russia.

    President's Visit to Spain

        Q. Mr. President, you will have a brief stay in Palma de Mallorca,
    together with----
        The President. Yes. I'm very excited.
        Q. ----the royal family of Spain. What do you expect to discover in
    the Mediterranean Sea?
        The President. Beauty, mystery. [Laughter] Rest. [Laughter] I'm very
    much looking forward to it. The King and the Queen have been very kind
    and gracious to Hillary and to me and to Chelsea for as long as we've
    been here, and they were kind enough to come down and be there when
    we're there. And we're looking forward to it. I've never been there, and
    I'm very excited.
        Q. Mr. President, thank you very much. Enjoy Spain.
        The President. Thank you.

    Note: The interview began at 11:23 a.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the
    White House. In his remarks, the President referred to Chancellor Helmut
    Kohl of Germany; President of the Government Jose Maria Aznar of Spain;
    Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom; Prime Minister Lionel
    Jospin of France; Prime Minister

    [[Page 910]]

    Bertie Ahern of Ireland; and King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia of
    Spain. A portion of this interview could not be verified because the
    tape was incomplete.