    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [November 23, 1997]
    [Pages 1646-1651]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Jean Chretien of
    Canada in Vancouver, British Columbia
    November 23, 1997

        President Clinton. I want to thank the Prime Minister for hosting
    this and for giving us the chance to come back to Vancouver. My family
    and I had a wonderful vacation here back in 1990, before I was
    President--back when I had

    [[Page 1647]]

    a family life that was normal--and we loved it. This is a great place
    for the APEC summit.
        I also want to thank Canada again for what I think is very probably
    the most cooperative relationship in the world in trade and investment
    and in the work we do in the environment and law enforcement. And I hope
    that as we look ahead to the new century, that the partnership that
    we've had, the cooperation we've had will be a genuine model that other
    countries will try to follow.
        I think it's worth mentioning, Mr. Prime Minister, that we committed
    ourselves again to work to find a meaningful solution to the problem of
    climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We talked
    about our continuing commitment to secure democracy--democracy's roots
    and sustainability in Haiti. We discussed a number of other issues, and
    I wanted to say to you that I very much welcome these initiatives that
    were launched last April in Washington on how we can meet the
    environmental challenges of the future and how we can work to fight
    criminals who use cross-border telemarketing schemes to prey upon both
    Canadians and Americans.
        And I wanted to reiterate also here in Canada that we discussed this
    issue of Pacific salmon, and our special representatives have been
    working hard to get these stakeholders talks restarted. I am committed
    to them. I think this issue has gone on too long; it's caused too much
    friction between our people. And I want to reaffirm to you publicly that
    I believe this process can produce an agreement in good faith and that I
    will do my part to implement it in good faith.
        And finally, let me just thank you for your leadership in APEC. I am
    very, very pleased with the agreement which has been reached by our
    ministers to try to tear down tariffs and open trade in nine different
    areas that covers $1.5 trillion worth of trade. This is a very important
    achievement for this, and I think it will go quite nicely with our
    efforts to discuss what we can do about the current financial issues in
    Asia.
        Our ministers in Manila have offered a proposal for the IMF to take
    a lead, for us to back them up, and for the countries themselves to take
    appropriate steps. I think that's the right approach.
        But I would say to all of you, I think this is a time for confidence
    in the future of Asia and confidence in the future of our relationship
    with them. We have a few little glitches in the road here; we're working
    through them. And I think in no small measure because of your
    leadership, Mr. Prime Minister, and the position Canada has enjoyed of
    trust and respect among all nations, this is likely to be one of the
    best meetings that we've ever had, and it's coming at exactly the right
    time because of all the developments in Asia. And I thank you for that.
        Prime Minister Chretien. Thank you very much.

    Situation in Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, do you see anything confrontational or ominous in
    the latest statements by Iraq's Ambassador to the United Nations
    suggesting that this crisis may not be over, and Iraq is standing firm,
    et cetera, et cetera?
        President Clinton. I can't blame him for saying that because I've
    said that. I've also told you that the crisis may not be over. All I can
    tell you is that the international community, through the United
    Nations, has resolutions that relate to Iraq's weapons of mass
    destruction program. We have an inspection team that I think has done a
    very good job, often under very trying circumstances. The leader of that
    team, Mr. Butler, made a very forthright and clear report yesterday to
    the Security Council, and they have taken what I believe so far is
    appropriate action.
        It is clear that there is a massive amount of work that has to be
    done there, especially in the chemical and biological inspection areas,
    in order for UNSCOM to fulfill the mandate it has been given by the
    United Nations. And I am determined that it should do so, and I believe
    all of us are.

    Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum

        Q. Prime Minister, your Foreign Minister this morning seemed to
    suggest that people, in his words, will question the value of APEC if it
    doesn't help some of these countries move toward democratic rights. I
    didn't think that's what APEC was all about. Do you agree with what Mr.
    Axworthy said? And I wonder if Mr. Clinton sees that also as one of the
    aims that APEC should have.
        Prime Minister Chretien. The aim of APEC is an economic discussion
    for liberalization of trade among the countries. Of course, when--but
    the reality is this: APEC is a good meeting

    [[Page 1648]]

    to discuss these things, but we have a lot of bilateral meetings at the
    same time. So we promote the changes that we believe should happen in
    some of the countries on a bilateral basis. These subjects are not
    discussed officially at APEC because APEC has not been structured for
    that.
        But it's great for us that it gave us the occasion to have bilateral
    meetings with these leaders. And for example, I would have bilateral
    meetings with all of them, and in fact, the President of China is coming
    to Ottawa--the occasion of APEC--for meetings in Ottawa and Toronto. So
    APEC is the cause of a dialog of that nature that is very useful for all
    of us. But APEC is not a meeting that is organized for that type of
    discussion.

    Fast-Track Trade Authority

        Q. Prime Minister, did you discuss fast track, especially in
    relationship to liberalization of trade in the Americas? And also,
    President Clinton, on this, too?
        Prime Minister Chretien. Well, there was not a direct discussion on
    that. We will have a meeting in Chile later on. And I understand that
    the vote was not taken in the United States, but it was a postponement.
    But it's up to the President to assess what is happening there.
        We are very much interested that we carry on on the goal that we
    have set to us, to all of the countries of the Americas, when the
    President, at his meeting in December '94, I guess--where we decided
    that by year 2010 we should have an agreement with all the Central and
    Latin American and Caribbean countries to be part of a kind of an
    expanded NAFTA.
        President Clinton. Let me say, if I were you, I would not read too
    much significance into the fact that the vote was not held at the end of
    the last session of Congress. I think Congress will act on fast-track
    legislation early next year. And we're going to do our best to prevail.
        I think it's important to note that in the difficulties in the House
    of Representatives there were a number of issues not directly related to
    trade, which played a role in our inability to take the vote at that
    time.
        I also would say, though, specifically that a lot of the legitimate
    concerns over the nature of our trading relations with the rest of the
    world were brought to bear in the debate on the procedural vote, and
    they reflected the dilemma that is going on in every advanced society in
    the world, in Canada, in all of Europe, everywhere, which is, how do you
    achieve the benefits of the global economy--let me finish--how do you
    achieve the benefits of the global economy and still preserve the social
    contract? How do you make sure that when you expand trade--you mentioned
    human rights--how do you make sure, when you expand trade, you're
    actually elevating the human condition of your trading partners? How do
    you make sure that we have a strategy for expanding trade and growing
    economies which allow--not only allow but encourage all of us to be more
    environmentally responsible?
        So a lot of these things just need to be worked through in governing
    bodies throughout the world. And I think that in that sense it's a
    healthy thing. But I expect we'll take some positive action on fast
    track early in the next year, and I would urge that all kind of wait and
    see what we do, but I'm hopeful.

    Landmines

        Q. Mr. President, did the Prime Minister convince you to sign on to
    the landmine treaty?
        President Clinton. No, we haven't discussed that. But let me just
    tell you we haven't discussed that yet here; we had a conversation about
    it on the telephone the other day. The Prime Minister has worked very
    hard to create the biggest possible tent for everyone to be in to this
    treaty. I want to first say that I think Canada has done a remarkable
    and an important thing in trying to get the countries of the world to
    agree not to produce, deploy, or sell landmines. And I applaud that.
        The United States, I believe, has destroyed more landmines since
    I've been President than any other country in the world, 1.5 million in
    our own stocks; we're about to destroy another 1.5 million. We also have
    spent about half the money spent in the world on demining activities. We
    lost a plane off the coast of Africa just a few weeks ago, and all of
    its crew, having deposited a demining team in Africa. And we're
    increasing by 25 percent our demining budget.
        Now, because of the unique circumstances of our program, we may not
    be able to sign on. We don't think we can sign on to the agreement as
    it's presently written because of our responsibilities in Korea and
    because our antitank defenses are not covered by the words--the plain
    words of the treaty as other countries' antitank

    [[Page 1649]]

    defenses are. Everybody recognizes they're legitimate. And I hope we can
    work that out, but if we can't, it should not diminish the fact that
    Canada has done an enormously important thing.
        Simultaneously with that, what I am trying to do is to encourage all
    the major producers and sellers of landmines in the world who are not
    yet part of--out of the Ottawa regime or any other commitment, to make
    appropriate commitments not to produce, deploy, or sell these mines. And
    I will continue to do that.
        So I'm going to work together with the Prime Minister on this as
    best I can. And if we are not able to sign it because of those two
    issues, that should not diminish the achievement that Canada has made to
    get other countries in this. And meanwhile, we will continue to be the
    world's number one destroyer of landmines, and we will continue to spend
    more money and exert more efforts to bring these mines out of the ground
    that are killing people around the world.
        Prime Minister Chretien. And yesterday we add Thailand to agree to
    sign the treaty, and we had a discussion with the Prime Minister of
    Singapore this morning--was looking at that. We are frustrated--some of
    the countries who are not signing the treaty we are frustrated to make a
    statement that they will not engage into selling landmines and so on.
        So we made a lot of progress, and we'll keep the pressure, gentle
    pressure, on the President--[laughter]--every time that we have an
    occasion to get them to move. I do think that there is a way to take
    care of the problem of Korea and so on, but it's complicated--I
    understand that--for the President of the United States, more than for
    me.
        President Clinton. Let me just say, though, there's not that much
    difference in our position. This is a question of how that treaty was
    worded and the unwillingness of some people to entertain any change in
    the wording of it.
        I believe I was the first world leader at the United Nations to call
    for a total ban on landmine production and deployment. And I strongly
    support what the Prime Minister is doing. And when they were meeting in
    Oslo, we implored the people there to give us the exceptions we needed,
    recognizing that in the Korean Peninsula we've never had indiscriminate
    use of landmines that have had--put civilians, children at risk, and
    that we have the unusual situation of having a huge North Korean army
    there just a few miles from Seoul and no way to stop the movement there
    without leaving the minefields there, and that we have a situation with
    our antitank weapons which we have tested over and over again to prove
    that they don't amount to antipersonnel weapons that can be left in the
    field and cause danger to innocent civilians.
        But the people who were at Oslo decided they would not try to
    accommodate us for whatever reason. That was their legitimate reason. A
    number of world leaders said they thought I was right, but that they
    couldn't get it done. Now, I'm not going to fight over that. I think
    that's silly. We should look at the evidence. What is your record on
    landmines? Which nation has destroyed the most landmines? Which nation
    is doing the most to promoted demining? The answer to that is the United
    States.
        And I support what Canada has done. And I think it is a great
    mistake to make this whole story about whether we will sign on to this
    or not. That was a decision made by people who decided that our antitank
    weapons were not entitled to be protected. My first responsibility,
    since I may have to send our troops into conflict situations on behalf
    of a lot of the nations that have signed on to this treaty, is to make
    sure that if I do that I can protect them. Now, that is my position.
        So I regret the fact that our antitank systems are the only ones in
    the world that weren't covered by this. They have their position on
    that. They have their reasons that because of where they were in the
    Oslo process they couldn't change. That's fine. It's a great mistake to
    make that the story.
        Canada has done a magnificent thing getting all these countries
    involved in this, continuing to raise the issue. We have done a great
    thing by destroying the weapons and by leading the world's demining
    effort. And we should work together as closely as we can and not let the
    differences over the wording of this treaty and whether we sign on the
    bottom line at some time or another obscure the fact that we are moving
    to rid the world of these antipersonnel weapons. It is a big deal, and
    it should be seen as a positive deal that should not be obscured by how
    this whole business about our participation in the treaty developed.

    [[Page 1650]]

    International Agreement on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

        Q. With Kyoto a week away, have you come to any agreement on
    reducing emissions, any target dates? Did you decide anything today?
        Prime Minister Chretien. We have not decided what will be the result
    of Kyoto, but we have agreed that it is very important to have an
    agreement in Kyoto. And there are some discussions at this time between
    the different participants to find a compromise. We have been engaged in
    that. I discussed that with the President this morning. We want to
    involve the developing nations, too, because this is not a problem only
    with the industrialized nations; this is a global issue. And even if we
    do what is right among the industrialized nations, the problem can be
    increasing over years because of the developing nations. It's not
    affecting only the countries where the pollution is caused; it's going
    into the atmosphere; it's moving around.
        So we want to have some statement made by the developing nations,
    and we will use this meeting at APEC to talk to some of the big
    countries, like China, to engage them. I talked yesterday with Mexico,
    who are part of what we call the B categories, to get engaged and to
    make some commitments that will be useful to solve the problems in the
    long run.
        It's not only a problem of industrialized nations, it's a global
    problem. And the President and I, I guess, would agree on that, that it
    has to be done in a global fashion. So we will be negotiating in Kyoto
    to involve them and try to get some credit for when we're helping them
    to develop their economy in such a way that they will pollute less. And
    it is a great occasion for these countries to do the development of
    their energy production and to do it the right way because they're
    starting, and it's better to do it right at the beginning than to wait
    for 10 or 15 years and have to start again.
        So these are the types of discussions that I had with the President
    this morning, where we want to work together with both the
    industrialized nations and the developing nations, too.

    Asian Economies

        Q. Mr. President, you said the U.S. should back up the IMF in its
    efforts to find some sort of stability in Asian economies. What is the
    U.S. prepared to do by way of backing up the IMF? How would you explain
    to the American public what their stake is in this issue?
        President Clinton. First of all, let me describe what we agreed to
    do in Manila, our ministers, and what Secretary Rubin and Deputy
    Secretary Summers have worked very hard to develop.
        We basically, in response to the Asian financial markets crisis,
    said there ought to be a three-step plan here. Number one, the
    International Monetary Fund ought to take the lead. Number two, they
    can't take the lead unless countries themselves have responsible
    policies that inspire investor confidence, and we listed those. Number
    three, the other developed countries ought to be in a position to
    together have a sort of a backup stabilizing reassurance support. And it
    doesn't involve an enormous amount of money on the part of any country--
    nowhere near, for example, the commitment we made in Mexico.
        And we had a bill in the last session of the Congress that was in
    with our U.N. arrears that, as you will remember, was held up because of
    another domestic political dispute, but again, I expect that will be
    worked out early in the next year. So that's kind of where we are.
        We're just banding together with the other countries to give a
    little backup to the IMF because we know how much these huge flows of
    capital--they're very massive around the world, and they move based on a
    perception of what is going to happen in the future, where confidence is
    of the essence. So confidence requires good practices within the
    countries, a strong IMF, and the backup for the other countries. Our
    commitment is limited but significant enough to send that signal when in
    tandem with all of our other allies.
        Prime Minister Chretien. And we're working on this problem since a
    long time. You will remember the summit in Halifax----
        President Clinton. Yes, Halifax.
        Prime Minister Chretien. ----where that was the theme of the summit
    because we had a feeling that it was to be a problem. So we have
    strengthened the mechanism used by IMF and trying to prevent the crisis
    and so on. But as the President said, there is a lot of speculative
    interpretation of what is going on--that we have to say. And we believe
    that in the Asia-Pacific, the countries are not facing a massive
    recession; it's not true at all. These countries will still be growing.
    And a lot of the mistakes that were made were not necessarily made by
    action of

    [[Page 1651]]

    government. It was a lot of people borrowing short-term money to build
    hotels and office buildings and so on. And suddenly, with the
    speculation, they're trapped. And the government has come to the rescue
    of who?--of the private sector. And we have to keep that in mind.
        So we need to try to--and I guess there is a lot of consensus here
    that we have to back up the IMF, ask the countries to have the proper
    programs to meet the requirements of IMF. And what is important--in the
    communique it looks like we have made more agreements than predicted
    because we believe that we have to carry on on the course of freer trade
    and more movement of capital around the world. That's the way that
    growth will come, and it is through growth that you can attend to the
    social problems that exist in all these countries.
        President Clinton. I'd like to say one other thing. Just a minute.
    If you look at--I just want to hammer home this--maybe the best thing
    we're doing to help the situation is the agreement we've made to push
    for lower tariffs and open trade in nine new areas, including
    environmental technology, which will help what we're trying to do on
    climate change, because that will show that we understand that we're
    leading the way to growth through increasing trade and investment in the
    areas that are critical to the 21st century economy.
        The Prime Minister has made this point over and over again, but I
    predict to you that our making that common commitment and going forward
    and building on what we've done with the information technology
    agreement will have a significant positive impact in the confidence
    people have about whether they should be investing in all the countries
    participating here, including our two.

    [The following question was asked in French. Prime Minister Chretien
    answered in French, and his remarks were translated by an interpreter.]

        Q. Mr. Prime Minister, concerning the IMF, given the fact that Korea
    and Thailand are already involved, do you think the agreement is
    sufficiently solid?
        Prime Minister Chretien. I think the answer is positive, and we will
    be helping, if necessary. The IMF is a first line of defense; then
    perhaps we might need a second line of defense. And I think that the IMF
    has managed very well the Mexican crisis 3 years ago. This is a very
    important example. And it will also be able to manage the Pacific
    crisis. And if there are additional resources that are needed, we will
    be communicating with members of the IMF, if necessary. And I trust that
    it will work.
        Thank you very much.
        Q. Are you prepared for the United States to participate in a backup
    to any IMF package to aid South Korea?
        President Clinton. First of all, I think that the South Korean
    situation is covered by the statement we put out in Manila. And I think
    the important thing that we should do now is to focus on how South Korea
    fits within that framework. South Korea--we should look at that, we
    should--the IMF is going to look at it; the IMF is going to make a
    judgment. There are certain things the South Koreans may have to do. And
    then, under certain circumstances, any country involved--if you look at
    what we agreed to do in Manila, whether the backup comes into play or
    not depends on what happens in the first two instances--what the country
    does, what the IMF does, what the judgment is now.
        So it's completely premature to make a decision about that. The
    South Koreans have a very powerful economy with a great amount of
    potential. And a lot of this is going to be--involves making adjustments
    now in it and then restoring the natural productive capacity and growth
    to the economy. I'm--certainly I don't see how anyone could be less than
    hopeful about the long-term prospects for the South Korean economy given
    their remarkable achievements over the last few decades.
        Prime Minister Chretien. Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 153d news conference began at 10 a.m. in the East
    Room at the Pan Pacific Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Nizar
    Hamdun, Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations; and Richard Butler,
    Executive Chairman, United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).