[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.