    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1998, Book I)]
    [May 18, 1998]
    [Pages 791-800]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With European Union Leaders in London,
    United Kingdom
    May 18, 1998

        Prime Minister Tony Blair. Thanks very much,
    ladies and gentlemen. Do sit down. I'm sorry there isn't a text yet, but
    you'll be provided with one shortly.
        Can I, first of all, set out what I believe that we have achieved at
    this summit, and then ask the President of the European Commission and,
    finally, the President of the United States to speak to you?
        As you know, there have been, for some years, serious differences
    over the U.S.'s sanctions policy and the EU's extraterritoriality. And
    what we established today is at least a basis for a lasting solution to
    these problems. We've avoided a showdown over sanctions with which we
    don't agree, and we've done it in a way that at least provides the
    chance of a solution to the problem in the future. And the President of
    the United States will set out the U.S. position in a moment. So there's
    still more work to do, but it is a real step forward.
        In addition, today we have launched a major new transatlantic trade
    initiative, the Transatlantic Economic Partnership, which will further
    add momentum to the process of developing what is already the most
    important bilateral trade relationship in the world. We've also agreed
    to work ever more closely together to promote multilateral trade
    liberalization.
        Finally, we have welcomed the very substantial report presented to
    us by our senior officials on the progress achieved since our last
    summit towards further implementation of the 1995 new transatlantic
    trade agreement. Some examples of this are: cooperation to prevent drug
    smuggling through the Caribbean; a joint decision to give awards to
    those in Central and Eastern Europe who have helped in recent years to
    entrench democracy and civil rights in those countries; and a joint EU-
    U.S. program in the Ukraine and Poland to warn women of the dangers of
    being lured into the sex trade in Western Europe.
        So there are a series of measures that we have put together and
    agreed, and we have made very substantial progress on both the issues of
    sanctions and extraterritoriality, and of course, in taking forward our
    trade partnership through a major new trade initiative. And I'm
    delighted to be able to make those announcements to you today.
        Jacques, do you want to add some words?
        President Jacques Santer. Ladies and
    gentlemen, our summit today is the sixth between the European Union and
    the United States since the adoption of the new transatlantic agenda.
    These summits are becoming more and more important to the development of
    the transatlantic relationship. The breadth of issues we covered today
    and the substantial agreements we came to prove how worthwhile these
    meetings now are.
        The 1995 new transatlantic agenda has led to much more intense
    cooperation across the Atlantic. It is not just a question of warm words
    but complete agreements. For example, today's signature of the mutual
    recognition agreement offers real benefits to business and consumers on
    both sides of the Atlantic.
        Today's summit is particularly important because we and the United
    States have struck a deal on the U.S. sanctions laws. This agreement,
    after weeks of intense negotiations with the U.S. administration,
    finally brings peace in this longstanding dispute.
        The European Union has opposed the United States sanctions laws on
    investments in Iran, Libya, and Cuba not only because we believe they
    are illegal but also because they are counterproductive. We in Europe
    have always taken very seriously the fight to curb terrorism and the
    spread of weapons of mass destruction. But the U.S. sanctions laws make
    our cooperation on these issues more, rather than less difficult.
        The deal today means that European companies and businessmen can
    conduct their business

    [[Page 792]]

    without the threat of U.S. sanctions hanging over their heads. It's a
    deal that is good for European companies who now have protection from
    the sanctions. It's a deal that is good for the European Union which has
    shown that it can act together, united in important foreign policy
    issues. And it is good for the transatlantic relationship which can now
    develop further, free of this longstanding dispute.
        There are obviously still some further steps that need to be taken
    before the deal can be completely implemented, but I am hopeful that
    these will be concluded as soon as possible. By getting rid of the
    biggest problem in our relationship with the United States, the door is
    now open to further deepen and enhance our cooperation across the
    Atlantic.
        Today at the summit we agreed to a substantial new initiative to
    deepen the trade relationship called the Transatlantic Economic
    Partnership. In this initiative, first we address the further removal of
    barriers in our bilateral trade. It also says that the United States and
    the European Union will work together to achieve a substantial, further
    trade liberalization on a multilateral basis.
        Today's agreement will add to the prosperity of both the United
    States and the European Union and, more generally, in the world. It
    will, thus, create better prospects for future jobs.
        President Clinton, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and I will be in
    Geneva to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the GATT, an organization
    which has contributed so much to the stability and prosperity of the
    postwar world. Our agreements this morning sends a powerful message of
    transatlantic support to that meeting and to the further development of
    multilateral liberalization.
        But of course, today's summit, as is usual on these occasions, was
    also an opportunity to discuss many key foreign policy issues including
    Turkey, Cyprus, Kosovo, and Ukraine. On Ukraine, we agreed to call on
    the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to play its part in
    the implementation of the memorandum of understanding on nuclear safety
    concluded between the G-7 and the Ukraine.
        In conclusion, this summit has placed the transatlantic relationship
    on an even stronger footing. We can now look forward to an even deeper
    partnership in the future.
        Thank you.
        President Clinton. Thank you very much. I'd like to begin by
    thanking Prime Minister Blair for the creative
    and strong leadership that he has provided to the European Union and to
    the U.S.-EU partnership. And I thank President Santer for his years of work for European unity.
        America welcomes a strong partnership with a strong and united
    Europe to improve the lives, the security, the well-being of our own
    people and others around the world. The EU, as I'm sure all of you know,
    is America's largest trade and investment partner. Two-way trade
    supports more than 6 million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.
        Today I am very pleased that we have agreed to new steps to
    strengthen that economic partnership. First, we will work to dismantle
    trade barriers, both bilateral and multilateral trade barriers, in areas
    such as manufacturing, services, and agriculture, about a dozen in all,
    while maintaining the highest standards of labor and environment.
        Now, let me also say that we have agreed in this effort that we will
    make an effort to give all the stakeholders in our economic lives--
    environmental stakeholders, labor stakeholders, other elements of civil
    society--a chance to be heard in these negotiations, in these
    discussions. And I believe that is a new paradigm which ought to be
    mirrored in trade negotiations throughout the world.
        Indeed, as President Santer said, when we conclude here, I am going
    to Geneva, where I will speak about how we can work together to
    strengthen the world trading system on the occasion of its 50th
    anniversary. And I will argue that the WTO ought to embrace the kinds of
    things that we and the EU have agreed to do here, to give all the
    stakeholders a role and to do a better job of respecting the importance
    of preserving the environment and of making sure trade works for the
    benefit of all the people in all the countries involved.
        I am also pleased that we have reached agreement today, as the Prime
    Minister and President Santer said, on an issue of vital importance to
    our own security and well-being. We share an interest in combating
    terrorism and limiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We
    understand, always, the problems with weapons of mass destruction, but
    we are, I hope, all more sensitive to them in light of the recent events
    in South Asia.
        Here in London, the EU countries have committed to enhance their
    cooperation with us with

    [[Page 793]]

    regard to Iran. They will step up efforts to prevent the transfer of
    technology that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction.
    They have agreed to work toward the ratification of all 11
    counterterrorism conventions. We've agreed to cooperate in the
    development of Caspian energy resources.
        I'd also like to emphasize that Russia, too, has taken important
    steps to strengthen controls over the export of sensitive technology,
    notably but not exclusively to Iran, in effect establishing Russia's
    first comprehensive catchall export control system. We'll be watching
    and working closely with the Russians to help make sure this system
    works.
        The actions taken by the EU and Russia advance Congress' objective
    in enacting the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. It is not primarily a
    sanctions act. It is an act that is designed to give the incentives for
    all of us to work together to retard the spread of weapons of mass
    destruction and to support more aggressive efforts to fight terrorism.
    Therefore, the waivers we have granted today are part of our overall
    strategy to deter Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and
    promoting terrorism. And it is an important new stage in our
    partnership.
        We have also forged a pathbreaking common approach to deter
    investment in illegally expropriated property around the world,
    including but not limited to Cuba. Our governments will deny all forms
    of commercial assistance for these transactions, including loans,
    grants, subsidies, fiscal advantages, guarantees, political risk
    insurance. This understanding furthers the goals of protecting property
    rights in Cuba and worldwide, advances the interests of U.S. claimants,
    and protects U.S. investors, and does so far more effectively than the
    United States could have done alone.
        It also furthers, as the Prime Minister said and as President Santer
    did, the objectives of the European Union in getting away from the
    unilateral sanctions regime.
        We have finally agreed to work together with Russia to strengthen
    nuclear safety. This is also very important, especially with regard to
    nuclear waste removal and storage in northwest Russia. We will act
    together to encourage Ukraine to embark on bold economic reform and to
    speed the closure of the Chernobyl reactors that threaten safety and
    health.
        Let me finally add that today we will honor 50 exceptional
    individuals from Europe's new democracies for their work in helping
    freedom take strong root across the continent. I believe about half a
    dozen of them are here today. From protecting human rights in Belarus to
    preserving the environment in Slovakia, these dedicated men and women,
    like so many others, are helping to make Europe free, peaceful,
    prosperous, and united. I thank them, and again, I thank the Prime
    Minister for his truly outstanding leadership.
        Thank you very much.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. All three of you have spoken of the economic benefits which could
    flow to Northern Ireland, and in some cases, you've announced specific
    packages; in view of the polls which clearly show that the majority of
    the Unionist community has yet to be convinced. How conditional are
    those benefits on convincing the ``yes'' vote in the referendum on
    Friday?
        Prime Minister Blair. Well, I don't think
    anyone is trying to say that investment is conditional on how people
    vote. But what people are saying is: It's a matter of common sense; if
    there's peace and stability in Northern Ireland, there is a far greater
    chance of attracting investment; that people from Europe, from the
    United States, from right around the world see Northern Ireland as an
    immensely exciting investment opportunity. But obviously, it's far
    easier from them to come and invest if they're investing in the context
    of peace and stability.
        And I know that there are still people in Northern Ireland yet to
    make up their minds. And in the end the decision has got to be for
    people in Northern Ireland. But I have answered very clearly and
    specifically some of the questions that people have put to me. I have
    tried to tell people why it is so important that they recognize that the
    choice is not between the future that we've outlined in this agreement,
    which is the only chance I've seen of a peaceful, successful future for
    Northern Ireland, and the status quos that exist now. The danger that we
    foresee is that the real choice is between the agreement and everything
    slipping back. And we want to do as much as we possibly can to avoid
    that, because we recognize, as your question implies, that if we can get
    real peace and stability there, well, the chances for people in Northern
    Ireland are just amazing. And we would like them to take advantage of
    that.
        Mr. President.

    [[Page 794]]

        President Clinton. Well, I agree with that. There's no sort of quid
    pro quo here. It's just a fact that, for example, the Irish community in
    America, both Protestant and Catholic, which desperately wants to see an
    end to the Troubles, will be more interested in trying to make sure that
    a courageous effort on behalf of peace by the people of Northern Ireland
    has a better chance to succeed by greater investment. I don't think
    there's any question about that.
        I also would just say that I think that if the majority community--
    in any vote to change, you might argue that the majority will always be
    willing to change because they're in the majority; they say, ``Well, we
    have what we like now.'' But they don't have peace now. They don't have
    maximum prosperity now. And if you think about the next 10 to 20 years,
    if I were an Irish Protestant, which I am, living in Northern Ireland
    instead of the United States, I would be thinking about my daughter's
    future and her children's future. And I'd say, ``If you look at the
    framework, this protects us, no matter what happens to population
    patterns, no matter what happens to immigration patterns, no matter what
    happens. We're all going to be able to be protected and have a role in
    the democracy of our country, and I like that.''
        So I'm hoping that everyone will be thinking that way, thinking
    about the future, thinking about their children. And I think the risk of
    doing this is so much smaller than the risk of letting it blow apart,
    that I believe in the end a lot of the undecided voters will go in and
    vote their hopes instead of their fears.
        President Santer. I only would add that
    the European Commission launched several years ago, as you remember, the
    peace program and also for the reconciliation for Northern Ireland and
    the surrounding counties. And I was very impressed, on my last trip in
    Northern Ireland several weeks ago, how many people are working across
    community levels in these schools, these programs. There are more, at
    this moment, more than 11,000 applications of this program, more than
    200,000 people across the community working in these programs, and they
    are supporting, from grassroot levels, these peace and reconciliation
    programs.
        Therefore, I think we have to support, also from an economic side,
    this peace process. It is a longstanding process, but nevertheless, I
    think that through our structures and programs that people are coming
    closer together and the cross-border community complying also to a
    lasting peace. And I wanted also that it would happen on Friday, and we
    ask that you would also have the possibility to support it for the next
    time.

    Middle East Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, Secretary Albright and Dennis Ross are here in
    London after the talks in Washington with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Has
    the Prime Minister softened his resistance to the American proposal for
    Israeli troop withdrawals, pull-backs from the West Bank? What will
    Secretary Albright take to the meeting today when she sees Yasser
    Arafat? Could you give us some kind of update on these talks?
        President Clinton. On a few occasions in the past I have given you
    an answer like this, and I hope you will abide my having to do so again.
        The posture of the talks now is such that anything I say publicly to
    characterize the position taken by Mr. Netanyahu or anybody else in the back-and-forth would almost
    certainly reduce the chances of our being able to get an agreement which
    would move the parties to final status and reduce dramatically tensions
    in the region.
        So I think I should reaffirm what I said earlier today. The parties
    are working. They have been working hard. In my judgment, they have been
    working in honest, earnest good faith. And we have our hopes, but I
    think it is important not to raise false hopes or to characterize the
    talks at this time. They are just in a period when anything we say
    publicly will increase the chances that we will fail. And if we get
    something we can say, believe me, I'd be the first one to the
    microphone. I'd be very happy. But I think it's important not to do more
    than that now.

    Chequers Golf Outing

        Q. Mr. President, we gather it's not been all work today and that
    you are reported to have introduced our Prime Minister to the mysteries
    of golf. How did he do?
        President Clinton. You know, there's a golf course across the street
    from Chequers, and the first nine holes were a part of the Chequers
    estate until 1906. So it's at least 100 years old, the first nine holes.
    So this morning I got up early, and the Prime Minister went with me, and we walked about four and a half holes
    of the golf course. And he says, mind you, that

    [[Page 795]]

    he has never hit a golf ball before in his life. And he asked me to
    drive two balls off of every tee of these four holes we played, and that
    he would play the rest of the way in.
        So I told him how to hold the club, how to stand, how to swing. And
    it was embarrassing how good he was. And the guy that was going around
    with us was a four handicap. For those of you who play, that's nearly
    scratch; it's very good. And he thought, he just couldn't believe the
    Prime Minister was telling the truth, that he never hit the ball before.
    It was amazing.
        All I had to do was get him off the tee, and he did very well. He
    three-putted no greens; he two-putted every green, all four greens. And
    he only just missed two shots. The rest of it, it was unbelievable.
    Either he is an unbelievable athlete, or I have a career as a golf
    instructor after I leave the White House. [Laughter] One of the two
    things must be true.
        Prime Minister Blair. It's true. I'm ashamed
    to say I haven't played golf. But I had the best teacher I could
    possibly have. It's not everyone who says he's been given golfing
    lessons by the President of the United States of America. But we will
    put it down to beginner's luck, a bit like politics. [Laughter]

    Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia

        Q. Mr. President, have you or will you contact the Indian or
    Pakistani Prime Ministers concerning the nuclear programs they're
    developing? What factors are you weighing in deciding whether to go
    ahead with your trip planned for later this year to those two countries?
    And did the agreement that you announced today, or understanding on
    sanctions that you announced today, provide any way through to resolving
    the dispute, that you had up at the G-8, on how to properly respond to
    India and Pakistan's programs?
        President Clinton. The answer to the latter question is, no. The
    answer to the first two questions you asked is, I would like to talk to
    the Pakistani Prime Minister just to reassure
    him of my support for a decision not to test and my understanding of the
    difficulty of his position and what I think is the way out of this. I
    think Prime Minister Blair feels the same way.
        I have made no decision about my travel plans. But keep in mind,
    what we need here is a way to break out of this box. What we need here
    is a way for both the national aspirations for security and for standing
    on the part of the Indians and the national aspirations for security and
    for standing on the part of the Pakistanis to be resolved in a way that
    is positive.
        I mean, this is, indeed, a very sad thing because it has the
    prospect of spreading not just to Pakistan, but to others in a way that
    could reverse decades of movement away from the nuclear precipice, in
    ways that clearly will not increase the security of countries, no matter
    how many times they say over and over and over again they only want
    these weapons for defensive purposes.
        And so that's what we have to do. And it's too soon for quick, easy
    answers on that. But I can tell you that my view is, we need--instead of
    saying, ``We're not going to talk. We're not going to go here. We're not
    going to go there,'' what we really need to think of is Pakistan has
    been a good ally of ours, India has been, arguably, the most successful
    democracy in history in the last 50 years because they preserved the
    democracy in the face of absolutely overwhelming diversity and
    difficulty, and pressures internal and external, and they can't get
    along over Kashmir, and they have some other tensions. And then their
    neighbors sometimes turn up the tensions a little bit.
        We've got to find a way out of this. We can't have a situation where
    every country in the world that thinks it has a problem, either in terms
    of its standing or its security, believes that the way to resolve that
    is to put a couple of scientists in a laboratory and figure out how to
    conduct a nuclear explosion. We just--that is not the right thing to do.
    But we have to find the right way, offer it, and work it through with
    these folks. And I think maybe we can.
        But the answer to your question is, I'd like to talk to the
    Pakistani Prime Minister, not because I think I
    can pressure him into doing that--I don't think for a moment I can do
    that--but just because I would like to express my personal conviction
    about this in a way that I hope would allow them to think about it.

    Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus

        Q. Mr. President, did you have a chance to talk about Turkey's
    European case and, related with that, the Cyprus question with Mr. Blair
    and other world leaders?

    [[Page 796]]

        President Clinton. Yes, I did. And if I had any sense, I'd just stop
    there. That's the answer to your question.
        You know what I think, what the United States believes. The United
    States believes that there ought to be a path for Turkey to keep moving
    toward closer union with Europe. The United States supports the fact
    that Turkey and Greece are in NATO. The United States believes that
    there should be an honorable settlement to the Cyprus impasse because it
    is keeping Turkey and Greece, and the other Aegean issues--keeping
    Turkey and Greece from being genuine allies and being genuinely
    available to spend their time, their energy, and their resources
    promoting peace and development for their own people, and being
    enormous, stabilizing forces in their respective regions of Europe.
        So, for me, this is a very important thing. To get there, I think
    we'll have to proceed on many fronts at once, and I think both the Turks
    and Greeks will have to make difficult decisions, which I believe the
    European Union and I know the United States will strongly support. But I
    don't think we can solve one problem in isolation from the other. I
    think we have to move forward on all these problems, the Cyprus, the
    Aegean jurisdictional disputes, the role of Turkey in Europe's future;
    all of that we have to move forward on. But I think that both the Greeks
    and the Turks have a bigger interest in a comprehensive resolution of
    that, and I know the rest of us do, than it appears just from following
    daily events. We have got to resolve this.
        Prime Minister Blair. Can I just add to that,
    on behalf of the European Union, that I agree entirely with what the
    President has just said. And I think it's important to emphasize yet
    again that Europe wants a good and close relationship with Turkey. We
    want Turkey to feel included in the family of European nations. We have
    a deep concern over what has happened and is happening in Cyprus. And we
    believe it is essential that we make progress in this area.
        Now, we know the difficulties that Turkey felt that it had following
    the Luxembourg conclusions last year, but I think we should and will
    redouble our efforts to give a very clear signal to Turkey about our
    proper and true intentions and also to do what we can to bring hope in
    the conflict in Cyprus.

    Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia

        Q. Thank you very much, Mr. President. If I could ask the Prime
    Minister and President Santer, Pakistan is complaining about the lack of
    response to India's nuclear explosions. Specifically, at the G-8, there
    was no call for sanctions. Britain and the European Union are not
    following the lead of the United States, Canada, and Japan and calling
    for sanctions. Will Britain and the European Union impose sanctions on
    India for its nuclear explosions?
        And to you, Mr. President, beyond words to Pakistan and beyond the
    possible delivery of those F-16's that Pakistan has already paid for,
    what specific concrete steps will you take to reassure the Pakistanis
    that might convince them not to go ahead with their own nuclear test?
        Prime Minister Blair. Well, in respect to the
    first point, I mean, as the G-8 statement made clear, obviously,
    individual countries have their own individual positions vis-a-vis
    sanctions. But do not underestimate two very clear points of agreement
    that were established in our G-8 discussions. The first is our
    condemnation of the Indian nuclear tests. The second is our desire to
    see India integrate itself unconditionally into the Comprehensive Test
    Ban Treaty process.
        And I believe, if we need to look at the way forward from here, it
    is not merely a question of expressing our dismay and concern, which I
    did personally to the Indian Prime Minister last Friday; it is also
    finding the best way forward from now. And we expressed that very
    clearly at the G-8. I'm sure that is the position of all of the European
    Union countries, as well. And I think the most persuasive argument with
    Pakistan is to say very clearly to them that if India believes that it
    enhances its standing in the world by this action, it does not. And all
    of us are deeply conscious of the threat and danger to the security of
    the world that nuclear testing poses. So that is why I think it is
    important to see where we go from here. And the statement of the G-8
    particularly in relation to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was most
    important and significant.
        President Santer. I only want to add,
    first, that the European Union would, at the next European Ministerial
    Council on the 25th of May--so next Monday--discuss the relations about
    the European Union with India on the basis of the statements we made at
    the G-8 meeting last weekend.

    [[Page 797]]

        Second, speaking from the European Commission, I must say that the
    main program we have--about 80 to 90 percent of our programs are
    humanitarian programs to India. We are focusing to the poorest people of
    this country. So I don't think that sanctions for these programs, the
    humanitarian programs, would not produce any deeper concern. But we have
    to reflect on our attitude and the concerted attitude to India on the
    next occasion--on Monday.
        President Clinton. First of all, let me say, I think that it's
    important to point out that in addition to Japan, Canada, and the United
    States, the Dutch, the Swedes have announced that they intend to have
    economic--take economic actions, and I believe there will be other
    European countries as well.
        And everybody who was at the G-8 said that there would be some
    impact on their relations with India as a result of this. So I thought
    it was quite a strong statement. And given the well-known positions of
    all the countries involved, I thought it was stronger than could have
    been predicted when we went in.
        Now, what I would hope we could work with the Pakistanis on are
    specific things that would allay their security concerns and also make
    it clear that there will be political and economic benefits over the
    long run to showing restraint here. But the Prime Minister mentioned one
    of the things that I think could really help us out of this conundrum,
    which would be if India would say, ``Okay, now we're ready to sign the
    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.'' Pakistan has said in the past that, if
    India signed, they would sign.
        But again, I say somehow we've got to put this back on track.
    Remember, it wasn't very long ago that Argentina and Brazil had nuclear
    programs. And they just said, ``We're not going to do this. We are not
    going to run the slightest risk that some future rift between ourselves
    would lead to some kind of explosion. We're not going to sink vast
    amounts of our national treasury into this when we have so many poor
    people in our country and we need this money freed up to other things.
    We are going to find other ways, number one, to take care of our
    security and, number two, to consider ourselves and have others consider
    us great nations.''
        And I think it would be fair to say that both of them have succeeded
    very well. I think it would be fair to say that at least all of us who
    live in the Americas believe they're enormously important countries and
    think more of them, not less of them, because they gave up their nuclear
    weapons. They have vigorous militaries, and they certainly feel
    themselves secure.
        So we have to try to create that kind of condition under admittedly
    more difficult circumstances on the Indian subcontinent; that is, the
    previous tensions between India and China, the previous tensions between
    India and Pakistan. I understand they're different, but the fundamental
    fact is the same. So that's what I'm going to try to sell, and whatever
    happens, I'm going to work every day I'm President, until I leave office
    in 2001, I'm going to work for this because I do not want to see us slip
    back away. We're on the right track here as a world. We don't want to
    turn back.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, why is it that, if you feel it's so important to
    secure a yes vote in Northern Ireland, you decided it would be
    counterproductive to visit Northern Ireland before the vote?
        And Prime Minister, are you concerned at opinion polls which suggest
    a slippage in the yes vote amongst the Unionist community? There is one
    in two Northern Ireland newspapers today, which you may be aware of,
    which suggests that only 25 percent of young Protestants, who've never
    known anything but violence, are prepared to vote yes.
        President Clinton. Let me answer your question first, because I
    think your question to the Prime Minister is the far more important one.
        I decided that I shouldn't go, first of all, because I felt that I'd
    have just as good a chance to have my message heard if I did something
    like the interview the Prime Minister and I did
    with David Frost, that would be widely heard,
    under circumstances that would not allow me to become the issue in the
    election for those that are opposed to this measure.
        I believe--you have to understand what I believe. I believe that the
    voters who actually weigh the merits and the substance and think
    rationally about what the alternatives are, if this fails and if it
    succeeds, will overwhelmingly vote yes. I believe the voters who will
    vote no will be those who, frankly, don't trust the other side and don't
    feel that they can trust the other side and who, therefore, can get
    distracted. And I do not want to be a distraction.

    [[Page 798]]

        The second reason I didn't want to do it is a lot of the leaders in
    Northern Ireland didn't think it would help. And my own experience is, I
    was the Governor of a State with not many more people than Northern
    Ireland had before I became President. And there were several times when
    the President of another party came into my State. At one time, I
    remember in 1984, President Reagan, who was
    immensely popular in my State, campaigning for my opponent. President
    Reagan got 62 percent of the vote, and I got 63 percent of the vote. So
    it had no impact. I did not want to become the issue. But I did want my
    commitment to the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland in both
    communities to be heard. So I hope I made the right decision, and I hope
    I was heard.
        Prime Minister Blair. To answer your
    question, I think there's obviously still a tremendous amount of debate
    going on. The fear that people have on specific issues--I've addressed
    those fears, each one of them--and those fears really revolve around
    this question: Is it clear that if people want to take their seats in
    the Government of Northern Ireland or to benefits of any of the programs
    or an accelerated prison release or any of the rest of it, is it clear
    that they will have to have given up violence for good? The answer to
    that question is unequivocally yes. It's what the agreement states. And
    I've made it clear, we will clarify that and make it clear in the
    legislation.
        But beyond that, it is a decision that people are going to have to
    weigh in their own minds. And the easiest thing in politics is simply to
    say no. The easiest thing in politics is to sit there and say, ``Change
    is something I'm afraid of, and I'm therefore just going to refuse it.''
    But I ask everyone who takes that attitude to reflect upon what the
    future holds if there is a ``no'' vote for this agreement. And all the
    way through this campaign I've tried to ask people and to say to them,
    in order to understand their fears, say to them, ``Well, what is the
    alternative to this agreement? Because, after all, what unionism has
    fought for for 60, 70 years has been the principle of consent, and that
    principle is enshrined in terms in the agreement; in return, fairness
    and equal treatment for people from whatever side of the community they
    come from.'' Now, those are principles everyone can accept.
        That's the agreement. That's the alternative I take to the table. I
    still don't know what the alternative is on the other side. And I just
    hope people reflect on that and really think about it, because every
    generation gets its chances; this is the chance for this generation in
    Northern Ireland. And we've all done our best to provide it for people,
    but in the end it's their decision. I can't make that decision for
    people. I can only tell them honestly what I believe and feel.

    Microsoft Antitrust Case

        Q. Mr. President, Microsoft has said that preventing it from
    distributing its Windows '98 software would cripple the computer
    industry and slow U.S. growth. Given the breakdown of talks over the
    weekend, do you now see a collision between Microsoft and the Justice
    Department as inevitable, and do you concur with their assessment of the
    economic consequences?
        President Clinton. Well, let me say, as you know, as a general
    principle, I have taken the view that I should not comment on matters
    within the jurisdiction of the Justice Department that could be the
    subject of legal action. At this time, I do not think I should depart
    from that policy on this case, even though it obviously will have a big
    impact on an important sector of our economy. But I would have to say,
    based on what I know to date, I have confidence in the way the antitrust
    division in the Justice Department has handled the matter.
        I say this, what I said--I want to reserve the right at sometime in
    the future, if I think it's appropriate, to make a comment, because this
    is not just an open-and-shut case of one party sues somebody else. This
    is something that would have a significant impact on our economy. But I
    think that, based on what I know, I have confidence in the way the
    antitrust division has handled this, and while it's pending at this
    time, I think I should stick to my policy and not comment.

    European Union-United States Trade

        Q. It seems like every 2 or 3 years there's another statement by
    European and American leaders that there's been another major
    breakthrough in trade relations. Do you now, all three of you, think
    it's time to set a clear and firm objective of a full-scale free trade
    agreement in goods, services, and capital across the Atlantic?
        And, secondly, for Mr. President--I think we're struck by your
    repeated use of the word

    [[Page 799]]

    ``stakeholders'' in your comments upon the agreement that you have
    reached today. Does this have something to do with your discussions
    about the third way that you've been holding with Mr. Blair, and is this
    now a keyword in the process?
        President Clinton. Well, let me answer, first of all. The question
    of whether there should be a U.S.-EU comprehensive trade negotiation is
    one more properly directed to the EU because there is--the United States
    has supported European Union and any devices, including the EMU, chosen
    by the leaders to achieve that union. We have also supported the
    broadest possible trade relationship with Europe and, as you know and
    have commented on elsewhere, a similar relationship in Latin America and
    in the Asia-Pacific region.
        Now, as you know, to make full disclosure, I would have to have
    fast-track authority from the Congress to do some, but not all, of the
    things that we have contemplated in this agreement. I would be for an
    even more sweeping one, but I think, to be fair, it's more difficult,
    with all the other tensions and debates of unification going on in
    Europe, to get much further than we've gotten today, and what we have
    agreed to do is very considerable, indeed.
        Now, the question you asked about the stakeholders, I have always
    believed that our country--that the United States could not succeed, in
    the end, economically and socially at home, in providing opportunity for
    everyone who is responsible enough to work for it, and in having a
    community that's coming together instead of being torn apart, unless we
    maintained our level of engagement and involvement in the rest of the
    world. I have always believed we could not sustain our involvement in
    the rest of the world in trade and other areas unless the American
    people thought we were doing it in a way that was consistent with their
    values when it comes to basic working standards, basic living standards,
    and preserving the global environment.
        So what we have tried to do, without prescribing the end, is to set
    up a process here for our negotiation which will let all those folks
    into the trade debate. And what I am going to argue for at the WTO is an
    even more sweeping example of that. But Sir Leon Brittan--I think he's here today--commented earlier this
    year that, in the preamble to the WTO, it says that sustainable
    development should be the goal of increasing global trade, and that part
    of the trade agenda should be providing the means to preserve the
    environment and increasing the number of tools to do so.
        That's just one example. Is it part of the so-called third way? I
    think you could say that, but it's not something that came out of our
    dinner conservation last night. This is something Prime Minister
    Blair and I have long believed ought to be done.
    But you can't--we don't exist as economic animals alone, and in fact, if
    we don't find a way to prove that increasing trade will lead to
    prosperity more broadly shared in all the countries in which we deal and
    will give us the tools to improve the environment, in the end, our trade
    policies will prove self-defeating.
        President Santer. For our trade
    relations, I can only say that since we adopted the new transatlantic
    agenda in December 1995, we made a huge progress, a long way together.
    And Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, this morning, made a list of
    all we have delivered since '95. It is a very impressive list.
        Now, it's coming the way how we can deepen these transatlantic
    partnership relations further. And that we did this morning. And I think
    that this is really a major result for the future. We are the biggest
    world partner, the United States and Europe, and we have a balanced
    trade relations. And we have also a balanced foreign direct investments
    on both sides of the Atlantic, and, therefore, it seems to me that's
    very important that we strengthen and that we deepen these relations
    step-by-step for the future and that we make it in a very comprehensive
    way.
        That's not to say that we would not have sometime some difficulties;
    the partners always have some difficulties. I remember that also with
    the member states in the European Union--that's my daily life--I have to
    deal with difficulties. And even with our friends here, in the
    Presidency, we are discussing the same problems--[inaudible]--cultural
    fields as we are discussing sometimes also with the United States. So,
    the thing is only in what spirit we are dealing with these problems. And
    therefore, I think we have to be in a partnership-like spirit, and
    that's the real sense and the deepness, the depths of our partnership
    relation. And therefore, I think this summit, the sixth summit since
    1995, is a very important one, and gives a new signal for a new
    direction.

    [[Page 800]]

    Situation in Indonesia

        Q. With regard to Indonesia, sir, do you anticipate using U.S.
    forces to safeguard the lives of Americans in that country, and would
    the United States be prepared to give Soeharto asylum if it would help
    ease him from power?
        President Clinton. Well, with regard to the first question, I have
    been given no indication that it is necessary at this time. And with
    regard to the second, the prospect has not been presented. As you
    probably know, just as we were fixing to come in here, there are all
    kinds of new stories which may or may not be accurate about very rapidly
    unfolding developments in Indonesia. And I expect that all of you may
    want to come back to me in 2 or 3 hours or 4 hours for comments on
    things that may be clearer then than they are now.
        Let me just say again what I think the real issue is here. We want
    this country to come back together, not come apart. We want the military
    to continue to exercise maximum restraint so there will be minimum loss
    of life and injury. We want civil society to flourish there. We believe
    that Indonesia was headed for some tough times because there has to be
    some tough economic decisions taken no matter what government has been
    in. But the absence of a sense of political dialog and ownership and
    involvement obviously has contributed to the difficulties there. And
    then there has been a heartbreaking loss of life of all the people who
    burned to death, for example.
        So what we're looking for now and what we're going to be working for
    is the restoration of order without violence and the genuine opening of
    a political dialog that gives all parties in this country a feeling that
    they are a part of it. They should decide, the Indonesian people, who
    the leader of Indonesia is. And then we're going to do our best, when
    things settle down and human needs are taken care of and there's order,
    to try to get them back on the road to economic recovery. Because all of
    us have a big interest in the future success of a country that has done
    some fabulous things in the last 30 years, but it had a very bad few
    moments here.
        Thank you.
        Prime Minister Blair. Thank you very much, indeed.
        President Santer. Thank you.

    Note: The President's 159th news conference began at 1:20 p.m. at the
    Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The President met with Prime Minister
    Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, in his capacity as President of the
    European Council, and President Jacques Santer of the European
    Commission. In the news conference the following people were referred
    to: Ambassador Dennis B. Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator; Prime
    Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel; Chairman Yasser Arafat of the
    Palestinian Authority; Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral of India; Prime
    Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan; Sir Leon Brittan, Vice President of
    the European Commission; President Soeharto of Indonesia; and the
    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).