[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).