[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1998, Book I)]
[June 19, 1998]
[Pages 995-1001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
Interview With CBS News, Cox Newspapers, and McClatchy Newspapers
June 19, 1998
President's Trip to China
Q. We've been talking among ourselves, so we'll just jump right into
it. Just real quickly, one poll question. In a CBS/New York Times poll,
some data that we put together shows that 59 percent of the American
public believes you should go on this trip. But 35 percent say they--
only 35 say they approve of your policy toward China. What do you hope
to accomplish on this trip to pull that 35 closer to the 59 or higher?
The President. Well, I think one of the things I hope to accomplish
is I hope that as a result of the trip, the American people will learn
more
[[Page 996]]
about China, and the Chinese people will learn more about America.
And I hope that what my policy actually is will be more broadly
known among the American people. You know, I'm not surprised by the 35
percent because normally when there's anything written about China, it's
one--something bad happens or some question's raised here. So if you
never get any kind of constructive information, it's hard to know. But
in specific terms, what I'll hope we'll do is to find a way to expand
the areas of cooperation, to continue to discuss in an open way the
areas of our differences. And I hope that by going there, I can
strengthen the forces of positive change in the country.
So those are my objectives in going, and I think it's a very good
thing. I think it's a tribute to the common sense of the American people
and the good judgment that they understand, I think, that we have to be
involved in China, that we have to try to have a constructive
partnership with them.
Q. Mr. President, you've explained why you're going to the Great
Hall, and you've said that the Chinese Government needs eventually to
apologize to the people for what happened at Tiananmen Square 9 years
ago. I'm wondering what will be on your heart and on your mind as you
motorcade up to the Great Hall and gaze out across that square and
ponder the pageantry and trauma that's taken place there over the past
century?
The President. Well, obviously, I want to see Tiananmen Square, and
I will think about what happened there 9 years ago. But I also will be
thinking about the last turbulent century in Chinese history and the
fact that that whole setting there has been the center of Chinese public
life for probably 600 years now. There will be a lot to think about. I'm
going to do my best to learn and absorb as much as I can and to increase
my capacity to advance our interests and our values while I'm there. And
I'm really looking forward to it.
Q. Mr. President, is it realistic that you could have a meeting
along the lines of President Reagan--I believe 1988--a meeting in Moscow
with refuseniks in admittedly a period of glasnost. But is it realistic
in China? Is that a parallel situation, and are you satisfied that
you'll be able to have a kind of contact with dissident and religious
groups that you will like?
The President. Well, I'm going to meet with as many diverse people
as I possibly can while I'm there. I'm going to try to meet with as many
grassroots citizens who are active in all kinds of life as I can. And
I'm going to make judgments about that based on what I think is most
likely to promote our objectives, which include the advance of human
rights and political civil rights, religious rights and, generally, that
will promote more openness in China.
You know, I said to President Jiang when he
was here, both in the press conference and in our private conversations,
that I believe China can never obtain its own destiny full of greatness
without becoming a more open society. Because whether you believe that
human rights are universal, as the covenant says and as the U.N.
embraces, or whether you believe it's just a cultural preference of some
kinds of people, the reality of the world is that we now have an economy
which is increasingly dominated by ideas. We basically moved from a
farming economy to a manufacturing economy to an idea economy. That's
what information technology is.
And it is therefore, I think, almost axiomatic that you can't have
an idea-based economy that reaches its fullest success until people are
free to think and feel and say and do what they please. And I have tried
to argue it to President Jiang that you can have
a stable society; in fact, you can have a more stable society when there
are outlets for dissent, and where people have avenues within which they
can express their ideas, and when you prove that you can incorporate
diversity within a society.
I think, for example--I do not see the dialog with the Dalai Lama, for example, as a potential weakening of the
coherence of Chinese society. I think it's the biggest opportunity to
strengthen China. It's out there because the Dalai Lama's made clear he
doesn't want to have an independent Tibet. He wants an autonomous
Tibet--if the Chinese say they recognize--but that he recognizes that
Tibet is part of China. I think that's an incredible opportunity.
Here we are on the edge of the 21st century, when we see some
countries torn apart by religious and racial and ethnic differences.
We've now got this great opportunity to harmonize, to reconcile
something that has enormous symbolism not simply within Tibet and its
sympathizers within China but all over the world.
[[Page 997]]
So those are the arguments I'm going to make, and I'll keep making
them. And I'm hoping that they'll be institutionalized to some extent in
an ongoing human rights dialog and in NGO human rights dialog and in the
areas--in the sort of cooperative law ventures that Chinese have been
very interested in joining with us and legal issues relating not simply
to the rule of law and commerce but rule of law dealing with the speech
issues and human rights issues and labor rights issues and other things.
So I'm looking forward to having the chance to make that case.
Religious Freedom in China
Q. Mr. President, I noticed just glancing at the schedule that
you're not only going to church on Sunday, but you're scheduled to make
brief remarks. What will you be saying from the heart in that church
about religious freedom in China?
The President. Well, I haven't prepared my remarks yet. And I
suspect that of all the speeches I give while I'm there, that's the one
that's most likely to be one that I will do virtually by myself and
close to the time, although obviously I welcome the help of all the
people who work with me on these things.
I hope to be able to say something about the importance of faith and
religious liberty and the importance of religion to the character of a
country, to acknowledge the role of Confucianism and Buddhism and other
Eastern faiths and the history of world religions and the importance of
giving everyone the chance to search out the truth for himself or
herself; and the importance of recognizing that no matter how much the
modern world comes to be dominated by technology, and no matter what
advances occur in science, especially in the biological sciences, and no
matter what we learn about other galaxies from physics, that each
person's attempt to discern the truth and then to live according to it
will remain life's most important journey. That's why, in the end, I
think all this explosion of technology and communication will only
intensify the pressure for openness in societies.
President's Trip to China
Q. Mr. President, you've developed a knack for, in this country,
speaking directly to the American people, getting beyond opinionmakers
and beyond the likes of us, quite frankly. I'm wondering how important
it is to you to be able to speak directly to the Chinese people on this
trip, and how, specifically, you'll be able to do that, given the state
control of the media there?
The President. You know, I just did a roundtable with Chinese
journalists. And one of the--the television person who was there gave me
a chance to at least give an opening message to the millions of Chinese
that watch that station. I think it's quite important. I think making an
impression on the Chinese people is very, very important.
One of the things that we have learned--I don't mean the royal
``we,'' I mean all of us working in this White House have learned--is
that even in nondemocratic societies, in the end, the people have a big
say in what happens. Popular opinion counts for something, and popular
feeling and sentiment counts for something. So I hope that in many ways
I'll be able to reach the Chinese people while I'm on this trip.
I also hope I'll be able to have quite a bit of contact with the
citizens of China on this trip in ways that are planned, as we did in
the roundtables in Africa, for example, and in ways that are unplanned.
I just think that's important. It's important for me and for our whole
team to get a feel of life there. I've never had the opportunity to go,
so I'm really looking forward to it.
Q. This is your first trip there. You've gotten a lot of advice,
solicited and otherwise, on the trip. I'm thinking now about people
outside the administration. Who are you listening to, and how are you
preparing personally, whether it's something you're reading or
otherwise, for the trip?
The President. The truth is, I haven't done as much reading on this
trip as I normally do in advance because of all the incredible time-
consuming nature of this work in Congress for the tobacco bill and all
the financial issues in Asia and all those things we've been doing on
it. But I have solicited a significant library. I don't know if I can
read all the books, but I've got--Jim Mann was just
in here and gave me a copy of his book. Have you seen it? ``Beijing
Jeep: A Study of Western Business in China.''
But I'll get Barry to give you a list of
the books; I've asked for six or seven books to read. I'm going to try
to begin in earnest over this weekend and then on the trip to do as much
[[Page 998]]
as I can, because the reading always helps me. It helps me a lot with
what I see and how I do.
And we solicited, also, opinions and advice from a number of China
scholars from outside the administration. But I've been with Jiang
Zemin enough now that I really have quite a clear
idea of what I hope we can achieve and how I want to go about doing it.
I've done my best to sort of counter what I think are misconceptions
about America--you know, that we had some grand design to contain China,
that we didn't really want it to emerge into its rightful position of
leadership and prosperity in the 21st century, that we were unmindful of
the different historical experiences, that we were unmindful of our own
continuing challenges in America. I've tried to knock down all those
barriers to honest dialog.
And I've tried to establish enough credibility in being candid and
honest over time in the things we've done together--working on the peace
in the Korean Peninsula, working to contain proliferation, to working on
this latest nuclear testing incident on the Indian subcontinent--to get
to the point where I could be frank and open with the President and others with whom I deal. And so I'm going to do
my--I'm really looking forward to this, and I'm hoping it will be
effective.
Economic Sanctions
Q. Mr. President, I have a sanctions question. Do you agree with
Senator Lugar that the United States has essentially become sanction-
happy to its own detriment?
The President. Absolutely.
Q. And do you favor his legislation, or something like it, that
would roll back in a variety of ways the sunsets--the economic analysis?
The President. Yes. Let me just say, I think sanctions can be
helpful from time to time. They're most helpful, clearly, when the world
community agrees. I think that the sanctions on South Africa were
helpful in bringing an end to apartheid. I think the sanctions on Serbia
were helpful in bringing about an agreement in Bosnia. I think the
sanctions on Iraq have been helpful in preventing Saddam
Hussein from rebuilding the military that
could dominate its neighbors and getting back into weapons of mass
destruction. So when you've got uniform sanctions, they can be helpful.
Sometimes they can be effective even if the United States is doing them,
if it covers a situation we can dominate economically. Sometimes they're
helpful just as a gesture of disapproval.
But the way these sanctions laws are written with--they really
deprive the President, any President, of the necessary flexibility in
the country's foreign policy. And even if you put them on, it's hard to
take them off; and the conditions for not putting them on are such that
the President is put under an enormous burden of doing things that he
may believe that are not in the best interest of the country.
So I just think--and it's particularly ironic that we seem to have
gotten sanction-happy at a time when we are reducing our foreign
assistance to the countries that agree with us, that want to build a
future with us.
Now, when we refuse to contribute to the IMF and won't pay our U.N.
dues, we may lose our vote in the U.N. because 20 Members of the
Republican caucus in the House want us to change our policy on family
planning. Now, for me, I think that's a very dangerous thing for our
country. It's not in our interest because, you know, we're in danger of
looking like we want to sanction everybody who disagrees with us and not
help anybody who agrees with us.
Q. Should food always be off the table?
The President. Should what?
Q. Should food--foreign products always be excluded from sanctions?
The President. Well, I believe they should--I think our policy--they
should be--they should always be excluded from sanctions. And then if
something comes up in the future where a country seems, or a government
seems so bad and they've done something so horrible that the Congress
believes at that time, the President believes at that time it ought to
be done, then they can do it. But I think it ought--the rule ought to be
that we don't do it. And then if there's some compelling reason for an
exception, it can be entertained when that exception arises. But that's
why I'm supporting Senator Murray and others in
their attempts to exempt food from the sanctions I imposed on India and
Pakistan. I just think that on balance we're better off not doing that.
Trade With China
Q. Mr. President, clearly, China wants our backing to get into the
WTO. Is there any chance that that could occur out of this summit?
[[Page 999]]
The President. I don't know. I wouldn't raise hopes on that issue. I
think they should be in the WTO. They're not only the most populous
country in the world, but they have a large and they have a growing
economy, and they've got a, you know, an economic future that makes
their membership virtually essential for the WTO to do what it's suppose
to do. You know, at some point, they'll be big enough and strong enough
that if they're not in the WTO, it'll be almost--even though it would be
hard to call it a world--a trade organization. They're not there yet,
but they will be. So I would like to see them in as early as possible.
However, I think it's also important that they be in on commercially
viable terms. We have obviously supported China's economic emergence. I
mean, we buy far more of their products than any other country does. And
we do it not only because we think it's in our interest, but because, I
think, at least, it's good that the United States helps in that way,
economically, China to emerge, to be able to feed all its people, to
give more of its people a good life. I think that makes them more likely
to be more open and more free and more constructive partners.
But I also believe that the Chinese, for all the work they've done
in privatizing the economy and opening themselves to markets, still have
too much access control and, from the point of view of American products
and services, too much access denial.
So I'm not troubled by the fact that we buy a lot of Chinese
products. And inevitably we're going to have a big increase this year
because of the strength of our economy coupled with the weakness of
Asian economies, but that would widen the trade deficit. But that
widening trade deficit will sharpen the debate and will increase the
focus on our market access.
Now, I would prefer and I want more market access, and will argue
for it on my trip. I don't want any special deals for the United States.
I would prefer to see China work out an accession agreement to the WTO
on commercial terms that would treat us just like everybody else and
have more openness for everybody and then let the Americans compete with
everyone else in the Chinese market and do as well as we can. But
failing that, I will do my best to get more access for our products and
services.
Nuclear Detargeting Agreement
Q. What would be the symbolism of a nuclear detargeting agreement
between China and the United States? And is that something you think you
might realistically be looking for?
The President. Well, I think it would be a good thing if we could
get it. I can't say that we have it yet, but if we could get it, I think
it would be a good thing. I think there are two things about it that
would be good.
First of all, it plainly would be a confidence-building measure, as
you pointed out. Secondly, it would actually reduce--it would, in fact,
have the benefit of reducing the chances of an accidental launch. If you
detarget, yes, you can always go retarget a missile. We all know that.
But it takes some more time, and 20 minutes in a world of instantaneous
communications is an eternity. So the possibility of avoiding a mistake,
or even backing down from a conflict, is dramatically increased with
detargeting. It really makes a difference.
To go back to the confidence-building thing, the one reason I'd like
to see it done is that, you know, we're going--we have to try to work
our way out of the dilemma that India and Pakistan find themselves in.
And it's obvious that China is a part of that. Think how much worse this
would have been if China hadn't signed the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. What kind of pressure would the Chinese have been under to test
if the Indians said, ``Well, we really didn't do this because of
Pakistan; we did it because of China''? But China had a principled
reason not to test. They had signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
All these confidence-building measures are important because they
increase the ability of China to play a constructive role in all the
security issues in Asia, in particular, where we have a common interest.
Influence of Money on China-U.S. Relations
Q. Mr. President, Congresswomen Pelosi, in talking about human
rights, keeps saying that there's one common denominator that explains
U.S. policy toward China, and that's money, and that the Boeings and the
Motorolas and the Westinghouses, through campaign contributions and
other resources, have a disproportionate influence in being advocates
for a warmer relationship with China. Given your concerns about campaign
finance in general, is there some truth
[[Page 1000]]
to the role that money is playing in the China policy?
The President. Well, in view of the votes of some of the Republican
Congressmen in the last couple of weeks, she
may have a weaker argument there. [Laughter] I don't know.
I think that the members of the--that a lot of these companies tend
to support Members of Congress who support more open trade with China
and other places. But I don't think it's--you know, I think that in
order for her argument to be right, the flipside would have to be true.
That is, it would have to be true that if none of these companies
contributed any money to any Republicans or Democrats, that every
President would choose to isolate China and have no dealings with them,
not give them most-favored-nation status, force them to make their way
in the world without any kind of constructive commercial relations with
the United States until they did exactly what we wanted on matters that
we are concerned about in human rights and religious rights. And I just
don't think that's true.
And I guess we're the best example. I'm sure that if you add it all
up, that these companies have given far more money to the Republicans
than they have to the Democrats. And I'm doing this because I think it's
the right thing for America. I don't think those companies should be
disabled from making contributions just because they happen to do
business in China, nor do I believe that most--I think contributions
normally tend to flow to people who are doing things that these
companies agree with, but that most of them do it on conviction and then
different people on different sides support different groups. I don't
think that they bought this policy, and I know they haven't bought the
policy of this Government. I'm doing what I think is best for the
American people and what I think is going to give our kids a safer, more
prosperous world to live in in the 21st century, and one I think is most
likely to lead to a freer, more open China.
Asian Economies
Q. Mr. President, considering the economic developments in Asia this
week, specifically Japan, what will you say to the Chinese to convince
them to stick to their pledge and not to devalue their currency?
The President. Well, first of all, that obviously has got to be
their decision to make. But I think they deserve a lot of credit for
resisting the temptation to devalue. Now, there will be a price for them
in devaluation--you know it's not a free decision. But I think they
deserve a lot of credit for trying to be a force for stability in Asia
in this financial crisis.
I will urge them to adhere to their policy as long as they can and
to work with me in trying to create conditions in Asia that restore
growth, starting with Japan embracing others. Because that ultimately,
the ultimate guarantee against their devaluing their currency is the
easing of the conditions which make them want to devalue, or at least
force them to consider that option.
So I think the main thing--what I'm going to tell them is, ``Look,
I'm working hard with the Japanese; we've seen some progress this week;
we've seen a clear, unambiguous commitment from the Japanese Government
to undertake serious financial reform, and we're doing this--we're doing
everything we know to do on this. And so, if you all hang in there with
us, we think that there will come a time in the relatively near future
when the conditions will begin to change, and you won't feel any
pressure to devalue.'' I think that's the most important thing I could
say to them, and I'm going to try to help create a different reality if
I can.
President's Trip to China
Q. President Bush was in China in February of '89; he gave Li Peng a
pair of cowboy boots. It turned out to be a somewhat unfortunate choice
of gifts. Are you taking any presents to President Jiang Zemin on this
trip?
The President. I am. As a matter of fact, I'm still--I sent out a
note yesterday to explore two or three different options for gifts. But
I don't want to give it away and destroy the secret. They're not cowboy
boots. But if he gives me some, I won't be
offended. I've got several pair and like them very much. [Laughter]
Q. We know President Jiang has a tendency to quote the Gettysburg
Address. I think when he was with President Ramos of the Philippines
they broke into ``Love Me Tender.'' Do you expect something like that
this time, as well?
The President. No, but I know all the verses to ``Love Me Tender.''
[Laughter] I can hold my own if that's what the drill is. I can do that.
He likes music, you know. He likes American
music.
[[Page 1001]]
And he's a very interesting man, President
Jiang. I remember when I first met him. You know, there were lots of
articles at the time saying that he had been a mayor of Shanghai, and he
was a very nice man but most people thought he was going to be a
transitional figure, you know. And so I met him. We spent a couple of
hours together, and it was not the warmest of meetings, you know,
because we had all these differences between us and no personal
chemistry to overcome it.
But after the meeting, I told all the people that were with me, I
said, ``I believe he's in this for the long haul;
I expect him to emerge.'' And he has. I mean, I could see he had been a
man that had been underestimated by outsiders, that his sort of friendly
and open demeanor and his affinity for singing Western songs and quoting
from Lincoln and all that, that it had led people to preach false
judgments about his capacity and his toughness.
Legislative Agenda
Q. Sir, if I might switch gears and ask a non-China question along
the lines of what you said today in your comments about tobacco. The
last two congressional sessions have been marked at the end by a fairly
remarkable coming together of the two parties on issues like welfare
reform a couple of years ago, and then the balanced budget this year,
but judging by the strength of your criticism today of Congress, it
sounds like your instinct is that this year could be a very good year.
Is that true?
The President. It could be, but I wouldn't give up on the other. I
mean, I think we still might--we might still see a lot of progress at
the end. We've got, you know, we've got this Patients' Bill of Rights
still out there; we've got a big child care initiative still out there;
a lot of the education agenda is still out there; a lot of the
environmental agenda's still out there.
And this tobacco settlement is still very much alive as far as I'm
concerned. This thing--because this thing has been hashed over and
debated and amended and worked up and down and sideways, people pretty
much know what the parameters are now. So it's not inconceivable that we
could still get an agreement on this before this is over.
So I'm still hoping that progress will triumph over partisanship at
the end and that we'll see at the close, as the Congress--either now,
before the August recess, or when they come back in September, and they
don't want to stay very long because they want to go home and campaign,
and they've got all the appropriations bills and all this stuff still to
do. I'm hoping that a different atmosphere will take over, and we'll see
just what happened before.
You're quite right; we had a lot of success in '95. We had a lot of
success in '96. We had a lot success--not '95--we had success in '96 and
'97, and whether we will in '98 or not, I don't know. We could repeat
'95. I mean we really could get to the point where we were almost as bad
off as we were in '95, or we could wind up with a replay of '96 and '97.
And it's really going to be up to the Republican majority to decide.
But, you know, my door is open, and they know what I want. I have been
very clear, I think, about it. And I'll remain hopeful and upbeat about
it.
Q. Will you be able to meet with Senator McCain before you leave for
China? Do you have plans, are you trying to put----
The President. I certainly intend to talk to him. He did a good job. He did the best he could. And he
deserves the thanks of the American people for this. I'm grateful to him
for what he did. And it's not over. It's not over. And it won't be over
for me until I get on the helicopter and ride off into the distance in
2\1/2\ years. So I'm going to keep working on this until the end.
Note: The interview began at 4:47 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White
House. The transcript was made available by the Office of the Press
Secretary on June 19 but was embargoed for release until 6 a.m. on June
20. The following journalists participated in the interview: Tom
Mattesky, CBS News; Bob Deans, Cox Newspapers; and David Westphal,
McClatchy Newspapers. In his remarks, the President referred to
President Jiang Zemin and Premier Li Peng of China; Jim Mann,
journalist, Los Angeles Times; former President George Bush; and
President Fidel Ramos of the Philippines. A tape was not available for
verification of the content of this interview.