    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1999, Book I)]
    [April 15, 1999]
    [Pages 551-561]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With the American Society of
    Newspaper Editors in San Francisco, California
    April 15, 1999

        The President. Thank you very much, Mr. Seaton, distinguished officers, and members of the American
    Society of Newspaper Editors. I want to thank you for giving me the
    opportunity to address the crisis in Kosovo, why we're there, what our
    objectives are, how this fits in with our larger vision of the future.
        Since I'm here I can't help noting that one of the truly striking
    aspects of this moment is the stark contrast it illuminates between a
    free society with a free press, and a closed society where the press is
    used to manipulate people by suppressing or distorting the truth.
        In Belgrade today, independent journalists are being persecuted.
    This week, one brave editor was murdered in
    cold blood. Meanwhile, the Government-run press has constructed an
    alternative reality for the Serbian people in which the atrocities their
    soldiers are committing in Kosovo simply don't exist. Under those
    conditions, decent people can remain in denial, supporting policies that
    lead them to political and economic ruin.
        Thank goodness our press and free press throughout the world have
    tried to get at and get out the truth, to ensure that words like
    refugees, displacement, ethnic cleansing don't become stale and lifeless
    but remain causes for action.
        The tragedy in Kosovo is the result of a meticulously planned and
    long-premeditated attack on an entire people simply on the basis of
    their ethnicity and religion, an attack grounded in a philosophy that
    teaches people to dearly love a piece of land while utterly dismissing
    the humanity of those who occupy it.
        That is what Mr. Milosevic has been
    doing ever since Yugoslavia started breaking up in 1989. For a decade,
    he has been trying to build a Greater Serbia by using military force to
    rearrange the ethnic character of the nations which emerged from
    Yugoslavia. That is what he did for years in Croatia and, horribly, in
    Bosnia--what he is doing in Kosovo now.
        Last year he drove hundreds of
    thousands of people from their homes into the frigid mountains and let
    them back only after NATO threatened to use force. He is now determined
    to crush all resistance to his rule even if it means turning Kosovo into
    a lifeless wasteland.
        As these difficult days proceed, it is important to remember that we
    have no quarrel with the Serbian people. They were our allies in World
    War II; they have often been our allies. In a sense, they are victims of
    this tragedy, too. And we must understand the anguish of Serbian-
    Americans who, like Albanian-Americans, are worried about their loved
    ones back home. Americans should not blame Serbs or look down on
    Serbian-Americans because we disagree with the Milosevic government. We must not let his ethnic cleansing
    provoke us to ethnic bias.
        We and our 18 NATO Allies are in Kosovo today because we want to
    stop the slaughter and the ethnic cleansing; because we want to build a
    stable, united, prosperous Europe that

    [[Page 552]]

    includes the Balkans and its neighbors; and because we don't want the
    21st century to be dominated by the dark marriage of modern weapons and
    ancient ethnic, racial, and religious hatred. We cannot simply watch as
    hundreds of thousands of people are brutalized, murdered, raped, forced
    from their homes, their family histories erased, all in the name of
    ethnic pride and purity.
        NATO was pivotal to ending the killing and ethnic cleansing in
    Bosnia. We can do so again, and this time we have responded more
    quickly.
        Were we to stand aside, the atrocities in Kosovo would go on and on.
    Neighboring democracies, as you see, would be overwhelmed by permanent
    refugees and demoralized by the failure of democracy's alliance. The
    Kosovar Albanians would become a people without a homeland, a burden to
    host countries, a magnet for radical ideologies, a breeding ground for
    unending warfare in the Balkans. NATO would be discredited, yes, because
    it made promises not kept but, more important, because its values and
    vision of Europe would be profoundly damaged. Ultimately, the conflict
    in Kosovo would spread anyway, and we would have to act anyway.
        Now, when we decided to launch the air campaign, after Mr.
    Milosevic rejected peace, we believed
    there was at least a possibility that our readiness to act would deter
    him from moving forward as it had in the past. But we also understood
    clearly that with 40,000 troops and over 250 tanks massed in and around
    Kosovo he might intensify his repression and go on with his planned
    attack, as I made clear in my address to the Nation the night the
    airstrikes began.
        There was only one possibility that we and our NATO Allies were not
    willing to entertain, that the international community would look the
    other way in the face of this brutality.
        Now the NATO air campaign has been underway for 3 weeks, often
    interrupted or limited by bad weather. This is, however, a good time to
    assess what has been accomplished and where we're going.
        Mr. Milosevic's strategy has been to
    complete the ethnic cleansing, then break the unity of NATO by taking
    the bombs and offering phony concessions. But NATO is more united today
    than when the operation began. Whether they are Conservatives in Spain,
    Socialists in France, New Labor in Britain, or Greens in Germany, the
    leaders of Europe and the people they represent are determined to
    maintain and intensify our attacks until Mr. Milosevic's forces leave
    Kosovo and the refugees return under the protection of an international
    force or until his military is weakened to the point when he can no
    longer keep his vise-like grip on Kosovo.
        At the beginning of the operation, we focused, properly, on Serbia's
    highly developed air defenses, to reduce the risks to our pilots. There
    are still significant air defenses up, and therefore, there is still
    risk with every mission. But we have degraded the system to the point
    that now NATO can fly 24 hours a day, not simply at night. We've struck
    at Serbia's machinery of repression, at the infrastructure that supports
    it. We've destroyed all of Serbia's refineries, half of its capacity to
    produce ammunition. We've attacked its bridges and rail lines and
    communications networks to diminish its ability to supply, reinforce,
    and control its forces in Kosovo. Increasingly now, we are striking the
    forces themselves, hitting tanks, artillery, armored personnel carriers,
    radar missiles, and aircraft.
        As the allies have said, all of us, repeatedly, Mr.
    Milosevic can stop NATO's bombing by
    meeting these conditions: One, Serbian security forces must leave
    Kosovo; two, the displaced Kosovars must be able to return; three, there
    must be an international security force to protect all Kosovars,
    including the Serb minority there, as they work towards self-government.
        If he refuses, our military campaign
    will continue to destroy as much of his military capability as we can so
    that each day his capacity for repression will diminish.
        Meanwhile, his actions, though
    absolutely devastating to the civilian population and horribly
    burdensome to the frontline states of Macedonia and Albania, have not
    destroyed the armed opposition among Kosovars. Indeed, their numbers and
    determination are growing. Ultimately, Mr. Milosevic will have to
    choose, either to cut his mounting losses or lose his ability to
    maintain his grip on Kosovo.
        As for NATO, we are prepared to continue this effort as long as
    necessary to achieve our objectives. Our timetable will be determined by
    our goals, not the other way around.
        In the meantime, we must do more to aid the refugees. They are
    pouring out of Kosovo. We must help to preserve their lives and health
    and their hope of return. This week, NATO approved Operation Allied
    Harbor, under which

    [[Page 553]]

    8,000 troops will work with relief agencies in Albania to establish
    camps, provide logistical support, deliver aid, and ensure security.
    Thus far, we have contributed in the United States $150 million to this
    effort.
        Conditions at the borders are beginning to improve. Now we are most
    concerned about the fate of the refugees, hundreds of thousands of them,
    trapped inside Kosovo. They are unable to leave but afraid to go home.
    Mr. Milosevic apparently wants to use
    them as hostages and human shields, and he's preventing relief groups
    from getting to them. People of good will all around the world today are
    trying to find ways to overcome this cruel and cynical manipulation of
    innocent human beings.
        Mr. Milosevic also continues to hold
    on to the three American servicemen his
    forces seized in Macedonia. He continues to flout his obligation to
    allow the Red Cross to visit them. I want to say again as clearly as I
    can: The United States will hold him personally responsible for their
    welfare.
        Now, the stand we have taken, first in Bosnia, now in Kosovo,
    against organized ethnic hatred is a moral imperative. But it is also a
    strategic imperative. And I'd like to talk with you a little about that
    and ask all of you to ask yourselves how you view the history of the
    last 50 years and how you imagine the next 50 years unfolding.
        The history of the United States, for a very long time, was
    dominated by a principle of nonintervention in the affairs of other
    countries, even when we strongly disagreed. Indeed, for most of our
    history, we have worn the principle of nonintervention as a badge of
    honor, beginning with George Washington's warning against entangling
    alliances.
        The 20th century changed all that, with two World Wars, the cold
    war, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Panama, Lebanon, Grenada, Somalia,
    Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and others. Our steadily increasing involvement
    with the rest of the world, not for territorial gain but for peace and
    freedom and security, is a fact of recent history.
        During the cold war, it can be argued that on occasion we made a
    wrong judgment because we tended to see the world solely through the
    lenses of communism or anti-communism. But no one suggests that we ever
    sought territorial advantage. No one doubts that when America did get
    involved, we were doing what at least we thought was right for humanity.
        Now, at the end of the 20th century, we face a great battle between
    the forces of integration and the forces of disintegration, the forces
    of globalism versus tribalism, of oppression against empowerment. And
    the phenomenal explosion of technology, including that of advanced
    weaponry, might be the servant of either side or both.
        The central irony of our time, it seems to me, is this: Most of us
    have a vision of the 21st century world with the triumph of peace and
    prosperity and personal freedom; with respect for the integrity of
    ethnic, racial, and religious minorities within a framework of shared
    values, shared power, and shared plenty; making common cause against
    disease and environmental degradation, against terror, organized crime,
    and weapons of mass destruction.
        This grand vision, ironically, is threatened by the oldest demon of
    human society, our vulnerability to hatred of the other, those who are
    not like us. In the face of that, we cannot be indifferent at home or
    abroad. That is why we are in Kosovo.
        Kosovo is a very small place on a very large fault line, on the
    borderlands of Central and Eastern Europe, at the meeting place of the
    Islamic world and the Western and Orthodox branches of Christianity,
    where people have settled in a complex patchwork of ethnic and religious
    groups and where countless wars have been fought over faith, land, and
    power.
        Kosovo is far from unique in its region. It is surrounded by nations
    with similar challenges of history and diversity. The only difference
    today is that they--think of them, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria,
    Romania, and Bosnia--are now at least struggling to realize the vision
    of multiethnic democracy that Mr. Milosevic is struggling to kill.
        Much of the former Soviet Union faces a similar challenge, including
    Ukraine and Moldova, southern Russia, the Caucasus nations of Georgia,
    Armenia, and Azerbaijan, the new nations of central Asia. These nations
    spent most of the last half century under Communist rule. In the years
    when Western Europe was overcoming its old animosities by integrating
    its economies and embracing democracy, in the years when Americans began
    confronting our own legacy of racial hatred through open debate and
    political activism, these nations saw their

    [[Page 554]]

    problems frozen in time, kept in place by a rigid system that allowed no
    talk of change.
        They projected to the world a picture of stability, but it was a
    false picture, a stability imposed by rulers whose answer to ethnic
    tensions was not to resolve them but to suppress and deny them. When the
    weight of Communist repression was lifted, these tensions naturally rose
    to the surface, to be resolved by statesmen or exploited by demagogues.
        The potential for ethnic conflict became, perhaps, the greatest
    threat to what is among our most critical interests: the transition of
    the former Communist countries toward stability, prosperity, and
    freedom. We are in Kosovo because we care about saving lives and we care
    about the character of the multiethnic post-cold-war world.
        We don't want young democracies that have made the right choices to
    be overwhelmed by the flight of refugees and the victories of ethnic
    hatred. We don't want to see Europe re-fight with tanks and artillery
    the same battles they fought centuries ago with axes and arrows. And
    because stability in Europe is important to our own security, we want to
    build a Europe that is peaceful, undivided, and free, a Europe where
    young Americans do not have to fight and die again to deal with the
    consequences of other people's madness and greed.
        Who is going to define the future of this part of the world? Who
    will provide the model for how the people who have emerged from
    communism resolve their own legitimate problems? Will it be Mr.
    Milosevic, with his propaganda machine
    and his paramilitary thugs, who tell people to leave their country,
    their history, and their land behind, or die? Or will it be a nation
    like Romania, which is building democracy and respecting the rights of
    its ethnic minorities, or Hungary, which has accepted that ethnic
    Hungarians can live beyond its borders with security and freedom, or
    Macedonia, which is struggling to maintain a tolerant, multiethnic
    society under the unimaginable pressures of the human and economic costs
    imposed by Mr. Milosevic's policies?
        Now, after our recent experience in Bosnia and Kosovo, it's easy to
    forget that despite all the violence and turmoil they have experienced,
    the people of this region have, in fact, found ways to live together
    through the years. If the nations of the Balkans had truly experienced a
    thousand years of unceasing ethnic cleansing, their ethnic makeup
    wouldn't be anything like what it is. They would be utterly homogeneous,
    not so diverse. Today, most of those countries are democracies. Most are
    trying to resolve their problems by force of argument, not force of
    arms.
        We cannot allow the Milosevic vision,
    rooted as it is in hatred and violence and cynicism, to prevail. But if
    we truly want a more tolerant, inclusive future for the Balkans and all
    of southeast Europe, we will have to both oppose his efforts and offer a
    better vision of the future, one that we are willing to help build.
        Now, what does all this mean for the future of Kosovo and the region
    as a whole, starting from where we are right now? What many Kosovars
    want is independence. That is certainly understandable. After what
    they've been through, it's only natural that they should equate
    sovereignty with survival. But I continue to think it is not the best
    answer. Kosovo lacks the resources and infrastructure to be viable on
    its own. Moreover, Yugoslavia's long-suffering neighbors fear that an
    independent Kosovo would be unstable and that the instability itself
    would be contagious.
        Finally, we must remember the principle we and our allies have been
    fighting for in the Balkans is the principle of multiethnic, tolerant,
    inclusive democracy. We have been fighting against the idea that
    statehood must be based entirely on ethnicity.
        Some people think the best way to solve Kosovo's problems, and
    Serbia's and Bosnia's, is to withdraw their borders and re arrange their
    people to reflect their ethnic distinctions. Well, first of all, a lot
    of people who say that haven't looked very closely at the maps. It is a
    problem of staggering complexity. Once it starts, it would never end.
    For every grievance resolved, a new one would be created. For every
    community moved to a new place, another community would, by definition,
    be displaced.
        If we were to choose this course, we would see the continuous
    fissioning of smaller and smaller ethnically based, inviable states,
    creating pressures for more war, more ethnic cleansing, more of the
    politics of repression and revenge. I believe the last thing we need in
    the Balkans is greater Balkanization.
        The real question today is not whether Kosovo will be part of
    Serbia. The real question is whether Kosovo and Serbia and the other
    states in the region will be part of the new

    [[Page 555]]

    Europe. The best solution for Kosovo, for Serbia, for Bosnia, Croatia,
    Macedonia, and all the countries of southeast Europe is not the endless
    re-jiggering of the borders but greater integration into a Europe in
    which sovereignty matters but in which borders are becoming more and
    more open and less important in a negative sense. It is to affirm the
    principle that Mr. Milosevic has done so
    very much to undermine, that successful modern states make a virtue, not
    a blood feud, out of ethnic and religious diversity.
        That is the solution that Western Europe accepted--not too long ago,
    really, when you think of it--after Europe had been consumed by two of
    the bloodiest wars in all of human history, after the Holocaust almost
    erased an entire people from the face of the Earth.
        It is hard to visualize today, hard to remember, when you drive
    across Belgium and Holland, across the border between France and
    Germany, that twice in this century millions of people spilled blood
    fighting over every inch of that land. It is hard to imagine the
    immediate postwar Europe Winston Churchill described as a rubble heap, a
    charnel house, a breeding ground of pestilence and hate. But because of
    the changes which have occurred, it is not unimaginable today that the
    nations of southeastern Europe will choose integration and peace, just
    as their Western neighbors have.
        To achieve that future, we must follow the example of the World War
    II generation by standing up to aggression and hate and then by
    following through with a postconflict strategy for reconstruction and
    renewal. If we don't want people to remain mired in the miseries of
    yesterday, we must give them a better tomorrow to dream of and work for.
        Even as we fight this conflict, we must look beyond it to what the
    Balkans, southeastern Europe, indeed, the whole continent of Europe
    should look like in 10 or 20 years. We should try to do for southeastern
    Europe what we helped to do for Western Europe after World War II, and
    for Central Europe after the cold war, to help its people build a region
    of multiethnic democracies, a community that upholds common standards of
    human rights, a community in which borders are open to people in trade,
    where nations cooperate to make war unthinkable.
        That is why my request to Congress for supplemental funding for our
    military and humanitarian operation in Kosovo will also support
    emergency assistance to Yugoslavia's neighbors, which do not want their
    dreams of democracy and integration undermined by a flood of refugees
    and the fear of violence. That is why we've been working to help the
    countries of the region consolidate democratic reform and build
    professional armed forces under civilian control.
        We need to intensify these efforts and to work with the European
    Union and the international financial institutions to mobilize more
    support for these countries. And we need to condition this help, just as
    we did with Western Europe 50 years ago, on closer cooperation among the
    beneficiaries and a new understanding of their sovereignty.
        This will take constant, steady American engagement, together with
    our European allies, old and new. It will demand keeping institutions,
    including NATO and the European Union, open to new nations who make the
    right choices. It will take money in the form of investment and aid. It
    will require a willingness to provide material and moral support to
    people and leaders across the region who are standing up for multiethnic
    democracy.
        Realistically, it will require a democratic transition in Serbia,
    for the region's democracies will never be safe with a belligerent
    tyranny in their midst. It will demand from us a recognition that there
    is no easy way out of the region's troubles, but there is a solution
    that advances our interests and keeps faith with our values if we are
    ready to make a long-term commitment.
        Of course, all of this will take time and effort. In the meantime,
    the people of Kosovo should have protection, security, and self-
    government. That can only be assured by an international security force
    with NATO at the core.
        As in Bosnia, this force should also include members of NATO's
    Partnership For Peace that represent the whole range of ethnic groups in
    Europe. This is precisely the kind of mission we envisioned for the
    Partnership For Peace when it was created 5 years ago, and the kind of
    mission I very much hope Russia could join as well, just as it did so
    constructively in Bosnia.
        In the long run, our goal for Kosovo should not be independence but
    interdependence. Our watchword for the region should be integration, not
    disintegration. The ultimate answer for Kosovo, for Serbia, for Bosnia,
    Croatia, all the Balkans is not to withdraw behind barriers of

    [[Page 556]]

    mistrust and insecurity but to join a Europe where borders unite rather
    than divide, to build a richly textured fabric of civilization that
    lifts all God's children and resists those who would tear it apart by
    appealing to the dark recesses of the soul that lead only to dead ends.
        The Balkan war that began in Kosovo 10 years ago must end in Kosovo.
    It should be the last conflict of the 20th century. It should not be the
    defining conflict of the 21st century.
        The United States has the opportunity and the responsibility to make
    that decision come out right for our children and our grandchildren. We
    can help to lead to a new day for the people of this long-suffering
    region, a more peaceful time for Europe, and a better future for the
    United States.
        Thank you very much.
        Edward Seaton. The President has kindly
    agreed to take questions. You must be an ASNE member to ask a question.
    I would invite you to go to the floor mikes, as I see you're doing.
    Please identify yourself and your newspaper. We'll start over here with
    Rich Oppel.

    April 14 Attack on Kosovar Albanians

        Q. Mr. President, Rich Oppel, Austin American-Statesman. Would you
    help us sort out what happened yesterday on the road from Prizren to
    Kukes? According to press accounts--you had your choices, I guess--NATO
    aircraft either bombed a convoy that includes refugees or the Serbs
    attacked the Albanians in response to our bombing.
        Did we screw up? Can the prosecution of this war be sustained--can
    it sustain the support of Americans if the newspapers of this country
    are publishing front-page stories showing dead civilians? And what word
    went out from you and Sandy Berger today to the Pentagon and to the NATO
    High Command about yesterday's events?
        The President. Well, first of all, what we believe happened is that
    the pilot thought it was a military convoy and that there were
    apparently civilians in the convoy who were killed. That is regrettable.
    It is also inevitable in a conflict of this kind, with planes traveling
    at high speeds, doing their best to fulfill their mission.
        And if the requirement is that nothing like this can ever happen,
    then we're saying it's okay with us if Mr. Milosevic displaces over a million Kosovars, kills and rapes
    thousands upon thousands of them. And keep in mind, in Bosnia there were
    more than 2 million refugees and a quarter of a million people killed.
        You cannot have this kind of conflict without some errors like this
    occurring. This is not a business of perfection. I ask you to think
    about the hundreds and hundreds of sorties which have been flown in the
    last 3 weeks and the small number of civilian casualties. It should be
    obvious to everybody in the world that we are bending over backwards to
    hit military targets, to hit security targets, even to hit a lot of
    targets late at night where the losses in human life will be minimized.
    These efforts have been made, and they have been remarkably successful.
        So, certain regrettable things will happen. We will do our best. The
    military will evaluate this incident, as it does every other one; so
    will the NATO command. But I have to tell you, if anyone thinks that
    this is a reason for changing our mission, then the United States will
    never be able to bring military power to bear again, because there is no
    such thing as flying airplanes this fast, dropping weapons this
    powerful, dealing with an enemy this pervasive who is willing to use
    people as human shields, and never have this sort of tragic thing
    happen. It cannot be done.
        I believe when the scales are weighed, it will be obvious that this
    is a result of Mr. Milosevic's policies.
    If he doesn't want this to happen, he ought to get out of Kosovo, let
    the Kosovars come home, and let people come in there who can protect
    them. That is the answer to this.

    Effectiveness of NATO Strategy

        Q. Mr. President, thank you very much for coming to speak to us. I'm
    Dave Seaton of the Winfield Daily Courier in Kansas. If the people, the
    hundreds of thousands of people hiding in the hills in Kosovo, the
    Albanian Kosovars, perish from natural causes or as a result of this
    slaughter of paramilitary forces, won't NATO's hoped-for victory from
    bombing be hollow? And won't we have failed to prevent the kind of
    repeat of the Holocaust that you've said is what we don't want to enter
    the 21st century with?
        The President. Well, first of all, I believe that our strategy will
    prevail. We do have, as I said, a very difficult problem here, to figure
    out what to do about the refugees within Kosovo. We are working at it.
    The international relief agencies are working at it. A lot of countries
    that have some relationship with Serbia are working

    [[Page 557]]

    at it. And we are doing our best to try to figure out how to resolve it.
        I think the answer is, what is the alternative? So far, we still
    don't have as many refugees and nowhere near as many people dead as we
    did in Bosnia. And I think it's because we have moved more quickly. I
    think we have a chance to put this back together without having as much
    wreckage as we had there. And we are working as hard as we can to do it.
    It is a difficult situation, but we are working as hard as we can. And
    we are doing it while keeping this NATO Alliance together.
        And keep in mind, that is also very important, I think, that this is
    not an action by the United States alone. This is not one we engineered
    or dominated. This is a decision we made as partners with the 18 other
    NATO Allies, and we are doing our best to deal with it. And I assure you
    that we're trying to deal with all the contingencies. I do not think it
    is--including trying to figure out what's the worst thing that can
    happen and how to avoid it. But we're doing our best to deal with that.
        It's not possible to fly helpless cargo planes over and do airdrops
    to people, for example, if we know there is a better than 50 percent
    chance they won't get the supplies in the first place and a much better
    than 50 percent chance that the planes would be shot out of the air,
    even though they are not warplanes at all. So we're struggling to come
    to grips with this. But I think we moved very quickly, and we've made a
    lot of progress in a short time in dealing with the massive refugee
    problem on the borders in the other countries, and I hope in the next
    few days we'll have some progress to report on this.

    President's Response to Criticism

        Q. Mr. President, Ken Bunting with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I
    haven't listened to any talk radio today, but, I apologize, I do often.
    And I'm often reminded of your wife's comment about the rightwing
    conspiracy, the critics who want to get at you for anything and
    undermine your Presidency and discredit you, personally. But there is a
    common drumbeat on the airwaves now, and it is that you personally lack
    the moral authority to be Commander in Chief.
        And certainly, I guess there is a powerful inclination to ignore
    those criticisms. But if you had to address it to an Air Force pilot,
    who had listened to the same radio shows and perhaps been persuaded to
    that point of view, how would you address that?
        The President. Well, I don't have to address it to the Air Force
    pilot. I am his Commander in Chief, and they swore an oath to the
    Constitution, and they have performed admirably. And they don't deserve
    to hear that.
        I just have seen a lot of our Air Force pilots. I just went down to
    Barksdale Air Force Base in Shreveport, Louisiana. I spent endless
    amounts--I spent hours talking to the families, the friends, the people
    that were there, encouraging people to say what they think. One person
    said something critical. Several hundred said, ``We believe in what
    we're doing. It is the right thing to do. Thank you for doing it. We are
    proud to do it. This is what we signed on for.''
        This is a democracy, and people can say whatever they want to say.
    But I have found that the American people, vast majorities of them, at
    least, appreciate it when I don't spend my time responding to them, and
    instead I spend my time working for the American people and trying to do
    what I think is right. I let other people be their judge about whether
    they think I should or shouldn't do something. But I have no response,
    except to get up every day and try to do my job.
        And I think that this country is in a better place than it was 6
    years and 3 months ago because we have followed that policy, instead of
    being totally consumed with spending all of our time answering our
    critics. I'd rather work on what I can control, and the opinion of some
    of the talk show people is something that's way beyond my control and
    happily so. [Laughter]
        Mr. Seaton. We have time for only one more
    question, and if I could, I'd like to break the line over here.
        Q. I really have an important question, if I may.
        Mr. Seaton. Okay, but if Len Downey would get his question right
    afterward.

    Serb Weapons of Mass Destruction

        Q. Chris Waddle, executive editor of the Anniston Star. Mr.
    President, we're a center for chemical warfare training and storage in
    Anniston, Alabama, and Pentagon officials confirm to us the chemical
    weapons capability of the former Yugoslav forces. How does that
    availability of weapons of mass destruction among the Serbs impact
    American and NATO operations in the Kosovo conflict? And what is your

    [[Page 558]]

    administration's policy of response or retribution in the however
    unlikely event of enemy use of such weapons of mass destruction against
    insurgents or refugees or even the NATO Alliance?
        The President. My response would be swift and overwhelming. And we
    have, obviously, intelligence about the capabilities of the Serbs in a
    number of areas militarily, just as we do with other countries. But I
    think they are quite well aware of the dangers of overly escalating
    this. And I think that's all I should say about it right now.
        Mr. Seaton. Mr. President, I'm told we
    have to--you can take one from Len.
        Q. I'm the only woman in line, so I'd like--[laughter]----
        The President. I'll take a couple more.
        You know what's going on, don't you? The people that help me don't
    trust you not to write a story that's about something other than Kosovo,
    and they think the longer I stay up here, the greater my chances of
    screwing up. [Laughter] That's really what's going on here. And it's
    wonderful when you're not running for anything, you can say just exactly
    what's on your mind. [Laughter]
        But--have at it, go ahead. [Laughter]

    Human Rights in Afghanistan

        Q. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm Narda Zacchino with the Los Angeles
    Times. Knowing your interest in human rights and having had you refer to
    all God's children, I'd like you to focus some attention for just a
    moment on some of God's children in Afghanistan. And what I'm speaking
    about is, this is a country that's under the harsh rule of the Taliban,
    some of whose leaders we helped finance and arm in their fight against
    the Soviet Union.
        In Afghanistan today, there are 11\1/2\ million women and children,
    women and girls, who are virtually under house arrest. Male doctors are
    not permitted to treat women and girls, and female doctors are not
    allowed to practice. Women are kept in their homes and may only leave if
    they're in the company of a brother, a father, or a husband. Windows of
    homes where women live are painted black so that no man may, per chance,
    see them without their burkha. When they go outside, they're totally
    shrouded. A 70-year-old woman was beaten severely because her ankles
    showed to a man. A teenage girl was almost stoned to death because her
    ankles showed when she was riding her bicycle. Women in this country are
    not permitted to do anything except stay in their homes, unless they
    leave in the company of a man.
        It's a terribly repressive regime. And a number of people think that
    we have some obligation to these 11\1/2\ million women and girls,
    because of our relationship--former relationship to these people who are
    in power. What do you think?
        The President. Well, I absolutely do, and I think we would even if
    we hadn't supported the Taliban on ``the enemy of my enemy is my
    friend'' principle years ago. I think, independent of that, we do. I
    think that what has happened to the women and children of Afghanistan is
    atrocious.
        The First Lady and I had an event at the White House to highlight
    that on Human Rights Day, including having two Afghan women there who
    talked to the press about what was going on. I met with a group of
    leaders from the Feminist Majority the other day and talked about how we
    could do more to bring more to the United States, what other things we
    could do to put pressure on Taliban and on other states, other
    countries, to try to help us to change conditions.
        And I think it is very, very important to do. I think it is one of
    the worst examples of systematic human rights abuses in the world today,
    and a terrible perversion of Islam.
        Mr. Seaton. We asked Len Downey to raise a
    question that was of concern to ASNE, so I invite him to do so if he
    could.

    Availability of Information

        Q. Len Downey of the Washington Post. Mr. President, a growing
    number of newspaper editors and broadcast news executives are very
    concerned about the relatively little reliable information and specific
    information that has been released so far by the Defense Department
    about the bombings and the other military activities so far during
    Operation Allied Force--much less information, for instance, than was
    provided daily during the Persian Gulf war or Operation Desert Fox. In
    view of the need, Mr. President, that you discussed today to have the
    American people support this military action, will you instruct the
    Defense Department to provide us and the American people with more
    specific information about the bombing?

    [[Page 559]]

        The President. Well, Mr. Downey, you
    know, late last week the Defense Department had a big, long briefing.
    And there are basically two issues here, and we're trying to resolve
    them. I actually had a rather extended conversation yesterday with two
    of the other leaders of the NATO alliance about this because I think
    it's important, not just in the United States but throughout Europe, to
    get more information out more quickly.
        There have been two problems from the point of view of the Pentagon:
    One is trying to work through the NATO command structure and let them do
    the daily briefings and try to determine by consensus, if you will, what
    should be gotten out and how; and then to have the Pentagon play a
    supporting role in that.
        The other problem is a practical one, which is sometimes it takes--
    in the Gulf, when we fought in Iraq in Desert Storm and later when we
    had our actions there, neither the weather nor the terrain presented the
    barriers to actually assessing quickly what the impact of the action was
    that is presented in the Balkans. So sometimes there is just an
    inevitable delay, which is one of the reasons that--last week I talked
    to Secretary Cohen and General
    Shelton about having the Pentagon do a big
    briefing to be much more detailed about what, in fact, had happened and
    what conclusions we drew from it.
        So all I can tell you is, I'm aware that this is a difficulty. I
    agree that we should try to do more, more simultaneous with the actions.
    And I am working on it and trying to get NATO to do more as well. Unless
    there is some specific security-related reason that some issue shouldn't
    be talked about, I think the more information we can get out there the
    more quickly, the better off we are.
        Q. Thank you.
        The President. But I know that whenever there's a conflict between
    any Government and the press, there's always the assumption that there
    is some deliberate scheme at work here. And I don't think that's the
    case here. I think really, we're trying to work through--NATO has never
    done this kind of operation before, in this way, and there are a lot of
    things that have to be worked through. But I am working on it, and I
    hope that most of you will be generally satisfied within the next few
    days.
        Do you want to take a couple more?
        Mr. Seaton. We could; it's up to you.
        The President. He's been standing there a long time. [Laughter]

    President's Legacy

        Q. I have. And I'm the only resident from Vancouver, Washington,
    standing here, so--[laughter]--Tom Koenninger, the Columbian, Vancouver,
    Washington. Mr. President, my question has two parts. The first is, as
    you near the end of your second term in office and deal with such issues
    as the Balkans, what legacy do you believe you are leaving to the
    American public? Secondly, would you be specific, sir, in telling us
    ways in which America is better off for your Presidency?
        The President. Well, I think, first of all--let me answer the first
    question first. I think others will determine the legacy of this
    administration, and most of it will have to be done when all the records
    are there and time passes and people without an axe to grind one way or
    the other have a chance to have their say.
        I can only tell you what I have tried to do. I have tried to lead
    America into a new century and into a whole new era in the way we work
    and live and relate to each other and the rest of the world. And I have
    tried to help build a world that was more peaceful, more prosperous, and
    more secure.
        I think that among the things that people will say this
    administration did and made progress on was, we gave the United States a
    modern economic policy and got out of 12 years of horrible deficit
    spending during which we quadrupled the debt. I think that the work we
    did to support the solution of social problems, in reducing the welfare
    rolls by half and reducing the crime rate and putting 100,000 police on
    the street, would be important. I think the work we did in education
    will be important.
        I think the systematic effort we made to promote reconciliation
    among people of different racial groups will be important. I think the
    work we have done in the Middle East to Northern Ireland in promoting
    peace will be important. I think the work we've done in Latin America
    through the Summit of the Americas and the work we've done with our
    allies in Central America will be important. I think there are a lot of
    things that will altogether add up to preparing America for the 21st
    century, building a stronger American community, and repairing the
    social fabric.

    [[Page 560]]

        And let me just say one thing. When I got off the airplane today
    there were a bunch of young people who are AmeriCorps volunteers. That's
    a program we started back in the second year of my Presidency. And one
    young woman said to me, ``I'm 30 years old. You're the first President I
    ever voted for. I've kept up. You did what you said you'd do, and it's
    worked.'' And her saying that to me meant more than just about anything
    any American could say.
        When I was in New Hampshire for the seventh anniversary of the New
    Hampshire primary, there were schoolchildren along the highway waiting
    in the cold rain. And person after person said to me, ``You had to come
    to these little town meetings in 1991, and we listened to you, and
    you've done what you said.''
        So what I think will also happen is people will see Americans can
    solve their problems. Government has a role to play, and it can produce.
    So I think there's a sense of possibility, a sense of optimism, a sense
    of eagerness about the future that the present difficulties in Kosovo
    cannot begin to overshadow. And I think the country is clearly better
    off than it was 6 years ago.
        Q. Thank you.

    Success of Post-Cold-War Policies

        Q. Mr. President, my name is Dave Zeeck. I'm the editor at the
    newspaper in Tacoma, Washington, the News Tribune. And part of a little
    known function of this convention is to help train young journalists.
    There are some journalists here who produce the AS&E report. I'd like to
    ask them to stand because they gave me this question. If you all would
    stand, please.
        Their question was--and you made an indirect reference to this in
    your speech--you didn't mention the Marshall plan by name, but that
    seemed to be what you were talking about as a way to resolve this later.
    And their question was, could a greater effort have been made after the
    fall of the Berlin Wall to do more along the lines of a Marshall plan,
    particularly in the Balkans, and might that have prevented something
    like we're facing today?
        The President. Perhaps. I wasn't President then, and I don't know. I
    don't say that in a blameworthy sense; I just wasn't. And I don't think
    it's fair for me to make judgments where I don't have all the facts, and
    I can't say. I don't mind saying that I missed the boat somewhere if I
    know it, or if I know enough about somebody else to say that, but I
    don't know the answer to that.
        Let me say it in another way. I am convinced that after communism
    fell, that the work that--we had a chance after the Berlin Wall fell,
    after the end of communism, to build a Europe that was united,
    democratic, and at peace for the first time in history. You go back;
    since the rise of nation-states on the continent of Europe, that had
    never been true before. There had always been some conflict; there had
    always been some division; there had always been some absence of
    democracy--never before possible.
        At that moment there were three great challenges, I would argue, to
    that vision. One is, what happens to Russia? Does Russia become a
    democracy? Does it become stable? Can it be prosperous enough in the
    painful transition? The other was, what happens to all the states around
    that were Communist, non-Russian states, basically the Balkans and
    Central Europe and southeastern Europe--second question. Third question
    is, would there be a conflict between Islam and the Orthodox branch of
    Christianity, manifest most obviously in the tension between Greece and
    Turkey but also up in the Balkans? If those three things could be
    resolved in a satisfactory way, then we could build a Europe that was
    united, democratic, and at peace.
        Now, what happened? The Germans took on East Germany, in an act of
    patriotism and generosity and costliness of staggering proportions.
    They're still paying the economic price today, but it was a brave and
    good and generous thing to do.
        The major countries in Europe supported the European Union. NATO
    took in Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. There was a massive
    effort made to try to deal with Russia. The United States put a lot of
    money into the denuclearization program and other things.
        After all is said and done, where are we? And we dealt with the
    Balkans in a more halting way. I think everyone would have to admit
    that. And we've continued without great success to resolve the
    difficulties between Greece and Turkey, but they haven't gotten worse,
    either. And we may have some Americans of both heritages here today that
    could have some ideas about that.
        So where are we today? Today, we're concerned that Russia has
    maintained its democracy, but its economy has been so burdened,

    [[Page 561]]

    it's caused all kinds of other problems, and that takes a lot of time
    for us. We're working on that. We're trying to maintain our strategic
    partnership with them even as we disagree about the conflict in the
    Balkans.
        Central Europe is in very good shape, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech
    Republic. Romania, Bulgaria, a lot of other countries--Slovenia--are
    doing better than most people would have imagined they would do. But the
    Balkans are in trouble, and the trouble in the Balkans has exacerbated
    the tensions with Russia, at least in the short run.
        And all I can tell you is, I don't know whether we could have done
    more before. I always prefer to look to tomorrow. I'm not blaming
    anybody for what happened before. I can't do that. I don't know enough
    to know. Everybody had their hands full, and there were so many changes
    going on at once, I'm not sure anyone could have figured out more to do.
        But I can tell you that if you want to think about what you want
    your children to live like, you imagine what do you want to happen in
    Asia; how are we going to work out our relationships with China and deal
    with the remaining security threat in North Korea and try to help Japan
    and the other countries come back? How are we going to have the
    strongest possible alliance in Latin America? What kind of new
    partnership can we have with Africa? But it all could come a cropper
    unless we have a united, democratic, and free Europe. And the three
    things are what I said: our relationship with Russia; what happens in
    the Balkans and southeastern Europe; and will Islam and Christianity be
    able to coexist in a positive way in the underbelly of Europe.
        And so I would say, maybe more could have been done; I don't know. I
    just know now, right now, all those people are fighting over smaller and
    smaller pieces of land. It's like life is a zero-sum game. You kick me
    out of my village; I'll kick you out of your village.
        The Bible says, wisely, ``Where there is no vision, the people
    perish.'' We need to have an alternative vision. They need to be brought
    into the vision of a prosperous Europe. They need to have more to gain
    by working together than they do by having constant fights with one
    another. They need to have--and we need to reach out and lift up, there.
        So, however this conflict ends, or whenever it ends--I think I know
    how it's going to end--but whenever it ends, we have some building to
    do. They have to have something to live for. You just can't tell people
    what they can't do; they've got to have something to be for, something
    to dream of, a future to build. And we ought to be a part of it.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 12:05 p.m. in the Grand Ballroom at the
    Fairmont Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Edward Seaton, president,
    American Society of Newspaper Editors; assassinated Serbian publisher
    Slavko Curuvija; President Slobodan Milosevic of the Federal Republic of
    Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); and Staff Sgt. Andrew A. Ramirez,
    USA, Staff Sgt. Christopher J. Stone, USA, and Specialist Steven M.
    Gonzales, USA, infantrymen in custody in Serbia.