    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1999, Book I)]
    [April 12, 1999]
    [Pages 540-546]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at the Seventh Millennium Evening at the White House
    April 12, 1999

    [The First Lady made brief opening
    remarks and introduced Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, who then gave the evening's featured lecture entitled
    ``The Perils of Indifference: Lessons Learned From a Violent Century.'']

        The President. Ladies and gentlemen, we have all been moved by one
    more profound example of Elie Wiesel's lifetime
    of bearing witness.
        Before we open the floor for questions, and especially because of
    the current events in Kosovo, I would like to ask you to think about
    what he has just said in terms of what it means to the United States, in
    particular, and to the world in which we would like our children to live
    in the new century.
        How do we avoid indifference to human suffering? How do we muster
    both the wisdom and the strength to know when to act and whether there
    are circumstances in which we should not? Why are we in Kosovo?
        The history of our country for quite a long while had been dominated
    by a principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations.
    Indeed, for most of our history we have worn that principle as a badge
    of honor, for our Founders knew intervention as a fundamentally
    destructive force. George Washington warned us against those
    ``entangling alliances.''
        The 20th century, with its two World Wars, the cold war, Korea,
    Vietnam, Desert Storm, Panama, Lebanon, Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia,
    Kosovo, it changed all that. For good or ill, it changed all that. Our
    steadily increasing involvement in the rest of the world, not for
    territorial gain but for peace and freedom and security, is a fact of
    recent history.
        In the cold war, it might be argued that on occasion we made a wrong
    judgment, because we saw the world through communist and noncommunist
    lenses. But no one doubts that we never sought territorial advantage. No
    one doubts that when we did get involved, we were doing what at least we
    thought was right for humanity.
        Now, at the end of the 20th century, it seems to me we face a great
    battle of the forces of integration against the forces of
    disintegration, of globalism versus tribalism, of oppression against
    empowerment. And this phenomenal explosion of technology 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 this vision of a 21st century world with the triumph of peace and
    prosperity and personal freedom; with the respect for the integrity of
    ethnic, racial, and religious minorities within a framework of shared
    values, shared power, shared plenty; making common cause against disease
    and environmental degradation across national lines,

    [[Page 541]]

    against terror, organized crime, weapons of mass destruction. This
    vision, ironically, is threatened by the oldest demon of human society,
    our vulnerability to hatred of the other. In the face of that, we cannot
    be indifferent, at home or abroad. That is why we are in Kosovo.
        We first have to set an example, as best we can, standing against
    hate crimes against racial minorities or gays, standing for respect, for
    diversity. Second, we have to act responsibly, recognizing this unique
    and, if history is any guide, fleeting position the United States now
    enjoys of remarkable military, political, and economic influence. We
    have to do what we can to protect the circle of humanity against those
    who would divide it by dehumanizing the other. Lord knows we have had
    enough of that in this century, and Elie talked about it.
        I think it is well to point out that Henry Luce coined the term
    ``the American Century'' way back in 1941. A lot of terrible things have
    happened since then, but a lot of good things have happened as well. And
    we should be grateful that, for most of the time since, our Nation has
    had both the power and the willingness to stand up against the horrors
    of the century, not every time, not every place, not even always with
    success, but we've done enough good to say that America has made a
    positive difference.
        From our successes and from our failures, we know there are hard
    questions that have to be asked when you move beyond the values and the
    principles to the murky circumstances of daily life. We can't, perhaps,
    intervene everywhere, but we must always be alive to the possibility of
    preventing death and oppression and forging and strengthening
    institutions and alliances to make a good outcome more likely.
        Elie has said that Kosovo is not the Holocaust but that the
    distinction should not deter us from doing what is right. I agree on
    both counts. When we see people forced from their homes at gunpoint,
    loaded onto train cars, their identity papers confiscated, their very
    presence blotted from the historical record, it is only natural that we
    would think of the events which Elie has chronicled tonight in his own
    life.
        We must always remain awake to the warning signs of evil. And now,
    we know that it is possible to act before it is too late.
        The efforts of Holocaust survivors to make us remember and help us
    understand, therefore, have not been in vain. The people who fought
    those battles and lived those tragedies, however, will not be around
    forever. More than 1,000 World War II veterans pass away every day. But
    they can live on in our determination to preserve what they gave us and
    to stand against the modern incarnations of the evil they defeated.
        Some say--and perhaps there will be some discussion about it
    tonight--that evil is an active presence, always seeking new
    opportunities to manifest itself. As a boy growing up in my Baptist
    church, I heard quite a lot of sermons about that. Other theologians,
    like Niebuhr, Martin Luther King, argued that evil was more the absence
    of something, a lack of knowledge, a failure of will, a poverty of the
    imagination, or a condition of indifference.
        None of this answers any of the difficult questions that a Kosovo, a
    Bosnia, a Rwanda present. But Kosovo is at the doorstep or the
    underbelly of NATO and its wide number of allies. We have military
    assets and allies willing to do their part. President
    Milosevic clearly has established a
    pattern of perfidy, earlier in Bosnia and elsewhere. And so we act.
        I would say there are two caveats that we ought to observe. First of
    all, any military action, any subsequent peacekeeping force cannot cause
    ancient grudges and freshly opened wounds to heal overnight. But we can
    make it more likely that people will resolve their differences by force
    of argument rather than force of arms and, in so doing, learn to live
    together. That is what Romania and Hungary have done recently, with
    their differences. It is what many Bosnian Croats, Serbs, and Muslims
    are struggling to do every day.
        Second, we should not fall victim to the easy tendency to demonize
    the Serbian people. They were our allies in World War II; they have
    their own legitimate concerns. Any international force going into Kosovo
    to maintain the peace must be dedicated also to protecting the Serbian
    minority from those who may wish to take their vengeance.
        But we cannot be indifferent to the fact that the Serbian
    leader has defined destiny as a license
    to kill. Destiny, instead, is what people make for themselves, with a
    decent respect for the legitimate interests and rights of others.
        In his first lecture here, the first Millennium Lecture, the
    distinguished historian Bernard Bailyn argued
    how much we are still shaped by the ideals of our Founding Fathers and
    by

    [[Page 542]]

    their realism, their deeply practical understanding of human nature,
    their understanding of the possibility of evil. They understood
    difficult moral judgments. They understood that to be indifferent is to
    be numb. They knew, too, that our people would never be immune to those
    who seek power by playing on our own hatreds and fears and that we had
    more to learn about the true meaning of liberty, equality, and the
    pursuit of happiness.
        Here in this house, we have tried to advance those ideals with our
    initiative against hate crime, the race initiative, AmeriCorps, the
    stand against the hatred that brought us Oklahoma City and paramilitary
    groups, the efforts to forge peace from Northern Ireland to the Middle
    East.
        But our challenge now, and the world's, is to harmonize diversity
    and integration, to build a richly textured fabric of civilization that
    will make the most of God's various gifts, and that will resist those
    who would tear that fabric apart by appealing to the dark recesses that
    often seem to lurk in even the strongest souls.
        To succeed, we must heed the wisdom of our Founders about power and
    ambition. We must have the compassion and determination of Abraham
    Lincoln to always give birth to new freedom. We must have the vision of
    President Roosevelt, who proclaimed four freedoms for all human beings
    and invited the United States to defend them at home and around the
    world.
        Now, we close out this chapter of our history determined not to turn
    away from the horrors we leave behind but to act on their lessons with
    principle and purpose. If that is what we are, in fact, doing, Kosovo
    could be a very good place to begin a new century.
        Thank you very much. [Applause] Thank you.
        We have hundreds of questions, I know. Ellen, do you want to
    describe what we're going to do?
        White House Millennium Council Director Ellen Lovell. Well, I think, Mr. President, you have a question for
    Mr. Wiesel. And then I'm going to begin the questioning from the room,
    and Mrs. Clinton will take the questions from the Internet.
        The President. I would like to ask you a
    question about what you think the impact of the modern media and sort of
    instantaneous news coverage will be. It is obvious to me that we built a
    consensus in the United States and throughout Europe for action in
    Bosnia in no small measure because of what people saw was going on
    there. It is obvious to me that the support in the United States and
    Europe for our actions in Kosovo have increased because of what people
    see going on.
        And I think I worry about two things, and I just would like to hear
    your thoughts on it. Number one, is there a
    chance that people will become inured to this level of human suffering
    by constant exposure to it? And number two, is there a chance that even
    though people's interest in humanity can be quickened almost overnight,
    that we're so used to having a new story every day that we may not have
    the patience to pay the price of time to deal with this and other
    challenges? A lot of these things require weeks and months, indeed,
    years of effort. And that seems to be inconsistent with, kind of, rapid-
    fire new news we are used to seeing.
        Mr. Wiesel. Mr. President, usually, in this
    room, people ask you questions. [Laughter]
        The President. That's why I like this. [Laughter]
        Mr. Wiesel. What you said is correct. The
    numbness is a danger. I remember during the Vietnam war, the first time
    we saw on television, live, the war in Vietnam--usually, of course, the
    networks broadcasted during dinner. So we stopped eating. How can you
    eat when people kill each other and people die? After 2 weeks, people
    went on eating. They were numb. And it's a danger.
        But nevertheless, I don't see the alternative. Except I hope that in
    the next millennium, the next century, those who are responsible for the
    TV programs, for the news programs, will find enough talent, enough
    fervor, enough imagination to present the news in such a way that the
    news will appeal to all of us day after day. I do not see an
    alternative. We must know what is happening.
        And today we can know it instantly. If the American people now are
    behind you, it is because they see it on television and they see it in
    newspapers. They see the images. They see the pictures of children in
    the trains, as you said, in the trains. So how can they remain
    indifferent? And therefore, I am--the risks are there, but I have faith
    that we shall overcome the risks. But we must know.

    [At this point, Ms. Lovell and the First Lady
    led the question-and-answer portion of the

    [[Page 543]]

    evening. Ms. Lovell called on Chief Joyce Dugan
    of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, who briefly described
    atrocities in her people's history and asked Mr. Wiesel how to overcome indifference to suffering, in order to
    avoid having to resort to military action. Mr. Wiesel responded that
    those who listened to the beauty in another culture's past would not be
    indifferent. The First Lady cited Bernard Bailyn's remarks at the first
    Millennium Evening, that people too often overlook or ignore painful
    segments of history.]

        The President. I'd just like to say one thing specifically,
    Chief. First of all I'm glad you're here, and
    I'm glad you're here for this. I think that Hillary and I have spent
    more time on Native American issues and with Native American leaders
    than any previous administration, at least that I know anything about.
    And with all respect, one of the things that I think is killing us in
    this country--still is a big problem--is a phenomenal amount of
    ignorance, on the part not just of schoolchildren but of people in very
    important positions of decisionmaking, about the real, factual history
    of the Native Americans in the United States.
        And you can almost find no one who understands the difference in any
    one tribe or another. And you can almost find no one who understands
    that, yes, a few tribes are wealthy because of gaming, because of the
    sovereignty relationship, but also the poorest Americans are still in
    Native American communities. And I think this disempowerment, this
    stripping of autonomy and self-respect and self-reliance and the ability
    to do things that started over a century ago, still in subtle ways
    continues today.
        And from my perspective, I've been terribly impressed with a lot of
    the elected leaders of the tribes all across the country. And I think
    that we really have a huge job to do to not have kind of a benign
    neglect or not benign, a malign neglect, under the guise of preserving
    this sovereignty relationship. And we need to recognize what we did and
    what is still there that's a legacy of the past, so that we can give the
    children of the Native American tribes all over this country the future
    they deserve.
        I think it's a huge issue, and I still think ignorance is bearing
    down on us something fierce. And I thank you for
    being here.

    [The question-and-answer portion of the evening continued. Dr. Odette
    Nyiramilimo of Rwanda, a Tutsi survivor
    of the 1994 genocide, asked how governments and individuals could now
    demonstrate that they were not still indifferent to the fate of Rwanda.
    Mr. Wiesel responded that nations might be
    intervening in Kosovo because they had not prevented the massacre in
    Rwanda.]

        The President. I think we could have prevented a significant amount
    of it. You know, it takes--the thing about the Rwanda massacre that was
    so stunning is it was done mostly with very primitive weapons, not
    modern mass-killing instruments, and yet it happened in a matter of just
    a few weeks, as you know.
        And I want to give time for others to ask their questions, but let
    me say I have thought about this a great deal, more than you might
    imagine. And we went to Kigali when we were in Africa, and we talked to
    a number of the survivors, including a woman who woke up to find her
    husband and six children all hatcheted to death, hacked to death. And
    she, by a miracle, lived and was devoting herself to the work of helping
    people like you put your lives back together.
        One of the things that made it, I think, more likely that we would
    act in Kosovo, and eventually in Bosnia, is that we had a mechanism
    through which we could act, where people could join together in a hurry,
    like with NATO. And one of the things that we are trying to do is to
    work with other African countries now on something called the Africa
    Crisis Response Initiative, where we send American soldiers to work with
    African countries to develop the ability to work with other militaries
    to try to head these kinds of things off and to do it in a hurry.
        I can only tell you that I will do my best to make sure that nothing
    like this happens again in Africa. I do not think the United States can
    take the position that we only care about these sorts of things if they
    happen in Europe. I don't feel that way. And I think that we will, next
    time, be far more likely to have the means to act in Africa than we had
    last time, in a quicker way.

    [An Internet questioner asked about the definition of human rights, and
    the First Lady pointed out that the
    United Nations had adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mr.
    Wiesel commented that human rights organizations
    had proliferated because people had lost confidence in the ability of
    government to ensure those

    [[Page 544]]

    rights. He then suggested that the worst violation of human rights was
    humiliation, such as by poverty, disease, or injustice.]

        The President. Let me just say--there was another part to that
    question. The young man asked a very good question. The only thing I
    would say is you should get a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human
    Rights. You should read it. You will find that it also says, in addition
    to what Mr. Wiesel says, that all people should have certain rights
    against government. They should have the right to speak their mind. They
    should have the right to dissent. They should have the right to
    organize. They should have the right to chart their own course.
        And then the last question you ask is a very important one. He said,
    ``Is human rights--are they different from country to country?'' And the
    truth is that to some extent they are, but that's not because people can
    use their own cultures or religion as an excuse to repress women and
    young girls, for example, the way the Taliban does in Afghanistan. It's
    because countries should be free to go beyond the baseline definition if
    they choose.
        For example, we have an Americans with Disabilities Act, which we
    believe is sort of a further manifestation of the basic human rights. So
    we don't want--when you say, are they the same in all countries?--no,
    countries normally, when they have more wealth or a more advanced
    democracy, find new ways to manifest those rights. And to that extent,
    they can be different from country to country.
        Countries do have different religious and cultural institutions, but
    the whole purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was so
    that no country could get away with oppressing the basic humanity of any
    person on the grounds that they were somehow different from some other
    country. That's the most important point to be made. That's why there
    needed to be a Universal Declaration.

    [The question-and-answer portion of the evening continued. Professor
    Azizah al-Hibri, University of Richmond
    School of Law, founder of Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human
    Rights, pointed out that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all preach
    love, kindness, and compassion, but that each had been used as a tool of
    oppression and suffering. Mr. Wiesel responded
    that this was due to fanaticism and that part of the solution had to be
    education.]

        The President. I would like to just offer a couple of observations,
    if I might.
        First of all, I think one of the most hopeful signs I have seen to
    deal with this whole issue of religious fanaticism in the last few years
    is the enormous support of Jews in America and throughout the world for
    the Muslim populations of Bosnia and Kosovo. I think it doesn't answer
    all the questions of what should be the details of the resolution
    between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It doesn't solve all the
    problems, but everybody should see that this is a good thing. I think
    that the American Jewish community was maybe the most ardent community,
    earliest, for the United States stepping forward in Kosovo. And I think
    we have to see that as a good thing.
        Secondly, I think this whole question of the treatment of women and
    children by the Taliban has aroused a vocal opposition among members of
    the Muslim community around the world who feel that they can say this
    and not be betraying their faith. I think this is a good thing.
        Now, I would just like to make two other points, one of which is to
    agree with Elie on this one point. I agree on
    education, but education for what? There are a lot of geniuses that are
    tyrants. What is it that we're going to educate?
        I believe that every good Jew, every good Christian, and every good
    Muslim, if you believe that love is the central value of the religion,
    you have to ask yourself, why is that? The reason is, we are not God; we
    might be wrong. Every one of us--I might be wrong about what I've been
    advocating here tonight. It's only when you recognize the possibility
    that you might be wrong or, to use the language of Saint Paul, that we
    see through the glass darkly, that we know only in part, that you can
    give the other person some elbow room.
        And somehow, one or two central scriptural tenets from Judaism, from
    Islam, from the Koran, and from Christianity, need to be put in one
    little place and need to be propagated throughout the world--to preach a
    little humility, if you please. Otherwise, we'll never get there.
        The second point I wanted to make is this: A lot of these people
    that are saying this in the name of religion, they're kidding. They know
    perfectly well that religion has nothing to do with it. It's about power
    and control, and they're manipulating other people. And when it is, if

    [[Page 545]]

    it's someone who practices our faith, we've got to have the guts to
    stand up and say that. And it's hard, but we have to.

    [The First Lady agreed, saying that
    the new century offered an opportunity for Jews, Christians, and Muslims
    to work together against fanaticism.]

        The President. I would like to make one more point which I think is
    very important in the dealings between the West and the Islamic
    countries, generally, and I will use Iran as an example.
        It may be that the Iranian people have been taught to hate or
    distrust the United States or the West on the grounds that we are
    infidels and outside the faith. And therefore, it is easy for us to be
    angry and to respond in kind. I think it is important to recognize,
    however, that Iran, because of its enormous geopolitical importance over
    time, has been the subject of quite a lot of abuse from various Western
    nations. And I think sometimes it's quite important to tell people,
    ``Look, you have a right to be angry at something my country or my
    culture or others that are generally allied with us today did to you 50
    or 60 or 100 or 150 years ago. But that is different from saying that I
    am outside the faith, and you are God's chosen.''
        So sometimes people will listen to you if you tell them, ``You're
    right, but your underlying reason is wrong.'' So we have to find some
    way to get dialog, and going into total denial when you're in a
    conversation with somebody who's been your adversary, in a country like
    Iran that is often worried about its independence and its integrity, is
    not exactly the way to begin.
        So I think while we speak out against religious intolerance, we have
    to listen for possible ways we can give people the legitimacy of some of
    their fears or some of their angers or some of their historic
    grievances, and then say they rest on other grounds; now, can we build a
    common future? I think that's very important. Sometimes I think we in
    the United States, and Western culture generally, we hate to do that.
    But we're going to have to if we want to have an ultimate accommodation.

    [The question-and-answer portion of the evening continued. Atiba de
    Souza, a University of Maryland student who
    emigrated from Trinidad as a child, suggested that in the next few years
    the Nation's minorities would become the majority, and asked if and how
    a global society could be achieved. Mr. Wiesel emphasized the importance
    of education, in schools and through the media.]

        The President. I would just make two points, I think. First of all,
    I think given the fact that we're living in an age of globalization,
    where, whether we like it or not, more and more of our economic and
    cultural and other contacts will cross national lines, it is, in fact, a
    very good thing that sometime in the next century there will be no
    single majority racial group.
        But I should also tell you that before we had large numbers of
    African-Americans coming, who were not here or direct descendants from
    slaves but others coming, like you did, from the Caribbean, and before
    we had large numbers of Hispanics, 100 years ago, Irish immigrants to
    this country were treated as if they were of a different racial group.
    So we've always had these tensions.
        But I think if we can learn to live together across our racial and
    religious lines, in a way that not just respects but actually celebrates
    our diversity, that does it within the framework, as I said, of a common
    fabric of shared values and shared opportunity, I think that will be
    quite a good thing for the 21st century. I think it will make America
    stronger, not weaker. So I look forward to that.
        The second thing I want to say is I think that to get there we're
    going to have to more broadly find a way to have more economic and
    educational balance in the share of wealth, in the share of knowledge,
    across all of our racial and ethnic groups. There is no easy way to
    achieve that. But I am convinced that--and I see your colleague, Mr.
    Silber, out here, who's thought about this a
    great deal in his life--I'm convinced that lowering standards for people
    who come from poor backgrounds is not the answer.
        I think we should raise standards and invest more resources in
    helping people achieve them. And then I think we need to provide the
    incentives in every neighborhood, in every Native American reservation,
    in every rural area, that have made the economy work elsewhere. It will
    never be perfectly done, but we can do a much, much better job of it.
    And unless we do a much better job educationally and economically, then
    we won't have all the benefits from our racial diversity that we could
    otherwise enjoy.

    [[Page 546]]

    [The question-and-answer portion of the evening continued. Ms.
    Lovell then thanked the participants and
    invited the President's closing remarks.]

        The President. I don't think there's much more to say, except to
    thank you again for once again giving us your witness and for the
    powerful example of your life. We thank your family for joining us. And
    I thank all of you for caring about this.
        I believe there's grounds for hope. I think the history of this
    country is evidence. I think the civil rights movement is evidence. I
    think the life and triumph of Nelson Mandela
    is evidence. I think evidence abounds.
        What we all have to remember is somehow how to strike the proper
    balance of passion and humility. I think our guest tonight has done it
    magnificently, and I thank him.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The White House Millennium Evening began at 7:37 p.m. in the East
    Room at the White House. In his remarks, the President referred to
    President Slobodan Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
    (Serbia and Montenegro); John Silber, chancellor, Boston University; and
    President Nelson Mandela of South Africa. The transcript released by the
    Office of the Press Secretary also included the remarks of the First
    Lady and Elie Wiesel and the question-and-answer portion of the evening.
    The discussion was cybercast on the Internet.