[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1999, Book I)]
[February 26, 1999]
[Pages 271-280]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
Remarks on United States Foreign Policy in San Francisco
February 26, 1999
Thank you, and good morning. Mr. Mayor, we're delighted to be here in San Francisco. We thank you
for coming out to welcome us. Senator Boxer,
Representative Pelosi, Representative
Lofgren, members of the California Legislature
who are here. I'd like to especially thank two people who had a lot to
do with the good things that have happened in the last 6 years in our
administration, our former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and Mrs. Perry, who are
here; and General John Shalikashvili,
thank you for coming. We're delighted to see you.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to speak with all of you, to
be joined with Secretary Albright and
Mr. Berger, to talk about America's role in
the century to come, to talk about what we must do to realize the
promise of this extraordinary moment in the history of the world.
For the first time since before the rise of fascism early in this
century, there is no overriding threat to our survival or our freedom.
Perhaps for the first time in history, the world's leading nations are
not engaged in a struggle with each other for security or territory. The
world clearly is coming together. Since 1945, global trade has grown 15-
fold, raising living standards on every continent. Freedom is expanding:
For the first time in history, more than half the world's people elect
their own leaders. Access to information by ordinary people the world
over is literally exploding.
Because of these developments, and the dramatic increase in our own
prosperity and confidence in this, the longest peacetime economic
expansion in our history, the United States has the opportunity and, I
would argue, the solemn responsibility to shape a more peaceful,
prosperous, democratic world in the 21st century.
We must, however, begin this discussion with a little history and a
little humility. Listen to this quote by another American leader, at the
dawn of a new century: ``The world's products are exchanged as never
before and with increasing transportation comes increasing knowledge and
larger trade. We travel greater distances
[[Page 272]]
in a shorter space of time and with more ease than was ever dreamed of.
The same important news is read, though in different languages, the same
day, in all the world. Isolation is no longer possible. No nation can
longer be indifferent to any other.''
That was said by President William McKinley 100 years ago. What we
now call globalization was well underway even then. We, in fact, had
more diplomatic posts in the world than we have today, and foreign
investment actually played a larger role in our own economy then than it
does today.
The optimism being expressed about the 20th century by President
McKinley and others at that time was not all that much different from
the hopes commonly expressed today about the 21st. The rising global
trade and communications did lift countless lives then, just as it does
today. But it did not stop the world's wealthiest nations from waging
World War I and World War II. It did not stop the Depression, or the
Holocaust, or communism. Had leading nations acted decisively then,
perhaps these disasters might have been prevented. But the League of
Nations failed, and America--well, our principal involvement in the
world was commercial and cultural, unless and until we were attacked.
After World War II, our leaders took a different course. Harry
Truman came to this city and said that to change the world away from a
world in which might makes right, quote, ``words are not enough. We must
once and for all prove by our acts conclusively that right has might.''
He and his allies and their successors built a network of security
alliances to preserve the peace and a global financial system to
preserve prosperity.
Over the last 6 years, we have been striving to renew those
arrangements and to create new ones for the challenges of the next 50
years. We have made progress, but there is so very much more to do. We
cannot assume today that globalization alone will wash away the forces
of destruction at the dawn of the 21st century, any more than it did at
the dawn of the 20th century. We cannot assume it will bring freedom and
prosperity to ordinary citizens around the world who long for them. We
cannot assume it will avoid environmental and public health disasters.
We cannot assume that because we are now secure, we Americans do not
need military strength or alliances or that because we are prosperous,
we are not vulnerable to financial turmoil half a world away.
The world we want to leave our children and grandchildren requires
us to make the right choices, and some of them will be difficult.
America has always risen to great causes, yet we have a tendency, still,
to believe that we can go back to minding our own business when we're
done. Today we must embrace the inexorable logic of globalization, that
everything, from the strength of our economy to the safety of our cities
to the health of our people, depends on events not only within our
borders but half a world away. We must see the opportunities and the
dangers of the interdependent world in which we are clearly fated to
live.
There is still the potential for major regional wars that would
threaten our security. The arms race between India and Pakistan reminds
us that the next big war could still be nuclear. There is a risk that
our former adversaries will not succeed in their transitions to freedom
and free markets. There is a danger that deadly weapons will fall into
the hands of a terrorist group or an outlaw nation and that those
weapons could be chemical or biological. There is a danger of deadly
alliances among terrorists, narcotraffickers, and organized criminal
groups. There is a danger of global environmental crises and the spread
of deadly diseases. There is a danger that global financial turmoil will
undermine open markets, overwhelm open societies, and undercut our own
prosperity.
We must avoid both the temptation to minimize these dangers and the
illusion that the proper response to them is to batten down the hatches
and protect America against the world. The promise of our future lies in
the world. Therefore, we must work hard with the world to defeat the
dangers we face together and to build this hopeful moment together, into
a generation of peace, prosperity, and freedom. Because of our unique
position, America must lead with confidence in our strengths and with a
clear vision of what we seek to avoid and what we seek to advance.
Our first challenge is to build a more peaceful 21st century world.
To that end, we're renewing alliances that extend the area where wars do
not happen and working to stop the conflicts that are claiming lives and
threatening our interests right now.
The century's bloodiest wars began in Europe. That's why I've worked
hard to build a Europe
[[Page 273]]
that finally is undivided, democratic, and at peace. We want all of
Europe to have what America helped build in Western Europe, a community
that upholds common standards of human rights, where people have the
confidence and security to invest in the future, where nations cooperate
to make war unthinkable.
That is why I have pushed hard for NATO's enlargement and why we
must keep NATO's doors open to new democratic members, so that other
nations will have an incentive to deepen their democracies. That is why
we must forge a partnership between NATO and Russia, between NATO and
Ukraine; why we are building a NATO capable not only of deterring
aggression against its own territory but of meeting challenges to our
security beyond its territory, the kind of NATO we must advance at the
50th anniversary summit in Washington this April.
We are building a stronger alliance with Japan, and renewing our
commitment to deter aggression in Korea and intensifying our efforts for
a genuine peace there. I thank Secretary Perry for his efforts in that regard. We also create a more
peaceful world by building new partnerships in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America.
Ten years ago, we were shouting at each other across a North-South
chasm defined by our differences. Today, we are engaged in a new dialog
that speaks the language of common interests, of trade and investment,
of education and health, of democracies that deliver not corruption and
despair but progress and hope, of a common desire that children in all
our countries will be free of the scourge of drugs. Through these
efforts to strengthen old alliances and build new partnerships, we
advance the prospects for peace. However, the work of actually making
peace is harder and often far more contentious.
It's easy, for example, to say that we really have no interests in
who lives in this or that valley in Bosnia or who owns a strip of
brushland in the Horn of Africa or some piece of parched earth by the
Jordan River. But the true measure of our interests lies not in how
small or distant these places are or in whether we have trouble
pronouncing their names. The question we must ask is, what are the
consequences to our security of letting conflicts fester and spread? We
cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be everywhere. But where
our values and our interests are at stake and where we can make a
difference, we must be prepared to do so. And we must remember that the
real challenge of foreign policy is to deal with problems before they
harm our national interests.
It's also easy to say that peacemaking is simply doomed where people
are embittered by generations of hate, where the old animosities of race
and religion and ethnic difference raise their hoary heads. But I will
never forget the day that the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian
Authority came to the White House, in September of 1993, to sign their
peace accord. At that moment, the question arose--and indeed, based on
the pictures afterward, it seemed to be the main question--whether, if
in front of the entire world, Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman
Arafat would actually shake hands for the
first time. It was an interesting and occasionally humorous discussion.
But it ended when Yitzhak Rabin, a soldier for a lifetime, said to me,
``Mr. President, I have been fighting this man for a lifetime, 30 years.
I have buried a lot of my own people in the process. But you do not make
peace with your friends.''
It is in our interest to be a peacemaker, not because we think we
can make all these differences go away, but because in over 200 years of
hard effort here at home and with bitter and good experiences around the
world, we have learned that the world works better when differences are
resolved by the force of argument rather than the force of arms.
That is why I am proud of the work we have done to support peace in
Northern Ireland and why we will keep pressing the leaders there to
observe not just the letter but the spirit of the Good Friday accords.
It is also why I intend to use the time I have remaining in this
office to push for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, to
encourage Israelis and Palestinians to reach a just and final
settlement, and to stand by our friends for peace, such as Jordan. The
people of the Middle East can do it, but time is precious, and they
can't afford to waste any more of it. In their hearts, they know there
can be no security or justice for any who live in that small and sacred
land until there is security and justice for all who live there. If they
do their part, we must do ours.
We will also keep working with our allies to build peace in the
Balkans. Three years ago, we helped to end the war in Bosnia. A lot
[[Page 274]]
of doubters then thought it would soon start again. But Bosnia is on a
steady path toward renewal and democracy. We've been able to reduce our
troops there by 75 percent as peace has taken hold, and we will continue
to bring them home.
The biggest remaining danger to this progress has been the fighting
and the repression in Kosovo. Kosovo is, after all, where the violence
in the former Yugoslavia began, over a decade ago, when they lost the
autonomy guaranteed under Yugoslav law. We have a clear national
interest in ensuring that Kosovo is where this trouble ends. If it
continues, it almost certainly will draw in Albania and Macedonia, which
share borders with Kosovo, and on which clashes have already occurred.
Potentially, it could affect our allies, Greece and Turkey. It could
spark tensions in Bosnia itself, jeopardizing the gains made there. If
the conflict continues, there will certainly be more atrocities, more
refugees, more victims crying out for justice and seeking out revenge.
Last fall, a quarter of a million displaced people in Bosnia were
facing cold and hunger in the hills. Using diplomacy backed by force, we
brought them home and slowed the fighting.
For 17 days this month, outside Paris, we sought with our European
partners an agreement that would end the fighting for good. Progress was
made toward a common understanding of Kosovo's autonomy, progress that
would not have happened, I want to say, but for the unity of our allies
and the tireless leadership of our Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright.
Here's where we are. The Kosovar Albanian leaders have agreed in
principle to a plan that would protect the rights of their people and
give them substantial self-government. Serbia has agreed to much, but
not all, of the conditions of autonomy and has so far not agreed to the
necessity of a NATO-led international force to maintain the peace there.
Serbia's leaders must now accept that only by allowing people in
Kosovo control over their day-to-day lives--as, after all, they had been
promised under Yugoslav law--it is only by doing that can they keep
their country intact. Both sides must return to the negotiations on
March 15, with clear mandate for peace. In the meantime, President
Milosevic should understand that this is
a time for restraint, not repression, and if he does not, NATO is
prepared to act.
Now, if there is a peace agreement that is effective, NATO must also
be ready to deploy to Kosovo to give both sides the confidence to lay
down their arms. Europeans would provide the great bulk of such a force,
roughly 85 percent, but if there is a real peace, America must do its
part as well.
Kosovo is not an easy problem. But if we don't stop the conflict
now, it clearly will spread. And then we will not be able to stop it,
except at far greater cost and risk.
A second challenge we face is to bring our former adversaries,
Russia and China, into the international system as open, prosperous,
stable nations. The way both countries develop in the coming century
will have a lot to do with the future of our planet.
For 50 years, we confronted the challenge of Russia's strength.
Today, we must confront the risk of a Russia weakened by the legacy of
communism and also by its inability at the moment to maintain prosperity
at home or control the flow of its money, weapons, and technology across
its borders.
The dimensions of this problem are truly enormous. Eight years after
the Soviet collapse, the Russian people are hurting. The economy is
shrinking, making the future uncertain. Yet, we have as much of a stake
today in Russia overcoming these challenges as we did in checking its
expansion during the cold war. This is not a time for complacency or
self-fulfilling pessimism. Let's not forget that Russia's people have
overcome enormous obstacles before. In just this decade, with no living
memory of democracy or freedom to guide them, they have built a country
more open to the world than ever, a country with a free press and a
robust, even raucous debate, a country that should see in the first year
of the new millennium the first peaceful democratic transfer of power in
its 1,000-year history.
The Russian people will decide their own future. But we must work
with them for the best possible outcome with realism and with patience.
If Russia does what it must to make its economy work, I am ready to do
everything I can to mobilize adequate international support for them.
With the right framework, we will also encourage foreign investment in
its factories, its energy fields, its people. We will increase our
support for small business and for
[[Page 275]]
the independent media. We will work to continue cutting our two nations'
nuclear arsenals and help Russia prevent both its weapons and its
expertise from falling into the wrong hands. The budget I have presented
to Congress will increase funding for this critical threat reduction by
70 percent over the next 5 years.
The question China faces is how best to assure its stability and
progress. Will it choose openness and engagement? Or will it choose to
limit the aspirations of its people without fully embracing the global
rules of the road? In my judgment, only the first path can really answer
the challenges China faces.
We cannot minimize them. China has made incredible progress in
lifting people out of poverty and building a new economy. But now its
rate of economic growth is declining, just as it is needed to create
jobs for a growing and increasingly more mobile population. Most of
China's economy is still stifled by state control. We can see in China
the kinds of problems a society faces when it is moving away from the
rule of fear but is not yet rooted in the rule of law.
China's leaders know more economic reform is needed, and they know
reform will cause more unemployment, and they know that can cause
unrest. At the same time, and perhaps for those reasons, they remain
unwilling to open up their political system, to give people a peaceful
outlet for dissent.
Now, we Americans know that dissent is not always comfortable, not
always easy, and often raucous. But I believe that the fact that we have
peaceful, orderly outlets for dissent is one of the principal reasons
we're still around here as the longest lasting freely elected Government
in the world. And I believe, sooner or later, China will have to come to
understand that a society, in the world we're living in, particularly a
country as great and old and rich and full of potential as China, simply
cannot purchase stability at the expense of freedom.
On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves, what is the best thing
to do to try to maximize the chance that China will take the right
course, and that, because of that, the world will be freer, more
peaceful, more prosperous in the 21st century? I do not believe we can
hope to bring change to China if we isolate China from the forces of
change. Of course, we have our differences, and we must press them. But
we can do that and expand our cooperation through principled and
purposeful engagement with China, its government, and its people.
Our third great challenge is to build a future in which our people
are safe from the dangers that arise, perhaps halfway around the world,
dangers from proliferation, from terrorism, from drugs, from the
multiple catastrophes that could arise from climate change.
Each generation faces the challenges of not trying to fight the last
war. In our case, that means recognizing that the more likely future
threat to our existence is not a strategic nuclear strike from Russia or
China but the use of weapons of mass destruction by an outlaw nation or
a terrorist group.
In the last 6 years, fighting that threat has become a central
priority of American foreign policy. Here, too, there is much more to be
done. We are working to stop weapons from spreading at the source, as
with Russia. We are working to keep Iraq in check so that it does not
threaten the rest of the world or its region with weapons of mass
destruction. We are using all the means at our disposal to deny
terrorists safe havens, weapons, and funds. Even if it takes years,
terrorists must know there is no place to hide.
Recently, we tracked down the gunman who
killed two of our people outside the CIA 6 years ago. We are training
and equipping our local fire, police, and medical personnel to deal with
chemical, biological, and nuclear emergencies, and improving our public
health surveillance system, so that if a biological weapon is released,
we can detect it and save lives. We are working to protect our critical
computer systems from sabotage.
Many of these subjects are new and unfamiliar and may be
frightening. As I said when I gave an address in Washington not very
long ago about what we were doing on biological and computer security
and criminal threats, it is important that we have the right attitude
about this. It is important that we understand that the risks are real,
and they require, therefore, neither denial nor panic. As long as people
organize themselves in human societies, there will be organized forces
of destruction who seek to take advantage of new means of destroying
other people.
And the whole history of conflict can be seen in part as the race of
defensive measures to catch up with offensive capabilities. That is what
[[Page 276]]
we're doing in dealing with the computer challenges today; that is what
we are doing in dealing with the biological challenges today. It is very
important that the American people, without panic, be serious and
deliberate about them, because it is the kind of challenge that we have
faced repeatedly. And as long as our country and the world is around,
unless there is some completely unforeseen change in human nature, our
successors will have to do the same.
We are working to develop a national missile defense system which
could, if we decide to deploy it, be deployed against emerging ballistic
missile threats from rogue nations. We are bolstering the global
agreements that curb proliferation. That's the most important thing we
can be doing right now. This year, we hope to achieve an accord to
strengthen compliance with the convention against biological weapons.
It's a perfectly good convention, but frankly, it has no teeth. We have
to give it some. And we will ask our Senate to ratify the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty to stop nations from testing nuclear weapons so they're
constrained from developing new ones. Again, I say: I implore the United
States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty this year. It
is very important for the United States and the world.
Our security and our safety also depends upon doing more to protect
our people from the scourge of drugs. To win this fight, we must work
with others, including and especially Mexico. Mexico has a serious drug
problem, increasingly affecting more of its own young people. No one
understands this better than President Zedillo. He described it as the number one threat to his
country's security, its people, its democracy. He is working hard to
establish clean government, true democracy, and the rule of law. He is
working hard to tackle the corruption traffickers have wrought.
He cannot win this battle alone, and
neither can we. In any given year, the narco-traffickers may spend
hundreds of millions of dollars to try to suborn Mexican law enforcement
officials, most of whom work for under $10,000 a year.
As I certified to Congress today, Mexico is cooperating with us in
the battle for our lives. And I believe the American people will be
safer in this, as in so many other ways, if we fight drugs with Mexico,
rather than walk away.
Another global danger we face is climate change. As far as we can
tell, with all the scientific evidence available, the hottest years our
planet has ever experienced were 1997 and 1998. The two hottest years
recorded in the last several--excuse me--9 of the 10 hottest years
recorded in the last several centuries occurred in the last decade.
Now, we can wait and hope and do nothing and try to ignore what the
vast majority of scientists tell us is a pattern that is fixed and
continuing. We could ignore the record-breaking temperatures, the
floods, the storms, the droughts that have caused such misery. Or we can
accept that preventing the disease and destruction climate change can
bring will be infinitely cheaper than letting future generations try to
clean up the mess, especially when you consider that greenhouse gases,
once emitted into the atmosphere, last and have a destructive
environmental effect for at least a hundred years.
We took a giant step forward in 1997, when we helped to forge the
Kyoto agreement. Now we're working to persuade developing countries that
they, too, can and must participate meaningfully in this effort without
forgoing growth. We are also trying to persuade a majority in the United
States Congress that we can do the same thing.
The approach I have taken in America is not to rely on a whole raft
of new regulations, and not to propose big energy taxes, but instead to
offer tax incentives and dramatic increases in investment in new
technologies, because we know--we know now--that we have the
technological capacity to break the iron link between industrial age
energy use patterns and economic growth. You're proving it in California
every day, with stiffer environmental standards than other States have.
We know that the technology is just beginning to emerge to allow us
to have clean cars and other clean forms of transportation; to
dramatically increase the capacity of all of our buildings to keep out
heat and cold, and to let in more light. We know that the conservation
potential of what we have right now available has only just been
scratched. And we must convince the world and critical decisionmakers in
the United States to change their minds about a big idea, namely that
the only way a country can grow is to consume more energy resources in a
way that does more to increase global warning.
One of the most interesting conversations I had when I was in China
was with the environmental minister there, who thanked me for
[[Page 277]]
going there to do an environmental event, because he was having trouble
convincing the Government that they could continue to lift the Chinese
people out of poverty and still improve the environment. This is a
central, big idea that people all over the world will have to change
their minds about before we will be open and free to embrace the
technological advances that are lying evident all around us. And all of
you that can have any impact on that, I implore you to do it.
Our fourth challenge is to create a world trading and financial
system that will lift the lives of ordinary people on every continent
around the world or, as it has been stated in other places, to put a
human face on the global economy. Over the last 6 years, we've taken
giant steps in opening the global trading system. The United States
alone has concluded over 270 different trade agreements. Once again, we
are the world's largest exporting nation. There is a lot more to be
done.
In the first 5 years of my Presidency, about 30 percent of our
growth came from expanding trade. Last year, we had a good year, but we
didn't have much growth from expanding trade because of the terrible
difficulties of the people in Asia, in Russia, and because of the
slowdown in growth in Latin America, and because we did not reach out to
seize new possibilities in Africa. Those people are suffering more, and
our future prospects are being constrained.
The question is what to do about it. Some of the folks outside who
were protesting when I drove up were saying by their signs that they
believe globalization is inherently bad, and there's no way in the wide
world to put a human face on the global economy. But if you look at the
facts of the last 30 years, hundreds of millions of people have had
their economic prospects advanced on every continent because they have
finally been able to find a way to express their creativity in positive
terms and produce goods and services that could be purchased beyond the
borders of their nation.
Now, the question is, how do we deal with the evident challenges and
problems that we face in high relief today and seize the benefit that we
know comes from expanding trade. I've asked for a new round of global
trade negotiations to expand exports of services, farm products, and
manufacturers. I am still determined to reach agreement on a free trade
area of the Americas. If it hadn't been for our expansion in Latin
America, from Mexico all the way to the southern tip of South America,
we would have been in much worse shape this last year.
I have urged Congress to give the trade authority the President has
traditionally had to advance our prosperity, and I've asked them to
approve the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the ``Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act'' because we have special responsibilities and special
opportunities in the Caribbean and in Africa that have gone too long
unseized.
But trade is not an end in itself. It has to work for ordinary
people. It has to contribute to the wealth and fairness of societies. It
has to reinforce the values that give meaning to life, not simply in the
United States but in the poorest countries, struggling to lift their
people to their dreams. That's why we're working to build a trading
system that upholds the rights of workers and consumers, and helps us
and them in other countries to protect the environment, so that
competition among nations is a race to the top, not the bottom. This
year we will lead the international community to conclude a treaty to
ban abusive child labor everywhere in the world.
The gains of global economic exchange have been real and dramatic.
But when the tides of capital first flood emerging markets, and then
abruptly recede, when bank failures and bankruptcies grip entire
economies, when millions who have worked their way into the middle class
are plunged suddenly into poverty, the need for reform of the
international financial system is clear.
I don't want to minimize the complexity of this challenge. As
nations began to trade more and as investment rules began to permit
people to invest in countries other than their own more, it became more
and more necessary to facilitate the conversion of currencies. Whenever
you do that, you will create a market against risk, just in the transfer
of currencies. Whenever you do that, you will have people that are
moving money around because they think the value of the money itself
will change and profit might be gained in an independent market of
currency exchange.
It is now true that on any given day, there is $1\1/2\ trillion of
currency exchange in the world--many, many, many times more than the
actual value of the exchange of goods and services. And we have got to
find a way to facilitate the movement of money, without which trade
[[Page 278]]
and investment cannot occur, in a way that avoids these dramatic cycles
of boom and then bust, which have led to the collapse of economic
activity in so many countries around the world.
We found a way to do it in the United States after the Great
Depression. And thank goodness we have never again had a Great
Depression, even though we've had good times and bad times. That is the
challenge facing the world financial system today.
The leading economies have got a lot of work to do. We have to do
everything we can, not just the United States, but Europe and Japan, to
spur economic growth. Unless there is a restoration of growth, all the
changes in the financial rules we make will not get Asia, Latin America,
countries--Russia--out of their difficulties.
We have to be ready to provide quick and decisive help to nations
committed to sound policies. We have to help nations build social safety
nets so that, when they have inevitable changes in their economic
conditions, people at least have the basic security they need to
continue to embrace change and advance the overall welfare of society.
We have to encourage nations to maintain open, properly financed--
excuse me--properly regulated financial systems so that decisions are
shaped by informed market decisions and not distorted by corruption. We
also have to take responsible steps to reform the global financial
architecture for the 21st century. And we'll do some more of that at the
G-7 summit in Germany in June.
In the meanwhile, we have to recognize that the United States has
made a great contribution to keeping this crisis from being worse than
it would have been by helping to get money to Brazil, to Russia, to
other countries, and by keeping our own markets open. If you compare,
for example, our import patterns with those of Europe or those of Japan,
you will see that we have far, far more open markets. It has worked to
make us competitive and productive. We also have the lowest unemployment
rate in the entire world among all advanced countries now, something
that many people thought would never happen again.
On the other hand, we cannot let other countries' difficulties in
our open markets become an excuse for them to violate international
trade rules and dump products illegally on our markets. We've had enough
problems in America this year and last year--in agriculture and
aerospace, especially--from countries that could no longer afford to buy
products, many of which they had already offered. Then, in the last
several months, we've seen an enormous problem in this country in our
steel industry because of evident dumping of products in the American
market that violated the law.
So I want you to know that while I will do everything to keep our
markets open, I intend, while this crisis persists, to do everything I
can to enforce our trade laws.
Yesterday we received some evidence that our aggressive policy is
producing some results and, I think, proof that it wasn't market forces
that led to what we saw in steel over the last year. The new figures
from the Commerce Department show this: Imports of hot-rolled steel from
countries most responsible for the surge--Japan, Russia, and Brazil--
have fallen by 96 percent from the record levels we saw last November.
That is not bad news for them; that's good news. If they won't--if
American markets are going to stay open, we have to play by the rules.
We have to follow lawful economic trends, not political and economic
decisions made to dump on the American markets in ways which hurt our
economy and undermine our ability to buy the exports of other countries.
Our fifth challenge has to keep freedom as a top goal for the world
of the 21st century. Countries like South Korea and Thailand have proven
in this financial crisis that open societies are more resilient, that
elected governments have a legitimacy to make hard choices in hard
times. But if democracies over the long run aren't able to deliver for
their people, to take them out of economic turmoil, the pendulum that
swung so decisively toward freedom over the last few years could swing
back, and the next century could begin as badly as this one began in
that regard.
Therefore, beyond economics, beyond the transformation of the great
countries to economic security--Russia and China--beyond even many of
our security concerns, we also have to recognize that we can have no
greater purpose than to support the right of other people to live in
freedom and shape their own destiny. If that right could be universally
exercised, virtually every goal I have outlined today would be advanced.
We have to keep standing by those who risk their own freedom to win
it for others. Today
[[Page 279]]
we're releasing our annual Human Rights Report. The message of the Human
Rights Report is often resented but always respected for its candor, its
consistency, for what it says about our country and our values. We need
to deepen democracy where it's already taking root by helping our
partners narrow their income gaps, strengthen their legal institutions,
and build well-educated, healthy societies.
This will be an important part of the trip I take to Central America
next week, which has prevailed against decades of civil war only to be
crushed in the last several months by the devastating force of nature.
This year, we will see profoundly important developments in the
potential transition to democracy in two critical countries, Indonesia
and Nigeria. Both have the capacity to lift their entire regions if they
succeed and to swamp them in a sea of disorder if they fail. In the
coming year and beyond, we must make a concentrated effort to help them
achieve what will be the world's biggest victories for freedom since
1989.
Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. Tomorrow it holds
its first free Presidential election, after a dictatorship that made it
the poorest oil-rich country in the world. We are providing support for
the transition, and if it succeeds, we have to be prepared to do more.
Because we count on further progress, today we are also waiving the
sanctions we imposed when its Government did not cooperate in the fight
against drugs.
Indonesia is the fourth largest nation and the largest Islamic
country in the entire world. In June, it will hold what we hope will be
its first truly democratic election in more than 40 years. Indonesia
desperately needs a government that can help it overcome its economic
crisis while maintaining the support of its people. We are helping to
strengthen the social safety net for its people in providing the largest
contribution of any nation to support the coming elections.
Whether these struggles are far or near, their outcome will
profoundly affect us. Whether a child in Africa or Southeast Asia or
Russia or China can grow up educated, healthy, safe, free from violence,
free of hate, full of hope, and free to decide his or her own destiny,
this will have a lot to do with the life our children have as they grow
up. It will help to determine if our children go to war, have jobs, have
clean air, have safe streets.
For our Nation to be strong, we must maintain a consensus that
seemingly distant problems can come home if they are not addressed and
addressed promptly. We must recognize we cannot lift ourselves to the
heights to which we aspire if the world is not rising with us. I say
again, the inexorable logic of globalization is the genuine recognition
of interdependence. We cannot wish into being the world we seek. Talk is
cheap. Decisions are not.
That is why I have asked Congress to reverse the decline in defense
spending that began in 1985, and I am hopeful and confident that we can
get bipartisan majorities in both Houses to agree. I hope it will also
agree to give more support to our diplomats and to programs that keep
our soldiers out of war, to fund assistance programs to keep nations on
a stable path to democracy and growth, and to finally pay both our dues
and our debts to the United Nations.
In an interdependent world, we cannot lead if we expect to lead only
on our own terms and never on our own nickel. We can't be a first-class
power if we're only prepared to pay for steerage.
I hope all of you, as citizens, believe that we have to seize the
responsibilities that we have today with confidence, to keep taking
risks for peace, to keep forging opportunities for our people and
seeking them for others as well, to seek to put a genuinely human face
on the global economy, to keep faith with all those around the world who
struggle for human rights, the rule of law, a better life, to look on
our leadership not as a burden but as a welcome opportunity, to build
the future we dream for our children in these, the final days of the
20th century and the coming dawn of the next.
The story of the 21st century can be quite a wonderful story. But we
have to write the first chapter.
Thank you very much.
Note: The President spoke at 11:20 a.m. in the Plaza Ballroom at the
Grand Hyatt Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Mayor Willie L. Brown,
Jr., of San Francisco; Lee Perry, wife of former Defense Secretary
William J. Perry; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John
M. Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.); the late Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak
Rabin; Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority; President
Slobodan Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro); gunman Mir Aimal
[[Page 280]]
Kansi, convicted in a 1993 attack on CIA employees in Langley, VA; and
President Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico. The President also referred to the
Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. A portion of these remarks could not
be verified because the tape was incomplete. The memorandum on
certification for major illicit drug producing and transit countries,
including Nigeria, is listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.