    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
    [July 30, 1999]
    [Pages 1354-1359]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks in a Discussion With Regional Independent Media in Sarajevo
    July 30, 1999

    Postwar Bosnia

    [The discussion began with a Sarajevo journalist thanking the President
    for his action in Bosnia and his support for democracy. He asked about
    the leadership of President Slobodan Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
    Montenegro) and U.S. efforts to help deliver indicted war criminals to
    the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal.]

        The President. Let me answer the second question first because I
    think it leads us back to the first question. We were the principal
    supporter of creating this War Crimes Tribunal, and we have made very
    strong contributions to it, financial contributions. And we have worked
    hard to cooperate with it. So the answer to that is, we have cooperated
    strongly.
        We also have been a part of an operation in Bosnia that has
    arrested, I think, about 29 of the 80 people who have been indicted. In
    the case of Mr. Mladic and Mr.
    Karadzic, they're not in the American
    sector. And when the United Nations accepted the mandate of going into
    Bosnia, the mandate was that they could and would arrest any people who
    had been indicated by the War Crimes Tribunal if they, in effect, came
    across them, but they wouldn't start another war to get them. That was
    basically the mandate. And I think we should continue to do everything
    we can to arrest people. But I think if--there's no question that the
    effectiveness, the impact, of both those men has been, in effect, ended
    or dramatically reduced.
        Now, to go back to your first question. You said, is
    Milosevic the only nationalist politician
    who's causing problems? I don't think you could go that far, but I
    believe that basically the misery of Bosnia, the war, the 4-year war,
    and what happened in Kosovo is because of his 12-year rule and because
    he had a policy to gain and enhance his power based on selling Greater
    Serbia to people, the idea that anybody who wasn't a Serb was an enemy,
    had no political legitimacy, that their religion was no good, their
    ethnic background was no good, it was okay to disregard them and uproot
    them, and maybe okay to kill them.
        And here in Bosnia, 250,000 people died, and a quarter of a million
    people were made refugees. In Kosovo, because we acted more quickly, not
    so many people died. We know of 10,000, although there are a lot of mass
    graves that have been dug up, and people have been moved, so we don't
    know for sure. But 800,000 or more refugees--most of them have gone home
    in Kosovo, unlike Bosnia, where, because the thing went on longer here,
    they are taking longer to go back.
        So I say, you know, each--the politicians, when they run for office,
    there are all kinds of shades, you know. There are people who may be
    nationalists but still prepared to work with

    [[Page 1355]]

    people of different ethnic groups, different religious backgrounds. And
    I think that the difference is that he
    was willing to have ethnic cleansing and even mass killing to achieve
    his objectives. And I think that's wrong.
        Then you asked me if I thought Bosnia, the people could actually be
    reconciled. Yes, I believe so, but I think we have to keep giving people
    something to work for. It's not enough to go around and tell people,
    after this sort of killing and bitterness, that, ``Now, be nice
    people,'' you know, ``Just do the right thing.'' You have to give them
    something positive, some reason to work together.
        And what I saw today, with the Bosnian Presidency, was that they
    were--you know, sure, there's still tensions. There are all these
    refugee-return issues, for example--big issues out there. But they were
    much more comfortable together and, obviously, had more in common than
    they did 2 years ago. And I think that's a plus.

    Montenegro

    [After describing current conditions in Montenegro and noting U.S.
    support for the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of
    Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), a Montenegrin journalist asked the
    President if he would support Montenegrin independence or work against
    it.]

        The President. Well, first of all, you have asked a very good set of
    questions because--but I think I need to back up and say, we very much
    appreciate the role that Montenegro has played in these last difficult
    months. It has been in a very hard position. It has been vulnerable to
    invasion, as you pointed out. And the government of President
    Djukanovic maintained a position of
    independence and the position that Montenegro should acquire more and
    more autonomy and should be a democratic and multiethnic society; that's
    what we believe.
        Now, here's the problem. Obviously--and you've pointed out quite
    properly that we shouldn't punish Montenegro with withholding aid,
    reconstruction aid for example, just because it's part of Yugoslavia;
    and that's a good example of the dilemma.
        Here's what I'm interested in. I want the people of Montenegro to
    have maximum freedom and maximum self-determination. But I don't think
    it's a good idea for the United States, or for Western Europe generally,
    to get in the business of redrawing national borders right now. Who
    knows what is going to happen in the future? I think--we need to stand
    for a certain set of principles.
        But what I want to say to all the ethnic groups of the Balkans, and
    all of southeastern Europe, is that we have to build a future in which
    your safety, your right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech,
    access to education, access to a job, does not depend upon your living
    in a nation where everybody inside the nation's borders has the same
    religion you do and the same ethnic group you do. And in the past, when
    outside powers have attempted to redraw the lines of the Balkans and
    impose that, the results have been very painful for the people here.
    It's led to a lot of suffering.
        So I don't want to strip any people of their democratic aspirations,
    and I don't think it's right for the United States to do that. But I
    also don't think it's right for us or for any other outside power to
    come in and, in effect, say, ``Well, because we don't like Mr.
    Milosevic, we're going to redraw all the
    national boundaries,'' because the real trick here is to preserve
    democracy, self-determination, freedom from religious or racial or
    ethnic persecution in all these countries, without regard to the
    national borders.
        And what we need is--and let me just make one other point. If we had
    the right sort of economic and political integration in southeastern
    Europe and then the right ties between southeastern Europe and the rest
    of Europe--central and Western Europe--then it wouldn't matter so much
    one way or the other.
        That is, if you knew human rights were going to be protected, and if
    you knew everyone in this region was going to be tied together
    economically and politically, across national borders, and that the
    region would be tied to Europe and would have a future with the emerging
    European institutions, then the actual status--whether you were
    independent or autonomous, for example--wouldn't be nearly so important.
        And what I've been afraid of--the reason I've been reluctant to say
    anything about territorial borders is, there is a whole history in the
    20th century of disaster happening in the Balkans because of outside
    powers redrawing the national borders. We have to change the nature of
    national life and the nature of international cooperation, and then I
    believe, over the next few years, whatever is right about the national

    [[Page 1356]]

    borders will settle down. The people will somehow determine that, not
    outsiders. That's what I think will happen.

    Serbia

    [The journalist pointed out that the Serbian infrastructure and economy
    had collapsed. He asked how stability could return while Serbia was
    denied financial aid and the how the President planned to deal with
    strong anti-American sentiments in Serbia. He also asked about past
    meetings between the President and Mr. Milosevic.]

        The President. In Paris.
        Q. [Inaudible]--in Paris, yes. So I----
        The President. And he was, of course,
    in the United States, at Dayton.
        Q. Yes, but you met him in Paris. And I think that you will never
    meet him again because he is now an indicted war criminal. But I want to
    ask your personal impression about Mr. Milosevic. How do you keep him in
    your mind--as a rival, stubborn rival? You hope, now, for almost----
        The President. Let me answer you that. You asked, first of all,
    about aid to Serbia because the Serbs have been hurt very badly by this
    war. And then you ask about----
        Q. The anti-American mood.
        The President. ----the anti-American feeling, and then my personal
    impressions of Mr. Milosevic.
        The international community has taken the position that we would
    support humanitarian assistance to the Serbian people, because we
    realize that we have very badly damaged Serbia, economically, and
    stretched the social fabric in this conflict. We would like very much
    to--the United States, in particular, would like to participate in the
    rebuilding of Serbia, because we have many Americans of Serbian heritage
    and because we want to make it clear that we're not anti-Serb; we were
    against Mr. Milosevic's policies. But we
    do not believe at this moment we can or should go beyond the
    humanitarian aid, for the simple reason that if we do, it will
    strengthen Mr. Milosevic's hold on power. So it's a terrible dilemma.
    But the people of Serbia need to find some way to change their
    government.
        He has been charged by the War Crimes
    Tribunal. The evidence is overwhelming. The reason we acted so quickly
    in the case of Kosovo was because of the horrible experience we had in
    Bosnia, and I was President for 2 of those years. It was a nightmare,
    and we only got the international community galvanized to take action
    after Srebrenica. So I think that, if the people of Serbia want us to be
    involved beyond humanitarian aid, then there needs to be a change in the
    government.
        Now, in terms of anti-American feeling, I can only say I understand
    it, even though we didn't act alone and all of our European allies
    agreed with us. We have the largest military, and we dropped the most
    bombs. And unfortunately, there were some innocent civilians killed in
    the bombs, and I feel terrible about it, and I understand it.
        But I just would ask the people to consider the position I was in.
    When I first became President, I tried talking with Mr.
    Milosevic for 2\1/2\ years. And tens of
    thousands of people died in Bosnia. Here, we knew they had a plan. We
    knew that the Milosevic government had a plan to systematically uproot
    the Kosovars, to kill, to loot, to destroy the property records in a
    very systematic way. And we did not want to wait another year or 2 and
    let all these people die and all these refugees be created and then not
    come home.
        If you look in Bosnia, here, we're sitting here in Sarajevo, and
    over a million people have still not come back. In Kosovo, because we
    moved immediately, 90 percent of the refugees have already gone home.
        So if the Serbs are mad at me, I understand that, and I accept it as
    part of the inevitable consequences of a terrible conflict. But I want
    them to know they can continue to be mad at me, but the United States
    does not hate Serbia. We do not have anything against the Serbian
    people. Our country is a better country because we have so many Serbs in
    America. And I want to be involved in the reconstruction of Serbia, and
    I want Serbia to have a leading role in southeastern Europe in the
    future.
        But we have got to put an end to ethnic cleansing. The politics that
    have driven Mr. Milosevic's government
    and power for the last 12 years have got to be put aside. The idea of
    racial or religious superiority has got to go into the dustbin of
    history.
        And I'm very sympathetic with it. It had a big hold on America--you
    know, the idea that whites were superior to blacks had a big hold

    [[Page 1357]]

    on America. We didn't elect a Catholic President until 1960 in the
    United States. I understand these things. But you can't--we've reached a
    point now where we can no longer sanction this sort of slaughter. And I
    think it's a good thing for the world. So the people can be mad at me,
    but they need to know Americans have nothing against Serbs. We opposed
    what Mr. Milosevic did.
         And the third question you asked me was about my impressions of Mr.
    Milosevic. I am reluctant to say much,
    you know, because at home people are always psychoanalyzing me. You
    know, they meet President Clinton, ``Why was your President, President
    Clinton?''
         I think he is a very intelligent
    man. I think that he can be charming. But I think there are two problems
    that he has, that have proved fatal. Number one, he has built his
    political power on the idea of the religious and ethnic superiority of
    Serbs and their inherent right not only to be a part of but to
    completely dominate whatever he decides is Greater Serbia. He thought it
    was what is generally the Republic Srpska, now, in Bosnia. He took the
    autonomy away from Kosovo, which it once had. Now you have Hungarians in
    Vojvodina, and you have the Montenegrins worried, because he basically
    has created this fear, this paranoia, in the Serbian population, and
    then he fed it, like a fire, with the bodies and lives of others.
         Now, you know, there were other excesses in this region. The others
    are not pure. But he created this whole
    thing, and he drove it home in Bosnia, and then he drove it home in
    Kosovo. And I think he had--in other words, I think he had a dark and
    terrible idea.
         The other thing I observed from watching him is, perhaps because of the tragedies of his own
    life--he had terrible tragedies, you know, as a child, with his parents
    and all--I feel very badly about it, but I don't think he feels the way
    normal people would feel when they make decisions that cost people their
    lives.
         I know, you see, I know when I ordered those airplanes to fly over
    Serbia, I knew innocent people would die, and I hated it. And the only
    reason I did it was because I knew I was saving many, many tens of
    thousands of people's lives, more than would die.
         I think to him it doesn't matter.
    That's the only thing I can conclude. After watching 250,000 people die
    in Bosnia and seeing these stories of these children raped and these
    children--they were draft-age boys--killed en masse, and these people
    wrapped up in a circle and burned alive, and it happens over and over
    and over again--I can only conclude that he has no--for whatever reason,
    he doesn't have normal feelings.
         So those are my two problems with Mr. Milosevic. I think this idea of ethnic and religious
    superiority is the biggest threat to civilization in the world today,
    not just in the Balkans--Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Africa, you
    just go right down the line, everywhere in the world. In the United
    States--we had a guy go crazy the
    other day and kill a bunch of people of different races in the United--
    did you see it? In two States?
        Q. Yes.
        The President. Killing these people. Why? Because he belonged to some crazy religious cult that
    convinced him he had the right to do that.
         So that's what I feel. I think it's quite a tragedy because
    he's an intelligent man, and he can be an
    engaging man. And I talked to him in Paris, and I thought we had an
    understanding. I was quite surprised actually in the beginning--he knew
    after what I did in Bosnia that I would do this. So I don't know how he
    could have thought I was bluffing him after what we went through in
    Bosnia, when I said, ``If you do what you intend to do in Kosovo, this
    is what I will do.'' He should have been under no illusion. I think he
    thought maybe the other Europeans wouldn't stay hitched.
         But I made a decision--I agonized through 2 long years of what we
    went through in Bosnia, and I was not about to let all those people die
    again. I just was not. I couldn't do it. So, anyway, that's my
    impression. I think it's quite a tragedy really, because he has a lot of
    ability.
        Q. Thank you.

    Bosnia After the Dayton Accords

        Q. Mr. President, we talk about--what is the basis for the optimism
    regarding peace Stability Pact for the Balkans if we know how little
    politicians from the former Yugoslavia work on the implementation of the
    Dayton peace agreement?
        The President. I would make two points. First of all, I think both
    here and perhaps in Europe and the United States, we tend to
    underestimate how much progress has been made in Bosnia

    [[Page 1358]]

    since Dayton. That is, there are common governmental institutions;
    there's a common currency. After the economy was completely destroyed,
    it's been growing at about 40 percent a year since then. I realize it's
    got a long way to go because it was at nothing. The shared institutions
    have functioned in many ways. So I do not believe that we have made no
    progress. I think the biggest problem with the Dayton agreement is we
    still have 1.2 million refugees who haven't come back. And the return of
    refugees in areas where they are minorities is still very slow.
        But if you look at the leadership of Mr. Dodik in the Republic of Srpska, for example, I think he's
    been quite a progressive, cooperative person. I met with both Prime Ministers today, as well as the three Presidents.
        So what I draw from watching what has and what hasn't happened since
    Dayton is that we need more help to this whole in governance, that is,
    what kind of legal changes do you have to make to get people to put
    their money in your country and put your people to work? How do you
    fight, more effectively, crime?
        But the crime problems in the Balkans--you know, that we have
    organized crime all over the world now--it's not just here. So it's just
    really a question of do you have the capacity to fight it. You shouldn't
    feel that there's something wrong, intrinsically wrong with your region
    because you have this organized crime problem. It's everywhere in the
    world. So the real issue is, do you have the capacity to fight it? We
    have to build that. So I think that's important.
        Now, in addition to that, the reason I'm optimistic about the
    Stability Pact is that I think that the experience of Kosovo, coming
    after the experience of Bosnia, was very sobering for me and for the
    European leaders. And I think we saw clearly that if we didn't want
    another Balkan war, we had not only to take a strong stance against Mr.
    Milosevic and against ethnic cleansing;
    we had to offer a better future for all the people of the region. There
    had to be a way to bring people together around a common economic and
    political future within the region, and then a way to bring the region
    closer together with the rest of Europe and to keep us involved in a
    positive way.
        So that's why I'm optimistic. I think that all these people who came
    here today, I think they understand that. I don't think they're kidding.
    I think they really know that.
        Well, let me make one other point, back up if I might. In 1993, when
    I became President, I realized that we had fought two World Wars in
    Europe; that we had had this long cold war with communism in Europe;
    that before the 20th century, Europe for hundreds of years had been
    afflicted by wars as people sought advantage of land; and that for the
    first time ever, we now had a chance to build a Europe that was
    democratic everywhere, that was drawing together in a common political
    and economic union and that was at peace; and the biggest threat were
    the religious and ethnic conflicts of the Balkans.
        I think now, after all this work of the last 6 years, we now know
    that unless we build a common economic future and a common political
    future, we're going to have--there will someday be another Balkan war.
    And that's why I'm optimistic, because I think we have learned our
    lessons, and I think we are ready to make this common commitment.
        One more. Yes, let him ask one more, and then we've got to go.

    Corruption in Southeast Europe

        Q. With new power, we have new problem, corruption. Does the
    international community intend to fight against our corruption?
        The President. Yes, but a lot of it is you have to do it yourself,
    and we have to help you fight against it because--and you see this
    everywhere. Again, a lot of former socialist states convert to
    democratic states and privatize property, but when we privatize--when we
    have private property in America, we also have strong economic
    institutions to preserve the integrity of the economy, to keep
    dishonesty out. We have strong, sophisticated law enforcement
    institutions, and even we still have problems. Everybody has problems.
        So, I think you should--you shouldn't feel that there's something
    wrong with your country because this vulnerability is everywhere. And we
    have to--we will help you--we have to help you fight corruption. But you
    shouldn't feel that there's something really badly wrong with you; you
    should just fight it.
        And one of the most important things is a free press. Keep in mind,
    in any society, most people are honest. In every society on Earth, most
    people are honest. And in most societies, the people who do turn to
    crime don't do it unless they have--they feel like they have no

    [[Page 1359]]

    other choice. That is, in any society, there are only a small percentage
    of people who deliberately decide to make money illegally.
        But this is a worldwide problem we face, this corruption problem
    now. And if you will fight it, we will help you. And the press has got
    to be a major part of the battle.
        Thank you.

    Note: The discussion was recorded at 6 p.m. at Treca Gimnazija (Third
    High School) for later broadcast. In his remarks, the President referred
    to indicted war criminals Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic; President
    Milo Djukanovic of Montenegro; Prime Minister Milorad Dodik of Republika
    Srpska; Prime Minister Edhem Bicakcic of the Federation Government
    (Muslim and Croat); Presidency Chairman (Serb) Zivko Radisic, Presidency
    Member (Croat) Ante Jelavic, and Presidency Member (Muslim) Alija
    Izetbegovic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and Benjamin Nathaniel Smith who
    allegedly killed two and wounded seven in Illinois and Indiana before
    committing suicide on July 5. The transcript was made available by the
    Office of the Press Secretary on July 30 but was embargoed for release
    until July 31. A tape was not available for verification of the content
    of this discussion.