[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.