    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
    [May 2, 2000]
    [Pages 813-817]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at the Council of the Americas 30th Washington Conference
    May 2, 2000

        Thank you very much. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And thank
    you, Buddy MacKay, for that fine
    introduction. That introduction was a classic example of Clinton's third
    law of politics: Whenever possible, be introduced by someone you have
    appointed to high office. [Laughter] They will always make you look good
    in good times and bad, whether you deserve it or not.
        I want to thank the Ambassadors of Argentina, Colombia,
    Venezuela, and Brazil, who are here, for their interest and their presence;
    and all the people in the State Department who work on the Americas.
    David Rockefeller, I want to thank you for
    taking the lead 35 years ago now in establishing the Council of the
    Americas. And I want to thank the Council for its support of our
    efforts, beginning with NAFTA, alleviating the financial crisis in Latin
    America, the free trade area of the Americas, and the Caribbean Basin
    Initiative, as well as our efforts with Colombia.
        I want to thank Buddy MacKay
    for his work as my Special Envoy and especially for the work he's doing
    now on Capitol Hill as our point person for the Caribbean Basin
    Initiative. I'd also like to thank my former Chief of Staff and the
    first Special Envoy to Latin America, Mack McLarty, for the work he has done. And let me say, the two of
    them together, I hope, will convince the next President and all future
    Presidents, without regard to party, that we have made a change in the
    configuration of the White House which ought to continue. I think that
    for decades to come, every President should have a Special Envoy to the
    Americas, because we have a special relationship with the Americas. And
    I hope those of you in this room of both parties who agree with that
    will do what you can to see that it happens after next January. I think
    it's a very, very important thing to do.
        Let me say to all of you, especially to you, David, and to all of you who have been involved in this
    endeavor for a long time, you had the vision to see that North and
    South, in this increasingly small globe of ours, could come together,
    and that free trade could be a force for peace as well as prosperity,
    the basis of our partnership across the whole range of other areas in
    this hemisphere. You saw that in the middle of the cold war when most
    people only saw the world divided by East and West here

    [[Page 814]]

    in the United States. Developments have proved that you were visionary,
    and we are grateful.
        We are also grateful today in the United States for the
    extraordinary success that our economy has enjoyed and for the ability
    it has given us to play a positive role in the world for peace and
    freedom and prosperity, for democracy and open markets.
        I think it is very important today that we ask ourselves what we
    propose to do with this prosperity and whether we really understand the
    role that our engagement in the world and our trade with other nations
    clearly has played in our prosperity and what responsibilities that
    imposes upon us in terms of our future.
        We have benefited immensely from trade. There is no question that we
    have the longest economic expansion in history because we got rid of the
    deficits, and we've run 3 years of surpluses in a row and paying off
    $335 billion of our debt, and we've got low interest rates. There is no
    question that our investment in science and technology, our reform of
    our telecommunications system, and our continued commitment to education
    is important. But everyone should understand that our commitment to
    expanding trade, including not just NAFTA and joining the WTO but 270
    other agreements, has helped us not only to find new markets for our
    products and services but, by keeping our own markets open, has kept
    inflation down as our economy has grown.
        The two most significant things that have allowed the longest
    economic expansion in history for America to be long has been the
    enormous increase in productivity because of technology and the fact
    that we have permitted ourselves to have inflation-free growth because
    we've kept open markets with a responsible financial policy.
        I hear--so many times people talk about trade only in terms of
    exports, because that sounds good politically, and when you say you're
    importing a lot, that doesn't sound good politically. But our imports
    have helped us a lot. They've kept inflation down, and they've made our
    people's dollars go further. And they've enabled us to keep growing
    without inflation. And along the way, they've helped our trading
    partners to lift their own well-being. Our two top trading partners
    today are our neighbors to the north and to the south. And during most
    of the last decade, our trade with Latin America grew faster than any
    other region of the world.
        So we have been very fortunate. During the period since NAFTA
    entered into force, our exports to Canada and Mexico have gone up almost
    80 percent. Our employment has skyrocketed. Canadian employment has
    jumped by more than one million overall, and Mexico's employment has
    climbed by one million. NAFTA played a major role in this.
        It has set the stage for much of what has followed. During the
    Mexican financial crisis in 1995, we offered a loan package that wasn't
    too popular at the time. I always laugh about it. When Bob Rubin came to see me about it with Larry
    Summers, as I remember there was a poll
    in the paper that day that said by 81 to 15, the American people thought
    it was a bad idea for us to give financial assistance to Mexico. And I
    thought to myself, this is what's wrong with polls. If we don't help
    Mexico, and Mexico and Brazil and Argentina and the rest of Latin
    America and half the other developing economies of the world go in the
    tank, and our economy nose-dives, it will be 100 to nothing, people
    think it's a bad idea that we let the world economy go to pieces. And I
    am very glad that what we did worked. I think the Mexican Government and
    the Mexican people deserve a lot of credit for a painful recovery, in
    which they paid back their loans with interest and ahead of schedule.
        Then 3 years later, our hemisphere was hurt by a crisis half a world
    away in Asia, but I'm glad that we worked to keep our markets open. And
    I still believe our choice for more trade, not less, contributed to
    minimizing the impact of the Asian financial crisis and enabling those
    countries to pull out of that crisis more quickly.
        That doesn't mean that the size of our trade deficit is not a source
    of concern to me; it is. But I'm convinced the only way it will get
    smaller is when our partners, both to the south and around the world,
    grow wealthier and stronger, so that they can consume more of their own
    production and buy more of ours. I think the decision we made for open
    markets has plainly been the right decision, not simply for the United
    States economy but for the rest of the world. And I am absolutely
    confident it's the right decision going forward.
        Right now I think we're making very good progress in moving the
    Caribbean Basin initiative through Congress. It is tied, as all of you
    know, to the Africa trade bill, which is also, I believe, very, very
    important to us in terms

    [[Page 815]]

    of our long-term security interests and very important in terms of our
    fulfilling our responsibility to Africa. I think there is every
    likelihood now that that bill will be on my desk for signature by the
    end of the month. And I think it is high time.
        I know I don't need to plug that legislation here, but the nations
    of the Caribbean have suffered quite a lot economically and have come
    under enormous pressure to become way-stations for narcotrafficking. And
    we need to do more for them. I believe this bill is a good bill, much
    better than it was about to be a few weeks ago. I hope you will all
    support it, and if you can help me pass it quickly, I'd be grateful.
        I also want to affirm that we are still determined to meet the goal
    we set at the Miami Summit of the Americas in December of 1994, to
    achieve a free trade agreement by 2005 that will embrace the entire
    Americas--the world's largest trade zone, 800 million people investing
    in each other's future, enriching each other's lives, advancing each
    other's interests.
        Negotiators are on schedule to complete and present a draft
    agreement to the trade ministers next April in Argentina. It will also
    be presented then to the heads of state at the Summit of the Americas in
    Quebec. We must stay on track to do this by 2005. The date should not
    slip, and I am confident we will do so.
        I think a lot of people over-read the meaning of the failure of
    Congress to renew fast-track authority. The truth is, there was a fight
    largely along partisan lines over the content of that authority and
    whether the President should be given explicit authority to negotiate
    trade agreements that included environmental and labor conditions. I
    thought that fast-track authority was a lousy vehicle on which to wage
    that fight, even though I was sympathetic with the substance of the
    argument. I still believe that.
        But you should not believe that because the legislation didn't pass
    over philosophical and partisan differences on that issue, that the
    United States is any less committed to finishing the free trade area of
    the Americas, or that because it didn't pass, any agreement we make in
    the context of the free trade area of the Americas is less likely to
    pass Congress. That is not true.
        And you know that we're having an election this year. You may have
    noticed that. And there will be a lot of differences between the
    nominees and the parties over a lot of issues, but I am very gratified
    that there is no difference on this. You are going to have an American
    President committed to a free trade area of the Americas by 2005. And if
    it doesn't happen, it will not be the fault of the executive branch of
    the Government of the United States of America. We know this is the
    right thing to do.
        And I just want you to know that. And I will try to find other ways
    to manifest that before I leave office. And there are some, but the most
    important one, I think, would be the passage of the CBI-Africa trade
    bill. But I ask you to--you know, we're having the same argument now
    with China and the WTO, where there are people who have honest
    differences over the way the World Trade Organization operates. They
    think it's too closed, too undemocratic, too private, and I agree with
    them. But voting against this is a lousy way to litigate that issue.
        So parliamentary processes are often uneven and awkward, and many
    times people in parliaments throughout the world find the only forum
    they can for the fight they think that needs to be waged. But I think
    it's very important that you understand that what that fast-track battle
    was about. It was about the philosophical differences in our country
    over whether trade agreements should include labor and environmental
    conditions and whether the President should be given explicit authority
    to negotiate on that basis. It didn't have anything to do with people
    not really wanting a free trade area of the Americas.
        I don't agree with the fact that it wasn't extended, and I am
    sympathetic, as all of you know, to the idea that if the world becomes
    closer knitted, we don't live by bread alone. It's inconceivable to me
    that we will have a global economy without having more and more of a
    global society. That will happen in some way, in some form, at some
    pace. But it shouldn't turn us against trade.
        Similarly, it's inconceivable to me that the WTO, as it becomes more
    important, won't have to become more open and more democratic. But
    that's not an excuse for sticking it to China after China has made good-
    faith efforts to open its economy and to give access to the other
    members of the world trading community.
        So I think it's important to understand these debates are going on,
    but this does not mean

    [[Page 816]]

    that the United States is not committed to a free trade area of the
    Americas. It is profoundly important. It is important economically. It
    is also important politically.
        One of the things that I'm very concerned about in Latin America is
    that, with all the triumph of democracy--34 of 35 leaders democratically
    elected, people now expecting to choose their leaders and chart their
    future and shape their destinies--there are too many people and too many
    places who have still not benefited from the global economy in ways that
    they can touch and feel. The answer is not to turn back; the answer is
    to keep going forward to spread the benefits to more people. And we have
    to continue to push that.
        I am afraid democracy itself could be made far more fragile if more
    and more people grow more and more frustrated about the circumstances of
    their own lives. And it would be a terrible mistake for the United
    States ever to send a signal that we have any policy other than full
    steam ahead, more engagement, more support, more commitment. I think
    that is very, very important.
        We've worked hard to uphold the rule of law in this hemisphere. We
    upheld that principle in Haiti. Haiti is still desperately poor and
    wracked with problems and facing new elections. We will do everything we
    can to help them stay with their democracy. But eventually, real people
    are going to have to feel real benefit. The answer is not for the United
    States, with the strongest economy, to withdraw. The answer is to deepen
    our engagement.
        We acted again on the principle of the rule of law and democracy
    when we stood with the people of Paraguay to preserve democracy there
    when it was threatened in 1996. We attempted to uphold that policy every
    time it was threatened: in Ecuador, earlier this year; last month
    through the Organization of American States, when the countries of the
    hemisphere, thankfully, voiced strong support for a fair and open
    electoral process in Peru.
        But most important, I think, today we are called upon to stand for
    democracy under attack in Colombia. Drug trafficking, civil conflict,
    economic stagnation combine everywhere they exist--and explosively in
    Colombia--to feed violence, undercut honest enterprise in favor of
    corruption, and undermine public confidence in democracy. Colombia's
    drug traffickers directly threaten America's security, but first they
    threaten Colombia's future.
        In the United States, 90 percent of the cocaine and two-thirds of
    the heroin seized on our streets comes from or through Colombia. Fifty-
    two thousand Americans die every year from drugs, about as many as died
    in the wars in Vietnam and Korea. It costs us more than $110 billion a
    year in crime, accidents, property damage, and lost productivity.
        But the price to Colombia is even higher. Last year, drug
    trafficking and civil conflict led to more than 2,500 kidnappings; a
    murder rate 10 times ours, which is virtually the highest of any country
    in the advanced world; terrorist activity that is now probably the worst
    in the world. Thirty-five thousand people have been killed and one
    million more made homeless in the last decade alone. Drugs fund
    guerrillas on the left and paramilitaries on the right.
        Honest citizens, the vast majority of the people of Colombia, are
    simply caught in the middle. Eight hundred to nine hundred passports are
    issued every day--every day--as engineers, architects, and doctors take
    their families, their wealth, their talent out of Colombia. And yet,
    thousands upon thousands of courageous Colombians choose to stay and
    fight, because they love their country, and they want to save their
    freedom.
        President Pastrana came to office with a
    record of risking his own life to take on drug traffic. He was kidnapped
    by the Medellin cartel. As mayor of Bogota, he saw them kill three
    Presidential candidates. Then he became a Presidential candidate--he
    used to joke that maybe that meant he was certifiably mentally unstable
    enough to serve--a very brave decision.
        Once in office, he worked with experts
    in Colombia and elsewhere to put together Plan Colombia. It's a
    comprehensive plan to seek peace, fight drugs, build the economy, and
    deepen democracy. The plan costs about $7\1/2\ billion. It includes
    contributions from the Government of Colombia, international financial
    institutions, and other donors. And I've asked our Congress to give it
    $1.6 billion over 2 years. That will be a tenfold increase in our U.S.
    assistance to promote good government, judicial reform, human rights
    protection, and economic development. It will also enable Colombia's
    counterdrug program to inflict serious damage

    [[Page 817]]

    on the rapidly expanding drug production activity in areas now dominated
    by guerrillas or paramilitary groups.
        We know this approach can succeed. Over the last 5 years working
    with the Governments of Peru and Bolivia, we have reduced coca
    cultivation by more than 50 percent in those countries, reduced overall
    cocaine production in the region by 18 percent. Drug traffickers, driven
    from their old havens, unfortunately now are consolidating operations in
    Colombia. But we have an historic opportunity and an historic
    responsibility to do serious and lasting damage to the international
    drug trade if Congress approves our package. I am convinced the rest of
    the world will follow suit. If we show that we are prepared to pay our
    fair share of this, the rest of the world will help.
        We need to help train and equip Colombia's counterdrug battalion,
    enhance its interdiction efforts, provide intelligence and logistic
    supports to the counterdrug mission, including force protection. They
    need this support. We can provide it, and we ought to provide it. We
    must not stand by and allow a democracy elected by its people, defended
    with great courage by people who have given their lives, be undermined
    and overwhelmed by those who literally are willing to tear the country
    apart for their own agenda.
        And make no mistake about it: If the oldest democracy in South
    America can be torn down, so can others. Every one of you here has a
    deep and abiding interest in helping to see that the fight for freedom,
    democracy, and good government in Colombia is successful. I urge
    Congress to pass this package now. The Colombians waging this campaign
    are fighting not just for themselves; they are fighting for all of us,
    all of us in this room and the hundreds of millions of people we
    represent, and for our children.
        As we know, the globalization of our societies is presenting us a
    lot of new challenges. The issue in Colombia is just the beginning. You
    will see, more and more, drug cartels, organized criminals, gunrunners,
    terrorists working together. The Internet will make it easier for them
    to do so, just as it makes it easier for you to work together to pursue
    your legal endeavors. But we have every reason to be optimistic, if we
    meet our common challenges--our common security challenges, our common
    environmental challenges, our common educational and health care
    challenges.
        The mission you have championed for 35 years in this Council is
    closer than ever before to being successful. We have a chance to
    completely rewrite the future for our children because of the revolution
    in information, because of the biomedical revolution, because of the
    material science revolution. All these things together enable us to grow
    an economy and improve the environment, to expand trade and deepen
    democracy.
        But when we have an opportunity like a free trade area of the
    Americas, we have to take it. And when we have a challenge, like the
    challenge in Colombia, we have to meet it.
        The United States wants to do its part. It's very much in our
    interest to do so. We have benefited more than any other country in the
    world from the last decade, and we need to stand up here and do our part
    to be good neighbors and to help other people benefit as well.
        But we need all your help. We have to win in Colombia. We have to
    win the fight for the free trade area of the Americas. We have to prove
    that freedom and free markets go hand-in-hand. That's what you believe,
    and we're going to be given a chance to prove it.
        Thank you very much.

     Note:  The President spoke at 1:05 p.m. in the Loy Henderson Auditorium
    at the State Department. In his remarks, he referred to Assistant to the
    President and Special Envoy to the Americas Kenneth H. (Buddy) MacKay;
    David Rockefeller, founder, Council of the Americas; Ambassadors
    Guillermo Gonzalez of Argentina, Luis Alberto Moreno of Colombia,
    Alfredo Toro of Venezuela, and Rubens Antonio Barbosa of Brazil; former
    Secretary of the Treasury Robert E. Rubin; and President Andres Pastrana
    of Colombia.