[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[September 26, 2000]
[Pages 1948-1952]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks at Georgetown University Law School
September 26, 2000

    Thank you very much. Father O'Donovan, 
thank you for giving me another chance to come back to Georgetown and 
for your extraordinary leadership over these many years. And Dean 
Areen, thank you for giving me a chance to come 
to the law school.
    I have to tell you that when they told me I was coming into the moot 
courtroom--[laughter]--my mind raced back 30 years ago--almost 30 years 
ago. When we were in law school at Yale, Hillary and I entered the moot 
court competition, and it was sort of like the Olympics. There were all 
these trial runs you had to get through, and then you got into the 
finals, and you tried to go for the gold.
    So we finished first and second in the trial runs, and then we got 
into the finals. And the judge, the moot court judge, was Justice Abe 
Fortas. You've got to understand, this was the early seventies; it was a 
sort of irreverent time. [Laughter] Fashion was not the best. [Laughter] 
Some of us made it worse. [Laughter] And anyway, I had a bad day. 
[Laughter] Hillary had a good day. I thought she should have won. But 
Justice Fortas thought that her very seventies outfit, which was blue 
and bright orange suede--[laughter]--was a little out of order for a 
trial. And so he gave the award to a guy, a third person, who is now a 
distinguished trial lawyer in Chicago. And for his trouble, he has had 
the burden of contributing to all my campaigns and now to hers. 
[Laughter] So I suppose it all worked out for the best. [Laughter]
    Mr. Hotung, Mrs. Hotung, I thank you for your generosity. I loved your speech. 
[Laughter] And I'd like to thank you, especially, for what you've tried 
to do for the people of East Timor. It means a lot to me because I know 
how important it is to the future of freedom throughout Southeast Asia 
and, indeed, throughout all East Asia, that we come to recognize that 
human rights are not some Western concept imposed upon the rest of the 
world but truly are universal as the United Nations Declaration says.
    East Timor is a small place, a long way from here, that many people 
thought the United States should not care about. And the fact that you 
did and continue to care about them and the enormous odds they have to 
cope with still is, I think, a very noble thing, and I thank you very 
much for that.
    I'd like to thank the faculty and staff and students who are here 
and all the members of my administration and administrations past who

[[Page 1949]]

are here and my friends from Georgetown days who are here. Georgetown 
Law School has given more talent to this administration than any other 
single institution in America. And I'm almost afraid to mention some for 
fear that I will ignore others or omit them, anyway.
    But among the people in the administration who are Georgetown law 
grads are: my Chief of Staff, John Podesta; 
my White House Counsel, Beth Nolan; my Deputy 
Counsel, Bruce Lindsey; former White House 
Counsel Jack Quinn; Budget Director Jack 
Lew; former Trade Ambassador and Commerce 
Secretary Mickey Kantor; Counselor 
to the Chief of Staff Michelle Ballantyne; Deputy Communications Director Stephanie 
Cutter. They're all graduates of Georgetown 
law. And I've had various Ambassadors and other appointees, and Lord 
knows who else you gave me. So I'm grateful for that.
    It's also quite interesting to me that Beth Nolan's assistant, Ben Adams, and my 
personal aide, Doug Band, are actually working 
full-time at the White House. In Doug's case, he's working around the 
clock, because we're traveling and we're working. We haven't slept in 3 
weeks. And they're enrolled right now in Georgetown law. [Laughter]
    Now, therefore, I would like to make a modest suggestion, and that 
is that when they take their exams in December, they be judged not only 
on the basis of legal reasoning but creative writing. [Laughter]
    I also want to credit one other person for the remarkable fidelity 
Georgetown students and Georgetown lawyers have had to public service 
over the years. My freshman philosophy teacher, Father Otto Hentz, used 
to say that the Jesuits are convinced there was only one serious 
scriptural omission on the first chapter of Genesis: God created 
politics, and God saw that it was good. [Laughter] You would get quite 
an argument, I think, from some people on that. But Georgetown has 
always been there for America's body politic, and we are a better nation 
because of it.
    The Eric Hotung International Law Center Building will house work 
that will, in no small measure, shape the kind of nation we are and the 
kind of world we live in, in the 21st century.
    The 20th century raised a lot of questions of lasting concerns: of 
ethnic and religious conflict; of the uses and abuses to science, 
technology, and organization; and of the relationship between science 
and economic activity and the environment.
    But the 20th century resolved one big question, I believe, 
conclusively. Humanity's best hope for a future of peace and prosperity 
lies in free people and free market democracies governed by the rule of 
law.
    What Harry Truman said after World War II is even more true today. 
He said, ``We are in the position now of making the world safe for 
democracy if we don't crawl in the shell and act selfish and foolish.'' 
Sometimes his unvarnished rhetoric was more effective than more strained 
eloquence. We are, today, in a position to make the world more free and 
prosperous if we don't crawl in the shell and act selfish and foolish.
    The scope of the challenge is quite large. In the 1990's, more 
people won their freedom than ever before in human history. People in 
nations like Russia, Ukraine, Nigeria, Indonesia now elect their own 
leaders. But it is just a first step. Without a strong and independent 
judiciary, civil society, transparent governance, and a free press to 
hold leaders accountable, the world's new democracies easily could sink 
under the weight of corruption, inequity, and poor government.
    I read an op-ed piece by the New York Times columnist Tom Friedman a 
few months ago, which captured the experience I've had in this job for 
nearly 8 years now when he said, ``Americans were born as a nation 
skeptical of government.'' Our Constitution was designed to limit 
government, and then we had a decade when we were told by all of our 
politicians how bad government is. But the truth is that in many parts 
of the world today, human freedom is limited by weak and ineffective 
government, without the capacity to deliver the good, honor the rule of 
law, and provide a transparent environment so that investment can come 
in to lift the lives of people. Without democratic elections, laws can 
too easily be a tool of oppression, not an instrument of justice. But 
without the rule of law, elections simply offer a choice of dictators.
    Building a rule of law is hard work. If you just look at our own 
history, you get, perhaps, the most persuasive illustration. We 
established our right to elect our leaders before independence. Even 
with independence, we still, in 1776, had no national executive, no 
system of courts, only a weak legislature.

[[Page 1950]]

    The Articles of Confederation came 5 years after independence but 
failed. The Constitution was ratified 13 years after independence and 
was quickly amended. And it was not until Marbury v. Madison in 1803, 27 
years after the Declaration of Independence, that the courts established 
their rights to check the power of elected leaders.
    Of course, when we started, only white male property owners could 
vote. It wasn't until the end of the Civil War that African-Americans 
were treated as citizens. Women didn't gain the right to vote until the 
20th century. We are still very much a work in progress, and we need to 
take that humbling thought into account when we give advice to others in 
building their future.
    When the Soviet Union collapsed, it had no laws relating to private 
property or public elections or freedom of the press. In 1993 we 
launched a rule-of-law project that helped Russia draft a new civil 
code, a criminal code, a tax code, and bankruptcy law. We also helped 
Russia to separate its judicial system from the executive branch, train 
judges in commercial law, support Russian law schools. It was not a 
panacea, but it did help to create the foundation on which Russia can 
build.
    The same need for stronger legal institutions is apparent in China, 
especially because of its impending entry into the World Trade 
Organization, which, as all of you know, I think is a very, very good 
thing. It's more than an economic opportunity, because it can set China 
on a course that will diminish the role of government in its economy and 
its people's lives, while involving China in an international system of 
rules and responsibilities and mutual interdependence.
    China will have to make fundamental changes to meet its WTO 
obligations: restructure its industries, publish laws that have long 
been secret, establish procedures for settling disputes, create a level 
playing field for foreign firms. China has asked us for help in 
developing its legal expertise and legal system. We should provide it. 
And I expect Georgetown will be part of that effort.
    This past summer Professor James Feinerman and Professor John Jackson and 
other Georgetown faculty met with some 25 senior Government officials in 
China--from China, to advise them on structural reforms they will be 
making as they become fully participating members in the World Trade 
Organization.
    Since a Georgetown law professor helped Germany draft its democratic 
articles of government after the Second World War, Georgetown law 
professors have been active the world over, helping nations to establish 
democratic legal structures, from Estonia to Mexico, from South Africa 
to Mongolia. Next summer, you will begin an international judicial, 
educational, and exchange program to allow judges from other countries 
to come here to discuss with United States judges how to build a 
judiciary that is both independent and competent.
    These efforts illustrate how America's experience should be put to 
use to advance the rule of law where democracy's roots are looking for 
room and strength to grow. But in many parts of the world, people still 
struggle just to plant the seeds of democracy. For the last decade, one 
of the most important and gripping such places has been the former 
Yugoslavia. Eight years ago, the region was engulfed by war, caused by 
Mr. Milosevic's desire to build a Greater 
Serbia. It's easy to forget how very close he came to succeeding. If he 
had, it would have led to a permanent humanitarian tragedy and an end to 
the vision of an undivided, democratic Europe.
    But with our allies, we stood against ethnic cleansing and stood by 
democratic forces fighting for change. From Sarajevo to Pristina, the 
carnage has ended. Croatia is a democracy. Bosnians are now waging their 
battles at the ballot box. The control of Milosevic and his dictatorship is now limited to Serbia, and 
this weekend, it appears, because of brave people casting their ballot, 
he has lost the last vestige of legitimacy.
    The OSCE and the EU have concluded that this election was marred by 
widespread irregularity. Experienced international observers were 
prevented from monitoring the election. But still, the people of Serbia 
showed up in overwhelming numbers. And despite the Government's attempt 
to manipulate the vote, it does seem clear that the people have voted 
for change. And the question is, will the Government listen and respond?
    I do not underestimate Mr. Milosevic's desire to cling to power at the expense of the 
people. I have witnessed it, lived with it, and responded to it 
firsthand. But after this weekend's vote,

[[Page 1951]]

we should not underestimate the people of Serbia's determination to seek 
freedom and a different and more positive force in the face of violence 
and intimidation.
    Neither should Americans underestimate the extent to which this vote 
is about Serbia, its people, and its future. Indeed, the opposition 
candidate also disagreed with our policy 
in Kosovo. I am under no illusions that a new Government in Serbia would 
automatically lead to a rapprochement between the two of us, and any new 
leader of Serbia should pursue, first and foremost, the interests of its 
own people. But if the will of the people is respected, the doors to 
Europe and the world will be open again to Serbia. We will take steps 
with our allies to lift economic sanctions, and the people of Serbia, 
who have suffered so much, finally will have a chance to lead normal 
lives.
    I hope that day is arriving, and when it does, people of good will 
will, around the world, help the people of Serbia to build and 
strengthen the institutions of a free market democracy. Some of you in 
this room will be needed in that effort. The persistence of people with 
your expertise, the institutions of our country, especially the 
Georgetown Law Center, will make an enormous difference in the future.
    Let me close with just one very personal thought. The law gives 
people a way to live together, to resolve their differences, to be 
rewarded when they should and punished when they're particularly 
destructive. But the idea is, it embodies our most fundamental values 
and applies it to practical circumstances so that even when we have 
differences, we find a way to abide a decision that is made.
    It will be more and more important in the years ahead because the 
world is growing more interdependent. It embodies the idea, just because 
there are rules, that all of us are created equal and that we should be 
treated blindly, without regard to our race, our religion, our 
ethnicity, our condition of ability or disability, whether we're 
straight or gay, whether we're Asian or European or African or Latin 
American.
    The whole idea of the American law, embodied in the ideals of our 
Constitution and continuously perfected, is that we are all equal and 
that we are growing more interdependent. If we were completely 
independent, we'd have no need for law. We'd just be out there doing our 
own thing. And if we weren't equal in the eyes of the law, the law would 
be a monster and an instrument of oppression.
    So the law is our society's attempt to reconcile our deep belief in 
independence and our understanding that interdependence is what enables 
us to make progress and to give our lives more meaning. The world is 
more interdependent than ever before. If we can find a way for people to 
believe that through the law we can create an environment in which 
everybody is better off, in which no group or individual is seeking to 
make unfair gains at anyone else's expense, then the world's most 
peaceful and prosperous and exciting time lies ahead.
    Then I'm not worried about what use we will make of the marvelous 
mysteries of the human genome. I'm not worried about whether some nation 
will abuse what they find out in the deepest depths of the ocean or the 
black holes of outer space. I'm not even worried about our ability 
somehow to find a way to deal with the terrorists and their ability to 
use the marvels of new technology for biological, chemical, and other 
weapons. We'll deal with it fine, as long as we remain committed to the 
integrity of the individual but the interdependence within and beyond 
our borders, or to go back to Mr. Truman's words, if we're not too 
stupid and too selfish, the best is still out there, and the law will 
lead us.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 12:40 p.m. in the Moot Court Auditorium. In 
his remarks, he referred to Father Leo J. O'Donovan, president, 
Georgetown University; Judith Areen, dean, Georgetown University Law 
School; Eric Hotung, Georgetown University alumnus and benefactor, and 
his wife, Patricia Anne Shea; President Slobodan Milosevic of the 
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); and Yugoslav 
opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica.

[[Page 1952]]