[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[October 6, 2000]
[Pages 2055-2061]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks on the Situation in Yugoslavia and the Legislative Agenda and an 
Exchange With Reporters
October 6, 2000

    The President. Good afternoon. I'd like to say a few words about the 
historic developments in Serbia.
    First and foremost, this is an extraordinary victory for the people 
of the former Yugoslavia, who endured oppression and deprivation, who 
saw through the propaganda, who took their country back with nothing but 
courage, principle, and patriotism. They will now define the shape of 
their future. They have said they want to live in a normal country, at 
peace with its neighbors, and a part of the world. The rest of us will 
welcome them.
    This is a victory for newly elected President Kostunica, for his integrity and leadership in bringing this 
new day. As Yugoslavia's new leaders work to build a truly democratic 
society, we will move with our European allies to lift sanctions and 
bring them out of isolation.
    This is a victory for all southeast Europe. As long as Mr. 
Milosevic was in power, the danger of 
more violence in Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia remained high. A 
dark cloud has lifted. And though tensions and challenges clearly 
remain, prospects for enduring stability in the Balkans have greatly 
improved.
    Finally, this day is also a victory for the steady, persistent 
position of the international community. Think where we were less than a 
decade ago. Mr. Milosevic was trying to 
build a Greater Serbia through conquest and ethnic cleansing. His forces 
attacked Slovenia, then Croatia, then Bosnia, unleashing violence that 
killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the heart of Europe 
at the dawn of what was supposed to be a new era of peace. And he was 
winning.
    Had the world allowed him to win 
then, the people of Yugoslavia could not have won today. But America and 
our allies, took a stand, rejecting the idea that the Balkan tragedies 
were too hard to solve and too distant to matter. Together, we ended the 
war in Bosnia, reversed ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, supported forces of 
democracy and tolerance in Croatia and Montenegro, blocking Milosevic's 
efforts to prolong his rule by provoking new conflict, until the only 
remaining outpost of repression was Serbia itself, where it all began.
    Now history has come full circle. It is not just the end of 
dictatorship in Belgrade. In a real sense, it is the end of the war Mr. 
Milosevic started in the former 
Yugoslavia 10 years ago. Democracy has reclaimed every piece of ground 
he took. The greatest remaining obstacle to the long-held dream of a 
peaceful, undivided, democratic Europe for the first time in history has 
now been removed.
    So now is not the time for the United States or our allies to 
retreat from the Balkans in complacency. Now is the time to stay the 
course and stick with people who have won their freedom, the time to 
build the economic and civil institutions that will allow democracy to 
endure, reconciliation and cooperation to develop, and the economy to 
grow.

Legislative Agenda

    Now, before I take your questions, I'd just like to mention a couple 
of domestic issues. First, this morning, we received the good news that 
unemployment last month dropped again to 3.9 percent, a 30-year low, 
with the lowest African-American and Hispanic unemployment

[[Page 2056]]

rates ever recorded. Our economic strategy is working, and we need to 
keep it on course.
    That leads to the second point. I just signed yet another short-term 
funding measure to keep the Government running and meet its 
responsibilities to the American people. We're now a week into the new 
fiscal year, and Congress still has not acted on pressing budget 
priorities from education to safer streets to health care. At the same 
time, I am profoundly troubled by some of the things they have found the 
time to do.
    Yesterday the Republican leadership thwarted the will of a 
bipartisan majority in both Houses and the overwhelming majority of the 
American people by stripping away legislation to outlaw deadly hate 
crimes. It was plain wrong. And on behalf of the families of people like 
James Byrd and Matthew Shepard, I pledge to keep fighting for hate 
crimes legislation this year.
    I am also deeply disappointed by their decision to water down the 
prescription drug import legislation. We had an agreement to work in a 
bipartisan fashion, which they rejected in favor of writing a bill on 
their own, which is more acceptable to the drug companies, all right, 
but as a consequence will clearly provide less help to seniors and 
others who need but can't afford drugs and, indeed, could provide no 
help at all.
    So once again I urge Congress to focus on the Nation's priorities 
and to work in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship, not to weaken, water 
down, or walk away from what we need to do but, instead, to finish the 
job of a fiscally responsible budget that builds on our progress, 
invests in our people, and produces real results.
    Thank you.

Situation in Yugoslavia

    Q. Mr. President, does your statement mean that the United States 
would object if Slobodan Milosevic were to try to remain active in 
Yugoslavia or if he were to try to go away quietly into asylum in some 
other nation?
    The President. Well, first of all, I don't want to get into all the 
hypotheticals. The most important thing is to make sure that this moment 
is consummated; that is, the President 
who has been elected should be authoritatively sworn in. That's the most 
important thing.
    Now, I think it would be a terrible mistake for him to remain active in the political life of the 
country. That is not what the people voted for. And I believe that we 
cannot ignore the action of the War Crimes Tribunal. I think we have to 
continue to support it. We'll have to deal with all the possible 
permutations that develop in the days ahead, and we'll work with our 
allies as closely as we can to see what the right thing to do is.
    But let's not, even in the rain, water down the impact of this day. 
The people there have done an astonishing thing. This is just as big a 
blow for freedom as we saw when the Berlin Wall was torn down, when Lech 
Walesa led the shipyard workers in Poland, when the transformations 
occurred in all these other former communist countries. And it reverses 
a 10-year effort. It is an extraordinary day.
    Q. Mr. President is it your understanding that the Russians are 
brokering a deal or trying to broker a deal with Milosevic or that 
they're delivering a blunt message for him just to step aside?
    The President. Well, there have been two different reports, and so 
it's not clear. Let me say that we have always said, all of us, that the 
Russians could play a constructive role here and that we hope that they 
would, as soon as they felt they could do so, make it clear that Mr. 
Milosevic should respect the results of 
the elections.
    Today even the Constitutional Court, which just a few days ago had 
invalidated the first election, even the Constitutional Court said, 
``Hey, this guy won, fair and square, and 
he's the President.'' So when I heard the report that Mr. Ivanov had delivered a congratulatory letter to President Putin 
and was clearly looking forward to a new Yugoslavia, I thought that was 
consistent with the policy that all the Europeans had held and that the 
United States had held and that we would be working together again, as 
we have worked together in Bosnia and Kosovo. Then we were later given 
reports that I think are on the news that, instead, maybe what he said 
was he was congratulating him on a strong showing in the election but 
leaving open the prospect of when he should become President.
    So I will say again, I don't think there should be a deal brokered 
here. I think the only issue--should the will of the people of Serbia be 
honored, should the integrity of an election that has even been 
recognized by a court, that just a couple of days ago tried to thwart 
it, be upheld? If the Russians will take that position

[[Page 2057]]

as soon as they feel that they can, that can make a big, positive 
difference.

Effectiveness of Peacekeeping Forces

    Q. You said a short time ago, Mr. President, that now is not the 
time to retreat from the Balkans in complacency. Is that a response to 
Governor Bush in the debate the other night, when he expressed doubts 
about the value of using American troops for peacekeeping?
    The President. Well, he wasn't the only one. If you go back, there 
are a lot of people who didn't agree with what we did in Bosnia. There 
are a lot of people who didn't agree with what we did in Kosovo.
    I felt very strongly that we did have profound national interests in 
stabilizing Europe and permitting it to be united, not divided; all 
democratic, not partly so; and free of ethnic cleansing and slaughter. I 
felt very strongly about that. I still believe we were right, and I 
think that subsequent events have ratified the direction that we've 
taken from the beginning here.
    And I'm very proud of the fact that--it took us about 2 years after 
I became President to get strong consensus among our European allies, 
but I'm very proud of what they've done in their own backyard and the 
leadership they've taken and the stands that they've taken.
    But that's not what I meant. I don't mean to get into a discussion 
of the current political campaign. What I was referring to is that, if 
you remember, we had a big conference after Kosovo on the need to give 
the Balkans something positive to look forward to, not just to say, 
``Stop all these bad things you've been doing, but here's a way to build 
a united economic bloc; here is a way to work together; here is a way to 
rebuild all these countries; and that there ought to be a Balkan 
stability pact.''
    And I said at the time that the only difficulty with this concept 
was that Serbia, which has always been a big anchor of the Balkans, 
could not be a part of it because of Mr. Milosevic's policies and actions. So the reason I said what I 
said today was to make it clear that I think Serbia, once democracy has 
clearly and unambiguously been restored, should definitely be a part of 
the Balkan Stability Pact and that the United States should play its 
role there.
    The Europeans are carrying the lion's share of the financial burden, 
which was the agreement we made when we carried the lion's share of the 
burden during the conflict in Kosovo. But we have responsibilities 
there. And I was referring to the imperative of our meeting our 
responsibilities there, not trying to go back and revisit the history 
for any political purpose.
    I think what I want everybody to do is get beyond the politics and 
look at the enormous potential now. But the United States and our 
European allies, having done so much in Bosnia and Kosovo, having 
supported the institutions of a free election in this last process in 
Serbia, we owe it to those people now to reward the decision they have 
made as well as to reward and redeem the sacrifice that has been made in 
those other countries.

Upcoming Meeting With North Korean President Kim Chong-il

    Q. Mr. President, what are you going to talk about with the North 
Korean leader next week? Are you looking for a major breakthrough in 
improving the relations with that country?
    The President. Well, first, I'm going to listen, and I'm going to 
tell them that I am encouraged by the work done by President Kim in South Korea and by Kim Chong-il in North Korea, 
and I want to encourage that development.
    You know, the United States has had--when I became President in 
1993, everybody thought the most serious problem we faced in terms of 
world security was the potentially imminent development of nuclear 
weapons by North Korea, because they were so good at building missiles 
which could deliver them, a development which would have been very 
ominous, not only because of what it might have meant on the Korean 
Peninsula and to Japan but also what it might have meant should North 
Korea have sold both missiles and warheads to others.
    So we worked very hard, with the support of the South Koreans, to 
establish a direct relationship with North Korea to try to stop the 
nuclear program. And you know about all the consequences there: building 
a lightwater reactor, getting the financing, giving crude oil--giving 
oil for the North Koreans to meet their energy needs.
    Beyond that, however, we refused with great discipline to go beyond 
that until there was some movement at reconciliation between South Korea 
and North Korea. We didn't want to get separated from South Korea. We 
wanted to stick with them. And now, the President of South Korea, who deserves the lion's share of credit

[[Page 2058]]

for all that has happened here--although he had to have a response from 
Kim Chong-il, and he deserves credit for what he has done--has 
encouraged me to have whatever contact the North Koreans deem 
appropriate at this time.
    So what I want to do is just explore the possibilities. We're very 
concerned about a reconciliation between our two countries. That would 
be a good thing. But it also has to be good for South Korea, and I might 
add, the interests of Japan are quite important here, and the Japanese 
have interests that are not quite identical to the South Koreans, but 
they are very legitimate. Our relationship with Japan is profoundly 
important to us over the long run.
    So I'm working through this. I believe the Chinese strongly support 
this meeting and what we're trying to do, and we've tried to coordinate 
with them. So, on balance, this is a big plus. I will explore what the 
possibilities are and consider what actions they're willing to take, 
what actions we should take, consistent not only with our own interests 
but with those of South Korea and our other friends in the region.

Situation in Yugoslavia

    Q. Returning to Yugoslavia for a minute, do you recognize Kostunica 
as the President of Serbia, not just the President-elect? And will you 
still lift sanctions even if Kostunica sticks by his campaign promise 
not to turn Milosevic over to The Hague?
    The President. Well, let me answer the second question first. I 
think that we have to make an aggressive effort to reward the courage 
and heroism of the people there in restoring democracy. We have to do 
something immediately, because they're under great distress. They're 
under great economic distress. They've suffered a lot because of these 
sanctions.
    Now, there are a lot of sanctions and a lot of layers of them, 
almost, and we should make an opening move here, I think--the Europeans 
and United States, all the countries that have supported this, the 
U.N.--that makes it clear that we support what has happened and we 
intend to help them. Then what happens after that will have to be 
determined based on events within Serbia and also events--and also in 
consultation with our allies.
    Now, the second question that you asked, or the first one you asked 
is I do consider him the President, but I 
think, they have a Constitution, and I think he has to be ratified by 
their Parliament. So I'm hoping--I was hoping it would happen today, and 
what I've been told is they're literally having trouble physically 
getting the people who are in the Parliament to come in so enough of 
them can be there so he can get the two-thirds required.
    But I think the people have taken care of the transfer of power, but 
it needs--so I consider him the duly 
elected President of Serbia and the former Yugoslavia, in its present 
form, but I think probably he would say, if he were here answering this 
question, that he considers himself the President, but that he still 
needs to be formally ratified.

Legislation on Cuba Embargo

    Q. Mr. President, the Congress of the United States has come to an 
agreement on wording to ease the embargo on Cuba on food and medicines. 
Do you agree with the way it's being worked out that puts certain 
restrictions on travel, on American banks, what they can and cannot do?
    The President. Well, let me tell you what I understand it to do, and 
all I can say is I hope I'm wrong. I will posit this. I have not read 
what they have finally voted for. But what I have been told is that it 
looks like it eases the embargo on food and medicine, but it probably 
doesn't very much, because it doesn't provide any financing credits, 
which we give to other poor countries, whereas it definitely restricts 
the ability of the executive branch to increase people-to-people 
contacts between Americans and Cubans, thus further punishing and 
restricting the possibilities of the Cuban people.
    So I think this is one of those things where somebody can go home 
and say, ``I made a good deal for the farmers,'' and it's so close to 
the election nobody will know whether it's real or not. But it certainly 
restricts in, I think, a completely unwarranted way the ability of the 
United States to make travel decisions on policy that I do not believe 
should be made, written in law in stone by the Congress. I think it's 
wrong.
    So I hope I'm wrong about it. I hope at least that the food and 
medicine provisions are real. But that's not what I've been told. So I 
think a lot of people voted for it because they probably couldn't think 
of a way to say they voted against food and medicine, knowing it wasn't 
real, so they got a lot of votes for a travel restriction that I can't 
believe a majority

[[Page 2059]]

of the Congress really believes in. And I think it was a big mistake, if 
it's what I think it is. But I don't want to--I want to reserve some 
room for judgment when we have a chance to review the actual language.

Estate Tax Legislation

    Q. Mr. President, some Republicans have advanced a new version of an 
estate tax relief proposal that is more scaled back than their original 
one in the last few days. Would that be acceptable to you, if it reaches 
your desk?
    The President. I'm sorry, because of the background music, I didn't 
hear. I don't hear very well in my dotage. Just ask it again.
    Q. In the last few days, some Republicans have advanced a new estate 
tax relief proposal that is more scaled back than their original one. If 
that were to reach your desk, would it be acceptable to you?
    The President. I'd like to see what it does. I have said repeatedly 
that I thought that we ought to have some modification of the estate tax 
law, because it's like everything else. It has to be changed, in my 
judgment, with the growth and the changes in the economy. And I think 
that we had a proposal in the Senate that would have taken two-thirds of 
the estates out from under the estate tax law but would not have 
repealed it, wouldn't have cost whatever the huge amount of money it 
cost, up to--I think it would be up to $100 billion a year or something, 
a massive amount--in the next decade--not this one but the next one.
    So I would like to look at that, and I would be open to it. Let me 
just say this. While I agree that some of that is warranted, I would 
like to see some more comprehensive approach in which we also did 
something to help average people, either with the marriage penalty or 
saving for retirement, and we provided the tax credit for long-term care 
and for college tax deduction, for child care, things that working 
people need. At some level, we could work it out together.
    And we ought to raise the minimum wage. If we're going to give 
estate tax relief, surely we can raise the minimum wage. There's 10 
million people out there depending on that, and they need it. And all it 
would do is bring us back to the real value of the minimum wage in 1982.
    Middle East question?

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. The cease-fire doesn't seem to be holding. Can you comment on 
that and also give us some insights on how you have been balancing these 
two extreme situations in the Middle East and in Yugoslavia this week?
    The President. Well, it's been kind of an emotional and intellectual 
roller coaster, so much good news in one place and so much trouble in 
another, where we've done our best to do what was right by the people. 
Let me say, it's been a difficult day in the Middle East. I had actually 
feared it could be worse, and I'll tell you why. Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Barak, when 
they met in Paris, reached some understandings on the security steps 
they would take.
    And I think they plainly tried to implement them, particularly 
today. You saw a removal of Israeli forces off the Temple Mount or the 
Haram, as the Muslims say. And you saw an early attempt, after the 
prayer service, by the Palestinian forces to restrain activities by some 
of the Palestinians, some of the rock throwing. What happened was I 
think because it's a very sensitive day, because some had called for it 
to be a day of rage. Because it was the holy day of the week for the 
Muslims, I'm not sure that they could stop everything that happened 
today.
    So I would say to all of you, I don't believe that we have enough 
evidence that the two sides aren't trying to keep the agreement they 
made. And I think we need to give this another day or two, to see if we 
can calm it down. I was very afraid that this could have been the worse 
day of all, because of the other circumstances. So even though it was a 
very tough day, we do believe that both sides tried to take some steps 
to defuse the violence.
    And let me just say again, I know there are all kind of other 
questions being asked, but by far, the most important thing is to put an 
end to the violence and to see this as a sober reminder of the 
imperative of getting on with this peace process.

Situation in Yugoslavia

    Q. Is Putin taking your phone calls, Mr. President? Are you trying 
to reach him? It seems like they're stonewalling. We don't seem to know 
what they're up to.
    The President. What who's up to?

[[Page 2060]]

    Q. The Russians. Are you talking to Putin?
    The President. Well, I've talked to President Putin, and Madeleine Albright has been in virtually constant contact with Foreign 
Minister Ivanov. I do think that we--but I think 
what happened is--they might not have done anything inconsistent, but 
when we first heard they were going to Belgrade--which originally we 
thought they wouldn't--we had been urging them all along not to try to 
mediate, because we don't think that's a good idea, but just to take a 
clear and unambiguous stand for what was an evident result of the 
election. That's what we've urged them to do, because we know that they 
could have a positive impact if they do that, not mediate but take a 
clear stand for the will of the Serbian people.
    And so the only thing I was commenting to you today on is, there had 
been two different reports coming out about what, in fact, the message 
was. So we're, at this moment, trying to determine exactly what their 
position is and where we go from here. But I will just say again, if the 
Russians are prepared to deliver a clear and unambiguous message at the 
earliest possible time, that will be a plus.
    I think trying to split hairs here, after all that's happened in the 
streets and after what clearly happened in the election, is not a good 
idea. But again I want to say, we ought to take a little time to 
appreciate where we are. Ten years ago we could not have even had this 
conversation about Russia. Now they've had the first peaceful transfer 
of power in a legitimate election in their own country in a thousand 
years. So now, we look to the President of Russia to do what we looked 
to the Prime Minister of France or the Prime Minister of Great Britain 
or the German Chancellor to do, or the American President, for that 
matter.
    I know this is a--believe me, this is a difficult waiting period for 
me because of the belief that I have always had that we should stand 
against ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and stand up for freedom and 
because--let me just say one other thing. The estrangement of the United 
States and Serbia has been painful because we have so many Americans of 
Serbian origin, something I meant to say in my opening statement. 
Everywhere from Ohio to Texas, this country is full of Serbian-Americans 
who have made terrific contributions to our country.
    So I hope we can get this worked out. But to go back to your 
question, we've been in very close contact with the Russians. They've 
been up front with us. They haven't misled us about where they are, and 
we certainly have not misled them about where we are. And we're trying 
to get to a common position, just like we had to work to get to a common 
position in Bosnia, in Kosovo, on all these other issues involving the 
Balkans. I think they'll get there, but sooner is better than later.
    Q. Mr. President, how much credit do you think your administration 
deserves for what is happening in Yugoslavia?
    The President. Well, I think I'll just let my statement stand for 
itself. You can't apportion percentages when something like this 
happens. The lion's share of the credit belongs to the people. Finally, 
after enduring so much, they, first, showed up to vote, with 75 percent 
turnout. And when the government tried to take their vote away, they 
came and got it back. And it's an awesome thing to see.
    And second, you've got to give a lot of credit to Mr. 
Kostunica. I'm learning to pronounce his 
name; it's the second syllable, Kostunica. And I think that he never 
hesitates to disagree with Europe and the United States when he 
disagrees with us. He's clearly a Serbian nationalist. He's a patriot. 
But he appears to be profoundly devoted to the rule of law and to 
constitutional procedures.
    That's all we ever asked for. We don't ask people to go around and 
agree with us on everything. All we want to do is deal with a country 
where they believe in the rule of law and they don't believe in killing 
their opponents and killing people who are of different religious or 
ethnic backgrounds and where they want to argue their positions out in 
an appropriate way. So I think you have to give them a lot of credit.
    I think the people who stood for freedom and against ethnic 
cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo and Croatia and Montenegro, they deserve 
a lot of credit for this. But I think it is unlikely that this day would 
have happened if we hadn't--not we, the United States; we, all of our 
allies, all of us together--had not prevented Mr. Milosevic from having his way in Bosnia and Kosovo and 
encouraged the forces of tolerance and freedom in Croatia and 
Montenegro, tried to help little Macedonia make its way into the future.
    So I think you've got a mix here. I don't think it's possible to 
apportion percentage, and I don't think any of us should worry about 
that.

[[Page 2061]]

This is not a day for credit. It's a day for celebration. But as always, 
when freedom triumphs, the number one responsible element are the 
people, just like in this country.
    Thank you.

Vice Presidential Debate

    Q. Did you watch any of the Vice Presidential debate, any part of 
it?
    The President. Just a little bit. Unfortunately I was in transit and 
couldn't watch it. I liked what I saw.
    Q. Did you read something about it?
    The President. No, I haven't read anything yet about it. I've been 
working on this today.
    Q. Was this your version of the debate?
    The President. No. [Laughter] No.
    Remember what I said about that, what I said about that, about not 
withdrawal. We've got to stick with the Stability Pact. That's my 
message. This is not about politics. This is about sticking with the 
Stability Pact.

Note: The President spoke at 3:15 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White 
House. In his remarks, he referred to President Vojislav Kostunica, who 
was sworn in on October 7, and former President Slobodan Milosevic of 
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); Foreign 
Minister Igor Ivanov and President Vladimir Putin of Russia; President 
Kim Dae-jung of South Korea; Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian 
Authority; and Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel.