[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 10 (Monday, March 15, 1993)]
[Pages 379-386]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference With President Francois Mitterrand of 
France

 March 9, 1993

    President Clinton. Good afternoon. It is a great pleasure for me to 
welcome President Mitterrand to the White House at this early date in 
our administration.
    Our two nations share a friendship which dates back to the 
revolutionary birth of both countries, rooted in common values of 
equality, liberty, and democracy. These bonds of culture, of history, 
and of common purpose have made possible a remarkable amount of 
cooperation in recent days in meeting the challenges in Iraq and Somalia 
and Bosnia.

[[Page 380]]

    Today President Mitterrand and I discussed the global partnership 
that we must bring to the post-cold-war world, new uncertainties and new 
opportunities. Both our nations and both our continents are renewing 
institutions of security and economic growth for this era.
    I salute President Mitterrand and the French people for their 
leadership. Their exemplary contribution to the United Nations 
peacekeeping operations around the globe is just one of many examples of 
the contributions they have and will continue to make.
    This morning we discussed Russia, Bosnia, and the progress toward 
European union. Over lunch we will discuss other issues including the 
Uruguay round of trade talks. We have differences on some issues. 
Clearly, we need French leadership to resolve some outstanding 
differences but also to make common cause in the areas in which we 
agree.
    Both our nations are great trading nations and have much to gain by 
resolving the differences between us and moving the world toward a 
growing global economy. I am very, very hopeful that the United States 
and France can be partners in updating our common interests and in 
leading the G-7 toward coordinated policies of global economic growth 
and especially toward action in dealing with Russia.
    President Mitterrand is going to Russia soon, and he will be there 
and back before I have an opportunity to meet with President Yeltsin in 
April in Canada. I look forward to closely consulting with him about 
that again after his trip to Russia.
    We talked a little bit about the Vance-Owen peace process today, and 
you might want to ask President Mitterrand about his views on that. Let 
me say that I have been very pleased with the comments that he has made 
today and with the possibilities that we might have toward working 
together to secure a peace in Bosnia.
    There are many challenges facing the great democracies of the world 
today. We have to reaffirm our support for the difficult transformations 
to democracy now taking place in the former Soviet Union and in central 
and eastern Europe, to reaffirm our interest in closely cooperating to 
advance peace in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, and to 
promote democracy and economic growth throughout the world.
    We made a very good beginning this morning, and I want to publicly 
thank the President, as I have privately, for the enormously helpful 
conversations we had this morning. He has been at this work longer than 
I have by several years. I learned a lot today. I appreciated his candor 
and the insights which he brought to our discussion. I look forward to 
continuing over lunch and to continue a long and significant 
relationship between the United States and France.
    And I thank you, Mr. President. And the microphone is yours.
    President Mitterrand. Ladies and gentlemen, I think everything that 
needs to be said has been said. At least everything has been said about 
what we talked about and about what we will be talking about during the 
time that remains for our meeting. So I haven't really anything to add, 
while waiting for questions that you may wish to ask.
    On the other hand, I would like to recall, just as President Clinton 
has just done, I'd like to recall that for Frenchmen it's always a very 
important moment, it's a real event, and it's a very happy moment to be 
coming to Washington in order to meet with the President of the United 
States of America. And so it is with the same keen interest that today 
I'm here in this capital city in order to meet a President whose fame 
has already encompassed the world several times but whom I'd never met.
    And now we have had useful conversations. And the subjects that 
we've talked about, as mentioned by President Clinton, these subjects 
have given us the opportunity of seeing that our positions were very 
similar. And it is pleasant to note, particularly as the subjects are 
very difficult subjects, Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, the revolution that 
is taking place in Russia and in all the countries of the former Soviet 
Union, and all this is very important.
    President Clinton has shown a keen interest in the future of the 
European unity. And I gave him my feelings and what I was committed to 
myself. We still have matters to talk about. There are interests of 
which oppose us, which is perfectly natural, between our countries. 
That's in the nature of things.

[[Page 381]]

But there is a real determination to reach agreement. And that is, I 
think, which is the leitmotiv of all our conversations. And I'm 
delighted with the hospitality extended to me. I appreciate this very 
warmly, very much.
    And I wish to express my warm thanks, at the same time, to the 
members of the press who have been good enough to be present here today. 
Now, I am at your disposal, as you are, doubtless, yourself, Mr. 
President, at the disposal of the curiosity of the ladies and gentlemen 
of the press. I'm sure they'll be very discreet. They won't ask much.

Bosnia

    Q. President Clinton, did you discuss at all the specifics of a 
possible American contribution of ground troops in the enforcement phase 
of a peace agreement in Bosnia?
    President Clinton. Only in the most general terms. I restated the 
position of the administration, which is now well-known in the public, 
that we were opposed to the introduction of American ground forces to 
try to mandate an agreement or to in any way engage in the present 
conflict, but that if an agreement could be reached, that the United 
States would be interested in being part of a United Nations effort to 
secure the agreement.
    Q. Mr. President, you said that both of you have reached some sort 
of agreements on new efforts in Bosnia. Can you tell us what they are?
    President Clinton. No.
    Q. And also, I would like to ask President Mitterrand how can 
European leaders ban the slaughter, in view of the lead-up to World War 
I and World War II, similarities of the hatreds and abuses that have led 
now to these conflicts?
    President Clinton. Shall I go first? The only agreement we made with 
regard to Bosnia was that it would be an error for France to increase 
its troops or for the United States to introduce troops to become 
embroiled in the conflict but that we both should be prepared to make 
our contributions to securing the agreement if the Vance-Owen process 
could produce one.
    President Mitterrand. Madam, no more than you do, we just do not 
accept violence, violence of any kind, the violence that is taking place 
in particular in Bosnia. A problem for us--and we have the 
responsibility of defining the policies of our countries--our problem is 
to know how, by what means, what means do we have and what means should 
we employ in order to get the results that we all want, which is peace 
or at least the end of violence.
    And in that respect, may I remind you that France is participating 
in the United Nations efforts. France is actually the country that is at 
present supplying the most numerous troops, military contribution to the 
U.N. efforts, more than--well, almost 5,000 men right now. And we 
already have lost 12 people killed and more than 100 wounded.
    Our position is very simple to express but, of course, difficult to 
implement. We approve the Vance-Owen plan. We want it to be successful. 
We see in what way it is not perfect, but this instrument, well, we know 
of none better. And as it is the best of the possible plans, right now, 
as of today, we support the Vance-Owen plan, and we want it to be the 
basis of an agreement.
    So if it does succeed, if it gets the agreement of the three parties 
concerned--one might almost say four parties or five even--in other 
words, if you include the three countries which are Croatia, Serbia, and 
Bosnia, but there are also the Serbs in Bosnia and perhaps the Croats in 
Bosnia, et cetera. So if the agreement is reached--and for the moment it 
is under discussion, as you know, as a whole series of discussions that 
are taking place and will take place, and I'll have occasion to take 
part in them myself in the next few days. And the purpose of all these 
discussions is to get the Owen-Vance plan accepted, agreed. If it is 
agreed, thanks to discussions and possibly modifications, but if it ends 
up by being agreed, accepted, then we think that immediately it will be 
necessary to set up without the transition taking too long--and if it 
could be immediate transition, it would be even better--we think we must 
ensure military presence in order to ensure the full respect for the 
agreements reached, so that the passions and local animosities should 
not immediately prevail. And in that respect, France is prepared to 
participate in this force of peace under the authority of the United 
Nations.

[[Page 382]]

Russia

    Q. [Inaudible]--have an emergency meeting of the G-7 sometime before 
the July summit in order to deal at the clinical level the question of 
Russian aid? And, if not, how do you propose breaking what seems to be 
the gridlock between the Russian Government and the international 
lending institutions?
    President Clinton. The short answer to your question, I suppose, is 
yes. I think it is entirely possible that such a meeting might be 
useful. Whether a meeting is possible or not depends in part on the 
response of the other members of the G-7. The Japanese, as you know, 
have territorial disputes outstanding and also have put a lot into the 
upcoming meeting in July. Perhaps there is some other way that we can 
engage the G-7 in trying to address the Russian situation.
    I guess the important point I'd like to make is, I don't believe we 
can wait until July for the major countries of the world who care about 
what happens in Russia and who would like very much to keep political 
and economic reform on track there to move. And President Mitterrand is 
going to Moscow, and then we'll talk when he gets back. Then I'm going 
to Canada. And at the conclusion of that meeting, if not before, I will 
try to move to mobilize others to act in this regard whether or not it 
is possible to have a formal G-7 meeting.

Bosnia

    Q. Did you get the impression that President Clinton would be 
prepared to, in fact, move in, in former Yugoslavia once an agreement is 
reached?
    President Mitterrand. Yes, well, he has just expressed himself on 
this a moment ago. He said that he did not want to engage in a military 
campaign on the basis of a disagreement among the parties concerned. And 
that is exactly the same position as France.
    But the President also indicated that he was prepared to examine the 
possibility of having an American presence in the framework of all the 
steps that will be taken for the implementation of an agreement, once an 
agreement is reached, if the agreement is reached.

Russia

    Q. Did you specifically talk about Russia?
    President Mitterrand. Well, I am glad you asked me the question, 
too, because it was already a question for President Clinton. I'm in 
favor of what you are suggesting, an earlier G-7. I think it's even 
necessary, because there are problems specifically in Eastern Europe and 
in Russia that are urgent, quite apart from many other problems. I also 
know about the Japanese opposition to the idea. Perhaps Japan is not 
having sufficient regard in this respect to the importance of events 
that are taking place mainly in Europe. I have already given my 
agreement to Mr. Delors anyway.

Middle East Peace Talks

    Q. Did you discuss with the French President at all the Middle East 
peace process? And are you optimistic, for the next round of talks, that 
Syria comes to an agreement with Israel?
    President Clinton. We have not discussed the Middle East yet. We 
will over lunch. Yes, I am hopeful.

Health Care Reform

    Q. Mr. President, may I ask, regarding your health care reform, now 
that you're so deeply involved in trying to find more budget cuts, what 
is your expectation for when you would start seeing some savings from 
health reform? And should Americans expect that they will have to settle 
for reduced core benefits unless they can pay more, of course----
    President Clinton. No.
    Q. ----for some sort of reduced services in order to achieve these 
savings?
    President Clinton. No, I don't necessarily accept that. Of course, 
we have 400 people working on this now and consulting widely with all 
the people involved in the health care issue.
    Let me answer your first question pointedly. I believe, under all 
the scenarios I have seen that I think are possible, we would see 
immediate savings in the private sector if we were to adopt a 
comprehensive health care reform package. That is, private employers and 
employees would see the rate of their insurance premium increases drop 
rather dramatically and there would be really sig- 

[[Page 383]]

nificant savings immediately in the private sector.
    Because those savings in the public sector would have to be used to 
provide some insurance at least to the unemployed uninsured, who are 
about 30 percent of the total population of uninsured--at least to 
them--it might take 4 years or so before we would start seeing 
significant taxpayer savings. But interestingly enough, that's about the 
time we need it. That is, if you look at all the scenarios, the deficit 
can be brought down under our plan for 4 years, and then if health care 
costs are not brought under control, it will start up again in the 
latter part of this decade. So we certainly believe that the health care 
plan would bring the deficit down virtually to zero over the next 8 to 
10 years.
    Now, will people have to accept a lower quality of health care? I 
just dispute that entirely. We're already spending 30 percent more of 
our income than any country in the world. I don't think that----

Steel Subsidies

    Q. Yesterday the United States imposed some tithes, additional 
tithes on some products of steel. The argument is that the subsidies are 
unfair. But the other side says that the subsidies are not unfair. What 
is the middle ground? What do you think can be negotiated? And, also, I 
would like to hear the response of President Mitterrand.
    President Clinton. First of all, I want to make it very clear that 
the steel case was a case which was made on the basis of the facts, and 
waiting for me when I took office as President and waiting for our Trade 
Ambassador. So the real question was whether we would act consistent 
with the work that had been done before we took office, based on the 
evidence that had been amassed then. And we decided that we had to 
proceed with that to provide the continuity of the enforcement of our 
trade laws.
    I think the ultimate resolution of all these things is to continue 
to work for a more open trading system. I am strongly committed to a 
successful completion of the Uruguay round this year and to taking other 
measures which will open markets all around the world and reduce trade 
barriers. And I'm going to do everything I can to be instrumental in 
that regard. In order to get there, every nation has to have some 
mechanism to protect itself if there is uneven treatment. And we'll 
always have factual arguments about what is even and uneven, but I think 
the key is, are we moving toward a more open trading system or not?

International Arms Sales

    Q. How can we stop wars as long as the United States permits the 
sale of arms around the world by our CIA agents and by bringing in arms 
from China? And now, faced with the proposition from the Soviet--Russia 
that we let them sell conventional arms around the world to aid their 
economy, how can we get wars to stop under those conditions?
    President Clinton. I think both of us should answer that question. 
President Mitterrand will be the company misery loves on that question. 
[Laughter]
    I believe the United States has an obligation to try to stop the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to slow the 
proliferations of weapons generally throughout the world. It is not a 
simple or an easy thing to do. And our ability to do it is limited by 
the sovereignty of other nations and by the policies they pursue. But I 
can assure you just since I have been in office, and on more than one 
occasion, I have done what I could within the means available to me to 
try to limit proliferation, and I will continue to do that.
    Since you brought up Russia, let me say again, one of the reasons I 
think it is so important for us to try to move aggressively to give the 
Russians the means to restore some economic growth and opportunity and 
preserve political liberty is that as other options close to them, they 
will be more and more and more forced to look upon their capacity to 
sell arms as the only way they can earn foreign currency, the only way 
they can keep the economy going, the only way they can keep a lot of 
their factories open. So I think the case you have made and the question 
is a powerful argument for the policies we are attempting to undertake 
with Russia.
    Mr. President.
    President Mitterrand. Well, I might simply recall to the lady who 
spoke that it was

[[Page 384]]

in Paris at the end of an international conference--well, it was the 
largest ever number of participants. It was in Paris, then, that there 
was the signature of the convention on the prohibition of chemical and 
biological weapons; furthermore, that France has always approved the 
various plans for limiting nuclear weaponry signed between the United 
States of America and the Soviet Union in the past and more recently 
with Russia. And France took the initiative of stopping nuclear testing 
precisely in order to give everyone time to reconsider the possibility 
of bringing them to a definitive end, with the end of over-armaments in 
this area.
    So I think that there is a very favorable ground here. The reduction 
of armaments, though, can only be conceived with the ending of sales of 
armaments. This can only be conceived in the framework of an 
international negotiation. No country otherwise could afford to place 
itself in a situation of danger, in fact, if the other countries don't 
do likewise and make the same effort. But we're certainly prepared to 
move ahead in this direction.

Trade

    Q. Mr. President, you heard President Clinton and his administration 
in recent months challenging Europe on steel, on agriculture, on civil 
aircraft. I know that that part of your discussion will be for lunch, 
but what is your viewpoint?
    President Mitterrand. Well, we decided to talk about this later on, 
so it's difficult for me to accelerate things all alone just of my own 
accord. I can't jump the gun. But President Clinton probably knows as 
much as you do about my frame of mind and the frame of mind of France, 
in this respect, which can be summed up in a word: international 
negotiations of GATT is trade negotiation so as to eliminate 
protectionism, precisely. And it's an overall comprehensive negotiation, 
global negotiation which doesn't touch all sectors but many, many 
sectors and, therefore, not only farming and agriculture.
    If one, therefore, looks at the discussion solely from the point of 
view of agriculture, then it can't work. If, however, it is looked at in 
the form of a balanced negotiation, covering the various sectors that 
are involved, of industries, services, intellectual property, and so on, 
then there's no reason not to be able to succeed. And in that respect, 
what France wants is that there should be a success of this, because I 
share the view expressed by President Clinton a moment ago which is that 
it is better we will be able to succeed in this respect, then the sooner 
we will get out of the present recession, the present crisis, the 
present problems. But at the same time, we mustn't isolate and separate 
off subjects and just deal with them piecemeal. No, we mustn't do that, 
which is what happens only too often nowadays.

Spending Cuts

    Q. Several questions have been raised by your agreement to cut 
spending further here. First among them is why you've agreed to general 
budget cuts without the specifics when you have for so long been 
demanding specifics of others who wanted to cut the budget further. 
Also, Senator Sasser said outside that while you have not agreed to 
necessarily $90 billion in further cuts, that is about as far, he 
suggested, that you feel they could go without harming the economy. Is 
that the case, that $90 billion is it and no more suggestions need be 
made?
    President Clinton. There are two different questions there. First of 
all, in this budget resolution there is an attempt to deal by both the 
Senate and the House Budget Committees, an honest attempt to deal with 
the so-called reestimates of the Congressional Budget Office; that is, 
to get even more deficit reduction. And I believe it will produce far 
more than we even estimate. They have to decide to get the budget 
resolution passed by category. But I assure you that we will be very 
specific before the process is over.
    It is true that I think that we have cut the deficit in a 4-year 
period about as much as we should with these new numbers. But that 
doesn't mean we don't need more specifics, because we have to define how 
we're going to cut. And since I also strongly believe we have to 
increase our investments in education and training and in new 
technologies and in the things which will make our economy grow, it 
means we need all the suggestions we can get about other places we can

[[Page 385]]

cut the budget, and we will need to do that until the budget is finally 
passed.
    So I strongly support that. The Vice President, as you know, is 
heading the performance review audit of the entire Federal Government. 
And the more specific suggestions we can come up with that everyone 
agrees with, the fewer controversial and potentially damaging cuts we'll 
have.
    Let me just make the economic argument. Our deficit reduction 
package--and Senator after Senator said today, you know, that this is 
the most credible budget I've seen in 15 or 17 or however many years--it 
is producing the desired results: low interest rates, stock market back 
up and doing well.
    We have to deal with that against a backdrop of a Europe that's had 
slow growth, Japan with some serious economic problems and no political 
consensus about what to do about it in Japan. So we want to do what our 
European and Japanese friends have been telling us for years we should 
do, get our deficit under control. But we want to do it at a moderate 
pace so that we don't throw the United States back into recession and 
further complicate the economic problems of Europe, which will be helped 
by a growing American economy. So I think we've struck the right 
balance, and that was the point I was making to them.

Middle East Peace Talks

    Q. President Clinton, concerning the Middle East, you said that your 
country intends to play the role of a full partner in the peace process. 
How do you intend to translate this? And what would you tell Israeli 
Prime Minister Rabin when you receive him next week so that to resume 
the talks, especially concerning the Palestinian deportees?
    President Clinton. Well, I think that what we mean by a full 
partnership was evidenced by the fact that the Secretary of State's 
first trip abroad was to the Middle East and that he made aggressive 
efforts there to try to get the talks back on track and to involve as 
many parties as possible. In terms of what I will tell Prime Minister 
Rabin when he comes back, I won't say anything I haven't said in public 
about the deportee issue or anything else. We are working together. I 
feel comfortable and confident that he very much wants the peace process 
back on track, and I will support that.

Civil Aircraft Agreement

    Q. What specific revisions do you want in the agreement on civil 
aircraft? And are you prepared to abrogate last year's agreement?
    President Clinton. No, no, absolutely not. I think to some extent my 
remarks in that regard have been misunderstood, and they may be my 
fault. I support last year's agreement. The point I was trying to make 
is this: The United States had a big lead in civilian aircraft. 
Arguably, it was contributed to by the massive investments we made in 
defense and the spinoff benefits. That was always the European argument 
for their own direct subsidies in the airbus program, that we had 
indirectly done the same thing through defense.
    It costs a great deal of money to develop new aircraft, to break 
into new markets, and to go forward. The argument I was trying to make 
to the Boeing workers last week, and I will restate it here, is that the 
adversity they have suffered in the market is through no fault of their 
own. That is, they have not failed by being unproductive or lazy or 
asking for too much but that Europe was able to penetrate this market 
because of the airbus policy. And the blame I placed was on our 
Government for not responding, not Europe's for trying to get in. That 
was their right; it was legal under international law, and they did it. 
Now, we chose instead to try to convince them to stop doing as much as 
they were doing, which produced the agreement to which you just alluded. 
I strongly support that agreement. I do not want it abrogated; I want it 
enforced.
    My policy now on this--and I don't want to prejudge the work that 
the commission we're about to appoint--Congress is going to pass a bill 
in the next few days--we're going to appoint a commission on the future 
of our commercial airlines company and our airline manufacturers. I 
don't want to prejudge that, but my policy basically has two points: 
Number one, the agreement must be honored and strictly adhered to. And, 
number two, the agreement leaves the United States as well as Europe the 
opportunity to significantly invest in the development of

[[Page 386]]

new technologies for new generations of aircraft, and we have to take 
that opportunity in order to be competitive. And I appreciate your 
asking the question because it gives me the opportunity to clarify my 
position.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's fifth news conference began at 12:20 p.m. in the 
East Room at the White House. President Mitterrand spoke in French, and 
his remarks were translated by an interpreter.