[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 14 (Monday, April 12, 1993)]
[Pages 543-545]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Question-and-Answer Session With Russian Reporters in Vancouver

 April 4, 1993

Aid Package

    Q. I had two questions for both Presidents, so you could probably 
answer for Boris, too. [Laughter]
    The President. I'll give you my answer, then I'll give you Yeltsin's 
answer. [Laughter]
    Q. The first is that this is the meeting of the Presidents. So the 
money that's being promised is Government money, and naturally it's 
going to be distributed through the Government. But you've indicated 
that three-quarters are going to be going to businesses. So the question 
is how the Russian businesses themselves are going to be consulted, if 
ever? What are the priorities, because there are several association of 
Russian businessmen existing already. So will they be invited to 
participate in setting up priorities for investment? This is the first.
    And second, to you: We know that polls, public polls in America do 
not show that Americans are very enthusiastic about giving this aid. 
Like Newsweek polls say that about 75 percent don't approve it, and New 
York Times published that 52 percent support if it just prevents civil 
war, 42 percent if it fosters democratic reform, and only 29 percent if 
it just personally supports Yeltsin. How are you going to sort of handle 
this problem that Americans themselves are not very enthusiastic?
    Thank you.
    Q. I have a question. I'm sorry, is there going to be a translation 
of everything into Russian? No, just the answers. Just the answers. 
Okay.
    The President. The answer to the first question is, it depends on 
what kind of aid we're discussing. For example, the funds that will be 
set up for financing new businesses will obviously go to those 
businesses who apply and who seem to be good risks and make the 
application. The privatization fund will be used to support the 
privatization of existing public enterprises. Then there are some other 
general funds in the Democracy Corps and other things which people in 
Russia will have some influence over the distribution of.
    With regard to your second question, let me say that I would think 
that there would be people in both countries who would not feel too 
warmly toward simply the American Government giving money to the Russian 
Government. There's opposition to that in Russia. And in our country, 
throughout our whole history, there has been an opposition to foreign 
aid of all kinds. That is, this has nothing to do with Russia. If you 
look at the whole history of America, any kind of aid program has always 
been unpopular.
    What I have tried to tell the American people is, this is not an aid 
program, this is an investment program; that this is an investment in 
our future. We spent $4 trillion, trillion, on armaments, on soldiers, 
and other

[[Page 544]]

investments because of the cold war. Now, with a democratic government 
in Russia, with the newly independent states, the remainder of them, 
working on a democracy and struggling to get their economies going, it 
seems to me very much in our interest to make it possible to do whatever 
we can for democracy to survive, for the economy of Russia to grow 
because of the potential for trade and investment there, and for us to 
continue the effort to reduce nuclear weapons and other elements of 
hostility on both sides, on our side and on the Russian side. So I don't 
see this as an aid program. This is an investment for the United States. 
This is very much in the interest of the United States. The things I 
announced today, the second stage of the program which I hope to put 
together next week, in my view are things that are good for my country 
and for the taxpayers and workers of my country.
    Russia is a very great nation that needs some partnership now, some 
common endeavor with other people who share her goals. But it would be a 
great mistake for anyone to view this as some sort of just a charity or 
an aid issue. That's not what it is. It's an investment for America, and 
it's a wonderful investment. Like all investments, there is some risk. 
But there's far less risk with a far greater potential of return than 
the $4 trillion we spend looking at each other across the barrier of the 
cold war.

Ukraine

    Q. Mr. President, first of all, thank you very much indeed for 
coming here and talking to us. In the memory of the living 
correspondents, this is the first time an American President is doing 
this to the Russian press corps, so it's kind of a very measured 
breakthrough.
    I have two questions. One, in your introductory remarks of the other 
press conference, you mentioned in brief that you discussed the START II 
and START I issues. Could you tell us, did you reach an agreement with 
President Yeltsin as to what might be done in order to have Ukraine join 
the ratification of START I and the NPT regime? And my second question 
is, how confident you are that the United States Congress would be eager 
to support you in lifting Jackson-Vanik and other restrictions inherited 
from the cold war?
    The President. First, we discussed the issue of Ukraine with regard 
to START I and NPT and generally with regard to the need to proceed to 
have the other independent states all be non-nuclear but also to have 
the United States develop strong relationships with them. We know that 
one thing that we could do that would increase, I think, the willingness 
of the Ukraine to support this direction is to successfully conclude our 
own negotiations on highly enriched uranium, because that would provide 
not only an important economic opportunity for Russia but also for 
Ukraine, and it would show some reaching out on our part. But we agreed 
that basically the people who signed off on the Lisbon Protocol have got 
to honor what they did, and we agreed to continue to press that.
    I, myself, have spent a good deal of time trying to reassure 
Ukraine's leaders, specifically the President and the Foreign Minister, 
that I want strong ties with Ukraine, that the United States very much 
wants a good relationship with Ukraine, but that in order to do what we 
need to do together to strengthen the economy of Ukraine and to have the 
United States be fully supportive, the commitment to ratify START I and 
to join the NPT regime is critical.
    What was the second question?

Trade Restrictions

    The President. With regard to Jackson-Vanik and COCOM, I would make 
two points: First, I have agreed with the Republican and Democratic 
leaders in the Congress that we will, as soon as I return, have a list 
of all the legislative and other restrictions, some of them are 
regulatory in nature, imposed on relations between the United States and 
Russia, that are legacies of the cold war. And we will see whether 
they're--how many of them we could agree to do away with right now, at 
least among the leadership of the Congress.
    With regard to Jackson-Vanik, I think there will be an openness to 
change the law if the Congress is convinced there are, in fact, no more 
refuseniks, no more people who wish to emigrate who are not being 
allowed to. If the fact is that there is no one there

[[Page 545]]

who would have been--who the law was designed to affect, then I think 
that the desire to keep the law will be much less.
    With regard to COCOM, my guess is, and it's nothing more than a 
guess, that the leadership of Congress and indeed my own advisers might 
prefer to see some sort of phased movement out of the COCOM regime. But 
I think they would be willing to begin it in the fairly near future.

President's Interest in Russia

    Q. Mr. Clinton, when I read your speech in Annapolis, I got the 
impression that you have a completely different personal--and I stress 
that, personal, not political--approach towards Russia, compared to the 
approach of Mr. Bush. Could you formulate in a few words what is the 
difference between you as a personality and your approach--the 
difference between your approach to Russia and the approach of Mr. Bush? 
And who made you--why did you cite Akhmatova in the last part of your 
speech?
    The President. Let me say, first, I do not wish to compare myself 
with President Bush or anyone else. I can't say what was in his heart 
about Russia. I can say that since I was a boy, I have been personally 
fascinated with the history, the music, and the culture and the 
literature of Russia. I have been thrilled by Russian music since I was 
a serious student of music for more than 30 years now. I have read major 
Russian novelists and many of your poets and followed your ballet and 
tried to know as much as I could about your history.
    And I went to the Soviet Union, but it was then the Soviet Union. 
You may know, it was a big issue in the last Presidential campaign that 
I spent the first week of 1970 alone in Moscow, and did not return again 
until 3 days before Mr. Yeltsin was elected President. But all that time 
I was away, I was following events there very closely and hoping for the 
day when we could be genuine partners. So I have always had a personal 
feeling about Russia.
    I remember, for example, a lot of you know I like music very much. 
One of the most moving experiences for me as a musician was when Leonard 
Bernstein took the New York Philharmonic to Moscow and played 
Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony to the Russians. And he played the last 
movement more rapidly than anyone had ever played it before because it 
was technically so difficult. That is something I followed very closely 
when it occurred.
    These are things that have always had a big impact on my life. And I 
had just always hoped that someday, if I ever had the chance to, I could 
play a role in seeing our two countries become closer partners.

Note: The question-and-answer session began at 2:46 p.m. at Canada 
Place.