[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 27 (Monday, July 12, 1993)]
[Pages 1236-1242]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Foreign Journalists

 July 2, 1993

Economic Summit

    Q. Mr. President, I want, first of all, to thank you very much for 
this opportunity, that let me tell you, we have not had for several 
years. So, I thank you.
    And first of all, I want to ask you, this Tokyo trip, it's for you 
the first appearance on the international scene. But at the same time, 
the expectations have never been so low for a G-7 summit. You know the 
difficulties of the different countries and no trade agreement, Soviet 
aid, we don't know much, how it will go. So, sir, what do you really 
think to accomplish?
    The President. Well, let me say, first of all, I think the direction 
of the G-7 meeting is more important than the declaration. I think you 
put too much, sometimes, stock in the statement. I think it's very 
important that as world leaders we recommit ourselves to a strategy of 
global growth, to a strategy of open trade, to seriously examining the 
problems we are all having with creating jobs, and to dealing with the 
common security issues that we face. I predict that we will have a very 
successful meeting as regards Russia. And I still believe that we can 
make a lot of headway on the issues of trade and global growth.
    What we really need to do with all the economic problems our nations 
have and the political problems is to remind ourselves that these are 
still very great countries with enormous possibilities and a great 
future. And we need to sort of lift the spirits of the people and focus 
on what we can do instead of what we cannot do.

Security Issues

    Q. With regard to the political issues, we still, as you said so 
many times, Mr. President, we live in still a very dangerous world with 
so many challenges and crises. For example, you probably knew that today 
three Italian peacekeepers have been killed in Somalia, a dozen injured. 
Sir, you go to Tokyo; have you some new ideas on how to confront this 
dangerous world, the challenges?
    The President. Well, first of all, let me say that my trip to Tokyo 
is a trip to the G-7 but also to Japan and to Asia. So one of the things 
that I intend to do is to make absolutely clear the United States' 
continuing commitment to engagement in Asia. I hope that we will have 
some time to talk at the G-7 about some of our other problems. But I 
would point out that the greatest security challenge we have faced in my 
judgment in the last 5 months was the threat to democracy in Russia. And 
the G-7 met the test. We rallied behind Yeltsin. We rallied behind 
democracy. We supported a free market economic reform in Russia. And I 
hope we will do so again at the G-7.
    We have not solved the problem in Bosnia, and our nations are 
somewhat divided about it. It is a very difficult problem. But I do have 
some ideas about those things that I will be discussing with the other 
leaders.

Japan

    Q. Mr. President, let me start my question with your view on Japan. 
Since you took office you've mentioned Japan several times. At times you 
were somewhat stern, expressing its remoteness from an open market. At 
times you were generous for expressing the relationship of the most 
important bilateral one for the United States. Which of your assessments 
is true to your feeling?
    The President. Both. And let me explain why. First of all, I 
probably have more admiration for your country in more ways than any 
President who has ever served. I had the privilege of traveling to Japan 
many times. I actively sought Japanese companies to come to my State 
when I was a Governor. I believe you have a very great country with an 
even brighter future than your past.
    I think that our relationship is based on our ability to stand up 
for our common security interests, to promote the values of democracy 
and free markets, and to have a reasonable trade relationship. I think 
that there are things that we need to do in our trade relationship that 
will benefit both of us.
    I do not want to create American jobs at the expense of Japanese 
jobs. I think that changing the nature of the trading relationship is in 
the interest of both countries, and I don't think it's fair for an 
American President to ask another country to do something that's good 
for America but bad for the other

[[Page 1237]]

country. If I didn't think it was good for both of us, I wouldn't push 
that. But I think we'll work that out.
    And the main thing I want to say to the people of Japan is that this 
period of political turmoil is not a bad thing for Japan. I know it's 
different from what you've experienced in the last few decades, but 
Japan has had an astonishing amount of success with the certain 
political arrangement. But as the global economy changes, as the people 
of Japan themselves change in their aspirations, the political system 
will have to alter to reflect that. It is not a bad thing. It is a good 
thing. And the people of Japan should be, I think, very hopeful about 
their future.
    Q. If I may follow-up, Mr. President, how and how soon this economic 
present strain be solved do you think?
    The President. Well, I think it depends in part on the development 
of ideas in Japan, both within the government, both elected and civil 
servant personnel, and among the people themselves. But I think you will 
see a resolution of this. I'm not pessimistic at all about it, I'm very 
hopeful that we will work these things out in ways that are good for 
both countries. I want to emphasize that.
    I've seen some of the press reports in Japan of some of my 
statements as if I want to protect American jobs and take Japanese jobs 
away. It's far more complex than that. I think that both of us have to 
undergo changes. Every nation represented in this circle, with the 
possible exception of Russia, has hounded the United States, has asked 
the United States for years to do something about our big Government 
deficit, saying that that caused a big imbalance in global trade. We are 
doing that. So we are trying to change. And change is not easy, and I 
think all of us will have to make some changes.
    Q. How soon?
    The President. I think it won't be long. I think we'll see--my hunch 
is that the capacity for adjustment in both countries is greater than we 
sometimes think, and I think we'll resolve this pretty quickly.

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, may I begin by asking you about Bosnia? There's an 
impression that the indecisive way in which you have handled this issue 
is an illustration of the widening gap of trust between America and 
Europe. You advocated lifting the arms embargo on the Muslims and 
striking at some Serbian positions. And then you appeared to back away 
from that. Then you moved to a compromise plan for setting up safe 
havens. Now, that's a concept which you, yourself, described as a 
shooting gallery. My question is this: Are you preparing now to wash 
your hands of this whole affair and possibly to blame the Europeans for 
the failure?
    The President. No. Neither one. Let me, first of all, point out what 
the United States has done just since I've been President. We spent a 
great deal of money on humanitarian aid; we have pushed hard for 
strengthening the embargo against Serbia; we have pushed for a number of 
other things to try to help resolve the situation that we have all 
agreed on.
    I did not back away from my position, sir. Britain and France and 
Russia said they would not support that position within the United 
Nations. The United States cannot act alone under international law in 
this instance.
    Q. It is their fault?
    The President. No, they disagreed with me. It's not their fault. 
They disagreed. We had an honest disagreement about what the right 
policy to follow was. I expect as we go through time we'll disagree 
about other things. I thought I could persuade them that we ought to try 
this because I was convinced that the reason Milosevic, Karadzic and 
others were making concessions to try to bring this conflict to an end 
is because the West was turning the pressure up.
    There was an honest disagreement. The leaders of Britain and France 
and Russia honestly did not believe that lifting the embargo would make 
things better, would hasten the day of peace. We had an honest 
disagreement. The German Government agreed with the position I took. But 
it was an honest disagreement within the most complicated foreign policy 
problem that any of us have faced in years. I don't seek to place blame 
anywhere. I don't think that is productive.
    When my position did not prevail and when I did not have the power 
to implement

[[Page 1238]]

it unilaterally because of the U.N. embargo on arms----
    Q. Sure.
    The President. ----all I could do is do what we did last week. I 
voted with many of the nonaligned nations in the United Nations, and we 
didn't win the battle.
    Q. But Mr. President----
    The President. But then I went back--when you talk about changing my 
position, what I did was I went back to the British, the French, and the 
others and I said, ``Okay, what can we agree on? We don't want to say, 
`Well, we didn't get our way; so we're going to go home.' We will work 
with you. What can we agree on?'' They proposed a course that we then 
embarked on, and they agreed not to totally rule out lifting the arms 
embargo at a later date.
    So I, frankly, was pleased to try to work with and to support the 
efforts of Europe in this regard. I didn't point the finger or blame. 
But we can't deny the fact that there was an honest disagreement. That 
doesn't mean that we should all give up.
    Q. So may I, as a followup, press you on this? You see, as you say, 
you voted at the United Nations with Djibouti and Morocco and Pakistan 
and the Cape Verde Islands on this issue about the arms embargo against 
Britain and France. Now, the impression still, though, is that nothing 
very much is happening and that it's felt it's very different when the 
issue, say, is Iraq when the job can be done with unmanned Tomahawk 
cruise missiles fired from a safe distance. There seems to be a 
difference of emphasis there in the urgency in the way these matters are 
handled.
    The President. Well, I disagree with that. The difference is this: 
that in Iraq we had clear evidence that the government planned a 
terrorist attack and an assassination of a former President of the 
United States for actions he took as President. We clearly had the right 
to take action under international law, clearly.
    Secondly, if you forget about that action and you look at other 
actions against Iraq, they were taken within the framework of the United 
Nations and United Nations resolutions. The United Nations operates 
against, if you will--the governing resolution of the United Nations is 
against the policy that I have advocated in Bosnia. Therefore, it would 
take a change in the United Nations posture to effect that policy. The 
United States cannot go out and violate international law or go out on 
its own. That is not--we have never been for that.
    And we are well aware that even though our military establishment is 
the biggest and we are the most powerful country in the world 
militarily, we are well aware that when we commit ourselves to working 
with our neighbors, through NATO, through the U.N., through the 
Organization of American States, through any other group, that we have 
to be prepared not to always have our way just prevail overnight. That's 
all that happened. I care just as much about those Muslims in the heart 
of Bosnia as I do about any other group of people in the world. I would 
give anything to somehow bring an end to the ethnic cleansing, to 
somehow have a resolution of that. And I think that we are still talking 
to one another and working in good faith and trying to come to grips 
with that.
    I do not believe, if you meant to ask me this, I do not believe that 
the United States or Europe should send huge numbers of soldiers there 
to get involved in a civil war on one side or the other. I do believe 
that we should use as much muscle as we can muster to try to bring a 
humane end to the tragedy.
    But this is a tough problem. I think that's the real answer here. 
This is not an easy problem. And I don't want to get into finger-
pointing or blame-making; that's not the point. And as far as our 
willingness to commit troops, we put troops into Somalia, and I would 
say to the people of Italy and to the family members of those three 
soldiers, you have my gratitude and my deep condolences. But this is a 
difficult world. A lot of these problems are not going to be easily 
solved.

Russia

    Q. Mr. President, Russian television. It looks like in both of our 
countries, in the United States and in Russia, what you see over the 
last few months or maybe in a short time is a growing awareness that, in 
spite of the fact that the cold war is over, we still have a lot of 
differences, that our national interests don't coincide as often as 
somebody

[[Page 1239]]

would like them to do--to coincide. Now, when you meet President Yeltsin 
in a few days in Tokyo, on these lines what would your posture be there? 
How would you address these issues? And let me remind you that our Prime 
Minister Chernomyrdin was unable to come here because there were some 
differences unresolved yet.
    The President. I would say first, we have a lot more in common than 
we have which divides us, that I am very proud of the support that the 
United States and, indeed, that the G-7 gave to the movement toward 
democracy and the fact that President Yeltsin stood up for the 
democratic process in Russia. And I'm proud of the courage shown by the 
Russian people in trying to move toward a market-oriented economy as 
well as to preserve democracy. And our overriding interests at the G-7 
meeting in my judgment is to continue to provide assistance to Russia in 
that effort. And I will strongly support it.
    Now, are we going to have differences of opinion from time to time? 
Yes, we are. I called President Yeltsin about that matter. We're trying 
to work it out. I still think we really need this bilateral cooperation. 
I want the Vice President and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin to meet and to 
talk about what we can do on cooperating in space, cooperating on 
nuclear issues, cooperating on environmental issues. And I think that 
will proceed. I still think all that will be done. But we're going to 
have differences from time to time. People disagree. That happens in 
life.
    Q. You're talking about support. Can we expect anything significant 
and concrete at the G-7 concerning the aid to Russia?
    The President. I certainly hope so. The United States committed $1.6 
billion at Vancouver. Over half that money has now been obligated. We 
have another bill moving through our Congress that deals largely with 
energy and nuclear issues and environmental issues, as well as student 
exchanges and the attempt to privatize--assistance to privatize industry 
in Russia. That's $1.8 billion. It has passed one House of our Congress 
overwhelmingly and will pass the other shortly.
    The IMF, 2 days ago, released the first $1.5 billion in authority to 
Russia. And I think you will see the G-7 agree that we ought all to 
contribute to a fund to help privatize industry and to start new 
enterprises and to do things like that. I think you will see a--I think 
this G-7 meeting will be good for Russia.
    Q. You think they will be cooperative, the rest of the countries?
    The President. Absolutely. We're all having economic trouble, so 
there won't be probably as much money as I would like because of the 
economic difficulties that all the nations have. But I think given the 
problems that the people of these countries have, the commitment to do 
more for Russia will be clear, substantial, and generous because of all 
the problems all of our countries have at home.

Economic Summit

    Q. Mr. President, Prime Minister Balladur has warned there will be 
no world trade agreement unless U.S. penalties on steel are lifted. What 
can the United States do in Tokyo to try to diffuse the confrontation? 
And do you think there is any room for a political compromise?
    The President. Well, let me say, first of all, the White House had 
no involvement in that case. That case was developed earlier. We have a 
process here which is almost like a judicial process in a court for 
dealing with these things. Clearly, it's legal to have this kind of 
operation under GATT. So the legality is not in question. If the Prime 
Minister believes that the facts are different from the facts that were 
found here, obviously, we can discuss that.
    My attitude about that is that all these issues ought to be subject 
to discussion at the G-7 meetings. I mean, one of the things that really 
bothers me about some of these meetings in the past is that we have all 
been so afraid of making a mistake, that we have all of our aides 
around, and we've got everything written down on paper. But if you spend 
all your time trying to avoid making a mistake, it's hard to make 
anything good happen. And so one of the things that I'm really working 
for at G-7 is a totally open framework where we can honestly share with 
each other what we feel and how we can resolve this.
    France, if I might say, France has had some truly astonishing 
economic accomplish- 

[[Page 1240]]

ments in the last 10 years, many years in which the productivity growth 
in France was higher than any other European country and higher than the 
United States' growth. And yet France has had some continuing problems 
with persistent high unemployment, even with high growth.
    So my own view is that it's very much in the interest of France to 
have a GATT agreement which opens trade and gives the incredible 
productive capacity of France broader outlets around the world. And I 
don't want to do anything to stand in the way of that, but we're going 
to have to work through some of these issues. I think we can.
    And I realize how hard it is in France or in any other country with 
a high unemployment rate to conduct a trade agreement, because people 
are afraid of change. But when you're in trouble, that's when you need 
to change. That's the moment when you need to change.

Global Economy

    Q. Sir, you've been elected to put America back to work. Do you 
think the United States has a leadership responsibility in helping the 
world economy get back to work?
    The President. Absolutely. And I do not believe that Americans can 
go back to work in sufficient numbers until the world begins to work 
more.
    For example, we've created in this country in the last 5 months 
about 960,000 jobs. That's about the same number we created in the 
previous 4 years. So it looks pretty good. But our unemployment rate is 
still quite high here, and the wages are not growing very much. In the 
last 5 years, two-thirds of our jobs have come from exports, two-thirds. 
So it is obvious that we can't grow unless Europe grows, unless Japan 
grows, unless Asia grows, unless Russia becomes a market.
    It is not simple generosity. Even though I think it is the right 
thing to do, it is not simple generosity that prompts me to try to put 
this money into Russia. I think who is going to be the United States 
customer in 5 years or 10 years? Who is going to be Europe's customer? 
Who is going to be Japan's customer? Look at all the people who live in 
Russia. Look at all the people who live in Ukraine. Look at all the 
people who live in the other Republics. My job is not just to go to the 
G-7 meeting and negotiate for the United States. My job is to try to 
help us all do something that is good for the world.

U.S. Leadership

    Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you talked a lot about 
American leadership. So far we haven't seen it. Europeans are confused 
about your direction in foreign policy, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia. You 
didn't solve any of these problems really. How would you define your 
leadership role?
    The President. First of all, the central challenge that we have 
faced since I've been President was the crisis in Russia. And the United 
States did lead and Europe participated in and Japan participated in an 
aggressive response from the advanced nations of the world in standing 
up for democracy and market reform in Russia. That overshadowed every 
other challenge that we have faced in terms of what it's going to do for 
our long-term interests.
    And let's not be confused about that. Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia, these 
things are very important. That was the central challenge that will 
affect our interests. And we did respond, not just the United States, 
all of us did. And we did the right thing and so far it's had the right 
consequence.
    With regard to Somalia, I frankly just disagree with you about that. 
I think the United States, under my predecessor--I can't take credit for 
it--he led the way for a multinational coalition to go into Somalia. We 
saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We restored order. Children can go 
to school again. People can eat. They can sleep. There are hospitals. 
Life is better.
    Now, Somalia did not have the infrastructure of a nation. And if we 
stay there--we are still there; the Italians are there; others are still 
there--there are going to be problems. Aideed presented us a problem. We 
did our best to break the back of his military capacity to disrupt 
Somalia without appearing to go after him personally. And I think that's 
the right thing to do. I would like it if he were arrested but without 
trying to just take him out personally. I think we are on

[[Page 1241]]

the right path in Somalia, but we have to have patience in nation-
building.
    With regard to Iraq, the action I took in Iraq was specifically 
designed to respond to the attempt to assassinate President Bush. It was 
the right thing to do, I think. There are a whole set of other issues 
which have to do with Iraq's defiance of the U.N. resolutions. The 
Security Council issued a very stern warning to Iraq, and I think there 
will either be more compliance or some sort of appropriate action.
    But again, I would say to you if you look at Iraq and you say we 
didn't solve that, it seems to me that the west did the right thing in 
not being obsessed with deposing Saddam Hussein. We acted against him 
because he invaded Kuwait. So he was removed from Kuwait and has been 
confined in a lot of the mischief he might have otherwise have wreaked. 
So I don't know if you can tout that as a failure.
    Bosnia is a disappointment, but it is the most difficult problem, 
not only in Europe but in the world. We have honest disagreements among 
ourselves. I still have every hope that something can be done. And I 
have said repeatedly that the United States would be prepared to 
contribute to a genuine effort to maintain the peace if an agreement can 
be signed.
    I have thought, as you know, that lifting the arms embargo would 
accelerate movement to a genuine peace. I still believe that. Others 
disagreed. That's the way it is in the world we're living in. But I am 
prepared to make a contribution to maintaining a genuine settlement in 
Bosnia. I do not believe the west should send in huge numbers of troops 
to get involved in trying to fight all three sides in a civil war. 
That's not what I think we should do.

Germany

    Q. The German Bundestag decided today that Germans also can stay in 
Somalia.
    The President. I'm very grateful for that.
    Q. Do you expect Germany to make their troops available for 
peacekeeping and peacemaking missions, or is this perhaps the price 
Germany has to pay for a seat at the Security Council?
    The President. Well, as you know, I favor a seat for Germany and for 
Japan in the Security Council. I think they are great economic powers. I 
think they have been responsible international political citizens, and 
they are leaders. I do not think I should involve myself too much in the 
internal politics of Germany over this issue except to say that as 
President I am profoundly grateful for the position that Chancellor Kohl 
has taken on these issues and the willingness of the German people to 
support involvement in Somalia to try to help insofar as they could in 
Bosnia. And I think it is very hopeful for the future.
    I think all of us will have to get into more of these difficult 
situations like Somalia that have no easy immediate answer if we're 
going to try to help. If we can reach an agreement in Bosnia and we wind 
up sending troops there as a result of a peace agreement, there still 
will be ragged edges to it and difficult moments.

NAFTA

    Q. Mr. President, I'd like to turn if I could to the issue of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement. As you know, there was a U.S. court 
ruling this week that said that NAFTA could do serious damage to the 
environment and ordering your administration to conduct an environmental 
impact review. You've decided to appeal that decision. What happens if 
you lose the appeal? Are you going to at that point bull ahead with 
NAFTA and ignore the court order?
    The President. Well, in our country we can't ignore court orders. 
But, first of all, we announced that we would appeal within the hour of 
the decision. And we believe we will win. We also are exploring other 
options for compliance that would not delay the treaty and we are 
proceeding full-speed ahead.
    But the irony of this is that, as you know, this administration has 
taken some extra time with NAFTA to try to conclude environmental 
agreements that would make it absolutely clear that the NAFTA agreement 
would improve the environment on both sides of the border. So this is a 
delaying tactic but does not square with the facts. NAFTA will help us 
to improve the environment on both sides of the border. That's what 
we're negotiating so hard with the Mexicans on,

[[Page 1242]]

and the Canadians have been supportive of the idea that we ought to try 
to make sure that there's no environmental degradation. So I still think 
we can pass it. And we're going to work on it.
    Q. In more general terms, I think you'd agree that NAFTA's in 
considerable trouble in Congress and with American public opinion. At 
what point are you going to get out and start aggressively selling this 
agreement, rather than leaving it to Ross Perot and other critics of 
NAFTA to make the running on it?
    The President. Well, first of all, I've had a very consistent and 
clear public position on it. But I can only undertake one major battle 
at a time. And right now, I've got to pass this big budget and economic 
program. It's a dramatic change from the last 12 years of economic 
policy in the U.S. It's tough. It's controversial. We're going to do it, 
I think. But that will be over soon.
    Then the second thing is, in order to sell it, we have to define 
exactly what ``it'' is, which means that we have to conclude our 
negotiations on the supplemental agreement. We'll do that soon. And then 
I'll be out there working hard to sell it. We have the votes, I believe, 
in the Senate to pass it. We do not have the votes in the House to pass 
it. I think we can get the votes when we point out it will create jobs, 
not cost jobs. If we don't do it, it will really be difficult. And all 
the things people worry about, you know, jobs going to Mexico, that can 
all happen today. It has nothing to do with NAFTA.
    Q. Mr. President, our time is over. We thank you very much.
    The President. Thank you.

Note: The interview began at 11:30 a.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the 
White House. In the interview, the President referred to Slobodan 
Milosevic, President of Serbia; Radovan Karadzic, leader of the Bosnian 
Serbs; and Somali warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed. Journalists 
participating in the interview were Hidetoshi Fujisawa, NHK, Japan; 
Trevor McDonald, ITN, United Kingdom; Sergei Goryachev, Ostankino, 
Russia; David Halton, CBC, Canada; Jean-Marc Illouz, France TV II; 
Jochen Schweizer, ARD, Germany; and Giuseppe Lugato, RAI TV I, Italy. A 
tape was not available for verification of the content of this 
interview. This item was not received in time for publication in the 
appropriate issue.