    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 3 (Monday, January 24, 1994)]
    [Pages 58-67]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    The President's News Conference With President Boris Yeltsin of Russia
    in Moscow

    January 14, 1994

        President Yeltsin. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll tell you the main
    thing now. The first official visit paid by the President of the United
    States of America Clinton to Russia has been very fruitful. It couldn't
    have been otherwise because we know one another only too well and we
    needed a great job to do and two great hopes were placed on us by our
    nations.

    [[Page 59]]

        This visit is based on today's realities, and at the same time, it
    projected itself into the future as regards the difficult past. We and
    the President of the United States wrapped it up solidly back in
    Vancouver. Work in Moscow was very intense to obtain great results. The
    concrete agreements made are crucial to Russia and the United States and
    to the entire world.
        The talks were held at a history-making time for both countries. Old
    habits and stereotypes fade away. We are searching for new things in
    Russia and in America. I must say that we're in the thick of the
    Russian-American joint revolution.
        During the free democratic elections, the Russians have approved the
    new constitution, and for the first time, with no coercion, they elected
    their own Parliament. I don't agree with those who believe that the
    first pancakes did not turn out right. You should take a better look at
    individual names and popular slogans. You will see that the people chose
    a better way of life, legality and predictability.
        This is a lesson for all of us to learn. Yet, in order not to repeat
    past mistakes I made it perfectly clear to the President that we would
    expand the scope of reforms, focusing more on the social dimension. I am
    confident that this country will have a greater stability and a durable
    social peace.
        Bill Clinton demonstrated he has a fine sense of our particular
    situation. Indeed, the Americans also survived a lot, and they continue
    to survive a lot. We may count on their full support for the reforms
    implemented by the Russian President, government, and reformists in the
    new Parliament.
        I discussed problems concerning our economy and positive changes
    that happened, and I referred to elements of stabilization. And I would
    like to underscore that what we need now is not humanitarian aid but
    rather full-scale cooperation with due regard for the period of
    transition the young market economy in Russia is going through now.
        Specifically, along with the Tokyo package and the Clinton package
    and Vancouver, the most tangible support for Russia would be the opening
    of the American market for our exports, whether raw materials or
    equipment. And I'm very much satisfied that today we finally, after 2
    years of discussion, we signed an agreement on uranium.
        All the cold war restrictions should be lifted like the Jackson-
    Vanik amendment. We need to remove artificial barriers that were put up
    under the excuse of Russian dumping practices. As regards uranium, I
    think it is rather a fear of competition with more advanced technologies
    and cheaper materials.
        Since Vancouver, Bill Clinton has done a lot, keeping his promise to
    remove the economic bad things of the cold war. Discriminating
    restrictions were struck off from the American domestic legislation; I
    mean the bulk of those. No more high custom duties are levied on about
    5,000 Russian products.
        The U.S. President has done a great job of integrating Russia into
    international financial and economic organizations. I believe that it
    won't take much time for the Group of Seven to turn into a Group of
    Eight. During our negotiations, the Russian-American relations have
    reached a point where they became a mature strategic global partnership
    along all the lines. It is based on a commonly held view of new
    prospects and fresh problems. We are both confident that today's world
    should be democratic, open, and integrated.
        As regards equality, mutual benefits, regard for one another's
    interests, no more references should be made to that because those are
    implied. This basic dimension of our partnership is formalized in the
    Moscow Declaration we signed. It demonstrates and consolidates the
    historic shift in the Russian-American relations in Eurasia and in the
    entire world.
        Our interaction is now freshly meaningful, and it is geared toward a
    better strategic stability and security. Thanks to that, over a few
    recent months the world and our countries avoided quite a few traps and
    miscalculations. There was some progress made: better cooperation in the
    areas of security and disarmament, peacekeeping, and promotion of
    economic transparency.
        The landmark step that we have finally made in Moscow is the package
    of agreements leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons in the
    Ukraine. I believe that this is a history-making document that was
    signed today by the three Presidents. Everybody

    [[Page 60]]

    benefits from it and, in the first place, the Ukrainian people.
        The agreements reached at our three-party summit will save money,
    remove differences, and set a good example for other countries to
    follow. They are consolidated by the Russian-American declaration
    concerning the consolidation of all mass destruction weapon
    nonproliferation regimes. And nonproliferation, as you know, is being
    called into question now, or is running a very serious test of strength.
        The U.S. President gave me fresh information about the Partnership
    For Peace concept that was approved in Brussels. This idea comes from
    the NATO, but there is some basic element of the Russian-American
    cooperation in it. This concept is a very important step toward building
    a security system from Vancouver to Vladivostok that excludes the
    emergence of new demarcation lines for areas of unequal security. We
    believe that this idea may prove just one of the scenarios for building
    a new Europe. Just one of those will well impart very specific
    cooperation in this dimension of cooperation, including the military
    area. Of course, we will keep track of whether collective security
    structures in Europe, including such time-tested institutions like the
    United Nations and the CSCE.
        I provided very detailed information to President Clinton about the
    integration of processes that go on in the former Soviet Union,
    including our latest meetings, summit meetings within the framework of
    the CIS. You shouldn't be fearful of some neoimperial ambitions. Russia
    is only interested in stability, and it takes very honest mediation
    efforts to extinguish the hotbeds of conflicts along its new borders.
        We are ready to expand our cooperation and coordinate our action
    with the United Nations, CSCE, and the international community. It is
    too bad that the international community has yet to show great
    enthusiasm. It responds, but frugally, to our concrete proposals
    concerning either Abkhazia or Nagorno-Karabakh or Tajikistan. I believe
    that we will have a greater understanding with the United States of this
    very crucial issue.
        I raised the issue of human rights violations and national
    minorities, especially in the Baltics. No double standards should be
    allowed here, whether it happens in Haiti or in the Baltics. As a
    result, we adopted a very forceful declaration on securing human rights.
    And the President confirmed that he will take appropriate steps in
    making contact with the Baltics so that no more discrimination would be
    allowed there against the Russian-speaking population there.
        I don't want to be too optimistic now. This does not reflect the
    nature of our sincere and businesslike conversations. We've had
    differences, and we'll continue to have some differences in the future.
    But what is crucial here is looking for an understanding that will turn
    into a specific policy.
        This is our flight plan for the Russian-American partnership that
    will substitute the flight plan for strategic missiles that would not be
    targeted against one another.
        Thank you very much.
        Now, Mr. Clinton.
        President Clinton. Thank you very much.
        Nine months ago President Yeltsin and I met in Vancouver, and there
    we laid the foundation for a new partnership between the United States
    and Russia, a partnership based on mutual respect. We have just
    concluded an excellent and very productive summit meeting in which we
    took important steps to strengthen that partnership. I want to thank
    President Yeltsin and his entire team for hosting us and for making
    these days so productive.
        Throughout our discussions, I reaffirmed the strong support of the
    United States for Russia's commitment to democracy and transition to a
    market economy. I informed President Yeltsin that the United States is
    committed to specific projects, 100 percent of the $1.6 billion of
    assistance that I announced in Vancouver, and that we have actually
    expended about 70 percent of the funds. The President and I also
    discussed the additional $2.5 billion in assistance for Russia and the
    other newly independent states that my administration proposed in Tokyo
    in April and which Congress fully funded this September.
        The President gave me strong assurances of his intention to continue
    the reform process. He and I discussed a number of ways in which the
    United States and the inter-

    [[Page 61]]

    national community can assist in the promotion of reform and at the same
    time assist Russia in cushioning the social hardships which reform has
    brought to many Russians.
        As a concrete expression of our commitment to reform, the United
    States is opening the doors this week to the Russian Small Enterprise
    Fund and has established a new fund for large enterprises to promote
    private-sector development here. That latter fund will be chaired by the
    former Secretary of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal.
        We also signed a contract to purchase $12 billion of highly enriched
    uranium over the next 20 years. And I have asked the Secretary of
    Commerce, Ron Brown, to lead a very high level Presidential trade
    mission to Russia in March, including leading CEO's who would be in a
    position to promote both trade and investment here.
        We issued today also a joint statement on human rights in which we
    express our common resolve to combat discrimination in all forms of
    intolerance including antisemitism. Today I also had an opportunity to
    describe further the results of the successful NATO summit this week.
    And President Yeltsin assured me, as you just heard, of Russia's
    intention to be a full and active participant in the Partnership For
    Peace.
        We took several historic steps to ensure that the fear of nuclear
    confrontation will remain a relic of the past. As you know, Presidents
    Yeltsin and Kravchuk and I signed an agreement that commits Ukraine to
    eliminate over 1,500 nuclear warheads. All the most modern and deadly
    missiles in Ukraine, the SS-24's, will have their warheads removed
    within 10 months. Second, President Yeltsin and I agreed that as of May
    30th, the nuclear missiles of Russia and the United States will no
    longer be targeted against any country. And third, we signed an
    agreement to work closely together in regions where proliferation risks
    are greatest, including the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East.
        We also agreed that the sovereignty and independence of Russia's
    neighbors must be respected. In that respect, I expressed my strong hope
    that Russia's negotiations with Estonia and Latvia will lead to the
    withdrawal of troops in early 1994. And I did agree, as President
    Yeltsin said, to press strongly the proposition that the Russian-
    speaking people in those republics must be respected.
        Let me close by noting that President Yeltsin and I have agreed to
    meet in Naples at the G-7 summit in July, and I am pleased that he has
    accepted my invitation to make a state visit to the United States this
    fall. I look forward to those meetings.
        I came to Europe with the hope of beginning to build a new security
    rooted in common commitments to democracy and free economics and mutual
    respect for security and territorial borders. I came with a dream that
    at the end of the cold war we might all be able to work together to have
    a Europe that is integrated, politically, economically, and in terms of
    security; a Europe that, for the first time since the establishment of
    nation states would not be divided by present conflict or lingering
    animosities.
        I now believe we have a better chance to create that kind of new
    security, a security in which great nations will be able to treat each
    other as genuine partners, chart their own futures, without being
    dictated to by others; a future in which I believe greatness will be
    defined fundamentally by our capacity to enable the men and women and
    the children who live within our borders to live up to the fullest of
    their capacities.
        I thank President Yeltsin for his partnership of that endeavor, and
    I assure you we will continue to work as hard as we can toward that
    common mission.
        President Yeltsin. Thank you, Mr. President.
        Due to the protocol, we have restricted opportunities to take
    questions.

    Russian Reform

        Q. Good afternoon. You mention frequently that you would consider
    the outcome of the election campaign that happened on December 12th in
    your domestic policies. Do you intend to correct your foreign policy,
    and in particular, your policy toward the relations with the United
    States?
        President Yeltsin. I believe that we have very stable and steady
    relations with the United States that are well checked and based on
    partnership. But of course, some adjustments will be made, especially
    with re-

    [[Page 62]]

    spect to the social sphere. We believe that in contrast with the
    Vancouver meeting, we will not count on humanitarian aid and direct
    social aid. This is our business to attend to.
        We are requesting the U.S. side to open the doors of the American
    market, to have the restrictions lifted to help us with our debts, to
    show support for our reform in terms of conversion of our defense-
    related industries, and so on. We don't need direct social aid because
    such aid is also needed by the United States people, by the American
    people. It wouldn't be serious. You want to relieve the pressure of
    unemployment in Russia without creating jobs for your own Americans back
    in your country. We believe this is our business to attend to. And out
    of the forms of support, the rescheduling of the debts, structural
    changes in our national economy, we will look for social guarantees for
    our own workers, which would reduce impoverishment or the poverty level
    that exists today in this country.
        Q. Do you mean that you are going to retreat a bit from shock
    therapy and go a little slower in order to improve the lives of----
        President Yeltsin. No. In terms of reform, we will take resolute
    action and will continue to press ahead. And in this regard, the U.S.
    President is in agreement to support such a policy.
        President Clinton. If I could respond briefly to both of the last
    two questions, from my perspective. I commend President Yeltsin for his
    commitment to continuing the path of economic reform. If you look at
    1993 as compared with 1992, if you look at how much the deficit was
    reduced as a percentage of annual income, if you look at how much
    inflation was brought down, if you look at how much the stabilization of
    the currency was improved, I think that the continued work toward
    hooking the Russian economy into the global economic system based on
    markets is a very sound thing.
        We had great, long talks about what could be done and what kind of
    assistance the United States and others could provide to recognize that
    there are certain dislocations which come from these changes, so that
    the people of Russia will know that there is an effort being made to
    deal with those problems. But I also have to tell you that I believe
    that the people will begin to benefit in ways that they could not see
    perhaps last year, in the coming year when we have more trade and more
    investment. And as people around the world and in the United States, in
    particular, see that the President is serious about this, I think the
    benefits will begin to flow.
        That, plus constructing the kind of social support system in job
    retraining, unemployment, all of those things that just have to be put
    together and are not easy to put together when you don't have one, I
    think these things will help a lot.
        The other point I'd like to make to you, sir, is that from my point
    of view, President Yeltsin has been unfairly criticized in some quarters
    for his relationship with the United States. The implication that
    somehow we have tried to direct the course of Russian policy is just not
    accurate and not true. The people of Russia have to define their own
    future. All I have tried to do is to say that as long as we share the
    same values and the same vision, as long as we share a dream of
    political freedom and economic freedom and respect for our neighbors, I
    want to be an equal partner, because I believe this is a very great
    nation and that the world, the whole world, and particularly Europe has
    a real interest in seeing Russia succeed, in seeing this reform movement
    succeed.
        So I think our relationships in that sense have been quite correct
    all along, and some have sought to mischaracterize them in a way that I
    think is not accurate. I come here as a friend and a partner, not--we
    have our problems at home, too--every country does. The United States
    has no interest in charting Russia's future; that's for Russia to do.
    But we can be partners, and we should be.

    Ukrainian Nuclear Arms Agreement

        Q. My question--and I refer it to both Presidents--during the
    Brussels visit, the Russian party requested the United States and NATO
    to make a greater influence on Ukraine concerning strategic arms. Have
    your expectations come true, given the agreements you've signed in
    Moscow?
        President Yeltsin. Our expectations came perfectly true, promptly.
    We've signed an agreement with Ukraine to eliminate all of Ukraine's
    nuclear weapons. Their nuclear

    [[Page 63]]

    weapons will be shipped to Russia for destruction. And of course, with
    respect to uranium, we need to provide some compensation. Instead of
    weapons-grade uranium, we need to provide them with fuel-grade uranium.
    And we are in agreement.
        We will continue to process--with U.S. assistance--we will continue
    to process weapons-grade uranium into fuel uranium. And since we've
    signed an agreement on uranium today, it appears to me that today our
    agreement with--the three-party agreement with Ukraine signed by the
    three Presidents is a history-making decision. And I believe that there
    is a great role that has been played by Russia and the United States and
    personally by the U.S. President Bill Clinton.
        President Clinton. I am fully satisfied with the agreement. I want
    to compliment again President Kravchuk for seeing what I believe are the
    real security interests of his country. I think his country is stronger
    for signing this agreement. It will certainly be more economically
    powerful in the years to come as more investors are more interested in
    supporting the decision to be non-nuclear.
        And I want to support and compliment President Yeltsin. The United
    States, I believe, played a very valuable role in this, but it was
    President Yeltsin's suggestion to me that we set up this trilateral
    process. I have enjoyed working in it. I worked hard on this. Vice
    President Gore worked hard on this, and of course, the rest of our team
    did. And I assure you that I intend to maintain an intense personal
    involvement in this whole area.
        I think, by the way, a strong and an independent Ukraine is critical
    to this whole development of an integrated Europe that we are working on
    in our partnership here.

    Russian Reform

        Q. A question for both Presidents. President Yeltsin, you have made
    a commitment today and President Clinton has agreed and has urged you to
    continue the commitment to the economic reforms. It will take a while,
    though, to create the institutions that can cushion the effects. The
    recent elections have shown that only 15 percent of the people elected
    support that policy. How can that be sustained politically given the
    opposition you're going to face in the Parliament?
        And President Clinton, without direct aid, what really can the
    international institutions do to make this more viable for President
    Yeltsin?
        President Yeltsin. Firstly, I disagree with your statistics--15
    percent of the Russians support the reforms. This is not the case. This
    is untrue. You should take a look at the results of the voting for the
    constitution. The constitution is support for the reforms. I'm not
    talking about individual people or voting for individual parties or
    blocs of parties. They voted for the constitution that will decide the
    future of Russia and the future of Russia reforms. This is where the
    Russians made their choice. And they number about 60 percent, 60.
        Now, with respect to support from international institutions, we
    discussed this topic. Incidentally, we've discussed about 30 issues, or
    even more than that, both domestic Russian issues and domestic U.S.
    issues, bilateral relations, international relations, and so on and so
    forth, security relations. There was a large host of such issues that
    were discussed.
        I believe that the fact that we approved the Tokyo package and the
    fact that that is too bad that the Group of Seven is not very happy or
    is very slow in implementing that decision, that is bad. Bill Clinton
    kept his promise he made in Vancouver. The first package worth $1.6
    billion was paid; the second package, worth about the same amount of
    money, to be approved by Congress in 1994 and 1995, will be paid. And as
    regards Group of Seven commitments, or the big seven commitments, I
    think the case is much more difficult here. The decision was made, but
    they're very slow in implementing that decision. And that saddens my
    friend, Bill Clinton.
        President Clinton. Let me respond to your question, because I think
    it's important to talk about what we are doing here. First of all,
    getting the deal on uranium is a big thing. That guarantees a steady
    stream of commercial--it's a business deal, but it will guarantee some
    money flowing in here every year for a long time.

    [[Page 64]]

        Now, in addition to that, I have asked in my '95 budget for $900
    million in aid. And if you take that plus the $2.5 billion in this
    second package for the entire republics of the former Soviet Union, but
    most of it will come here to Russia, there will be more than $1 billion
    in aid in each of the next 2 years.
        In addition to that, we have reached agreement with the G-7
    countries to do a number of other things which I think will help a lot.
    We are opening an office here headed by an American--that's a G-7
    office--to make sure that all of the commitments are followed through
    on. And it's open now this week. We are going to work with trying to get
    funds, which I'm confident we can, to Russia's energy customers so that
    they can pay their bills for the energy that Russia is providing them.
    That's a business deal, but it will give them a significant amount of
    money.
        We have offered technical assistance, which is all President Yeltsin
    has asked for, in trying to help work through these social services
    issues--how do you set up the training programs and other support
    programs to cushion the dislocation? We are beginning this week again
    under the leadership of Jerry Corrigan to fund the Small Business
    Development Fund, and we're setting up this large business fund.
        Let me say one final thing. The willingness of President Yeltsin to
    continue on the path of economic reform, I think, will be met positively
    by the international financial institutions in a reasonable way. And I
    think that that can free up billions of dollars of assistance in the
    next several months for continued reinvestment. And again, when Ron
    Brown comes here in March, I think you will see a significant increase
    in trade and investment from the United States.
        So we are going to be heavily involved in this in ways that I
    believe will begin to affect the ordinary Russian people in a positive
    way. The problem is that there's always a time lag between taking these
    tough decisions and when somebody can feel it in their own lives. And
    that's what I was trying to communicate when I was walking the street
    yesterday here in Moscow, shaking hands with people and talking to them
    and listening to them. We have to, all of us who care very much about
    the greatness and the potential of this country and who want a genuine
    partnership, have to be sensitive to that. But I believe that these
    initiatives will begin to be felt in the lives of average Russian
    working people. And I think they will, in the aggregate, they will be
    quite significant over the next couple of years.

    The Russian Parliament

        Q. ----Russian Television. We have millions and millions of Russian
    TV viewers. A question for Boris Nikolayevich. Given the composition of
    the new Parliament in Russia, do you believe that you will have some
    problem having the Parliament to ratify our agreement with some Western
    partners--maybe foreign policies will suffer as approved by the
    Parliament? Do you believe that you as the President of this country are
    in some difficulty in dealing with your foreign partners?
        President Yeltsin. I don't believe that this is the sort of
    Parliament that we have. I believe our Parliament is smarter, more
    intellectual, more experienced. The upper Chamber of the Parliament, I
    believe, will pursue policies shared by the President and by the
    Government, and state Duma, the lower Chamber, will get to that with
    time. They will realize that such major international agreements and
    treaties may not be delayed in terms of ratification. I mean, agreements
    like the one we concluded on the destruction of chemical weapons and
    such like.
        I don't believe they will do that. Otherwise they would show no
    respect for their own people. But I believe that there are Members of
    Parliament, and I mentioned that in my message, should be mindful of the
    fact that they are representatives of the people, and the people told
    them how to behave in the Parliament. They should have a fine political
    sense. Of course, our Parliament is very young, but I'm still confident
    that the Parliament will proceed constructively.
        Q. President Clinton, I wonder what are your impressions after your
    firsthand experience here in Moscow? What is your assessment of the
    threat that the ultranationalist movement poses to the movement toward
    democracy?
        President Clinton. Well, those who are in the Parliament are, after
    all, the product of democracy. And I think that there are two

    [[Page 65]]

    separate things here. I think we have to respect the democratic process.
    And in every democratic process, no one is satisfied with the outcome of
    all elections. I can testify to that. So in that sense, I don't think
    they present a threat to the democratic process.
        Now, I think what is happening here is that Russia, which is and has
    been a very great country for a very long time, is doing what countries
    are required to do from time to time, they're having to redefine what
    greatness means, establish a vision for the future. And when times are
    difficult, and the Russian people have been through some difficult
    times, there are those, always, in every age in time, who can generate
    some support by defining greatness in terms of the past. But in the end,
    the only people who really make it work are those who define greatness
    in terms of the future. And that's why I think the reform movement in
    the end will prevail. Because if you look at the nature of the global
    economy, if you look at the things that are happening that really move
    and change people's lives, I think history is on the side of the
    reformers.
        And I also believe what will happen is--keep in mind you're going to
    have some interesting debates in this Duma. I wish I could--I enjoy
    watching the news every night. It's nice to be in a place where some
    other President's having trouble with his Parliament instead of me.
    [Laughter] President Yeltsin made a valuable point here: When these
    issues begin to be debated and when people move from the level of
    campaign rhetoric, which is always highly abstract, to the real problems
    of real people, you also may see a new consensus developing. And the
    only thing I would say to all of the people who are in this newly
    elected Duma is that you have an enormous opportunity and a
    responsibility. You are the product of the first genuinely democratic,
    constitutionally provided Parliament in the history of your country, and
    you ought to be willing to just listen and learn and grow and deal with
    the issues.
        I don't think the United States or anybody else should overreact to
    this. These folks are just getting started on what will be a great and
    exciting journey. And I think we ought to wish them well and see what
    happens.
        President Yeltsin. Due to the protocol commitments we have to limit
    the time of our press conference. Just one more question on the Russian
    and U.S. side.

    Future NATO Membership

        Q. I would like to get a more specific sense of your view, Mr.
    Clinton and Boris Nikolayevich. I'm talking about prospective admission
    of other states to NATO, and I am referring to states there on the
    borders of Russia. Do you believe that Russia will join NATO sometime in
    the future and on what conditions?
        President Yeltsin. I believe that the initiative displayed by U.S.
    President Bill Clinton and by some European politicians, I mean in terms
    of not admitting one country by one to NATO, but rather to declare them
    Partners For Peace and security, provides a very good formula. Because
    we need to draw up one more line here because if you divide us in the
    black and the white, it is no good.
        On the other hand, the time will come when Russia will be integrated
    and all the others will be integrated, but they will be integrated with
    one another in just one package, as they say. And this will bring
    security to everybody. But if you sort of dismember us, I mean,
    accepting us or admitting us one by one is no good. I'm against that--
    opposed. That is why I support the initiative shown by the U.S.
    President with respect to the Partnership For Peace.
        President Clinton. The whole idea behind the Partnership For Peace
    was to develop a post-cold-war mechanism in which countries that shared
    the same commitments, in this case, the commitment to respect the
    territorial borders of their neighbors, a commitment to civilian control
    over the military, a commitment to joint planning and training and
    military exercises, that these countries could work together and could
    work toward eventual NATO membership if they wish it and if that is the
    direction that seems best for security in the post-cold-war world. That
    is, the NATO plainly contemplated an expansion.
        But this Partnership For Peace is a real thing now. It is real now.
    We invited all the republics of the former Soviet Union, all the Warsaw
    Pact nations, and the other non-

    [[Page 66]]

    NATO members of Europe to be part of the Partnership For Peace. All were
    invited. All were told that this can also lead to eventual membership in
    NATO, but that our objective is to create an undivided and united
    Europe, united around political freedom, economic freedom, military
    cooperation, and respect for one another's borders, for the first time
    in the history of the nation state. It has never happened before.
        So the short answer to your question is, yes, this could happen. And
    I think we share that vision. And I think that we have a particular
    responsibility, the two of us, to try to work toward that vision.
        Press Secretary Myers. This will be the last question.

    Bosnia

        Q. President Clinton, did you discuss the subject of Bosnia? What
    was the nature of your discussions? And does President Yeltsin agree
    with the intention expressed at the NATO meetings of launching air
    strikes if the situation does not improve in Sarajevo, or in all of
    Bosnia, really?
        President Clinton. First of all, since I asked the NATO people, my
    colleagues in NATO, to debate this issue with great precision, let me
    try to characterize with great precision what it is they voted to do.
        They voted to reaffirm the position that air strikes should be
    considered if Sarajevo is shelled to the point of, in effect, being
    threatened or strangled so that the U.N. mission could not proceed. That
    is, the United Nations mission in Bosnia cannot succeed unless Sarajevo
    is there as a place where there are hospitals, a place where we can get
    humanitarian aid, and where we can get medicine and things like that in
    and out of. They voted to ask the military commanders to examine whether
    or not anything could be done with air power or any other military
    resources to guarantee the transfer of troops, the exchange of troops in
    Srebrenica, and the opening of the air strip at Tuzla, again, for
    humanitarian purposes.
        I want to emphasize that because there is a lot of confusion here.
    None of the things in the NATO resolution are designed necessarily to
    bring a peace agreement to Bosnia. They are all designed to further the
    United Nations mission in Bosnia, which is to try to keep as many people
    alive as possible until the parties will make peace.
        I think I should let President Yeltsin speak for himself on what he
    thinks of what NATO did on Bosnia. We've all had our differences over
    Bosnia, and everybody's got a different idea about it. What we did talk
    about last night was whether there was anything else either of us could
    do or whether there was anything we could do together to try to bring
    the conflict to an end. I mean, that's what we want. We want those
    people to stop killing each other and make a reasonable peace in which
    they can all live and start raising their children and going back to a
    normal life again.
        We reached no conclusive results, but we had a pretty honest
    conversation, and a few things were said that I think we might be able
    to follow up on. Anything I were to say--excuse me--anything I might say
    with greater specificity would probably only confuse things and raise
    false hopes. This is a real thicket. But we had what I thought was an
    honest, good conversation about the larger issue, which is, is there
    anything else anybody from outside can do to help make peace?
        But I think it's very important, because this air strike thing has
    become sort of a psychological litmus test. What NATO did was to list
    three possible areas of military action, all designed to further the
    U.N. mission, none of them pretending to ultimately settle the conflict.
    The NATO leaders said over and over and over again, ultimately, the
    parties will have to willingly agree to a peace.
        So what I discussed with President Yeltsin was whether there was
    anything we can do to help bring peace. We've reached no conclusive
    results, but we had the basis for continuing discussions about it.
        President Yeltsin. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The news
    conference is over.
        Thank you very much.
        President Clinton. He said he agreed with my characterization of our
    conversation. [Laughter]

    Note: The President's 44th news conference began at 11:41 a.m. in the
    Kremlin Press Center. President Yeltsin spoke in Russian, and his
    remarks were translated by an interpreter. A tape was not available for
    verification of the content

    [[Page 67]]

    of this news conference. This item was not received in time for
    publication in the appropriate issue.