[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.