[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 22 (Monday, June 6, 1994)]
[Pages 1177-1179]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Gavin Esler of the British Broadcasting Corporation

May 27, 1994

Foreign Policy

    Mr. Esler. Mr. President, you are going to Europe to celebrate this 
great anniversary, the 50-year anniversary of the grand alliance against 
fascism and tyranny. But it's said that the present generation of 
leaders, yourself included, have somehow not got the vision of the 
Churchills and the Roosevelts to lead us into the next century. How do 
you respond with some ideas about your own vision?
    The President. Well, first, I don't think that's accurate or a fair 
judgment. I think we're all deeply grateful to the generation of D-Day 
in the Second War for what they did and the freedom they bought us. I 
think we're also grateful to those who fought and won the cold war. And 
what we have to do now is to work out how we're going to face the 
challenges of the post-cold-war era and what our responsibilities are. 
The United States is still prepared to lead in a world in which our 
concerns are clear--security, prosperity, democracy, and human rights--
and in which we know there is an interdependence, a level of cooperation 
required, because we want to maintain a discipline that was not there 
before the Second World War, a discipline that was not there before 
World War II, a discipline that will permit us to work on these 
problems, contain those we can't control, and prevent the whole world 
from becoming engulfed again.
    And that is what we are attempting to do in working with the 
British, the French, and others in Bosnia, what we are attempting to do 
in leading NATO to take action out of area for the first time and trying 
to support the attempt to secure peace in Bosnia. That's what we're 
trying to do with the Partnership For Peace. Eighteen nations have now 
signed up to cooperate with NATO in a way that gives us the opportunity, 
for the first time since nation states came across the European 
continent, to unify Europe rather than have it divided.
    So, I'm quite encouraged, actually, about the way things are going. 
We're engaging Russia; we're engaging the other republics of the former 
Soviet Union. We are working hard there. In Asia, the United States is 
engaging Japan, is engaging China, is engaging a whole lot of other 
Pacific powers in an attempt to preserve the peace there. In our own 
hemisphere now, 33 of the 35 nations in Central and Latin America are 
now governed by democracies. And we are working together as never 
before. So, I think that we are trying to forge this newer world. I 
admit there are ragged edges and uncertainties, but that was the case 
after the Second World War for a few years as well.

Bosnia

    Mr. Esler. Well, one of those ragged edges is Bosnia itself. You're 
going to a Europe which, for the first time in 50 years, is at war with 
itself. You're the Commander in Chief of 1.6 million men and women under 
arms. Why is it so difficult to do what Roosevelt did, to send some of 
those men to put the fire out in Europe?
    The President. Well, first of all, Roosevelt sent those people after 
Pearl Harbor, after there was an attack and after Germany declared war 
on the United States, when the whole future of Europe was at stake.
    What has happened here is that European nations under the U.N. 
mandate have gone into Bosnia not for the purpose of ending the war but 
for the purpose of preserving the U.N. mission of preserving some 
limitation on the fighting and some humanitarian aid. We have acted in 
support of that in several ways. We have provided through our airpower 
the longest humanitarian airlift in history, now longer than the Berlin 
airlift. We have worked hard to get our NATO allies to agree to use not 
only the threat but the

[[Page 1178]]

reality of airpower to stop the war in Bosnia from spreading to the air. 
We have shot down planes in aid of that objective to protect Sarajevo 
and other safe areas. And we are aggressively involved with our European 
allies in trying to get a peace agreement.
    I do not think it is an appropriate thing for the United States to 
send ground troops to Bosnia to become involved in the conflict itself. 
Now, if we reach an agreement in which NATO has a responsibility to 
enforce the agreement along lines agreed to by the parties, that's a 
different matter altogether. The United States still has troops in the 
Middle East enforcing the agreement reached by Israel and Egypt at the 
Camp David accord. I think that is a different thing.
    If we're talking about limiting the conflict, we have troops now in 
Macedonia, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, designed to 
limit the conflict. I think that that is the appropriate thing for us. I 
think the Europeans have done the right thing in putting their troops in 
in the U.N. mandate to try to limit the fighting. But in the end, these 
parties are going to have to make an agreement. Otherwise, there's a 
risk that they'll collapse the U.N. mission. They're going to have to 
decide that they cannot win, either side, by fighting, and make an 
agreement. They reached an agreement tentatively before the terrible 
problems in Gorazde. And we need to get them back to the negotiating 
table.
    Mr. Esler. Your critics say that you've been inconsistent in your 
Bosnia policy. Some Western diplomats have said to me that on the 17th, 
18th, and 19th of April you seem to have had three different Bosnian 
policies. You raised the possibility of discussing lifting the trade 
embargo on the Serbs. You talked about lifting the arms embargo on the 
Muslims. In any event, you didn't do any of those things. Can you see 
why your friends are perplexed by this because you seemed to have 
changed your mind?
    The President. A lot of times people have said things in this 
Bosnian thing, not only about me but about others, as a way of shifting 
to others the responsibility they have for their own frustrations. Let's 
just be frank about this. I did not raise the prospect of any kind of 
unilateral lifting in the embargo on Serbia. I said that any discussion 
of that, any discussion of that, could not proceed until there was some 
sort of cessation of hostilities and that I personally would not favor 
changing the position of the United States, which is that that embargo 
should not be lifted until (a) there is a peace agreement in force in 
Bosnia and (b) some other changes have occurred in Serbia. I have not 
changed our position.
    With regard to lifting the arms embargo, I have always thought that 
the arms embargo was unfair to the Bosnian Government, always. That has 
been my position from day one. I have also always thought that the 
United States should not unilaterally lift it, from day one. Our 
European allies have not favored lifting it for good reasons. They have 
soldiers on the ground there. There are British soldiers in Bosnia; they 
do not want them subject to attack, to capture because the arm's embargo 
has been lifted. Therefore, I do not think the global community will 
vote to lift the arms embargo unless the U.N. mission collapses.
    What I said about the arms embargo was quite simple, and that is 
that I think it is a possibility if the U.N. mission does not succeed. I 
said what I did in hopes that we could spur the Serbs to understand that 
they are going to have to make a reasonable agreement or fight a very 
long war. I don't think any of that is inconsistent with the position I 
have taken. The problem is--let's face it, the problem is everybody is 
so frustrated about Bosnia that it's easy in our frustrations to point 
our fingers at each other. I don't think that's very helpful. I believe 
that we have a common policy. I believe that we are working very closely 
with our friends in Europe and, by the way, with the Russians, who have 
been quite constructive in this. And my position is that as long as the 
Europeans are willing to be part of the U.N. mission and as long as the 
Russians are willing to follow a responsible course in their 
relationship with the Serbs, we ought to try to make a decent peace.

Northern Ireland

    Mr. Esler. Could we turn to Ireland now, Mr. President; that's been 
a bone of contention with Britain. Was your decision to allow

[[Page 1179]]

Gerry Adams in here, in retrospect, a mistake because the IRA have still 
failed to endorse the Downing Street declaration on the peace process?
    The President. I don't think we can know yet. The decision to let 
him come was plainly taking a risk for peace. I think that Sinn Fein 
ought to renounce violence and ought to join the peace process. I'm very 
frankly pleased that at long last they issued their questions and the 
British Government provided answers and all that's been published. And 
I'm hoping that after the June 12 elections, that we'll see some real 
progress there. But I don't think we can know yet whether the decision 
was or was not a mistake in terms of what will happen over the long run. 
I think plainly it was designed to further the debate, and I hope it did 
that.

Media Criticism

    Mr. Esler. Finally, Mr. President, you go to Europe at a time when 
you're facing the kind of criticism, sleazy criticism, at home and in 
the British papers that no President has ever had to face before. How 
distracting is it for you that people are raking up financial dealings 
and personal affairs going back years?
    The President. Well, unfortunately that's become part of the daily 
fare of American public life now because of certain extremist groups and 
because now it's part of our media life, like unfortunately it's a part 
of your media life. But I know that the charges are bogus and that 
they'll ultimately be disproved or they'll die of their own weight. And 
they don't take up a lot of our time and attention here.
    My job is to lead this country in its own path of internal revival 
and engaging with our friends and allies. And I can't really afford to 
be distracted by it. I just get up here every day and think about what 
an incredible historic opportunity and what an obligation it is, and I 
do my best to fulfill the obligation.
    I will say this, I'm ecstatic about going back to Britain again 
after some years of absence and having a chance to go back to Oxford 
again after the D-Day ceremonies are complete. The United States has no 
closer ally than Great Britain. And even though we may have some 
differences from time to time, we mustn't let those differences get in 
our way. We have too much at stake. We have too much work to do in 
building this new world. As you point out, there are still a lot of 
problems out there, but we're going to deal with them, and we're going 
to do fine.
    Mr. Esler. Mr. President, thank you very much for talking to me. And 
I hope you enjoy your visit to Britain.
    The President. Thank you.

Note: The interview began at 2:40 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White 
House. In his remarks, the President referred to Gerry Adams, leader of 
Sinn Fein. This item was not received in time for publication in the 
appropriate issue.