[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 31, Number 25 (Monday, June 26, 1995)]
[Pages 1071-1077]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference in Halifax

June 16, 1995

    The President. I'd like to begin my statement with an American 
issue. I want to congratulate Salt Lake City on their successful pursuit 
of the Olympics in 2002. This will be an historic event for Salt Lake 
City--[applause]--there was good applause there, maybe a native or two 
back there. It's a great event for Salt Lake City. They sought the 
Olympics many times over the last several years, and I congratulate 
them. It's a great thing for the Western part of the United States and, 
indeed, for our whole country.
    I want to particularly congratulate Governor Mike Leavitt; the Mayor 
of Utah--of Salt Lake City, Dee Dee Corradini; and Tom Welsh, the 
president of the Salt Lake City Bid Committee for their efforts and a 
job well done.
    From the beginning of our administration I've worked hard to make 
the global economy work for the American people. We live and work in a 
global market. Our living standards depend upon our ability to compete 
and to keep one step ahead of economic change.
    In the past 2\1/2\ years, we have fought at home for a comprehensive 
economic strategy that would create jobs and lift the incomes of our 
people, focusing on reducing the deficit but investing in our people, in 
their education and their future. My new budget proposal continues to 
reflect these priorities.
    At the same time, we have worked to open more markets around the 
world to our products in free and fair competition from others, through 
NAFTA, GATT, our work with the Asian-Pacific countries and with the 
countries of the Americas. We've also worked hard to encourage the 
global trend toward market democracy in the former Communist countries.
    I am pursuing this strategy, above all, for one reason: to renew the 
promise of America in the 21st century. But I also want to preserve the 
leadership of America as a force for peace and freedom, for democracy 
and prosperity.
    This G-7 meeting has moved us a step closer to these goals. We've 
taken concrete steps to strengthen the international financial system, 
something we promised to do last year in Naples. And let me give you 
one, and perhaps the most important, example.
    Earlier this year, we in the United States were confronted with a 
serious financial crisis in Mexico. It posed a risk to markets 
throughout the world, and it certainly threatened our own economic 
health, as well as our long-

[[Page 1072]]

term relationships with Mexico, involving a number of other issues. We 
led the effort to stabilize Mexico, and from all signs, it seems to be 
working. President Zedillo and his team have worked hard to live within 
the discipline the markets have imposed and to move Mexico to a brighter 
and better future.
    But we learned two important lessons in dealing with the Mexican 
crisis. First, the world clearly needs better tools to identify problems 
like this so that they can be prevented, and second, the international 
system must have a stronger way of resolving these crises once they do 
occur.
    We were fortunate in the Mexican instance that the United States had 
access to a fund which could permit us to make some guarantees and move 
to put together an international approach to this problem. But the U.S. 
will not be able to be the lender of last resort in other crises of this 
kind. So here in Halifax, we have begun to forge the tools to deal with 
these kinds of problems in the future.
    We agreed to create an early warning system that will sound the 
alarm when nations begin to encounter real problems, before the severity 
of the Mexican crisis develops. We call for early and full disclosure of 
critical monetary and financial information. We'll establish tougher 
reporting standards for nations so that markets will react more quickly 
and nations will be pressed to implement sound policies in a timely 
manner. This may be the best discipline for preventing future crises.
    When these problems do occur, we must respond decisively. And 
leaders of the G-7 have taken crucial steps toward that end. We've 
called upon the International Monetary Fund to establish a new mechanism 
to ensure that we can act swiftly when one nation's economic crisis 
threatens the world economy. We propose to double the funds available 
for this purpose to more than $50 billion from those nations with a 
stake in a stable international financial system. That will require 
loans from the United States which must be authorized by Congress. I 
know a lot of you are thinking about that, but they are scored as cost-
free to the American taxpayers because they're viewed as risk-free 
because they go to the international institutions.
    The G-7 leaders have also agreed that the international financial 
institutions, the World Bank, the IMF, and the agencies of the United 
Nations, must continue on a path of reform. These institutions have 
served us well for half a century; we will continue to support them, but 
they must adapt for a new era. We put forward new principles that will 
focus their work on addressing vital human needs: the alleviation of 
poverty, supporting private sector development, promoting sustainable 
development, environmental protection along side economic growth. The 
resulting economic growth will bolster democracy and stability in 
developing nations and, of course, create future markets for American 
exports.
    The leaders at Halifax are also discussing new security threats that 
no nation should face alone. And we'll have more to say about that 
tomorrow. But let me say we have agreed that the G-7 must work together 
far more energetically and comprehensively to counter the growing 
dangers posed by terrorists, international criminals, nuclear smugglers, 
and drug traffickers. We must cooperate more closely to counter 
terrorism and criminal activities sponsored by states, groups, and 
individuals. These are among the foremost challenges of the post-cold-
war world.
    These are issues which affect the lives of the American people in a 
very direct way. How we deal with them, whether and how we strengthen 
the international financial system and reform its institutions and how 
we fight challenges like terrorism will in no small way determine our 
citizens' future prosperity and security, how they feel about themselves 
and the future their children will enjoy.
    To create new high-wage jobs, to raise incomes, to expand economic 
opportunity, the United States must continue to lead, even as we work 
hard on these matters at home. We cannot--I will say again--we cannot 
walk away from our global leadership responsibilities. In Halifax we've 
taken another solid step along that road. It will make the economy work 
better for the American people, and I believe it will help us to prevent 
future Mexicos and to deal with those crises in a

[[Page 1073]]

much more effective way when they do occur.

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, the United States has told the United Nations that 
for budgetary reasons it could not be counted on to pay the lion's share 
for a rapid response force in Bosnia. My question is, can a rapid 
response force in Bosnia be effective without the major backing--the 
major financial backing of the United States?
    The President. Yes. I'd like to review for a moment how that 
decision was made, however. I want to begin by saying I strongly support 
the rapid reaction force. It will give some muscle, some support, some 
security to the United Nations troops there. It will be staffed 
primarily by the British and French, with contributions from other 
countries that are on the ground there. It will have the mission of 
preserving the integrity of the U.N. force, being able to rush in and 
help to redeploy them when necessary, to support them in fulfilling 
their mission, and to take the necessary action if they are under 
threat. This offers the promise of making the U.N. mission more 
effective. I strongly support it.
    Because the financing of this would have to be, obviously, approved 
by the Congress, I consulted with the Senate majority leader and with 
the Speaker of the House. And because President Chirac was in 
Washington, he went by to see them as well. They sent me a letter saying 
that they supported the concept of the rapid reaction force, and they 
understood why President Chirac wanted a vote in the United Nations 
right now, because things are pretty tense in Bosnia and because he was 
coming here and that they would certainly understand if I voted for the 
resolution in the United Nations but that, in the absence of appropriate 
and thorough congressional consultations, they could not agree to pay 
for it through an assessment.
    So Ambassador Albright last night was able to get a modification of 
the resolution, which simply leaves open the method by which the rapid 
reaction force will be funded, either through assessments or through 
voluntary contributions. We and others have made several voluntary 
contributions to the United Nations in the past for other important 
missions.
    I believe the United States should pay a share of this. I will 
support that, and I will do my dead-level best to argue that case in 
Congress. This rapid reaction force gives these countries the power that 
they have lacked to protect their troops and to preserve the honor of 
their country and to pursue the U.N. mission in a way they have not been 
able to since they have become more vulnerable to being taken as 
hostages.
    Yes.
    Q. Mr. President, how much are you hamstrung in the discussions on 
Bosnia here at the summit by the fact that you can't make a firm 
commitment on U.S. support for the rapid reaction force and the fact 
that the United States does not have troops on the ground in Bosnia?
    The President. Well, I have made some firm commitments for support. 
We have promised some equipment. We have promised some strategic lifts. 
We have promised the kind of air cover which we have given to other U.N. 
missions.
    The United States has spent a lot of money and provided a lot of 
support to the United Nations mission in Bosnia, through NATO, through 
participating in the humanitarian airlifts, which are now by far the 
largest humanitarian airlifts in history. I urge you to remember that 
not only has the death rate gone way, way down in the last 2 years, but 
there are now about 2.8 million Bosnians dependent upon the humanitarian 
aspect of this mission. Just because it hasn't succeeded in ending the 
war does not mean it has been a total failure in keeping people alive 
while we search for a political solution.
    So I was able to make those commitments based on the resources we 
have now. And I have made it clear from the beginning that we would not 
be involved with ground troops in this U.N. mission. I have made it 
clear the circumstances under which we would help our NATO partners and 
our U.N. partners to withdraw or to help them if they were in a terrible 
emergency. And I think that everyone understands that and is more or 
less not only reconciled to it but supportive of it.

[[Page 1074]]

    This is something that the Europeans wanted to take the lead on and 
decided to take the lead on before I became President. And we have 
taken, I think, a very vigorous and aggressive position through NATO. 
But I do not believe the United States should send ground forces into 
the U.N. mission as it is constituted, and I certainly don't believe we 
should send our ground forces into some sort of combat situation in 
Bosnia.
    Our vital interests, I will reiterate, are in keeping the conflict 
from spreading. That's why we do have forces in the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia. That's why we have worked very hard to see that 
Bosnia and Croatia have an agreement which has shut down a big part of 
the war. In minimizing the human loss, in supporting our NATO allies, 
and preserving the integrity of this operation, we have done everything 
we could to those ends. I do not believe that this is a situation which 
warrants the introduction of America's ground forces.

Federal Budget

    Q. You mentioned your budget, and it has been out for a little while 
now. It seems to be garnering more support from Ross Perot than some of 
your fellow Democrats. What is going on?
    The President. First of all, I think that--I think there are two 
things going on. First, I think the Democrats are still in the position 
where the Democrats in Congress do not have to offer an alternative. And 
a lot of them could not possibly have had the opportunity to study this 
budget resolution in any detail. And frankly, there are some political 
feelings among some of our Democrats which are entirely understandable. 
I mean, they're--so what some of them are saying is, ``Look, the 
Republicans won the Congress with a ``just say no'' position. They 
refused to participate in deficit reduction. They put forward a health 
care plan and then walked away from their own plan. And they were 
rewarded somehow as the party that was responsible on the economy and 
health care and other things with a ``just say no,'' organized, heavily 
financed attack, attack, attack, attack position. Why shouldn't we do 
the same thing?''
    My answer to them is we may have failed to communicate to the 
American people that what we did was good for the United States in the 
last 2 years, that we would have a balanced budget today were it not for 
the interest we have to pay on the debt run up in the 12 years before I 
showed up, but our job is to do what's right for America. And the 
President, particularly, is in a different position.
    I thought that I owed it to the country and to the Republicans to 
give them the opportunity to make their budget proposal first. I always 
said to the American people that we could not balance the budget without 
reducing the rate of growth of health care expenditures, but we ought 
not to be cutting services to elderly people who needed it. What we 
ought to be doing is reforming health care. My proposal reflects that. I 
think I have done the responsible thing. And I hope, as time goes on, 
I'll be able to persuade more and more Democrats and Republicans that I 
did the right thing. And I thank Mr. Perot for his support.
    Yes.

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, back on Bosnia for a moment, sir. Despite your 
support for the peacekeeping forces, the U.N. peacekeeping forces in 
Bosnia, are you at all moved by the appeal made at the White House the 
other day by Bosnian President Haris Silajdzic, who called the arms 
embargo an instrument of genocide. How do you answer him when he asks, 
``Why won't the U.S. let the Bosnian Muslims defend themselves?''
    The President. First of all, the arms embargo would be an instrument 
of genocide if the U.N. mission weren't keeping more people alive. In 
1992, 130,000 civilians, more or less, died in Bosnia. In 1994, the best 
figures we have indicate that fewer than 3,000 people died.
    When NATO was working with the U.N., we were able to create some 
safe areas around Sarajevo and the eastern enclaves which have since 
been eroded by the taking of U.N. hostages. But that's why the rapid 
reaction force is so important, to put some real steel back into the 
U.N. mission.
    On principle, you know that the sympathies of the United States are 
with the Bosnian Government, and more strongly

[[Page 1075]]

than some of our allies feel. But the question is, will this thing ever 
be settled on the battlefield? I think the answer to that is, no. If 
that's true, shouldn't we support the Bosnian Government's position that 
it has accepted the Contact Group proposal, do everything we can to 
strengthen the U.N., keep as many people alive as possible, not allow an 
erosion of their territorial position insofar as we can prevent it, and 
keep pushing for a diplomatic settlement? That's what I believe is the 
best thing to do.
    Lifting the arms embargo cannot be seen in an isolated circumstance. 
And I want you all to consider this. This is not an example where you 
can just kick the can down the road; this is the most complex problem in 
foreign policy today. If the United States--first of all, our European 
allies simply disagree with lifting the arms embargo. If we were to lift 
the arms embargo unilaterally, what would happen? The U.N. mission would 
immediately collapse and withdraw. We would have immediate 
responsibilities to send our people in to help them withdraw if they 
asked for it and needed it.
    After that happened, then what happens? There are a lot of people in 
the United States, including many in Congress in both parties, who say, 
``That is no concern of ours; all they have asked us for is to lift the 
arms embargo and let the arms flow in there.''
    But I ask you: If the United States--if the United States cratered 
the U.N. mission by a unilateral lift of the arms embargo and then the 
lift of the arms embargo did not produce the military results on the 
ground that the Bosnian government hoped and if, instead, they began to 
lose more territory and more and more people started to die because of 
our unilateral action ending the U.N. mission, what would we do then? 
The chances that we would be drawn in are far greater than if the United 
States could walk away from an even greater mess that we had created all 
by ourselves with our European allies pleading with us not to do it.
    Therefore, I will say again, if the U.N. mission does fail, if our 
allies decide to leave, I would strongly support lifting the arms 
embargo. It's the best alternative at that moment. But I cannot in good 
conscience support a unilateral lift of the arms embargo when the 
British and the French and the others are willing to say, ``We'll send 
more troops there; we'll stiffen our capacity to keep the peace and to 
work for the peace.'' I cannot do that.
    Yes.
    Q. Mr. President, how can you push for a diplomatic settlement if 
every proposal that's been made, including the U.S.-backed proposal to 
give half the country to the Serbs, is rejected by the Serbs? What ideas 
are out there? There's nothing going on; there's no diplomatic 
initiative in the air right now. So what do you mean when you say push 
for a diplomatic settlement?
    The President. There's nothing--there will never--they will not make 
peace, sir, until they get tired of fighting each other. I agree with 
that. Now, that is also true of Northern Ireland. How long has this war 
been underway? Four years. How long has this peacekeeping initiative 
been underway? A little less time than that. How long did they fight in 
Northern Ireland before they began to do what they're doing now? Twenty-
five years. How long have they been fighting in the Middle East? Over 
four decades before we made the progress we're making now. You cannot 
simply say, given--how deeply rooted are the conflicts between the 
Bosnians of--that are Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim? At least, at least 
going back to the 11th century.
    So I say to you, there is nothing great going on right now. What is 
the answer? To do something else that might make it worse or to try to 
minimize human life, ensure that it doesn't--the loss of human life--
ensure that it doesn't spread, and keep working for what I think is, 
based on the historical evidence, the only way fights of this kind ever 
get settled, which is when they--people decide that's it's better for 
them to make a deal than to keep killing each other.
    Yes.
    Q. Mr. President, it is the President of France who has pushed the 
hardest on the rapid reaction force, and he has described it in terms 
of, ``we can't be humiliated''. These terms sort of harken back to the 
Vietnam quagmire, if you'll forgive that word, and I was hoping that you 
could outline exactly what you think the mission is--would

[[Page 1076]]

be of this force? Could you give it in the most specific terms possible, 
because as many people have said, unless we know exactly what the 
mission is, there could be a disaster.
    The President. Well, in fairness to the President of France, I 
thought that Americans might hear that in his rhetoric. But keep in 
mind, when the argument was made in Vietnam that we couldn't be 
humiliated, the argument there was there that we had to do more to 
Americanize the war, that is, we were involved in Vietnam supporting the 
side of the South Vietnamese government in a conflict with the Vietcong 
and North Vietnam on the other side.
    In this case, the French President is taking the position that the 
honor of the country is eroded when U.N. personnel in blue helmets can 
be taken prisoner at will and they have no capacity to defend 
themselves. So he is not suggesting that they should get involved in 
this conflict in a military way on one side or the other. He is 
suggesting, however, that they ought to be able to move on the roads at 
will, that they ought to be able to do what they're supposed to do under 
the U.N. mandate without being taken prisoner, being shot at, being 
victimized; and that the rapid reaction force is supposed to be able to 
get them out of tights if they get in it and to support them when they 
need the support. He is not suggesting that the rapid reaction force 
would increase the level of military conflict or that there would be any 
military initiative taken by that force.
    Yes.
    Q. The British have said that you here at this summit have committed 
the U.S. to paying its fair share of that rapid reaction force. Since 
the Republican leadership has said that they don't want Congress to pony 
up the money, just what options are available to you to come up with 
that money? And secondly, by the Republican leadership doing what they 
did in advance of the U.N. vote, does it unnecessarily tie your hands in 
the conduct of foreign policy?
    The President. No, in this case, I think, what they did was to make 
it possible for me to vote for an initiative that they agreed with in 
principle but weren't prepared to say they would pay for. That is--let 
me back up and say--there are two issues here. One is, under our law, 
the President is plainly required to consult with the Congress before 
agreeing to a course of action that would require the expenditure of 
money. You don't have to agree with the Congress, but at least you have 
to consult with them.
    President Chirac came in and said, ``Look, timing is of the essence, 
and we need a vote on this, and we need it now.'' So I called Senator 
Dole and Speaker Gingrich, and I have no--we had a good conversation, 
and I have no quarrel with the letter they sent, because I said, ``I 
don't have time to do the consultations if he is right and we need the 
vote now.''
    So the letter they sent to me said two things. But the most 
important thing, apropos of your point is, ``You can do this, but our 
committee chairmen have very serious reservations about this mission, 
what its role is going to be, what it's function will be, and whether we 
should pay for it. So if you do it, you have to know that we are not 
committing in advance to appropriate the money.
    Now, what I told the British was, and what I told all my colleagues 
last night was, that I would make my best efforts to secure funding for 
it because it's the right thing to do.
    Now, the second issue I want to say is, as you know, the leadership 
of the Republican Party disagrees with our policy. They favor a 
unilateral lift which would collapse the U.N. mission. That's what they 
think the right thing to do is. But they know that the President has to 
make foreign policy and that I have no intention of pursuing that for 
the reasons I have already explained.
    Q. ----and funding----
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. We're working on that.
    Q. Since UNPROFOR is now unable to carry out its mission to deliver 
humanitarian relief to Sarajevo or to maintain the weapons exclusion 
zone around the city and Sarajevo is once again being strangled, why 
have you urged the Bosnian government not to use force to defend itself?
    The President. Well, first of all, my sympathies are with them. I 
agreed to the statement that we all signed off on last night because the 
French and the British are doing their best to get more troops there 
through

[[Page 1077]]

the rapid reaction force, which would permit the U.N. to fulfill its 
mandate which includes opening Sarajevo, and because I believe that has 
the best chance of opening Sarajevo without other adverse consequences 
to the Bosnians.
    In other words, I tried to make sure that resolution was carefully 
worded to say, right now don't increase hostilities, because I don't 
believe this is a good time to do that when we are trying to strengthen 
the rapid reaction force and when, if we are successful, they will be 
better able to guarantee the openness of Sarajevo.
    My sympathies with them are complete. They have a right to want 
their city to be open. And the Serbs have been shelling it on and off 
for 4 years whenever they could get away with it. So I don't agree with 
what's going on. But if the rapid reaction force works and the U.N. 
mission can work again and Sarajevo can be protected again, then I 
believe we're better off, and I believe, more importantly, they're 
better off if it can be done that way. I think there will be fewer 
casualties, and I think their political position will be stronger. 
That's why I agreed to support the settlement.
    Q. Lift the siege----
    The President. I'm saying, no, that's not their job. Their job is to 
back up and protect the U.N. mission. But I think it will show that the 
U.N. mission will have a greater capacity to do what the U.N. has 
authorized it to do, which is to be able to get in and out of Sarajevo.
    Now, that is not the same thing as saying they will take a 
unilateral military action to lift the siege, but then the Serbs and 
everybody else, for that matter, will have to think about the Blue 
Helmets in a little different way before they just say, ``I'm sorry, you 
can't cross this road; I'm sorry, we're going to take you a prisoner; 
I'm sorry, we're going to treat you like dirt; I'm sorry, we're going to 
ignore the U.N.''
    That is what President Chirac and Prime Minister Major want to avoid 
having happen to their troops again. And if it is seen in that light, 
then I think at least we have to give them a chance to try to make the 
U.N. mandate work again.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 99th news conference began at 4:20 p.m. at 
Dalhousie University. In his remarks, he referred to President Jacques 
Chirac of France and U.S. Representative to the United Nations Madeleine 
K. Albright. This item was not received in time for publication in the 
appropriate issue.