Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32 Issue 17 (Monday, April 29, 1996)

[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32, Number 17 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Pages 696-703]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

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

April 21, 1996

U.S.-Russia Relations

President Yeltsin. Dear members of the press, ladies and gentlemen,
our discussion with the President of the United States of America lasted
sufficiently long, about 5 hours, and in substance became the
continuation of the discussions that were started within the G-7, issues
which we discussed within the 8, and today's meeting also to a great
extent coincided. First of all, this was security; regional stability
was also discussed in the bilats.
I think that today's discussion gave a rather large contribution to
the successes of the G-7 in Moscow in the security area. Discussions of
a whole series of issues on nuclear security and how to move ahead on
START II, to strengthen the ABM treaty of 1972. We now have rather good
schedules on what Russia has to do, what the United States has to do by
October of this year.
We've reached progress on European security as well. In May, we have
an important meeting which should be dedicated to reviewing the CFE
treaty and forces in Europe. We agreed to work in this area and to
concentrate more in the future on the wording of the treaty itself.
You'll probably have questions at this. Our two countries as cosponsors
of the Middle East peace process we discussed in great detail. We
discussed the situation in Israel and Lebanon. They were discussed also
at the meeting of the 8 and now the ministers of foreign affairs of

[[Page 697]]

our countries are continuing talk. We're constantly in touch with them,
and today we summarized a bit on some of the decisions reached.
Russia and the United States play a key role in the settlement in
Bosnia. Our peacekeeping troop units are working very well. We have to
reinvigorate this and aim it at nonmilitary aspects of the settlement,
such as holding elections, providing for human rights, and rebuilding
the destroyed areas.
I want to especially underscore here the fact that the elections do
not interfere with the long-term cooperation between our two countries.
I mean, our Presidential elections do not stand in the way. Our policies
allow us to speak about various issues and we have a practice now and a
tradition with Bill to hold normal, regular meetings whenever we meet,
and whenever we make comments to each other and react to each other's
statements. This is as any family would have it. There are sometimes
comments made to each other--these issues at least have no ideological
nature whatsoever. The United States and Russia are great powers. It's
not just for us to get involved with big global issues, but we look out
for our own interests.
In today's meeting, we have defined more carefully our policies, our
tasks. We have established on the basis of equality--we've added the
words ``on the basis of equality'' in our cooperation, which is in
consistence with the interest of our two countries. And in the majority
of cases, the lion's share of cases, others support both us and the
United States in all of this. Our partners all have interest and see
interest in the positive development of U.S.-Russia relations. They view
our relationship as a factor which promotes international cooperation.
This is very good.
Next week, I'm going to China. There, I plan to touch upon many of
the issues which we discussed yesterday and today in Moscow. I'm
counting on understanding from the Chinese.
I want to say that I'm very pleased with my discussion with the
President of the United States, and I hope that Bill will also express
his points of view, how he assesses our meeting today.
Thank you, Bill.
President Clinton. Thank you very much, President Yeltsin.
Ladies and gentlemen, just a few years ago the mere fact of a
meeting between the American and Russian Presidents was news. But this
is my 3rd trip to Moscow as President and my 10th meeting with President
Yeltsin. So now the news is no longer that we are meeting, but instead
what we're meeting about and what is being done for the benefit of our
people.
After this meeting there is much to report. First, let me thank
President Yeltsin for initiating and then hosting yesterday's nuclear
summit. It is fitting that this summit was held in Moscow. For 3 years,
the President and I have worked together in trying to make the world a
safer place by reducing the nuclear threat that all our citizens face.
Because of those efforts, Russian and American missiles are no longer
pointed at each other's cities or citizens. We've both made deep cuts in
our nuclear arsenals by putting START I into force. And we'll make even
deeper cuts when the Duma ratifies START II.
We've worked with Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to dismantle
nuclear weapons on their land. And yesterday, with other world leaders,
we took important steps to make nuclear materials more secure so they
don't fall into the wrong hands, to make the civilian use of nuclear
power safer, and to strongly support the passage of a comprehensive test
ban treaty this year.
The United States and Russia are also working together to promote
peace in the world's most troubled regions. The President and I reviewed
the situation in Bosnia where our troops are serving side by side to
help its people rebuild their land and their lives.
As cosponsors of the Middle East peace process we discussed the
terrible outbreak of violence in Lebanon and northern Israel. We agree
on the need to secure a cease-fire to stop the violence, and as all of
you know, our foreign ministers are both in the region as we speak. The
best way to prevent violence from returning is to continue implementing
the agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and to
secure a comprehensive peace in the region that includes Lebanon and
Syria.

[[Page 698]]

The political and the security partnership between our nations is
strengthened by our growing commercial ties. We've worked hard to take
down the old barriers to trade and to investment. Thanks to President
Yeltsin's leadership, 60 percent of Russia's economy is now in the hands
of its people, not the state. Inflation has been cut; democracy is
taking hold. Since 1993, trade between the United States and Russia is
up 65 percent. And the U.S. is now the largest foreign investor in this
great nation. That's helping to create more good jobs and new
opportunities in both our countries.
The President and I also discussed areas in which we have
differences, as he mentioned. The flank issue of the Conventional Forces
in Europe Treaty is one of them. But we are working hard to find a
solution to that that is acceptable to all parties prior to the review
conference in May, and I can say with confidence that we did move closer
to that goal today.
We also made important progress in distinguishing between
antiballistic missile systems that are limited by the ABM treaty and
theater missile defenses which are not. As a result, we'll send our
negotiators back to Geneva next month with the aim of concluding an
initial demarcation agreement this June.
From St. Petersburg to Moscow, these last 3 days have allowed me and
our entire American delegation to see the richness of Russia's past, the
achievements of its present, and the promise of its future. I want the
Russian people to know how much the American people support Russia's
commitment to democracy and to reform. We've learned from our history
that building a thriving democracy is not easy or automatic, but Russia
is making dramatic progress, as evidenced by the Duma elections last
December and the coming Presidential elections this June.
This is a time of real possibility and opportunity to make our
people more prosperous and more secure. The United States wants a
strong, stable, and open Russia, to work with us as equal partners in
seizing those opportunities and turning the challenges of a new era in
the common solutions.
Thank you.
President Yeltsin. Thank you. Please, questions.

U.S. and Russian Elections

Q. A question to both Presidents. To what extent do the elections in
Russia and the United States in November define the U.S.-Russian
relation today? Thank you.
President Clinton. Who will go first? I'll go first. Well, I think
all elections have consequences, and so the relationship will be defined
obviously by these elections in important ways. The United States
supports the direction that Russia has taken in building a vibrant and
open democracy and in moving toward an economic reform which would put
more of the economy in the hands of the people. And we now see, after
some very difficult years, some real progress being made. And we look
forward to being a good partner in that effort, as well as in making our
countries more secure and ending the nuclear threat and in finding ways
to work together to solve other problems around the world.
Two great nations like ours have a lot of common interests for the
future, and I would hope no matter what happens we'll be able to pursue
that. But I don't think we should be under any illusion that people run
for office on platforms that they intend to implement and, therefore,
all elections involve choices and have consequences. And so the people
of Russia and the people of the United States will have to come to grips
with that and make their own judgments, as great democracies do.
President Yeltsin. I, too, would like to answer since the question
was to both Presidents. I have to say that with every meeting with the
President of the United States, our relations improve. Not a single
meeting has yet been empty. It always has given us not only to our
countries, to our peoples, but all of us some sort of a positive.
Undoubtedly, also, yesterday's meeting of the 8 has given a lot, and
today's meeting with the President, since the meetings touched upon a
large variety of issues and problems, bilateral, international in nature
where issues came together, coincided, et cetera.
But I just wanted to tell those who in the press and in the media
have already tried to tally up the score and say, well, they especially
really contrived this whole meeting in Moscow in order to help the
President of

[[Page 699]]

Russia, President Yeltsin--that's not so. This was planned a long time
ago, way back in Halifax we had statements to this effect. And no
questions which have to do with any kind of mutual obligations or tie-
ins to the elections both here or in November in the United States--we
did not have any tie-ins, any mutual obligations to each other,
especially material or financial. We gave no assurances, any deals. We
were here open, honest. So don't suspect here--suspect us in any way. A
meeting such as the 8 or a meeting of two Presidents of two great
nations.
Q. In Sharm al-Sheikh it was reported that you told President
Yeltsin that you would support his reelection bid with positive U.S.
policies, and that you asked him for help with clearing up some negative
issues such as the poultry dispute. Was there a--did you talk about
politics today? I mean, what were your political discussions? And how do
you both think that a meeting like this helps you with voters?
President Clinton. First of all, let me clear up the report from
Sharm al-Sheikh. What I said in Sharm al-Sheikh and what I believe is
that the best politics is to do the right thing and advance the interest
of our people. I did bring up that trade dispute, just as I have brought
up a dozen or more trade disputes with other leaders all around the
world. That's a big part of my job now, and I think I did the right
thing.
Today at our luncheon, the President gave me a brief overview of
what he thought--quite brief--was the present lay of the land with the
elections coming up and again said that he was trying to do his job,
that he wanted to do his job. And I told him I thought that producing
concrete results for the people by doing your job was the best thing to
do politically. So that's the--which is essentially what I also said
when we talked at Sharm al-Sheikh.
Whether these things have any benefit or not, who knows? You know,
most of our people are--most democracies all over the world are people
preoccupied with problems at home, somewhat skeptical about foreign
policy. But I can tell you this: Because of this nuclear summit the
people of Russia and the people of the United States are going to have a
more secure future. And that's what's important. And because of the
meeting we had today, we're much closer to resolving a couple of very
important issues that relate to our ability again to make the world a
safer place: the CFE treaty, the demarcation between antiballistic
missile systems and theater missile defenses, and a number of other
areas in which we need to cooperate for the safety and for the future of
our people.
So it seems to me that that's what we ought to look at. Have we done
the right thing or not? Are people going to be better off or not? Are
they going to be safer or not? Is the future going to be brighter or
not? That is how I think that we would both wish to be judged. And I
think it's a great mistake to put too much of a political spin on this
since typically, at least, foreign policy does not play that big a role
in voting patterns. But it's very, very important to how people live and
what kind of future we have.
President Yeltsin. I agree with President Clinton that the
discussion was on the go constantly, during the breaks, and just as
before, we said we have to have an equivalent partnership of the two
countries. We have to support this relationship and help each other, all
the Presidents, just like we support each other as countries, as people.
And this is only natural. Now, as far as any specific issues having to
do with campaigns and helping each other in campaigns in specifics,
there was none.
Now, the second part of the question, Bill didn't touch upon the
second part--I don't know, maybe he or I can maybe respond and say that
the production of fowl which came from the United States was--there was
one batch that was stopped and held up by our health service. After that
we quickly got together; we set up a commission, let the Gore-
Chernomyrdin Commission figure it out, get into the details in the
poultry question. And they did and they were convinced that, yes, there
was some violations. Those violations were taken care of, and now trade
once again has been reestablished and it's back to normal.

Conventional Forces Treaty

Q. You've already spoken about European security. Can you tell us a
little more in detail specifically what the CFE treaty--how it was

[[Page 700]]

touched upon, and the limitations on the flanks, please, if you would?
President Yeltsin. The question of European security has a lot of
aspects, including NATO. So I don't think that we've got to lay all of
these issues out to you at this very moment and how they relate to the
central question, but more specifically and in detail we discussed the
issues of the limitations on the flanks, since this really has to do
with our direct interests on the Caucasus and in the northwest of our
country near Kaliningrad.
But the way it turned out was that in Germany when we were moving
our forces back to Russia, the closest way to go was to Kaliningrad, and
so we saturated Kaliningrad with our troops and forces and equipment.
And the whole--really a lot of saturation--and went beyond the limits
that were provided for in the CFE treaty itself.
Also that's another situation near the Caucasus because, as you
know, what we have there--because of the situation in Chechnya, right
now it's not bad so what we're doing is implementing my plan on finding
a settlement in the Chechnya problem. And things are going according to
plan the way it's been approved.
Nonetheless, there is a concentration of conventional forces, tanks
and things; in some cases it varies from what the CFE treaty may be
calling for. So President Clinton, at my request, very carefully
reviewed with his advisers and specialists, and they went and decided
that temporarily we would be given the opportunity to--within the
overall framework, the overall total numbers--to do some movement of
forces on the territory.
Of course, the conference in May is going to finally decide that.
But they expressed their opinion, and once again, this issue has been
discussed. There was one question to us that we move from one site a
part of our equipment. We didn't argue; we're going to move it. And, in
short, there really is no question for discussion remaining. We hope
that around May 15, when the conference is held, this treaty is going to
be adjusted somewhat and everything will be fine.

Chechnya

Q. President Yeltsin, you just mentioned that things were going
according to plan in Chechnya. But there are other reports that
hostilities there continue and human rights groups are complaining still
about the behavior of Russian forces. I wonder, for President Clinton,
what do you say to those who believe that the United States has not been
firm enough, hasn't been critical enough, and that even now the
criticism is muted specifically because the United States is anxious to
see President Yeltsin reelected?
And for President Yeltsin, what would you say to those who believe
that your call for a cease-fire was motivated largely by short-term
political interests?
President Yeltsin. In your question you made a couple of errors
right off the bat. First of all, you said that the United States is
seeking the reelection of President Yeltsin. I have different data.
Second, military actions in the Chechnya region are not going on. No
military operations are being carried out from March 31. It's another
matter, some bands are still running around. Out of 22 regions of
Chechnya, 19 of them have signed agreements. In three, there are still--
the bosses there are still the bands. They're still in charge. And, in
fact, it's true they are making life difficult for a lot of people.
But I repeat again, there are no military operations now underway. A
state commission has been set up headed by Chernomyrdin; contact has
been established with Dudayev through intermediaries. The intermediaries
we have--Shaimiev, Orlov--we have people like that, King Hassan II, the
King of Morocco, who have agreed to act in the role of intermediaries
and to talk to Dudayev, to influence him from the point of view of
negotiations only on one question that he is not in agreement with, in
other words, that the Chechen Republic from our point of view--and this
is an absolute--must be and will remain within Russia.
President Clinton. Let me make two brief points. First of all, I
think the record will reflect that the United States has consistently
supported a political solution to the Chechnya crisis and offered its
support for that. And when President Yeltsin made his

[[Page 701]]

announcement on March 31st, we supported that.
You say that there are some who say we should have been more openly
critical. I think it depends upon your first premise; do you believe
that Chechnya is a part of Russia or not? I would remind you that we
once had a Civil War in our country in which we lost on a per-capita
basis far more people than we lost in any of the wars of the 20th
century over the proposition that Abraham Lincoln gave his life for,
that no State had a right to withdraw from our Union.
And so the United States has taken the position that Chechnya is a
part of Russia, but that in the end, a free country has to have a free
association, so there would have to be something beyond the fighting,
there would have to be a diplomatic solution. That's what we have done.
But we realize this is a very difficult problem. And we have--
President Yeltsin said today in our private meeting he wanted a
diplomatic solution. He specifically asked me to do a thing or two that
he thought might be helpful to him in securing a peaceful resolution of
this and an end to the fighting and a real reconciliation between the
people of Chechnya and the rest of Russia. So I intend to do what he
requested in that regard, and I will continue to try to advocate an end
to the violence and do what the United States can to support a
resolution of this.

Russia-U.S. Relations

Q. As a whole, how do you assess the progress in the field of
security, including the issue of ABM? And how is this going to affect
the future of equal partnership between Russia and the United States?
President Yeltsin. The word equal or on an equivalent basis, when we
first signed the first treaty we weren't around, that word wasn't
around. And it occurred later, because we saw some sort of
discrimination practiced against Russia. And that's why the word equal
or on an equal basis in all respects--that's what appeared.
Now, as far as security, we discussed in detail these issues. And in
general, of course, for some time we're not going to be forcing the
widening of NATO at our request. President Clinton promised this and
somehow to influence his colleagues.
I believe that, in fact, it will be thus for a while. Then,
gradually, maybe we ourselves will find, together with NATO, a
relationship, maybe to come up with an agreement that, let's say, no
country will be allowed to enter NATO, let's say, without Russia's
agreement, and then maybe only through a consensus will be NATO
changing. In other words, there is a variety of solutions for this
problem, but we yet have to work on this.
We talked about it in detail, but, look, we're not going to be
sitting here giving you everything exactly in detail what we did for 5
hours. We're going to have a 5-hour press conference then.
President Clinton. A brief comment on the two issues President
Yeltsin mentioned. The United States has within it some people who have
had questions about the ABM treaty to which we're a signatory. I believe
the United States should keep its treaty commitments. I think if we
expect Russia to keep its treaty commitments, we have to keep ours.
Not so long ago I vetoed a defense bill passed in the Congress
because I thought it would have put us out of compliance with the ABM
treaty. What we have to do now because the ABM treaty does not prohibit
the development of theater missile defenses is to define clearly what
the lines between the two are, both regular velocity and high velocity
theater missile defense.
We made real progress here in doing that. And I'm convinced that if
we do this in an open way that has a lot of integrity that requires--
where no one can question our commitment to the ABM treaty, I think
we'll all be just fine on this, and I think it will work out very well.
With regard to NATO, our differences are well-known, but I think
it's also worth pointing out that as with other aspects of this
relationship, they have been clear and open, there have been no
surprises, and from my point of view there have been no changes.
I will say again: My goal is for a democratic, undivided Europe. The
world has been caused a lot of trouble in the last 1,000 years
repeatedly because of the divisions of Europe, number one. Number two,
my goal

[[Page 702]]

is to see the United States and Russia over the long run develop a
strong, equal partnership of two great democracies, freedom-loving
countries that define their greatness in terms of their values and their
example and the achievements of their people and not the domination of
other nations. And I believe that we will find a way to work that out
that's consistent with the position I've taken on NATO.
And so I feel--I believe that as this thing goes along we'll find
answers to that. And so my position hasn't changed about NATO, but I do
not in any way, shape, or form mean any threat to the security of the
long-term legitimate interests of Russia there. And the more important
thing is, by the way, practical thing, is the progress we have made here
with the ABM theater missile defense issue. That's a very significant
advance for both countries in resolving a real, as opposed to an
imagined, security problem.
President Yeltsin. One minute, I didn't respond to part three of
that second question on the ABM.
The thing is that, really, we did have at one time differences when
the U.S. side began to develop its own system beyond the ABM. And we
expressed our surprise at this. And when Bill Clinton became President
we agreed solidly that we are going to abide by the ABM treaty. And for
all this time, all the times we've met, we've had never any doubts, and
we've had never any claims or questions to each other or any doubts that
this treaty is in any way going to be changed or modified or changes
introduced or anything like that.
It's another matter now, that as Bill Clinton said, that we've got
to, simply from the technical point of view, have that demarcation
between strategic and theater nuclear systems. But that's being carried
out now by our specialists and experts, U.S. experts, and that will be
fulfilled to not the detriment of either the United States or the
Russian Federation.

Russian Elections

Q. The two Presidents: Both of you today have talked very
optimistically and hopefully about U.S. and Russian relations. But again
to return to the elections, if the Communists were to win in this
election, do you believe that this close relationship can continue? And
particularly to Mr. Yeltsin, do you believe your Communist opponents are
in fact a different kind of Communists than the ones who you helped put
out of power and the party that you once walked out of?
President Yeltsin. I have nothing to think here on this score.
There's nothing to think of because I am sure that I will be victorious.
President Clinton. Well, my answer's irrelevant. [Laughter]
Should we take one more? Do you want to take one more?
President Yeltsin. One more question. One more question each--you
and I, each side, one more question.

Nuclear Testing

Q. A question to you. Have you discussed the issue of standing
nuclear testing and is there any difference of opinion on nuclear
testing?
President Yeltsin. Yes, this issue was discussed yesterday at the
meeting of the 8, since the topic was, after all, nuclear security, and
everything there, practically speaking, starts with nuclear materials
and testing. So when we talked about testing, banning testing yesterday,
I will say that we had a very, very loyal discussion, pleasant talk.
All, to the very last one, agreed that this year we've got to sign the
treaty on banning and testing in any size of test forever and forever.
But not all nuclear states participated at yesterday's meeting of
the 8. Now, with the others, we're going to have to do a little work,
especially with China. Well, that's why we, the leaders of the states,
and that's where the members of the 8 which decide these big political
issues and other issues in order to somehow move forward and make
progress on these big issues and to reach agreements and to prepare
accords with other states. And we're going to be attempting to do that.
I have got the conviction that we are going to find an agreement and,
after all, I think we will be able to sign this year.
President Clinton. I'll just make a brief, supplemental remark
there. We have all agreed to go with the so-called Australian language
which is a strict zero-yield comprehensive test ban treaty. That is the
only kind of treaty that can give the people of the

[[Page 703]]

world the certainty that they really are seeing the end of the nuclear
age of the big weapons.
Some other countries want to kind of leave a big crack in the door
for so-called peaceful tests or experimentation. And we all believe that
we just have to try to persuade them to our way of thinking. The biggest
and most important issue now is trying to persuade the Chinese to adopt
a position that we have adopted. And I suggested on behalf of the 8 that
we ask President Yeltsin to take this issue up on his trip to China. He
agreed to do that, and the rest of us agreed to do our best as well to
support that and try to persuade the Chinese that this is the right
course for the future. And I have every hope that we can succeed.

Assistance to Russia

Q. Mr. President, U.S. assistance to Russia after communism fell--
it's been a fraction of what the Marshall Plan did for Europe to help
rebuild Europe after World War II. With many Russians questioning
whether capitalism and democracy have really made their lives better, do
you feel that the West has missed a historic chance to help Russia? And
if you're reelected next year and there's a new Congress, do you foresee
anything more ambitious in the future?
President Clinton. Well, first of all, the short answer to your
question is no, I don't think that the West has missed an historic
chance. The present Congress I think has underestimated the impact that
a relatively small amount of investment assistance in other countries
can have, not just in Russia but in other places in the world. And so I
think that's a mistake. I think not paying our U.N. dues is a mistake,
not investing in the International Development Association is a mistake.
But let me ask you--you compared this to the Marshall Plan. There
are some things that are quite different. For one thing, we are now the
largest--the United States is the largest private investor in Russia,
and the flow of private investment is much broader and quicker than it
was at the end of World War II. For another thing, the United States has
strongly supported the multi-billion-dollar aid package coming out of
the international financial institutions, which were not available to do
those things, again, as a part of the Marshall Plan on anything like
this scale.
Thirdly, even though our assistance to Russia has dropped in the
last couple of years, the Nunn-Lugar funds are still helping the
denuclearization movement, and funds that I asked the Congress to adopt
in the '93-94 timeframe, those funds have by no means all been used up.
That is, they're still awaiting specific projects. So money has been
appropriated for investment here that can still be invested here as the
projects come on line.
So our commitment to the economic revitalization of Russia is very
strong. And I would point out that I believe Russia has privatized a
higher percentage of its economy than any of the other countries of the
former Soviet Union. And the economic problems that Russia has endured
began before the Soviet Union disappeared. And we see the economy coming
back now, and I think that things are going in the right direction.
I do believe that the United States and the rest of the advanced
economies should continue their commitment to investment and to support
democracy and economic reform. I don't think we should let up. But I
think it's a mistake to say that a historic opportunity has been missed,
because a great deal has been done.
Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 120th news conference began at 2:42 p.m. in the
Executive Office Building at the Kremlin. President Yeltsin spoke in
Russian, and his remarks were translated by an interpreter.