[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.